I have recently been re-playing; Medal of Honor Warfighter and I come to ask myself why people don’t like it, when personally myself I have enjoyed playing the game loads.
OK before I go any further lets ignore the fact it's made by EA because frankly only because there a bad company doesn't mean that they make bad games (just look at Battle Field)
Let’s start with the single player side of the game, now in my own opinion how can a first person shooter (FPS) be better than this and here is my main reason why. It’s based on true events, seriously what could be better than a war game what based on true events? I can't think of anything better, sure it’s the longest ever campaign ever in a game but it doesn't have to be. In addition to this if you can think of a better thing then being based on true events I would like to hear it and why.
OK now the multiplayer side of things are not perfect yes I admit that, but its fun and I enjoy how you can choose different Special Forces to play as and the amount of attachments and weapons and the choice of kill streaks to choose from and the choice of different game modes all within multiplayer.
Next I will talk about the maps. With the maps I thought that they were actually a decent size and have had a lot of thought to put into them (unlike some other FPS games) due to the blind spots from going round certain corners, or entering a building and you couldn't just run to the objective in case a sniper you couldn't see picked you off in the distance.
Now I am going to talk about the weapons within the game, I thought the weapons in the game are like the real life counter parts, from things like the select fire, the way the recoil acted, to even things like the barrel over heating on LMG's (yes this made that bit more better unlike other games where you can just continue shooting.)In addition to this, I thought that the Special Forces have had a lot of work and research put into them, from there camouflage to the weapons they use and I think that just makes the multiplayer that bit better.
Finally I was disappointed when EA said they were going to stop making Medal of Honor, I remember when I was growing up with my PlayStation one that Medal of Honor use to be top dog of FPS, so to hear that did felt like it took part of my child hood away.
Yes I understand some of you prefer other games and I understand that but I was just putting my opinion out there about Medal of Honor. But what I don't understand is why all the hate towards the game, is it the company who made it (if so why are you playing Battle Field) or is it the short campaign, (even though CODs campaign can be completed in 6-7 hours) or is it just for another reason, whatever the case I would like to hear why.
Here's a first look at the world map featured in Pearl Abyss' massive open-world action-adventure game, Crimson Desert.
Remedy recently shared more details on its upcoming sequel, Control Resonant.
MOUSE: P.I. for Hire is an upcoming first person shooter with the aesthetics of a classic 1930s black and white cartoon.
I could get into a plethora of reasons as to why a larger percentage of those who've played it don't like it, but I'll save that for the user review I've been postponing. In short, it felt rushed, the story wasn't original or in the least bit appealing, the gameplay was bland and the multiplayer was absolute rubbish. You need to exert significant effort when you're going against something as popular and set-in-stone as Call of Duty in the same genre. Warfighter was condensed and half-arsed, and thus it failed.
It was mediocre (even by modern war games standards) and there isn't much room for mediocre in the AAA arena.
My view: http://n4g.com/channel/meda...
To go over some of your points:
-The 'based on true events' reasoning is actually a fault I found with the game once it turned out to just be a crutch. Pacing is essentially torn to shreds when learning about the protagonist then jumping to an unconnected desert warfare mission against pirates just because said desert mission is "based on real events."
-"(even though CODs campaign can be completed in 6-7 hours)"
They may not be much longer, but they do feel more adequately paced in delivering their panoply of design choices. Even though Treyarch and IW are chained to a 2-year cycle, there hasn't been a recent CoD campaign by either of them that feels coldly-developed. They're reusing structures and tools begun by this series and putting forth some sort of different approach that THEY wanted in order to keep a rhythm--which I find respectable.
-Although the MP portions here kind of feel like you're trying to sell me the game, I can see where you're coming from. The wide variety of features is nice, but many of those have been done ad nauseum elsewhere and to a better degree. I don't agree with your opinion of the maps either.
It's basically a very competent, satisfying shooter in regards to mechanics marred by so many overused or poor design choices.
A game I, personally, really enjoyed. Still active with the multiplayer to this day.