Medal of Honor - Warfighter

[JdB 151]

Haven't played it. I liked MoH: 2010 more than any CoD campaign because of the story line. No saving the world BS, just trying to survive and help your friends. Funny to see that all of the criticism for MoH that it's receiving can be CC'ed for both CoD and BF who are praised for those exact same things.

[bangtail 0]

Ughhh :(

This game is painfully bad.

With all the claims of 'realism' and 'Authenticity' during development as well as the input of '2 dozen real world Tier 1 operators', I expected a lot more than this pathetic schlock.

As usual, pump 15-20 rounds into your opponent only to have them turn around and one shot you with a shotgun or Sniper rifle.

The maps are effectively too small for Sniper weapons. However, the Sniper rifle is the only real choice as it's the only weapon that offers any chance of a 1 or 2 shot kill. It's quite 'realistic' to see 2 x 8 man teams running around in a map the size of a Walmart, all hip firing .50 cal rifles.

Absolutely no penetration modelled. A blade of grass will stop your bullets, wooden shutters are very effective cover against .50 cal rifles.

You will consistently spawn under the world or out of bounds (and find yourself unable to re-enter the map proper).

There is also cheating en masse, that started the day after launch :(

If you must try this game, wait until it is $20.00 (even that is too much IMHO).

JFYI, I finished the campaign in 3 hours (and it is largely a 'line em up, knock em down' affair'), so the SP is not a reason to buy it either.

Edited November 5, 2012 by BangTail

[chortles 263]

At least be grateful that BI is churning out 'dream' games whilst EA/Activision is diverting the mainstream ignorant masses away from ArmA with their releases... Imagine how chaotic ArmA would be with all those 11/12 year olds.

*cough then ARMA 2 Free or DayZ happened, pick whichever the BI forums community would rather bash more cough*

Here's my take on the problem with the Warfighter campaign: The 2010 game's campaign was basically Operation Anaconda with the Battle of Takur Ghar/Roberts Ridge featured, so it's one relatively coherent story and series of events. The Warfighter campaign on the other hand is a number of real-world but unrelated missions (you can't convince me that Hat Trick was anything but "let's throw in the 2009 rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the MV Maersk Alabama") that were then strung together with a fictional story... which actually reminds me of my impression that the MW2 campaign was essentially the IW guys coming up with what they thought were cool individual "set piece" missions first, then coming up with the overarching story second; I held this impression as well regarding MW3, which led to me considering the COD4 and WaW/Black Ops campaigns to all be better than MW2/MW3's as stories/narratives... heck, based on the two "timelines"' existing track records I'm expecting Black Ops II to have a better story/narrative than MW2 or MW3! :p

The bit about Preacher's relationship is actually an relatively unique touch (when's the last time a shooter treated the protagonist as a human for whom the real threat to his family was his constant absence and the only way to save his family was to walk away from "the war"?)... but instead of it being a passing-the-torch moment, back in he goes and his wife reconciles with him anyway, as the PC Gamer review points out. Then again, it's understandable that the writers, the publishers or the military consultants wouldn't want the story to get to the point that CSM Chris Faris and Lisa Faris' marriage did.

In any case, that subplot doesn't solve the fundamental problem with the Warfighter campaign that I voiced in the first paragraph -- it's not a campaign, it's a set of missions with not as much to do with each other as you'd imagine should be the case because they're all basically "this kind of mission, then this kind of mission", whereas at least MW2/MW3's Special Ops mode is "honest" enough for their missions to explicitly be unrelated one-offs. There, I just managed to deconstruct the Warfighter campaign without "whining" (your word InstaGoat). :o

At least ARMA 3's campaign has no need to claim authenticity, thanks to being set fifty years after the Armaversum diverged from our timeline in Everon :lol:

With all the claims of 'realism' and 'Authenticity' during development as well as the input of '2 dozen real world Tier 1 operators', I expected a lot more than this pathetic schlock.

*cough* Authenticity versus realism... the Warfighter producer already talked about the distinction back around E3.

The maps are effectively too small for Sniper weapons however, the Sniper rifle is the only real choice as it's the only weapon that offers any chance of a 1 or 2 shot kill.

Funny thing about sniper rifles for me in Warfighter was during the sniping segment early in the campaign where you have a spotter... only for the claimed distances to be within ~200 meters or less. I didn't even mind that the targets were identified distances above their heads (Spacebar in ARMA on Recruit difficulty, anyone?) or that only bullet drop was simulated, I just find it insulting in retrospect that a sniping segment is at "200 meters". Entirely realistic? It may well have happened in real life. Does it fit for the gameplay... can't say I feel so.

You will consistently spawn under the world or out of bounds (and find yourself unable to re-enter the map proper).

There is also cheating en masse, that started the day after launch :(

In fairness, this isn't "oh this is them not being authentic or realistic", if it's consistent then this is just a case of QA failure that makes the game seem (even moreso than before) rushed to meet the release date target -- as in "get this out before Black Ops comes out". Oh wait, that already happened last year with BF3 and MW3...

In fact, speaking of that parallel I'd suggest to JdB that there's a (legitimate) reason that MOH catches the criticism so hard while COD and BF are spared... EA doesn't "go to bat" as hard for MOH as it does for BF because MOH is not the designated COD-killer that BF is, MOH is the game that fills in between BF installments to make BF seem less stale, and the difference in rank is reflected in the difference in quality (and apparent effort put in) between the two franchises. Remember Flash Thunder's reaction?

MOH Warfighter's main selling point is that it lets you get into the Battlefield 4 beta.

LMAO

Was the same thing with MOH2010 and BF3.

A great illustration of what was wrong with MOH: Warfighter as a whole. Moreover, let's quote that PC Gamer review:

The trick to enjoying the mainstream singleplayer military shooter, which includes Modern Warfare and Battlefield, is to remove them from the broader first-person shooter genre. Instead, think of them as arcade rail shooters, and therefore solely about popping out from behind cover, popping heads, and occasionally popping a new clip into your gun. By these meagre ambitions, Modern Warfare 3 was a mildly enjoyable romp – and Warfighter is still a failure.

Basically in both single-player and multi-player, it lacks what I've talked about previously, a "big idea", a substantive "why is your game different from COD?" and that's right, I don't mean a "how", I mean a "why", and yes I say COD because by sheer 'size' they get to set the standard. :p BF3 can answer back with vehicular combat as part and parcel (no matter how arcadey, killstreaks aren't involved) and larger maps than COD and not being primarily TDM-based, ARMA can answer back with it having both vehicle combat and even bigger maps and its infantry gameplay being more hardcore than BF/COD plus of course modding, MAG could answer back that it was a "massive multiplayer online team/objective-based shooter" (c'mon, ever seen a 32 vs. 32 vs. 32 match anywhere else?) as arcadey as it was... what could MOH: Warfighter answer back with? Fireteams? Peek and lean?

[bangtail 0]

*cough* Authenticity versus realism... the Warfighter producer already talked about the distinction back around E3.

Yah, he (the developer) makes pretty outrageous claims to both and the game fails horribly on both counts so the 'distinction' is moot imho.

This article illustrates that rather well:

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/24/doubling-down-on-authenticity-in-medal-of-honor-warfighter/

FTR, I really enjoyed Danger Close's first MOH (I know I was in the minority). That campaign actually did feel rather authentic and the weapon handling was remarkably good for the most part.

I guess, as you said, WF is more of an attempt to challenge CoD, which was a mistake imho. Then again, EA seems to be in the business of mistakes of late :rolleyes:

Edited November 5, 2012 by BangTail

[GRS 10]

http://miracleofsound.bandcamp.com/track/medal-of-honor-door-fighter

Click it.

[bangtail 0]

http://miracleofsound.bandcamp.com/track/medal-of-honor-door-fighter

Click it.

I see your comedy and raise you:

[krycek 349]

They'll never change their ways,I really can't blame them for putting exactly the same crap year after year.I can't blame them because no matter how much people will say exactly what is wrong with this type of "AAA" game there are always a few million individuals that buy them,each........friggin......year.These franchises don't even exist on my radar,wanna see what's new in the new COD150,Mohaa79 and NFS99??Simple just go and copy&paste the "features" from last year,or the year before.The industry is in this mess not because of sleazy giants like EA,Ubi and Activison,it's because of the millions of gamers that buys their stuff everytime and basically reinforcing the big corps of doing things.

Makes me mad when really quality games like Arma,X series,Stalker(RIP) and many others have to actually struggle to sell 1 or 2 million copies and then a shitty interactive movie like CoD or Mohaa comes speeding past them and saying "hahahaha suckers I sold 5 million copies of basically the same turd this year again".

[Tonci87 163]

they'll never change their ways,i really can't blame them for putting exactly the same crap year after year.i can't blame them because no matter how much people will say exactly what is wrong with this type of "aaa" game there are always a few million individuals that buy them,each........friggin......year.these franchises don't even exist on my radar,wanna see what's new in the new cod150,mohaa79 and nfs99??simple just go and copy&paste the "features" from last year,or the year before.the industry is in this mess not because of sleazy giants like ea,ubi and activison,it's because of the millions of gamers that buys their stuff everytime and basically reinforcing the big corps of doing things.

Makes me mad when really quality games like arma,x series,stalker(rip) and many others have to actually struggle to sell 1 or 2 million copies and then a shitty interactive movie like cod or mohaa comes speeding past them and saying "hahahaha suckers i sold 5 million copies of basically the same turd this year again".

^this

[bangtail 0]

They'll never change their ways,I really can't blame them for putting exactly the same crap year after year.I can't blame them because no matter how much people will say exactly what is wrong with this type of "AAA" game there are always a few million individuals that buy them,each........friggin......year.These franchises don't even exist on my radar,wanna see what's new in the new COD150,Mohaa79 and NFS99??Simple just go and copy&paste the "features" from last year,or the year before.The industry is in this mess not because of sleazy giants like EA,Ubi and Activison,it's because of the millions of gamers that buys their stuff everytime and basically reinforcing the big corps of doing things.

Makes me mad when really quality games like Arma,X series,Stalker(RIP) and many others have to actually struggle to sell 1 or 2 million copies and then a shitty interactive movie like CoD or Mohaa comes speeding past them and saying "hahahaha suckers I sold 5 million copies of basically the same turd this year again".

While I agree with you in general, that wasn't the case with MOH. The first one was actually quite good (The SP campaign at any rate).

I think many people (myself included) expected MOH:WF to be more of the same but I forgot that very few people in the gaming sphere know anything about that old adage 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' which is why we have this horrible attempt to compete with CoD :(

[katipo66 94]

They'll never change their ways,I really can't blame them for putting exactly the same crap year after year.I can't blame them because no matter how much people will say exactly what is wrong with this type of "AAA" game there are always a few million individuals that buy them,each........friggin......year.These franchises don't even exist on my radar,wanna see what's new in the new COD150,Mohaa79 and NFS99??Simple just go and copy&paste the "features" from last year,or the year before.The industry is in this mess not because of sleazy giants like EA,Ubi and Activison,it's because of the millions of gamers that buys their stuff everytime and basically reinforcing the big corps of doing things.

Makes me mad when really quality games like Arma,X series,Stalker(RIP) and many others have to actually struggle to sell 1 or 2 million copies and then a shitty interactive movie like CoD or Mohaa comes speeding past them and saying "hahahaha suckers I sold 5 million copies of basically the same turd this year again".

Nothing has changed man, surely you've brought a big Mac every now and then... COD and it's ilk can be addictive and fun and satisfied in under 20-30 mins, most people simply want to play in a virtual world as opposed to being lost in one.

[slatts 1978]

played it in my mates house for a couple of hours, no way will I buy it. Leaving all the talk about it like the posts above me the game just isn't my cup of tea

[mr_centipede 31]

In defense to Ubi and EA, I think they have become the company that is Too Big to fail... I think you folks are more informed about what that term means. But from my limited understanding, they have become so big, with so many staffs to pay, they need a game that sells millions in a relatively short time to support themselves. I dont think they can simply fire people.. that would trigger a lawsuit I think... so that's my take of that term Too Big to Fail...

So being big and rich isnt all that fun I guess? But still, the consumer also played a part. Companies wont make things ppl wont buy. General public will buy anything thats painted in black and slap the word tactical on it....

[Tonci87 163]

In defense to Ubi and EA, I think they have become the company that is Too Big to fail... I think you folks are more informed about what that term means. But from my limited understanding, they have become so big, with so many staffs to pay, they need a game that sells millions in a relatively short time to support themselves. I dont think they can simply fire people.. that would trigger a lawsuit I think... so that's my take of that term Too Big to Fail...

So being big and rich isnt all that fun I guess? But still, the consumer also played a part. Companies wont make things ppl wont buy. General public will buy anything thats painted in black and slap the word tactical on it....

It´s not that simple.

EA Logic:

EA has its shareholders, mostly people who don´t know shit about gaming. Those shareholders want to see profit, thats why they invest in the company. Shareholders don´t care if EA makes bad games as long as those games sell. EA has proven that bad games do sell very well if you hype them enough. EA doesn´t care if they inflict damage to the companys name (they are the bad guys anyways) since shareholders are not gamers. Shareholders will be happy as long as the company sells games. EA is therefore focused on quick profit instead of going for long term investments (They don´t care if they drive a brand into the ground, they´ll create a new one by using excessive marketing). EA can´t take any risks, the games have to sell, therefore you will always get games that are mainstream and that appeal to the lowest common dominator.

And yes it is working

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:EA

Look at the last 3 Months, they are doing well.

Also

http://news.yahoo.com/electronic-arts-q3-forecast-disappoints-medal-seen-lagging-011609994--sector.html

[chortles 263]

Makes me mad when really quality games like Arma,X series,Stalker(RIP) and many others have to actually struggle to sell 1 or 2 million copies and then a shitty interactive movie like CoD or Mohaa comes speeding past them and saying "hahahaha suckers I sold 5 million copies of basically the same turd this year again".

It doesn't make me mad, for the same reasons that you didn't blame the big companies -- I've regularly made jokes that Cryptic Studios' Star Trek Online devs had a mentality of trying to do as little work as possible while raking in the money, and that if they ever got pushed into a corner and "forced" to make new story content instead of merely making new cosmetic items or ships, they might simply say "the hell with you, we're putting this MMO into maintenance mode" (read: stopping development and just keeping the servers up). Likewise, see what Tonci87 said... it's not about making good games, it's about keeping profits high enough that the shareholders don't vote out the executives and their hefty pay. :D

Yah, he (the developer) makes pretty outrageous claims to both and the game fails horribly on both counts so the 'distinction' is moot imho.

On the contrary, I thought that he was perfectly in the right by outright saying that it was entertainment and not a simulation, and the "authenticity" versus "realism" split actually made sense to me -- "setting and depictions of what do real-world SOF use in equipment and CQB/room entry tactics" versus "regenerating health, multiple bullets to a kill, weapon stats being based on game 'balance' (instead of weapon selection for game balance) and so on". (I was actually surprised in a good way by how badly I was getting chewed up when I tried to "run and gun" in Warfighter SP on Easy, only to find that I did have to play the infantry combat somewhat more like a "cover" shooter, though at least it had peek-and-lean for that.) Here is what I feel is a better (than yours :p) critique of the "authenticity" promoting by EA...

"Why did Warfighter flop? Because if you asked EA what their 'big idea' was for Warfighter, they'd probably answer 'authenticity' instead of something actually having to do with gameplay."

FTR, I really enjoyed Danger Close's first MOH (I know I was in the minority). That campaign actually did feel rather authentic and the weapon handling was remarkably good for the most part.

I don't recall weapon handling in MOH, but as you said re: the campaign feeling authentic... again, that was because it was a videogame adaptation of Operation Anaconda that was simply divided into segments, unlike Warfighter's "missions first, overall story second" (oh wait that feels like MW2) of which the "Hat Trick" mission is the most glaring example. Compared to that, no wonder the first game's SP had the better story.

I guess, as you said, WF is more of an attempt to challenge CoD, which was a mistake imho. Then again, EA seems to be in the business of mistakes of late :rolleyes:

Unfortunately you misinterpreted me here: WF is not an attempt to challenge CoD, it's "what we put out to pass the time until (and maybe playtest some possible mechanics for) the actual attempt to challenge CoD". I'd dare say that the reason it got taken to task more critically than CoD or BF3 is because substantively speaking it's actually closer to CoD than to BF3... :p

As for InstaGoat's complaining about these "good" games not being made? Lately video game decision making has been coming down to "safe bets" and sometimes corporate politics, investment vs. return -- though in BI's case, frankly speaking they lack competition ever since DR was exposed and Sion Lenton** told critics of RR to go play ARMA :lol: As for investment vs. return... when the buyer base for "lowest common denominator" shooters extends to "nongamers" who aren't looking to be challenged because "I already get enough of that outside of gaming" (very important here) then yeah, the RoI seems higher because they can grab money from people who otherwise would have nothing to do with gaming! :D But it's not like BI shouldn't consider whether they'd actually gain sales enough to justify the time/money/effort investment into certain requested features... and they have been paying attention to investment vs. return, going by some of Instgoat's reporting on the Gamescom ARMA 3 build, some of the apparent "feelers" that Rocket put out before the standalone's announcement, and that survey that Gekon put up for ARMA 3 and online social networking integration.

In the case of Warfighter, I imagine that the RoI was pretty small... but that expectations weren't that high to begin with because EA didn't even value the MOH brand enough, it literally exists to make BF look better by releasing them in alternating years, similar to how the IW/Treyarch have alternated development (at this point it's become part of the promoting, the studio "rivalry") and their respective timelines since COD4. Unfortunately, the quality problems and "lack of a big idea" in Warfighter I believe to be the result of the lack of value that EA places on the MOH brand.

(By the way, thank you InstaGoat for your reports on GC12, they were absolutely invaluable in giving me a positive impression of ARMA 3 and actually promoted it well in my eyes. :D)

* Frankly, Firaxis' Jake Solomon had a much better reaction when it came to XCOM: Enemy Unknown versus Xenonauts than Sion Lenton did when it came to the ARMA franchise versus Codemasters' OFP duology.

[jakerod 254]

Navy SEALs gave away secrets to Medal of Honor: Warfighter (Gamespot)

Navy SEALs busted for giving secrets to make video game more real (CNN)

Interesting. Wonder why they did that.

[chortles 263]

As did the No Easy Day author! From the LA Times article that the Kotaku article is based on:

EA’s Brown would not confirm the names of the former troops. Asked about <him>, who went under the name of Mark Owen in his work for EA, Brown said, “EA did not directly remunerate Mark Owen for his input on ‘Medal of Honor Warfighter.’â€

A person who has knowledge of the work said EA didn’t hire <him> directly, instead paying a company called Silent R. EA’s Brown acknowledged that his company used Silent R “to produce a series of promotional videos on authentic combat experiences in the war on terror.â€

[metalcraze 290]

This failure is amazing. EA proves time and again that you need some kind of talent to make a "game" like CoD after all.

[Prydain 1]

Why did they need Navy SEALs? It wasn't as if every single scene was, in any way, realistic.

What did those guys advise them on? The part where you are speeding around Dubai (or, since I wasn't paying attention, wherever the fuck it is) in a sports car? The part where you put C4 on a truck driven by a civilian to cause a diversion in a major port in Pakistan? The part where the protagonist goes psycotic and kills everyone on a boat just because his mate, who deserved it by the way, was shot in the head? Or maybe it is the part where the Pakistani military is using Little Birds?

It is all a load of shit.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Navy Seals spilled the beans to hopefully make a generic game not so generic.

FPDR

[icebreakr 3100]

I see it as a good PR stunt for US military services... and wont touch that console arcade gamey ;)

[Smurf 12]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/ap-sources-navy-seals-punished-for-secrets-breach/story-fnbzs1v0-1226514183229

[jefferspang 2]

Really nothing compromising info in MoH, No Easy Day or Zero Dark Thirty. I really think all these punishments and official statements are forced by the media hype surrounding this. I've read No Easy Day and nothing in it that a gear enthusiast wouldn't know of, I mean not even the stealth helicopter was mentioned. If Matt Bissonnette was in trouble for writing the book, why shouldn't the author of OP-Geronimo be prosecuted too? Or KBL's author?

However I don't agree with ex-SF's cashing in on their career title. Why should someone who violated their oath be rewarded with 6 figure book deals whilst the true quiet professionals get nothing?

[onlyrazor 11]

However I don't agree with ex-SF's cashing in on their career title. Why should someone who violated their oath be rewarded with 6 figure book deals whilst the true quiet professionals get nothing?

Because the world's not fair. It's the opportunists that make the big bucks.

[bangtail 0]

On the contrary, I thought that he was perfectly in the right by outright saying that it was entertainment and not a simulation, and the "authenticity" versus "realism" split actually made sense to me -- "setting and depictions of what do real-world SOF use in equipment and CQB/room entry tactics" versus "regenerating health, multiple bullets to a kill, weapon stats being based on game 'balance' (instead of weapon selection for game balance) and so on". (I was actually surprised in a good way by how badly I was getting chewed up when I tried to "run and gun" in Warfighter SP on Easy, only to find that I did have to play the infantry combat somewhat more like a "cover" shooter, though at least it had peek-and-lean for that.) Here is what I feel is a better (than yours :p) critique of the "authenticity" promoting by EA...

All games are entertainment but imho, what was implied is not what was delivered. In any case it's subjective and based on the respective player's perspective (I say Tomahto, you say tomaeto)

I don't recall weapon handling in MOH, but as you said re: the campaign feeling authentic... again, that was because it was a videogame adaptation of Operation Anaconda that was simply divided into segments, unlike Warfighter's "missions first, overall story second" (oh wait that feels like MW2) of which the "Hat Trick" mission is the most glaring example. Compared to that, no wonder the first game's SP had the better story.

In the case of MW 2 and 3 as well as MOH: WF, the stories were horrid and that did a lot to kill the immersion for me.

Unfortunately you misinterpreted me here: WF is not an attempt to challenge CoD, it's "what we put out to pass the time until (and maybe playtest some possible mechanics for) the actual attempt to challenge CoD". I'd dare say that the reason it got taken to task more critically than CoD or BF3 is because substantively speaking it's actually closer to CoD than to BF3... :p

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. We can both speculate endlessly about why what was done when but that doesn't make either of us right ;)

/5 chars

Edited November 11, 2012 by BangTail

[rye1 21]

I mean not even the stealth helicopter was mentioned

It was in his interview with 60 minutes. Though relatively short and hush, hush. They said "modified" quite a lot. Basically never talked about the noise suppressors on the rotors or anything, they just said it was a modified Blackhawk. Infact a few things he mentioned there weren't in the book. But I'm glad they got it handed to them, it's gotten a bit over the top: Haven't they heard of limited exposure? Any word of what "secrets" they let out? Because it sounds to me like they got a slap on the wrist for talking too much, and then the media jumped to conclusions.