Support NeoGAF

[Stallion Free]

The game looks awesome in the screenshots though.

Dennis saving games, one screen at a time.

Spoiler

Dennis tricking people to buy games with pretty screens

 

[Rated-Rsuperstar]

Just finished that first driving mission. Pretty damn good.

I also got to say some of the melee moves are just brutal. The very first one I did was kicking a guy in the knee followed by shoving a knife up through his chin into his brain. Ouch.

 

[Cudder]

No, there's nothing wrong with that but had you actually read the thread it's the end all argument that is constantly presented: but Call of Duty. Whenever you say this game is bad, "But Call of Duty". Apparently Call of Duty is the only game in existence and any shortfalls of that game will make everything in this pile of wank a-okay. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it but now I just need a reason for the constant mentions of Call of Duty ... Because now there's no comparison points presented or parallels drawn, it's just "But Call of Duty".

People can use it all they want. I'd just like to see people present a counter-argument for this game not being bad that isn't "But Call of Duty".

And where did I say they can't talk to me unless they agree? Sounds more like the other way around, "Oh you're being negative - Go away".

They are both modern military shooters. One being the most popular game in existence in these recent years. That's reason enough for the comparisons. It's also been compared to Battlefield 3, as well as MoH 2010. Why WOULDN'T you compare it to these? Which games exactly would you "feel better" about it being compared to?

And to me, "ignore me if you don't like my opinion." sounds like "agree with me or don't reply to me."

 

[Sethos]

They are both modern military shooters. One being the most popular game in existence in these recent years. That's reason enough for the comparisons. It's also been compared to Battlefield 3, as well as MoH 2010. Why WOULDN'T you compare it to these? Which games exactly would you "feel better" about it being compared to?

And to me, "ignore me if you don't like my opinion." sounds like "agree with me or don't reply to me."

I'm not saying they can't be compared, I'm saying people are brushing off opinions with that argument. When someone calls this game bad, the reply seems to be "But Call of Duty". How in the heavens is that any sort of defense for this game sucking ass? It's like a scapegoat of sorts or some butthurt attitude towards another game that somehow excuses this one. I've barely seen any positive arguments for this game that didn't include a moot comparison to another game, as this game can apparently not stand on its own two feet.

You use comparisons when you want to make a point. Just saying a game name constantly isn't making a point.

And "Ignore me if you don't like me opinion" is a reply to the quote below where a guy is fairly riled up about my negative opinions. Basically telling me to say something positive or shut up - Hence my "It's a discussion forum" argument earlier. This is why I'm telling the person to ignore me.

Still better than Call of Duty. Unless of course you're determined to shit on this game at every turn regardless. There's fun to be had if you know what to look for. You apparently do not. So quit being a drama queen and just saying the game is bad. If that's all you have to say about it, then don't say anything at all. It gets tiring, and the scores tell enough as it were.

 

[SapientWolf]

The people that don't care for this style of game are going to be far more negative towards it than those that enjoy it. It makes it difficult to contextualize the feedback. People are coming down harder on Warfighter than Homefront.

 

[Stallion Free]

The people that don't care for this style of game are going to be far more negative towards it than those that enjoy it. It makes it difficult to contextualize the feedback. People are coming down harder on Warfighter than Homefront.

I take it you haven't seen anyone speak of Homefront in the Steam thread. That game gets dog-piled like no other.

 

[Sojgat]

Just playing through the campaign again on tier 1, did anyone else notice that the start of the

Spoiler

Finding Faraz mission is actually the weird little epilogue from the first game

? Pretty cool little touch.

 

[Sethos]

People are coming down harder on Warfighter than Homefront.

Wait, what? I've seen nothing but ragging down on Homefront.

 

[SapientWolf]

I take it you haven't seen anyone speak of Homefront in the Steam thread. That game gets dog-piled like no other.

I'm mostly talking about the press. I'm well aware that I'm the only GAFfer that enjoyed Homefront (for the MP).

 

[hellclerk]

Who gives a fuck if it's better than Call of Duty. Call of Duty isn't the only game in existence. Why are people constantly harping on about Call of Duty whenever someone mentions this game is bad? Some sort of inferiority complex? Sure it's riding off the back of CoD but still isn't the only comparison point.

I still disagree however, this campaign takes the cake as the worst FPS campaign I've played in years. BF3 had that honour before but this just swept in and stole it away. Pure and utter garbage.

And this is a discussion forum, ignore me if you don't like my opinion.

Because Call of Duty SP gets praise from reviewers despite being roughly the same sort of progression. But if you really think that MoHW's campaign is worse than BF3's, you either have some pretty sweet rose tinted glasses or people really shouldn't be listening to you. These levels are much more interesting, and you're forced out of stealth MUCH less. I actually managed to get through most of "Bump in the Night" without the crew knowing I was even there before I missed a shot and alerted a bunch of dudes. I'm not saying the game doesn't have problems. There are definitely alot of bugs in MP that need to be addressed, but those are bugs, things that fight AGAINST the inherent gameplay. There are balancing issues as well, but every every multiplayer game has those. Do you remember BF3 early on? Well now it's almost perfect.

I'm not saying that the game is worth the full price in its current state (maybe after the bugs have been cleared and there's a better idea of the post-launch support), and if you have that half-off premium thing, go for it, but to give Warfighter the kind of shit you're giving it fails to be constructive and is disingenuous to the game and those who are looking to play it. See, my issue isn't you disliking the game. I can totally understand that and support your opinion. My issue is you being nonconstructive with your dislike. You say alot about how bad the game is, but I haven't seen much on the "why" other than the standard "generic, linear, etc." in which case I have to ask, what the hell were you expecting? 2010 was MUCH more linear and on-rails than this, and the SP gunplay felt meh. It was also shorter and less diverse in environments. Warfighter is an improvement on every level. There are some setbacks (creepy wife and child, disjointed narrative, see below), but overall it's a vast improvement. It just needs debugging. Now if that doesn't happen, I am right behind you, but until I know that much, don't count the game out so fast.

Its my understanding that the SP campaign suffered from some major, last minute edits forced on Danger Close by EA that reordered several missions (thereby disjointing the plot) and added the first two levels ostensibly to put more action upfront.

The action as originally written set in a fairly intricate story of how the heroes were unravelling the enemy network from two ends -- the overt end with TF MAKO and the covert end with TF BLACKBIRD. (It was a parallel to the way the MOH2010 story was told from the dueling points of view of recon-focused WOLFPACK and the assault-focused NEPTUNE.) This was meant to emphasize what the military advisors said about counterterrorism being a combination of complex analysis and rapid action and give the SP a sort of "military detective thriller" feel.

I guess EA didn't think that would compete with CoD, but I would have liked to have played that game.

And before anyone asks, no I don't work for EA. Its all just friend-of-a-friend rumors. I do think it makes sense given what so many people are saying about how they enjoyed the SP in the middle of the game and how the first two missions don't feel like MoH. I also think it makes sense if you look at the link chart on the wall in the background of the Dusty scenes and watch the cutscenes like the ones before and after the Bosnia mission -- there seems to be a lot of story that was crippled in editing.

Take it for what its worth. I don't disagree with people who liked it and I don't disagree with people who hated it. There are alot of reasons to do both with this game.

If that's true... man, fuck EA and their marketeers. Those guys are responsible for pretty much every bad marketing campaign, every sin against literature, every bad turn of a good franchise. These guys just do not know how to do their job well. It's like they're stuck in 90s marketing sensibilities with massive commoditization and no respect for the intelligence of their consumers. They are everything wrong with the industry made manifest, which is sad because they have some of the most talented developers in the industry. For them to be the source of the woes with this game makes all too much sense.

 

[Y2Kev]

The game looks good. Frostbite is a great engine.

 

[Cudder]

I'm not saying they can't be compared, I'm saying people are brushing off opinions with that argument. When someone calls this game bad, the reply seems to be "But Call of Duty". How in the heavens is that any sort of defense for this game sucking ass? It's like a scapegoat of sorts or some butthurt attitude towards another game that somehow excuses this one. I've barely seen any positive arguments for this game that didn't include a moot comparison to another game, as this game can apparently not stand on its own two feet.

You use comparisons when you want to make a point. Just saying a game name constantly isn't making a point.

I'm not sure I follow you. People are comparing this game to COD (and other games) because they are trying to make a point as to how and why MoH is bad. It's easy to understand. MoH does almost everything wrong, while COD does those same things in a much, much better way. Comparisons are inevitable.

And you're right. This game can't stand on it's own two feet. Hence the reviews.

 

[Sethos]

Because Call of Duty SP gets praise from reviewers despite being roughly the same sort of progression. But if you really think that MoHW's campaign is worse than BF3's, you either have some pretty sweet rose tinted glasses or people really shouldn't be listening to you. These levels are much more interesting, and you're forced out of stealth MUCH less. I actually managed to get through most of "Bump in the Night" without the crew knowing I was even there. I'm not saying the game doesn't have problems. There are definitely alot of bugs in MP that need to be addressed, but those are bugs, things that fight AGAINST the inherent gameplay. There are balancing issues as well, but every every multiplayer game has those. Do you remember BF3 early on? Well now it's almost perfect

So I have rose tinted glasses on because I like this game less than another pile of crap campaign? Oh please. It's funny that you consider your own opinion worth that much more because it's positive towards this game - A game that is already slated and ragged on everywhere.

People keep harping on about some level design and story. I'm sorry, those are the least of this game's worries. The level design is fairly drab and generic all the way through, with very little in the way of pace change outside of the driving mission which was serviceable but nothing more. It was totally buggy though, graphical settings from the options menu didn't apply and I had to alt + tab out to get a proper resolution.

However as I wrote earlier, these are some of the things wrong with this game;

- Friendly AI is so fucking useless, they will run past enemies, not shoot baddies that are beating you down from behind despite standing right behind the baddie doing nothing. They just sit there and look generic, activate triggers and do the breaching for you. Useless friendly AIs can be found in a lot of shooters but this is the worst, to the point of sheer and utter frustration. I've even seen my teammates shoot at me!

- God-Tier enemy AI that can pop out and fire 18 shot straight in your face in a staggering time of 0.8 milliseconds. They will, due to the poor friendly AI, bumrush you quite often when reloading 20 meters away. Sometimes they will 'blink' around, like instantly move to cover and you can't hit shit. Frustrating. They can even shoot you when running and have the weapon pointed down. Most impressive. On Normal difficulty these super terrorists can shoot you before you even get out of cover. As soon as you let go of the crouch key ( or hit it to toggle ) BOOM you've been shot to a green bile.

- Scripted events will lock your weapon at times, so it can get to 'play' a trigger event. An RPG being fired or a car getting in position and you can't do shit. Simply annoying. Instead of doing coding this shit properly they just say to the player "Oh no wait, hold on let's have this trigger play ... Hold it, hold it, okay play".

- Hit indicator and feel of being hit is just frustrating as hell for some reason, it just annoys me to no end. Plus the bleed screen with marmite and now the amazing addition of green bile, what the fuck?! Even on

- Wave spawning in shooters isn't new but somehow it just feels so ... eugh in this game. You can just see they are spawning right behind the walls as their running animations are just starting to play as they appear in sight. It's horrendous and there's just a million of them. Doesn't help that enemies just take a bullet too many when it's body hits, you just feel exhausted after the 100th encounter with the same wave of 10 plus guys.


- Terrorists in Mark 0.5 IronMan suits, Super Terrorist style. What. The. Fowl. It absorbs 7.62mm rounds, those middle-eastern terrorists have found a super metal. Same as those super nazi's in previous Medal of Honor games. Seriously, what a complete and utter joke. Reminds me of those stupid Juggernauts from MW2 but at least they made more 'sense' in a game that doesn't take itself too seriously. In a game like this that takes itself very seriously, a terrorist in a welder's mask able to absorb 20 heavy rounds is laughable.

- Scripted corridor shooter at its finest.

- Multiplayer is let down by poor balance, garbage maps and game-modes that doesn't work for the maps or just aren't thought out.


And there's more that I've probably forgotten. All those 'stealth' events are awful, scripted events like any game but here you just have the most annoying AI to ruin it. However due to the heavy scripting you aren't even in a danger of spoiling your mission. I was doing one of the later stealth missions where they did the "Pick one, we'll shoot the rest". I killed one, they failed to kill the guys in time and they started shooting ... Then died 2 seconds later. NO ONE heard those AK rounds going off, despite a patrol walking right next to it. Yes, what a magnificent stealth mission that really puts you in the heat of it.

Battlefield 3's campaign while equally buggy, mostly boring, with bad story and some of the above mentioned managed to stay somewhat interesting due to the fact that you just did a lot of different stuff in an impressive graphical setting. While that doesn't say much, it's still better than what this game offers. Just generic dudebro missions with identical sections all throughout sparsely broken up by other not-so-interesting events plus a team that is obviously inexperienced with the engine.

Call of Duty isn't exactly praise worthy either, I've never claimed that but I've had more fun with most Call of Duty campaigns compared to this. Because you just constantly see a lot of new stuff, a lot of crazy shit, do a lot of weird stuff, add in some explosions and less annoying enemies and it's a serviceable campaign ... Plus it's a hell of a lot more polished than Warfighter or Battlefield for that matter.

As people have mentioned before. This is parody shooter of everything that's wrong with modern shooter, wrapped up into a big ball and every element made worse.

 

[Sojgat]

Its my understanding that the SP campaign suffered from some major, last minute edits forced on Danger Close by EA that reordered several missions (thereby disjointing the plot) and added the first two levels ostensibly to put more action upfront.

The action as originally written set in a fairly intricate story of how the heroes were unravelling the enemy network from two ends -- the overt end with TF MAKO and the covert end with TF BLACKBIRD. (It was a parallel to the way the MOH2010 story was told from the dueling points of view of recon-focused WOLFPACK and the assault-focused NEPTUNE.) This was meant to emphasize what the military advisors said about counterterrorism being a combination of complex analysis and rapid action and give the SP a sort of "military detective thriller" feel.

I guess EA didn't think that would compete with CoD, but I would have liked to have played that game.

And before anyone asks, no I don't work for EA. Its all just friend-of-a-friend rumors. I do think it makes sense given what so many people are saying about how they enjoyed the SP in the middle of the game and how the first two missions don't feel like MoH. I also think it makes sense if you look at the link chart on the wall in the background of the Dusty scenes and watch the cutscenes like the ones before and after the Bosnia mission -- there seems to be a lot of story that was crippled in editing.

Take it for what its worth. I don't disagree with people who liked it and I don't disagree with people who hated it. There are alot of reasons to do both with this game.

Oh no, that sounds so cool. There really isn't anything as over the top as the intro sequence in the entire game. There are too many on rails turret and driving sequences, and the weird 2 minute sniper interlude, but other than those the rest is similar in tone to the first game. Sadly that means it's only half the time. The story is very disjointed, and this theory makes so much sense, what a far superior game that could have been. Fuck EA if this is true, fuck EA anyway really.

 

[hellclerk]

Found a nifty article, not sure if it was posted yet. This part about multiplayer is what's really been bugging me with industry criticism.

This is another issue I have with the reception of the game, and this isn’t just me saying “oh, your opinion doesn’t match mine, how dare you.” The multiplayer was often called generic, yet it actually features one of the most unique mechanics in a first person shooter of any genre – the forced use of the buddy up ‘fire-team’ system that breaks squads into 5 teams of two, whereby forcing two players to make much more tangible decisions when it comes to support. Looking out for your buddy is much easier than looking out for an entire team, and with teams split up this way, everyone is accounted for. This means that there’s never an “ugly duckling” of the group, left to his own devices. Your buddy being a rambo? No problem. Support that rambo. Spot for him; heal him. Stay safe, let the rambo spawn on you. Your buddy timid and shy? Scared to get into the nitty gritty? No problem, sit back with him, pick things off together, support each-other - complement each-others gameplay. Danger Close have basically fixed the problem with generic first person shooting in multiplayer, and guaranteed that your actions will always be watched and appreciated by someone else. They’ve essentially created a seating arrangement, like bloody school teachers, that maximize the efficiency of the… class. It was a subtle and genius move that sets Warfighter apart from the other MMS’. Aside from that, there’s no ridiculous IR scopes that make enemies glow bright green, and no dogs or heart-beat sensors that destroy any element of skill. It’s subtle, well crafted, well created back to basics. Did anyone bother to look at this properly? No

THIS is what I was looking forward to with the game. Out of everything, THIS is what got me excited. Bugs and balance aside, it delivers. All it needs now is the ability to switch buddies and teams plus some balancing for Pointman, and I'll be a happy rusher. The game is solid and fun when it works, but it does need support. Let's see the support, then it'll be one of the top games of the season as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DTKT]

The issue with the buddy system is that it kills random play.

Sure, play with a friend and it works, play with randoms and it's a terrible system.

 

[Sethos]

I'm not sure I follow you. People are comparing this game to COD (and other games) because they are trying to make a point as to how and why MoH is bad. It's easy to understand. MoH does almost everything wrong, while COD does those same things in a much, much better way. Comparisons are inevitable.

And you're right. This game can't stand on it's own two feet. Hence the reviews.

As I just said, I wasn't against the comparing, I was against the random blurting out of names with little to no argument attached to it.

 

[Cudder]

Found a nifty article, not sure if it was posted yet. This part about multiplayer is what's really been bugging me with industry criticism.



THIS is what I was looking forward to with the game. Out of everything, THIS is what got me excited. Bugs and balance aside, it delivers. All it needs now is the ability to switch buddies and teams plus some balancing for Pointman, and I'll be a happy rusher. The game is solid and fun when it works, but it does need support. Let's see the support, then it'll be one of the top games of the season as far as I'm concerned.

The buddy system is not "one of the most unique mechanics of any FPS", hyperbole right there. It's a pretty cool mechanic that works when playing with friends. No one is going to copy the buddy system...

 

[Dennis]

Finished the SP campaign. After a horrible start, the levels just become better and better.

The graphics also improve as the game progresses with some very nice smoke effects later on.

I like this better than the MoH from 2010.

A solid 8/10 experience. Nothing new for the genre but I felt entertained throughout.

 

[hellclerk]

In this post, I complain about the problems with every other scripted modern military shooter ever.

I think you just proved my point. Those are all valid complaints, but change "Medal of Honor" with "Call of Duty" or "Battlefield" or any other scripted modern military shooter, and they'd fit perfectly. This sounds more like a genre complaint put upon MoH because of the bugs and in-going skepticism. I mean, you're welcome to dislike the game, but I just have to ask you again, what else were you expecting? It's like watching Die Hard and expecting romance drama ala Wuthering Heights.

 

[Sethos]

I think you just proved my point. Those are all valid complaints, but change "Medal of Honor" with "Call of Duty" or "Battlefield" or any other scripted modern military shooter, and they'd fit perfectly. This sounds more like a genre complaint put upon MoH because of the bugs and in-going skepticism. I mean, you're welcome to dislike the game, but I just have to ask you again, what else were you expecting?

Yeah, maybe you should read the damn post instead of that lazy reply.

Don't for a second think Warfighter is just completely identical with all the other military shooters and thus must be equal.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Found a nifty article, not sure if it was posted yet. This part about multiplayer is what's really been bugging me with industry criticism.



THIS is what I was looking forward to with the game. Out of everything, THIS is what got me excited. Bugs and balance aside, it delivers. All it needs now is the ability to switch buddies and teams plus some balancing for Pointman, and I'll be a happy rusher. The game is solid and fun when it works, but it does need support. Let's see the support, then it'll be one of the top games of the season as far as I'm concerned.

It's nice to know, as bad as the game is in every facet of the game, in both the single & multiplayer, there is the buddy system to save it.

Now, wanna be my buddy?

 

[hellclerk]

Yeah, maybe you should read the damn post instead of that lazy reply.

Don't for a second think Warfighter is just completely identical with all the other military shooters and thus must be equal.

I didn't say that though. What I said was that the problems with Warfighter are the same as other games of the genre. Rather than point out how they're the same, I would rather point out how they're different. Clearly, that's where you start to dislike the game, but you haven't really discussed this. It's fine, I have no trouble with you disliking the game for these mechanics, but that's like your opinion, man. Complaining about AI and restrictive scripting is understandable, and my main complaint of the SP as well, it's also something that was in the last game and I expected to encounter it again. Tough enemies and bad friendly AI is about as stock standard in every game of this sort. I expected it. It doesn't revolutionize and sometimes frustratingly funnels you into one point, but that's what I expected. I understand and accept all of those complaints. I agree with them even. I don't think they take away from the game and they're not constructive because they're tropes of the genre. My question to you is what's bad about this game that you didn't see coming already, such as in mechanics and actual gameplay?

An example: This game has some strange hidden depth. Bump in the Night can be played ENTIRELY stealthily, but they don't tell you that. You sort of have to guess what you can do. This is actually my biggest problem. There's some depth there, they just don't fucking talk about it. All these attachments in the multiplayer that seem identical aren't identical, but they don't tell you about that in the stat changes, so it's tough to gauge in-game.

 

[Dennis]

 

[hellclerk]

It's nice to know, as bad as the game is in every facet of the game, in both the single & multiplayer, there is the buddy system to save it.

Now, wanna be my buddy?

Friend me up, bro.

I have my own mumble server that I use, but as long as MoH's voip is fucked, we can use the standard GAF one for coms.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

One good thing about the multiplayer that other games should do is remove the stupid factions. yeah games like Socom and Counter Strike should keep the terrorist factions but others should try to be more like this.
It was also something I liked about Rainbow 6 Vegas and GRAW.

 

[Dibbz]

- Multiplayer is let down by poor balance, garbage maps and game-modes that doesn't work for the maps or just aren't thought out.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you? Honestly how long have you been playing multiplayer? You cannot start claiming balancing issues and broken maps when the game has only been out for a few days.

Learning how to play multiplayer in games takes time. You do not just jump from one game to the next, even in the same genre, and not need to spend a lot of time with each to fully understand the mechanics, the map design etc. To write multiplayer off so soon really stinks. You cannot do that in such a short amount of time.

 

[shungokusatsu]

Multiplayer is a disaster. I've been playing since release and as of about Thursday I noticed everyone is the same damn class. I shrugged it off and thought it was because the spec ops class appeared to be fast, but I was growing suspicious from some shady deaths where it seemed like people knew precisely where I was when no UAV was present.

I play with my nephew and notice he chooses the same spec ops class every one in the room is using, so I ask why. Low and behold it's because the specialty for the spec ops class is the ability to temporarily see through walls.

 

[hellclerk]

Jumping the gun a bit aren't you? Honestly how long have you been playing multiplayer? You cannot start claiming balancing issues and broken maps when the game has only been out for a few days.

Learning how to play multiplayer in games takes time. You do not just jump from one game to the next, even in the same genre, and not need to spend a lot of time with each to fully understand the mechanics, the map design etc. To write multiplayer off so soon really stinks. You cannot do that in such a short amount of time.

To be fair, there are some imbalances within the game, particularly with the pointman class. They need just a bit more power in their main rifles and maybe a bit greater effect with the flashbangs. Other than that, I'm pretty impressed with how well the game is balanced across the rest of the classes. The last server patch improved some things.

 

[Dibbz]

I play with my nephew and notice he chooses the same spec ops class every one in the room is using, so I ask why. Low and behold it's because the specialty for the spec ops class is the ability to temporarily see through walls.

I hear people complaining about it but the class is not some super powered wall hack class everyone claims. From what I've played if the enemy uses the scan thing and you are close by, you will hear it being used so you know they are close by and you should be able to deduce where they are by the sound alone. Another thing is the guns the sped ops use have more recoil and do less damage than the assault so in a straight fight the assault should always win.

I've only been playing for a couple of days but it seems all the classes have enough cons to balance out the pros. I'll obviously have to give it more time but I'm just not seeing the problem with Spec Ops that other people are.

To be fair, there are some imbalances within the game, particularly with the pointman class. They need just a bit more power in their main rifles and maybe a bit greater effect with the flashbangs. Other than that, I'm pretty impressed with how well the game is balanced across the rest of the classes. The last server patch improved some things.

I've played a little with the pointman but the gun I was using, F88, was quite powerful.

 

[SRTtoZ]

Ya I had fun with the SP campaign and it got better and better as it went on. The game is also very pretty maxed out and runs very well. Luckily I didnt run into any bugs but I have not touched the MP yet. Fully recommended when it drops to $20-30 IMO.

 

[Delusibeta]

Multiplayer is a disaster. I've been playing since release and as of about Thursday I noticed everyone is the same damn class. I shrugged it off and thought it was because the spec ops class appeared to be fast, but I was growing suspicious from some shady deaths where it seemed like people knew precisely where I was when no UAV was present.

I play with my nephew and notice he chooses the same spec ops class every one in the room is using, so I ask why. Low and behold it's because the specialty for the spec ops class is the ability to temporarily see through walls.

Well, talk about OP. It makes sense in something like Blacklight Retribution when *everyone* can do it, but in the context of this game that's horribly, horribly overpowered.

 

[Rated-Rsuperstar]

Well, talk about OP. It makes sense in something like Blacklight Retribution when *everyone* can do it, but in the context of this game that's horribly, horribly overpowered.

The Uav lasts all of one second and has a minute long recharge time. I'd hardly call that overpowered.

 

[U2NUMB]

I really do not get the hate the MP is getting. I have had a great time with it as have all my BF friends.

 

[Sojgat]

Signal scan is kind of useless IMO (or at least not OP). It's only really good for spotting campers (which is really needed). It's such a momentary flash that moving players will be gone by the time you're on them, and if they're right on top of you the static is disorientating and will work against you as well as the noise it gives off.

 

[ErikB]

Call of Duty isn't exactly praise worthy either

So, er, what linear military shooters do you like?

I mean, it is pretty obvious that this is an 'if you like call of duty, you might like this' game. If you don't like call of duty, why the fuck would you think you might like this?

 

[Rated-Rsuperstar]

Signal scan is kind of useless IMO (or at least not OP). It's only really good for spotting campers (which is really needed). It's such a momentary flash that moving players will be gone by the time you're on them, and if they're right on top of you the static is disorientating and will work against you as well as the noise it gives off.

I like it cause it constantly directs you towards all the firefights and keeps you from running around aimlessly.

 

[Remmy2112]

The signal scan has the potential to be powerful but it has downsides. It only lasts a short time, has a long cooldown, and emits a loud ass sound. If you use it in proximity to any enemy they're going to know you're around, and if they have a good sound system/headset they are going to know what direction. The SMGs the Spec Ops class uses are also only really effective at close to close-medium range. Beyond that and a number have horizontal recoil and damage dropoff issues that can cause you to be obliterated in a straight up fight, especially if the enemy is packing an assault rifle.

Edit: I think four of the six classes are fine. I think the Demolitions and Point Man classes need a little work. Demolitions are too slow to effectively use their weapon class, SMGs or AA-12 shotguns to full effect. Even if you use the ballistic armor power you still get it and your HP stripped way too quickly by pretty much any other class. So far that it's almost not worth it. I'm not looking for Call of Duty Juggernaut armor-level defense, but it does need some sort of buff to make it viable.

Point Man assault rifles, at least for the first few unlockable nations, seem to have much more recoil with their assault rifles than the Assault class. I'm fine with there being some tradeoff for their speed but the level of recoil they suffer seems pretty extreme.

 

[Sojgat]

The signal scan has the potential to be powerful but it has downsides. It only lasts a short time, has a long cooldown, and emits a loud ass sound. If you use it in proximity to any enemy they're going to know you're around, and if they have a good sound system/headset they are going to know what direction. The SMGs the Spec Ops class uses are also only really effective at close to close-medium range. Beyond that and a number have horizontal recoil and damage dropoff issues that can cause you to be obliterated in a straight up fight, especially if the enemy is packing an assault rifle.

Edit: I think four of the six classes are fine. I think the Demolitions and Point Man classes need a little work. Demolitions are too slow to effectively use their weapon class, SMGs or AA-12 shotguns to full effect. Even if you use the ballistic armor power you still get it and your HP stripped way too quickly by pretty much any other class. So far that it's almost not worth it. I'm not looking for Call of Duty Juggernaut armor-level defense, but it does need some sort of buff to make it viable.

Point Man assault rifles, at least for the first few unlockable nations, seem to have much more recoil with their assault rifles than the Assault class. I'm fine with there being some tradeoff for their speed but the level of recoil they suffer seems pretty extreme.

The Spec ops weapons aren't useless either, they have their optimal range and that works perfectly well on most of the maps. I've been playing a bit to unlock weapons and never even using the signal scan, I still do very well. Also snipers prone or crouching can't be seen by the scan, so for me I find it kind of useless. If I need to follow the tide of battle I just listen for the gunfire like every other MP FPS.

I prefer those early Point man weapons with iron sights, it makes the recoil much easier to manage (especially the high powered ammo). This game has some very interesting ideas, I'm enjoying the MP quite a bit and finding it pretty well balanced. I just wish there were more maps.

 

[hellclerk]

The signal scan has the potential to be powerful but it has downsides. It only lasts a short time, has a long cooldown, and emits a loud ass sound. If you use it in proximity to any enemy they're going to know you're around, and if they have a good sound system/headset they are going to know what direction. The SMGs the Spec Ops class uses are also only really effective at close to close-medium range. Beyond that and a number have horizontal recoil and damage dropoff issues that can cause you to be obliterated in a straight up fight, especially if the enemy is packing an assault rifle.

Edit: I think four of the six classes are fine. I think the Demolitions and Point Man classes need a little work. Demolitions are too slow to effectively use their weapon class, SMGs or AA-12 shotguns to full effect. Even if you use the ballistic armor power you still get it and your HP stripped way too quickly by pretty much any other class. So far that it's almost not worth it. I'm not looking for Call of Duty Juggernaut armor-level defense, but it does need some sort of buff to make it viable.

Point Man assault rifles, at least for the first few unlockable nations, seem to have much more recoil with their assault rifles than the Assault class. I'm fine with there being some tradeoff for their speed but the level of recoil they suffer seems pretty extreme.

I've actually used the Demo class to excellent effect on defense. I'm pretty certain that they disarm faster than all the other classes, so getting in there with the armor and disarming can really kick ass in a pinch. Also, I've found the "SMGs" to be more than sufficient in tearing into guys and because of the armor, I can take on three or four guys at a time without too much trouble. The C4 package is perfect for clearing out areas around objectives as well and has a nasty range on it. The PDWs they give you are all pretty powerful with not that much recoil and have enough range for you to tear the guy arming a new one. You won't be making any 100m headshots, but you've got enough kick to deal with close quarters, which is where the Demo really shines. Even the AA-12 has surprising range on it. If you know how to use it and keep out of wide open spaces, you'll do fine.

The pointman, on the other hand, I agree entirely. The guns just have too much recoil for too little punch. It's an interesting collection of weapons to be sure, and it would be difficult to put one out over another, but if you want the uhmf to hit your mark, you have to roll something with a heavy barrel and full stock. It just needs a damned buff. The flashbangs too. Either they give us more or they make them more potent, since they're not lethal, we need to use them to get up close, but if the guy I got loses the effect before I can close distance and get up in his face with the 870, what's the point of it?

 

[Dennis]

I wanted to highlight one of the great things about the SP campaign:

No respawning enemies.

I hate respawns in CoD with a passion.

 

[Arucardo]

Rock Paper Shotgun has a funny "Wot I think" about this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/29/wot-i-think-medal-of-honor-warfighter/

cracked up quite a few times while reading this.

Played through the singleplayer myself over the weekend and personally I'd give it a 6.5/10 the multiplayer is actually not terrible either if you have a decent player to team up with. I wonder how those "Osama" maps will be since some of the current maps are genuinely terrible and uninspired imo.

 

[Sethos]

I didn't say that though. What I said was that the problems with Warfighter are the same as other games of the genre. Rather than point out how they're the same, I would rather point out how they're different. Clearly, that's where you start to dislike the game, but you haven't really discussed this. It's fine, I have no trouble with you disliking the game for these mechanics, but that's like your opinion, man. Complaining about AI and restrictive scripting is understandable, and my main complaint of the SP as well, it's also something that was in the last game and I expected to encounter it again. Tough enemies and bad friendly AI is about as stock standard in every game of this sort. I expected it. It doesn't revolutionize and sometimes frustratingly funnels you into one point, but that's what I expected. I understand and accept all of those complaints. I agree with them even. I don't think they take away from the game and they're not constructive because they're tropes of the genre. My question to you is what's bad about this game that you didn't see coming already, such as in mechanics and actual gameplay?

An example: This game has some strange hidden depth. Bump in the Night can be played ENTIRELY stealthily, but they don't tell you that. You sort of have to guess what you can do. This is actually my biggest problem. There's some depth there, they just don't fucking talk about it. All these attachments in the multiplayer that seem identical aren't identical, but they don't tell you about that in the stat changes, so it's tough to gauge in-game.

No, you seem to be misunderstanding what I said and what I'm trying to convey. Warfighter is not different, it's not unique, it's not trying out something exciting nor is it a cutting edge thriller. The game is a completely bog standard shooter which has one big problem; it falls flat in completely basic areas to a point of frustration ( See the points I mentioned ). Tough enemies for example is not stock of these games, not even close. You have to play Call of Duty on veteran to see those kind of reaction times as seen in this game. Friendly AI has never been fantastic, agreed. However I'd still say it's a bit better in Call of Duty however, the difference lies in how you can actually flank enemies unnoticed, weaker reaction times and you actually aren't put in that many cheesy situations as I feel they do in Warfighter, where those armored super terrorists bumrush you out of nowhere.

What's bad about this game is that it doesn't nail the basic mechanics. Every mechanic in this game is just generally worse than the average, everything just has a flavour of nuisance and utter parody game. The lack of polish and the amount of bugs is the icing on the cake to really bring it down.

So we can probably argue back and forth all day, I like 'these' simple shooters when a fair few elements actually come to together but this is way below my threshold and I feel the slating of the game and general opinion is more than justified; I'm actually glad to see the game getting shot down, because it doesn't deserve anything else. Also sends a message to future shooter developers to not pull this cheap act.

Reason why I also call the campaign worse than BF3 is purely because on every level they are very much alike, bugs, boring scripting, awful story etc. but BF3 has one thing going for it; variation. You actually get to see a lot of impressive stuff, then maybe not for the sake of enjoyment but for the sake of enjoying some fantastic graphics. Being in a plane, albeit as passenger but you still get the view, then you have the tank missions, sneak missions etc. they aren't good but it offers something interesting at least. This game simply doesn't and because the mechanics are so lacklustre, the entire package is just awful. This is more like a flintstone background that keeps running.

But we could probably go back and forth all day long, doubt we'll ever agree on the quality of the game

So, er, what linear military shooters do you like?

I mean, it is pretty obvious that this is an 'if you like call of duty, you might like this' game. If you don't like call of duty, why the fuck would you think you might like this?

Whoa, talk about spewing rubbish. I like Call of Duty but saying a game isn't praise worthy does not mean the game is bad, in my world. It means it works, can be enjoyable but not something you sit around having long conversations about or say to your friends "Oh holy shit, you need to try this!" They are just enjoyable campaigns, no more, no less.

I like(d) Call of Duty, I hate Warfighter.

 

[ErikB]

Whoa, talk about spewing rubbish. I like Call of Duty but saying a game isn't praise worthy does not mean the game is bad, in my world. It means it works, can be enjoyable but not something you sit around having long conversations about or say to your friends "Oh holy shit, you need to try this!" They are just enjoyable campaigns, no more, no less.

I like(d) Call of Duty, I hate Warfighter.

The last few Call of Duty games were rubbish, they even managed to screw up the multiplayer golden recipe. Series has been on a steady decline since 4.

.

 

[test_account]

I just finished the campaign of Warfighter. I mean to read something about a 4 hour campaign. Those who said that (if it wasnt just a rumor) must have rushed through the game on easy. I started playing on hard and i guess i used about 8 hours to beat the game. A pretty good/standard length as FPS single players goes in my opinion. I didnt feel short to me.

I also think that the multiplayer is pretty decent. I dont like that there is a trophy connected to getting the highest killstreak however. But i find the gameplay to be fun enough

 

[Apharmd Battler]

I siad this over in the review thread but I'll say it here as well.

I must be the only person on the planet that doesn't think the game is that bad. technical issues aside, it's right up there with MoH:2010. While it may not be a Triple A shooter, it is nowhere as bad as a 4/10. The multiplayer is surprisingly fun and addictive. I've been saying this to all my friends, but they say the reviews and my assessment don't add up. I just fundamentally disagree. So is this game the new"Too Human" as in being the game everybody loves to hate. Or am I one of the last gamers that doesn't expect every $60 retail game to knock my socks off but at least entertain me?!

 

[Sethos]

.

Call of Duty 4 - Really Good.
World at War - Good.
MW2 - Good.
Black Ops - Liked it.
MW3 - Rubbish.

Last few was one too many. The LAST game was rubbish. And what you see above is what I stated, a steady decline.

Call of Duty is still good. Even the worst Call of Duty campaign is still better than Warfighter.

I just finished the campaign of Warfighter. I mean to read something about a 4 hour campaign. Those who said that (if it wasnt just a rumor) must have rushed through the game on easy. I started playing on hard and i guess i used about 8 hours to beat the game. A pretty good/standard length as FPS single players goes in my opinion. I didnt feel short to me.

I also think that the multiplayer is pretty decent. I dont like that there is a trophy connected to getting the highest killstreak however. But i find the gameplay to be fun enough

I just went through the campaign at a standard pace on normal, barely took 4.

 

[antitrop]

I get it, you're riding that Spec Ops: The Line high. Great story. I played through it this year too. Better than MW3's.

But I don't think MW3's was bad. Totally serviceable story to wrap up the Modern Warfare storyline. I had no problems with it, and the gameplay itself was still great.

My opinions of MW3 were formed like 9 months before Spec Ops even came out. I put Spec Ops up as the best example of story telling in modern military shooters, but it's only 4 months old.
If Modern Warfare 3's (and any CoD or BF campaign since 2007 forward) plotline didn't stand up to my scrutiny before I played Spec Ops, it will only go down from their.

MW3 was too all over the place, bouncy, jump, and incoherent for me to even try to attempt to take it seriously or figure out what's going on. I don't like any of the characters in the CoD franchise, either.
It's probably almost impossible to have a good story with shitty characters in the first place. So Call of Duty just starts out on the wrong foot and only goes down from there.

The three main characters of Spec Ops: The Line aren't particularly good or interesting for the first hour or two of the game, but its their incredible story arc and the way they interact with each other throughout the course of the narrative that actually leads to them being well designed characters, compared to a video game standard. It's much more "real" and believable than anything that has come out of Gears of War, Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Medal of Honor in a long, long time, if ever.

I don't find Modern Warefare 3 (or MoH: Warfighter, to stay true to the thread we're in)'s campaign fun from a gameplay perspective either because the story is so incoherent that I don't care about what's happening on the screen. I've been shooting guys since the early 90s, we've evolved past Doom. In a shooter in 2012 I need some kind of a gameplay hook to keep me interested, because most modern military shooters are just emotion-less setpiece moment after setpiece moment, and I just stare at all the explosions and meaningless death with malaise.

 

[Cudder]

I think I had my first "good" day online yesterday. Had about a 3.0 kdr in all games, even finally got my Apache support trophy! Getting a scorechain up that high was intense, almost perished a few times.

 

[Derrick01]

Rock Paper Shotgun has a funny "Wot I think" about this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/29/wot-i-think-medal-of-honor-warfighter/

cracked up quite a few times while reading this.

Played through the singleplayer myself over the weekend and personally I'd give it a 6.5/10 the multiplayer is actually not terrible either if you have a decent player to team up with. I wonder how those "Osama" maps will be since some of the current maps are genuinely terrible and uninspired imo.

I was looking forward to their review because they absolutely despise these on rails war FPS campaigns and they always go out of their way to tear them to pieces.

I did really agree with this part

Overall it’s yet another average corridor shooter, plagued with stupid glitches, terrible AI, murderous teammates, and a desperate, paranoid need to stop you from deviating from its cast-iron script. But its single player is not any worse than that in the rest of its ilk – the low marks this one’s getting are appropriate, but feel like an industry catching up to the tedium it’s been giving 9s for so long. There’s nothing more offensive here because it claims it’s based on real-life events – so were the first three Call Of Duty games, and that was often met with respect. It’s just dull. Noisy, constantly trying to disguise itself with exploding buildings and shouted intensity. But an obnoxiously noisy pub is no less a boring place to spend time in bad company than a quiet one.