Most of the reviews for the game make it sound terrible, but from what I watched of the quicklook the game looked competent, not amazing by any stretch but it doesn't look as bad as most people are saying.

@pompouspizza said:

the game looked competent, not amazing by any stretch

Haven't played it myself, but I'd say that is probably the reason for the bad reviews. The game is just mediocre and does nothing new. Nor does it have all of the polish and explosiveness of a modern Call of Duty or Battlefield.

I picked it up on PC because EA gave me 50% off because i had BF Premium... It was still a total waste of money. It's just annoyingly boring, and does absolutely nothing interesting. I can't think of one moment that i enjoyed, as i played through it. The reviews i've seen generally seem to echo my thoughts on the game.

Brad gave it 3/5, by his review this game sounds completely competent but does nothing to stand out or even justify its existence. The game is not bad, just bland.

It's average, i wouldn't say it's bad, terrible.... it just doesn't go beyond people's expectations of a modern military shooter. The multiplayer has some neat stuff but don't think it has the staying power to build a long time community.

For some reason everyone in the comments compares this to COD and wonders why this gets 3 stars while COD gets 4-5 stars. It's because this game is boring as hell, COD has flash, and spectacle this has none of that, it is so dull compared to COD and it's not as polished either. It's just an all around boring game.

Well, I think most of the issue with the game is that it's mediocre, not bad. If you look at GameRankins and Metacritic, you'll notice that the game is sitting at roughly 50%.

It's not bad at all. I think that most critics gather fatigue faster than the consumers, thus find things monotonous and tiring much quicker. I had fun with the game, but I doubt I'll be tapping into the Multi-player. If you enjoy cinematical (scripted) events and crazy-ass action, it's a blast. Other than that, pass on it.

I bought, played through the campaign, played about an hour of multiplayer, and then returned MoH:W in under 24 hours. My takeaway? It's competent, there could be a story in there, I couldn't tell you what is. There are some fun sections in it, I even enjoyed the driving parts. I thought it was interesting how they attempted to have an emotional story touching on the lives of soldiers while they are not shooting bad guys, it just wasn't told very well and the characters look creepy. I had fun with the multiplayer and would have played some more but I wanted to return the game and get back a dollar less than what I payed for it, I'm not sure if that promotion is still happening but if you are somewhat interested in playing it you should jump on that.

There's terrible and then there's terrible generic.

I don't think it's bad per say, just incredibly generic and boring.

Very few things are ever as bad or as good as people say.

@pompouspizza said:

Most of the reviews for the game make it sound terrible, but from what I watched of the quicklook the game looked competent, not amazing by any stretch but it doesn't look as bad as most people are saying.

do you want to spend the $60 to find out? personally i don't have that type of money to spend on merely middling games, but go ahead if it floats your boat.

also i think i'd rather have something specifically awful in ways; at least it would give me something to talk about.

It looks like a perfectly serviceable modern military FPS that doesn't stand out, which is probably why there are poor reviews as it just compounds the shooter fatigue.

It's not really my kind of game but I literally did not realize that this was a different game from last year's Medal of Honor until reading the review which I would say goes to show how inconsequential the game seems to be.

Beware of reviewers, they might be giving the game low scores to make paid-off reviews for other games seem legit.

I think it's part military shooter fatigue and part average quality. My problem with the scores is they indicate that this game is not just average but utterly terrible. It's as if critics suddenly realized that their scales don't just range from 7-10.

And while the COD/WM games might be better because they have more spectacle, they're not THAT much better. Other than the increased doses of spectacle, they're essentially the same bland corridor shooters. Some spectacle does not justify the difference between a 5/10 score and a 10/10. Hopefully critics will remember that when reviewing BO2 in a few weeks.

Brad mentioned on Ocktoberkast it's not the worst game ever made, Jeff said that the nicest thing anybody has said about that game.

Anybody saying that it isn't terrible clearly has not played the bog-standard multiplayer.

Has anybody played it without the HD pack? It's grainier than Weetabix. Unlike modern 360 owners, I am still cursed with the limits of a 20gb drive - so by this point (6 years after launch) I have bugger all space left and a bad attitude towards expansive memory options. But yeah - this game pretty much REQUIRES a hard drive install for it to look anything like a next gen title.

@egg said:

Beware of reviewers, they might be giving the game low scores to make paid-off reviews for other games seem legit.

So you're saying a multi-million dollar EA game designed to compete with Call of Duty wouldn't get a bribe?

@GrantHeaslip said:

I have no idea why I'm feeling the need to defend a game that couldn't be much further away from my interests (and looks mediocre at best), but I have a feeling this game is being disproportionately savaged in reviews. Between the uninspired story and setting, the dumb marketing, and its connection to EA, I think some have been harder on it than they would in a vacuum. Here's the ending of the Destructoid review:

Charmless, cynical, and uninspired, Warfighter encapsulates everything wrong with the annual big budget shooter industry. It's really not an awful game, it's just insipid and shallow, a title that exists solely to exist, and squeeze whatever profit remains to be had from serving the same flavorless porridge to the same unadventurous customers. It will make its money, and keep the FPS factories in business for another year.

To anybody working on these games who have a shred of creative integrity: I hope the money is worth it.

This, from the same guy who gave Deadly Premonition -- a deeply flawed game -- a perfect score. Is this even about the game, or about their disdain for EA and their customers? In my mind, the place of a review is to judge a game based on its merits, not to make a mostly-unrelated soapbox rant about the genre and slap a score on it.

100% agree, I also feel game reviews are becoming more and more like music reviews where its what makes the publication look cool as opposed to just about the game.

I kinda liked the chase sequences, I know they're dumb as hell but they are fairly well done and aren't just 2 minutes sequences were you drive in a straight line like most vehicule sections tend to be in those games.

That's the only nice thing I can think of saying about this game though.

@adam1808 said:

@egg said:

Beware of reviewers, they might be giving the game low scores to make paid-off reviews for other games seem legit.

So you're saying a multi-million dollar EA game designed to compete with Call of Duty wouldn't get a bribe?

If it got a bribe why is it getting bad reviews?

Honest question. Explain to me the logistics of a bribe because if a game can get one but still get bad reviews well that just blows my mind.

Also I heard reviews for this title didn't come in until after the game released. So either there was no bribe, or there was a bribe but the reviewers forfeited the bribe (i.e. forfeited posting the review early) when they realized the game is balls.

Just bland and boring and on the pc ive had the game constantly minimizing every 15 mins making it really frustrating to play, and other menus not showing up properly. Someone could have fun with it i'm sure, but seems to be a game you would wait for the price to drop and buy something else that is $60 right now that is a more significant purchase.

@BeachThunder said:

Well, I think most of the issue with the game is that it's mediocre, not bad. If you look at GameRankins and Metacritic, you'll notice that the game is sitting at roughly 50%.

Come on, we all know that for the vast majority of publications, 50% is well below 'average'.

If the game was sitting at 60-70% that'd be more in line with average. I do find it weird that lots of reviewers are giving it low scores just because it's mediocre and they're tired of the genre. I mean, feel free to slam the game for not trying anything new but if it's competently done and Danger Close clearly didn't rush it out to market or anything, it also deserves to get credit where it's due.

For that reason I found Brad's to be the most accurate review so far, regardless of the score.

@ripelivejam: I defiantly won't be buying it, I am however buying pretty much everything else that's coming out.

@egg said:

@adam1808 said:

@egg said:

Beware of reviewers, they might be giving the game low scores to make paid-off reviews for other games seem legit.

So you're saying a multi-million dollar EA game designed to compete with Call of Duty wouldn't get a bribe?

If it got a bribe why is it getting bad reviews?

Honest question. Explain to me the logistics of a bribe because if a game can get one but still get bad reviews well that just blows my mind.

Also I heard reviews for this title didn't come in until after the game released. So either there was no bribe, or there was a bribe but the reviewers forfeited the bribe (i.e. forfeited posting the review early) when they realized the game is balls.

You have an extremely warped view of how reviews work. For sites, posting an early review IS the bribe because it means more hits. Cash-in-hand bribes don't occur on that kind of level. Ad money and the promise of early coverage for future games is why sites like IGN tend to give favourable reviews. Similarly, with publications like OXM or Playstation Official Magazine that are tied to platform-holders give favourable reviews to products in order to keep their license with Microsoft or Sony.

Bribes just don't happen in the way people seem to think they do. If a notable reviewer was receiving a bribe then someone, anyone would get hold of that information and use it their advantage in the most public way possible. This is the internet, you can't keep something like an actual bribe a secret.

There are all sorts of ways publishers can optimise review scores, bribes aren't really one of them anymore. Not when there are "exclusive reveals" and 10 minutes of unseen gameplay footage to be handed out for future titles.

I havent bought it my self, and i will never do so. But everything i have hard on podcasts, and read about it makes it out to be a very mediocre game. So its not a bad game, but it's not good either. My brother finished the single player in 4 hours, and what he said about it was no ringing endorsement either. But he told me that he thought the story was a bit better than the one found in BF3. And we all know how stupid boring and lame that story was. A comparison he made about the game was, that if it was a movie it would be Act of Valor. Also a mediocre movie at best, if not pretty damn bad.

So unless your wanting it for multiplayer, i would say skip it and save your money. I really can't see people sticking with the multiplayer for long either. With a new COD around the corner, and more BF3 DLC rolling out.

no it's not that bad, it's just not good. it's trying to be COD or BF when COD or BF aren't that amazing and are getting stale. getting bronze isn't that bad but when it's in the special olympics per say.... well you get my point.

@egg said:

Beware of reviewers, they might be giving the game low scores to make paid-off reviews for other games seem legit.

ah, only a matter of time until someone posted their rambling about video game conspiracy theories. Of course reviewers collectively decided to shit on this game so that the next time they all get paid for 10/10 scores it seems legitimate, why didn't I think of that?!?!?

@egg said:

Beware of reviewers, they might be giving the game low scores to make paid-off reviews for other games seem legit.

ah, only a matter of time until someone posted their rambling about video game conspiracy theories. Of course reviewers collectively decided to shit on this game so that the next time they all get paid for 10/10 scores it seems legitimate, why didn't I think of that?!?!?

The game is a soulless cash-in into the military themed shooters, its a competent shooter, but it has allot of bugs and lacks overall polish, with a shitty story and emphasis on being authentic which it never does or even try's to be.

The game is not fun to play at all.

This game should be compared to the battlefield franchise rather than the call of duty franchise.

@keli911 said:

This game should be compared to the battlefield franchise rather than the call of duty franchise.

This game should be compared to the Rogue Warrior franchise rather than the battlefield or call of duty franchise.

I fear for people that can't enjoy average games. This game is average not great nor is it bad that is why it got 3/5 starts. For those people out there that only play games that "score" 80% and higher there are a lot of games out there that can be enjoyed. You enjoy Call of Duty and Battlefield but have already beaten them and want some Modern War conflict narrative? Well here is another 7 hour game to play.

Saying this game isn't enjoyable is a crock of shit. This game is mildly enjoyable.

I have not played it but, it seems that everybody used it to show that they are tired of the military shooter genre. It soaked up all the grief and when COD comes around it probably will be getting around 8.5/9.0 from reviewers. EAs strategy to release their shooters earlier than COD seems to back fire on that front. Also, looking at what Treyarch are doing to BO2 it seems like that will be a genuinely better game.

Some sites have integrity, and rate on a clearly defined scale, as well as peer-review reviews before posting their scores. Others just let individual reviewers slap whatever score on games, lacking any professional standards and courtesy, under the guise of opinion. So I differentiate between opinion pieces, and more factual reviews. Pretty much all of the super-low scores are simply unprofessional and unfair. The scale some places are rating on, is placed firmly up their own asses.

That said, Brad's review is definitely one of the better ones, giving us the pros and cons evenhandedly, and the score attached to it is in line with GiantBomb's scoring track record. If Brad wanted to be mean, he could easily have attached a 2 star rating to his written review - but why in the hell would he want to be mean?

To all the mean sadsock reviewers out there. Seriously - leave being mean to the audience you're so obviously pandering too. You are professionals, and game developers and publishers are your peers. So don't be insufferable dicks to them, even if some of them might be dicks to you. You're better than that. Team Brad!

@Antikythera:

But let me ask you this: would you really be willing to pay $60 for a game that you know is mediocre?

"Saying this game isn't enjoyable is a crock of shit. This game is mildly enjoyable."

Mmmm. Love that backhanded compliment.

It's exactly the same as modern Call of Duty games, but they don't give it 100% because it's not called Call of Duty.

It's so mediocre that it's boring. The multiplayer is fun, but I doubt it'll have a large enough player base to outlast Halo 4 and Black Ops 2.