Michael Cromwell writes "If, like me, you enjoyed EA’s new Medal of Honor Warfighter, but understand various criticisms thrown its way, you’re probably wondering why reviewers across the board are slamming it to hell."
Extremely well written, honest, to the point piece. This guy hits the nail right on the head, we need more of this sites stuff on N4G's top pages. Just as my faith in gaming journalism was waning =)
He's entitled to his opinion but he's in the minority. Medal of Honor's biggest problem is expectations. It doesn't have the polish or originality of it's competitors and where it innovates, it's half-a**ed. He mentions the fire-team system as an innovation but it's so poorly implemented, it's simply a hurdle. The game simply feels unfinished. Gaming journalists have reached a consensus, so it's not like it's a handful of journalists who shares the same opinion of the game. The user reviews as well across the board has been negative. Again, he's entitled to his opinion but to try to make a case that media journalists are missing something is silly since gamers have spoken as well. @ killerhog . . . . Call of Duty iterates. What Call of Duty 4 accomplished were a number of innovations in the genre that many other games have since aped. Calling a Call of Duty iteration unoriginal because it's too much like it's predecessor is like calling a kid out for looking too much like his father, it's just silly. Listen, even EA conceded to how crap the game was so why argue with the people who published the game. They knew it was crap and they tried to brace themselves and gamers for the negative feedback that was expected. Why do you think review copies weren't sent to journalists until after the game's release?!
Doesn't explain why cod after 4, gets perfect scores although buggy, glitchy, laggy and unoriginal as well. We will see when cod black ops 2 releases if journalist are missing something (professionalism) or just bias unprofessional tools. A kid looking like his dad is nothing like a game recycling environments, having the same problems/exploits as its predecessor and stories that have been done many times before. People say I look like my dad but at times we share different views and have different hobbies. Also no human being can look alike except for identical twins which has been proving can be totally different in everything else (one being finger prints).
@StanLee Having read your comment, you have completely missed the point of the article to the extent i don't think you even read it properly.
the story was sub par and I felt the driving level was excruciating painful to play. The game felt unfinished and the driving was just not needed. I came to play a shooter, not a driving sim. The multiplayer was great for the first few days, but once people unlocked the better weapons, its so one sided and against new players.
@killerhog Well said, when Black Ops 2 comes around I'm going to compare some of the reviews with MOH and I bet any money some of the negative points listed for MOH will be ignored while reviewing BO2. Not saying MOH is a good game it just does what most average FPS do today. It's differnt if I was comparing it to Halo 4 since Halo 4 looks like it's been well crafted and thought out to developer a fresh experience. @Stanlee "It doesn't have the polish or originality of it's competitors and where it innovates, it's half-a**ed." Does most FPS today have any orginality or innovation. It's really how you develop them in my opinion, I'd rather play Killzone , Resistance , Half life or Halo then play Call of Duty or Medal of Honour
Wanted to add his onoriginal post. So with that said, call of duty still has room to improve but hasn't since 4. Also what you called innovation that cod accomplished in 4, is debatable as other games did it as well. (Killstreaks = abilities), the game types most popular in cod are tdm and fra and thats beend done, nothing new. Its just that cod became mainstream.
Well said,also lets not forget the fact EA is the biggest offender of annual releases,one of the so called major beef from COD haters. @jinkies/Theres nothing wrong with borrowing from other games long as it is well done and not some half ass thrown in thing.The difference is that MOH is a carbon copy and a poor one at that gets nothing right.
I played the multiplayer last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it. The game is by no means perfect, but I think most reviews are too harsh. Ordered it on Amazon, so it should be here by the weekend. Also need a competent buddy for PS3!!!
dsmn,i was gonna give you my psnid but then i read "competent".damn it!:D
I'm up for it! Add me up: juxtapose9295 :)
The article is well done an interesting to read, but it is just not my opinion. But it's good to see other peoples opinion on that hot topic. I just want to say once thing, yes, MoH does what other games like CoD do too, but they still get a worse score. The point here is not that they do it, but how they do it and how well it is made and MoH is totally lacking any form of quality in that matter. But we could go on forever ranting about or defending MoH.
Look at this footage and make up your own mind strong language from the start!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I played the campaign this weekend, the best way i can sum it up is i kept finding something else to do instead of playing through, it just wasnt holding my interest.
Best thing i have read in awhile. If all these reviewers don't slam "Child's/Chidlren Online Daycare"for being the same thing year after year.Then all i can say is three word's "SLURP AND GULP" on Activision.
I gotta be honest. I love the online (hardcore) mode. I haven't played any other game online since it's come out. I think between MOH, halo 4 and Black ops 2, I have my hands full on the multiplayer side of the house. Also looking for dust 514. Does anyone know when that one comes out? Thanks.
Maybe they just don't like the game?
Hmm... While I agree with this author on ceratain points I think he kinda fails right out of the gate. His first comments toward the game are "Medal of Honor Warfighter surpasses its predecessor in almost every way other than game-play"... then says he scored it a 4/5. To me , game-play is one of the most critical elements of a game. Medal of Honor's game play was good not great, and if this game didn't surpass that...well that is pretty damning if you ask me. I also have heard MANY journalists/podcasters discuss at length how poor the squad AI/Enemy AI is, and how badly this games single player relies heavily on these pre-scripted AI routines for set peices to the point that squad AI will litterally push you out of the way if you are in the cover spot they have to go to. COD is also brought into the fray as some kind of testament to journalists not being even handed, but he pulls out bits and bobs of reviews that paint the argument in his favor...just as he did for the comments about Medal of Honor. The fact is that if you bother to read the professional site reviews (on a whole...there is always an exception) on COD games in full or of Medal of Honor WF in full you will see the authors of those opinion reviews of the games do a good job in justifying their scores. Lastly... I am sorry, but if 90% of the gaming media finds Medal of Honor WF to be lacking and the majority of reviews are in that "mixed" to "low" range then...something about that game isn't all that great. It will appeal to some but most gamers probably have a better option out there. Its a "buyer be aware" kind of purchase.
Yeah...counter bias with more bias. Before I get thumbed to hell by the Battlefield fanboys, think about this... The author of this piece gave the game a 4 out of 5 which would be an 80 on metacritic making it the highest score of 23. http://pcgmedia.com/video-g... Read his review and tell me what you see. He spends a good bit of the review talking about graphics while complaining about the actual gameplay...like the missing headshot gore or how there's too much action. Not only that, his message is very inconsistent...for example: from the review "Still, the campaign is lengthy and enjoyable, taking about 10 hours to complete" from the article above- "I completed the campaign in the standard 7 or so hours it takes, and played around 4-5 hours of multiplayer" He talks about IGN and other sites and how they bored or mad at EA but like every Battlefield fanboy, his rant devolves into more, tired CoD comparisons and complaints... Here's the root of the problem and why bias is not a suitable remedy for bias... " It’s such a shame, though, because I loved Medal of Honor because it wasn’t Call of Duty." "Multiplayer is fantastic, and for those of you too embarrassed to play Call of Duty," "Again, Medal of Honor justified itself as a viable online option by, as with the 2010 remake, being a sort of “Call of Duty done right for PC” experience." Hell, the first line of his review says it all...and gives you all the reason you need to ignore this opinion piece, as it's not different from a forum post from a fanboy... "I’ve finally nailed the difference between Call of Duty games and the Medal of Honor reboot, which I much prefer."
"The author of this piece gave the game a 4 out of 5 which would be an 80 on metacritic making it the highest score of 23." This comment is down right stupid. an /5 score can't be translated into an /100 score and still retain the same sentiments of the reviewer. That's why Metacritic is problematic. If I were giving this game a score out of 100, it'd be 70. Reviewing games isn't mathematics. As I said before, given that Call of Duty annually perpetuates the sub-genre, and every-single-reader-ever will be expecting a description regarding the competition, it is completely appropriate *and* expected to talk about it somewhat from CoD as a frame of reference, and within itself as regards to the 2010 reboot. If you think that taking 4 lines of Call of Duty references out of a 2000 word article is a viable refutation, then I salute you for your audacity. Why did it get a 4/5? Because I had fun; it wasn't buggy in the campaign (at least, I didn't experience any bugs) and the multiplayer was the most fun I've had from an arcade shooter in quite some time. It wasn't generic, since the graphical innovations and driving sequences added something new, so it didn't merit 3 stars, but it also wasn't particularly ground-breaking, so it didn't make it to 4.5 or 5. I hope you can live with my score now it's been explained to you.
If out of 100 it would be 70, shouldn't you then have given it a 3.5/5 score? You say the scores can't translate, but they obviously can if you score them properly in the first place.
I never understood this mentality. On one hand I can certainly understand having more numbers would affect lead to an increasingly more accurate score, but I never understood how doubling the numbers vastly changes the meaning. 4/5 = good score 8/10 = good score 80 / 100 = good score In the end, a good reviewer should be able to consider the metacritic system and give scores accordingly. On a scale of 5, every .5 is worth a single point and I am sure you can easily figure out the proper score (like mentioned by cgoodno).
As for scoring, you could just read http://pcgmedia.com/ratings... and accept the fact that 1-5 doesn't mean the same to everyone, and neither does 1-10 or 1-100. Every media outlet has their own definitions of each rating, and this rating is lost in translation when stripping it of meaning and changing the rules. Here's the actual 4/5 definition: "4 – A good game that might be expensive, or could be of better value. Usually the 4.5 variant will mean there are some innovative qualities." If you actually bother to look, every serious review adheres to his or her companies own rating system - which has nothing to do with Metacritic numbers. So, as you can see, it hit 4 for being a good game, but didn't push into 4.5 through lack of real innovation and the price, to name a few.
Just because of your feedback, I've updated all channel feeds with the following announcement: "Due to increasing concerns over the scoring systems of review magazines, we have added the following paragraph to our reviewing policy: "Scores accumulated by aggregate sites such as Metacritic, which alter our scores out of their intended system (from /5 to /100), no longer reflect the actual scores of the publisher or reviewer, and should be disregarded immediately." http://pcgmedia.com/ratings... Ratings are entirely arbitrary. They represent exactly what the magazine intends for them to represent - nothing more. Once a number is removed from its relative definition, it no longer represents that explanation, so the score no longer represents the view of the reviewer. Because of this, a score of 4/5 is not the same as a score of 80/100. At PCGMedia, our /5 rating is a more casual score aimed at an over-all interpretation of value. We offer written positives and negatives to supplement the arbitration of said values. Interpreting 4/5 as 80/100 without taking into consideration the written definitions of each value, and the 'positives' and 'negatives' in written form explicitly no longer represents the views of PCGMedia or the reviewer." The tl;dr is: it might be numbers, but it ain't maths.
First things first, I'm not disputing your score or written portion of your review. Your opinion is your own. I'm not accusing you of "smoking" something like you've done for IGN, G4, etc: I do have have problem with the way you presented your case. If you were to dig beyond the quotes you cherry picked, you'll see that most critics simply did not enjoy MoH as you did and not for the two reasons you've listed. IGN in particular had an issue with player agency, the cutscenes, the gunplay on the mp side, the buggy single player, and the Frostibite engine's apparent failure on consoles. After reading your quote from IGN, of course your point is made....but if you were to read the entire review, the author makes a clear case why MoH is a bad shooter. Speaking of quote mining... You call me out for quote mining but you're doing the same exact thing, only instead of 4 lines of 2000 words, it's 4 times that amount over multiple reviews. You chose lines that seemingly support your argument that MoH is being punished for external reasons instead of just being a mediocre/poor me too throwaway title that's on par with Homefront... You're essentially arguing that a mediocre game deserves better than the mediocre to poor ratings it's been getting and that's what I can't understand. Now, I personally feel like MW3 should have been the straw that broke the camel's back as that game was complete s***, but I also feel like Danger Close abandoned what made MoH (particularly Airborne) special in favor of slow motion breaches amongst other CoD leftovers and therefore, deserve the negative scores.
the game is terrible
They should have just made this a multiplayer game. I thought the campaign sucked but the multiplayer was really good.
I'm getting really tired of "well COD gets good reviews." So you are in school and the smartest kid in the class writes a really good essay and shows how its done correctly. Then everyone starts copying him and doing nothing original. Do you penalize the smart kid since everyone is doing it now? no. It's not that Warfighter copied others, its that it ATTEMPTED TO COPY OTHERS and failed. The first in the reboot had identity, Warfighter's identity is "well we didn't bother to move the bar, here you go." A 5 hour campaign with a confusing story and no soul. Online multiplayer that literally mimmicks other games with no soul, poor visuals online, and nothing there to make it fun or stand out. They did SOME things right, but the core game is stereotypical and bad, end of story. Whats up with providing option to breaching doors for no reason at all? "what they wanted was Call of Duty" no, if thats what they wanted then they would have liked it. What they wanted was the first Medal of Honor with all the issues worked out....instead they got a half arsed attempt at COD, with some Battlefield rubbing off on it. "What they are missing" I don't think you've properly played either game. I didn't use cover at all in Medal of Honor like it was supposed to be used. Only reason I used the cover system was to get the trophy, other than that I felt like it was a waste of a button. Unlike the first game where you NEED cover....And the AI used cover, sure, but that doesn't make them smart. You can kill the guy in the front, and the rest of the people shooting at you will fall in line moving to the same spot. All you had to do is get a headshot, wait for the next guy to move there, then do it again. Lets also not forget the random moments where the enemies will randomly own you out of no where. It was boring, only one time did you get to open up your gun and feel pressured to kill a bunch of guys. Nothing developed, and there wasn't weight or skill in the guns. Honestly if its just the big sites bashing the game, or its just a few sites bashing the game you have standing ground but this isn't the case. Literally everyone is bashing the game in some regards, and ALL of them are tearing apart the same areas. Obviously there is an issue with the game....
"The first in the reboot had identity, Warfighter's identity is "well we didn't bother to move the bar, here you go."" What identity did the first have? It would make sense to me to pass the two recent MoH games as generic and lacking identity, but singling one out seems odd. The story and gameplay follows from what MoH2010 did, except now you have driving instead of helicopter piloting. The core gameplay is familiar, but wasn't that to be expected to begin with? I didn't find the SP to be significantly better or worse than the recent CoD or BF games (or the last MoH game). My only real issue with the SP is how they try to pass it off as realistic (especially with the 'inspired by true events' bit at the start of mission) yet it features the same Michael-Bay-theatrics as other shooters... but that's been the case for both MoH games recently. So it isn't anything new. The multiplayer is also fun. The buddy system and the classes are innovative enough to set it apart from other games. It seems unfair to say the the online just mimmicks other games when it actually has a personality and has it's own unique game modes like HomeRun. For some reason, I found that the multiplayer felt a lot like a first-person version of the recent GhostRecon game rather than CoD/BF. I don't think Warfighter is trying to completely copy other games, rather, it seems most people just want to compare each trait of the game with some other established series. The negatives seem to be focused on, while the positives are brushed over lightly. I don't think the game is a masterpeice, but it certainly deserves more than the 3~5/10 that gets thrown at it. (I played it on a PC, so I don't know if there's any platform-specific issues that are worth considering)
"So you are in school and the smartest kid in the class writes a really good essay and shows how its done correctly. Then everyone starts copying him and doing nothing original. Do you penalize the smart kid since everyone is doing it now? no." You're calling CoD a smart kid? You're saying that CoD always gets it right, and everybody else is just copying poorly. Seriously, you're talking about being original, but this "smart kid" Call of Duty hasn't done anything original since he started high school, but everybody's still looking at him as valedictorian. The rest of the kids are damned, because whether they do the same but better, or do something different, all the teachers have made up their mind that Call of Duty is the smart kid who can do no wrong. If you're trying to make an analogy, THAT'S the end result: the smart kid hasn't gotten any smarter, but none of the other kids are getting any recognition for catching up.
i think the game is just not needed. EA has BF and Acti has CoD. One shooter from each evil greedy giant publisher is enough. BF has already suffered enough from EA so I won't be going through the same with MoH.
I agree with the line that EA is taking the bullet for all other modern shooters but tbh, to just accuse them all of being bored is a bit much. This game is universally scoring 6s, it's not like they are singling out a few review sites only. I don't see why the writer references MW2 and Black Ops for..While Black Ops wasn't amazing, MW2 is probably the best shooter this generation and the perfect example of what a sequel should be like. I think people are quick to point the finger at these reviewers without even knowing how Black Ops 2 scores. If there is a consistency to the reviews, then the complaints for the most part are baseless.
Well spoken! Written with objectivity. MOHWF is a good game, and it's sad to see it get panned because of the mere attempt of comparing it to other shooters which happen to lack for the very same or similar reasons. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's a perfect excerpt of a 'day-in-the-life-of' type scenario. From what I understand, Danger Close wasn't ready to release it, yet EA shoved it out the door...?
WHAT AN AWESOME READ!!! Finally someone with a well thought out piece that doesn't come from a fanboy point of view..... Too bad those other so called "journalists" can't take their fanboy blinders off and judge the game as itself and not compare it to CoD every other sentence. MoHWF is actually fun... Please don't take any game site seriously that gave MW2.5 anything higher than 7, because we ALL know the current state of that game...
"Finally someone with a well thought out piece that doesn't come from a fanboy point of view." Are you sure?
great read. just goes to show, whether your a gaming journalist or a regular joe,bias of some sort is all but nonexistent so the only way to benefit from a gaming reviewer is to follow one whose taste matches yours or one who can judge a game within its own parameters with the least amount of confounding variables to skew the review either way
I won't be buying it, but for those that are, I'm pretty sure the only thing that matters is: Is it fun ? If the game is fun and you have fun with it then it doesn't matter what rating it gets. Yea It won't be a top 200 game but it could still be fun to play. We've all got some enjoyment at one time or another from a game that was 5/10....6/10
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.