EA: Medal Of Honor "Didn't Meet Our Quality Expectations"

For all its pre-release swagger and marketing might, EA's recent Medal of honour reboot, well, sucked. I think so, many of you think so, and now even staffers at Electronic Arts are getting down on the game.

"I'm not going to comment on the sales because EA has an earnings report going out next week and we will unveil sales in that meeting", EA Games' Patrick Soderlund told Eurogamer. "What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations. In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong."

"Medal of honour is to some extent judged harsher than it should be", he then adds in the game's defence. "The game is better than today's reviews are indicating."

No, it's not, and that's being kind, because I think Medal of honour was a double failure. Yes, it failed as a modern-day shooter thanks to confusing jargon, a boring plot and woefully-implemented AI scripting.

But even more importantly, it failed at what it was initially pitched as being: an "authentic" military action title. What we were promised was a game that put us in the shoes of a Western soldier in Afghanistan, a conflict that's as much about dealing with civilians and "allies" as it is putting bullets in bad guys.

What we got was a game where you walk, run and sometimes drive down corridors shooting everything in your path. It could have been set in space and starred an alien, it could have been set in the Second World War and had you playing as a Brit, and the experience would have been transferrable.

EA had a chance with Medal of honour to really throw a stake in the ground. To show that by setting a game in a controversial, contemporary conflict that a shooter could be as much about a soldier's actual experience as it was about video game cliches of spawn points, headshot streaks and sniper levels. And it failed.

The future of Need for Speed revealed [Eurogamer]


    Releasing an open beta was a big mistake. Most people who play a beta don't understand the concept behind it.

      Rubbish. Even a beta gives you the core gameplay elements. I've been in on a couple and seen good and bad games come and go. Betas give you a decent impression of the final product, not an ABSOLUTE impression but a decent one. It's where they basically get feedback and tweak, rarely if ever REINVENT. That has happened a handful of times but only when its been direly, direly needed. MOH's problem was it was the utter definition of generic.

        Weresmurf just proved Jon's point perfectly...

    "To show that by setting a game in a controversial, contemporary conflict that a shooter could be as much about a soldier’s actual experience as it was about video game cliches of spawn points, headshot streaks and sniper levels. And it failed."

    ...yes, indeed it did fail. With all of ACTIVISION's recent success, EA had big dollar signs rolling around in their eye sockets (CONKER's BAD FUR DAY style). Sorry guys, you missed the mark big time.

    It's EA trying to compete in the COD space. They screwed around with BFBC2 and now MOH. The DICE frostbite engine is great but does not suit the COD game play.

      The MP part of the game was done with the Unreal engine (while that isn't so bad, but having 2 engines does waste space that could have been used for more maps etc.)

        Flip that, SP was Unreal... MP was Frostbite (modified).

        Bullshit, get a clue. Mp uses dices frostbite engine, because ummmm mp was made by dice...

        Actually, MP was done with Frostbite so you can have the destructible terrain still and SP was done in UE3.

        Actually the MP was done with frostbite and the SP was done with unreal engine 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor_(2010_video_game)

    Wow Mr Plunkett really didn't like the game. I thought the open beta was okay, just really unbalanced. Then again maybe I think its a good game because I wasn't expecting much?.

    Mmm, I'm perhaps one of the only people who like it.

    Playing MOH MP is amazing. The amount of times I have been crouching along to find a vantage point, stop to survey the horizon to make sure I'm not exposing myself, and then found an enemy with his back to me doing the same thing just a few metres to the side... Amazing. It does provide a realistic experience in that... The only time you really see the enemy is when they're moving.

    I actually really like MOH because its very different from MW2 . . . im no expert but I am alot better at playing MOH due to the pace.

    My reflexes just arent fast enough for the twitch gameplay of MW2 . . i prefer to use tactics and flanking which I have found to be very useful in MoH. I understand from the point of view of a MW2 player that u get picked off by snipers when running straight in . . but i have been using smoke bombs, cover, shoot and move, and yes a little bit of stopping to observe and shoot (camping).
    To me . . i like the challenge of having to do this as most of my kills are to the side of the opponent (as in, i have successfully flanked them after a brief firefight).
    So i believe that its all just personal taste and play style . . so me. . i would go for MoH over MW2 any day because i like using tactics.

    But hey . . thats only my opinion . . and im gonna get flamed for it . . but yeah, take that as you will.

    I got a steam invite to the beta and it was terrible, the multiplayer was a limp version of BC2. you would spawn, go to the middle, shoot a lot and die, rinse and repeat.

    Disagree. As a current serving member of the military, I thought the authenticity in this title was notable, and the gameplay was an accurate representation of Operation Anaconda.

    The comms, or 'Jargon' was about as accurate as it gets, it was fulfilling to hear friendly NPC's calling "Contact Right!/Left!" when the first shot rings out.

    As far as "accurate and authentic" titles go, without going to the degree of ARMA type sims, this was right on the money. The campaign was too short and the multiplayer is rubbish, but I think in a lot of cases it has been unfairly reviewed.

    Can't comment on authenticity, because I'm not armed forces. As a gamer though, it was shit. Felt like I was playing MOH on the original xbox. They had a chance to make something good, and they failed.

    I found the single player part boring, but I also felt feel the same way about the COD titles. The multiplayer however is a blast. Everyone else I know aren't playing COD anymore and won't get the new one next week as the multiplayer for MOH feels alot more solid. None of this crap about using perks, instead having to rely on your own skill and with the weapons. But if they want success, I think they should stick with Bad Company and the Battlefield franchises. It's single player and big multiplayer maps is something that COD won't beat.

    Don't get fucking game reporters talking about authenticity.
    If they don't have the balls to join the army...
    Call Of Duty has blackened the mind of gamers worldwide too many blinded by the so called revolutionary perfect fps. But again maybe EA should of spent a little more time on this to polish it out. Personally i haven't played MoH but the Beta was pretty fun, slower paced shooters really give tension.

    Complaining that a shooter is like all the other shooters seems a bit strange. Yes it would be great if a shooter handled conflicts in a more mature way but its hardly strange or 'bad' that it didn't.

    I for one actually enjoyed the beta. Of course I felt it could use some work, but I pre-ordered the game, considering the sp was supposed to be the highlight, I thought it would be decent.

    And ofc, they took everything that was good about the beta and destroyed it. MP sucks - just an orgy of bugs, spawnkilling and cheating. The singleplayer is the worste of it, couldn't even play past the first hour because of a bug. btw for anyone who thought it seemed "accurate and authentic", try Americas Army 3 - free and I'm pretty sure its what Danger Close were trying to replicate anyway.

      It might just be me, but I can never read or hear a sentence that starts with "I for one..." without hearing the words, "...welcome our space ant overlords".

    The multiplayer really feels unfinished. After playing through singleplayer (which I enjoyed) I expected to be able to stuff like lean and go prone in multi, but that was missing. I don't think there's even voice chat for multiplayer. Multi seemed very half-arsed to me.

    The game looked and felt utterly generic from day one, from its very first moment. It was so generic looking that the only thing people latched onto was the bushy beard of the cover character in the promos and that was a bad sign.

    You'd think after a decade of lukewarm failed imitators of triple A games publishers would get the freaking hint, if you want to make a game as popular as 'game X', you need to make a game OTHER than 'game X' with a different name.

    at least this game brought back the battlefield bc 1 multiplayer style gameplay. fing addicting. otherwise, yeah, it blew more [email protected]@ than a kid at the michael jackson ranch when he was alive

    MOH really suffers from a severe lack of polish and care on the gaming mechanics really. The deal breakers for me enjoying the game's singleplayer were:

    - Inivisible walls
    - Boring corridor style shootouts
    - Lackluster level design
    - Accessibility of the story (I shouldn't need to be a military nut to understand what's going on)
    - Really average ending of the campaign (just suddenly stops)
    - Repetitive building, shootouts and a real feel of "I've done this so many times before"

    I'm so happy that I shopped around and got it for only $20 AUD on launch day.

    I won't be buying any sequel unless I see many good reviews about it.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now