PC Gamer's Warfighter review is out. Prepare to be amazed....

amazed at the score that is...a whopping 35/100! :lol:

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/medal-of-honor-warfighter-review/

Their verdict:

A boring, unoriginal, morally bankrupt, ethically dubious glorification of war, that's not worth your time or money.

That is about what I would give it myself actually.

Its extremely dull and boring.

Some pretty looking parts in the campaign but thats it.

This year has been my fav year of gamign of the last 3 years but there has been a few games that have been HORRIBLE (RE6, Foreign Legion:Multi Massacre and The new Medal of Honor. All some of the worst games ive played in years and years).

I'm not surprised, it is a terrible game.

EA seems to think that throwing money at developers is going to magically produce a great game, I just wish they would understand this.

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]Another review where you could change every occurance of MOH Warfighter with modern warfare Intersting not that I've played the gameBrean24

[QUOTE="Brean24"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] EA doesn't pay as well as Activision.Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="Brean24"] Oh maybe Call of Duty is a much better game? Oh sorry, I meant the tens of millions of people who bought Call of Duty are all 13 year old kids who know nothing of the world, have poor taste in gaming, are mentally retarded and all good reviews are paid for by the publisher. Oh yeah and every single Call of Duty after 4 is exactly the same with no differences whatsoever other than new single player campaigns, new maps, new weapons, new game modes, and pretty much everything every single other sequel in any genre typically offers, but because it's Call of Duty that makes it exactly the same. Did I mention that World at War and Call of Duty 4 look exactly the same in every way? I mean Black Ops is just Call of Duty 4 with slightly different colors.DanielDust

About time reviewers are starting to acknowledge the massive shortcomings of this FPS subgenre. Even though most of us were well aware of these issues years ago, it's nice to see a little bit of the mainstream jumping on this. I doubt their review of Black Ops 2 will be as scathing though, although it probably should be.

About time reviewers are starting to acknowledge the massive shortcomings of this FPS subgenre. Even though most of us were well aware of these issues years ago, it's nice to see a little bit of the mainstream jumping on this. I doubt their review of Black Ops 2 will be as scathing though, although it probably should be.

MythPro1

................. How do they keep make sequels to these games? MoH games have always seem to rate poorly with critics and the user base in general, and their games never seem like huge block buster successes.. This is like the Resident Evil movie franchise of games.. No matter how bad it is, they some how get the funding to make another bad one.sSubZerOo

MoH 2010 sold 6 million copies.

Now Danger Close were forced to switch to a new engine but stay on a two years schedule. Late in the dev cycle upper management decided to shuffle the levels, thus destroying the narrative, and add the two crappy ones at the start. They had fewer DICE people on the team and they farmed out the vehicle levels to Criterion, who decided to make them separate executables.

It's not a great game, it falls short of its predecessor but it's not a 35/100 game either. It's cool to hate it. RPS had no idea how the sniper scene worked, even lied about who you can shoot or not. There's a real problem when you deny a game's functionality and qualities just to make a stupid point.

How many reviews acknowledge the fact that you can stealth your way through some missions, and if you screw up the game doesn't punish you? They all claim it's a completely scripted shooting gallery.

If you give this title 35/100, then what do you give shovelware like Chernobyl Terrorist Attack? Are you going into negative scores for that?

Is MoH: Warfighter really that much worse than CoD?PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Is MoH: Warfighter really that much worse than CoD?Jebus213

COD > MOH > MOHW > Homefront >BF3.

There's no argument about that. People trying to lump them together never played them all or are just lying.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Is MoH: Warfighter really that much worse than CoD?Baranga

COD > MOH > MOHW > Homefront >BF3.

There's no argument about that. People trying to lump them together never played them all or are just lying.

Are the critics of the gaming industry suffering from severe time lag? First Tom McShea, and now this guy... Where were these high profile critical voices when everyone was hopping in line to be milked dry by Modern Warfare 2?

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]Another review where you could change every occurance of MOH Warfighter with modern warfare Intersting not that I've played the gameBrean24

Looks like you already knew the answer.

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Is MoH: Warfighter really that much worse than CoD?Jebus213

MoH 2010 sold 6 million copies.

Now Danger Close were forced to switch to a new engine but stay on a two years schedule. Late in the dev cycle upper management decided to shuffle the levels, thus destroying the narrative, and add the two crappy ones at the start. They had fewer DICE people on the team and they farmed out the vehicle levels to Criterion, who decided to make them separate executables.

Baranga

I do enjoy the multiplayer in this one though so its not a total loss. I agree that it is cool to hate on it.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]................. How do they keep make sequels to these games? MoH games have always seem to rate poorly with critics and the user base in general, and their games never seem like huge block buster successes.. This is like the Resident Evil movie franchise of games.. No matter how bad it is, they some how get the funding to make another bad one.Baranga

MoH 2010 sold 6 million copies.

Now Danger Close were forced to switch to a new engine but stay on a two years schedule. Late in the dev cycle upper management decided to shuffle the levels, thus destroying the narrative, and add the two crappy ones at the start. They had fewer DICE people on the team and they farmed out the vehicle levels to Criterion, who decided to make them separate executables.

It's not a great game, it falls short of its predecessor but it's not a 35/100 game either. It's cool to hate it. RPS had no idea how the sniper scene worked, even lied about who you can shoot or not. There's a real problem when you deny a game's functionality and qualities just to make a stupid point.

How many reviews acknowledge the fact that you can stealth your way through some missions, and if you screw up the game doesn't punish you? They all claim it's a completely scripted shooting gallery.

If you give this title 35/100, then what do you give shovelware like Chernobyl Terrorist Attack? Are you going into negative scores for that?

35/100 is being nice imo. Game is horrible.

This and RE6 are bad bad games, glad they are getting some reviews that reflect that.

Way too harsh. 60/100 is more appropriate.

The multiplayer is actually fun and the game is well made even if it is boring.

People are being way the hell too over dramatic about this.

It's a very bland game but it's not bad. I don't know how many people here actually own the game. Well I do and I can tell you right now it's not a bad game in the least. It actually has some fun things going for it with the multiplayer that gives it its own feel. It's not the best, but it's not terrible like people want.

Why didn't people jump all over MW3 and BF3? Will people jump all over Black Ops 2? Probably not.

There is nothing wrong with modern military shooters as a genre. If you don't like them, don't play them. That doesn't make them bad. If you don't want modern military shooters then play the new Painkiller, Natural Selection 2, Chivalry Medieval Warfare, CS:GO, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, Firefall, Serious Sam 3, Metro 2033, Stalker.... there are so many other options.

People have begun hating on modern military shooters for being just that. Do the same people make stupid low-scoring reviews and endless rants about sports games? No. They just don't play them.

I'm not trying to say that Warfighter is a good game. It's mediocre at best, but it's not a flat out bad game. This is just overreaction by people for no reason. It seems the press is being extremely critical about this game but are completely happy to overlook others.

Also, for all of those who pirated the game and played the campaign (don't answer me if you did, just hear me out), the multiplayer is not just some CoD rip off. It really does a good job of feeling unique. If you try to rambo like you would in CoD, fire from the hip and all of that jazz, you'll get destroyed. The way they built their game really does reward small scale teamwork and good gunfights that aren't over within .2 seconds of one player seeing another.

I was suprised on how different it felt from Battlefield and CoD.

Damn, this kind of hurts when you, like me, remember the days when Medal of Honor was something everyone played and that you always looked out for. They probably should've accepted the series' time had come years ago, instead of trying to turn it into a substandard reflection of industry fads.

I do get the idea that reviewers are trying to outdo each other in bashing this game, though. 35 is borderline unplayable, and this sounds more like something playable, yet woefully uninspired, making me think that a score in the 50-60 range would be a more proper reflection of this game's qualities.

Waiting for BLOPS2.

Way too harsh. 60/100 is more appropriate.

The multiplayer is actually fun and the game is well made even if it is boring.

People are being way the hell too over dramatic about this.

It's a very bland game but it's not bad. I don't know how many people here actually own the game. Well I do and I can tell you right now it's not a bad game in the least. It actually has some fun things going for it with the multiplayer that gives it its own feel. It's not the best, but it's not terrible like people want.

Why didn't people jump all over MW3 and BF3? Will people jump all over Black Ops 2? Probably not.

There is nothing wrong with modern military shooters as a genre. If you don't like them, don't play them. That doesn't make them bad. If you don't want modern military shooters then play the new Painkiller, Natural Selection 2, Chivalry Medieval Warfare, CS:GO, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, Firefall, Serious Sam 3, Metro 2033, Stalker.... there are so many other options.

People have begun hating on modern military shooters for being just that. Do the same people make stupid low-scoring reviews and endless rants about sports games? No. They just don't play them.

I'm not trying to say that Warfighter is a good game. It's mediocre at best, but it's not a flat out bad game. This is just overreaction by people for no reason. It seems the press is being extremely critical about this game but are completely happy to overlook others.

Also, for all of those who pirated the game and played the campaign (don't answer me if you did, just hear me out), the multiplayer is not just some CoD rip off. It really does a good job of feeling unique. If you try to rambo like you would in CoD, fire from the hip and all of that jazz, you'll get destroyed. The way they built their game really does reward small scale teamwork and good gunfights that aren't over within .2 seconds of one player seeing another.

I was suprised on how different it felt from Battlefield and CoD.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Way too harsh. 60/100 is more appropriate.

The multiplayer is actually fun and the game is well made even if it is boring.

People are being way the hell too over dramatic about this.

It's a very bland game but it's not bad. I don't know how many people here actually own the game. Well I do and I can tell you right now it's not a bad game in the least. It actually has some fun things going for it with the multiplayer that gives it its own feel. It's not the best, but it's not terrible like people want.

Why didn't people jump all over MW3 and BF3? Will people jump all over Black Ops 2? Probably not.

There is nothing wrong with modern military shooters as a genre. If you don't like them, don't play them. That doesn't make them bad. If you don't want modern military shooters then play the new Painkiller, Natural Selection 2, Chivalry Medieval Warfare, CS:GO, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, Firefall, Serious Sam 3, Metro 2033, Stalker.... there are so many other options.

People have begun hating on modern military shooters for being just that. Do the same people make stupid low-scoring reviews and endless rants about sports games? No. They just don't play them.

I'm not trying to say that Warfighter is a good game. It's mediocre at best, but it's not a flat out bad game. This is just overreaction by people for no reason. It seems the press is being extremely critical about this game but are completely happy to overlook others.

Also, for all of those who pirated the game and played the campaign (don't answer me if you did, just hear me out), the multiplayer is not just some CoD rip off. It really does a good job of feeling unique. If you try to rambo like you would in CoD, fire from the hip and all of that jazz, you'll get destroyed. The way they built their game really does reward small scale teamwork and good gunfights that aren't over within .2 seconds of one player seeing another.

I was suprised on how different it felt from Battlefield and CoD.

JKnaperek

This and RE6 are bad bad games, glad they are getting some reviews that reflect that.

kozzy1234

The RE6 controversy makes me want to play it.

Overambitious failures are interesting.

How the hell is a 60/100 a failing score?the_ChEeSe_mAn2

Remeber gamers believe anything that's not a 90/100 is crap.

[QUOTE="JKnaperek"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Way too harsh. 60/100 is more appropriate.

The multiplayer is actually fun and the game is well made even if it is boring.

People are being way the hell too over dramatic about this.

It's a very bland game but it's not bad. I don't know how many people here actually own the game. Well I do and I can tell you right now it's not a bad game in the least. It actually has some fun things going for it with the multiplayer that gives it its own feel. It's not the best, but it's not terrible like people want.

Why didn't people jump all over MW3 and BF3? Will people jump all over Black Ops 2? Probably not.

There is nothing wrong with modern military shooters as a genre. If you don't like them, don't play them. That doesn't make them bad. If you don't want modern military shooters then play the new Painkiller, Natural Selection 2, Chivalry Medieval Warfare, CS:GO, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, Firefall, Serious Sam 3, Metro 2033, Stalker.... there are so many other options.

People have begun hating on modern military shooters for being just that. Do the same people make stupid low-scoring reviews and endless rants about sports games? No. They just don't play them.

I'm not trying to say that Warfighter is a good game. It's mediocre at best, but it's not a flat out bad game. This is just overreaction by people for no reason. It seems the press is being extremely critical about this game but are completely happy to overlook others.

Also, for all of those who pirated the game and played the campaign (don't answer me if you did, just hear me out), the multiplayer is not just some CoD rip off. It really does a good job of feeling unique. If you try to rambo like you would in CoD, fire from the hip and all of that jazz, you'll get destroyed. The way they built their game really does reward small scale teamwork and good gunfights that aren't over within .2 seconds of one player seeing another.

I was suprised on how different it felt from Battlefield and CoD.

the_ChEeSe_mAn2

When it comes to games I think there's such an abundance of quality 7-10/10 titles that anything of lesser quality will rarely be satisfying or worthy of your time excluding oddball reviews here and there.

Hopefully they don't make such rubbish games next time, the game had potential and it looked great visually.

Maybe they'll stick to Bad Company and the main Battlefield games for now on, and possibly one day CoD will recieve the same treatement.

It's not that it's just generic or in an overdone genre, it's that it completely embraces it without change. Battlefield focuses on huge scale warfare, Call of Duty focuses on crazy campaigns and fast paced multiplayer, Homefront tries to give us an alternate future, Counter Strike is a PC staple with highly polished combat, and so on.

Medal of Honor just apes these things, and doesn't even do it well. It's not as big as Battlefield, it's not as fast paced as Call of Duty or Counter Strike, the fireteam system seems to punish lone wolfing and legitimate scaled teamwork more then it rewards two players working together, the spawns are broken, the campaign is short, repetitive, poorly paced and poorly polished (with some of the crappiest AI), the interface is a giant mess, the story is generic and simply tries too hard to make me care about one character (who they don't even bother naming or detailing through gameplay), etc.

Like it just does what we've seen before, then does it worse. That doesn't make it a horrible affront to gaming, but it happens to be unoriginal and doesn't even do anything I haven't seen before better, it does them worse. I have dozens of shooter games I can have more fun in, that had more care taken.

I don't completely blame Danger Close, they seem to at least try to respect shooter conventions and try to offer a fun game, but trying doesn't always work. Maybe they're too new, maybe the two years with a new engine wasn't enough, maybe EA pressured them into certain things, all I know is that the game is far more boring and generic then any Call of Duty or Battlefield title. I enjoyed the weapon customization, I like the concept of taking on different missions spanning the world for some creativity (though unfortunately it's always fighting middle eastern terrorists in the same old urban areas), and the car missions are actually really well done, with the more open ended car chases really actually adding something I think Battlefield should have offered and which Call of Duty has only attempted.

But still, it just, well, it kind of sucked. Even if it came out 5 years ago, it would still be lacking in maps, polish, hit detection, proper spawning, pacing, storytelling and content compared to Call of Duty 4, Rainbow Six: Vegas or the Bad Company games, and would really only have the car mission and graphics to hold it up.

this gives me some hope

It looks very bad for this game scorewise.

Yay! :D

[QUOTE="JKnaperek"][QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"] How the hell is a 60/100 a failing score?the_ChEeSe_mAn2

just about every school in the US considers 65 and below an F

"A boring, unoriginal, morally bankrupt, ethically dubious glorification of war, that's not worth your time or money." I could use that same line to describe the GOP!Allicrombie

that's being quite mild about them then

just about every school in the US considers 65 and below an F

wis3boi

.