Medal of Honor: Warfighter Campaign Review (PS3)

"For Mother ... and for Rabbit." 

Medal of Honor: Warfighter (2012) is the sequel to Medal of Honor (2010), a modern reboot of the classic World War II Medal of Honor franchise. As a massive fan of the franchise, it's safe to say that Warfighter was one of my most anticipated  games of the year. Admittedly, the game has been out for a while now and this review is a little late to the party but certain circumstances have prevented me from acquiring the game until about a week ago. When I did get my hands on the game though, I can assure you that I put it through its paces and thoroughly tested both the campaign and the multiplayer.

For ease of reading and because I feel like it, I'm going to split the review up into campaign and multiplayer, with this post dedicated to the campaign while the next post will be devoted to multiplayer. Ready? Alright, ladies, time to deploy. 

  

Campaign

Story

The campaign of Medal of Honor: Warfighter primarily follows the exploits of a group of Navy SEALs with the overarching plot device being an explosive chemical substance known as PETN. The SEALs travel all across the world in an effort to stop a shadowy organisation led by an elusive leader  known as The Cleric (basically, a thinly-veiled reference to al-Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden) from being able to use the PETN. While the plot itself is a work of fiction, many of the individual missions are "ripped from the headlines", in that they are representations of real-world events. Warfighter sees the return of some familiar faces like Preacher (one of the player-characters), Mother, Voodoo and Dusty from the previous game while adding new ones like Stump (another player-character), Dingo and Tick.

In my opinion, the storyline for Warfighter is fairly well put-together and coherent if a little unbelievable. My main gripe is the chronological flashback structure of the first few missions which is not exactly confusing but seems ultimately pointless. I understand the flashback narrative as a plot device in that it attempts to create a sense of intrigue and mystery regarding the shadowy organisation behind the movement of the PETN. However, the story would probably flow a bit better and be a bit easier to understand (for the less attentive gamer) if they made the events in chronological order.

The main strength of the story, though, lies in the humanistic portrayal of the Tier 1 Operators, particularly Preacher and his interactions with his wife and child. This aspect of the story is played to devastating effect, in the sense that it shatters the illusion of these men as supersoldiers and reminds us that they are human too. As well as the relationship between Preacher and his family, the game explores the relationship between the SEALs themselves. Through the banter and little snippets of conversation between the SEALs during the cutscenes, we get to see the camaraderie and sense of fellowship shared by operators, reinforcing the idea that operators are at the end of the day, only human. Yet, at the same time, I find it extremely difficult to relate to the characters of Warfighter. Sure, the characters crack jokes and make smart quips about their line of work, but in the end, I wouldn't call them likeable. While Danger Close does succeed in humanising the warriors, there is still this sense that I'm on the outside looking in. This isn't necessarily bad as the main approach they seem to be taking with the series is telling the story of these operators. However, this is problematic with the player-characters as Danger Close tries to flesh Preacher out but is somehow always silent during gameplay and really only speaks quiet infrequently during cutscenes. This could be excused by Preacher's mannerisms with other characters which indicates that he is a quiet person. However, this cannot account for Stump's characterisation as he seems like a bit of a joker when he speaks with the rest of his teammates, yet, he is strangely quiet during gameplay even during breaks between combat. Understandably, the game is short and there is little time for character development and the genre isn't conducive to great characterisation, but it'd be nice if Danger Close took out the time to flesh out the player-characters a little bit more to make the game that much more believable and authentic, as they set out to do.

On a thematic level, Warfighter is ambitious in that the developers strived to make the game as realistic as possible (barring the occasional setpiece along the way) during actual gameplay while focusing on the human aspect during some cutscenes. The result is a sort of hybrid narrative with the gameplay representing what operators do while the cutscenes featuring Preacher's relationship with his family representing the consequences of what operators do.

Gameplay

Starting with the controller-side of gameplay, controls are extremely tight, intuitive and well thought-out. An interesting feature returning from Medal of Honor (2010) is the lean mechanic which is extremely useful on the harder levels. It also gives a sense of realistic movemement and fluidity when compared to other similar titles. Basically, the lean mechanic in Warfighter gives you the opportunity to limit your exposure to fire while engaging the enemy. It's absurd to think that well-trained military personnel would stick their entire body out from cover to open fire on the enemy before moving back into cover like in some more popular first-person shooters (ahem, ahem).

Combat, while featuring the run-of-the-mill shoot and scoot structure, is extremely intense on every level. The main reason for this is the intelligent enemy AI that presents quite a challenge to the player. These aren't your average bad guys who run into your line of fire and wait out in the open for you to pick them off. The enemies in this game use full advantage of the lean mechanic and stubbornly stick to cover to make your job that much harder. While the micro-destructability provided by the Frostbite 2 engine does allow you to chip away at their cover, by the time you manage to get a shot at them, these guys will have moved to better cover. As well as that, enemies operate as a cohesive unit rather than as individuals. They provide cover fire and suppression so that their comrades can move forward or flank you. However, the opposite could be said of your teammates. Your teammates, are quite simply retarded. In one level of the campaign, I left my controller on the table and watched the friendly AI try to clear the map of enemies and they failed disastrously. They would miss when shooting at enemies standing literally in front of them, shoot at non-existent targets, throw grenades at walls right in front of them and rather hilariously, shoot at whatever part of the environment that was their cover. This can be extremely frustrating on harder difficulties as the tons of enemies you seek to dispatch are pin-point accurate and can kill you in about three shots. It would be nice if I could depend on my teammates to take out at least a few enemies so that the missions wouldn't be so tedious.

An excellent break from combat (and your terrible teammates) is derived from the driving levels and sequences in various points of the campaign. The full driving levels are really fun and the little boat driving sequence near the end of one of the levels is simply exhilarating despite its length. The driving level in Dubai is a gem as it involves a very interesting and very ingenious stealth sequence that I thought also tied in very well with the narrative of that particular mission. The first driving sequence is no slouch either as you engage in a frantic chase of an enemy combatant through the busy streets of Karachi, Pakistan.

Presentation
In terms of graphics, there are some, I guess. Honestly, I'm not a technical wizard who can figure out how many frames per second or what the resolution is. From my amateur viewpoint though, the game looks fantastic. The cutscenes are rendered in extremely realistic and high quality animation where the characters look almost life-like, it's scary. The graphics within the game are good but not spectacular given the capabilities of the Frostbite 2 engine. Weapons look fantastic and add to the pseudo-realistic nature of the game.

The soundtrack, once again scored by Ramin Djawadi and featuring more of Linkin Park, is as good if not better than the soundtrack of the last game. What struck me the most about the music was how much it was a throwback to Medal of Honor (2010) while still maintaining a sense of originality about it. Personally, it seemed like the music reflected Warfighter quite well in that it relates to and draws from the last game while moving in its own direction for the future. As well as that, the music conveys a sense of emotionality that accentuates the game while still standing out as a great score. It's not music that takes the spotlight away from the subject but rather matches it extremely well while still being good enough to be recognised as good music outside the game.

Conclusion
Despite some bugs and the slightly mind-boggling narrative, I thoroughly enjoyed Warfighter's campaign to the extent that I'm still playing it now on the higher difficulties. To sum it up, I'll give a SparkNotes version of my review for those who have limited attention spans.

Pros:
Ambitious plot.
Great gameplay.
Excellent enemy AI.
Beautiful graphics in cutscenes.
Fantastic music.

Cons:
Confusing flashback structure in the first few missions.
Unrelatable characters.
Stupid friendly AI.
Game doesn't seem to utilise the full power of Frostbite 2.

Campaign Score: 30/50

People, Politics and Politeness

Due to recent events (i.e. President Obama's re-election), there have been a spate of political status updates on Facebook. While some were generic and others were melodramatic, there was one that caught my eye because it basically became a flame war when someone commented on this status complaining about Obama's re-election.

Without going into too much detail, Person X (a friend) posted a status about how Romney losing meant that World War III had been averted. Person Y (a friend of X) commented with a complaint about how Obama's re-election would mean that the United States would slide further into debt and unemployment rates would inevitably rise. In response, X launched a scathing response calling for Y to run for the Presidency since he was so smart and had all the right answers. The thread continued with Y responding politely before Person Z (another friend of mine) jumped in with what I thought was a very fair and well-detailed argument regarding Obama's successes. From then on, though, the thread descended into a farce. Y responded again, politely, which seemed to infuriate X and Z who basically went on insulting his intelligence on the grounds that he was an American who didn't support Obama.

Now, I'm an avid follower of politics and world events and as a result, I enjoy discussing politics. What really irks me though is when people are unable to keep discussions civil. Yes, I realise that politics is a deeply divisive subject and controversial at the best of times, but I feel that people should be able to discuss politics in a polite and intelligent manner as a means of developing their knowledge and exposure to alternate worldviews. When I saw this thread, I felt immensely disappointed in X and Z as they were people who I had known for quite a while and who I thought were great people.

Understandably, people tend to get emotional when politics is discussed because their views are extremely important to them, but that doesn't justify insulting and denigrating someone on the internet. Why resort to the classic fallacy of attacking the man rather than attacking the argument? If you want to demonstrate that you have the better argument, don't slander your opponent, instead, consider their argument and counter the points you find weak. From my point of view, when someone starts hurling insults around instead of making a proper argument, they lose a hell of a lot of credibility and respect in my eyes. Frankly, I don't see the point of dumbing down an opponent. I realise some people think that it makes them look smarter but I reckon that it makes them look arrogant.

So, to sum up this incredibly pointless and long-winded post, I basically have two points. One, I believe that people should be polite when discussing politics (well, actually, I believe people should be polite at all times, but for this post specifically). Two, don't insult people when arguing with them. It makes you look arrogant.