Medal of Honor (Modern Era version) revealed

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I don't know, what RPS said sounds an awful lot like the Modern Warfare 2 campaign, which was praised up and down despite the insufferable "No Russian" bit and the Michael Bay level of action insanity. Every review I've read has jumped up and down on the campaign's length, even though it's alomost exactly the same as MW2's as well. I'll probably rent this and give it a whack.

Yeah, in fact, from the RPS piece:

Medal Of Honour is about chasing after one to three other soldiers who all seem to have a lot more fun than you. The game takes every opportunity to make sure you’re aware that you’re barely relevant to proceedings.

This is almost verbatim how I felt about MW2--"Wow, I sure wish I got to be as cool as that guy who just did that thing I watched." It's too bad that "Modern Military Shooter" means Tom Clancy On A Bad Trip, storywise, and I'd hoped the new MoH might turn that around.

I just contacted Amazon support, they said if I refused shipment, this will go back to amazon for a full refund. I told them they can reverse the $20 credit, I don't want to seem like I'm scamming them for that, but after these reviews, I've lost all interest in playing this.

It amazes me that they can spend so much money on the technology and art (because the game looks good) and still not hire a competent game designer, alternatively giving the designers they have some freedom instead of forcing them to ape MW2. Such a waste of resources

If anything it sounds like they played it too safe, not taking any risks and trying to sell it on the 'edgy' modern day Afghanistan war setting.

I should have known better than to have pre-ordered this. I don't do multiplayer, and I should know that all these modern shooters have 4 to 6 hour "campaigns" these days. I guess I was hoping this would be an exception.

The single-player FPS seems to be a lost art now. They all seem like they're obliged to tack something on to multiplayer. I really wish publishers would sell sp and mp as separate units.

I had high hopes for the single player, but again - MoH fails. So much money put into this, surely they could have hired better writers to form a more interesting, yet believable story that would inspire the coders and level designers to do better. And with a bland multiplayer that does nothing special and at best tries to be a jack of all trades this game really seems to fail to deliver.
The only thing that could have saved this for me was if EALA/DC made the multiplayer as well, using the U3 engine.

Reaper81 wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I don't know, what RPS said sounds an awful lot like the Modern Warfare 2 campaign, which was praised up and down despite the insufferable "No Russian" bit and the Michael Bay level of action insanity. Every review I've read has jumped up and down on the campaign's length, even though it's alomost exactly the same as MW2's as well. I'll probably rent this and give it a whack.

That review echoed my feelings on the original Modern Warfare. It's a rail shooter and always has been. Never played MW2 and I don't regret it.

+1 It sounds like this MoH is everything I hated about CoD 4, and avoided in MW2, dialed up even further.

I would have loved another MoH in WW2 setting but using the Frostbite engine and it's full destruction platter. So tired of the copy cat trends in gaming.

Yikes.

Jesus, a 6 from IGN? Wow. I mean, I hate to refer again to IGN's rep as being little more than barely literate fanboys for each game, but still, wow. I admit, while I was largely expecting MW2.5, a small part of me was hoping maybe EA might spring something here. At this rate, the never-ending Ted Nugent Guitar Solo that will be Call of Duty: Black Ops is going to kick this game's behind critically and (probably) in sales). Those reviews make it sound like EA might have been better off taking a chance and making a FPS where your only interaction with the local fauna and flora is shooting it. I don't think it's at all a stretch to say that depicting that world of shifting alliances and frustration would be quite dramatic and entertaining, although it would've taken some great writing to pull off.

Very Late Sidenote: From that article Ballotechnic posted on Page 9, does it strike anyone as making it particularly problematic to try and describe games as "for mature grown ups" when the people making them deck out their office in camouflage and name every room after a military operation? It just strikes me as rather 12-years old.

These two excerpts from Eurogamer and Edge's reviews, respectively, strike a chord with my (uninformed) thoughts on MoH:

Eurogamer[/url]]As a game about the Afghanistan war that does its absolute utmost to avoid being about the Afghanistan war, Medal of Honor is arguably just a shooting gallery. . . . It certainly does little to advance the theory that videogames are responsible enough to tell stories within sensitive contexts - it's compelling and enjoyable to play on a visceral level, but it's a shame it lacks the creative bravery to match the courage of the heroes it so reveres. Having set out to prove that there is another way of doing a first-person shooter set within a contemporary conflict, however, it can lay claim to qualified success as an interesting vertical slice of the US military machine.

Edge[/url]]In its campaign mode, MOH is almost a paean to the decency of US military personnel - even if it pointedly saves its admiration for the troops on the ground rather than those commanding the forces from afar. In fact, it is so keen to exonerate the soldiers themselves, who all operate with the utmost virtue, that it comes across with the forceful naivety of propaganda. This is not the sort of war in which US air support blithely shreds civilian vehicles or in which US troops keep as mementos body parts of murdered Afghans. And by focusing on an early part of the conflict, this is not the sort of war in which enemies shelter beneath civilians or use IEDs to pick away at the numbers and sanity of a beleaguered occupying force. This is not, in other words, really the sort of war being currently fought.

So: competent but uninspired campaign, a worthwhile competitor for Modern Warfare on its terms, but not a bold step forward for games about war. A formulaic blockbuster, not an innovative groundbreaker.

Sounds like a rental if at least for curiosity's sake, but not something that will enrich my life in any way for having played it. Maybe next time, video games?

Gravey wrote:

So: competent but uninspired campaign, a worthwhile competitor for Modern Warfare on its terms, but not a bold step forward for games about war. A formulaic blockbuster, not an innovative groundbreaker.

Sounds like a rental if at least for curiosity's sake, but not something that will enrich my life in any way for having played it. Maybe next time, video games?

Not to go all Hipster elitist all of a sudden, but I don't think any huge, major name release like this will ever go for much more than "formulaic blockbuster". There's a revenue # that has to be met, and that means do what sells, don't take chances.

Prederick wrote:
Gravey wrote:

So: competent but uninspired campaign, a worthwhile competitor for Modern Warfare on its terms, but not a bold step forward for games about war. A formulaic blockbuster, not an innovative groundbreaker.

Sounds like a rental if at least for curiosity's sake, but not something that will enrich my life in any way for having played it. Maybe next time, video games?

Not to go all Hipster elitist all of a sudden, but I don't think any huge, major name release like this will ever go for much more than "formulaic blockbuster". There's a revenue # that has to be met, and that means do what sells, don't take chances.

Yep. I think if we are looking for something more enriching the Michael Bay shelf isn't the place to be looking. This game could have been challenging, but I don't think it was ever going to be.

Certainly not in this particular genre, at least, which has been a teenager's "Man, if I were in Delta Force it'd be so cool!" fantasy for a decade now.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Prederick wrote:
Gravey wrote:

So: competent but uninspired campaign, a worthwhile competitor for Modern Warfare on its terms, but not a bold step forward for games about war. A formulaic blockbuster, not an innovative groundbreaker.

Sounds like a rental if at least for curiosity's sake, but not something that will enrich my life in any way for having played it. Maybe next time, video games?

Not to go all Hipster elitist all of a sudden, but I don't think any huge, major name release like this will ever go for much more than "formulaic blockbuster". There's a revenue # that has to be met, and that means do what sells, don't take chances.

Yep. I think if we are looking for something more enriching the Michael Bay shelf isn't the place to be looking. This game could have been challenging, but I don't think it was ever going to be.

Yeah, that's all: back in early days when it was announced, it really looked like the developer's heart (and publisher's spine) were in the right place, and I had the faint hope that maybe this game would do something, take some kind of chance, to raise the bar even one tiny increment for war shooters. Ah the naivety of youth!

That Edge review sums up my reservations about buying a game like MoH (apart from the quality of the game itself). Right now, I'm more comfortable getting my naive, black & white morality warfare simulators in Halo-type settings.

Prederick wrote:

Certainly not in this particular genre, at least, which has been a teenager's "Man, if I were in Delta Force it'd be so cool!" fantasy for a decade now.

One of my favorite things about teenagers is that the ones who think that have zero conception of the discipline and suffering necessary to be on something like Delta Force.

Gravey wrote:

Yeah, that's all: back in early days when it was announced, it really looked like the developer's heart (and publisher's spine) were in the right place, and I had the faint hope that maybe this game would do something, take some kind of chance, to raise the bar even one tiny increment for war shooters. Ah the naivety of youth!

I really suspect the setting was really all about marketing. Make it look current and edgy, get Jack Thompson out of his crypt for a few sound-bites, then release something totally toothless.

The setting did have potential and I was keeping half an eye on the game, but I hated the CoD 4 single player with the fury of 1000 suns and this sounds like more of the same.

Yea this is a definite bust. I was planning on having some fun dumping some hours into the MP, but all the servers i tried were complete sh*te. Worse than the first beta as far as performance. I tried 5 different ones in Chicago and Dallas which normally is <100 ping for me and was warping all over the place. Which in the browser i wasnt able to see the ping displayed either, but was able to during beta.

Man, things went negative on MoH rather quickly. I was looking forward to it for a while now and after reading a few reviews, I'm preparing myself for the worst. I should have it from Gamefly tomorrow and I'll be sure to post some thoughts later.

Ugh, so disappointing. Red Dead Revolver has set the recent bar regarding a game being much more fun than I anticipated. I was really hoping they'd pull something out their hat for this one. Not only is the game apparently uninspired, but EA handed this dill hole a feather in his cap whether true or untrue.

I still want to give it a shot, but can't dream of it at full price now. Unless I trade in....but no, Fallout NV is coming! Argh!!!

93_confirmed wrote:

Man, things went negative on MoH rather quickly. I was looking forward to it for a while now and after reading a few reviews, I'm preparing myself for the worst. I should have it from Gamefly tomorrow and I'll be sure to post some thoughts later.

I don't think it's awful, but "functional' seems to be a very good descriptor, both as a positive and a negative.

Prederick wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

Man, things went negative on MoH rather quickly. I was looking forward to it for a while now and after reading a few reviews, I'm preparing myself for the worst. I should have it from Gamefly tomorrow and I'll be sure to post some thoughts later.

I don't think it's awful, but "functional' seems to be a very good descriptor, both as a positive and a negative.

For MP "functional" doesnt even apply.

93_confirmed wrote:

Man, things went negative on MoH rather quickly. I was looking forward to it for a while now and after reading a few reviews, I'm preparing myself for the worst. I should have it from Gamefly tomorrow and I'll be sure to post some thoughts later.

I've heard a few voices of trepidation in the press, but EA went all in on this one. It looks like it might have came back on them big time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...

"Shares of Electronic Arts Inc. (ERTS) closed nearly 6% lower Tuesday, a move that analysts pegged to disappointing critical reviews for its newly revamped combat franchise "Medal of Honor." "

ranalin wrote:

Yea this is a definite bust. I was planning on having some fun dumping some hours into the MP, but all the servers i tried were complete sh*te. Worse than the first beta as far as performance. I tried 5 different ones in Chicago and Dallas which normally is <100 ping for me and was warping all over the place. Which in the browser i wasnt able to see the ping displayed either, but was able to during beta.

At least we still have BC2.

93_confirmed wrote:

Man, things went negative on MoH rather quickly. I was looking forward to it for a while now and after reading a few reviews, I'm preparing myself for the worst. I should have it from Gamefly tomorrow and I'll be sure to post some thoughts later.

Yeah, the first PC beta made me lose all faith in the game. I gave the second beta a shot and it was a bit better, but still not up to the standard of MW2 or BC2. Hopefully DICE can take the MP team and put them to work on something decent.

I just read the preview for the Black Ops MP and it sounds even more epic than MW2. They're really going all out with the customization and have a few dynamic levels (players can be killed by active parts of the environment). I'm really psyched for it and MoH is really just an appetizer before the main course.

Interesting article here

http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/10/the-story-behind-medal-of-honor/64441/

In short, seems the experts tapped by EA to provide military cred to the game were not authorized by their superiors to do so. Now, it feels a little stunt-ey to me "Wow! the game the pentagon doesn't want you to play!"

There's also a video with the experts in full witness protection program mode.

Feeank wrote:

There's also a video with the experts in full witness protection program mode.

They were doing that in some promotional videos before launch as well. In other interviews they didnt use their real names just their code names.

I've been trolling the MoH forums, checking out the posts and by and large they've been pretty brutal. Even accounting for the average trash that post there it's still been pretty bad. I've never come across so many locked threads were people were raging against the game.

One fellow even posted a screen shot after a match where the score leader had a 104/4 KDR. WTF.

IMAGE(http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/joeknipp/photo.jpg)

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I don't know, what RPS said sounds an awful lot like the Modern Warfare 2 campaign, which was praised up and down despite the insufferable "No Russian" bit and the Michael Bay level of action insanity. Every review I've read has jumped up and down on the campaign's length, even though it's alomost exactly the same as MW2's as well. I'll probably rent this and give it a whack.

That review echoed my feelings on the original Modern Warfare. It's a rail shooter and always has been. Never played MW2 and I don't regret it.

+1 It sounds like this MoH is everything I hated about CoD 4, and avoided in MW2, dialed up even further.

+2 I'm so tired of rail shooters. I'm also going to be on the wait and see boat regarding Black Ops. Its a good thing Halo will hold me over for a while.

Ballotechnic wrote:

One fellow even posted a screen shot after a match where the score leader had a 104/4 KDR. WTF.

If your lucky enough to get behind the enemy lines you're able to do some serious dmg. In beta i went 60+/3. Only reason i died was i got caught going for more ammo. Still its REAL hard to do that, but it is possible. Plus you can have a good round. I went 25/1 in one of my games today, and thats with me coming in late on the map.

I played MP again today for a few hours and i hate that they just didnt deliver on enough to get people to play this. They fixed the performance on the servers and some of the maps are exactly what i want. Wish they'd transfer them over to BC2 or BF3.