Medal of Honor: Warfighter

 PlayStation 3
User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 271 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 113 out of 271
  2. Mixed: 69 out of 271
  3. Negative: 89 out of 271
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. The_D4RknesS
    Feb 28, 2023
    7
    I played this version today and I loved it, it's not the best, it's much better than the PC version because it's full of bugs while this one is more polished. FPS is only good on PC but this one was an excel
  2. Kvantaliani03
    Nov 20, 2021
    6
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
  3. gamerz4life
    Sep 21, 2020
    3
    There is one word that describes Warfighter: Broken, broken, broken. It’s as if the developer took Medal of Honor 2010, sucked out anything that was good about it and left the husk that was Warfighter behind. As others have said it is a glitchy, buggy mess, even after all these years and multiple updates. I know that the multiplayer was dead on arrival but even the campaign at this pointThere is one word that describes Warfighter: Broken, broken, broken. It’s as if the developer took Medal of Honor 2010, sucked out anything that was good about it and left the husk that was Warfighter behind. As others have said it is a glitchy, buggy mess, even after all these years and multiple updates. I know that the multiplayer was dead on arrival but even the campaign at this point is unplayable due to bugs such as falling off the map and wall glitches, it’s as if they called in their D-crew to develop this game. Because this did not even come close to the quality of MOH 2010 even those it’s in the same engine, using the same assets! The gameplay is in the same vein as MOH 2010 with the very MOH feel though EA has gone out of its way to dumb down its play to COD levels with simplified shooting gameplay. Which is hilarious thinking about how it was released the same year that the much celebrated COD Black Ops II, of which the stale Warfighter had no chance against.

    For an example of how broken the gameplay is, around about the third level, there is a point where you have to snipe enemies that are essentially across the street from you but due to poor design the bullets do not hit where you aim, because of the game using the bullet physics engine from sniping in MOH 2010, of which the bullets will fly to anywhere but where you aimed causing you to not know where those bullets flew off to. There’s no wind, nothing that should be causing bullets to fly off their current trajectory. Unlike in MOH 2010 where there was an explanation of the bullet drop. And to even top this off, your AI spotter spews out random phrases, such as when you miss hitting an enemy he’ll tell you that it was a great shot and that you hit the guy ‘He’s down!’. It just makes the spotter sound like a fool because you can clearly see the enemy still standing after 3 shots that did nothing.

    In conclusion, the gameplay is stale, the levels of the campaign are broken, and the multiplayer was dead on arrival. This game is barely worth a rental, let alone don’t even think about spending money on this, no matter how cheap it is.    … Expand
  4. TheSnitchfather
    Sep 9, 2020
    10
    10/10
    I loved this game and I just can't see why others didn't like it, nobody said it's the best game ever, but it's finally something different compared to the same old same old. As far as I remember Warfighter's story was definitely longer and better than MoH 2010, but the MP is absolute dogsh*t, but let's forget the MP completely, what a disgrace. And once again, no way to change your    10/10
    I loved this game and I just can't see why others didn't like it, nobody said it's the best game ever, but it's finally something different compared to the same old same old. As far as I remember Warfighter's story was definitely longer and better than MoH 2010, but the MP is absolute dogsh*t, but let's forget the MP completely, what a disgrace. And once again, no way to change your weapons except the limited ones you can pick up during the campaign, I mean in both BF3 and CoD you could only change by swapping yours out for the dead enemy's gun, but there was way more variety. But once again, it's a bit more "realistic" than BF and CoD and the stealth aspect of the game is also appreciated again.    … Expand
  5. ubiquitous
    Jul 19, 2020
    7
    I consider the panning that MoH:WF got from the critics to be a bit unfair. This game has extremely well realised gunplay: the weapons feel satisfactorily powerful and sound great. You never have that COD feeling that you can just wade in and soak up the bullets like some new-age superman. Play on hard and the shootouts are tense and engaging, and demand careful use of cover. True, theI consider the panning that MoH:WF got from the critics to be a bit unfair. This game has extremely well realised gunplay: the weapons feel satisfactorily powerful and sound great. You never have that COD feeling that you can just wade in and soak up the bullets like some new-age superman. Play on hard and the shootouts are tense and engaging, and demand careful use of cover. True, the story is a little convoluted in places, but no more so that other entries in the genre. The visuals in this game are stunning, and whilst it's no BF3, the multiplayer is solid. If you want something that is a bit more edgy and realistic that CoD (which, in my view, is clearly inferior to this game), but not so much as ArmA, then you could do a lot worse than picking up MoH:WF. The real shame is that now the critics have done there dirty work we aren't going to get a sequel.… Expand
  6. Alex_Pilgrim008
    Jul 27, 2019
    5
    This follow-up to the 2010 reboot is just another mediocre COD clone. It looks decent enough (the game utilizes the Frostbite engine), but an uninspired campaign and crummy multiplayer pretty much makes it DOA. Some shooter fans may get some enjoyment out of it at first. But after a few hours, the game reveals its staleness. This is a cheap cash grab. It was meant to capitalize on theThis follow-up to the 2010 reboot is just another mediocre COD clone. It looks decent enough (the game utilizes the Frostbite engine), but an uninspired campaign and crummy multiplayer pretty much makes it DOA. Some shooter fans may get some enjoyment out of it at first. But after a few hours, the game reveals its staleness. This is a cheap cash grab. It was meant to capitalize on the surprising success of its predecessor, yet it adds nothing exciting. "Medal of Honor: Warfighter" is as generic as it sounds. I would give it a 5.5 out of 10.… Expand
  7. Edda1801
    Jul 22, 2017
    8
    This was a fun game - felt like a war movie with its great action sequences and decent enough story. The door breaches were also great. It is short, but it is sweet.
  8. Bulbotrax
    Nov 11, 2016
    0
    Probably one of the worst game of the PS3. Graphics are an insult to every games and so is the gameplay. It's a shame for the people who made this thing... They really have to find another job. Please do not make another game....
  9. XxJoseManuelxX
    Aug 25, 2016
    4
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a first-person shooter video game developed by Danger Close Games and published by Electronic Arts.

    + Cinematics Looks Gorgeous
    - Bland Story
    - Bad Gameplay
  10. RETROBOTER
    Feb 13, 2016
    6
    Grafik: 7/10
    Sound: 6/10
    + Good multiplayer, actionloaded short Story, detailed cutsequences - Sound issues (Campaign), Trophy Bugs, spongy controls Conclusion: This game is not far away from a 08/15 shooter, short Story pumped up with Action.I am sure this game would be much better as now, but EA pushes all devs to release unfinished games with glitches and bugs like MoH, it´s    Grafik: 7/10
    Sound: 6/10

    + Good multiplayer, actionloaded short Story, detailed cutsequences

    - Sound issues (Campaign), Trophy Bugs, spongy controls

    Conclusion: This game is not far away from a 08/15 shooter, short Story pumped up with Action.I am sure this game would be much better as now, but EA pushes all devs to release unfinished games with glitches and bugs like MoH, it´s sad when we think back what for a Name is ruined. It´s a far way to BF & Co. The best thing about this game is the Multiplayer, big enough to catch me 3-4 weeks.    … Expand
  11. ElectroSoul
    Jan 19, 2016
    6
    The game is not the worst...but it's not good neither. It's just...OK! Good graphics (with bugs and rendering issues), good story and A good gameplay. The thing is...this game it's just "a game", at the end of it we will remember it as "that game that I played last week" and not as "Medal of Honor, a game that really got me attached to the tv". Its a "Meh" game. 6/10 (Multiplayer wasThe game is not the worst...but it's not good neither. It's just...OK! Good graphics (with bugs and rendering issues), good story and A good gameplay. The thing is...this game it's just "a game", at the end of it we will remember it as "that game that I played last week" and not as "Medal of Honor, a game that really got me attached to the tv". Its a "Meh" game. 6/10 (Multiplayer was already dead when I played it because, according to the players, it sucked and it was way too buggy)… Expand
  12. ReviewScope
    Jan 6, 2016
    7
    I went into this game having seen all of the negative reviews and the bad reputation this game has gotten. I decided to play this as it was free for PS plus users on PS3. First, the campaign. It is bad. Warfighter has incredible graphics for the time and the controls are perfect, but the actual missions are horrible. Very linear, uninteresting and disappointingly short in some cases, whichI went into this game having seen all of the negative reviews and the bad reputation this game has gotten. I decided to play this as it was free for PS plus users on PS3. First, the campaign. It is bad. Warfighter has incredible graphics for the time and the controls are perfect, but the actual missions are horrible. Very linear, uninteresting and disappointingly short in some cases, which is a shame as the story had promise. Alternatively, the multiplayer is fantastic. It is not as fast as Call of Duty, as it offers a slower, more tactical experience, WHICH I LOVE!!! While the campaign missions drove me to insanity, I had genuine fun with the multiplayer. In addition, the soundtrack to this game is one of the best I have ever heard. Overall, MOH: Warfighter is a sadly underrated game that should be praised for its online multiplayer experience, and not its frustrating, boring and straight up disappointing campaign.… Expand
  13. Andyr42
    Jun 22, 2014
    8
    I'm not a massive fan of first person shooters. I don't get involved in the pointless rivalries and meaningless discussions about Call of Duty and Battlefield and which is better and which is more innovative and which is more of a corporate sell-out and, and, and...It's just human nature that the more popular a thing becomes, the trendier it becomes to dislike it, as is the case with CODI'm not a massive fan of first person shooters. I don't get involved in the pointless rivalries and meaningless discussions about Call of Duty and Battlefield and which is better and which is more innovative and which is more of a corporate sell-out and, and, and...It's just human nature that the more popular a thing becomes, the trendier it becomes to dislike it, as is the case with COD and BF.

    In the case of MOH: Warfighter however, the hate seems to stem from a conceited attempt to compare it with COD and BF and to slate it for the things it does which the others 'do better'. "Why bother playing MOH when you can get the same (but better) elsewhere??", "It's been done before, it's not original", or, "The multi-player isn't as good as COD or BF" are just some of the typical gripes I've read online about MOH:Warfighter. Hating the game for these reasons is like hating Pringles because Walkers have been making crisps for longer or not wanting to visit the USA because they're just 'copying' Britain by speaking English the whole time. There seems to be some overwhelming need for the idiots of today to require originality in every single thing they experience. Even the slightest notion that something in a video game has already been done in another video game once or more times before, seems to be a sure fire way for that game to be given 4 or 5 out of 10 by reviewers and buyers alike.

    MOH:Warfighter is a good game. It plays well, looks great, sounds great and does what it says on the tin; it's a military FPS with lots of bad people to shoot and things to blow up. If you want to do those things, MOH:Warfighter will satisfy your need, and for the current price, you can't say fairer. The single-player campaign is a little short (but so are most FPSs nowadays, MOH isn't unique in that sense) but it tries to tell a story and look at the emotional and personal side of war and the effects it has on the lives of soldiers and those around them. If this sounds a little sappy to you, it's because it is! But whatever, I enjoyed this alternate approach to story-telling, and preferred it slightly to the "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Chopper Bogey at 10 0'clock 'I think I'm a real soldier" approach which other military FPSs often throw at you. I'm not a soldier, I don't want to be one but I do want to be entertained and am open to all ideas and stylistic attempts.

    All in all, a good game. It won't go down in history as one of the best, but in my opinion, it certainly is one of the most underrated games I have ever played by far.    … Expand
  14. KidKira149
    Jun 11, 2014
    6
    Warfighter is literally a 50/50. Unlike other games, all you get is a campaign and multiplayer mode, and the campaign in Warfighter makes the one in the first game look even better than it did. It was BORING! Even worse, on my first playthrough, the gameplay was very glitchy. One word: Snipers.
    Multiplayer was a lot better. Finally, a perfect blend between the slow, teamwork-based    Warfighter is literally a 50/50. Unlike other games, all you get is a campaign and multiplayer mode, and the campaign in Warfighter makes the one in the first game look even better than it did. It was BORING! Even worse, on my first playthrough, the gameplay was very glitchy. One word: Snipers.
    Multiplayer was a lot better. Finally, a perfect blend between the slow, teamwork-based gameplay of Battlefield, and the solo killstreak gameplay Call of Duty is known for.
    But having good multiplayer does not justify the absolute bullcrap found in the rest of this game, or any other AAA shooter.    … Expand
  15. Cilvyenn
    Jun 4, 2014
    10
    I love the MoH series and I feel it deserves a 10 because it is amazing in all aspects after you have played it and gotten used to it. At first, I felt the gameplay and graphics were lacking but once you have gotten used to it it grows on you. I'll give a more detailed review asap.
  16. Bitek
    Apr 28, 2014
    7
    Very good single player. Average multi player. I find single player campaign to be really good. It feels more realistic than COD. Standard weapons no some high tech stuff you never see in real life like in COD. I enjoy single player campaign tremendously. Multiplayer however is hit and miss. It is fun to play but the graphics are pretty bad. Overall this is good game and it does notVery good single player. Average multi player. I find single player campaign to be really good. It feels more realistic than COD. Standard weapons no some high tech stuff you never see in real life like in COD. I enjoy single player campaign tremendously. Multiplayer however is hit and miss. It is fun to play but the graphics are pretty bad. Overall this is good game and it does not deserve negative reviews.… Expand
  17. CitizenUnknown
    Mar 13, 2014
    3
    I guess the game qualifies as... playable, but nothing else. I literally watched a NPC unload an entire clip into an enemies head, and the enemy got back up and shot at me. The enemies only focus on you, which makes the NPC's as useless as they have ever been and the controls are lackluster at best. There are upgrades, but they are useless at best and do nothing to add to the experienceI guess the game qualifies as... playable, but nothing else. I literally watched a NPC unload an entire clip into an enemies head, and the enemy got back up and shot at me. The enemies only focus on you, which makes the NPC's as useless as they have ever been and the controls are lackluster at best. There are upgrades, but they are useless at best and do nothing to add to the experience not do they serve as fun little goals.… Expand
  18. TheQuietGamer
    Mar 5, 2014
    3
    Poor Medal of Honor. Once the best name in WW2 FPS games, the series has struggled to find a place with it's new modern setting. I was hoping that this latest attempt to bring the series back would succeed, but all it ended up doing was making me think that this series is better off either going back to WW2 or just dying. This shooter stumbles at just about every turn.

    One good thing I    Poor Medal of Honor. Once the best name in WW2 FPS games, the series has struggled to find a place with it's new modern setting. I was hoping that this latest attempt to bring the series back would succeed, but all it ended up doing was making me think that this series is better off either going back to WW2 or just dying. This shooter stumbles at just about every turn.

    One good thing I can say about this game is that it is both good looking and great sounding. Guns have a nice pop to them and everything looks top-notch. However frame rate issues, screen tearing, and slowdown do rear their ugly heads far too often. The game's story, which is supposedly written by actual military operatives, is nonsensical and fails to achieve the emotional resonance it was going for. These areas aren't that major, but they do bring down the quality of the game.

    The single-player campaign is literally exactly what you would expect from a military shooter, but with noticeable technical issues. The core shooting is nice, and pulling off a well placed head shot is incredibly satisfying, but everything else around the shooting is pretty awful. It's clear that the campaign is trying hard to be like Battlefield and COD, but poor diversions, dull shootouts, technical issues, and an over reliance on breach segments keep this game from being as enjoyable as some of those games have been. Overall the campaign is a tedious wannabe that fails to live up to a lot of the games it is trying so hard to mimic.

    As for the multiplayer it isn't much better. Everything from finding a match to customizing a weapon is buried in cluttered and ugly menus. The matches can be fun at times on a very basic level, but slow respawns, an emphasis on camping, and confusing map layout means you're better off going with one of the many better options out there. There's also a high likelihood of getting spawn-killed and there aren't many people still playing it. It's incredibly skippable.

    In a time where lackluster military FPS games are literally filling up store shelves, "Warfighter" manages to stand out as particularly crappy. It's glitchy, boring, and filled with poor design choices. Literally everything that is done here has been done better elsewhere, which is incredibly disappointing. I was hoping that this series would one day return to relevance, but Warfighter might be the final nail in the coffin. This is a shooter that I don't recommend you spend any time with, because it fails at just about everything it sets out to do and there are MANY better options out there. Warfighter manages to stand out from the crowd, but for all the wrong reasons.    … Expand
  19. Shtiggy
    Dec 9, 2013
    10
    Obliterates CoD IMO. I played CoD Black Ops before this and I thought this was so much better for single player. Story line was much better and gameplay was also better IMO. I'll seek out the others now. Loved it.
  20. shadowgon3
    Oct 3, 2013
    10
    The story mode was better than battlefield 3 and it is awesome to play the role of real soldiers and on real missions! The online mode is very fun when you get used to the game play (You NEED to know when to camp and when to rush)
    IGN and etc all focused on the VERY small and pointless problems which makes others think the game is bad as for the glitch's i had zero of them (i know it's    The story mode was better than battlefield 3 and it is awesome to play the role of real soldiers and on real missions! The online mode is very fun when you get used to the game play (You NEED to know when to camp and when to rush)
    IGN and etc all focused on the VERY small and pointless problems which makes others think the game is bad as for the glitch's i had zero of them (i know it's not the same for everyone) and its sad to see how much hate this game gets when it deserves more credit than any other fps!
    P.S If you think mohWF is full of glitch's you should go play bf3!    … Expand
  21. SJ-ULTI-Reiews
    Sep 27, 2013
    7
    Although this game has framerate problems, the graphics are really good. The story mode is also good and is quite realistic. The multiplayer is empty, no one plays that often. The gameplay feels fast and fluid and work quite well. Overall this is an underrated game and deserves more attention.
  22. PandaBearNapalm
    Sep 19, 2013
    10
    This game is epic! most people like IGN hate on it and lie through there teeth to make sure gamers don't buy it, first problem they had. "the enemy AI is easy and begging to get shot at", I died a couple times in a single mission on easy mode (never died on easy mode in CoD... just saying) another is the story mode. story was depicted and told by a REAL tier 1 solider. or as pre_-cision-_This game is epic! most people like IGN hate on it and lie through there teeth to make sure gamers don't buy it, first problem they had. "the enemy AI is easy and begging to get shot at", I died a couple times in a single mission on easy mode (never died on easy mode in CoD... just saying) another is the story mode. story was depicted and told by a REAL tier 1 solider. or as pre_-cision-_ said "As for the multiplayer its a cheap call of duty knock off." no not really, you have to do real like taking cover, lean and tilt around corners, and check areas before entering, instead of just running towards the enemy because "I HAVE A FLAKJACKET!!" and survive napalm and missiles...
    the graphics and missions are very good, considering the game convinced hard core CoD fan friends to say that this game is better by far than Black OpsII.
    I Recommend this game, but you can listen to IGN and buy halo instead    … Expand
  23. chrisjones914
    Jul 8, 2013
    9
    I will admit, the first time that i played this game i did not give it a fair chance. I played to the first sniper sequence and decided that the game was trying to hard to be realistic, so i quite. However, now that i have finished the full game i can now tell you enough how completely off my first impressions were. This game has an amazing campaign with one of the most gripping andI will admit, the first time that i played this game i did not give it a fair chance. I played to the first sniper sequence and decided that the game was trying to hard to be realistic, so i quite. However, now that i have finished the full game i can now tell you enough how completely off my first impressions were. This game has an amazing campaign with one of the most gripping and emotional stories that i have ever seen in a shooter! On top of that, the multiplayer is the best that i have ever played as far as FPS go! In the end Medal of Honor: Warfighter is an outstanding shooter! Sure its not without its got problems with frame rate, some glitchy cutscenes and a few other random bugs but that does not hold it back from being the best military FPS that i have ever played! CoD should certainly take a few lessons from the guys over at Danger Close! Can't wait to see where they take the Medal of Honor series next!… Expand
  24. DelaFleure
    Jun 10, 2013
    3
    Medal of honor: warfighter is a big big disappointment.
    Short story (but whit a good graphic) in single player, caotic menu in multiplayer (after the patch has worsened!!), few weapons and a bad use of the maps. You can not break anything (explosives do no damage to the huts of straw, for example), and the roads are required. There is a grove? I can not cross it, have to go around as is    Medal of honor: warfighter is a big big disappointment.
    Short story (but whit a good graphic) in single player, caotic menu in multiplayer (after the patch has worsened!!), few weapons and a bad use of the maps. You can not break anything (explosives do no damage to the huts of straw, for example), and the roads are required. There is a grove? I can not cross it, have to go around as is the '90?!
    70 euro at day one is a big price for a retrogame.... the poor version of battlefield 3    … Expand
  25. savagejoe444
    May 28, 2013
    6
    EA couldv'e done better with this part of the classic franchise. The graphics do look great for MoH Warfighter, but the story and A.I. in this game is awful. The enemy just spawn wherever you are and kill you almost instantly. MP's still fun, but some of the new additions to the MP just don't work. I'd prefer playing MoH (2010) over this, even if this game runs on Frostbite 2, which is aEA couldv'e done better with this part of the classic franchise. The graphics do look great for MoH Warfighter, but the story and A.I. in this game is awful. The enemy just spawn wherever you are and kill you almost instantly. MP's still fun, but some of the new additions to the MP just don't work. I'd prefer playing MoH (2010) over this, even if this game runs on Frostbite 2, which is a shame since it looked very good in the trailers.… Expand
  26. matipdogg
    Feb 24, 2013
    10
    Single player may be a lil bit bad,i can understand if u don't like it.But MP is a beast.The best one i have ever seen.Better than MW3,BF3,Killzone 3,...Awesome game.But if u didn't buy a "Limited Edition",you may have problems because nearly all matches are in Zero Dark Thirty maps.I reccomend the game,but the limited edition.
  27. alex007
    Feb 19, 2013
    5
    Has there ever been a title more redundant than "Medal of Honor: Warfighter"? I would be the first to say no. Surprisingly, "warfighter" is an actual term which pertains to any person responsible for making decisions which results in the use of military force. Could've fooled me. Anywho, MOH: Warfighter is a direct sequel to the 2010 reboot of the once-popular series. With that release,Has there ever been a title more redundant than "Medal of Honor: Warfighter"? I would be the first to say no. Surprisingly, "warfighter" is an actual term which pertains to any person responsible for making decisions which results in the use of military force. Could've fooled me. Anywho, MOH: Warfighter is a direct sequel to the 2010 reboot of the once-popular series. With that release, developers Danger Close and DICE (of "Battlefield" fame) had summoned a predictable first-person shooter in the vein of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare". Unfortuantely, it had none of the panache of Infinity Ward's superior product. But the game was a surprise hit and EA Games began to develop a sequel. The result is this by-the-numbers shooter which still plays much like "Call of Duty". Thankfully, it is a better effort than the 2010 game. Danger Close developed both the campaign and multiplayer online modes for "Warfighter", and while the game still isn't great, it's a decent one.

    If you played the first game, than you'll certainly notice the increase in quality. While the campaign plays much like any other COD game, it's got two great vehicle segments. And the enemy A.I. isn't as dumb as it was in the 2010 offering. The gimmick of breaching doors is overused and pointless and the cinematic segments may be yawn-inducing for some. But I found the campaign to be mildly entertaining. It's only six hours long and a second playthrough isn't justified, but it's fun (for the most part) and tells a decent story. Multiplayer has also been improved. It's been extensively expanded upon which is good since the 2010 title included only a bare-bones version of "Battlefield". The online game still feels more like BF than COD minus the vehicles and good graphics, but fans of the genre could do worse. There are six modes and six differerent character classes which help bring some nice variety to the matches. Also, the gun customization options are fun to play with. However, the sound effects of the weapons are much more dynamic in DICE's games and the lack of innovation will disappoint some. Overall, this title is worth about half of its initial price (maybe even a little less). EA Games recently cancelled the series which maybe a good thing. But if you're bored of "Black Ops II" and can't wait until "Battlefield 4" shows up, than "Warfighter" is a decent way to kill a few hours.    … Expand
  28. D00m_2k7
    Feb 12, 2013
    7
    SP is short and sweet, but lacks proper AI and storytelling. The graphics and the sound are beyond average and show the strengths of FrostBite 2.0. Controls are somewhat clunky and overloaded, but you get a hang of it.
    The MP has some nice new features like FireTeam and a BuddySystem, but can't stay up to BF3 (and CoD).
    Long story short: Not a great game, but worth your time (for a    SP is short and sweet, but lacks proper AI and storytelling. The graphics and the sound are beyond average and show the strengths of FrostBite 2.0. Controls are somewhat clunky and overloaded, but you get a hang of it.
    The MP has some nice new features like FireTeam and a BuddySystem, but can't stay up to BF3 (and CoD).
    Long story short: Not a great game, but worth your time (for a budget-price).    … Expand
  29. Ironmarmot
    Jan 24, 2013
    10
    I'm tired of the troll's giving this game 1's and O's, writing reviews filled with hyperbole. If I were to be honest, I should probably give the overall game a 9 simply based on the overly complex multiplayer screens.

    I personally loved the single player campaign. I served in the Marines and appreciate the tone that this team uses in depicting our warfighters. I think a lot of the    I'm tired of the troll's giving this game 1's and O's, writing reviews filled with hyperbole. If I were to be honest, I should probably give the overall game a 9 simply based on the overly complex multiplayer screens.

    I personally loved the single player campaign. I served in the Marines and appreciate the tone that this team uses in depicting our warfighters. I think a lot of the negativity is from people shying away from the reality that there are really rotten scumbags out there who would kill anyone who believes differently than them in a heartbeat.

    The multiplayer part of the game is a bit different than it's predecessor. The maps feel smaller, but once you learn them, they seem to flow pretty well. I like the BF3 / MOH games a bit more than the COD games (which I own), but I understand that there are a TON of FPS games out there and people have different tastes. I get that. I just don't understand the hate that this franchise gets. Play the game. Make up your own mind. I personally liked it.    … Expand
  30. Viet-Bong-Army
    Jan 23, 2013
    2
    I bought this game on release, and returned it the very next day. It really is that bad. On the back of a release like BF3 EA really could and should have done better. The campaign is marginally playable, and the multiplayer is pretty much the dullest online shooter experience I have ever had. This may have been patched or fixed, although I imagine most people who did give this more timeI bought this game on release, and returned it the very next day. It really is that bad. On the back of a release like BF3 EA really could and should have done better. The campaign is marginally playable, and the multiplayer is pretty much the dullest online shooter experience I have ever had. This may have been patched or fixed, although I imagine most people who did give this more time went on to buy either BO2 or went back to BF3. This game is appalling. The only really positive point I can think of is that the game allowed you to have purple gun camo. That's it. Don't buy, it'll just end up as an expensive coaster. Don't buy it second hand either, come to think of it, as you need an online pass to play. Just. Don't. Buy. It.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

23
#23 Most Discussed PS3 Game of 2012
33
#33 Most Shared PS3 Game of 2012

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 22 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 22
  2. Mixed: 19 out of 22
  3. Negative: 3 out of 22
  1. Edge Magazine
    Dec 19, 2012
    30
    Where COD maintains a smooth 60fps, Warfighter gets a nosebleed trying to put out 30fps. Modern Warfare boasts near-instant restarts after death; here, lengthy loading times merely add to the frustration.
    Read full review
  2. Worth Playing
    Dec 14, 2012
    60
    As a complete package, Medal of Honor: Warfighter is disappointing when you consider the amount of hype surrounding it.
    Read full review
  3. Official PlayStation Magazine Benelux
    Dec 4, 2012
    67
    Every once in a while Danger Close breaks the endless mould of duck & cover gameplay by letting you mark a building for an air strike, chase down an informant or provide sniper support. But even these sequences repeat themselves multiple times throughout the game. [December 2012, p.68]
See all critic reviews »