Whew, thank goodness there's a good reason for it - I was afraid people were starting to get tired of gritty realistic military brown and grey shooters.
DICE Says Taliban Controversy Affected Medal of Honor Reviews
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
honestly when i originally heard they were actually releasing it as "us military vs taliban" i was like "huh, ea, still ballsy as ever" then they went "OH NOES! WE OFFENDED PEOPLE WHO TAKE THAT BADLY! /RUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNN!" i was like "seriously EA? your a ballsy fuck that dosen't care about ANYTHING, nor ANYONE but yourself, don't fucking bullshit us >=(" i was actually looking forward to FINALLY playing as a faction besides "russia" (oh noes! thoes dastardly russians! the usa only had standoff's with them and black ops against them since ww2, how offencive >_>) and "OpFor" i liked the idea of being a "Taliban" on mp.
ps-im always on the non usa/uk side of military fps's
something enjoyable about shooting the virtual american army, dunno why. (canadian w/ several friends who are american's that are always diddlin about in fps's XD)
ps-im always on the non usa/uk side of military fps's
something enjoyable about shooting the virtual american army, dunno why. (canadian w/ several friends who are american's that are always diddlin about in fps's XD)
It was a bad decision to include the name just to cave of it later. It reflects badly on them, on the players, on the industry, and is, in my opinion, disrespectful. It's natural that it would be reflected in reviews, as would any needless controversy.
I hope it's clear what I mean by that, because I can see it being misconstrued.
Anyway, he's not wrong about being in a bad position when compared to the competition. "Realistic" war shooters is a tough market, and is fairly saturated with big franchises. That does make me a little confused about picking now of all times to attempt a reboot though...surely it would fare better in a period without such strong opposition. If it's meant to cash on in current trends, however, I can understand. Seems the timing is more motivated by the marketing guys than by anyone else, and that's rarely a good starting point for a project.
I hope it's clear what I mean by that, because I can see it being misconstrued.
Anyway, he's not wrong about being in a bad position when compared to the competition. "Realistic" war shooters is a tough market, and is fairly saturated with big franchises. That does make me a little confused about picking now of all times to attempt a reboot though...surely it would fare better in a period without such strong opposition. If it's meant to cash on in current trends, however, I can understand. Seems the timing is more motivated by the marketing guys than by anyone else, and that's rarely a good starting point for a project.
To be honest while I think they should have stood their ground on the setting/naming of things,
I don't think it affects the reviews.
I've played it, the story was average, I got through it in about 4 sessions and one of the main highlights was hearing The Catalyst by Linkin Park in the credits XD
However, being a big fan of the Battlefield PC game franchise (Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142) I really did hope for some good multiplayer,
and you'll probably all shoot me for this but I prefer Medal of Honour's multiplayer modes to CoD and other shooters out there at the moment.
While it's not perfect by far, I enjoy the slightly better focus on objective based game modes
I don't think it affects the reviews.
I've played it, the story was average, I got through it in about 4 sessions and one of the main highlights was hearing The Catalyst by Linkin Park in the credits XD
However, being a big fan of the Battlefield PC game franchise (Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142) I really did hope for some good multiplayer,
and you'll probably all shoot me for this but I prefer Medal of Honour's multiplayer modes to CoD and other shooters out there at the moment.
While it's not perfect by far, I enjoy the slightly better focus on objective based game modes
And here was me thinking it was a dull, boring game with pretty much the bastard offspring of the original Modern Warfare and Battlefield 2.
Were people really thinking this game would be good? was i the only one apon seeing it at e3 I believe it was thought "this game looks just like a call of duty/battlefield knock off?"
Meh, I just think they were putting it in as a sort of shock-value "Play as the bad guys" thing.
And then the knee-jerk squad got offended, and DICE caved and took it out.
It proves that they bend easily to pressure from non game players, but it shouldn't affect the quality, or non quality of the game.
And then the knee-jerk squad got offended, and DICE caved and took it out.
It proves that they bend easily to pressure from non game players, but it shouldn't affect the quality, or non quality of the game.
I agrees here. EA failed by trying to capture the money being thrown at modern day shooters, DICE failed by being pretentious dimwits and should never be used with the MoH series again.Jonny49 said:
Medal of Honor was born with World War II and that is where it succeeded. Frankly a WW2 shooter with today's graphic tech would be sweet to behold, which Treyarch has shown us with Call of Duty 5(who also successfully put zombies into the mix as well).
One thing I thought Medal of Honor was supposed to do in a subtle way was serve as a biography of the soldiers who fought in World War 2. What they really had to go through to accomplish their mission. I didn't even hit on that until tonight on what was really nagging me in the back of my mind on what really failed with this Medal of Honor. The mission got lost in the fog of money and just plainly went into the world of fiction with no real story or impact to comprehend.
Now maybe if EA weren't impatient moneytards then they could have eased into that with some good stuff out of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and even smaller battles like Grenada(watch Heartbreak Ridge and you can see the potential in that). War isn't always about what is going on, but what has happened and what we can learn from it(like never put a supply officer in charge of a Marine Company).
DICE was doing nothing else but playing the controversy card in an attempt to get more attention on Medal of Honor and away from Call of Duty. It succeeded in getting attention but failed in keeping that attention away from how mediochre the game is. EA was having a moment of penis-envy and decided they needed to use their Medal of Honor vehicle to keep money away from Activision. And ended up with a story that was so not fitting the Medal of Honor franchise and may very well have killed it altogether. Oh they will try again but the damage has already been done. This MoH was supposed to not only be competition to CoD, but also make up for past mistakes made with MoH:Airborne and such made since then. It may have made the sales but it still is a failure. When people think of a war game they will still either think Call of Duty or Modern Warfare. (This may even have damaged the Battlefield franchise, but that's another bag of potatoes)
EA, don't try to grab the Call of Duty crowd. You will only continually look like a bunch of followups but also make things worse for your company in doing so. You had a good IP going with Medal of Honor and you managed to shit all over it. It is time to clean up the mess and go back to what makes Medal of Honor great. If you want to stay current with it, great. There are lots of good Medal of Honor stories to be grabbed from the Gulf War of 91, as well as material from our allies with their own experiences. Medal of Honor should remain as what made it good, stories of great things that happened(albeit with some license involved still). Not fictional stories of what might have been.
With that formula you will make games that the Call of Duty crowd will grab. Except maybe the 12 yr olds but some games weren't made for screechy voices over multiplayer yet can still sell quite well. But that is me using a stereotype. I will punish myself now with some gaming.
I'd hazard a guess it was the bland, dull mediocrity of the game that affected the review scores.
What a load of ... the reason the game scored average is that it is a pile of steaming hot uselessness.
Instead of complaining about how the controversy affected reviews, and from there sales, adversely, they should be glad that the controversy shed so much light on the game. I am willing to bet that the controversy actually got them more sales than they deserved. It just wasn't that great of a game, and people actually interested in it knew that long before the whole Taliban thing exploded.
I'll put it like this. I saw many threads across the internet with people saying that they canceled their preorders after playing beta. I didn't, however, see many saying that they weren't getting the game based on the Taliban incident. The outcry over that was from people who weren't going to buy it in the first place.
I'll put it like this. I saw many threads across the internet with people saying that they canceled their preorders after playing beta. I didn't, however, see many saying that they weren't getting the game based on the Taliban incident. The outcry over that was from people who weren't going to buy it in the first place.
Ironically, one of the most popular Mods of all time is Project Reality, a Battefield 2 Mod in which real Army forces engage in a lot of real war setting such as US vs Taliban and Israel vs Hamas. But nobody cares just about a mod, right? Right?