Medal of Honor: Warfighter

 Xbox 360
User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 450 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 169 out of 450
  2. Mixed: 107 out of 450
  3. Negative: 174 out of 450
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. orangemanta
    Nov 8, 2012
    3
    Shocking! Very short (4 hours gameplay on the campaign). Generic indeed. Cynic exploitation of the frachise (I used to be a fan --> not any more). Don't bother Buy Halo4 instead.
  2. attwah-nz
    Nov 24, 2012
    0
    This is not a review, it is a protest. As an offline player only, a 5 hour, uninspired, buggy campaign is not worthy of my hard earned dollar. I won't be contributing to the retirement funds of those lazy sods at EA & Danger Close Games who take the piss out of anyone buying this game expecting value for money. Shame on you.
  3. wa2kool
    Mar 7, 2013
    4
    Not much to say really...Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a pretty but buggy, frustrating and tedious experience.

    Graphics: 8.5/10 Gameplay: 4/10 Features: 4/10 Ignore this game...AND it's predecessor if you haven't played it already, I guarantee you won't be missing much. It probably doesn't need recommendation but FPS fans should look towards the much    Not much to say really...Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a pretty but buggy, frustrating and tedious experience.

    Graphics: 8.5/10
    Gameplay: 4/10
    Features: 4/10

    Ignore this game...AND it's predecessor if you haven't played it already, I guarantee you won't be missing much. It probably doesn't need recommendation but FPS fans should look towards the much greener pastures of Call of Duty.    … Expand
  4. ICEExMagic
    Apr 28, 2013
    4
    Dice has stepped down from Battlefield 3.The campagin is stupid and boring and the multiplayer you take forever to respawn and the guns ate really bad.
  5. twos
    Feb 21, 2014
    7
    I picked up this game pretty cheap and whilst we expect a lot from these AAA titles I don't feel like a company forking out more cash and man power on a project by any means should allow us to be more critical of it than we would of a smaller budget game. I found the visuals to be on par with any of the best shooters out now, I found the storyline was made engaging by the more personalI picked up this game pretty cheap and whilst we expect a lot from these AAA titles I don't feel like a company forking out more cash and man power on a project by any means should allow us to be more critical of it than we would of a smaller budget game. I found the visuals to be on par with any of the best shooters out now, I found the storyline was made engaging by the more personal aspects which were featured and I found it altogether an enjoyable experience.

    I did not play the multiplayer and I could understand someone being upset with the length of the single player if they had paid full price for the game. I found the tilt mechanic excellent and think it would be a welcome addition to any FPS. If you like first person shooters and can get it cheap I think it is well worthwhile giving it a whirl.    … Expand
  6. GameInterpreter
    Jun 18, 2013
    7
    Even though the game offered very little difference in terms of story from its predecessor the multiplayer went on to be the strong point with bold moves with the two man fire teams and the fantastic use of the Frostbite 2 engine developed for Battlefield 3.

    7 out of 10
  7. ajma420
    Jul 21, 2013
    6
    First, let me start by saying that the graphics in this game are incredible as always, but that is one of only few positive notes about the latest installment of the MoH series.

    Campaign 6/10 very confusing and difficult to follow in the beginning, but the end explained most of it UI/HUD/Interface 5/10 the peek and lean is good in theory, but not in practice. Also, players are    First, let me start by saying that the graphics in this game are incredible as always, but that is one of only few positive notes about the latest installment of the MoH series.

    Campaign 6/10 very confusing and difficult to follow in the beginning, but the end explained most of it
    UI/HUD/Interface 5/10 the peek and lean is good in theory, but not in practice. Also, players are stuck with the M4/M16 platform in singleplayer
    Graphics and IGE 10/10 stunning!
    Multiplayer 3/10 a Call of duty MW2/3 style of play in a BF/MoH frostbite engine. Overall it was not a good mix, but maps were interesting and multi-dimensional    … Expand
  8. RandomFandom
    Oct 8, 2013
    5
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is that game where you just can't decide if you like it or not, the level design is even more linear than CoD, and it holds nothing that makes it a good shooter, although I love the well directed cutscenes, but the story isn't that good, the voice acting is very well done as well, but some parts in the game do look very gritty there are other parts that make youMedal of Honor Warfighter is that game where you just can't decide if you like it or not, the level design is even more linear than CoD, and it holds nothing that makes it a good shooter, although I love the well directed cutscenes, but the story isn't that good, the voice acting is very well done as well, but some parts in the game do look very gritty there are other parts that make you think otherwise.
    Over all this game could've been something but failed, I would just recommend watching a walkthrough if you're desperate to play it.    … Expand
  9. ZPFan0LAB
    Aug 24, 2013
    10
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is the best; first person shooter of 2012. Rather than the game being a redone or cliff-hanger story-it is based of real events on the war against terror. The story is more emotionally engaging than many other shooters; a realistic relationship between a Navy SEAL who is always on mission and his wife who wants him to be at home instead of fighting. The game fellsMedal of Honor Warfighter is the best; first person shooter of 2012. Rather than the game being a redone or cliff-hanger story-it is based of real events on the war against terror. The story is more emotionally engaging than many other shooters; a realistic relationship between a Navy SEAL who is always on mission and his wife who wants him to be at home instead of fighting. The game fells a lot like the movie; Act of Valor-in its best parts. The graphics and details are gorgeous, with the audio and voice acting adding extra love into the game. The set-pieces feel important and there won't be many "Wish I was playing in that skybox" moments. The action is paced well; stealth, assault, turret an vehicle sections have great impact on sense of place and urgency. The controls are precise and responsive and three features that are great are-asking allies for ammo, sliding and leaning; adding a more in-depth experience. The campaign lasts a fair while and the multiplayer continues the fun. The online game feels more like Counter-Strike than COD or Battlefield and the great controls, along with a streamlined buddy system and different real world soldiers that operate differently add extra touches. If that wasn't enough-you can access the Battlefield 4 demo. Medal of Honor Warfighter isn't getting the best reviews, but that's only due to COD and Halo; in truth; Medal of Honor is an engrossing experience-Buy or regret.… Expand
  10. gamingisgreat
    Sep 18, 2016
    0
    Medal Of Honor Warfighter is the worst video game I have ever played.

    The gameplay sucks,with unoriginal,generic shooting,game-breaking bugs,glitches and framerate issues everywhere. Story is typical 'America saves world' bullsh*t.The game is filled with racism aswell,which is disgusting. Graphics are sh*t,and like I said,framerate issues. Game is also 3 hours long,which you    Medal Of Honor Warfighter is the worst video game I have ever played.

    The gameplay sucks,with unoriginal,generic shooting,game-breaking bugs,glitches and framerate issues everywhere.

    Story is typical 'America saves world' bullsh*t.The game is filled with racism aswell,which is disgusting.

    Graphics are sh*t,and like I said,framerate issues.

    Game is also 3 hours long,which you could probably count as a positive as the game is so bad.

    Medal Of Honor Warfighter is a legendarily bad FPS,and the worst game I have ever played on the 360.    … Expand
  11. AverageGamer381
    Sep 9, 2015
    3
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter demonstrates everything wrong with modern-day first-person shooters. It's got it all. Dull aesthetics, forgettable story, and new and improved RACISM. Somehow I expected more from EA. Oh wait, no I didn't.

    Where to start? The story is not only the standard generic 'shoot everyone who isn't white' trend followed by many other games in the genre, but it's hard    Medal of Honor: Warfighter demonstrates everything wrong with modern-day first-person shooters. It's got it all. Dull aesthetics, forgettable story, and new and improved RACISM. Somehow I expected more from EA. Oh wait, no I didn't.

    Where to start? The story is not only the standard generic 'shoot everyone who isn't white' trend followed by many other games in the genre, but it's hard to tell what the hell is going on. There's so many flashbacks, and the game makes it incredibly difficult to tell who the protagonist is, or if there's more than one. The first mission (after the intro and a cutscene) starts off with making you shooting a brown person. Who? How? Where? When? Seriously, it's impossible to move the cursor away from the guy's head. Later on you face a building filled with infinitely respawning bad guys, and you HAVE to blow it up with a missile. You can't even run ahead, if you do YOU DIE. Oh yeah, all the missions have invisible walls everywhere, they didn't even bother to cover them up with debris or terrain like other first-person shooters.

    The gameplay is horrible. The guns fell weak and are weak, and it's hard to see where the enemies are most of the time. It's as linear as arse, and gets incredibly dull within the first few minutes. The pre-rendered cutscenes even look disgraceful. The movement is clunky and running into walls is something you'll experience a lot. The 'innovative' aiming mechanic is irritating and stupid. It's really hard to find anything above-average about this game. You could say that it's a mindless first-person shooter to wind down to, but I only got stressed from the horrible gameplay and ugly design.

    This game is utterly, completely, never-endingly boring, rubbish and over-all a poor addition to a worn out genre. 3/10 is me being generous.    … Expand
  12. fer5500
    Mar 29, 2020
    4
    The only good thing about the game is the graphics, they totally sinned with the slow paced action, you get stuck in the same area for too long, considering this game last 5 hours, the lack of a more closed-combat action is also a disappointment.
  13. huffnat890
    Nov 16, 2012
    4
    You know what is a bad game? Medal of Honor: Warfighter. You want to know why it's a bad game? Of course you do! So to satisfy your desire I have made a list of the reasons this game sucks and why your money is better spent elsewhere. However, it is just a list and n explanations because frankly this game isn't even worth this amount of time. If you have any questions feel free to email meYou know what is a bad game? Medal of Honor: Warfighter. You want to know why it's a bad game? Of course you do! So to satisfy your desire I have made a list of the reasons this game sucks and why your money is better spent elsewhere. However, it is just a list and n explanations because frankly this game isn't even worth this amount of time. If you have any questions feel free to email me at huffn88@yahoo.com. Here we go! Terrible hit detection, screen tearing, constant clipping, poorly implemented gameplay features such as the fireteam system, tedious gunplay, awful campaign, terrible AI in said campaign, failing to have even a modicum of innovation, ridiculous bugs, and last and most certainly not least taking gamers for morons and expecting us to be okay with this. Danger Close, shut your doors and bury this series under the ground.… Expand
  14. racinglightning
    Nov 11, 2012
    8
    The latest instalment in the Medal of Honor franchise, "Warfighter", is nothing short of breath-taking, the campaign is fast paced, and action packed, and has some of the most impressive sets, ever seen in a FPS. The core mechanics of the game work great, as you have come to expect from the series. That said it is not flawless... The Multiplayer of the game, has a number of problems still,The latest instalment in the Medal of Honor franchise, "Warfighter", is nothing short of breath-taking, the campaign is fast paced, and action packed, and has some of the most impressive sets, ever seen in a FPS. The core mechanics of the game work great, as you have come to expect from the series. That said it is not flawless... The Multiplayer of the game, has a number of problems still, even after early patching. Namely teleporting out of the map, falling through the map, stats not working, Trophies / Achievements not unlocking, and a host of other problems that should have been sorted out by time the beta was finished. If your thinking of trying this game, it is worthwhile, even though a bit unfinished.… Expand
  15. neilsmif1980
    Oct 31, 2012
    5
    Single player is short and boring! Nothing new at all. The multiplayer is shocking! Its just not a fun game to play. They need to sort the mechanics out. I'm so sick of shooting enemies and not downing them only for them to turn around and kill me; and they have 100% health- WTF IS THAT?? The guns feels like pea shooters, far too many bullets to down enemies, AND if you find two enemiesSingle player is short and boring! Nothing new at all. The multiplayer is shocking! Its just not a fun game to play. They need to sort the mechanics out. I'm so sick of shooting enemies and not downing them only for them to turn around and kill me; and they have 100% health- WTF IS THAT?? The guns feels like pea shooters, far too many bullets to down enemies, AND if you find two enemies together is impossible to kill both! Shot behind walls, noob tubes and nades and constant, poor spawns, poor hit detection! overall the game's s**t and unbalanced! Read what everyone is saying! Avoid!… Expand
  16. letterse7en
    Nov 26, 2012
    7
    First of all I will just say, don't listen to the critics, official reviews, etc. Second thing I will say, put your biased opinions aside and forget everything you know about Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. and let's move on.
    I enjoy aspects of the major military shooters including the unconventional Ghost Recon Future Soldier, so my review isn't fueled by love or hate towards one    First of all I will just say, don't listen to the critics, official reviews, etc. Second thing I will say, put your biased opinions aside and forget everything you know about Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. and let's move on.
    I enjoy aspects of the major military shooters including the unconventional Ghost Recon Future Soldier, so my review isn't fueled by love or hate towards one franchise over another. I'm looking at Medal of Honor through an unbiased set of eyes and am isolating this shooter as its own game.

    When I first played MOHW. I didn't know what to expect. I was less than impressed by the beta. In the beta the graphics were bad, gameplay was buggy, connection issues, etc. However, I didn't let this affect my opinion too much because I remember the Battlefield 3 Beta had similar issues.

    First off, for those worried about the crappy graphics in the multiplayer beta, there is an optional HD texture pack that you can install which does improve things both in the campaign and in multiplayer (similar to what was done with BF3). Still, the Multiplayer graphics aren't as good as the campaign, but still better than the beta. If you have the HD space, it takes up over 1 GB of storage and it is worth installing.

    Starting with Single Player. The game looks and sounds amazing. The gunshots, explosions, everything has rich deep sounds that rival any game on the market. When in combat, the duck & cover options are great. Why more FPS don't have this option, I'll never understand. You can hug your body against cover, pop around a corner or over cover and get some quick shots off and then quickly duck behind cover again. It seems that only games with 3rd person options like Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Gears of War, etc. offer this feature. This feature also carries over to multiplayer as well, which is nice, although the fast paced actions of MP usually don't allow for much time for peeking around corners or out of windows as someone is usually running behind you, ready to stick a hatchet into your back while you play peek-a-boo. It is nice to have the option for specific defensive situations, but is a feature that works best in campaign mode where you can take your time behind cover.

    The downside to the campaign is that it is really short (as expected for most shooters these days) and extremely linear. This is where a lot of critics are bashing this game. Length of Campaign and a lot of linear hand holding as you breech rooms, move from one shooting gallery to the next. The same is true for this game. However, why MOHW gets dinged for this in reviews, but COD doesn't is beyond me. Perhaps the story telling could have been better, but isn't this pretty much what FPS have been boiled down to lately? Isnt this kind of expected. Still I found the campaign to be fun, intense, and just about what I'd expect in a modern FPS. Let's face it though. Most people thesedays buy these games for the Multiplayer and get around to the campaign later, if at all. The Multiplayer is good in my opinion. A lot of weapon customization, character options, class specializations, etc. Each class has a role to play (whether players use their role properly is another issue). Like the previous MOH game, this game does have kill streak rewards and usually come with the option of a defensive support action or an offensive. You choose which to use depending on what you & your team needs at the time. The focus of this game is more team driven. For example, having the option to spawn at deployment or spawn on your "buddy" is pretty nice. If your buddy is out of harms way, you can spawn on him and stick close together. You can offer ammo & heal each other which can tip the scale of firefights in your favor if you are a good teammate and work together with your buddy. The game modes are mostly objective based games, territory control or team deathmatch. Nothing too innovative here. This game loses some points for their menus and navigation. The menus used to customize your soldiers and create your weapon loadouts can be a real pain until you get used to it. More thought could have been given to creating a more seamless experience when customizing your characters/weapon loadouts, etc. The menus system is clunky and frustrating at first.

    Overall, I disagree with some of the reviews that give this game anything less than a 6. It isn't a great game, but it is a good game. It isn't as bad as some of the reviews I read. Specifically IGN giving it a 4. That's just ridiculous. Some of the issues that this game is being ripped for are issues that are common in Call of Duty and most other shooters who get 8-10 scores from the same publications who gave this a 4. It really isn't a fair review to say this game is bad. It may not be what you're used to, but it is far from being a bad game. I think more people should really give this game more than 5 minutes before deciding that you hate it.    … Expand
  17. Chrispy92
    Jan 30, 2013
    5
    Where to begin... first things first, this game makes use of Frostbite 2. For the most part, the visuals are quite beautiful, and several scenes are quite striking. Of course, you need to download the optional 1.7 Gig Texture Pack in order to appreciate this. If you can't, then be prepared to be assaulted by some of the most horrendous textures I've seen. I wasn't able to download it.Where to begin... first things first, this game makes use of Frostbite 2. For the most part, the visuals are quite beautiful, and several scenes are quite striking. Of course, you need to download the optional 1.7 Gig Texture Pack in order to appreciate this. If you can't, then be prepared to be assaulted by some of the most horrendous textures I've seen. I wasn't able to download it. Seriously, without the pack, it looks like everything was painted on by someone who doesn't know how to paint a fence. I hope for your sake that you can do so yourself. Moving on, the gunplay that the game has is fairly solid, but the problem is that the firefights are completely marred by glitches and piss-poor A.I. Rule of thumb, a large 50 meg patch coming out directly at the game's launch is never a good sign. Also, I've seen plenty of times in which enemy soldiers rush out to me in the open, and don't get me started on my team mates. Sure, they're smart enough not to jump into my sights, but aside from giving me ammo when I need it, they're completely useless. They can barely hit ANYONE, and to top it off, they kept nudging me out of cover and into direct fire: Annoying as hell. The other big problem of the game is that when you get right down to it, it really offers absolutely nothing new to the formula. We've played all the sequences, all the environments before, from the stealth segment, to the helicopter gunship level, but this game adds nothing new. It just rehashes stuff that's already been done before. Oh sure there's the breaching sequences, but aside from looking cool, there's no gameplay differences, and the novelty wears off fairly quickly. Then we come to the story. It's not as bad as everyone's been saying, and can even be touching at times, but it suffers from two major problems. One, is that the player characters are talking in the pre-rendered cutscenes, but are silent in game. That's just disconnection. The second problem, is that some of the levels and segments have little meat on them. Take the one in which you snipe one pirate off of a ship. One shot, one kill, mission ends. ONE SHOT: MISSION ENDS. That is not how you build a level. That's not to say the game's totally hopeless. The gunplay is reasonably solid, as I said before, the sound's pretty good and, strangely enough, there are some surprisingly intense driving sequences. It's not a bad game per say, but there's really nothing here that nothing here that hasn't already been done before (if not better) by its competitors. I therefore rate this game a solid MEH. Rent this game, don't bother buying it. P.S: did anyone else find Preacher's wife and daughter to be REALLY creepy looking? I sure as hell thought so.… Expand
  18. timsim26
    Feb 27, 2014
    6
    campaign only review - medal of honor does a number of things right but there is nothing ground breaking that makes this game a standout against the saturated market of FPS games that are available on 360/ps3. The story is uninspired and is the typical military problems and how it impacts solidiers and while this does sound important and make you feel bad for the troops that are involvedcampaign only review - medal of honor does a number of things right but there is nothing ground breaking that makes this game a standout against the saturated market of FPS games that are available on 360/ps3. The story is uninspired and is the typical military problems and how it impacts solidiers and while this does sound important and make you feel bad for the troops that are involved in harrowing war stories - it is hard to feel sympathy for guys who mow through hundreds and hundreds of enemies in each levels throughout this short campaign. i was able to be the campaign on normal in about 7 hours without any trouble. I thought the levels were all in fairly typical locations and followed the same paths that i have played many times before - follow down this corridor killing everyone in windows, mount the MG, kill all these dumb soldiers who pop their heads out or run out of cover for no reason, breach and clear this room and escort this guy here. the game doesn't do anything that we haven't seen before.

    What is great about this game though is that it looks fantastic. the graphics are great, the weather effects are really outstanding, the environments stand out, the character models and the animations by the soldiers all react fluently and allow for the gameplay to be solid. the reload animations and the weapons look great and react like guns, they have recoil and feel powerful. The sound and the score of this game are also really great. the music in places has dramatic effects and adds to the immersion and the guns sound loud and mean. it adds to the experience and with good surround sound/gaming headset it makes playing this game bearable. despite all the flaws in the game it is still a decent shooter if you are not expecting something to wow you like call of duty 4/battlefield bad company 2    … Expand
  19. mako_psy
    Nov 4, 2012
    7
    I feel this game is getting quite a bad and undeserved rep. I can't speak for the multiplayer, but the campaign was quite enjoyable, albeit rather short at around six hours - to which I'd be a little annoyed at if I'd paid full retail price for it, but it was a rental so i can't complain. Much like you'd expect from a modern day FPS, there's constant adrenaline-fueled action the whole wayI feel this game is getting quite a bad and undeserved rep. I can't speak for the multiplayer, but the campaign was quite enjoyable, albeit rather short at around six hours - to which I'd be a little annoyed at if I'd paid full retail price for it, but it was a rental so i can't complain. Much like you'd expect from a modern day FPS, there's constant adrenaline-fueled action the whole way through, with a mixture of stealth missions, car chases and full on assaults to keep you on your toes. Of course, it's nothing original, but then few games today are. I do often feel it's been dumbed down a little, similar to its predecessor, with hardcore mode being the only real challenge of the game - if you can be bothered starting from the beginning of the campaign each time you die. But again, all games seem to be dumbed down since developers seem to be trying to reach a wider audience these days. Poor hit detection can also take you out of the immersive experience at times, but the game makes up for this with fantastic graphics (especially the cutscenes - wow) and a soundtrack that keeps you pumped all the way through. The story is typical American propaganda, though you still feel sucked in regardless. All in all the game wasn't great, but it was good and well worth a rent from your local blockbuster. It gets a fairly good 7 out of 10... just above average, because the mission did keep me on my toes throughout tier 1 difficulty.… Expand
  20. A_on_the_I
    Nov 6, 2012
    8
    As a military shooter junkie, MOHW is perfect for me, slip through the single player on the difficulties, then jump into the real meat: multiplayer. you have to be strategic, fire in bursts, accumilate pointstreaks wisely, communicate with your team mate. If you are into semi-realistic military action oneline and have a friend to join you, then have at it. If you're on the fence: wait forAs a military shooter junkie, MOHW is perfect for me, slip through the single player on the difficulties, then jump into the real meat: multiplayer. you have to be strategic, fire in bursts, accumilate pointstreaks wisely, communicate with your team mate. If you are into semi-realistic military action oneline and have a friend to join you, then have at it. If you're on the fence: wait for the battlechest edition for all the maps and bugs to be ironed out, it'll be cheap, high quality and content. it's a shame they fought to grab the Halo 4 and BO2 audience with an unfinished project rather than let the vast majority of the public enjoy they're rehashed sequels before offering something polished and new, especially since this will be the last MOH/BF game until the new consoles in 2014. But if MOHW has the bugs squashed, they'll be no better military fps on the playform for this console generation.… Expand
  21. watithink123
    Feb 11, 2013
    3
    Medal of Honor in 2010 was a bad game. So is this a sequel better then the original? No its not! It still suffers from hat made it bad in 2010 and more things bad about it. The e3 gameplay looked good but they were careful on what gameplay they showed i guess and it turned out to be a game. Campaigns characters are just dull and boring and cant even remember some of there names now. StoryMedal of Honor in 2010 was a bad game. So is this a sequel better then the original? No its not! It still suffers from hat made it bad in 2010 and more things bad about it. The e3 gameplay looked good but they were careful on what gameplay they showed i guess and it turned out to be a game. Campaigns characters are just dull and boring and cant even remember some of there names now. Story is just confusing and I always wondered, why im i here and what am i doing and at the end just relised you had to kill a few guys and thats it. Bugs and audio bugs were happening way too much and ruined the experience when it was good. Only good thing to say about it is that it looked awesome when I was playing it but thats about it. Multiplayer... with frostbite 2 engige it should be great? Well nope. Just basic game modes and nothing amazing about it, like the class system tho. Overall a b piece of Medal of Honor: Warfighter 3.4/10… Expand
  22. Greenmember
    Nov 4, 2012
    6
    There are moments of something that really has potential in MoH:W, 70% of the time it's the most visually impressive game I've ever played. With the Frostbite 2 engine it's an experience that mirrors realism very closely. The audio for every environments fits the situation and amazes me, also you have some good levels in the single player, and a decent multiplayer. However there are justThere are moments of something that really has potential in MoH:W, 70% of the time it's the most visually impressive game I've ever played. With the Frostbite 2 engine it's an experience that mirrors realism very closely. The audio for every environments fits the situation and amazes me, also you have some good levels in the single player, and a decent multiplayer. However there are just as many strengths as weaknesses. The other 30% of the time textures are decent but it resembles that of an older 360 game. The game itself doesn't really innovate, and it's still trying to find what makes it unique in a world Dominated by Call of Duty and Battlefield. The multiplayer can be very frustrating at times. If you're a fan of the series or just a fan of military shooters then you'll no doubt appreciate it and probably have already picked it up, otherwise for everyone else it's a decent rent but passing this one by wouldn't be a bad idea either.… Expand
  23. Jakeonguitar
    Nov 25, 2012
    6
    With a little more time to develop this game could have been great, but I think they released it before it was finished. The single player campaign had its' moments, but it just wasn't consistent throughout. The multiplayer was pretty fun, but it was buggy. It's a shame, I was really excited about this game, and it kind of let me down.
  24. Nereme
    Oct 31, 2012
    5
    I'll admit. I was hopeful. The prospect of another game made using the frostbite 2 engine had me almost giggling like a schoolgirl.

    Alas the game while it does have its good points has some rather painfully glaring flaws. It's almost like the developers thought, you know what this game isn't going to be played that much so let's just release it with the bare minimum of play-testing.    I'll admit. I was hopeful. The prospect of another game made using the frostbite 2 engine had me almost giggling like a schoolgirl.

    Alas the game while it does have its good points has some rather painfully glaring flaws. It's almost like the developers thought, you know what this game isn't going to be played that much so let's just release it with the bare minimum of play-testing.

    The problems start early on i'm afraid. The first time you see a terrorist dive behind a car and start shooting at you you will probably think "this is fine I'll shoot him through the car windows when he pops up".

    WRONG!!!

    While admittedly if you shoot through the side door windows you may be able to score a hit or two (provided your gun will actually shoot where you are telling it to, unfortunately not always a given) all the smaller windows on a car are seemingly impenetrable. Not to mention the wooden pallets that these enemies have realised have become magically impervious to bullets. It does get a bit worrying when the bullets I'm firing can't manage to touch an enemy that is only partially covered by wooden slats.

    Then we move on to the "teammates" these guys seem to be running into the fray while taking no damage and pointing you out for every enemy who will suddenly decide that even though there's a whole squad of you its only you they want to shoot at. Don't get me wrong. I understand that in an fps game there will be more enemies shooting at you than at your teammates but why do A: my teammates not take advantage of this by shooting the guy stood right next to them unloading magazine after magazine into my face. And B: why do all of these bad guys seem to have superman's x-ray vision that let's them finish me off through the tiny crack in the cover I am currently cowering behind.

    Another issue i have with fps games now is their insistence on having literally every enemy you are currently engaged with mob you every time you reload a weapon. This would be understandable if the enemies didn't just hide around behind cover until exactly the moment you reload and then all of a sudden they have "decided" to run out after you. It's becoming a rather worrying pattern that as fps games are being brought out the enemy ai isn't being improved for a harder difficulty level. The designers are just giving them perfect aim and dirty tactics that abuse the games knowledge. At least my trusty squadmates will shoot the man running wildly towards me while I desperately try to reload my pistol! Oh wait ****

    The cutscenes in the game do provide some excitement as they are nothing short of beautiful. The characters look more like movie characters than models in a game. I had a rather wonderful moment near the end of the final cutscene where I wasn't sure if a certain part was filmed with real people or made using frostbite. The multiplayer experience isnt too bad. The guns are good fun the support options (though damn near impossible to aim) are impressive and you will definitely remember it the first time someone you are playing against gets Apache support. But on the whole the multiplayer just won't compete with battlefield 3's Overall this game is not great. If not for what would seem to be lazy play testing which if done properly could have made some changes for the better it could have been a much more fun game. Some of the set pieces are good fun and the multiplayer can be good too. I do think that this game falls short of the "would recommend to a friend category though 5/10.    … Expand
  25. ihatecheez
    Jan 9, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. surprised yet disappointed, i have just played the single player campaign and i have some mixed feelings. so far i think EA just told Danger Close to make a call of duty clone and slap the frostbite 2 engine on the cover. HERE IT IS KIDS! A MODERN SHOOTER LIKE ALL THE OTHERS! i had some fun with it, but the story could have been so much better. since the story is about the struggle of being in the navy or army in afganistan, you expect a deep and emotional story line. but i think EA force danger close with a small release date so it could come out before the new call of duty. if danger close had more time like maybe released it after the holidays to have a better story, longer campaign, and fixed some of the issues with the game (the game crashed on me twice) i would of loved it, i feel like this game was only released so that EA could get some cash on putting the Battlefield 4 sticker on it saying have beta access when it comes out.… Expand
  26. saints51
    Nov 3, 2012
    2
    The multiplayer of this game is horrible. Lots of issues in this game. The main issue that is roaming in the community is the hit detection. This is caused by lag. A lot of this is stemmed by other countries entering in another countries server. When this happens you get lag. Then you empty a whole clip into someone's back to have him turned around and 1 shot kill you. Then you notice heThe multiplayer of this game is horrible. Lots of issues in this game. The main issue that is roaming in the community is the hit detection. This is caused by lag. A lot of this is stemmed by other countries entering in another countries server. When this happens you get lag. Then you empty a whole clip into someone's back to have him turned around and 1 shot kill you. Then you notice he has 100 health. Sometimes you get good games and other times you get these type of games in multiplayer. Its obvious the game was rushed. You really can see how this can be a good game but it fails. This game will be almost dead next week when Halo comes out and will be a corpse once COD is released. Rent it before you buy it. You get a 2 day online pass to try it out. You can not go wrong if your curious by renting it first with the pass. Just remember it is not likely it will be supported for multiplayer after the holidays.… Expand
  27. Tate_Laycraft
    Feb 20, 2013
    7
    Like the previous installment to the Medal of Honor series, Warfighter is not being received well. As of right now, it has a user score of 4.9 and is receiving many negative reviews due to its short campaign, and buggy multiplayer. I personally loved the 2010 addition to the series, and am also quite enjoying this one. As of right now, im only 3-4 hours into the campaign (Which I guess isLike the previous installment to the Medal of Honor series, Warfighter is not being received well. As of right now, it has a user score of 4.9 and is receiving many negative reviews due to its short campaign, and buggy multiplayer. I personally loved the 2010 addition to the series, and am also quite enjoying this one. As of right now, im only 3-4 hours into the campaign (Which I guess is about half way through) and I only have one complaint. The story is completely un-original. But that's not a big deal for me anyway. Over the years I've learned to never expect anything from an FPS's story. The game runs on Dice's frostbite 2 game engine and looks just about as good as anything else on the market. Although I must say that the campaign does look slightly better than the multiplayer. The graphics are definitely one of the game's upsides. The multiplayer is as if BF and COD had a baby, which some people may see as a disaster, but I personally enjoy it. Definitely isn't as tacticle as BF, but at the same time still requires some thought unlike COD. It does feel a bit clunky at times though, I don't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the original's multiplayer. Oh and did I mention that the maps aren't as open as MoH 2010's so spawn sniping is no longer an issue? (if you played MoH 2010 you know what I'm talking about.) In my opinion, this game is extremely under rated and is definitely one of the better first person shooters on the market. I give it a 7 out of 10.… Expand
  28. 2CatShakur
    Nov 4, 2012
    8
    I am seriously blown away by all the hate towards this game. It's completely unwarranted. The graphics are stellar and the sound is even better. There are some truly cool moments in the single player campaign (including an awesome car chase sequence and the breeching scenes). Yes, the multiplayer has some issues, like the very unfriendly menu system, but otherwise, the fireteam buddy setupI am seriously blown away by all the hate towards this game. It's completely unwarranted. The graphics are stellar and the sound is even better. There are some truly cool moments in the single player campaign (including an awesome car chase sequence and the breeching scenes). Yes, the multiplayer has some issues, like the very unfriendly menu system, but otherwise, the fireteam buddy setup is an interesting addition, and the maps and classes are well-balanced. If you're into first person military shooters, you will like this game. I get the impression a lot of the negativity is coming from self-righteous reviewers that feel they need to punish this game because they weren't given an advance copy, and gamers that feel the FPS genre is stale. If you don't like FPS - don't play them. However, I love them, and play them almost exclusively, and this is a long way from the worst one I've ever played. If you enjoyed the 2010 MoH, or more recently Battlefield 3, you'll get a kick out of this.… Expand
  29. Majinvash
    Nov 4, 2012
    4
    So played MOH DoorFighter .. Completed the Campaign.. Its poor and repetitive but visually stunning. The Multiplayer is all the worst bits of COD with the hit reg of BF3 and some weird ass random spawning on most levels.. 4/10 at best.. Don't waste your ££
  30. drosera88
    Nov 4, 2012
    5
    I really wish they'd stop half-heartedly developing these games.

    The reboot of Medal of Honor was the first MOH I actually wanted to play. It was nice to see a game that had a more realistic (relatively anyways) take on the whole military FPS that Call of Duty has so dominated these past few years. When the first one came out (2010) I really enjoyed it, but the whole experience seemed    I really wish they'd stop half-heartedly developing these games.

    The reboot of Medal of Honor was the first MOH I actually wanted to play. It was nice to see a game that had a more realistic (relatively anyways) take on the whole military FPS that Call of Duty has so dominated these past few years. When the first one came out (2010) I really enjoyed it, but the whole experience seemed rough around the edges; lots of graphics/audio glitches that could potentially ruin the atmosphere of a campaign mission. The story wasn't particularly strong, but that was never a huge issue in my mind in light of the absolutely gorgeous in-game environments (when they worked without glitches) that could literally be the closest thing to actually going the Afghanistan.

    The sad thing about 'Warfighter' is that it still has the potential at times to do the same thing. The key word though is 'potential;' this is a game that still doesn't live up to what it really could (and wants) to be. Many of the same issues that plagued the first release still pop up. In some ways, it manages to be worse. When you first put the disk in, the splash screen and menu look refined and quite beautiful. This ceases to be as soon as you make your first selection. The UI, while great to look at, is absolutely atrocious to use; quite simply it is the biggest flaw in the game and can seriously taint your experience, especially in multiplayer. When building your skill in a game, it should be only in the actual game; the UI in multiplayer literally requires you to practice it to avoid accidentally spawning as the wrong class or with the wrong loadouts. While I can deal with unbalance within any multiplayer experience, an near-unusable interface is completely unacceptable in ANY game.

    The campaign is on-par with the first. While once again the story isn't really too engaging. As someone that enjoys simulators though, I have generally have willingness to look past a mediocre/unengaging story and play as if it was simply a scenario. It's a fairly structured and linear like the first, so if open world or choose-your-own-path type play is essential to you, skip this game.

    Technically speaking the game, like the first, is incredible to behold when it works; it suffers from many of the same issues as it's predecessor. Strange glitches can really kill the atmosphere that this game tries to create. Graphics: 9
    Sound: 10
    Single Player: 7
    Multi-Player: 7.
    -----------------------------------------
    Overall: 5. While seemingly contradictory to the above numbers, my rating takes into account the the unrefined and frustrating aspects of the game; If not for that, I'd give it a 7.5    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

16
#16 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2012
42
#42 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2012

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
54

Mixed or average reviews - based on 43 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 43
  2. Mixed: 33 out of 43
  3. Negative: 8 out of 43
  1. Games Master UK
    Dec 18, 2012
    67
    Decidedly 'meh.' [Jan 2013, p.64]
  2. Hyper Magazine
    Dec 17, 2012
    40
    Bland, glitchy, linear to a fault and hopelessly redundant. You could go your whole life without playing this and not miss anything. [Jan 2013, p.72]
  3. X-ONE Magazine UK
    Dec 6, 2012
    50
    Okay in short bursts, but there's no reason to play single-player. A huge missed opportunity on EA's part and another year it won't be taking COD's crown. [Issue#92, p.78]
See all critic reviews »