Electronic Arts Drops Medal of Honor
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It gets worse, multiple sniper rounds to the face? No Problem!Slayer_2 said:
Moving on to broken ground without letting off some fireworks?
YOU ARE DEAD.
The Medal of Honor series deserved better.
Then again most of the IP's with EA deserve better.
To all of you who buy modern military shooters, please stop. I beg you. Maybe the industry can move back to making actual interest FPS games. Even Crysis 2 went the way of modern military shooter. So sick and tired of the jargon, the washed out palette, the machismo and even the setting. Hard Reset > any modern military shooter. Even Rage which is just "above average" is better.
So please stop buying them. Please please please. Let the genre die, the dead horse has been flogged and there's not even enough left of it for a Tesco burger.
So please stop buying them. Please please please. Let the genre die, the dead horse has been flogged and there's not even enough left of it for a Tesco burger.
Sometimes I forget that EA used to be called ECA and they were nice people bringing out great games with absolutely no hassle or fuss whatsoever.
Then again, that was a quarter century ago, so that probably isn't much part of reality any longer.
Then again, that was a quarter century ago, so that probably isn't much part of reality any longer.
My opinion, and that's all. The mistake, or rather the biggest mistake, was taking the game AWAY from World War II, and even then, when the game was set in this setting, it tried to be a "Call of Duty", while it could be much more interesting if it kept to its more "adventurous" roots. I mean, the first MoH was a fps with a heavy action touch to it; after CoD came and was a huge success they decided to try and make MoH more like it, more shooter based, and so it went until the decision to go "modern", again a copycat. I don't get this feeling from Battlefield for instance, nor many other shooters around, but at a given point MoH, in particular, became a poor copycat of other shooters, it wouldn't surprise me if it got a third person cover based installment...
Maybe consumers and reviewers didn't get it wrong. Maybe consumer tastes are changing, Moore, and modern military shooters are too damn abundant that no matter how many USPs you attach to it, the overall game will be seen under a dim light as "another one of those".
Modern Military Shooters bore the crap out of me now, that's why I didn't get it. If I wanted a modern military simulator, I'd get ARMA.
Modern Military Shooters bore the crap out of me now, that's why I didn't get it. If I wanted a modern military simulator, I'd get ARMA.
They'll probably manage to kill that to.Myndnix said:
OT: Please EA, if you don't want to use it, sell the IP off to somebody more competant, somebody that won't release the most boring game of all time and then blast critics for not liking the shit sandwich that was served to them.
this.octafish said:
I generally like the games EA puts out (battlefield, dead space, etc.), but this was one of the few times I felt burned by them. I even liked the previous Medal of Honor title... it wasn't all that bad and is still playable to this day. But Warfighter was straight up broken. glitchy AI, glitchier event scripting, unpolished, terrible menu interface, etc. Seems like Danger Close relied too heavily on Frostbite 2's graphic fidelity to sell the game... sorry but the game still has to work. Even my standards aren't that low.
Well they aren't really.KingsGambit said:
They are buying COD but they aren't buying MoH and Battlefield 3. And yes, Battlefield 3 didn't sell all that well, for example the WWII setting World At War, the COD everyone ignores, that sold better than Battlefield 3 did, to spite it coming out much earlier when the number of Xbox 360 users was smaller.
You look at the top selling 360 games it's COD and Halo then Grand Theft Auto 4 and Skyrim.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=&publisher=&platform=X360&genre=&minSales=0&results=200
These "modern military shooters" aren't popular, Call of Duty is popular. And if it ain't Call of Duty or Halo, it isn't the highest selling game.
The thing is COD is the furthest thing from authenticity, it's about nuclear missiles being launched by Russian separatists at the East Coast. It's Russia invading America. It's about Americans invading Russia in the Cold War. It's then mother-fucking "future warfare" with god damn walking battle tanks. It's about Specialist killstreak stacking.
Modern conflicts is just the vaguest pretext.
To spite COD's affectations to the grim world of the warfare we see on the News it's in fact extremely escapist. It even seems that in the Modern Warfare world, 9/11 hasn't happened and America is not in a "War on Terror" in Afghan/Pak region.
-----
It seems to be EA has tried to copy COD without even stopping to analyse what COD actually is.
rhizhim said:
Allied Assault was one of my favourite games back in the day. Hell, it still is today. It's such a shame to see how far the once mighty have truly fallen. Curse you Call of Duty!Decamper said:
I feel really bad for buying the very first COD on PC and thinking how much better it was than MOH.
You know what else made this series one of my favourites of all time? Fucking AMAZING concept art. I had the MoH wallpapers as my computer background for years, & it got me into reading historical accounts of WWII, which i devoured.Decamper said:
RIP
Guys, the reason this guy seems to be wrapped up in some sort of reality proof bubble is that this message has nothing to do with us.
What Patcher is doing here, is speaking to his companies shareholders. He, and the rest of EA's management, have been telling them how great their ideas are for 'fixing' series such as MOH which are 'under-performing.'
Shareholders, on the whole, don't know anything about the game industry. They just know that you put money into a company, then get money out of it in yearly instalments - if those instalments aren't big enough you can demand that the management dose more, or just take your money and go else ware.
They don't understand the reason why a game gets poor reviews has more to do with the quality of the game than people not getting it. They just know that a game made under Mr Patchers' watch failed to recoup the money that was invested into it - and they want to know why.
He's trying to cover up his own managerial failure by saying "The Game is great, nothing wrong with it! It's just those nasty reviewers kicking it and making the consumer not buy it!"
What Patcher is doing here, is speaking to his companies shareholders. He, and the rest of EA's management, have been telling them how great their ideas are for 'fixing' series such as MOH which are 'under-performing.'
Shareholders, on the whole, don't know anything about the game industry. They just know that you put money into a company, then get money out of it in yearly instalments - if those instalments aren't big enough you can demand that the management dose more, or just take your money and go else ware.
They don't understand the reason why a game gets poor reviews has more to do with the quality of the game than people not getting it. They just know that a game made under Mr Patchers' watch failed to recoup the money that was invested into it - and they want to know why.
He's trying to cover up his own managerial failure by saying "The Game is great, nothing wrong with it! It's just those nasty reviewers kicking it and making the consumer not buy it!"
They should have bucked the trend and remade the original Medal of Honor 
No 1 is doing WW2 anymore so it be nice to have one again XD
No 1 is doing WW2 anymore so it be nice to have one again XD