Hello readers and welcome to the introduction to a new and permanent segment of the blog called Reviewing the Reviewers, if you didn't notice the title. Which you might not have although you'd be pretty silly if you missed the big shiny title but read this part.
Anyway.
One of the reasons I started this blog was the dislike I developed for video game journalists on account of their pretentiousness and inability to publish anything worthwhile when it comes to reviews. While the business of reviewing a product is inherently biased, the problem I find is that many reviewers are unable to step back and list their likes and dislikes in order to allow their readers to make an informed decision. Granted, reviews are basically opinions but if reviewers want to claim that they are experts that provide a legitimate and reliable information, then they should at least try to act like it. The problem I find is that a lot of reviewers walk into a game with a closed mind and will only point out the flaws of the game without really pointing out its merits as well. Basically, I have an issue with the balance of most pieces written by game reviewers. Sure, if I dislike a game, I will criticise it endlessly but I can recognise its merits and (rather begrudgingly) can respect it for what it does right. Same goes with games that I do like. While I will drone on and on about how much I love the game, I recognise that no game is perfect and that the flaws they have, while they may not matter to me, may matter to someone else. That's why I try to give my reviews balance.
Furthermore, the problem with video game reviewers on the big professional sites is that they present themselves as experts and don't necessarily acknowledge that their reviews are merely their opinions of a game. To the contrary, there are many reviewers that consider their reviews as fact and that if they didn't enjoy it, no one else will. This clearly isn't the right way to do things as people are different.
In keeping with the theme of balance, I will recognise the merits of opinion-based rather than fact-based reviewers and their reviews. Just by reading their reviews, it's easy to see that reviewers are passionate about video games. That probably why they got into that profession in the first place. This passion is great when they approach a game with their full attention. They pay great attention to the things that make a game great and will nitpick on the smallest details. However, the fact that passion trumps reason is something to worry about as it leads to unfair biases and in a field that claims to provide expert advice to consumers, that's a problem. Considering as well that they have a wide audience of people who listen to them without a shred of independent thought (maybe a bit harsh, let's call them sheep instead) and make up their mind solely on reviews.
On a less serious note though, the reviews I give of reviewers are meant purely for comedic effect and may not actually represent the person I am critiquing. For all we know, they may be nice people (probably not, but still). Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that this is once again just my opinion and should be taken as such.
This post contains Part 2 of my Warfighter review, this time focusing exclusively on multiplayer. Now, this is going to be a proper scrum. At its core, Warfighter is a very solid shooter using pre-established mechanics but adding its own little twists to the first person shooter genre.
Multiplayer
Gameplay
Like in single-player, the controls for Warfighter are precise, intuitive and generally well thought-out. In terms of movement, Warfighter employs three fairly unique (for the FPS genre in general and if considered as appearing together in a single game rather than multiple games) gameplay mechanics in the form of leaning, sliding and diving. The lean mechanic present in singleplayer is also present in multiplayer and is just as useful for checking a corner before proceeding or leaning out of cover to take a few potshots at the enemy. There's also the option to slide into cover or dive into cover by either tapping or holding the crouch button while running. Sliding or diving is great for escaping a firefight if there's cover readily available and also provides some pretty hilarious ragdoll physics if you're killed while performing said slide or dive during the killfeed. As well as that, sliding can be insanely fun to use, sometimes resulting in some pretty spectacular kills if employed properly.
Having gotten the controls and mechanics out of the way, let's turn to some discussion about Warfighter's multiplayer. The biggest selling point of the multiplayer for me was the ability to play as various special forces units from around the world. While the differences between said units is quite superficial in that they only have different accents, languages and appearances, it is a step in the right direction as it recognises that the United States isn't the only country with special forces. On a more personal note, it's nice not to play all the time on the Western good guy faction or on the ethnic or Russian bad guy faction. Furthermore, the units picked to appear in the game represent what are basically the most important special forces units due to their recent activities and contributions in the War on Terror (which is what the game is examining, in case anyone wasn't paying attention). As well as representing a realistic take on the factions involved in the War on Terror, these different units from all over the world also inspire the sense of nationalism and patriotism that is brought out by war. This is further enhanced by Warfighter Nations which is run on Battlelog and basically encourages competition between nations through the contribution of tokens earned while playing multiplayer. While Warfighter Nations is nothing innovative or awe-inspiring, it is an interesting integration of the multiplayer conception of national competition on a more global scale.
Continuing with the talk about the national units, there are some distinct features that separate the different factions although they are few and far in between. One of the distinctions I noted was in the way that different operators from different countries handled their weapons. For example, when reloading with a magazine that still contained ammunition, the Polish GROM operator would take out a fresh magazine pointed downwards then hold it next to the magazine already attached to the gun which they would then detach and flip upside down so that they could insert the fresh magazine before keeping the half-empty magazine. Meanwhile, the American Navy SEAL operator would just detach the half-empty magazine, keep it then take a fresh magazine and insert it into the gun. On a side note, it's pretty clear that Danger Close has invested a lot of effort, time and passion into this game as there are so many little details that people don't necessarily pay attention to such as the use of Mechanix Workwear gloves (reportedly favoured by most special forces operators), the different types of grips that operators use when holding their weapon and the types of camouflage used by different countries. It's in these little details that Warfighter truly shines through.
Next up, I'll talk about the classes. The types of soldiers you can use are subdivided into six classes with their own individual appearances and special abilities. There's the sniper who, unsurprisingly, wields a sniper rifle and whose special ability consists a remote spotter that helps players spot enemies when the bipod is deployed. In addition to the sniper, there is the assault class which employs assault rifles and has a 40mm grenade launcher as his special ability. Next up is the demolition class which uses sub-machine guns and shotguns as well as having the special ability to deploy ballistic armour which gives them extra protection from gunfire and explosions. Following that, there's the heavy gunner who is armed with a machine gun and has the ability to deploy a bipod for said machine gun which gives it unlimited ammunition (but does still overheat). The point man is armed with assault rifles as well but has the ability to use Heavy Hitters (a special type of ammunition that does more damage but causes higher recoil). Finally, there's the spec ops class which uses carbines and has a very special ability called Signal Scan which gives the player a brief thermal vision sort-of thing where you can see through cover to where enemies are. All in all, the classes feel balanced and cater to all kinds of playstyles. If you want to run and gun, then you can use the point man or spec ops classes as they have the edge in speed over the other classes. If you want an all-rounder that can hit at most ranges if used carefully, then look no further than the assaulter. Maybe you want to stay in one-spot and provide covering fire for your teammates? If that's you, then the sniper or heavy gunner are right for you. What's that? You want to be a tank and draw fire for your teammates? That's possible with the demolition class!
From a tactical perspective, Warfighter gives you some sense of freedom to approach a problem from your own angle albeit in a more limited fashion than say Battlefield. However, just like Battlefield, the game rewards skill and strategy over firepower. In my experience with the game, approaching a situation cautiously and taking time out to analyse the situation and formulating a plan usually ends better than running in blindly. Another thing I noticed is that accuracy plays an extremely big factor in helping players to win a firefight. From the 20-30 hours I've sunk into the game, I've found that aiming down sights before opening fire usually ends up with me coming out of the firefight alive. Another tactical component available in multiplayer is the ability to use support actions that can be unlocked through achieving a certain amount of points through kills or objective-based actions. There are 4 levels of support actions divided into offensive actions and defensive actions that differ with each class with the exception of the last support action which is always a controllable Apache helicopter gunship. The support actions feel a little more balanced than the killstreaks present in Call of Duty as most of them aren't powerhouse offensive weapons that can basically wipe out the other team. Furthermore, the game incentivises players to use defensive streaks more than offensive streaks since they provide more points and are usually more beneficial to the entire team. That is not to say that offensive actions are lame, they're pretty potent in the right hands. One well-placed cluster bomb and you can take out the entire enemy team guarding an objective.
In terms of gunplay, Warfighter excels as it really provides a sense of satisfaction when you manage to kill another player. Unlike other first-person shooters, the damage profiles are slightly different in that it requires more hits to kill. While this is a strange tweak to the genre, it does provide more intense and satisfying firefights which require skill and accuracy rather than raw power provided by the guns themselves. Meleeing is fairly well balanced as it takes time to actually swing the tomahawk and said tomahawk will only kill in one hit if you manage to sneak up behind or beside an enemy and activate the execution animation. The one thing that does bug me about the gunplay is the MacMillan TAC-50 which is a .50 calibre sniper rifle available to the sniper class as it literally takes only one shot to kill from the torso upwards. While there is nothing wrong with a gun with such high damage, the problem is that the gun is far too easy to use. The scope sway is manageable, the scope-in time is the same as other rifles, the accuracy is pretty much dead-on, racking the bolt takes about the same time as other rifles and the reload speed is fairly the same as well. Now, the ease of using the gun presents a problem because it provides no incentive for snipers to use any other weapon available. Dare I say it? Yes, I do. It is overpowered and using it is just cheap.
Keeping on the topic of guns, there is a pretty good variety of guns and a ludicrously deep level of customisation. In addition to that, each gun is given its own individual identity in the way it handles and sounds. However, while there is a fairly wide variety of guns, I was a little disappointed to find that a lot of the units used the same gun. To be fair, the guns came with different attachments and customisations to make them look and feel different but it would have been nice to see more guns. Another thing that irked me was how some of the weapons used by the different national units didn't match the weapons used in real-life. Although to be fair, if Danger Close did give them the weapons they actually used in real life, most of them would be using the M4 or some variant of it. However, what we do get in return is the partnership between Danger Close and various weapons and attachment manufacturers which allowed them unparalleled access to authentic weapons and gear although they aren't really in service with some of the units in real-life. To me though, it feels like Danger Close did pay attention to the details and made the guns as realistic as possible. In terms of customisation, it is ludicruously deep in the sense that you can customise everything from the scope to the stock to the barrel as well as being able to add attachments. It gives you the ability to basically build a gun any way you want it or perhaps the way you need it. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like the game is giving you a sense of individuality, a way to distinguish yourself from the pack, much like a special operator could. The one thing that irked me about weapons and weapon design was the provision of unlimited ammunition for sidearms. While this proved useful in extended firefights and after running out of ammunition for my primary weapon, it took away from what is a quite realistic experience. Furthermore, one of the sidearms is a Remington 870 MCS shotgun which is pretty potent and can be used to deadly effect with basically no curtail except maybe in range which is still quite good for a shotgun.
Moving on, the game modes are the same basic game modes you would usually see in a first person shooter. There's Team Deathmatch, Combat Mission (it's like Rush mode in Battlefield), Homerun (basically Capture the Flag with the twist of only one life per round), Sector Control (Domination), Hotspot (similar to Combat Mission where opposing teams try to win 3 rounds out of 5) and Real Ops (Hardcore). Most of these modes do require quite a lot of teamwork and this is where the Fireteam Buddy system comes in. Your Fireteam Buddy is basically your best friend in the game. You can fully replenish your ammunition and instantly heal yourself by interacting with him as well as having the really useful option of spawning on him instead of spawning all the way back at the other end of a map. In addition to that, you get additional points for killing enemies or having your buddy kill an enemy when you are in close proximity. While I am a huge fan of the Fireteam system, it does come across as very frustrating as the emphasis on teamwork makes it extremely difficult when saddled with a lone wolf as your Buddy. Most matches I played were with friends and were extremely satisfying as we worked together well and managed to outmanoeuvre and outgun the enemy through solid teamwork. However, there were also a lot of matches where I was playing with randoms that had no idea what teamwork meant. They would run off into the distance and refuse to stick to cover so I could spawn on them to help out. As well as that, I found myself forced to use my sidearm quite often because I would run out of ammunition for my main weapon and be unable to replenish ammo from my buddy who would be dead or all the way across the map.
Presentation
The graphics are alright but nowhere near as stunning as single-player or Battlefield 3 which shares the exact same engine. This disappointed me a little bit but as I've stated before, graphics don't really matter that much to me. The rendering of the weapons and equipment is superb though and that does claw back some points for the graphics department. While the maps tended to look alright, the game does tend to suffer some frame rate drops on certain maps when the action gets really hectic. As well as that, the screen sometimes has a white box that blocks out more than half your vision which can be extremely annoying.
In terms of audio, Warfighter once again excels in the music department as well as the sound department. Weapons sound like they are supposed to and bullets hit targets with a deafening thud. As well as that, range from the object making a sound also seems quite accurate whereby the nearer you are, the more details you can hear in the sound. The music borrows from the campaign and is as sharp and as beautiful as in the single-player portion of the game.
Probably the biggest problem with Warfighter is the user interface (UI) and heads-up display (HUD). They are hideously cluttered and contain way too much information for any player to handle. Furthermore, selecting or customising weapons and units is deeply confusing as the buttons to do so are counter-intuitive and difficult to get used to. The user interface is especially bad as it is confusing and extremely hard to figure out. The HUD fares no better as it presents a mass of information to take in which can be disconcerting when approaching a situation due to the vast amount of data you need to sort through quickly in your head before approaching a firefight.
Conclusion
Warfighter's multiplayer carves an interesting niche into the modern multiplayer first-person shooter market. In my opinion, it brings something unique to the table and does very well in trying to be its own game rather than a knock-off midpoint between Battlefield and Call of Duty.
Pros:
Excellent gameplay and gunplay.
Fantastic attention to detail.
Some of the best audio I've heard in a game for years.
The lean mechanic.
The Fireteam Buddy system and the teamwork it encourages.
Cons:
Unlimited ammunition for sidearms.
Graphics are a bit of a letdown.
Extremely cluttered and confusing UI and HUD.
