EA "Revitalizing" the Medal of Honor Series

[Wandrecanada]

EA is behind DICE and the fantastic BFBC series. Why revamp Medal of Honor when you already have a contender ready to roll out? Keep supporting BFBC the way Activision did the MW2 series and you could win without rebuilding the wheel. Heck most of the MW2 audience is interested in the Frostbite experience and you'd certainly get all the MW2 detractors since they have already practically chosen BFBC2 as the title to shove into the IW/Activision craw.

I'd love to see a massive EA supported BFBC game come out. The level of detail in gameplay that DICE puts into their experience is always a large cut above the rest. I couldn't possibly imagine the awesomeness that would come from a full steam EA budget backing the amazing team that is DICE.

 

[Jharry5]

Medal of Honour hasn't been good for some time. I've got a feeling that regardless of what they put into it, it just won't be enough to even dent Call of Duty's hold over the FPS genre.

I would rather see a completely different war being portrayed or, if that's not possible, for it to be told from a different point of view. Just pulling this out of the air, but how about the British, 'cos they were in the war too! (It's True!) [/mini rant]

I think EA's time would be better spent elsewhere. There's the server problems on the PS3 version of Team Fortress 2...

 

[ccesarano]

1) If I recall, Call of Duty was started by guys that had been project leads on Medal of Honor, so it's no surprise that quality jumped ship (according to Wikipedia, it was 22 employees that helped develop Allied Assault, which was the PC game released side-by-side Frontlines).

2) I don't want to see WWII go away, as there is still plenty you could do with the setting, but even if you change what aspect of the war you want to cover I'm sick of the era and weaponry. I want to have a break before revisiting it, as I had when I played NO WWII shooters between MoH: Frontlines and Call of Duty 2.

3) Didn't we fight wars in Vietnam and Korea that we could cover?

 

[JWAN]

For a brief moment there, I thought it said Medal of Horror

That just describes the quality of every game post Frontline...

exactly, THAT was TRULY a great game.

 

[JWAN]

1) If I recall, Call of Duty was started by guys that had been project leads on Medal of Honor, so it's no surprise that quality jumped ship (according to Wikipedia, it was 22 employees that helped develop Allied Assault, which was the PC game released side-by-side Frontlines).

2) I don't want to see WWII go away, as there is still plenty you could do with the setting, but even if you change what aspect of the war you want to cover I'm sick of the era and weaponry. I want to have a break before revisiting it, as I had when I played NO WWII shooters between MoH: Frontlines and Call of Duty 2.

3) Didn't we fight wars in Vietnam and Korea that we could cover?

for 1, that makes sense now, the first one was GREAT, me any my friends would make maps for the levels so the next time we played online we could pwn the other team, considering I was 10 at the time, Id like to call myself the granddaddy of the "modern halo prat"

For 2, exactly, get the BAR and the Bazooka and go whip some ass, rinse, wash, repeat

for 3, Korea is known as the forgotten war for a reason and Vietnam is still affecting society enough today that most game devs don't have the stones to try and recreate PROPERLY (ex being showing all of the soldiers as pot smoking miscreants). OR when they do make a Vietnam game they go off of what they read in the NY Times and saw in movies, IE faulty information reported on by incompetent media outlets.

 

[JWAN]

cod makes stupid money.... COPY!!!!!!!!!!!!
ugh the last medal of honor game I played was pacific assualt and it suuuuucked bad

^ this,

How did they make the most badass Island hopping campaign in Military history just outside of ancient Greek conquests suck so bad.

how about by doing what they always do, over, and over, and over again

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

Well after Allied Assault for me, they never really got their mojo together. I liked Frontline but back then, going from a PC to a PS2 was a very big leap in graphics and gameplay so I never really got into that game. Not to say that it isn't phenomenal, just that I like AA the best.

Either way, I'm going to go with "meh" on this one, I hope they can make an incredible game, riveting story, fantastic gameplay and all that. After all, MOH is probably the first WWII shooter, and there's a reason that they became so popular and later so proliferated.

I hope they make a great game, I just don't think they'll be able to keep my interest, but I'd love for them to. I love new games

 

[MGlBlaze]

Medal of honor: future warefare, a complete departure from there usual fanbase and strategy. I don't see how they are going to revitalize medal of honor, becaus no one wants another wwII game, or at least i don't.

Tell that to Activision and Treyarch, who have announced yet ANOTHER WWII CoD....

Seriously, I'm getting really tired of all the WWII games. Yes, it was an important historic event, but there are other wars you can make games on and they'd be way, WAY more interesting. and make for a far more compelling and thought-provoking experience.

*cough* 6 Days In Fallujah *cough*

 

[GamingAwesome1]

No! I hated Medal of Honour (we spell it with an "u") and CoD is just too big a competition, they can't win!

Medal of Honour wasn't all that good anyway.....

 

[Caliostro]

This might be great... But for the love of god, not another WWII shooter or there will be blood.

So you'd rather they have another modern era FPS?

You know, like how there have been more modern era FPS's than there has been WW2 era FPS's in the past 5 years?

Real saturated market, those WW2 shooters.

Few "small" differences:

- Modern Era FPSs can have any plot, any story, and any weapons ever designed. WWII games have the same fucking story, the same fucking plot, the same fucking Garand M1, Thompson SMG, Lee Enfield, MP-40, blahblahblah, we all know about because THAT'S HISTORY.

- WWII was 4 fucking years. 4. Any game, movie or series ever made about it will inevitably fall on those same 4 years in the space time continuum. No matter how many angles you pick, it'll always be the same thing. It's like taking photographs of a box from 200 different angles... Sure they're not EXACTLY the same, but about 10 pictures later you've explored everything worth exploring and everything else is just more of the same. "Modern days" is a constantly changing variable and can pretty much be anything.

- Enough is fucking enough [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_video_games].

 

[Andy Chalk]

WWII was 4 fucking years.

Okay, what?

 

[Caliostro]

WWII was 4 fucking years.

Okay, what?

6. Dunno why I said 4. /shrugs.

Edit: Oh yeah. The USA got in the war in 1941. Since videogames only seem to remember Americans fighting WWII, in videogames WWII is around 4 years (from 1941 in 1945).

 

[MR T3D]

Maybe an epic tale in 'nam..?
relatively original...

 

[can't-think]

The original MOH games were awesome, the ones that required you to use stealth infiltrate bases etc. But now it's just a generic FPS so I'm not very excited.

 

[Merteg]

I've always found the Medal of Honor games to be horrible.

On that note, I'm off to play Modern Warfare 2.

 

[Grubnar]

Well, the main reason I don't play Medal of Honour games is in the title. It's too Americanised. I am more interested in the British history in the wars. I want to know about them.

If they made Victoria Cross, I would be much more intreeged.

If Im not mistaken, the Victorian Cross is most often awarded posthumous.
Most people would find it ... sad, to die at the end of the single player campaign, fancy metal or not.

 

[Killerbunny001]

I will never, ever , ever buy another generic shooter with the action placed in WW2, EVER !

There is a billion games just like this on the market, why the fuck make another legion of clones ?