EA Dismisses Middling Medal of Honor Metacritic Score

[DTWolfwood]

I've talked to people over on /v/ about the game, 4 hour campaign, no prone in multiplayer even if there's prone in singleplayer, buggy and unfinished. That's a shame, I was pretty damn excited for the game, actually...

lol so what i saw in HourOne on Gametrailers was 1/4 of the game than! XD

it is a shame that the AI in sp is completely buggy. o wells, still a good bargain bin buy me thinks. Should drop in price on steam a month after black ops release. Might give it spin then.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

SNIP

Should: "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency"

"It is the unfortunate staple of what FPS games should be like nowadays."

You are therefore, saying you want developers to use Call of Duty as a template for FPS games, and also that you dislike Call of Duty.

Please, don't use words you don't understand - it makes for a messy post.

You seem to be getting unnecessarily upset over the fact I didn't clarify who exactly thinks what FPS games should be like nowadays. Although I'm sure most people realised I was refering to the trend in the industry to make these carbon copies because it is popular.

By using 'should' I did not refer to myself, im sorry but you read into it to much.

Thanks for wasting both of our time.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I've talked to people over on /v/ about the game, 4 hour campaign, no prone in multiplayer even if there's prone in singleplayer, buggy and unfinished. That's a shame, I was pretty damn excited for the game, actually...

lol so what i saw in HourOne on Gametrailers was 1/4 of the game than! XD

it is a shame that the AI in sp is completely buggy. o wells, still a good bargain bin buy me thinks. Should drop in price on steam a month after black ops release. Might give it spin then.

Because you should only buy games with a super high review score -_-

You are the reason so many good games go unnoticed.

so i guess the fact that the Beta, I PLAYED, was unimpressive, any gameplay footage was uninspired. and the general consensus that this game is generic and mediocre means i should shell out $60 for this game? Really? I love your logic.

 

[Javex]

The last little line sums it up pretty well. Sales and reviews are two different beasts.

Case and point: The "Saw" franchise. Or pretty much any horror franchise of the last decade. I'm looking at you, Resident Evil.

I like what I like. Reviews help my decision when I'm on the fence with a game, and wonder if it's worth spending $70, or just renting. Then, it helps. But even then, I look at several different reviews. I pre-ordered MoH, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. And there are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who feel the same way. Reviews be damned.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

You seem to be getting unnecessarily upset over the fact I didn't clarify who exactly thinks what FPS games should be like nowadays. Although I'm sure most people realised I was refering to the trend in the industry to make these carbon copies because it is popular.

By using 'should' I did not refer to myself, im sorry but you read into it to much.

Thanks for wasting both of our time.

You're arguing with Cassita... don't even bother, you can't win.
Most people understood what you said, though I did have to reread it to understand your implications.

OT: I'd like to see MOH do well just so EA can continue their 'gun club' benefits and make even more money to pump into risky titles.

Still I can't afford MOH on release... I'll probably get it around christmas.

 

[Rack]

While you can put Medal of Honor in the bottom half of the top quarter my point was more that a 77 score is only in the top quarter of scores, it doesn't put it in the top quarter of games.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/90day/pc?sort=desc

That's only the last 90 days, I couldn't find a good indicator of the median, but on that list there are 20 titles that score higher than MoH and 19 that score lower, putting it in the bottom half. As a purchasing decision you may well be better off buying a title wholly at random.

You may find it in the top half of 360 games or PS3 games, and it may slip to the top half over time, but this is why scoring in the top quarter isn't laudable.

 

[David Bray]

This is hilarious. Reminds me of those women on X-Factor who get tossed out and say they're going to be better than anyone.

 

[Sovvolf]

M'eh, wasn't all that interested in the game. The game looks like a COD clone which is ironic given that COD was arguably a Medal of Honour clone to begin with. Not been all that bothered about games like this for a while now, they all seem to look the bloody same and this one doesn't look to add anything new to the genre. There doesn't seem to be anything ground braking here and the only thing this game had going for it was the whole Taliban fiasco and they whimped out on that in the last minute.

I haven't played the game yet so as far as I know this game could set the genre in a new direction and break the ground like a nuclear explosion. However from reading up on the game and watching its progress... Its highly unlikely.

I'll not be getting the game however I'm sure my brother will and I'll lend his copy to check it out however... This doesn't look like the game I'll be emptying my wallet for. That money is reserved for Castlevania (a game, that did get 7.5 but looks incredibly cool and a bit of a break from the samey shooters out there) and Fable 3.

75? Honestly, people. Since when is scoring in the top quarter a bad thing?

Truly jaded and spoiled, this generation is.

Then again, when reviewers these days throw out nines and tens at most functional games... I guess 7.5 might as well have a -FAILURE- sign strapped on top of it. We need harsher critics we do. That or a better scoring system. I used to think nines and tens were reserved for truly exceptional games that are almost perfect on every level. Now, they'll give them to any game that at the very least works.

 

[spinFX]

75? Honestly, people. Since when is scoring in the top quarter a bad thing?

Truly jaded and spoiled, this generation is.

Yep. When there are like 4 AAA titles a month we are spoiled and frankly I rarely buy anything below a 90. I don't have time to wade through crap.

 

[Still Life]

75? Honestly, people. Since when is scoring in the top quarter a bad thing?

Truly jaded and spoiled, this generation is.

That's what I'm thinking. How does an average of '75' constitute a 'failure'? It is a respectable score, all things considered.

 

[bificommander]

The Dutch/Belgian PC Gameplay magazine gives rather high numerical scores, but at least has a honest legend of their scores. 91-100 is an awesome game, 81-90 is a better than average game in the gerne, 71-80 is an adequate game for people who already like the gerne, 61-70 is for hardcore fans only, 51-60 is a poor game and 1-40 has no right to exist. It's a pretty decent legend for metacritic too. Stating that 75 is 3/4th of 100 has no meaning for any gamer. Wohoo, my game was in the top 1/4th of a completely arbitrary number! What matters is how many games have better scores and are (supposidly) a better way to spend what limited money you have.

I do think a 75 score for MoH is a near-death sentence. Not only is it a long awaited game of a once great francise, not only was this game supposed to revitalize it, but the game is rather blantantly trying to emulate CoD's success (although I hate that game) by shifting from WW2 to modern warefare. As mentioned before, it's basically a blend of CoD:MW and Battlefied BC2. That's not a crime, just because there are games like it doesn't mean you can't add your own take to the formula. But it should be a decent improvement over the previous titles, which MoH doesn't seem to be. New players can just buy the previous titles, since they are supposedly better and probably cheaper by now. Old players of CoD can just stick with that game since it isn't better than what they have. Only CoD vetrans who love the concept but are bored with CoD itself could consider this game, since a 75 rating means the game isn't unplayable. That's too small a market for such a big budget title.

[quote="Cassita" post="7.238418.8551261
You are the reason so many good games go unnoticed.[/quote]
I admit only buying games based on having a better than 90 score is excesive. But personally I think the main reason good games go unnoticed is that although they get pretty good reviews, too many people ignore these scores and just buy Madden 2139, Popular-Summer-Blockbustermovie: The game, or Overmarketed-Bigname-Unoriginal-Shooter:Brown edition. There's probably a few gems that too many reviewers don't 'get' and fall below the scoring line, but it's a minority compared to great and critically acclaimed failures like psychonauts.

 

[WanderingFool]

I rarely buy a game based on review scores. The whole thing started with a 9.8(I beleive) from GT.com for Halo3, and I has a bit of a Halofanboy back before that game. Wow was I dissapointed...

Anyways, yeah, I just watch or read the reviews and try to pick up the important little bits about the game, and completely ignore the review score.

Sadly, MoH's reviews just dont look like they're what I wanted...

 

[Rack]

I admit only buying games based on having a better than 90 score is excesive. But personally I think the main reason good games go unnoticed is that although they get pretty good reviews, too many people ignore these scores and just buy Madden 2139, Popular-Summer-Blockbustermovie: The game, or Overmarketed-Bigname-Unoriginal-Shooter:Brown edition. There's probably a few gems that too many reviewers don't 'get' and fall below the scoring line, but it's a minority compared to great and critically acclaimed failures like psychonauts.

I think you're probably right, it's just a moot point.

http://www.metacritic.com/redirectcritic?p=xbx&g=psychonauts