Medal of Honor: Warfighter

[Jayhmmz]

I just published one of my articles on my website in regards to the new Medal of Honor game, Warfighter. Lame name, I know!

I thought it would be a good thing to discuss on Gamers Forum considering it's a franchise that holds many flaws and few positives, with a lot of "what cloud have been" titles.

In my article, which I hope you'll read, I talk about how there hasn't really been a MoH title since Allied Assault back in 2002 that has come anywhere close to delivering the standard of gameplay that Allied Assault did and still does. It was an epic game, both on campaign and multiplayer.

Airborne, in my opinion, was the only MoH game, along with possibly Pacific Assault, to ever come close to being as good as Allied Assault was, but it was still a long way off, due to broken multiplayer and lack of stability in performance. Pretty much the story of the MoH time-line since 2002, no?

For all of those who are veterans like myself in the world of MoH, I hope you'll join in with me to start a debate about the franchise, and what could be done to make it all better once again.

[Mclovvinn]

That was a very informative and interesting article! I totally agree with you that they should have stopped producing MoH games along time ago so they don't ruin the name for people who remember the original amazing games released. I will also not be getting my hopes up about "Warfighter" HOWEVER I will still look over it to see if they can somehow rekindle the once great MoH series

[paecmaker]

What I want them to is to stop challenging cod in its own game.

MoH (2010) had the chance of becoming a really good game, the mp was from Dice and the singleplayer was going to be more realistic and personal. Well the SP was indeed more realistic and a bit slower than the mw campaigns however instead of a advantage it turned into a disadvantage.

Mw got all these fancy explosions and tanks to cover up the basis that they run on ancient hardware and is basicly just a corridor with spamming bots.

MoH lacked many of these explosions so it was easy to see the extremely linear gameplay with boring surroundings and somewhat mediocre graphics. That the two first missions was boring and seemed really cut out from the rest of the game, and you had no idee what you were actually doing, in one moment you talk to a shepard that points up that there are talibans in the hills and the next moment you storm an airfield with mortars and grenades everywhere.

I liked the story but the gameplay wasnt living up to it, what I want them to do is making the gameplay more open but still adding a more realistic story and FOR GOD SAKE NEVER EVER NAME YOUR GAME TO WARFIGHTER!!!!!

Even "MoH fighter of wars" would be better(ok maybe not but still never name them that).

[Jayhmmz]

That was a very informative and interesting article! I totally agree with you that they should have stopped producing MoH games along time ago so they don't ruin the name for people who remember the original amazing games released. I will also not be getting my hopes up about "Warfighter" HOWEVER I will still look over it to see if they can somehow rekindle the once great MoH series

Thankya, Sir. I'm hoping for the same.

What I want them to is to stop challenging cod in its own game.

MoH (2010) had the chance of becoming a really good game, the mp was from Dice and the singleplayer was going to be more realistic and personal. Well the SP was indeed more realistic and a bit slower than the mw campaigns however instead of a advantage it turned into a disadvantage.

Mw got all these fancy explosions and tanks to cover up the basis that they run on ancient hardware and is basicly just a corridor with spamming bots.

MoH lacked many of these explosions so it was easy to see the extremely linear gameplay with boring surroundings and somewhat mediocre graphics. That the two first missions was boring and seemed really cut out from the rest of the game, and you had no idee what you were actually doing, in one moment you talk to a shepard that points up that there are talibans in the hills and the next moment you storm an airfield with mortars and grenades everywhere.

I liked the story but the gameplay wasnt living up to it, what I want them to do is making the gameplay more open but still adding a more realistic story and FOR GOD SAKE NEVER EVER NAME YOUR GAME TO WARFIGHTER!!!!!

Even "MoH fighter of wars" would be better(ok maybe not but still never name them that).

Spot-on mate.

[Garrity]

I wish they didn't use the name.
I think Medal Of Honour: Warfighter is definitely risking alot. I loved the 2010 release. It was as a game, pretty good but as a Medal of Honour title not matching it's ancestors. Airborne was a great game, I remember playing it for the first time and just being like "... Wow...". In your fourth paragraph you mention that the uniforms are accurate and I think that, on not just the accuracy but the single player as a whole, there is a great amount of detail. I felt like a Tier-1 operative as I scanned the dark quiet town, with the terrible Hindu Kush music blaring from the truck's radio. I guess the way you take the game is down to what kind of gamer you are and what your interests are. I mean, I airsoft and I have taken part in training exercises with live rounds as a cadet so I have that kind of "Operator Mentality". Medal of Honour was great in the fact that CoD said: "Alright, this is what special ops soldiers do! They grow beards, have mohawks, say Oorah, use M203's excessively and carry equipment they'll never use." and then Medal of Honour came along and said "No. We spoke to them." and they pretty much gave people a sense of reality about what those guys do out there. They use Sig Sauers. They use CQBR's. They drive quads. They Use ANYTHING. I think MW very inaccurately conveyed the British. I want to see Warfighter's Brits. Medal of Honour impressed those hardcore milsimers like me and others more than CoD could. I mean, even the rangers who were not Tier-1. Have you seen guys like them before? They didn't look like your typical soldiers. As for the multiplayer I don't believe there was ANY competition between Call of Duty and Medal of Honour 2010. You had a total whore of a game that spoiled gamers against a game that stood it's ground. And the gamers, rolling in their faecal matter constructed of perks and eating from their trough consisting of inaccurate weapons and customisation: Chose Call of Duty. If they maintain their authenticity they'll make a name (albeit not a name they really deserve) again, but if they try to make a CoD and Battlefield hybrid, they will be sunk.

[paecmaker]

From what Ive seen from E3 the only thing I actually liked was when you breached the door(and all these fancy options appeared). Hopefully it means that they will give the player more choices in how they should play, but yet again it still seemed like cod(or battlefield) with better graphics.

What is it with choices everyone seems to be so afraid of?

[Jayhmmz]

From what Ive seen from E3 the only thing I actually liked was when you breached the door(and all these fancy options appeared). Hopefully it means that they will give the player more choices in how they should play, but yet again it still seemed like cod(or battlefield) with better graphics.

What is it with choices everyone seems to be so afraid of?

To be honest, that door thing is nothing new, because it's very similar to what has been featured in the Call of Duty franchise, starting with CoD4.
I'm just bored of FPS games now, because not a lot of developers are showing any sign of innovation. Even though EA DICE made BF3 awesome, I'm taking a break from it.