EA CEO: Medal of Honor is a "Franchise Once Again"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Yep, a franchise that's so great that the latest game completely fell under the radar for many people as just another gritty realistic war shooter. Good Job.
MoH << CoD, in all including number of games in franchise (post 2005, at least), or so it would appear.
Sooo...one insipid brown fps about an interpretation of modern warfare so loose that the inclusion of aliens and/or a secret Illuminati plot for world domination would have made it more realistic is trying to get ahead of another insipid brown fps with an interpretation of modern warfare etc etc. Uhm, yay sequels?
Sooo...one insipid brown fps about an interpretation of modern warfare so loose that the inclusion of aliens and/or a secret Illuminati plot for world domination would have made it more realistic is trying to get ahead of another insipid brown fps with an interpretation of modern warfare etc etc. Uhm, yay sequels?
And that's a pretty good point as well. But whatever, did anybody really expect EA to release a good game worthy of a "new" franchise?Diagonal Horizontality said:
Pretty much so yeah.Zhukov said:
Investors don't care so much that you made a great game. They just want to know you made a game that was good enough so that their investments paid off and will probably continue to pay off in the future, hence him mentioning it as a viable franchise.
That said heh...I suppose one can discern fairly clearly as to where the franchise will go from here on out. Nowhere special most likely, but as always 'good enough.' *sigh*
I think it means the projected sales will be over 3 million in the long term.twm1709 said:
Or trying to say that their highest (most favorable) predicted outcome was exceeded several times and it looks like it will do better than they had hoped for. Vague statement is vague.
The two statements together kind of suggest that if they take consumer feedback seriously, they could actually turn it back into a serious franchise. The name recognition and market are there, they just need to improve the gameplay, or something.
Wouldn't know personally, I stick with Battlefield, the plots they come up with for these games are usually garbage, might as well ignore them or have one that isn't serious.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
I think I'm gonna cry....no more.....please....I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!
STOP MAKING SHOOTING GAMES!
Seriously, why the hell did a single person buy this game? It blows my mind.
Hehe....now that I think about it, EA has 0 chance of making anything better than a mediocre shooter anyway, so we won't miss out on anything due to this decision.
I think I'm gonna cry....no more.....please....I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!
STOP MAKING SHOOTING GAMES!
Seriously, why the hell did a single person buy this game? It blows my mind.
Hehe....now that I think about it, EA has 0 chance of making anything better than a mediocre shooter anyway, so we won't miss out on anything due to this decision.
Well this new "franchise" is getting traded in tomorrow for credit towards black ops
MOH was half a game:
-half a single player
-half a multiplayer
-normal price
-if the game had been half price too then it would had earned a solid 8/10 from me. But as we are pissing about with half completed thing I will do the same and give it a 4/10
Wont pick up another MOH.
MOH was half a game:
-half a single player
-half a multiplayer
-normal price
-if the game had been half price too then it would had earned a solid 8/10 from me. But as we are pissing about with half completed thing I will do the same and give it a 4/10
Wont pick up another MOH.
I think the main problems within EA is the shareholders. Looking at EA's library MoH is the only FPS theyve even considered scince the cancelled Tiberium in 2007 (I could be wrong, this being EA its a HUGE list).
Anyway back to shareholders. As they really own the company between them (not the CEO. He just runs it) they get a say in what lives and what dies. Unfortunately it seems most of the shareholders are of the mind 'it worked yesterday, its going to work forever.'
As a result, EA has only been making games that can look like they will sell, or, in other words, games that play to the current public interest as the shareholders see it. Drawing attention back to Tiberium, the holders shut it down under the 'Did not meet Quality Standards' excuse. Gameplay trailers prior to its cancellation showed the player fighting against the Scrin (a race of giant hyper-intelligent bugs in short) with a gun that appeared to be able to transform between shotgun, rifle, sniper rifle and rocket launcher. If that sounded good to you, its not happening anymore. I could go on, but then id probably be approaching Rant territory.
There are some examples of new developed games that did well but most of them have Realism like the plauge.
MoH looked like just about any other big FPS you could get now, some years ago and probably many years to come.
I wish i could time travel and convince the fools who thought stressed realism was a good idea, that it wasnt. Either that or make the EA shareholders relax thier 'quality standards', within reason of course.
Anyway back to shareholders. As they really own the company between them (not the CEO. He just runs it) they get a say in what lives and what dies. Unfortunately it seems most of the shareholders are of the mind 'it worked yesterday, its going to work forever.'
As a result, EA has only been making games that can look like they will sell, or, in other words, games that play to the current public interest as the shareholders see it. Drawing attention back to Tiberium, the holders shut it down under the 'Did not meet Quality Standards' excuse. Gameplay trailers prior to its cancellation showed the player fighting against the Scrin (a race of giant hyper-intelligent bugs in short) with a gun that appeared to be able to transform between shotgun, rifle, sniper rifle and rocket launcher. If that sounded good to you, its not happening anymore. I could go on, but then id probably be approaching Rant territory.
There are some examples of new developed games that did well but most of them have Realism like the plauge.
MoH looked like just about any other big FPS you could get now, some years ago and probably many years to come.
I wish i could time travel and convince the fools who thought stressed realism was a good idea, that it wasnt. Either that or make the EA shareholders relax thier 'quality standards', within reason of course.
MoH wasn't a terrible game by any standards. It was an okay mix between CoD and BFBC2. Unfortunately, they really didn't make anything stand out to differentiate it more from CoD.
The campaign was indeed pretty good, but it was admittedly short. The Multiplayer to me was pretty good, but it doesn't have any of the lasting appeal that BFBC2 has. To me I can definitely see more MoH, and actually seeing the rebooted franchise improve in the future.
The campaign was indeed pretty good, but it was admittedly short. The Multiplayer to me was pretty good, but it doesn't have any of the lasting appeal that BFBC2 has. To me I can definitely see more MoH, and actually seeing the rebooted franchise improve in the future.
"Unless it's awesome, we're not going to make a sequel." "...It wasn't awesome." "Well, let's make a sequel anyway and maybe people will buy the first one thinking it must be awesome to get a sequel!"
Shove off EA, MOHAA was my first PC shooter. Stop ruining it.
Shove off EA, MOHAA was my first PC shooter. Stop ruining it.
I hope they make another one. Maybe not a direct sequal, but another game like this one. I just hope they only use 1 developer. I feel most of the problems are on DICE with multiplayer imbalances. Danger Close has shown they are strong and can make a good game. Let them do it.
I loved MoH:Frontlines or whichever had the D-Day Normandy assault, and I think MoH is back, it'll just take a while for it to find its niche. People who think the franchise is "ruined" are those who cannot except change...or they're fanboys.
I loved MoH:Frontlines or whichever had the D-Day Normandy assault, and I think MoH is back, it'll just take a while for it to find its niche. People who think the franchise is "ruined" are those who cannot except change...or they're fanboys.
We're skipping over the most disturbing thing about this story, which is EA's use of the word "sequel" as a verb.
MoH is a disappointment...Wait, it's a clear success.
It needed to sell 3 million units...Scratch that, it only needed to sell 2 million.
In allowing gamers to play as Taliban, we won't allow media outcry to "compromise our creative vision and what we want to do." Never mind, they will play as "Opposing Force."
Anyone else notice a pattern here????
It needed to sell 3 million units...Scratch that, it only needed to sell 2 million.
In allowing gamers to play as Taliban, we won't allow media outcry to "compromise our creative vision and what we want to do." Never mind, they will play as "Opposing Force."
Anyone else notice a pattern here????
Have you looked at Activision lately?Outright Villainy said:
OT: Well, I'm glad about this, I'm planning on picking up this game purely for the awesome multiplayer.