DICE Says Taliban Controversy Affected Medal of Honor Reviews

[Greg Tito]

DICE Says Taliban Controversy Affected Medal of Honor Reviews

A representative from Swedish developer DICE said that all of the brouhaha over the Taliban hurt Medal of Honor's critical reception.

Many people didn't like the fact that EA's reboot of Medal of Honor named the force opposing Americans as the Taliban in multiplayer matches. Even more people didn't like it when EA caved and removed the reference. All of the controversy in the videogame press in the months leading up to the game's release in October definitely hurt the review scores that the game received, according to Patrick Liu from DICE. DICE designed the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor, while Danger Close handled the campaign. Liu said that even though the reviews have not been awesome, he is committed to making the MoH franchise all that it can be and thinks that this game was a successful start.

"The controversy did affect some reviews," Liu said. "It stirs a lot of feelings, just the setting." Liu is referring to setting the game in the current conflict in Afghanistan as opposed to the battlefields of World War II that were the hallmark of the original Medal of Honor released in 1999. "That does affect people's judgement," Liu said. "But otherwise, this is a reboot of a franchise. It's an investment for EA as a company. We need to build upon what we have achieved so far and improve and build up the franchise again from scratch, basically. In that sense, I think we're off to a very good start."

The competition in the shooter genre was another reason that Liu thinks the reviews averaged so low. "We're in a very competitive genre," he said. "We're also competing with ourselves. Obviously we're competing with Call of Duty. It's a very tricky situation to be squeezed in between those giants."

As he points out, it's a strange situation for Liu and DICE to help make a game that competes with their own franchise, the similarly themed Battlefield. "It can feel awkward sometimes," Liu said.

Given that, it's not surprising that Liu balked at helping to make another MoH game, saying that he both would and would not like to do so. "It would be cool to continue to develop the franchise. At the same time we have a lot of exciting stuff going on in DICE as well that we have been working on in parallel," Liu said.

That sounds like a polite way to decline. What do you think?

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-05-dice-moh-controversy-affected-reviews]



Permalink

 

[Woodsey]

They took it out for people who don't play games, and instead of standing their ground on something rather important (and trivial, but important nevertheless) they caved. Whether it affected reviews or not I don't know, but they still pussied out and have lost kudos at the very least.

And isn't it "affected"?

 

[Timbydude]

I'm not trying to be annoying, but the headline should read "Affected", not "Effected".

OT: I highly doubt that the Taliban thing affected it in any way. It got mediocre reviews because it was a shameless knockoff of two games that came before it, and it brought nothing new to the table.

 

[T-Bone24]

Oh, I believe that headline should be "Controversy Affected Medal of Honor Reviews". If I was being serious I would also switch that to "Honour" to maximise britishness, but I'll refrain.

Anyway, I doubt that a silly controversy about the name of the enemy could possibly affect scores in such a way. Really, people would have judged it based on gameplay (I hope) and, like he rightfully said, it's quite a crowded genre.

 

[Citrus]

I don't like it when people try to pin the mediocrity of a game on something like "the setting affecting people's judgement". I tried MoH, found it to be pretty average and insignificant, and I did that all without caring in the least about where/when it takes place.

 

[ranger19]

The game has nothing but itself to blame if such controversy did have an impact on reviews. Why make such an obviously controversial decision only to change it right before release? The answer seems to be for controversy. (And we know EA isn't above that.. Dante's Inferno anyone?)

But even so, none of the reviews I read seemed to be impacted by that tiny change. Sure, most of them pointed it out (and pretty much said "that was stupid"), but criticism was focused on the mechanics and lack of originality.

The game almost certainly received a lower score due to the existence of and competition with Call of Duty, sure. That's obvious though, and not bad.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

Cool excuse Dice, now make a good game.

 

[RobCoxxy]

I lost respect for them, realising they had no balls.

 

[StriderShinryu]

As others have said, I can't see the whole name thing having any real impact on the review scores. The review scores were what they were because the game was generally solid but not exceptional, and it pretty blatantly aped a very well known series without doing much at all to differentiate itself. The name of the enemy side in multiplayer, even if it hadn't been changed at the last minute, wouldn't have altered any of that.

 

[SmugFrog]

What person reviewing a game say something like, "We're taking off a few points because they changed the game before release..."

Games are always reviewed (or should be reviewed) based on gameplay, graphics, sound, story, etc... Not creative design decisions. Come on DICE.

 

[VulakAerr]

Sadly it was only my outrage at the mispelling of "affected" that drew me to this article.

That said: "No, it was the bugs and the short campaign. Oh, and uninspired multiplayer."

 

[Jonny49]

I want WW2 Medal of Honour Back.

But on the topic at hand, I don't agree. The game just wasn't that good.

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Well that and the fact that the multiplayer was bad

 

[Spencer Petersen]

When you make a shameless rip-off to cash in on popular demand, put in an inflammatory name just to sir up controversy, and then pussy out and bend over for people who honestly could not give two shits about your game, and then expect people to think its good? Sorry, but even the gameplay was so boring its sad, and you only serve to invalidate the medium by confirming suspicions that any game attempting to be thought provoking or put the player in a dilemma is instead a controversy marketing ploy that the developers will cave in for if it means they can make a few more sales.

You betrayed us all EA, grow a pair, drop em and go make something interesting for once.

 

[Delusibeta]

Honestly? The game, judging from the betas, was poor. It got the reviews it deserved.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Isn't it, "affected?" Like some other people have mentioned?
OT: Standing up for the industry's artistic potential only to back down from it the second anyone kicked up a fuss was a big mistake in my eyes. If you are going to cause controversy, put it to good use. Stand up for our medium; stop using these cheap marketing tactics EA!

 

[Prometherion]

Maybe, maybe in america. But frankly there are many European critics who didnt like the game either. I doubt these people cared about what the Taliban were called. Sounds like an excuse.

 

[MrShowerHead]

Well that and maybe the fact that the game wasn't that good......

C'mon DICE, don't start making excuses for bad reviews

 

[SovietSecrets]

The game you backed wasn't good and you try to blame something that had nothing to do with it impacting the review score, nice. Just admit the fact you fucked up on your part.