Medal of Honor: Warfighter

[SinOfLiberty]

Hello guys,

Recently a new medal of honor title has been reveled. It will be released in October 27 this year. I can not say that there is much excitement going on about this game, considering how bad was Medal of Honor 2010. This release also means that we wont see next battlefield game till 2013. With that being said, Medal of honor is the only competitor of upcoming cod this year. So if MOH fails than we all would come back to battlefield 3 or other bf series.

Here are a few big questions regarding MOH on which i want you guys to share your opinion on:

1)IS it gonna be a bf3 remake with different campaign and 90% similar multi player or it will stand on its own?

2)Regarding PC version. Will the next MOH be developed separately from console version like bf3 was(most of it) or the dev will show another console crap to pc users again!?

3)Are you gonna buy/pre-order a game and why or why not?

Thanks,

SOL

 

[Childs]

I enjoyed the first one's MP, so I'll buy it. MoH is right in between COD and BF as far as gameplay and features go, which is just about right as a standalone franchise. Basically BF style gameplay (TDM, RUSH, and CONQUEST), on smaller maps (smaller than the small BF3 maps), but bigger than COD maps. Instead of COD style killstreaks, you get score chaining. You get points for kills, and team based actions like flag capping. They add together and you can select an attack killstreak like a predator missile ala COD, or a support action like the whole team gets UAV. In fact COD kinda took this idea and added it to MW3 with the support points. More points the better the reward. It also has a rudimentary unlock and weapon customization system. BF3 took this to the next level. So it could have been said MoH was BFBC2 lite, but since BF3 was released, its like BF3 on the small maps. Or I guess one could say BF3 is like MoH on a larger scale. The only thing it needed was more weapons and more maps. I personally would prefer the score chaining mechanic went away, but its better than traditional killstreaks.

But since Dice isn't going to do it, who knows what it will be like. It might be better served if the MP went away from its BF roots and focused on the COD-esque gameplay, since thats what its meant to compete against. The first MoH was rushed, and it used two dev teams, using two different engines. This one should be better, as the dev has been working on it since the first MoH. Dice just has too much on their plates to do it any justice.

 

[CuriousMike]

I thought the last ones single-player campaign was really fun.
I totally fell for the fiction and bought in.

I'm hoping this next one continues with a solid single-player campaign.

1) No.
2) No.
3) Yes, because of my experience with the last iteration.

 

[DeadFred]

1. Dunno
2. Dunno
3. Will wait for a review from Childs to see if its worth buying.

 

[Barfo]

It will be a re-skin of bf3 for sure and I've already pre-ordered it.

 

[Childs]

1. Dunno
2. Dunno
3. Will wait for a review from Childs to see if its worth buying.

Not only will I have a review for you, but videos as well! This was actually the game that got me to start posting video gameplay, cause no one was doing it at the time.

 

[MBentz]

If it's anything like the reboot then I'm in. I'm not sure why the first one wasn't more successful.

 

[Canbacon]

http://www.medalofhonor.com/tier1central

Greg Goodrich (Executive Producer) has a post introducing Warfighter.

To sum it up, Dangerclose is doing the whole thing no DICE involvement for the MP portion. Frostbyte 2.0 is the engine for the whole game. This game has different spec ops teams around the world but the main character is a Navy Seal.

 

[Destiny]

I'm getting it... only reason why I stopped playing MOH was because BF3 came out... I actually like the shooting, movement, etc in MOH multiplayer better than BF3...

 

[iahk]

I thought the last ones single-player campaign was really fun.
I totally fell for the fiction and bought in.

I'm hoping this next one continues with a solid single-player campaign.

Indeed, there were some really intense and memorable moments in this game. I can't say so much for the other games around the time or even BF3. Here's hoping for a similar experience in this sequel.

 

[TechBoyJK]

sounds good.

I read about this same day as I saw this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2ynk-dz6RQ

 

[BFG10K]

I really enjoyed the SP campaign in the first game but it was too short. This one is supposed to continue the story so I’ll probably get it.

 

[SinOfLiberty]

I put 90% of my gaming time into the multiplayer. What are the chances to see a good balanced, very well looking mp in medal of honor 2012?

#Please do not say that MOH2010 had a good mp and you expect something very similar to it.(1 hit sniper rifle is way too much..)

Thanks

 

[DeadFred]

I put 90% of my gaming time into the multiplayer. What are the chances to see a good balanced, very well looking mp in medal of honor 2012?

#Please do not say that MOH2010 had a good mp and you expect something very similar to it.(1 hit sniper rifle is way too much..)

Thanks

WHAT!!!!

The snipers motto is "one shot, one kill" .........not "two or maybe even three shots, one kill".

 

[Destiny]

WHAT!!!!

The snipers motto is "one shot, one kill" .........not "two or maybe even three shots, one kill".

They nerfed the sniper rifle after about a month... but man I took advantage of that one shot sniper kill for a good month to rack up kills and ranking... now its only head shot is one shot kill... there is no bullet drop in that game too... so I could care less if they nerfed it...with a 27inch montior its like shooting at elephants... LOL

 

[Childs]

I came to MoH when BLOPs launched, so I guess I missed the sniper fun. Come to think of it, I dont recall snipers being all that much of a problem in MoH. It was also the one class I didnt max out.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Sorry if this is hijack, but I am just getting sick of all of the modern FPS trends.

The success of Call of Duty has completely ripped all creativity out of the FPS genre. Single-player will be 8-10 hours, heavily scripted, completely linear, with an emphasis on shock and awe theatrics (and infinitely respawning enemies). You will have little icons telling you exactly where to go, exactly what to press, and no talent or thought will be required on your part. Multiplayer will feature loadouts, kill streaks, and a variety of interchangeable weapons with marginal differences in damage and recoil, with TDM against the backdrop of generic, semi-destroyed urban landscapes.

I freaking hate "grinding" for weapons and perks in modern FPS MP while I get utterly raped by some dude who has a super-reflex Delta Dan M416 with flux capacitor (I'm looking at you, BF3). I work 12-14 hour days. I don't have time to sit there and grind levels just to get something other than an M4 with iron sights. At least Bad Company 2 offered the option of buying complete class kits (though I still resent having to spend extra money to access features I've already paid for).

I have nothing against Danger Close. While it was generic, easy, and rather bland, MOH2010 wasn't a terrible game, and some of the SP levels were pretty decent. The MP was solid, if again, unremarkable. I just don't see why we need yet another freaking modern combat military shooter attempting to take down Call of Duty. EA already has Battlefield, and even BF3 has sold it's soul to the COD gods (I loved Bad Company 2, but the maps and environments in BF3 are garbage in comparison; less destruction, more urban). And I know the answer: because people keep shelling out for this shit. I guess it just kinda sickens me to see the gaming industry turn into a mirror of Hollywood.

Playing Half-Life 2, or even the Halo: CE Anniversary, today is such an odd, refreshing experience because, hey, there's no massive icon telling you to turn on the light bridge to cross, or icon telling you to follow your AI partner. You have to explore the environment, poke around a corner or two, and maybe use your brain just wee bit. The difference is startling, and Halo was never known for being particularly good or challenging in this regard.

Just goes to show you how far the genre has fallen. You either have total freedom (Skyrim), or it's Medal of Duty: Special Black Warfare 9.

 

[Anubis]

IMO the weps in BF3 are so fing similar it really does not matter what lvl you are, the only exception may be the auto shotgun and frag rounds, but for just about everything elsethere is not a masive dissadvantage

now vehicle perks is a different story

 

[SLU Aequitas]

Yeah...with the possible exception of frag rounds (which really are only a legitimate gripe on Metro) and pre-patched IRV sights, I can easily rack up kills with stock weapons in BF3. BF3 is far more about positioning than what weapon unlock you have, not sure what your complaint is based on but it has very little merit.

As for the rest (linearity, respawning enemies, short campaigns, etc.), I generally agree with you. It really is a stale market, but sadly that's what a majority of the market likes and wants. What you have to hope for is that there is a large enough chunk of people in that majority that will want something different to carry a smaller, less mainstream title to success.

Off the top of my head for promising titles: Mechwarrior: Online and Planetside 2. I'm watching both, although I have greater confidence in MW:O's F2P model than Planetside 2, which really hasn't announced WTF their model will be.


Oh, and OT : Probably not gonna get this for the same reason why I didn't get MW3...BF3 already satisfies my infantry combat needs.

 

[mirandu04]

although it doesn't really offer nothing different from what is already on the market the saying "if not broken don't fix it" applies to it.
Me gusta

 

[OptimumSlinky]

BF3 just frustrates me in a way BC2 never did. Infantry combat in BF has never been on the level of Modern Warfare. But that's okay okay, because BC2 has all the awesome destruction, lush jungles and open maps, classes and vehicles. What does BF3 do? Nerfs the single player into a corridor shooter, tones down the destruction in the environments, and gives us a bunch of bland, urban maps (Metro, Tehran Highway, Seine). Can you say, "Fail?"

And it's not that I can't get kills with the stock weapons. It's just the concept that I have to sit there and grind endlessly in order to gain access to anything more. Maybe I'm just a luddite, but between the grinding and the fact that BF3 launches through your goddamn web browser, I have a real hard time getting into the game. I adored BC2 on the 360, but BF3 on 360 is practically unplayable (party system is broken, looks awful and low-rez, screen tears constantly trying to keep the frame rate at 30-fps, and controller latency is sluggish), so I picked up the PC version. And I get this weird interface that requires me to run Origin to validate, use my browser to navigate, and then configure everything in-game? It just feels half-assed to me. MOH2010 had a better UI and feel on PC than BF3 does, even if BF3 is the graphic Godzilla of PC gaming.

PlanetSide2 does look very promising, however. I have very high hopes for that title. The whole F2P mechanic seems to be bringing a revival in PC titles (Tribes: Ascend is fun if a bit cartoonish, and I'd check out Blacklight Retribution if I could get it to work).

 

[Destiny]

I hope they bring back the cruise missle!!... anytime one of your teamates use one it is the cue for your entire team to rush the objective! :biggrin:

 

[DeadFred]

I played the Beta of MOH 2010 and thought it was pretty fun, but most of my clan was stoked and ready for Black Ops. By the time I'd grown tired of BLOP's MOH was pretty much dead and I never bought it.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

BF3 just frustrates me in a way BC2 never did. Infantry combat in BF has never been on the level of Modern Warfare. But that's okay okay, because BC2 has all the awesome destruction, lush jungles and open maps, classes and vehicles. What does BF3 do? Nerfs the single player into a corridor shooter, tones down the destruction in the environments, and gives us a bunch of bland, urban maps (Metro, Tehran Highway, Seine). Can you say, "Fail?"

And it's not that I can't get kills with the stock weapons. It's just the concept that I have to sit there and grind endlessly in order to gain access to anything more. Maybe I'm just a luddite, but between the grinding and the fact that BF3 launches through your goddamn web browser, I have a real hard time getting into the game. I adored BC2 on the 360, but BF3 on 360 is practically unplayable (party system is broken, looks awful and low-rez, screen tears constantly trying to keep the frame rate at 30-fps, and controller latency is sluggish), so I picked up the PC version. And I get this weird interface that requires me to run Origin to validate, use my browser to navigate, and then configure everything in-game? It just feels half-assed to me. MOH2010 had a better UI and feel on PC than BF3 does, even if BF3 is the graphic Godzilla of PC gaming.

PlanetSide2 does look very promising, however. I have very high hopes for that title. The whole F2P mechanic seems to be bringing a revival in PC titles (Tribes: Ascend is fun if a bit cartoonish, and I'd check out Blacklight Retribution if I could get it to work).

Infantry combat in BF3 is the best out of the entire BF series. The battlelog was actually really good, pretty much making a battlefield facebook with stats and everything (something that MW3 charges for).

Played the MOH2010 beta, didnt like it at all. Maybe this one will be better with the BF3 engine.

 

[Farmer]

I too agree that the single player in the last Medal of Honor was far superior to CoD drivel.