MoH Warfighter 360 Beta - Impressions

#1 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

I'm stuck somewhere between genuine and morbid curiosity for MoH Warfighter, and sadly, since I do no longer fork over 100 bucks a year for XBL Gold, I cannot satiate my curiosity with actual hands-on time with the game's beta. Since nobody has reported back yet (I assume the beta is up and running as of now), I request some community feedback on the game.

From what I've seen on yesterday's Gamespotlivestream, it might be right down my alley - sitting somewhere between the Call of Duty and the Bad Company games gameplay-wise, with a dash of Battlefield 3 in the presentational department - minus the most glaring visual overkill in terms of blinding contrast and color desaturation. I'll prolly check out GamesRadar's livestream tomorrow for more hands-off impressions. Or that Node youtube stream thingy happening at the same time.

Anyways - please share your experiences with the MoH Warfighter Beta with us. Can you dig it?

#2 Posted by GoofyGoober (937 posts) -

I'll download it later and get back to you.

#3 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Anybody tried it yet and ready to report in? 'Cause I'm curious if it is any good or not.

#4 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -
Can you dig it?

Couldn't help myself.

#5 Posted by puercoperro335 (91 posts) -

I played the beta thought it was pretty fun but I grew tired of it pretty quickly. Navigating the menu feels off to me, almost sluggish and doesn't convey enough information in my opinion. I think the buddy system is a clever idea and really enjoyed it when paired with someone who communicated. Killstreaks are fun, nothing clever or unique besides the Blackhawk chopper you can set for your team to spawn in, although choose a bad spot and you're setting them in a killzone. However, I became frustrated at the grenade spam in this game, some matches devolved into a CoD4-esque match where everyone was tossing grenades every which way, and it doesn't help that the grenades explode after a second it seemed like. Guns handled well, although there didn't seem to be much variety. I was really looking forward to using the lean and peak system but I think it may have been an unlockable ability or something, I don't know, if it is I find that really disappointing as it could have slowed down the game some which I feel it could benefit from. Anyways, fun game, more of the same kill-die-kill-die formula that made CoD popular, I feel as though it isn't quite there yet though, could use more polish.

#6 Posted by BNB82 (50 posts) -

Here are my thoughts:

I like it, but I am not completely sold on it. The game mode in the beta is fun, but the map isn't fantastic. If you are unfamiliar with the map, you will find yourself surrounded by enemies and you will die often. I was a little disappointed that the environment isn't as destructive as BF3, which was what I expected with it being built on the Frostbite 2 engine. I'm totally confused about the nation stuff. I was under the impression it would be teams of nations against each other, such as Canada vs. Sweden, but the national units are basically different versions of the main classes. I was teamed up with South Korean and American units while I was playing a Canadian. There is an emphasis on team-work, but it is on a small scale. You are paired, randomly unless you join with a friend, with another person as a fireteam. You can spawn on them or back at your base spawn. I was also disappointed that there are not support classes like a medic, which is what I play in BF3. I know I keep bringing up BF3 and it is a totally different game, but there are so many things influenced by it that I have a hard time not comparing the two.

There is a working Battlelog, which is a straight copy from the BF3 battlelog, with the usual stats and unlocks, except they added a global map that shows each nation of the world (not just the nations in the game) on a leaderbord.

As with normal Beta stuff, there are connection and stability issues with the game, which is to be expected. For some reason, after two matches, I always get kicked from the server.

It will be interesting to see the full game and the other multiplayer modes that are included. I would not play the one in the Beta full time if I had a choice. Like I said, I am not completely sold on it yet. I don't know why I should buy this game when I already have BF3 Premium.

#7 Edited by Spitznock (537 posts) -

I've spent maybe 15 minutes with the beta so far and I cannot stand it. Bad design all over the place. Why do I have to unlock the iron sights for my gun to replace the default acog scope (which makes it practically useless in the beta map)? Why are there invisible walls in areas that you should clearly be able to hop over or walk through? Why can I not bring up the start menu while waiting to respawn? Why are there multiple confirm boxes when selecting weapons? Isn't pressing A on the weapon I want enough? Why give me the option of "falling back" if every time I do the area it puts me in is hotter than spawning on my firebuddy?

Nothing about the 15 or so minutes spent playing the beta had me in any way wanting to play more when there are already so many far better designed shooters out there already. Maybe there's potted gold on the other end of the excrement-filled river that is the MoH Warfighter beta, but I'm not swimming across to get to it.

#8 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Seppli said:

I'm stuck somewhere between genuine and morbid curiosity for MoH Warfighter, and sadly, since I do no longer fork over 100 bucks a year for XBL Gold, I cannot satiate my curiosity with actual hands-on time with the game's beta. Since nobody has reported back yet (I assume the beta is up and running as of now), I request some community feedback on the game.

From what I've seen on yesterday's Gamespotlivestream, it might be right down my alley - sitting somewhere between the Call of Duty and the Bad Company games gameplay-wise, with a dash of Battlefield 3 in the presentational department - minus the most glaring visual overkill in terms of blinding contrast and color desaturation. I'll prolly check out GamesRadar's livestream tomorrow for more hands-off impressions. Or that Node youtube stream thingy happening at the same time.

Anyways - please share your experiences with the MoH Warfighter Beta with us. Can you dig it?

Xbox live is only 60 dollars a year.

#9 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@Rohok said:

@Seppli said:

I'm stuck somewhere between genuine and morbid curiosity for MoH Warfighter, and sadly, since I do no longer fork over 100 bucks a year for XBL Gold, I cannot satiate my curiosity with actual hands-on time with the game's beta. Since nobody has reported back yet (I assume the beta is up and running as of now), I request some community feedback on the game.

From what I've seen on yesterday's Gamespotlivestream, it might be right down my alley - sitting somewhere between the Call of Duty and the Bad Company games gameplay-wise, with a dash of Battlefield 3 in the presentational department - minus the most glaring visual overkill in terms of blinding contrast and color desaturation. I'll prolly check out GamesRadar's livestream tomorrow for more hands-off impressions. Or that Node youtube stream thingy happening at the same time.

Anyways - please share your experiences with the MoH Warfighter Beta with us. Can you dig it?

Xbox live is only 60 dollars a year.

Depends on where you're living. It's been 100$ when I quit using XBL Gold. It's gotten a bit cheaper now, though it's still more than your average fullprice release - I prefer to buy a game or two with that money, rather than paying for something I get free on my other platforms.

#10 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@all

Thx for the feedback.

#11 Posted by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

Played the demo at EuroGamer Expo, it was pretty lame, no aspect stood out as being especially well done. I'm not the only one to have felt this way, similar opinions can be read on EuroGamer's site.

#12 Posted by GoofyGoober (937 posts) -

Sluggish and somewhat complicated menus, bland gameplay, and the game looked awful. I think I had more fun with the original MOH beta.

#13 Posted by Blind_Evil (306 posts) -

(copy+paste/edit from another forum)

I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. Requires a bit more thought than CoD but not so much that naturally good shooters don't have an edge.

ranalin wrote:

The graphics on the 360 are dog ugly. If that's what bf3 looks like. I'm sorry.

controls are sloppy but i assumed that was just me not touching a 360 shooter in forever.

The graphics are far better than the 360 version of BF3. Thankfully I traded in BF3 the day after getting it for $30 and broke even. The shooting model and controls in general are a notch down from CoD, but ahead of most other modern military shooters I've played. The only real weak spot was the gun audio work, but that might just be this gun in particular.

I don't think I'll be buying this until I see some reviews and til after Black Ops 2 comes out, but I do want to get it eventually.

#14 Posted by kgb0515 (411 posts) -

Honestly, the beta wasn't bad. As others have posted, there are some issues with the menus, but I think that was more because they are only willing to allow access to a few different gun configurations for each class. Gun customization is a bit off in the way that accessories function though. Some are purely cosmetic which will frustrate some people when they are working through upgrade trees. There is a huge accuracy penalty for not using ADS which is a change from most games. In some cases, it was literally better to ADS and hold down the trigger blindly than to use the cross hair to sweep over opponents in close quarters. None of the guns are particularly accurate with or without scopes though if you don't fire in burst as they should be.

The nationality concept is really confusing, and I ended up just picking the category with the most well rounded stats to begin with. The thing that I really liked was that each class (there are 5) has their own special ability that is fixed as opposed to CoD where you pick an ability. Plus, the character skins don't really change enough between opposing factions to tell the teams apart aside from the fact that there are big red symbols above enemy players when they come into view.

The idea to have two man fire teams rather than full squads is an interesting mechanic, but it only works well if your partner isn't a complete idiot who runs right into danger or who sits in one spot to camp. The game "borrows" a lot of concepts from BF3, like the vaulting animation and not being able to shoot while crawling along with some other things which made it feel a little too derivative of DICE's games. Spotting is a thing with this game which allows you to see a red outline of your enemies through walls like you can in Ghost Recon: Future Soldier which is pretty annoying when it's used against you. As if strafe shooting around corners wasn't already a big enough problem in games.

I didn't think the game looked horrible visually. It's not as pretty as it could be, but I recall how much the BF3 visuals improved over the old beta code they used for the Xbox demo and it doesn't really worry me. It still looks better than Homefront did post launch, and that's fine by me.

Kill streaks are dependent upon spotting if you use the offensive options just as they were with 2010's MoH. You use the scope to target opponents rather than having a CoD like placement that covers the whole map. On that note, the map wasn't horrible, but it got pretty easy to memorize choke points and spawn locations to dominate if your team was good enough to pull it off.

That said, I think I might pick it up since I won't be buying CoD until after the holiday season.

#15 Posted by SuperSambo (2865 posts) -

The game is CoD in the BF engine, and also lacks anything resembling fun.

@Blind_Evil said:

(copy+paste/edit from another forum)

I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. Requires a bit more thought than CoD but not so much that naturally good shooters don't have an edge.

ranalin wrote:

The graphics on the 360 are dog ugly. If that's what bf3 looks like. I'm sorry.

controls are sloppy but i assumed that was just me not touching a 360 shooter in forever.

The graphics are far better than the 360 version of BF3. Thankfully I traded in BF3 the day after getting it for $30 and broke even. The shooting model and controls in general are a notch down from CoD, but ahead of most other modern military shooters I've played. The only real weak spot was the gun audio work, but that might just be this gun in particular.

I don't think I'll be buying this until I see some reviews and til after Black Ops 2 comes out, but I do want to get it eventually.

Whoa whoa whoa. I strongly disagree to that statement. I went from BF3 to this, and it looked terrible.

#16 Posted by Raiden361 (14 posts) -

The game-play is pretty solid, feels mid-way between COD and Battlefield. Ive been enjoying my time with it.

I like the amount of customisation they have for the guns.

In terms of negatives:

The spawn system seems a bit messed up.

The menus feel very clunky - selecting a gun/class/nationality is not very intuitive

Overall I think it is pretty good, Ill probably pick up a copy.

#17 Posted by Ocean_H (290 posts) -

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.