Medal Of Honor: Warfighter review score affected by campaign length
Looking at some recent opinions of Medal Of Honor: Warfighter the overall review score seems to be affected by campaign length, which is regarded as short, and it seems that the storyline is not as compelling as it was in the original. Therefore we thought it would be a good idea to run through some different perspectives of the game, although the length of the campaign is a feature that really sticks out.
Powered by the same engine that runs Battlefield 3, Warfighter is regarded as a visually stunning shooter and a review on Attack of the Fanboy suggests this aspect of the game is up there with the best of them. The sound, lighting and destruction are all worth mentioning, although they are concerned with single player, as this seems to be weighed down by a whole host of unoriginal ideas that we are so familiar with. The menu is cluttered and the upgrade notification system can be hard to navigate and find certain things, in addition, the gameplay is solid in the multiplayer, although there is now much new on offer.
The gunfire is responsive, yet the single player campaign can be a bit repetitive and boring, but they do emphasis that the online play has potential. Overall, they feel there were not many risks taken with Warfighter, so there is not much in the way of excitement. In a review on Now Gamer, they award Medal Of Honor: Warfighter with a fair 6.5 out of 10, and although they also compliment the graphics and sound, the longevity and gameplay did not fetch such high praise.
The human touch that was apparent in the last game looks like is has gone walkabout in this outing, but they feel this is still a fairly solid shooter, but they also emphasis how the short campaign length hasn’t done it any favors. In other news, our most recent Warfighter post spoke about a day 1 patch, which doesn’t sound good, prior to the reviews. Apparently, this is optional, but we do recommend that this is downloaded in order progress through the single player game without plenty of bugs, which could be an issue for those without an Internet connection.
Some may feel that a day one patch is a common factor in gaming today, but the extensive list of fixes gives us reason to question how it was allowed to pass certification. Do you feel that a large day one patch is not giving gamers much confidence in Medal Of Honor: Warfighter?
- PlayBox: PS4 and Xbox 720 as one console
- GTA 5 release date avoided by Killzone Mercenary
- iPhone 6 release date rumours, colours galore
- GTA 5 features for online mode incoming
- Forge of Empires, cheats gain advantage with money
- Fallout 4 news of Boston accepted by most
- Google’s Galaxy S4, play with a Nexus version at a price
EA should just concentrate on the Battlefield aspect of their portfolio of games. It is also one of few titles that generate them a profit. They lost a substantial sum on MoH in 2010 with its huge costs to rejuvenate the classic but the competition was too fierce with CoD and BC2 being the preferred choice. It's great to see a Frostbite2 alternative but quite simply the gameplay doesn't reflect the quality of the engine. I think Warfighter is an average title in a highly competitive market and EA need to refocus their strategy. Quality not quantity and gameplay before graphics - take note Dice / EA.
Take note, this was NOT made by DICE or EA. It is made by Danger Close using DICE's Frostbite 2 engine, DICE was in no way directly involved in this, and I personally love this game so far.
Complete waste of my money. I actually really enjoyed medal of honor tier 1 and i love battlefield 3 but i HATE this game. I got it today and played a bit of single player which was very buggy even after that update 1.01 and the multiplayer sucks too. Maybe i dont like it because im a bit more accustomed to larger more open maps on battlefield but the also looked really shitty in general. I think tier 1 looks 10 times better. I already want to sell it.
I skipped THQs homefront for this very reason the single player was only 4hrs long.......when the price dropped to 29.00 i picked it up......great game really enjoyed it.......but i didnt enjoy it enough to pay 60 for a 4hr game.... Really disappointed at the length of this game and a lot of others...... I understand cost and time are big issues..... For 60 i want 12-15hrs of single player game play From now on if the reviews say less than 10hours i buy used......
I'm enjoying the game, reviews should be more around multiplayer then single player because this is where everyone spends their time, that being said I'm enjoying single player as well, graphics and realism are insane! It's not perfect but no game is.
Yeah. And plus, the single player is already longer than MW3, I'm just at the start of the first level in Sarajevo, and it's been like 5 hours (and I'm of average skill, imho)
What's the hour mark of a full campaign completion? Disregarding difficulty and trophy hunts as that can extend time. The average user campaign mode runthrough in these games has always been a grave disappointment. Medal of Honor & Call of Duty, both have amazing gameplay but the devs focus more on multi rather the single play story mode. Which in my opinion is the fun part where a game becomes more movie than tactless fun.
I am VERY disappointed in Medal of Honor: Warfighter. I am being "NICE" about it. I would have felt better paying $29.99 rather than $59.99. I purchased the XBox version yesterday at 10am at Gamestop. I began playing Singleplayer at 10:30am. By 3:30 PM I had had enough. Totally bored with the game. If anyone wants the game let me know. I use Pay Pal. $49.99 +Shipping.