@coakroach said:

The amount of non-white people being gunned down by white people with superior firepower in the QL was kinda fucked.

Was the intention to make me feel sympathy for the 'terrorists'?

This whole thing of 'white guy killing non-white guys' seems weird to me. Why are people freaking out about this now? With this game? Would it have been better if the MOH guys were shooting white Germans or Russians?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not just speaking to @coakroach with this statement. I've heard other people say the same thing (ex; Brad and Arthur Gies).

The amount of non-white people being gunned down by white people with superior firepower in the QL was kinda fucked.

Was the intention to make me feel sympathy for the 'terrorists'?

@coakroach

The amount of non-white people being gunned down by white people with superior firepower in the QL was kinda fucked.

Was the intention to make me feel sympathy for the 'terrorists'?

For a game loosely based around an ongoing real world conflict...what exactly were you expecting?

Sure, if this game was set during the height of the Cold War, the terrorists getting gunned down could well be white guys from East Germany or wherever, but that isn't really the predominant current member base of the terrorist groups operating in the regions shown during this game.

Again, this almost sounds like people looking for a reason to get offended by this game, even though it is functionally no different than the Modern Warfare and Battlefield games showing Russians as being the moustache- twirling villains

@coakroach said:

The amount of non-white people being gunned down by white people with superior firepower in the QL was kinda fucked.

Was the intention to make me feel sympathy for the 'terrorists'?

Welcome to modern shooters, circa since forever. Also there are black people in the game, not just 'the man'.

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

I'm still trying to work out how a game that is trying to keep its contents based somewhat in reality is considered to be disrespectful to soldiers, but a game in which you detonate a nuke above America to interfere with a Russian invasion after shooting up an airport is totally awesome you guys! And don't even get my started on the clusterfuck that was MW3! I have no doubts that Warfighter is generic and probably distinctly average, but the hypocrisy of many of the complaints against it is hilarious.

In the grand scheme of things, every military shooter out there is nothing more than war glorification, which is a tremendously unfortunate thing to see, but when comparing MoH to MW2, MW2 still comes out ahead because at no point did their marketing or PR as a whole attempt to push the idea that their game was grounded in reality. Save for the fiasco spawned from the premature reveal of the no russian sequence (which was promptly and understandably so misinterpreted and taken out of context), everyone knew going into MW2 that it wasn't going to be anything less than an action blockbuster. Medal of Honor on the other hand kept pushing this "authenticity" bologna, and I think this is why it's getting so much heat when other shooters have not.

Aside from that though, I personally find the game insufferably uninspired. It doesn't attempt to do anything fresh or innovative whatsoever. I'm thinking this is why it isn't reviewing all that well. Call of Duty 4 was great, and it's shockingly apparent from a gameplay standpoint that MW is what the designers were shooting for (no pun intended), but game design has stiff diminishing returns. You can't do exactly what the other guys are doing and expect to be as widely praised as they were at the time.

(Yammering on incoherently.)

@TheHumanDove: @Tim_the_Corsair: @JasonR86:

I guess, but in Modern Warfare or most other shooters you're dealing with a legitimate threat in the game world, no matter how implausible it is in real life.

MOH's intent as far as I can tell was to be somewhat grounded in contemporary conflicts, which is kind of admirable, but needs to be done well or it comes across as crass.

American soldiers aren't the only ones fighting terrorist networks and they sure as hell aren't the only ones suffering because of them.

Show me how or why these people are fucking crazy and need to be stopped, i'll even let you get away with not showing the collateral damage caused by pounding a city with tonnes of ordinance, but just give me some actual motivation even if it has to be contrived as hell.

Again this is based off the Quick Look and a wikipedia plot synopsis so i'm probably talking out of my ass, but as far as I can tell the game is trying to humanise one side of a conflict but paints the other side with a broad, racist and islamophobic brush.

And yes it's just a dumb shooter and yes it's not MOH's job to heal the world, but by god the least it can do is not make a serious issue even more toxic.

@coakroach said:

@TheHumanDove: @Tim_the_Corsair: @JasonR86:

I guess, but in Modern Warfare or most other shooters you're dealing with a legitimate threat in the game world, no matter how implausible it is in real life.

MOH's intent as far as I can tell was to be somewhat grounded in contemporary conflicts, which is kind of admirable, but needs to be done well or it comes across as crass.

American soldiers aren't the only ones fighting terrorist networks and they sure as hell aren't the only ones suffering because of them.

Show me how or why these people are fucking crazy and need to be stopped, i'll even let you get away with not showing the collateral damage caused by pounding a city with tonnes of ordinance, but just give me some actual motivation even if it has to be contrived as hell.

Again this is based off the Quick Look and a wikipedia plot synopsis so i'm probably talking out of my ass, but as far as I can tell the game is trying to humanise one side of a conflict but paints the other side with a broad, racist and islamophobic brush.

And yes it's just a dumb shooter and yes it's not MOH's job to heal the world, but by god the least it can do is not make a serious issue even more toxic.

I just don't see the issue here and I feel that making one out of it is not only picking on this game unfairly (especially compared to the climate of other modern military games) but creating an issue where there really isn't one. But you're welcome to your opinion and to disagree with me. I just hate that it feels like this game is being picked on for every single thing whether it is actually related to the game or not. This game looks boring, generic, and by all accounts falls flat in trying to portray how war effects soldiers. There seems to be so much about the game that is worth picking on it about. Pick on those aspects. Don't drag other subjects into the matter to just bury the game further. But, again, feel free to disagree with me.

Not sure why the game is doing so poorly when it comes to reviews.

My two friends and I have been putting some decent time into the game and have really been taking to it. The singleplayer, in my opinion, is the best of the modern military shooters I've played.

I just want to know that the game will exist a few months down the road.

If it was getting sevens, that would be understandable. But all these fives . . .

I would just expect it to do better. I have seen many "average" games get in the sevens. This is one of the few times I can remember where fives actually meant "average" and not "basically trash". The game doesn't have much of a chance of finding an audience with those scores.

Warfighter is a terrible name for a pretty bad game. All the 5's, which today are pretty much a zero, are deserved. It's not that it does anything that bad but everything it does is very average.

The single player is pointless, no one plays these games for the single player. The CoD campaigns are decent big dumb explosion filled 4-5 hours, MoH is a dull as fuck, crappy story about some guy called Preacher who we are supposed to give a fuck about but don't and his scary looking CGI wife and kid...blah blah blah. No one cares. The AI is moronic beyond words, you'll think you can push up in front of the AI because he'll have shot anyone coming that way or at least still be shooting at any enemies left, right? Nope. I've experienced the AI standing directly in front of an enemy and not shoot at them, throw grenades into the floor and run towards grenades. This coupled with terrorist doors where they literally spawn out of thin air beside or behind you makes for a very frustrating experience. And why is every gun equipped with a fucking 3x scope when practically all the fighting you do is in small compact areas. You are meant to be this modern military guy with all this super high-tec shit and you barely use it, it's the same dull FPS experience that we've seen a hundred times before but less fun to play.

If they had ignored the single player they could have fixed some of the problems in multiplayer, it can be fun but every now and then something happens and you're like...fuck this game. It can vary from spawns that repeatedly spawn you over and over and over in front of enemies, the lousy hit detection, the constant annoyance of bullets not penetrating anything; I mean why use the frostbite 2 engine and not have bullet penetrating? Even CoD's old ass engine has that. The crappy battlelog interface which despite throwing a fuckton of stats at you tells you absolutely nothing about unlocks, how to get them, when you get them, nothing. The in-game 'My Soldier' and 'My Gun' are a tiny bit better but since they are lifted directly from the console version they are a complete pain in the ass to use on the PC.

In short, the single player is an abortion to be avoid and the multi player is fun but same way meeting an attractive lady and having a delightful evening with her only to take her home and find out she's got a cock and balls.