There Will Apparently Be a New Medal of Honor, and it Will Apparently Be Called 'Warfighter'

Wow big surprise, there was an insert for this game in my copy of BF3.

This reminds me of when Shawn Elliott at 1up made up a game called Duty Calls and went around asking if people would buy it and most said yes.

And then People Can Fly took it one step further when they were marketing Bulletstorm.

I still say Owen Good (from Kotaku) came up with the best fake title for a game: Battlefighter: Modern Warfield of Honor: Big Red One. Abbreviation: BMWoH: BRO

MOH : Conscientious Objector.

@SeriouslyNow said:

MOH : Conscientious Objector.

Is that a music game where you play Bob Dylan songs?

Great news

Oh, is that coming out before or after Call Of Duty: Gunshooter?

I'm going to leave now to play some Mario: Jump.

Only thing I remember from the reboot is the moment where you are being overwhelmed by enemies in the desert. Pretty cool moment except for the fact that you are supposedly running out of ammo when you actually have infinite ammo...

Ugh. I hope they figure out their fucking scripting problems, next time. And I hope they make bigger plans for their multiplayer. I actually didn't find their multiplayer too hideous, but they never added to it. Very few maps. A couple decent ones, but the rest were uninteresting. Few weapons. Few options in any way whatsoever, really. And the campaign was just . . . meh.

They're going to ram it right back into the ground long before they really resurrect anything of the franchise.

Smartfighter FTW!

Super Medal Of Duty Advanced Street Combat Warfighter ....even better!

@SeriouslyNow: I was so drunk when I wrote that stupid reply. It inspired some good titles though so I don't feel too bad about it heh.

@SeriouslyNow: I was so drunk when I wrote that stupid reply. It inspired some good titles though so I don't feel too bad about it heh.

@Grissefar said:

Next up: Medal of Honor: Gunshooter, Medal of Honor: Conflict and Medal of Honor: Military Combat

You forgot Medal of Honor: Crossfire - The Gary Whitta-Sponsored "Shoot That Guy Over There" Edition.

Was DudeKiller taken?

Next week EA will announce Need for Speed: Race Driver.

I remember when this series was fantastic. Good times.

not at all interested.

Medal of Honor: Manduder.

Same boring military theme. Sci Fi is what's needed.

Medal of Honor: Soldier?

What a generic ass name.

Call of Battlefield: Shoot Guys.

So there will be fighting in this war?

Medal of Honor: Dudebro

Medal of Honor: Warfighter: THE BIG WAR!

Oh, so there is still an audience. Damn.

I guess making the same military shooters with the same cliches is bad, a huge no-no, while having tons of RPGs with the same medieval/ Norse mythology/ Tolkien inspired lore is good...

I'm waiting for the first gaming journalist to have the guts and say he/she is fed up with these medieval/Tolkien/Norse crap being shoved month after month (notice that I'm talking about the style, not the genre!)

So let's quit being hypocrites: apart from wrestling and sports games, EVERY other gaming genre is packed to the brink with tons of titles. You name it: FPS, sandbox, RPGs (especialy Norse mythology ones), MMOs, J-RPGs, 2D platformers, fighting, racing, RTS, puzzle, even 3rd person action/adventure or shooter (which became either sandbox or RPG).

@Vlad_Tiberius: As true as this is as a general statement - it's more subtle than that. At least in my opinion - which is all anyone can claim. Other genre's branch out more, and offer less constrained boundaries and constructs. People think differently more often for different genre's than they do for military scripted first person shooters. Even sports games, probably the most anti-genre-progressive behind militarily fps games, still branch out into new physics systems and ways of playing. These scripted military shooters are offensive to me - because there is little to progress or rethink, and what little imagination there is left - seems to be as far away from a focus group as humanly imaginable.

Also, a lot of 'long running game series' not in the first person genre, started off far more ambitious - so improving them remained ambitious. There where simply an immeasurable amount of moving parts - so improving those parts still benefits the initial ambition. I don't think this is in any way true for military first person shooters. I don't think there was any ambition to begin with. And if there was, it's lost behind a smoke grenade's aftermath.

@whitespider: I fully agree. But why is the military FPS the culprit here? Did the already many J-RPGs and the medieval/Tolkien themed RPGs bring anything new in their concept? No, people liked them because they were fewer and more of a niche than FPS shooters were - simple as that.

Now things have changed, they've become main stream and, in all honesty, I'm pretty sure I'll f*cking puke if I see another western bleak , medieval, Norse mythology RPG or another J-RPG with anime fantasy crap with talking animals and all that: they've become as horendous and cliche-ridden as the military shooters. Don't tell me that all these "talented" devs can't possibly make an RPG without medieval knights, dragons, fairies, wizards, spells or magic potions, emo characters, big spiders and all that same crap and all the same grinding for "XPs" and "abilities". Where's the evolution in a genre, when you're making the same game after the same old rules for 20 years, while even real life games/sports had their rules tweaked and changed for more dynamism/excitement/drama?

Every game is scripted. Only that some genres( i.e. shooters) are more obvious than others (like RPGs). They offer the same false sense of freedom like having different work-out exercises in prison.

Be honest: nowadays, would you rather buy a new Bioshock/Condemned-like FPS or another Kingdoms of Amalur style RPG?

What's the difference between making a dozen of Call Of Duty or Battlefield clones and making a dozen of Final Fantasy, Warcraft, Skyrim or Dark Souls clones for example , besides probably more work and content? And why is the same meat-head marine or the same Russian/Arabian terrorist more despicable than the same medieval knight, elf, wizard, lizard dude and anime fairy? They're all on the same level of cliche junk as far as I'm concerned

And sports games or wrestling games lack variety in concept: everybody involved is going for simulation and realism, while arcade/NBA Jam style madness disappeared.

All I'm saying is to be honest and to not pick on military shooters for their stupid cliches just because they're more visible/ exposed and because it's the latest fashion for internet bandwagon jumpers.

@Vlad_Tiberius: Because I would argue that the militarily shooter is 100,000% more confined. So the 'genre fatigue' is significantly more pronounced simply due to the nature of the content. However I see the overall point you are making, or at least I believe I do.

What we need is new ip's in more than just name (if I am on the right track, that would earn me a nod) - in any genre. To elaborate on "more than just name" ; Games that offer a... dare I say it. New genre. Or a new setting entirely. If those two fail, at the very least a new method of presentation. The recent 'non-game' dear esther, contraversy about it being a game aside - took a step in 50% the right direction on this front. It 'removed what we knew' and only left player interpreation. And while I think that approach was resources limited - it posed an interesting question about emotional feedback being something worthy of consideration. At least to me.

Thinking outside the box seems to be something only possible as an indie game developer willing to make little money right now, big studios only back sure winners, and while I appreciate the fact that indie games are able to 'sometimes' do this - I am not sure about it's ripple effect on the mainstream gaming sector. And by not sure - I mean I am not sure there is 'any' ripple effect at all.

There is a lot more floating around in my noggin about this subject, however 3+ paragraphs is enough for now.

@whitespider: A potential issue is the bias towards RPGs in gaming community: no RPG , no matter how buggy, how poorly tailored, how stupid is its story, it will never be considered crap. You wanna be successful as a game producer? Produce an RPG, because you will always have the many choices and character customization as an excuse for a buggy, ugly game with a stupid kindergarten-level story.

Nowadays, every genre has RPG elements: customize this, buy that, drop points into this, grind this ability, loot that treasure chest or dead body

It's all fine, I'm not currently having any problem with it because everybody wants to have some kind of liberty into their gaming experience. But don't make that only thing your game has to offer

However, the problem appears when the games become too RPG: too many customize options, too many changeable parts, where people end up buying certain games not for the content, story or the topic/theme it tries to offer, but solely because of the creating and customizing itch. One fine example is the sports fighting and wrestling games: people don't buy them for their single player content and gameplay, but for a new creating tool. The same thing happens with shooters: some are buying them only for the variable nature of the multiplayer. People want to customize every freaking thing in every single game they buy; they want everything to be RPG. While creativity is a good thing in essence, offering multiple choices ends up NOT creating anything new.

And, in this way, developers choose to play the safe route and provide you with creating tools with plenty of customizing options instead of creating a genuine experience with less branching and options. Is like instead off being eager to buy and read a fresh new crime book, the publishers offer you a typewriter and a bunch of blank pages and say : "you be the novelist, you write your damn crime novel; we give up!".

How can they create new stories or IPs, when you only want is RPG-like multiple answers, maps or lots of appearance options for the sake of "gaming liberty"?

Also, since when a linear story is something bad? Does having multiple choice answers add any originality and wit to the story? Does having multiple endings makes the story more interesting and more relevant?

I don't like too much hand-holding and too much scripting in my gaming experience, but I certainly wouldn't want to pay big bucks on this new breed of games that are nothing more than glorified creation tools. Maybe I'm lazy, maybe I'm not the creative type, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I will certainly not buy an experience that relies ENTIRELY on me to create/craft. I enjoy PLAYING games, not CREATING / CRAFTING them.

Surprised they are even trying to create another MOH game. The 'reboot' was a disaster of a game. It doesn't matter what technology they use to create the game, I dumped 60$ into that game and came away feeling like I was duped. So this IP will not get anymore of my money.

I enjoyed the reboot, I'll probably play this one as well when it drops in price.

Maybe its because i got the game for free but i genuinely had a lot of fun with this game, single player was throwaway but the multiplayer was good for a while.

@Vlad_Tiberius said:

Also, since when a linear story is something bad? Does having multiple choice answers add any originality and wit to the story? Does having multiple endings makes the story more interesting and more relevant?

I don't like too much hand-holding and too much scripting in my gaming experience, but I certainly wouldn't want to pay big bucks on this new breed of games that are nothing more than glorified creation tools. Maybe I'm lazy, maybe I'm not the creative type, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I will certainly not buy an experience that relies ENTIRELY on me to create/craft. I enjoy PLAYING games, not CREATING / CRAFTING them.

I'm with you. I don't get why it's suddenly a sin to make a good game if it's not full of a billion branches. Give me a good game with finely-tuned mechanics and/or a great story over a game that tries to be all things to all people. There's a reason Half-Life 2 and Halo are among the most celebrated FPSes in the genre - they're expertly crafted and undeniably the result of a concentrated vision. "RPG elements" and meta-game multiplayer are a crutch, nothing more. Hell, it's part of the same reason I prefer CoD single player over multi. Give me an experience, not a bunch of fucking tools.

Medal of Honor: Contemporary Battle Engagement

Medal of Honor: Conflict Resolver

Medal of Honor: Warcrimes

Medal of Honor: Freedom Securer

Medal of Honor: Fight for the Oil Supply

Medal of Honor: Occupation

This is fun.

Warfighter... does that mean it will feature dangerous UN debates and public demonstrations in the fight to end war?

I guess EA is hoping that whatever fatigue this release will cause wont affect Battlefield. That's the reason they call this MOH and not Battlefield Warfighter.

Disappointed that bad company 3 isn't EA's answer to the "Treyarch" years between BF3 and BF4.