EA Dismisses Middling Medal of Honor Metacritic Score
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I think they're saying the EA is dismissing the truth just like that council member does. I guess.MiracleOfSound said:No... now before I have to slap myself for my stupidity, could you explain it to the dumbass? Is it somehow connected to the council dismissing the Reapers?Psychosocial said:It's not Garrus, it's the council guy from the turians. Get it now?
No- it's just that every game reviewing site is ridiculously inflated and no 1 site wants to re-adjust thier system because then when somebody compares sites they'll be the odd one out and lose their credibility.Cassita said:
75 is pretty bad, but the game most likely deserves it, and I can't say I didn't see it coming. I can't help but be hateful of EA. When are they going to make a game that's the least bit original or creative?
You wanna know why? Because CoD did exactly that to MoH not all that long ago. I think it's a bit of revenge on their part. To be honest, I'm looking forward to it. I don't play games online but the MoH beta has me convinced to give it a go at some point. It was fun and fast paced and frantic.Ubermetalhed said:
Oh and to anyone who complains about being unable to go prone, MEH. Less camping, more competition. It's a fast paced game anyway, far too fast for players to go prone. Though they should have a sniping mode with prone enabled. That would be awesome.
Also, scores don't matter.
Go read and watch reviews, there's a lot more information in them for you to make your OWN judgements from. And personally I choose GameTrailers, they seem to have a clear and precise, unbiassed perspective the majority of the time.
And again: Forget. The. Scores.
Go read and watch reviews, there's a lot more information in them for you to make your OWN judgements from. And personally I choose GameTrailers, they seem to have a clear and precise, unbiassed perspective the majority of the time.
And again: Forget. The. Scores.
He's basing it on how many games get that score, not where it falls in a scale of 100. Half are above, half are below (a very rough estimate I know).Cassita said:75 / 100 = 75%bahumat42 said:
75% of 100 = 3/4.
If a game receives a score of 75 out of a potential score of 100, it is therefore been given a score in the top quarter.
Maths is great!
That's ok then, I got it. I thought there may have been someother hidden meaning in there :dDustyDrB said:I think they're saying the EA is dismissing the truth just like that council member does. I guess.MiracleOfSound said:No... now before I have to slap myself for my stupidity, could you explain it to the dumbass? Is it somehow connected to the council dismissing the Reapers?Psychosocial said:It's not Garrus, it's the council guy from the turians. Get it now?
Far Cry 2 has an 85 on Metacritic.smeghead25 said:
GTA4 has a 98.
Prince of Perisa 2008 has an 85.
It's clear the gaming public don't always agree with the critics, so listen to this man.... the scores really don't matter.
BTW, EA isn't wrong to state that a bad review doesn't have to mean bad sales. There's a reason licenced games based on movies still exist, although maybe 5% of them get a decent score. And MoH is still a famous francise name, couple that with this game looking like games that are popular right now, and you should probably get salesnumbers that highly-rated indy games would die for. It might still not be enough to break even, given the hideous costs of making a AAA-game (I'm still using that name).
It's a pretty cynical attitude of course, stating that the quality of your game doesn't matter so much as long as it sells, but that's true for almost every game-company. If their stocks price drops 10 million because the game doesn't sell well, it'll hurt them much more than a 6.0 review score. But it might hurt them in the long run. In fact, most 'hardcore gamers' (almost everyone on this website would qualify) probably hope it will. Who here would not want overmarketed crap bought by people who make buying decisions based on the game's cover and marketing campaign fail and replaced by well made titles?
To quote The Big Lebowsky: EA isn't wrong, they're just...
It's a pretty cynical attitude of course, stating that the quality of your game doesn't matter so much as long as it sells, but that's true for almost every game-company. If their stocks price drops 10 million because the game doesn't sell well, it'll hurt them much more than a 6.0 review score. But it might hurt them in the long run. In fact, most 'hardcore gamers' (almost everyone on this website would qualify) probably hope it will. Who here would not want overmarketed crap bought by people who make buying decisions based on the game's cover and marketing campaign fail and replaced by well made titles?
To quote The Big Lebowsky: EA isn't wrong, they're just...
I've played it about 3 hours into the campaign and here's a short overlook of how I see it:
The first two missions plain SUCK. Everything a game can do wrong in terms of storytelling, atmosphere, drama and even graphics is done horribly. The textures are all muddy and kinda washed out....besides being in hilariously low resolution.
And then there are bugs. In the mission, where you mark trucks with sensor beacons, when I tried to board my ATV: game flickered, I "stood in" the ATV and couldn't drive let alone step out of it. Due to the fact that the game saves AFTER you get on that thing (btw: the driving sequence is FAR inferior to MW2's snowmobile chase) I had to restart the whole mission.....just to step into the second bug, when a guard was supposed to move, but didn't, so all I could do was to grab my gun, shoot all the guards and get an objection from Dusty.
Afterwards, however, the game kicks into higher gear and all of a sudden gets kinda fun (and WAY better graphics, too). "Fun in this case, means that the game is a straight forward, modern-day shooter (which finally gives me a M14 to "work" with) with some variety in it. It never reaches the Script-Overkill that is MW2, but sequences like the Alamo-like Last Stand where Taliban come down all mountainside and you have to defend yourself (btw: I could tell EXACTLY that this would happen at that point. You don't have to be a reader of Sun-Tzu to KNOW that what happens is a sheep-abusingly BAD idea) or the Helicopter Rail-Sequence are really fun.
For the "TLDNR"-guys: MoH 2010 = decent at best, but some missions are really fun and are worth at least a try IF you can stand the HORRIBLE first two missions.
For the "That was Off-Topic guys": I wrote that whole bunch to tell: I can understand that there are mixed reviews. The game is a rollercoaster. Sometimes an unbelievable s***fest, sometimes pure, blasting FUN.
The first two missions plain SUCK. Everything a game can do wrong in terms of storytelling, atmosphere, drama and even graphics is done horribly. The textures are all muddy and kinda washed out....besides being in hilariously low resolution.
And then there are bugs. In the mission, where you mark trucks with sensor beacons, when I tried to board my ATV: game flickered, I "stood in" the ATV and couldn't drive let alone step out of it. Due to the fact that the game saves AFTER you get on that thing (btw: the driving sequence is FAR inferior to MW2's snowmobile chase) I had to restart the whole mission.....just to step into the second bug, when a guard was supposed to move, but didn't, so all I could do was to grab my gun, shoot all the guards and get an objection from Dusty.
Afterwards, however, the game kicks into higher gear and all of a sudden gets kinda fun (and WAY better graphics, too). "Fun in this case, means that the game is a straight forward, modern-day shooter (which finally gives me a M14 to "work" with) with some variety in it. It never reaches the Script-Overkill that is MW2, but sequences like the Alamo-like Last Stand where Taliban come down all mountainside and you have to defend yourself (btw: I could tell EXACTLY that this would happen at that point. You don't have to be a reader of Sun-Tzu to KNOW that what happens is a sheep-abusingly BAD idea) or the Helicopter Rail-Sequence are really fun.
For the "TLDNR"-guys: MoH 2010 = decent at best, but some missions are really fun and are worth at least a try IF you can stand the HORRIBLE first two missions.
For the "That was Off-Topic guys": I wrote that whole bunch to tell: I can understand that there are mixed reviews. The game is a rollercoaster. Sometimes an unbelievable s***fest, sometimes pure, blasting FUN.
It's the "Not Profitable Enough" mentality that's gripped the industry (slightly exaggerated for emphasis, but you get the idea).Still Life said:
"If your game isn't a mega-hit, out the door you go. Maybe you can get by making B-Grade games or shovelware. We want mega-millions, not millions."
That's the sort of thinking we are seeing now with these big-name franchises.
Medal of Honor and Call of Duty were virtually indistinguishable when they were new franchises. Since they are direct competitors, the perceived "superior game" will win out, while the other will become the "big loser", despite it turning a profit.
That perception is shared in a way by the consumer too. In the eyes of the consumer, it's a combination of Thinking on the Margin and a misrepresentation of subjective content.
Sad as this may seem, people trust Metacritic's aggregate opinions just as much (sometimes more) than their own judgment.
I personally don't want to see another war shooter franchise enter/re-enter the market.
Really, I hope Medal of Honor trips and falls out of the starting gate, if only so EA will even consider refocusing their efforts in other genres.
I don't understand these review scores. Sure the game is buggy and that will affect the review score but a 76? I loved this game and based on gameplay and story it was one of the most engaging stories for me, Right below Mass Effect,Half Life,and Bioshock. The campaign was completely amazing for me at least and the ending was so beautiful and respectful that it brought me closer to tears than any other game I've ever played, and however weird you might think this is, for me it's about 2 times as weird but I tell the truth in that statement.
It had to score low because the 90+ is reserved for Call of Bullshit. You can't have 2 90+ rated modern FPS games in 2 months. Activision either pays for their reviews to turn out great, or they pay to have MoH review trash the game. It's probably both...
I'd say reviews DO matter, but it's foolish to skim them just looking for a single number, hell I spend longer working out the numbers on what bread to buy in the supermarket, I know I just want a white sliced loaf, but there's 20 brands on the shelf, and this is $60 you're planting down, not a buck fifty, do a little market research before just buying it then complaining that it sucks (not COD, just hasty purchases in general).
Also, if you spend a few minutes shopping around, on top of the few minutes reading a few separate reviews, you'll probably find you can save $20 or so on a new copy too.
Also, if you spend a few minutes shopping around, on top of the few minutes reading a few separate reviews, you'll probably find you can save $20 or so on a new copy too.