I am not planning on getting this game but I'm curious to know what some of you who've played it thinks about it so far. It's rare that such a high profile release gets released without any reviewers having advanced copies.

Dammit, the multiplayers fun! More fun than i ever had in cod. The campaign is getting me bored. Sometimes its good.

from the brief multiplayer i played i love the fireteams and the country representation stuff

I think I can wait till EA does that $20 Origin coupon again and I'll get Warfighter for free once it's also $20.

The campaign is as generic as it gets... Playing on PC completely maxed, graphics are a few notches below BF3. Not crazy about the menu design or presentation in general. It follows the modern FPS shooter playbook to a T. Everything from the story exposition to the different mission sequences. Seriously, is anyone ever going to stray from the CoD template? The gun play is OK, the cover system is a bit difficult to do using keyboard and mouse, and I'm finding the enemy AI behavior to be a bit wonky.

The weirdest thing for me happens during the driving sequences. The game seems to switch to an entirely different .exe before it loads up and drops my resolution from 1080p 60fps to 720p at 30 fps. There's no way to change this and it's a bit jarring.

Overall, I'm OK with my purchase. I got it for 50% off and only payed 30 bucks for it. I haven't jumped into the MP yet, but from what I've read it seems like a good time.

@CaptainCanada said:

from the brief multiplayer i played i love the fireteams and the country representation stuff

Considering I have family that has actually been part of one of the units available in multiplayer it was really freaky to see it named specifically in the QL. I get that it's cool for others that things are authentic and stuff (and that I'm part of a very small minority), but there's really something to be said for "generic good/bad guys" in multiplayer shooters.

EB has a deal going where the game's value depreciates a dollar a day, and considering the campaign is only about 6 hours long you could buy it today and return it tomorrow and only lose a dollar. I think thats how it works anyway.

@david3cm said:

EB has a deal going where the game's value depreciates a dollar a day, and considering the campaign is only about 6 hours long you could buy it today and return it tomorrow and only lose a dollar. I think thats how it works anyway.

But how would they pay you back for the mind numbing generic 6 hours you wasted?

I'm thoroughly enjoying the campaign. It's definitely made for people more military-minded and for people who enjoy the kind of lingo and skills of the operators involved in these actual missions. I don't run around worrying about breaking the scripting and such like they did in the campaign. You're not supposed to run around, at all.

I'm really enjoying it. But it's for a specific crowd and if you're bored with modern military shooters, steer clear.

I'm having fun with it. I played it and then watched the quick look and I just finished the mission they were on when they quit (which gives you more context about the train bombing in the quick look.)

Some of the shooting sections can be a bit tedious so far, but I'm actually curious to see where the story heads which is a lot more then I can say about most military shooters, including the last Medal of Honor.

The multiplayer is fun, though the menus are a bit overwhelming so I haven't dug too deep into it yet. On the surface level the buddy system is really nice and definitely encourages teamwork, plus when you encounter an enemy your always looking for his buddy as well. I'm definitely going to play more though.

I got to the sniping part in "Shore Leave" and stopped. I think I'm done with military shooters except for COD multiplayer.

@thornie said:

The weirdest thing for me happens during the driving sequences. The game seems to switch to an entirely different .exe before it loads up and drops my resolution from 1080p 60fps to 720p at 30 fps. There's no way to change this and it's a bit jarring.

Sounds like that portion of the game was farmed out to a completely separate development team.

@thornie said:

The campaign is as generic as it gets... Playing on PC completely maxed, graphics are a few notches below BF3. Not crazy about the menu design or presentation in general. It follows the modern FPS shooter playbook to a T. Everything from the story exposition to the different mission sequences. Seriously, is anyone ever going to stray from the CoD template? The gun play is OK, the cover system is a bit difficult to do using keyboard and mouse, and I'm finding the enemy AI behavior to be a bit wonky.

The weirdest thing for me happens during the driving sequences. The game seems to switch to an entirely different .exe before it loads up and drops my resolution from 1080p 60fps to 720p at 30 fps. There's no way to change this and it's a bit jarring.

Overall, I'm OK with my purchase. I got it for 50% off and only payed 30 bucks for it. I haven't jumped into the MP yet, but from what I've read it seems like a good time.

I'm also playing on PC and I agree with everything you said. I've played some multiplayer and it's solid but I don't think I'll be playing it much longer before I switch to Halo 4 or go back to BF3. I'm kinda surprised that graphically it doesn't look nearly as good as BF3 does, even in the multiplayer, especially considering that there's no destruction, vehicles, the maps are smaller, and it has a way lower player count (20 on PC compared to BF3's 64 on PC).

Something about the basic gunplay just doesn't feel as satisfying as it does in other games in the genre. The multiplayer maps often seem a little empty but maybe that's just because I'm used to playing BF3 close quarters maps and every once in a while there are some pretty serious lag spikes but maybe that's just because it just came out.

I liked Medal of Honor 2010 alot more than most people did but so far I'm actually kind of disappointed by this one. I'll stick with it for a little while and see if it gets better but I don't expect it to. I would've been pretty disappointed with my purchase had I gotten it for full price but since I got it half off I'm okay with it. The whole thing just feels uninspired/rushed/forced and it does have some unique features but none of them seem to really change the gameplay in any meaningful or fun way.

5/10 from eurogamer. as bland a carboard sandwich

This driving mission "Hello and Dubai" is the only cool thing that will remembered from this game.

Car stealth, Burnout-like takedowns, and duststorms?!

The game is best when it tries to be realistic (and the driving segments), but it sadly breaks with that for "gun down a billion people from a helo" segments all too often.

@Bell_End said:

5/10 from eurogamer. as bland a carboard sandwich

They reviewed the entire multilplayer in less than a day? Journalism!

@mosdl: it's not exactly a deep and complex game. aside from a few extra knobs and levers, there's not much present outside the standard modern fps formula. after the first hour or two, it's pretty much rinse then repeat.

@MB said:

@thornie said:

The weirdest thing for me happens during the driving sequences. The game seems to switch to an entirely different .exe before it loads up and drops my resolution from 1080p 60fps to 720p at 30 fps. There's no way to change this and it's a bit jarring.

Sounds like that portion of the game was farmed out to a completely separate development team.

Didn't Criterion give a helping hand on those driving sequences? Maybe I'm imagining things, but for some reason I have that notion. I remember they put some emphasis on how much effort went into crafting them on trailers and such, and they did look nice for driving sequences in a first-person shooter game.

@Snail said:

Didn't Criterion give a helping hand on those driving sequences? Maybe I'm imagining things, but for some reason I have that notion. I remember they put some emphasis on how much effort went into crafting them on trailers and such, and they did look nice for driving sequences in a first-person shooter game.

Black Box did the driving sequences.

Black Ops 2 comes out soon enough. I'd much rather get that, at least it's virtually guaranteed to be incredibly over-the-top and it will have mechs. Mechs! A CoD game with mechs! At least they were in one of the trailers I saw.

But really, any pretense Black Ops 2 might have had with realism disappeared when they showed a trailer including mechs, horses, and flying drones. This Medal of Honor Warfighter looks like the Call of Duty 4 formula played right down to the letter - adequate, playable, but nothing worth a second glance.

Okay, but how many ways are there to kick in doors?

@mikey87144: Right. That makes more sense. Thanks for the info!

Just finished the campaign. It's fairly short, seems like it's shorter than recent modern FPSs. This may sound weird, but my favorite part is the driving part. Especially the second one where its mechanics takes a left turn for a brief time.

@GideonAmos said:

Just finished the campaign. It's fairly short, seems like it's shorter than recent modern FPSs. This may sound weird, but my favorite part is the driving part. Especially the second one where its mechanics takes a left turn for a brief time.

Indeed, I hope they take the driving segments and make a game out of it. I would say 6-7ish hours for the campaign on normal for me.

The driving sections where pretty much NFS: Most Wanted, Drive fast and dodge traffic while evading, and hiding from the police in key places on the map.

@Ravenlight said:

Okay, but how many ways are there to kick in doors?

There are 7 ways.

A 47% on Metacritic. I hope EA learns its lesson.

I had just beaten it today after getting it on it's release day in the U.S. It's campaign is pretty generic and repetitive. But it still has some cool "holy shit" moments that happen throughout the game. I liked the realistic operations of the squad you are with in the game. It's neat to see how some military operatives would be like in a game. The multiplayer I was not very fond of because I kept getting spawned below the map or outside the boundaries and my "team-mate" did nothing in every single match. He was playing like it was lone wolf which resulted in us dying a lot and losing the match. I liked the sounds of the guns as well and that they added drop effect to sniper rifles shots. Nothing like Sniper Elite V2 though.

Pros: Entertaining and amazing graphics (ps3)

Cons: Repetitive missions and not so great MP

These are just my opinions and not any facts.

@overlord_ofthedeadXD said:

A 47% on Metacritic. I hope EA learns its lesson.

What lesson would that be?

@JasonR86 said:

@overlord_ofthedeadXD said:

A 47% on Metacritic. I hope EA learns its lesson.

What lesson would that be?

I wonder, too. It's strange how Modern Warfare 3 got so panned for it's repetitive story, and mostly iterative and unoriginal multiplayer, yet got High scores.

Medal Of Honor has a similar campaign (this is not really a good thing, but hear me out). Multiplayer that, by players, has been said to be interesting, and inventive, if not a bit less intuitive. Yet, despite all of this, the game has a sub 50? Either reviewers as a whole are becoming more critical (good) or there's something I don't know.

EDIT: I do not Own warfighter, so I don't have "buyer's bias" here.

My friends and I are really liking it.

Too bad the reviews are probably going to kill it, being that I don't see that many people flocking to a game with about a fifty on Metacritic.

@believer258 said:

Black Ops 2 comes out soon enough. I'd much rather get that, at least it's virtually guaranteed to be incredibly over-the-top and it will have mechs. Mechs! A CoD game with mechs! At least they were in one of the trailers I saw.

But really, any pretense Black Ops 2 might have had with realism disappeared when they showed a trailer including mechs, horses, and flying drones. This Medal of Honor Warfighter looks like the Call of Duty 4 formula played right down to the letter - adequate, playable, but nothing worth a second glance.

It's saying something when even Call of Duty starts looking at its 5 year old formula and says "Let's shake things up a bit".

Honestly, Danger Close just doesn't seem like a developer that's capable of putting out something that will compete with a Halo or a Call of Duty. I'm not wild on shooters as it is but there's a reason those two franchises are mainstays, it's because they're bloody good at what they do.

@Ravenlight said:

Okay, but how many ways are there to kick in doors?

None, you get to watch a man far more manly, bearded and heroic than you kick in said doors.

@clstirens said:

@JasonR86 said:

@overlord_ofthedeadXD said:

A 47% on Metacritic. I hope EA learns its lesson.

What lesson would that be?

I wonder, too. It's strange how Modern Warfare 3 got so panned for it's repetitive story, and mostly iterative and unoriginal multiplayer, yet got High scores.

Medal Of Honor has a similar campaign (this is not really a good thing, but hear me out). Multiplayer that, by players, has been said to be interesting, and inventive, if not a bit less intuitive. Yet, despite all of this, the game has a sub 50? Either reviewers as a whole are becoming more critical (good) or there's something I don't know.

EDIT: I do not Own warfighter, so I don't have "buyer's bias" here.

It's a little tough to quantify, but CoD executes on its goals much better than MoH. Without many new ideas to differentiate them, MoH gets left behind, deservedly so.

In the singleplayer, CoD tells its story with convincing characters and airtight scripting. Yes the plot is ridiculous, but it's entertaining. Yes the characters are cartoons, but they're well-acted and fit the action. Say what you want about mission design and set pieces, but they work right every time. There's nothing breaking players out of the experience. MoH falls behind on all of these fronts. Again judging from the first game, and from the second one's quick look, MoH's plot and characters fall more into pure cliche and frankly tend to be acted poorly (definitely in the first game, dunno about the new one) and the world/scripting have little rough edges all over the place.

MoH's multiplayer ultimately isn't as tight as CoD either. It tries for the Battlefield-style slower more "realistic" feel, in tigher, CoD-ish maps but without enough care put into the weapons or maps to get everything balanced right. The first game was covered in weird cliffs that people could half-run up, invisible walls, forced 10-foot wide corridors, semi-automatic sniper rifles were broken, the list goes on. CoD and Battlefield know exactly what they want to do, and put the work in to do those things right.

EA's lesson should be to stop hopping on bandwagons and trying to force copies of the best-in-the-business games. Last time they tried new things, we got Dead Space, Bad Company, Mirrors Edge, some of my favorite games of the generation. Unfortunately, they also got punched in the wallet hard enough to put them on the shitty-copy path. I wish I had a solution.

TLDR: Medal of Honor tries to do what Call of Duty does, plus a little of what Battlefield 3 did, and nothing more. However, it doesn't do anything better than (or even as well as) the competition. If games were judged in a vacuum Medal of Honor would probably rate "good," but between Call of Duty and Battlefield it has absolutely no reason to exist. It might as well get a 0.

@Donos: Seems like a fairly good explanation, actually.

I recently looked up some more footage, and while the game looked pretty, it pretty much fails to provide memorable characters, a cohesive narrative, or even engaging game elements. I think the Scores are pretty much spot-on, then.

Interesting that people who haven't even played the game are giving such assertive opinions about what it does wrong

Just finished it: Heavily scripted and boring throughout its campaign. Multiplayer is ok, nothing to go mad about.

Story has a few serious story beats about a soldiers with families, at war, other than that its pretty much a linear tour of missions. The driving sequences were very enjoyable and unexpected.

Multiplayer is your standard fare FPS modes but some of the backend and buddy-squad system is really well done and encourages cooperative teamwork.

Also the VOIP quality (on PS3) is on par with skype, maybe better. A few times I had a quick glances around the room from the VOIP being so clear. I haven't played online since Saints Row 3 co-op on the PS3 and it was tinty and muffled as talking through a microphone with a blanked covered over it.