Ok, so I have yet to touch the single-player campaign and I have no idea when I will. I bought this game with hopes for the multiplayer portion, and it sorta delivered.
So far I've played about 12hrs of the multplayer on various modes. And I have to say Medal of Honor:Warfighter's multiplayer, is GOOD. At some points it even has glimmers of great, but it's not quite there like Battlefield 3 was. I enjoy the new fireteam system and the fact that they included a peek/lean. But other than these 2 exceptions the multiplayer is pretty standard fair.
The graphics are good and the lighting is great since it's on the Frostbite 2 engine, but not all the textures are up to snuff. There's a ton to unlock in multiplayer, almost every piece of your main weapon can be customized. There are also 6 different classes to use and each class has 12 different soldiers to unlock within the class, making for 72 different soldiers all together. Each of these 72 different soldiers come from different nations and come complete with a different set of weapons. Although the only weapons you can customize is the main weapon, not the secondary or grenades/mines.It's still a about 72 different main weapons to try and customize to your liking, along with each of the 6 classes having a unique special skill. It's very overwhelming at first seeing all the things you will eventually be unlocking.
The gameplay itself is a mix between Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty, if you could imagine such a thing. The movement feels more like Battlefield, so does the gunplay being that they have realistic recoil and bulletspread. Along with the fact that it takes a few shots to take someone out unless you're playing the game on the hardcore setting. Where as in Call of Duty players seem to go down with a few bullets whether it be in the leg or the chest.
The Elements that make MoH: Warfighter feel like Call of Duty is that there are kill streak, well score streak in this game. You gain points for things like assist, defusals, supplying you're fireteam buddy etc. Eventually you'll get enough to where you are given a reward and you can choose out of a support or offensive reward, which I like. Another thing that makes it feel like Call of Duty is that the maps are small and there are no vehicles.
A standout feature in multiplayer is the Fireteam system where you are given one teammate who you can aid and spawn on through the match. You can supply him with ammo and also heal him no matter what class you choose. Also you get points for protecting him and assiting him in various ways. You can also spawn on him and see and outline of him the entire match to organize easier. Another benefit is you can see a red outline of the person that kills your fireteam buddy for about 3 seconds to help you exact that avenge bonus!
Another standout feature is being able to lean and peek from cover. Personally I love this feature because it makes the firefights feel that much more authetic. How often would you return fire at someone wielding a high powered assault rifle or sniper rifle with your body fully exposed? It's a feature that adds realism to both 3rd person and first person shooter titles and adds value in my book.
The modes in the game are fun but are pretty standard, they go from Team Deathmatch to a few variation of capture the flag and bomb defusals modes.
Ok so to wrap this up, if the gameplay from Battlefield 3 got dropped into a close quarters map without vehicles, added point streaks with cool rewards ala Call of Duty, and had the 2 new features I mentioned above would you want to play it? That's basically what you're getting here, nothing exactly groundbreaking but pretty fun nonetheless. Especially if you like alittle more realistic gunplay than what's on offer in the next black ops.
Here's a link to a gameplay video I took showing some of the interface and gameplay. I'm not very good yet still need alot of practice!