The other day I was looking through the internet at all the bad Medal of Honor: Warfighter reviews, when I looked at them I saw a common theme. It seems they wanted a Call of Duty but didn’t want a Call of Duty clone, and MoH Warfighter, does more than Call of Duty. It’s about time that someone actually responded to these so called “Journalists”. Here is my reply to a post on PCGMedia.
Before I begin, I’d like to say that no game on this earth is perfect. Every game has it’s flaws and I understand that.
In a nutshell it all comes down the fact that these Journalists review a game related to other games in the same genre. I don’t see how any possible comparison can be made between CoD and MoH (By the way CoD wouldn’t have existed if it wasn’t for MoH).
Lets see why.
- In Medal of Honor you have to use actual tactics instead of running and gunning like in CoD. The enemy AI is intelligent, and as such requires actual intelligence to actually beat the game, even on easy difficult I got my arse kicked.
- Frostbite 2.0 is one of the best graphics engines out there, now while it doesn’t shine all that well on consoles, the graphics in MoH actually look really good. What a lot of people expected was destruction physics although it’s possible, it would just be another Battlefield game. With less destruction they can add more stuff into the game.
- The story wasn’t that exciting or action packed but it wasn’t by any means bad, I’ve seen worse stories. The story was realistic, written by real life military personnel.
- Cover mechanics…. does CoD have one? No. MoH does and it forces you to use it. In fact the cover system in MoH might rival that of Rianbow 6 Vegas 2 ….
- The Multiplayer requires actual teamwork. If someone is Ramboing it, then you can support them.
- If MoH didn’t do anything “New” then why are you still playing CoD? Why is CoD getting the highest praise.
There are a few good reviewers out there that will actually review the game based on how fun it is to play. One major complaint I hear from people about CoD is that it’s boring, I have yet to hear anything like that for MoH.
Are reviewers getting bored? Possibly. In my opinion I think being a video game journalist will take all the fun out of gaming. Although they do get to attend cool events such as E3 and Gamescom. So it’s a bit of a trade off really.
You can read Micheal’s report here http://pcgmedia.com/what-are-journalists-missing-when-it-comes-to-medal-of-honor-warfighter/
You’ll see what I’m talking about.
Personally I really enjoyed MoH especially the multiplayer it feels balanced and easy to get into. It also doesn’t feel like its been tacked on. The campaign is especially good with a smart AI that forces you to use any and all available cover.
The weapons feel like they pack some punch, instead of just sounding and acting like BB Guns.
- Medal of Honor: Warfighter PC Game Review (vr-zone.com)
- Medal of Honor: Warfighter’s poor reviews could spark the end of the franchise – Pachter (vg247.com)
- EA in denial: insists Medal of Honor: Warfighter is “a good game” (incgamers.com)
- EA: Warfighter is better than reviews say, trust us! (destructoid.com)
- Medal of Honor Warfighter review: rules of engagement (polygon.com)