IGN unusually harsh on Medal of Honor?

[Crowser]

Take everything IGN says with a grain of salt,
But they are actually on the money with MOH I couldn't stand much of the game and I'm glad I didn't buy it.

Just saw the video review, and all I could think is "This sounds exactly like MW2.... which they loved...."

I guess EA missed a payment.

Money surely talks and it's probably proving thus with Bobby Kotick paying to have Medal of Honor bashed so he can keep getting his precious CoD crack money.

Yes, God forbid that different people reviewing different games have different opinions on them than each other. Or, (gasp), from you! Look people, look up the definition of review. It's inherently subjective. If a reviewer values gameplay over everything else, it's their opinion. All reviews are supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. You're supposed to read the review, see what they did or did not like, and then make your opinions on the game that way, not skip straight to the score.

Also, on IGN's scale, a "6" is, and I quote, "passable". That means that it works, but it's nothing special. Just so you know, opinions are opinions, and (gasp once more), yours is not the only one.

I agree with you 100% man, everyone freaks out about review scores because they are different from their own opinions. "THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE GAME AND I DID? WHAT!?!? GOD THEY ARE SO BIAS AND STUPID AND THEY ONLY LIKE FANBOYS AND THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BRIBED." Jesus guys, its just a review.

 

[Smooth Operator]

You may notice IGN review scores and money income go hand in hand, I'm guessing they didn't get the wanted sum for this one...
There is always something shady going on in that place, my advice is to look somewhere else for proper reviews.

 

[Gigano]

It's rare to see a (supposed) AAA game score so low, which is why I'm inclined to believe the criticism the rating expresses. Medal of Honor does come late to the latest surge of competent military style FPS's, and was bound to lose point on originality, but with bugs and poorly executed scripts it's apparently a step below the new (high) bar for run-of-the-mill military FPS games.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

Dude, just because a couple of other websites have the same story, who don't sound as bias against MoH, doesn't drift away from the fact than IGN still sounds like they have it out for EA.

A couple of points.
1. A 6 on IGN's scale is "passable", which means okay, but not great.
2. IGN is not the only site that gave MOH an low score. There are sites that gave it about the same score, such as Gameinformer and Gamespy.

Also, how could they have it out for EA if they gave Mass Effect 2 a 9.6 [http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1063044p1.html]?

 

[gl1koz3]

There's nearly nothing to say.

Clone game.
Gay advertsising. (Seriously, a dude with a beard... Whaaaat...?)

Boring.

 

[Tyson765]

Medal of Honor multiplayer isn't very good. in my opinion. I played closed beta and there was no links of where to post feed back. Apart from the glitches that they fixed the weapons are all extremely powerful and the "killstreak" system is too easy to farm.
I think that the single player may go alright but the multiplayer is nothing to the FPS giants of Modern warefare 1&2

 

[Tyson765]

There's nearly nothing to say.

Clone game.
Gay advertsising. (Seriously, a dude with a beard... Whaaaat...?)

Boring.

The beard thing is because it was how "Teir 1" American soldiers infiltrated Iraq before the invasion began.
The fact that they portray the "Black Ops" side of the war I thought was very cool but over all the game is a World war II medal of honor game built around the Iraq war. The story looks great.

 

[gl1koz3]

There's nearly nothing to say.

Clone game.
Gay advertsising. (Seriously, a dude with a beard... Whaaaat...?)

Boring.

The beard thing is because it was how "Teir 1" American soldiers infiltrated Iraq before the invasion began.
The fact that they portray the "Black Ops" side of the war I thought was very cool but over all the game is a World war II medal of honor game built around the Iraq war. The story looks great.

That makes sense. I wonder why I didn't make the connection. I also wonder why I didn't remember reading somewhere it's about that recent war.

Hmm. I don't know what's the situation in the U.S., but here... Eastern Europe... the Iraq war seems like a nearly coherent pointless piece of waste. (At least the people I know.) So, probably, that's why I didn't think of it this way.

WWII... is the only war worth mentioning, I think. Because it involves a REAL problem. The Iraq is just... what? *scratch head*

EDIT: Is that even a war? Looks more like a "hand of some god" taking a dump on there and nobody even knew what hit 'em.

 

[chinangel]

Only reason I listen to anything by IGN is because of CHobot.

love your avatar. ^^

OT: I haven't read teh review but my views on MOH is "It's Call of Duty Light. Everything it does, COD did, and did better. Boring campaign, boring story."

besides, the guns in these games are the real stars, and the number of useful guns in it can be counted on one hand, and no I didn't play the Online because it's a rental and project 10 dollar can kiss my bum.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It looked like a COD clone, and "reviewers" must keep their image. If they are honest about a game, they will look like Jeff Gerstmann.

It sucks, but it's true.

How is looking like Jeff a bad thing? He runs fucking Giant Bomb.

If you remember, before Jeff joined Giant Bomb, he was a reviewer for Gamespot. He gave an honest review of Kane and Lynch, and it killed his job, because of how honest he was. He was harsh on the game, and for good reason, cause it sucked. However, there had been a big marketing campaign for the game on Gamespot, and his review didn't sit too kindly with it.

 

[mParadox]

i stopped listening to IGN the moment i found out that they gave GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra a higher score than Inglorious Basterds! They may a good source of gaming news but then again so is the Escapist.

 

[Alandoril]

I've been playing through the single-player campaign and my theory about the game was right. It does give the player insight into the experience of combat and also how essentially one-sided these current "wars" are.

 

[sargeant15]

Dude, just because a couple of other websites have the same story, who don't sound as bias against MoH, doesn't drift away from the fact than IGN still sounds like they have it out for EA.

A couple of points.
1. A 6 on IGN's scale is "passable", which means okay, but not great.
2. IGN is not the only site that gave MOH an low score. There are sites that gave it about the same score, such as Gameinformer and Gamespy.

Also, how could they have it out for EA if they gave Mass Effect 2 a 9.6 [http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1063044p1.html]?

It has been almost a year since they reviewed Mass Effect 2. If you READ! the MoH review, then you would see that they almost hated the game and wanted to give it an even lower score. Also, IGN gave MoH a "6" which means they have given MoH one of the lowest scores it has gotten. And Game Informer gave it a 7, by the way.

 

[silver wolf009]

Oh, I stopped paying attention to IGN a long time ago. They tend to just hype-monger.

Same here when they gave AVP a 5/10. It may have had some flaws but it wasnt that bad.

Really though its all opinion and you can only feel and change what you feel, very few people will bend their will like that.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

IGN constantly get accused of bias and being payed off, but at the end of the day it is just one person's opinion and if you don't like it move on with you life, don't sit around bitching that IGN are bias.

I can't remember where I'm afraid, but I did read somewhere that they had been caught out on the whole bias thing and were giving higher scores to companies who took ads out on thier site.

My mind says it was Ubisoft, they're well known for bribing and threatening reviewers.

 

[Kitteh]

In IGN's defense, MoH looks really bad.

 

[Jandau]

I don't mind people bashing MoH, I'm annoyed that they bash MoH while praising CoD as the second coming of jesus. It's the same crap, for god's sake! Generic modern military FPS games. I personally don't care for them, but this is just laughable.

 

[Phenakist]

Honestly I think they make some good points but overall I disagree.

I think "Half Baked" sums the feel of the game up fairly well... I mean Bad Company 2 is all about "getting the jump" on your opponent, and it's more fast paced, so it all comes down to luck in the end.

Whilst it is fun and better in my books over CoD, it's mostly over the mechanics. I prefer the frostbite engine to that engine they use for CoD, which handles something similar to a gearbox made of jelly.

 

[Iwata]

There's nearly nothing to say.

Clone game.
Gay advertsising. (Seriously, a dude with a beard... Whaaaat...?)

Boring.

The beard thing is because it was how "Teir 1" American soldiers infiltrated Iraq before the invasion began.
The fact that they portray the "Black Ops" side of the war I thought was very cool but over all the game is a World war II medal of honor game built around the Iraq war. The story looks great.

You mean Afghanistan, right? And it has nothing to do with infiltration, it's simply a badge of honor for the unit.

 

[SalamanderJoe]

From the four hours I've played, I actualy like it. I still however can't make my mind up about the fact multiplayer feels completely different to campaign. I know DICE did it, but using the same engine and God forbid, sound effects from Bad Company 2.

I never listened to IGN. Like the user RedDead92 mentioned at the bottom of page one, IGN reviews are just one person's view.