EA: Medal Of Honor "Better Than Reviews Indicate"
In our estimation, Medal of Honor might be one of the most underrated and under-appreciated games of the year.
And while EA boss Patrick Soderlund told Eurogamer that developer Danger Close didn't meet EA's "quality expectations," he defends the title by saying it has been "judged harsher than it should be." Still, the game managed to sell very well, topping 1.5 million copies in only a few days time (Soderlund wouldn't provide an updated number but it's certainly higher now). Added Soderlund:
"What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations. In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong. Medal of Honor is to some extent judged harsher than it should be. The game is better than today's reviews are indicating."
The game has an average 75 Metacritic rating and many gamers complained that critics made too many comparisons to Call of Duty, and several military professionals have stepped up and praised the game. For our part here at PSXE, we believe we judged it for what it was but EA is taking the complaints to heart:
"I'm proud of what the game is and proud of what the team did. I just think the market is obviously telling us they think the game is X. We need to convince the market we can make something they appreciate more, particularly to be able to compete.
We're looking at that clearly. We're taking that seriously. I'm not at all saying Medal of Honor is a failure. It is a successful reboot of that franchise. We're going to be strong in the future."
We have to agree that the game could've been better from a technical standpoint. That much is true. But people might read that last set of comments and interpret them as follows- "the market is obviously telling us they think the game is X...'cough'...i.e., not Call of Duty, so we're going to make the next MoH more like CoD." Because that appeared to be the brunt of many critical problems; that it wasn't CoD...
Related Game(s): Medal of Honor
Tags: moh, medal of honor, ea, medal of honor game
11/2/2010 10:10:06 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (67 posts)
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:08:22 PM
ace_boon_coon
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:01:06 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:17:36 PM
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 11/2/2010 2:21:40 PM
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:34:16 PM
gangan19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:38:21 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 4:24:24 PM
Read the poem, watch the making of the game and you'll see how much went into it.
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 4:35:13 PM
And the kills after each death were hardly something to compare to GoW. Idk man I respect your answer but I can't go on and agree with it. I'll give you this much though I'm gonna play through it again to see if I can find any relation to what your saying.
Just so were clear it's not a bad game. Obviously if I'm willing to play through it again! I have wanted to try the trials of st. Lucia maybe I'll do that too.
Underdog15
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 10:33:36 AM
Reply
In terms of making it more like "cod", as hinted in this article, I sincerely hope this trend of making one game like another stops soon. Obviously, devs gotta make a profit somewhere down the line, but I'm a fan of diversity. I really don't want to have to play the same game 30 times over.
ace_boon_coon
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:04:04 PM
Nynja
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 10:50:53 AM
Reply
Sure the campaign is short. Very short. But you know what? I don't care. The campaign is so damn fun and immersive, I completed it twice in 1 day and moved over to Tier 1.
This installment of Medal of Honor is what I was looking for. Realism. It's like a cross between SOCOM and COD. It bleeds the realism of past SOCOM games with a healthy dressing of COD heart stopping moments.
Firefights feel like they should offline and online. Bullets screaming by nearly dropping you to the ground. Explosions kicking up clouds of dirt and debris. The anxiety that sets in as your cover disintegrates from your view. Completely out of control yet very manageable with the right teammates.
I LOVE this game.
maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:02:57 AM
johnld
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:28:41 PM
Nynja
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:45:07 PM
A word of advice, make sure you pay attention to your commanding officer and their orders. If you don't give the game 100% of your attention, you'll miss something and get lost. It does lack a sense of direction should you attempt to fly through missions (as stated in PSXE's review of the game).
There is plenty of room for improvement but overall, the game was a wonderful experience for myself.
BeezleDrop
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 10:52:34 AM
Reply
tridon
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 10:54:42 AM
Reply
I bought this and I was psyched for it. I just finished the campaign last night and I found that it was overall quite enjoyable. It doesn't have that action movie feel that the CoD games have but then again, it wasn't meant to have that feeling. On a technical standpoint, the graphics were very black and white, meaning that they were either excellent or horrible at times. The sound effects, music and voiceovers were all spectacular, though.
I must say, I didn't care much for the Gunfighters mission. It was very annoying trying to shoot targets when your helicopter is bobbing up and down and swaying left and right. Every other mission was very enjoyable, though. I also found that the ending had much more of an emotional impact over anything seen in a CoD game. Yes, Danger Close could've done a better job and probably should've considering their competition but they shouldn't be ridiculed for the job they did do. Medal of Honor is an extremely well-written insight to what men and women in the military deal with every day and it is definitely underappreciated.
A couple things that bothered me; as Ben put it, the alien-looking goat. That scared me when it first popped on screen. I was like, "What the *bleep* is that?!" After a moment it occured to me, "Oh, that must be that alien goat. Strange." Second, it would've been nice to see a woman soldier in this whether you played as her or she accompanied you. Danger Close's write-up following the climax of the game states the men and women of the U.S. military, yet you don't see a woman during gameplay. They should probably keep that in mind for the next go around.
Overall, people should play this title. Yes, it's short but it's still good. Plus you get an HD copy of Medal of Honor: Frontline. It doesn't get much better than that.
maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 10:54:57 AM
Reply
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:35:30 PM
jaybiv
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 1:19:50 PM
frostface
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:05:54 AM
Reply
Infact, what lets down MoH isn't Danger Close, I believe that DICEs multiplayer lets the game down. And even that is still strong.
I was just talking about this last night with CharlesD. It was in regards the multiplayer and how it really could of done with more tweaking before being released. Too much bullet sponging and lag issues and not to mention the ridiculous level of sniping. Yet it's still a great experience. Just felt rushed out in time to beat CoD:BO. I'm sure we'll see most issues patched soon enough. I do believe it's too soon for them to be releasing DLC until the game is fixed though. However, it's all fixable. I'm just more disappointed with DICEs contribution then Danger Close.
maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:14:00 AM
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:21:47 AM
maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:28:24 AM
spiderboi
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:30:04 AM
frostface
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:32:24 AM
It's still a good multiplayer and with some patches will be a great multiplayer. I just would of preferred to have MoH released after CoD:BO rather then before, if the plan was to not have them going head to head in the same month.
It would of given that little more time to add the little extra tweaks that we'll more than likely see soon enough.
Only now more people are psyched about CoD:BO because of average reviews for MoH. Just a little more time would of really made a difference.
Last edited by frostface on 11/2/2010 11:35:06 AM
maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:33:50 AM
spiderboi
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:52:36 AM
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:18:46 AM
Reply
Last edited by Jawknee on 11/2/2010 11:22:59 AM
maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:29:22 AM
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:49:47 AM
Simcoe
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:48:50 PM
LOL That's basically what I said to a friend of mine on whether he should get it or save his money. That and the single player being way too short.
EDIT: To add some perspective, with BF:BC2 released back in March, BC2: Vietnam due in the near future, BF3 (due next year?) and some work on Criterion Games' NFS:HP, I could totally see DICE being swamped. With BC2 being very popular, and not taking any chances with their premiere asset, Battlefield; I can see how something had to suffer.
Last edited by Simcoe on 11/2/2010 3:15:04 PM
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 11:44:34 AM
Reply
But I also want to point out that I've talked to plenty of different people, veterans included that say its one of the best single players they've played and that the mp is a huge bonus. I have to agree! I also understand length is annissue which it is. I can say the games perfect but the length would still be an issue.
That leaves me with it is severely underrated! It is a must play wether it's now at 60 bux or later at 20. You should play this game!
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/2/2010 11:58:51 AM
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:04:59 PM
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:22:43 PM
I do understand your concept, and I don't think anywhere any company is just releasing games despite how they look and play. Some developers just have the right tools, teams, financial stability and help from publishers. But if a developer doesn't have that they still have put their time and money in to a game to charge $60. If u don't wanna pay that that's up to the consumer.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/2/2010 12:27:52 PM
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 1:07:50 PM
With this logic then you should have no problem in paying full price for games with crappy graphics or last gen graphics. If we dont hold these devs to a certain standard then there will be no progress. I for one would be ashamed as a game designer to release a half assed, buggy, ugly product. Consumers who spend time and money on these games deserve better.
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:12:54 PM
And if that's what u take from my quote then so be it. I'll defend it all day long. I know how hard it is to get a game to a certain level and after that it becomes
More difficult. I'm not going to sit here and say if all games don't look like UC2 then I'm not buying them because at the end ofthe day ND has some of the best resources around.
Again I hear what your saying I really do! And I'm glad that some people won't let poor developing take over! But I don't hold graphics as what I look forward to most in a game! I love hood looking and running game as much as you but I'm obviously a little more linient.
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:40:12 PM
It's not that I'm ok with a game looking like crap Cus I'm not ok with that. But MoH does not fall into that category. In fact despite the night levels which I'll admit sometimes looked bland, was actually pretty easy on the eyes. I'll go as far to say some detail in the game was pretty awesome! The sound and guns included! Some of the best sound I've heard from guns. Not to mention the collision detection was superb!
Hopefully that clears it up more! I'm with you that a developer should put time into making it great looking. I'm also ok with a game having some mishaps. But more on topic I'm speaking of MoH in particular when I say I'll defen it everyday Cus it's not crappy graphically! As I said sometimes it shines very very bright!
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:07:59 PM
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:24:16 PM
johnld
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:33:12 PM
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:37:47 PM
gangan19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:40:28 PM
johnld
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 9:46:31 PM
Underdog15
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:21:11 PM
Reply
With so much emphasis on multiplayer these days, and the fact that my friends will never play more unique multiplayer games, (the bastards...), I want a game that can identify what makes a good host. I'm sick of playing with laggy hosts. Also, a major problem with programming is that people with bad internet have the advantage ...
BTNwarrior
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:21:13 PM
Reply
Jawknee
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 1:10:10 PM
johnld
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 9:47:36 PM
spiderboi
Wednesday, November 03, 2010 @ 10:26:13 AM
Alienange
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 12:33:53 PM
Reply
Just saying. It's kinda stupid for a publisher to come out and cry like this. Back your damn product! Be proud of what you've put out. If you think the reviews turned me away from MoH, I can guarantee you that these statements have.
"Didn't meet our quality expectations..."
Then why'd you release it??!
jjlive168
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 1:26:31 PM
Reply
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:22:11 PM
Reply
gangan19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:45:31 PM
LightShow
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 2:26:45 PM
Reply
this particular game exasperates a point i've become acutely aware of: i usually dont agree with reviewers. I dont like COD. i'm /glad/ that MoH wasnt a CoD clone. i'm pretty sure i'm not alone, and when EA releases the second one and its as close to CoD as they can get it, i wont be buying it.
let treyarch make CoD. the fact everyone wants all shooter games to play like CoD doesnt do anything to dispel the complaint that shooters are all the same. they complained about the feel of Killzone 2. i had friends tell me they wouldnt play battlefield BC/2 because the maps were too big.
IMAO, CoD needs to disappear for a while. theyre starving out innovation in the genre. the fact that only one studio is cranking them out will help, for now.
HighOnFire
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:03:56 PM
Reply
hehateme
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:09:41 PM
Reply
bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:24:48 PM
FlyingKickPunch
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 3:48:19 PM
Reply
BikerSaint
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 5:41:58 PM
Reply
In any case, you need to go ahead keep MOH as it's own realistically unique military game.
Matter of fact, continue to take the ballsy steps using our Special Forces & Spec Ops guys and go make the most realistic MOH yet...... MOH:6 Days in Fallujah(sp???)
Yeah, that's right!!!!! I said it!!!!
And "NO" f*cking wimping out for anybody this time!!!!
___________
Wednesday, November 03, 2010 @ 4:14:24 AM
Reply
graphics, gameplay, sound, level design, character design everything was the exact definition of meh!
nothing in that game impressed me, if thats not the defining of average than nothing is!
EA, you want a "good" war game?
than why not publish 6 Days in Fallujah?
that is looking like a freaking awesome game!
and stop trying to turn the battlefield series into COD!
KNG201
Wednesday, November 03, 2010 @ 6:01:37 PM
Reply
Dajmin
Thursday, November 04, 2010 @ 10:34:42 AM
Reply
MOH was my biggest disappointment of the year. Thankfully it sounds like there are some good trade-in options coming up for Black Ops, so we'll see if that's any better.

Medal of Honor









Snaaaake
Reply
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 @ 10:32:33 AM