Medal of Honor: Warfighter - A Retrospective

My, how time has passed. It's almost a year since I started writing on the interwebz and it's been a fairly rough ride. Getting content on isn't easy and getting people to read this stuff wasn't any easier. Hell, I'm still not sure if anyone actually reads this stuff other than the bots and spam-machines that occasionally drop by. As some of you may know, I started this whole project because I was disappointed in the state of video game "journalism", with the impetus being the disastrous reviews of a game I thought received a lot of undeserved criticism, Medal of Honor: Warfighter. As I predicted when the game came out, the negative reviews would lead to some pretty severe consequences. Thanks to the poor reviews the game received, the sales tanked and EA yanked the Medal of Honor series out of rotation for an indefinite period, marking the end of what I felt was the series that really launched a great era of first-person shooters. Furthermore, a majority of the development team was let go following the closure of Danger Close with some lucky enough to be transferred to the newly-created DICE Los Angeles, an off-shoot of the Swedish studio responsible for Battlefield and Mirror's Edge.

This infuriates me to no end because the Danger Close team were not a bad team of developers and they did not put out a shoddy game. They put out a decent game that unfortunately had to take the hit for the modern military shooter subgenre. Sure, the first-person shooter genre is flooded with military shooters but that did not make it fair for Warfighter to take all the criticism that could've rightly gone to Modern Warfare 3, released the year before and was seriously a re-hash of the previous games in the Call of Duty series. At the end of the day, because a few "journalists" decided to trash a game as an example rather than because it was a poor game, a lot of people lost their jobs and a great series has been put on ice, perhaps even killed off. Look, I'm sure there are a lot of detractors out there who would disagree with me, saying that reviewers were right for calling the game a buggy, unfinished piece of trash. To those people, I say they're entitled to their opinion but they should recognise that at the end of the day, it is an opinion. Sure, Warfighter had its fair share of bugs but what game doesn't? In addition to that, I can think of a few examples of games with fairly massive flaws that got ignored because the reviewers like the game so much (e.g. Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Skyrim, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops for the first week or so on the PS3 etc.). I don't know about you but that seems like a huge double-standard to me. The point is, all the reviews for Warfighter were just opinions. Understandably, the general consensus that the game was bad would turn any sane person away from purchasing the game but unfortunately, reviewers aren't always right.

I've always recognised that reviews are opinions and they should be taken with a grain of salt, but the problem is, most people don't see it that way. I'm not going to claim that reviewers should receive all the blame for Warfighter's dismal sales but if you read the comments or are even remotely tuned in to the internet at large, many people basically decided not to pick up the game because of the poor reviews it got. Fair enough, people want to spend their money wisely and a poorly-rated game across the board seems like a pretty risky purchase. I get that. The problem is, reviewers are stating opinions as fact and people actually believe that. Not that I blame them. Reviewers or video game "journalists" have been trying to convince people that they are actual journalists for a long time. There are definitely a few actual journalists in the field but unfortunately, their work isn't as popular or widespread as their more populist tabloid-y counterparts who work for the major gaming networks. These people are not journalists just because they are paid to report on gaming news. They are basically glorified bloggers with fancy job titles. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone in the business of reporting gaming-related news is a pretentious or elitist snob. On the contrary, I'm sure a lot of the people in the business are passionate and dedicated writers trying to improve their craft. The problem is, they work in an industry that keeps trying to convince itself that it is a serious business that people should take seriously. This isn't a negative thing. As an Arts student, I completely understand the need to justify your choices and your work because people don't take you seriously. My problem is that these people fail to fulfil the basic requirements needed to be a journalist. Many cannot spell properly and have terrible grammar and even worse prose making it somewhat difficult for me to take them seriously as journalists. Furthermore, there is a disturbing lack of ethics particularly when certain sites advertise the games they are supposed to be impartially reviewing and receive special gifts or trips from companies publishing said games. On the subject of impartiality, there lies the biggest problem I have with video game "journalists". They seem to have none although they try to portray themselves as experts reporting facts to the public. If they really are professionals who are reporting facts then they shouldn't be accepting special press trips or gifts from publishers. Even if they have the utmost integrity, it is completely unacceptable for a journalist to be getting preferential treatment. And on the flipside, journalists should thus not throw a hissy fit because they failed to get a copy of a game early from a publisher especially one that is notorious for not handing out early copies. This was the case with Warfighter when reviewers flat-out accused EA for withholding early copies because it was an unfinished product that they didn't want the public to see. Or perhaps it was because EA is wary of reviewers who give their competitors higher scores because they get showered with special events, previews and gifts way in advance of the game being released.

Back on the subject of Warfighter, the reviewers/"journalists" demonstrated an epic misunderstanding of what their job involves by nitpicking on small things rather than focusing on the whole package. As a fan of the game, I'm more than willing to admit that Warfighter had its shortcomings but it was a genuinely decent game. It had problems and there were some things it got wrong but there were so many things that it did get right that none of the reviewers noticed or bothered to point out. First of all, the graphics were, on the whole, excellent. Sure it's not up to the same level as Battlefield 3 even though both games use the same engine but you have to give Danger Close some props, this was the first time they were working with the Frostbite engine and they managed to get quite a lot out of it with so little experience working with it. Furthermore, the game had a nice degree of realism to it with realistic weapons, gear and equipment and if the advertising is to be believed, even fairly realistic recounting of real-life events. I mean, come on, they even bothered to actually put in and animate the fire-mode selector so that it actually moves to the correct position when selecting various fire modes! I think the problem in this respect was that the realism was in the details rather than the big picture. The way the weapons were handled, the camouflage used, the types of gloves the operators wore, the weapons and equipment they used as well as the realistic dialogue were all things I noticed because I'm an avid military enthusiast. I'm not suggesting that all the reviewers should have known this but with realism being the major marketing point used by EA, it probably would've paid off if they did their research and see if the claims of realism were right. Keeping on the theme of realism and details, the developers definitely put a lot of work into the weapons and attachments, allowing a vast array of customisation that actually affects the performance of the weapon based on whatever accessories were equipped unlike another big-name competitor where the balance is so fine-tuned that attachments barely do anything and occasionally aren't even modelled correctly (Long Barrel, anyone?). Furthermore, the sound design was brilliant with some of the best audio I've heard in a game since Battlefield 3 or ARMA II with the guns actually sounding like guns, the suppressors actually working like suppressors rather than magic silencers and the various sounds made when a bullet hit various surfaces.

I suppose Warfighter's downfall can be partly attributed to their focus on the nitty-gritty and putting the devil in the details while failing to account for how people might perceive the big picture. At the same time, these people reviewing it are supposed to be and often call themselves professionals. If this were the case, they would've done their research and actually tried their best to present an impartial case when reviewing any game. If they keep reviewing games as they do now though, that's perfectly fine but it'd be nice if they acknowledged that their reviews are simply opinion and not fact as they lead people to believe and people do actually sometimes believe, a misunderstanding that I find is still prevalent. On the specific subject of the Warfighter reviews, I was extremely disappointed by most of the reviewers who had a need to trash the game because they didn't get an early copy (only a smattering raised this point) or because they were burned out by the genre (a majority of reviewers). If they wanted to express their disappointment with the military shooter genre, then write a god-damn opinion piece on why the market is saturated with military shooters and how much of a disaster it is, not attack a fairly decent game because you want to make an example. The absolute best part is, when Black Ops II came out, apparently everyone got over their disillusionment with the modern military shooter and praised an old game with a few small tweaks sold as revolutionary and innovative.

In short, I have two main points:

1. Reviewers should try and act with some semblance of impartiality if they want to present themselves as experts in the field that offer recommendations and advice, if not, stop pretending like they are more qualified than anyone else and mention that their reviews are merely opinion, not fact.
2. Cut Warfighter some slack. It got a bad rap because of an unfortunate series of events which led to it taking the fall for the modern military first-person shooter as well as some poor reviewing on the part of a majority of the major sites. Gamespot, in my opinion was the only major site that gave a fair score, the rest sort of gave scores that don't seem to match the descriptions of their scoring system. I mean, a score in the 30s or 40s would mean some pretty serious problems and somehow, Skyrim for PS3 which had A LOT of issues, including freezing and massive lag, but was nonetheless a good game got scores in the 80s and 90s.

Medal of Honor Warfighter Multiplayer Review (PS3)

"For Queen and Country."

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.

Multiplayer Score = 40/50

Overall Score = 70/100

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