Ben-DutkaWhat you see here is the epitome of entertainment oversaturation. It’s a hodgepodge of safe familiarity, unrealistic Hollywood style, and overt pandering. I gave 2010’s Medal of Honor a pass in the innovation and freshness category because it reached a new level of intensity in my eyes, and was nicely balanced and paced. But I’m just shocked at Warfighter , which is not only perfectly content with the same ol’, same ol’, it’s technically compromised. It wasn’t ready to be released but that’s hardly the most grievous error committed.
The graphics are impressive and I do believe expectations were a touch too high. The Frostbite 2.0 engine is extremely capable and routinely delivers a high level of detail, good animation, and fantastic special effects. The cut-scenes reflect some top-notch character design as well. However, it’s also true that I, like many others, were a little disappointed. Not necessarily at the overall quality of the production, but at the fact that we’ve seen it all before. Such a trend permeates this entire game and is twice as big of a letdown on the gameplay side. I’ll get to that in a minute.
The audio stands out as the best technical aspect of the new Medal of Honor , as the voice performances are decent and the sound effects really hit hard, giving one a distinct sense of fear and the incredible power of advanced weaponry. But even here, examples of a rushed blockbuster rear their ugly heads. The balancing is sometimes way off, as the voices are suddenly increased in volume for short bursts, and other times, the music will cut out completely. However, when locked in a huge firefight, the sound does its job admirably. You’re always tense and appropriately wary.
The first scene of the campaign is a tease. It promises something the adventure absolutely will not deliver. There’s a minor yet still depressingly tense argument between a man and his wife; the man has clearly not been home much, and he hasn’t paid quite enough attention to his family. The wife sounds bitter and tired. Seconds later, the brief conversation is over and the guy has returned to the task at hand. At various parts of the campaign, you will revisit these two characters but by then, it almost doesn’t matter. It’s poorly written and paced, and it’s oddly difficult to follow.
In between is a shooter that aspires to little beyond eye-opening encounters with countless bullets flying and the threat of massive explosions around every corner. For some, that might be enough. For years now, gamers and critics alike have been looking the other way, often enamored with a hot new technology or the white-knuckle intensity of the moment-to-moment action. And granted, a lot of times, the productions did deserve plenty of praise for offering a rock solid style of gameplay that developers have had the luxury to hone and refine for the past couple of decades.
But as you’re likely to see with other sources, the critics have finally said, “Enough is enough.” We’ve all been here multiple times before. Danger Close could’ve pulled us in with an emotional, even gripping storyline, which almost never happens in the FPS genre. They could’ve given us all new ways of seeing the battlefield, of experiencing that which the courageous (and a little crazy) Tier 1 operators experience on a daily basis. They could’ve given us the vastly differing sides of a warzone, where I’m certain it’s about more than bullets and explosions. It appears there’s really only one central message in Warfighter :
Everybody wants a shooter they recognize. They don’t want it to take any risks or try anything new, because the fans know what they want. Taking risks is…risky.
The result? There’s no doubt that this is a shooter fans of the category will easily recognize. They’ll take to it like a fish to water; they’ll happily gun down everything that moves because in truth, that’s really all we do in most shooters. After all, the control is fine, the presentation is pretty bad-ass, the action never lets up, and there is a general mechanical diversity that even involves various vehicles. It’s not like the designers didn’t at least try to toss out a few interesting gameplay structures, and it all does work relatively well together. But at some point, you just go, “…yeah, and ?”
Beyond this, there are a few flaws I really didn’t expect to see. The new cover system is far from perfect, hit detection is always questionable, and the overuse of the breach mechanic is just plain silly. I think I breached four or five doors in the first hour of play and while the slo-mo sequence is all sorts of cool, and I like the idea of unlocking new breach methods, it’s just way overdone. Then you’ve got the myriad of technical issues, which range from music drop-outs to poorly designed sections to flat-out crashes. The sniping section early on is just…terrible.
And despite the slam-bang nature of the adventure, it actually feels like it’s drawing on too long just because of the “been there, done that” mentality that shoots through your head minutes after starting to play. Toss in the fact that this game clearly wasn’t ready to launch (a host of issues and a 206MB patch on day one tells me everything I need to know), and you’ve got one of the biggest letdowns of the year. However, all this being said, I should add a few points that are essential: Firstly, if the game runs fine, there’s nothing critically wrong. It’s a decent shooter.
Secondly, the multiplayer appears to work well and is much more enjoyable than the campaign (which, by the way, doesn’t even feel much longer than the single-player mode in 2010’s Medal of Honor ). It’s obvious that Danger Close put the majority of their time, effort and resources into the multiplayer aspect and thankfully, it doesn’t let us down. You’ve got the Battlelog, which is a great feature, six distinct and effective classes, and a huge amount of content. Each country even gets a unique allotment of equipment, and it all feels way more strategic than the campaign.
The best part of the multiplayer is undoubtedly Fire Team. It basically combines cooperative elements with standard competitive combat, in that players will be joined at the start of a match to form a Fire Team. When one dies, he will respawn near the other, and they can also heap bonuses upon each other. They can refill each other’s ammo and most interesting of all, you have a vested interest in the welfare of your buddy. This is because you earn what you partner earns. It’s really one of the better ways I’ve seen of encouraging teamwork in typically chaotic online multiplayer.
The servers appear to be solid and most players online seem to be having plenty of fun. Of course, there isn’t much new beside the Fire Team feature, but that’s to be expected for the online portion. When it comes to the campaign, one would like to assume that we’d get something new, something that tries to push the shrinking boundaries of the FPS medium. It’s almost like as time goes on, the limitations of the “run around and shoot everything” setup become more glaringly obvious. Or rather, the limitations developers voluntarily accept.
They accept them to give the fans what they want. I accept and understand that. But I don’t think even the most hardcore FPS fans will be all that thrilled with EA’s latest. The technical problems are evident for many and if your experience is mostly glitch-free, you won’t be able to look past the most important fact: The casual game crowd, which seems to flock to shooters, has created the most mainstream style of gaming in the world. And we all know that “mainstream” often – if not always – translates to repetition of a winning formula. It’s the easiest way to make a buck.
But that formula is being reassessed and scrutinized by critics and many gamers, and this may coerce designers into trying new things. It has always worked in the past. However, the past wasn’t as filled with a new group of mainstream gamers who are content with the repetition and the mediocrity. It’s why action blockbuster movies will always make money, no matter how dumb they get. But this is a very different medium and low review scores almost always have adverse effects on sales. If that happens, I’ll be very interested to see how EA and Danger Close respond.
Medal of Honor: Warfighter isn’t a bad game. It really isn’t. It just redefines the phrase, “beating a dead horse.” It also wasn’t ready to release, and the campaign is just a depressing mix of missed opportunities and one firefight that feels exactly like the one before it. The AI is erratic, the story isn’t well presented, and the even the overall design doesn’t feel inspired. The general control is reliable and responsive, some parts are quite satisfying, and the multiplayer really is entertaining for long periods of time. So give credit where credit is due.
Outside of that, however, color me disappointed.
The Good: Plenty of great special effects. Decent voiceover work and powerful audio. Some engaging, fittingly intense combat. Tight control. Multiplayer is solid and entertaining.
The Bad: Lots of technical mishaps. Story falls apart and becomes insignificant. Cover system isn’t very good. Erratic AI. Repetitive, unfulfilling campaign. Been there, done that.
The Ugly: “There must be more to it than this…oh, but there isn’t.”
This is one time that I will have to disagree with you Ben. I think you missed the story because you were having to deal with the glitches and freezing. I am about halfway through the game and I am having no difficulty following the story and, knock on wood, haven't had one glitch or freeze since I started.
I also think that the 1st sniping level was awesome. Multiple targets and having to adjust for distance and drop. I don't play the MP side of the game but I am most satisfied by the campaign up to this point. I am 6 levels in btw. Just my opinion.
the sad thing about that sniping level is that aside from one other 2 minute level you never see it again, such a disappointment
Gotta agree with you Rogers. The sniping level was pretty awesome. The fact they implemented the bullet drop feature was I'm it's own right pretty awesome. It was fun, thoughtful, and you had to get it done or you couldn't proceed.
Me can't rely on that score, don't have hopes for that.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 10/25/2012 12:24:13 AM
That's quite the letdown. I don't play a lot of FPS games but I was hoping that this would turn out to be really good and give CoD a run for its money. I was also interested with the campaign (merely because parts of the game where in my country) but it's disappointing to hear that the plot never went anywhere. The game sure looks like it was rushed.
Maybe you should give it a shot and make your own opinion, really. People have different expectations, different standards…I personally like this game, I like it a lot…..one more thing, Don't play this game on EASY mode, I'm playing HARDCORE and enemy AI is pretty damn good…..have fun with this game.
Hmmm, this makes me wonder if Danger Close could become Dangerously Close to getting shut down?
I hope not.
…Insomniac is right behind them =p
EA is cursed lately.
Medal of Honor (1999) was the first FPS campaign I really got into (Goldeneye 007 for multiplayer.) The graphics, AI, story and addictive, difficult gameplay, complete with a highly-accurate historical backdrop and amazing musical score really blew me away the first time I played it. Between that, Underground, Frontline, and Allied Assault, there is a reason why the series is so revered. It seems to me, based on the reviews, that with this release they were more concerned with releasing it on time than they were with making an engaging, innovative, and even playable game. It's such a shame to see it reduced to this. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go play a little "Underground."
Last edited by 556pineapple on 10/24/2012 11:26:30 PM
I looked around the net at some others too, the game just seems too rough. Will this be the point where fans decide pandering isn't enough? Will a need for something new affect Bathroom Ops II as well?
We shall see, but I'd stick a fork in MoH.
Wondering the same thing. A lot of reviewers calling this a hum-drum, by-the-numbers shooter, saying that its formula is really starting to tire out. Makes me wonder what the same reviewers will say about CoD and how they will justify high scores just because it has a few new ideas able to be implemented by the near-future setting…
But BO2 already set pre order records…
Last edited by Killa Tequilla on 10/25/2012 6:56:24 AM
I'm not talking about the sales Killa, just if these reviewers will have the balls to say the same things about Blops II if it commits the same offenses and oh maybe drop that big old 9.5 down to an 8.
World, you already know the answer.
I can't say I was ever excited for this. I did MoH AA and MoH FL way back and they were …okay, I guess …for their time. I hated some of enemy snipers in those games… MoH seems like it's a lost cause now.
I will probably give Warfighter a try on the PC work laptop to start with; but I doubt it will make it into my Ps3 collection.
I am going to concentrate on getting exclusives for the Ps3; the really special games, and will will use the PC workhorse for multi-platform titles.
Makes sense as I travel alot and have the laptop with me all the time; Steam comes in handy therefore.
Having a Quad Core i7 laptop workstation with a middle of the range mobile nVidia GPU is all you need for a quick game on stuff you want to try, but not necessarily care to collect or go back too to often.
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 10/24/2012 11:29:06 PM
Must add though… the score is rather disappointing; I really thought it would be better than this.
I will give it a go and reserve my judgement; maybe the single player campaign will still have some cool parts to it.
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Yes Qubex,
This is one time where I would say try this game for yourself. I don't agree with anything in this review. I usually always go by this sites reviews on helping me decide on a game but so far, I love this game. Granted, I don't play MP so I can't comment on that part but I am 6 levels in and the story is well written, the levels are well crafted and the graphics are the best I have seen in a FPS. Please judge for yourself.
anyone else completely annoyed by he driving and chase levels? while its different and changes up the pace i find them completely unnecessary and distracting
Loved em'. Only thing I thought was a little weird was that you actually can't catch them until it let's you. But still super fun!
EDIT: i want to change the tone of my comment. I dont want it to seem like i was attacking the review and im not. Its a good review. Personally just dont agree with it. These are just my thoughts, and insight to those looking for perspective from the other side.
This is the first time I've ever disagreed with a review here! It was bound to happen I suppose! 😉
The graphics are actually better than a mid 7, I know you had some difficulties Ben, but this game is beautiful and is running like a well oiled machine for me! No hiccups and am thoroughly enjoying the environments and details of the guns to the emphasis on authenticity.
The online, also far better than a 7. Your right it doesn't do anything new, but neither has CoD in a while and that doesn't affect it. The online runs smooth, there's plenty of neat features to get someone interested and is a blast to play. Theres really not anything wrong with the mp.
And the sound, I'm not sure why it got a 7. Everything is crisp, clean, and accurate. The voice acting is good, the guns sound authentic, explosions are loud and on point, and the little things like bullets hitting wood is simple yet satisfying!
I don't know, I'm not seeing the low scores being accurate for this one. But hey I'm just a happy consumer!
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 10/25/2012 12:32:40 AM
On another note; I do however commend those stepping up and demanding -sort of speak – something new! I sincerely hope CoD gets the same treatment if it is more of the same.
The sound is all over the place. The balance is way off, the music drops out, and when it's there, it's repetitive and unimpressive. The multiplayer will not offer half of what the multiplayer in Black Ops II will offer; of that, I'm fairly certain. And when there's pop-in and other sorts of major issues, I don't see why anybody should be praising pretty pictures when they're not even implemented correctly.
Let's just say there's a reason it got a 5 at Eurogamer and a 6.5 at NowGamer.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/25/2012 1:15:45 AM
I don't frequently visit, read, or otherwise engage in those websites. Honestly I only visit here, and view reviews here, and occasionally check out metacritic. That should tell you something.
But regardless, it's obviously a case of your playthrough against mine. I'm honestly not experiencing all these technical issues. Pop ins, occasionally but I'm completely unaware of any other "major issues". Especially those game breakers.
No sound drop outs at all either. I'm also playing with a head set on, so everything is super crisp and clear, as opposed to having to play it with the volume low, in my house. I'm getting a different reaction now than I did reading your review. In your review just reading it I even felt the sound would have gotten better than a 7.
I think we are on the same page about CoD having the superior MP, no doubt about that. But there isn't a thing wrong with the mp in MoH.
It doesn't matter I suppose, as I'm happy with the game.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 10/25/2012 1:37:11 AM
Unfortunately, I can't ignore such massive problems, especially when I'm not the only one to suffer from them (just check forums and message boards). If my play-through was cleaner, it would've scored higher, obviously.
But not as high as people might think. This is really not about the technical issues.
Fair enough!
I can understand that part. Although I must admit what you encountered yesterday I havnt heard of yet, elsewhere.
Kinda sad, but at the same time it's nice to see developers getting punished for releasing the same old stuff. I'm tired of the military FPS genre really, and like I've said before, until the genre itself really innovates on itself, then I don't think I'll be buying one any time soon.
I have a feeling the rating score of Blop2 is going to be higher.
Most likely. Maybe it should, we will see. But CoD always seems to produce so… I wouldn't bet against it.
I was expecting better, I won't lie. Something tells me that the technical issues being caused by EA forcing Danger Close to adopt Frostbite 2, as well as having it out now, rather than when it is necessarily ready. This would also help explain the dreariness of the campaign as it would be more difficult to implement genre-driving features in a game with a new engine. Just a thought. A real shame, though. I thought the team might have been onto something since the original reboot was received moderately well and improvements usually come with iteration.
Makes me wonder if our local contrarian (Monsieur Blank Line) will show up at some point to defend this game, or whether he'll join the roasting.
why are developers so obsessed with making sequels so different from their predecessors?
the MoH reboot was so successful because it was so unique, it really was the thinking mans shooter.
you saw 2 enemies walk past but instead of mowing them down the game told you to wait and see if they will just pass.
so why does the sequel have to be the total polar opposite?
for once id like to play a sequel thats a sequel and not a new IP!
its kinda fun as a mindless blow everything up michael bay film, but thats exactly the problem thats not what MoH is suppose to be!
i cant understand the mentality of developers these days.
they think oh COD sells 10s of millions of copies, so if we make ours exactly the same than will get the same.
but, why would i buy MoH COD when i could buy COD COD?
why buy fake oakly sunglasses for the price of real ones?
the bugs are not helping the game either, i havent played a game this buggy since, no not even skyrim is this bad!
not even freaking fallout 3 was this bad!
first the sound kept cutting out, so i reset the game it fixed that but now sometimes when i fire my weapon it makes no sounds at all.
the game keeps stuttering at such a low frame rate.
7 times now ive died and restarted from latest checkpoint and the game actually spawns me further than i have been.
for one instance i was playing a level where you enter and are told to try stay quiet take enemies out quietly.
i got through half the mission than one enemy i missed so he started shooting me and away went the stealth objective.
so i restarted the level and instead of going back to half way through the mission i restarted right at the end of the level with the stealth objective failed.
WTF!?
pretty obvious this game was NOWHERE NEAR ready for release!
sad, EA releases another game that could of been so great but is held back because it feels rushed and unfinished.
if there was a gaming god he would banish EA and antivision to the deepest darkest depths of hell!
danger close another studio to put on the too good for EA list.
sigh, i wish EA would leave the industry and sell their studios to 2K or something, a publisher who will give their developers the time and budget they need to make their games as good as they could of and should of been!
i'll stick with killzone hd !
Here is my only problem with the review. I don't doubt that there are technical problems and I know exactly what you mean Ben when you say its beating a dead horse.
My ONLY problem is that Call of Duty is undoubtedly going to get huge scores and it has been beating the same dead horse for about 4 years now.
I know that CoD games usually have a layer of polish on them but this is the thing why can one game beat a dead horse and one game not?
However I know the answer is simply what YOU feel when your playing the game. CoD somehow gets people to ignore it is essentially the same game every year, and I have no idea how they trick the masses they must just be scary good at NLP or something.
All said and done I know you haven't reviewed Black Ops 2 year but I'm just saying this as a general thing that seems to happen on review sites.
The multiplayer in this actually sounds like it added something completely new with that Buddy system, and fighting as different nations. The same can't be said for Black Ops 2 as I have seen extensive previews for that multiplayer and it looks the same only with more colourful sci fi-ish graphics.
But value wise Black ops will be higher because of zombies, and multiplayer for sure.
Ugh I just don't know why CoD usually gets away with this and other games don't.
For the record I'm not really talking about MoH I am sure it runs fine for some but I know it was rushed out and probably does lack polish.
I just notice this every year with CoD, it seems like a lot of journalists have a double standard when it comes to reviewing it.
I'm not saying you do Ben I'm just saying I hope your review on Black Ops reflects your frustration with the beaten dead horse of the genre at large.
End rant sorry its early.
I don't think I understand the question. It's as if I've already given Black Ops II a 9…it isn't even out yet, so how am I being contrary?
And the last Medal of Honor got an 8.6 from me, while Black Ops got an 8.8…not much difference there.
MoH dropped the ball. There are just problems everywhere. If BOII doesn't have these problems, it will logically score higher. It's still nothing new, although one might be able to argue it offers the best online multiplayer shooter experience available. CoD continues to do a few things better and better; the improvements are mostly all in the multiplayer, but they're there.
Sorry, it was more a question of, is the dead beaten horse going to affect you in CoD like it did in this? CoD is usually huge set pieces, constant action little emotion in the stories etc, just wondering if you think it will effect you in CoD as much as it did in this nothing more really.
I guess it was less of a question and more of a rant with what I don't like about reviews of CoD specifically.
I would see one review on some sites bash an FPS for essentially being "good" but didn't push the envelope, or the multiplayer was too similar to CoD so why not play CoD. Then when CoD does the same thing IE not push the envelope one bit, the reviewer said it hasn't changed and thats what we like, if it aint broke don't try and fix it sort of thing.
That was more what I was ranting about, and it wasn't directed and anyone in particular especially not you. Even if I disagree with your review I can say yeah I see where he is coming from.
I can't say that about a lot of other sites to be honest.
I guess what I'm saying is I wish there was some sort of standardized review method, so we wouldnt have gametrailers calling Homefront a failure for being too scripted, and then praising CoD MW2 for the same thing calling it a hold on to your seat roller coaster ride that rarely lets up.
That was I guess the essence of my rant, it was really early and I just spouted stuff lol.
I'm obviously going to read your BO2 review when it comes out. BTW did you get an early copy yet?
No, too early for any review copies yet. And Activision has this odd habit of waiting too long to send their stuff out.
But in regards to the question, it's certainly true that there's a double-standard going around concerning critics and CoD. I know they'll fault one game for doing something, and then either praise CoD for it or simply ignore it. And as for whether or not I'll notice the "dead horse" syndrome in Black Ops II, all I can say is I'm much more likely to be on the lookout for it now after Warfighter. And if it's there to any significant degree, it absolutely will be mentioned.
But the one thing you have to remember is that CoD is ALL about the multiplayer, more so than any other shooter and indeed, just about any other game on the planet. So whatever the campaign is, that's usually glossed over. And I have to admit, although I'm not a fan, the multiplayer in each new CoD is usually better than any other shooter out there. It just is. And based on the number of awards the multiplayer has already received all around the world at various events, I'm betting BOII will be another high watermark.
The long and short of it is that most critics just evaluate CoD for the multiplayer, while they usually focus on it more with any other game, even if it's a shooter. That's where CoD's protection is located when it comes to scores.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/25/2012 4:09:59 PM
Good answer me likey.
Yes, very good answer. And so true.
I dont like that fact that our reviewer was having problems with the game. It seems if your a game company you would want the reviewer's game experience to be flawless. I'd rent it but I wonder if EA is doing that stupid online pass thing to keep you from going online. Can anyone tell me ?
Come on Guerrilla……. just make KZ4 already !!!
Considering the average-at-best reviews I'm seeing here and elsewhere, I do wonder if we're nearing something I thought was nearly impossible just a few months ago — an industry sea change away from FPS military shooters? Up to the fans of course, and one has to think that even if it's no longer the genre du jour, Call of Duty is going to remain a big seller for a long time. But there's a remarkable correlation between review scores and the sentiments of the gaming population. And one has to think if MoH goes over like a lead balloon the industry will notice…
Really enjoying the multiplayer – its certainly nothing new – which suits me just fine (I like being able to switch off and play without thinking) – If they patch the glitches this will keep me amused for a while
95% of the people wanting black ops 2 want it for the Zombies and the zombies alone
i dont like the back wife misses me i miss my wife story while realistic and depressing it gets in the way of the fun
hate the car chase levels if i want to get into a car and chase other cars ill play grand theft auto
I dislike all multiplayer they all seem the same to me and multiplayer's dont last Single player campaigns(if really fun)last