Battlefield 3 Insert Hints At Imminent Medal Of Honor Sequel

Battlefield 3's limited edition contains a promotional insert for Medal of Honor, indicating that game's promised sequel is due soon, if not around this time next year.

The insert appears at 3:39 of this video. The card is just a logo, but it has an ESRB Rating Pending badge on it, meaning it's unlikely this is a promotion for the existing game or a re-release of it.

In February, Greg Goodrich of Danger Close said the studio was working on the next instalment of Medal of Honor. It would seem to put Electronic Arts on a schedule of rolling out a military shooter every year while alternating installments of its two big franchises.

Battlefield 3 Insert Teases New Medal Of honour Announcement, Presumably Soon [NeoGAF]


    who cares. it will be a flop just like the last one.


      EA, This new MOH game, it's an illusion, give it up. (appropriate quote)

    I think I'm the only person in the world who actually enjoyed MoH. Granted, I bought it for like $20 from the UK, but it was still quite fun. Playing it felt a lot more in the spirit of what troops are going through in the battlefield than the almost-fantasy that the CoD:MW games offer nowadays. Especially considering some of it is virtually taken out of the history books (eg the crashed Chinook with the Rangers near the end is straight from a story from the The Night Stalkers, a book about the pilots who ferry the troops involved in special ops).

    Note that I don't give a rat's arse about multiplayer, which I'm sure is responsible for at least some of the disdain for the game (though my half an hour or so trying it out was as enjoyable as my trying out CoDs).

      Nah i liked it too. Parts of the campaign were excellent and the killstreak system is much more balanced than cods

        I loved it as well ! The Campaign was awesome especially due to the excellent sound. Multiplayer took a while to get use to, but after a few hours it was pretty good. Not the best experience though.

      I liked it too. It really started picking up towards the end but it stopped suddenly. I like the fantasy of the COD series. The graphics were COD level tbh. If they just used the Frosbite engine for the SP, like they did with MP, I think the campaign would've been more enjoyable.

      I really enjoyed MoH a lot, both campaign and the multiplayer. I found the campaign was a great playthrough, although there weren't many narrative elements to it and it felt more like a basic simulator. The only downside to the campaign was the stability of the game, it was really buggy, but not gamebreaking. The multiplayer also felt like a good BF/MW hybrid, with fairly large maps and rush was great. I'll be ready to try a new MoH if they were to bring it out.

      I didn't mind the campaign, but the multiplayer got boring fast and within a month all the Servers were empty.

      While I enjoyed the game, don't think that MoH is ripped from the history books or shows what it was like for the soldiers. All it does is take the names of locations and orders of events and creates and brand new narrative around them. Bagram was held by friendly forces and was reinforced by the British SBS, who almost got into a firefight because no one told the friendlies that they were coming. Their commander, who was pretty much the reason why there was no blood shed, has since died.

      When the ANA were fired on by the AC-130, they didn't scatter an run. They sent their wounded back to base and continued on to their objective. They waited for an airstrike that never can and were ripped to shreds by the Taliban.

      When the Rangers came under fire at the base of the mountain, they dropped their packs and ran for cover, leaving all their spare ammunition and radios out in the open. It was only thanks to an Australia SF qualified radioman that they had any communications. The same radioman dragged members of the Ranger mortar crew to safety after the Taliban took them out.

      When the Apaches came in to save the day, they were badly damaged by the weight of small arms fire and were forced to retreat.

      When the Ranger QRF went to rescue the SEALs, the only went to the top of the mountain because someone, on a non "arsehole general several thousand miles away" way, had screwed up and they thought that the SEALs had control of the proposed LZ.

      When the Ranger QRF was shot down, it was an Australian SASR team who called in airstrikes all around them and kept the Taliban from overwhelming the Rangers.

      As for the game showing what the troops are going through, it doesn't even come close. It gets their attitudes, from what I can tell from seeing various helmet cam footage and from reading books like "War", right, but it didn't get the conditions right. It didn't show the Rangers digging shallow shell scrapes in the hard ground with their helmets, knives and fingers. It didn't show them trying to keep the wounded safe as mortars and small arms fire rained down around them. It didn't show their fear and shock as the Apaches were chased away. It didn't show the affects of being forced to wait until nightfall for extraction, while their buddies are slowly slipping away.

      Still, like I said, I enjoyed the game. The plot could have been much better written, even if they'd kept the Ameriwank, the graphics weren't all that flash and the AI was dumber than a rock, but I still enjoyed more than I did Black Ops. Hopefully they'll improve on all that this time and give us a game that shows what it's really like this time and doesn't piss on the graves of any dead soldiers.

    Holy crap someone bought BF3 on console!

      I am.

      I know it's difficult for you to understand, but one day... when you've left home and your parents aren't paying for your games and computer upgrades any more, it'll make more sense.

        Dumbest post of the day? I think we have a winner.

        HAAHAHAHahahahaha, Learn2Life bro.

        I've left home and I'm 19 work 4 days a week and rent a house with a mate.

        Know how much my computer costs? $4000 roughly, all bought pre-home.

        You obviously are a highschool dropout and get paid absolutely horrible/work one day a week if the reason for you not gaming on PC is costs.

        You just a mad console peasant because PC games are real games, like they are meant to be played.

        Best graphics in a game ever, 64 players, bigger maps..

        It's clear what platform is the best.

          $4000 computer? Explain yourself.

            PC games are real games? Right not ... really. In the future ... most likely.

            Please name some of the "real" games you say of besides Battlefield 3. WoW does not count. And seriously again there is no point in paying 4k to play great games like diablo 3 and SC2.

            Whats the point of spending 4K on a machine where if you buy a console you can get the exact same game with downgraded graphics. Gameplay is still the same.

              Right now... not really *

            Personally, PC controls bother me. having everything mapped on my fingertips is much more comfortable. The only reason you`re saying PC is so much better is that its equipment is more up to date.

          So many stupid assumptions going on here. Just because you choose not to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming rig doesn't mean you can't.

          Gaming isn't high up the priority list to everyone - plenty of things exist in the world to chew up your hard earned cash.

          $4000 computer? Troll or doing it wrong.

          I never buy any computer parts that are above middle of the range (which gives the best performance per unit cost), I've currently got tri-core AMD, 8GB DDR2 RAM, and HD 5770; my previous GPU was a HD 4850.

          $4000 for a High-end Computer that will only be par in 2 years? That's utter madness, for people that don't shit gold bricks.

          19yo boasting about how awesome he is cause he lives out of home and has a job..

          You've really made it dude, you should think that you are so cool that you should post it on the internet.. oh, wait.. lol..

          Dear Switch296,

          Thank you for making it forever unnecessary for me to argue with you again. I am bookmarking this glorious post of yours and will remember I never need concern myself with your opinions again.

          I'm sorry but who the hell is paying 4 grand for a gaming PC? I have a liquid cooled i7 qaud, 8gigs of ram with a 580GTX and that cost me 1.5k. I dont live with my parents and I support a child and my wife (Who doesn't work.). My PC will become irrelevant in about 4 - 5 years, but even then I will still be able to play games on medium settings!


          You're kidding noone mate.


        Living on my own, have two gaming PC's (one mid-range for visitors, one high end for myself) and a gaming laptop (Asus G73JW).

        Oh I also have a 360 and a Wii with an extensive game collection and am upgrading to the new 360 slim soon and grabbing a PS3.

        Consoles have a place but just because someone prefers PC (even if they're a tad douchey about it and even if he's right because BF on consoles is nowhere near the game it should be) don't assume they're some rich kid living with his parents.

          Cool and i have girlfriend

            Grats and I have one night stands. What's your point?

    Is that guy wearing sunglasses indoors?

      His vision is augmented.

        No, he just needs to wear sunnies everywhere he goes because his future is that bright.

          +1 ROFL

          It doesn't matter. He never asked for this.


    Alot of people are buying it on consoles.

    Fucking PC Troll

      actually i was talking to a EB games sales person the other day and more people have been buying it on PC. The sales persons didnt understand why but since she was a console person herself. she told me that a lot of their stores had totally sold out of the preorders for limited edition on PC. im sure its still good on consoles but BF3 is defs a PC game first and a console game second. unlike most multi-platform games these days.

    It needs to be developed in a reasonable time frame, just throwing things at a release date is stupid.

    If you compromise with spending more money on more time, you will make a better product, that will sell more. Yet somehow, most people in business don't seem to understand that people aren't going to buy a shitty game....

    I did suggest months ago that EA wouldn't need to do bi-annual releases... they've got plenty of shooter franchises...

    Medal of Honour
    Bad Company
    Whatever Respawn are working on
    Mirrors Edge

    That's only the FPS's... there's also Mass Effect, Dead Space and Overstrike.

      Battlefield is Bad Company - just a different version of it.

      Crysis is Cryteks creation. EA is only the publisher of the game through the EA partners program and does not own Crytek or the Crysis franchise. Same goes for Respawn. Which means EA does not control when these games are delivered really except for I imagine agreeing to "launch window" that can be renegotiated depending on the stage of development at the time with the developer.

      Finally - Mirror's Edge a Shooter? Recommend you play this gem of a game first before you turn people off it.


    I'm kind of sick of modern shooters. Bring back WWII. It was a very interesting period of time.

      Really? You want a ww2 game? Oviously your trolling. Red orchestra 2 was just came out a week ago. Is that not enough?

    PC people stop talking (douchey fanboys that is) Why can't gamers just all enjoy the shared experience however they choose.

    Why do you care so much about the quality of graphics and control scheme of someone else's gaming set up. It's like arguing boxers or briefs. You may have a strong preference but you'll never see the other guys junk so would you argue this much about it???

    Be greatful you get such good games. I'm happy for you. But STFU.

      In all honesty, I think a lot of it has to do with PCs becoming a bit of an afterthought for developers these days (I'm a PC gamer).

      It's quite disappointing to look forward to a game and find out that developers have done a really poor job of adapting it to the PC.

      Sure, bad PC ports aren't a new thing, but it never seemed to affect the big-name games in the past. Now you get cases like GTA IV.

      At least for me it sucks a bit to realise that the PC gaming market share has decreased a lot since the late 90s/early 2000s. I don't mind what other people play on, but when it affects the quality of games I get it's a bit disappointing.

        Fair enough. If you enjoy pc gaming then your options are reduced. The problem is that if you make your games where you need upgraded parts all the time you only exclude more people.

        When you combine with the crazy and easy piracy issues you can see why they do it though.

        At least with consoles you may turn a profit a bit easier as you immediately know you have millions of potential customers with the right hardware.

        Steam is helping a great deal in making pc content more accessible and easy to install etc so hopefully that helps in the future?

        It's still a viable platform and it's clear that the 6 year old console hardware is showing its age!!!

        Thanks for not bragging about your rig and generally talking in here like a mature person (regardless of your age!)

    i liked MOH i'll be buying the sequel liked the way danger close made the single player upside they'll be making the multiplayer also which rather than Dice(made Mp) -didn't like the controls movement was much better in sp slide to cover was there before blk ops dive to prone.

    Tons of potential looking forward to it.

    BF 3 on xbox 360 with installed HD TEXTURES

    I think we can all agree that the only Medal of Honor we need is Medal of Honor: Underground remade with HD graphics.

    BF 3 on xbox 360 INSTALL VS NON INSTALL


      It's probably because it's only in 720p but even with the textures upgrade it didn't look like much of an improvement.

    Wow that video looks fantastic! Really i cannot wait ( have been waiting ALL year). Getting mine on the 360. As for playing on P.C until about a month ago when all this "looks better" and 64 players stuff started popping up i honestly had COMPLETELY forgotten about the p.c as a gaming device. But i understand where they are coming from. I was real into pc gaming when i was like 15 during BF 1942/half-life and at that time i thought "how could anyone play consoles the controls are so much better and its more fun!" But having to continue to upgrade and install drivers and deal with errors just got old after dealing with it for so long (NOT A MONEY ISSUE, whoever said that above should be shot). Anyway, i played on a friends pc for about ten minutes last summer and i couldnt stand using a mouse now, its like your on crack moving around so fast. And not to mention most people i know really like the rush game mode, pc is @ 32 for rush, so theres REALLYY not that big of difference. Just my 2 cents. If i had a capable pc to run bf3 now (i have a mac now) i would pick it up(maybe) but im not going to spend any more than 60$ to play this game. Also all my friends who have real lives are on xbox !

      You sounded legit until "Also all my friends who have real lives are on xbox !"

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now