Posted on June 6, 2012 AT 01:38pm
Double Take: Warfighter’s multiplayer won’t be winning any awards for originality.
At E3 2012, EGM’s own Ray Carsillo and Blake Morse had the opportunity to become part of an elite military task force entrusted with protecting the world from those who would harm it. In a video game. They jumped online and spent a little time teaming-up to take on folks in the new Conquest style multiplayer mode in Medal of Honor: Warfighter. This is what they thought.
Ray Carsillo, Reviews Editor: Alright Blake, so we did a little 4-on-4 multiplayer with Medal of Honor: Warfighter and I’m going to be very honest dude. With all the hype surrounding this game, the multiplayer failed to impress me on a lot of levels.
Blake Morse, Contributing Editor: Yeah. I have to agree with you. Depending on what side of the military FPS fan base your on, people are either going to think of Warfighter as Battlefield without tanks or Call of Duty light. Nothing about the MP stood out to me as something that gave the game it’s own signature.
Ray: I mean I appreciate that they did make an attempt at least. The mode we played paired us up within our own team, and if you died and your partner rocked the opponent in the face with a shotgun soon after, you could spawn right on him. And you could also see his position at all times to give you an idea of if he was flanking and how fast he was moving, but aside from these interesting strategic tweaks that really made me think of Gears of War’s Wingman mode, there was nothing special in terms of combat or objectives.
Blake: That concept of having a fire team is great, but it’s been done before, most recently in Ghost Recon: Future Soilder. And instead of just getting one teammate to spawn to, you had a secondary teammate as well, which made for a wider range of strategic combat. I will give MoH credit for adding it in there though, I was able to pull off a decent kill spree at one point using fire team spawn. I think the only other thing that really stuck out for me though was the variety of soldiers from around the world you can play as, which is a cool way of doing varied loadouts for varied playing styles, but I think people might not want to play as certain countries. I mean, who wants to be Canadian military when you can be a Navy SEAL?
Ray: I feel you there dude. I didn’t even know Canada had these kinds of spec ops guys! Like Britain, Russia, the US, I understand. But Poland? Sweden? Those aren’t wartime powers in my mind. But yeah, one of the few positives that really caught my eye from this was the visuals. The lighting and particle effects were very crisp and clear and you can tell that there was a lot of work that went into this engine and that Call of Duty can’t really do with a yearly series.
Blake: The Frostbite engine is truly visually stunning, but once again, it’s something we already saw in Battlefield 3. The controls are nothing new, the combat is nothing new; we’re at the point where these kinds of games are almost indiscernible from each other and all the MP battles feel the same. I really don’t understand why they haven’t taken this franchise back to its roots. With modern engines and gameplay mechanics I really feel like they could bring the MFPS back from the brink of being the gaming equivalent of disco.
Ray: Yeah, these multiplayer modes definitely aren’t giving me any kind of fever. The controls were tight, the game looked gorgeous, but at this point, that is standard fare and so, at least on the multiplayer front, Blake and I can fully agree that MOH: Warfighter does nothing truly special or unique there.
Today's Top 10 Stories
Website Interface © 2012 EGM Digital Media, LLC.