Early gameplay reports from Raptr suggest that that Medal of Honor may have misfired in its initial week. Game-time with EA's newest FPS hasn't affected gameplay time with other popular first-person shooters.
Title says it all. We knew this would happen for two reasons. As this article said, past MoH games have been single player based games. Suddenly EA takes a franchise known for it's superb single player experience dumbs it down in favor to focus more on multiplayer which MoH has no real "Field Time" in. Second EA's marketing strategy was all wrong for this game. Had they just advertised it as a reboot of the beloved MoH franchise and left the formula intact with maybe a new added feature of online co-op to test the multiplayer waters for the franchise I believe this game would have been highly successful. But instead they insisted on comparing it to/developing it along the same lines as MW2 and BBC2 when it's not either of those games. It's MoH I wish developers would stop trying to make their games after that 1 game that pop culture considers "good" .......in case they forgot chances are the reason they are still around is cause they once had that good game if they could just remember that I think we'd see a lot less of these types of "less then what they could have been" entries into some longstanding franchises :/
MP sure is the "thing" this generation. Too many devs rely on MP to make a game good.
Now saying they focused on multiplayer more than single player is just dumb, considering they have Dangerclose doing single player then had Dice do multiplayer. They game just got rushed out the door and you can tell in every aspect of the game. The single player is short and rubbish and the multiplayer is just rubbish.
Well this is not surprising I've been playing MoH online and there doesn't seem to be that many people on there. It's great fun and more people should be playing it, but sandwiched inbetween a Halo and COD release really hurt them.
That fact that they don't distinguish themselves clearly from Modern Warfare 2 hurts them. Modern Warfare 2 and Halo Reach play very differently and while many players like myself play both, they're very different experiences. Modern Warfare 2 core players will move on to Black Ops but nothing in Medal of Honor stands out to encourage more of the core group to try it.
This is what happens when shooters just try to follow a trend instead of getting creative and atleast 'try' to set the bar higher. Just like Gears of War and Killzone 2 and Uncharted did.
They tried to follow the modern warfare trend, but did not make anything stand out compared to its competition. I mean people could get virtually the same experience from bad company 2, so what would be the point. Out of the few people playing it, many of them are likely to be hardcore bad company fans and so they bought it to 'boycott' call of duty. This article is very good, compared to the usual one sided arm chair bloggers stuff that is posted on N4G, it raises some key points. Multiplayer gameplay has been very limited, with most going to other games, and with black ops around the corner its likely to stay that way for medal of honor. My entire issue is they should have developed their own engine for the game, instead of using DICE. Even if they used the DICE engine and changed it I would have been happy enough to buy it, but lack of creativivity and trying to rush it out before black ops is gonna make them pay hardcore. Its a shame, I thought MOH would turn out decent, but its far from the multiplayer experience I have gotten from bad company, MW1/world at war, killzone2, halo 3 and reach etc.....
Good, games; even lame ones like MW2 need to build up a dedicated userbase, no point is destroying it every year for a rehashed POS with a whole new set of bugs and gameplay flaws to exploit. Pick an MP game, and stick with it. I'm still loving UT3.
Lame games like MW2, lol. Iconoclasts...
call of duty games up to modern warfare 2 have been good, so they deserved the fan base. Some may feel World at war was a bad game, I thought it was fairly balanced and took some skill. COD4 was a little unbalanced but it could easily dealt with, by playing differently. How many games in any particular franchise have made significant changes to the game engine? call of duty has not, Killzone wont, halo hasnt. The unreal engine is the same in each of the franchises, gears uses the 3rd person, quake etc use the 1st person. MOH is not as good as people think, I get the same game, only cheaper with bad company 2.
I no longer own the game due to trading it in for £32.00 as I had completed the campaign & played around alot with multiplayer & all of it's maps. I've even got most of the achievements 36/40 .. The game was just way too easy, even on Hard difficulty which was my first run through of the game by the way lol I already own two games way too similar to it anyway like MW2, Bad Company 2, & soon.. CoD: Black Ops! I can use the money to buy something like NFS: Hot Pursuit as well so that's good.. :)
Agh, I knew this would happen. I mean, one of my friends seems to like it quite a bit, and has tried to get me to buy it, but everyone else has said it's a dumbed-down version of Bad Company 2.
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.