MoH Warfighter review copies being sent on Day 1, super shady

  • 88 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by GenghisJohn (256 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

All the Linkin Park in the world won't help you save this game EA.

genius.

#52 Posted by JJOR64 (18784 posts) -
#53 Posted by Hunkulese (2528 posts) -

It doesn't mean anything about the quality of the game. They have nothing to gain by early reviews. The people who were going to wait for a review anyway are still going to wait for a review. The people planning on buying day one are still going to buy it on day one unless they start hearing bad reviews. So what is there to gain by having a review out on or before day one?

#54 Posted by falling_fast (2144 posts) -

I wasn't going to buy this game anyway.

because it looks like a complete piece of shit

#55 Posted by Demoskinos (13878 posts) -
#56 Posted by JJOR64 (18784 posts) -
#57 Posted by beepmachine (614 posts) -

The game is probably fine because it's built off of the previous medal of honor, which is just built off of battlefield. They'd have to fuck up real bad to make an actual bad game out of this thing. Their marketing direction shows pretty clearly that it's probably not going to be a great game either, but who knows (no one until release day evidently).

More concerning for me is this trend of withholding review copies of games. Must be incredibly frustrating for reviewers.

#58 Posted by Demoskinos (13878 posts) -

@JJOR64: So many numbers. X_X

#59 Edited by studnoth1n (222 posts) -

it's really quite simple. most games nowadays, in general, are shit. this one just happens to be shittier than the rest. there's no reason to get overly polemical and divisive about boycotting one publisher simply because they've made a career out of sucking creativity out of everything they touch... as well as being inherently evil, but that's beside the point. regardless, the politics of this industry are so fucked up anyway, i'd defy you to find one person or company who is truly "clean" from all this pervasive, marketing skullduggery. journalists included.

#60 Edited by Giantstalker (1445 posts) -

The responses to this thread range from rational to flat out hilarious.

The first MoH was a decent if middling game, Frostbite 2 is a proven engine, all indications are that this will be a decidedly average special-forces themed first person shooter.

There's nothing wrong with that. If it's competent, I have no problem dropping fifty bucks on something like it. The multiplayer fireteam stuff is genuinely interesting. As for the review copies? I can only guess that EA is probably banking on existing coverage through other sources - like battlelog - to drive sales harder than early review scores will.

#61 Posted by mordukai (7092 posts) -

Frankly I don't find it surprising at all. Last time, EA put so much PR behind it that they ended up getting their asses handed to them but almost every reviewer and gamer. No wonder EA wants to keep this game under heavy guard. They want to get the maximum amount of sales before reviewers get to it. If they like then no big loss to EA but if they pan it then at least they got some sales from people willing to fork over money for this game.

I think it's actually a smart decision on their part.EA knows that in a month's time this game will be sidelined and forgotten only to be mentioned back when the wholly redundant GOT discussion rear it's ugly head. They know people are craving for the new Call of Doody and the new MoH would appease that hunger is only for a short period. I mean by this point EA knows for sure they can't do anything to touch CoD so might as well ride it's wave.

#62 Posted by Wraxend (540 posts) -

Why would EA not want review scores out there, unless it's because of low confidence in the product itself. You either want reviews out there to create a ground swell of hype or you want no revews as the scores will be low enough to scare people away from buying it.

#63 Posted by AssInAss (2400 posts) -

@me3639 said:

My theory is its a test to see if reviewers, or games without out review scores are relevant to their sales. Why send out copies to a bunch of reviewers who play more games than anyone? Is their opinion equal to those who only play 5-10 games a year and are the target market for the game? IMO thats smart business. If they sell 3-5 million you are not going to see reviews early ever again from EA, and possibly other publishers. I have no problem with that.

That's quite interesting, I'll watch as a spectator on the sidelines how this goes down.

#64 Posted by Fattony12000 (6357 posts) -

@Giantstalker said:

The first MoH was a decent if middling game...

The first Medal of Honor game was actually pretty fucking great all round.

Vor ist ein papier?

#65 Edited by altairre (997 posts) -

@Fattony12000 said

Vor ist ein papier?

What?

Also that patch is insane. But at least it is more realistic than CoD and not totally cliche-ridden right?

Oh well.

#66 Posted by Village_Guy (2409 posts) -

@Fattony12000 said:

@Giantstalker said:

The first MoH was a decent if middling game...

The first Medal of Honor game was actually pretty fucking great all round.

Vor ist ein papier?

#67 Posted by Fattony12000 (6357 posts) -

@altairre:

#68 Posted by BeachThunder (11265 posts) -

So, any thoughts from the people the have the game already?

I seriously cannot wait for a Frostbite Mirror's Edge *___*

#69 Posted by Droop (1792 posts) -

@BeachThunder said:

So, any thoughts from the people the have the game already?

I seriously cannot wait for a Frostbite Mirror's Edge *___*

With BF4 already announced I wonder when and if we'll see a new Mirror's Edge. I'd take a Mirror's Edge 2 over Battlefield 4 any day though.

#70 Posted by GS_Dan (1396 posts) -

It looked fine to be honest.

#71 Posted by Bzchan (5 posts) -

Some thoughts since I just finished the game earlier:

Tone has been changed to a CoD type game.

It's basically BF3 SP just slightly different set pieces and no tanks.

Criterion's driving sections are interesting. I especially liked the stealth driving mini game even though it was only used once.

The feeling from 2010's game is all but gone and with it the character development that made you care about the game.

Danger Close has done a wonderful job creating very nice level's, too bad there's not a story strong enough to go with them.

6 hour playtime on normal

It's not worth $60

#72 Posted by pw2566ch (480 posts) -

I say people should vote with their wallet. If there's no review on day 1 then don't buy the game until you see a review and if the review is a good enough reason to buy it. Most likely this will mess up EA's day 1 sales and they will have no numbers to report on.

Or this will make a turn for the worse and EA will just close down the studio for not making enough sales on day 1. Either way, someone is fucked.

#73 Posted by Village_Guy (2409 posts) -

@Bzchan said:

Some thoughts since I just finished the game earlier:

Tone has been changed to a CoD type game.

It's basically BF3 SP just slightly different set pieces and no tanks.

Criterion's driving sections are interesting. I especially liked the stealth driving mini game even though it was only used once.

The feeling from 2010's game is all but gone and with it the character development that made you care about the game.

Danger Close has done a wonderful job creating very nice level's, too bad there's not a story strong enough to go with them.

6 hour playtime on normal

It's not worth $60

That sounds like what I expected pretty much, a shame that the feeling from the reboot is gone, but I had anticipated that much.

I'll probably pick it up when it is cheaper, which seems like the best move.

#74 Edited by CptBedlam (4439 posts) -

@altairre said:

Also that patch is insane. But at least it is more realistic than CoD and not totally cliche-ridden right?

Oh well.

Oh hey, it's the first level of MW1 ..... with more explosions.

#75 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -

I find it funny people are now losing their minds over "how can you make a game depicting war and make it fun?!?!" Where were you guys throughout the 80s and 90s, where we constantly depicted war in fun games? It's okay for me to lay waste to Viet Cong with a light machine gun but shooting Al Qaeda with an assault rifle is war profiteering? I dunno, dude.

Same thing with the real guns. It is not the first (or last). When real guns started appearing in games, we all thought it was cool. Now it's profiteering.

I feel like Jeff does about; it'll be _fine_, it won't blow the doors off or be outright horrible.

#76 Edited by Jack268 (3387 posts) -
@altairre: Holy shit they licensed Captain Price for this game? 
 
Oh yeah and that looks exactly like the kind of stupidity you'd find in a CoD campaign, I don't see why anyone would complain about that and spin around and say CoD is great instead. 
#77 Posted by Ulquiorra (64 posts) -

@Village_Guy said:

@Fattony12000 said:

@Giantstalker said:

The first MoH was a decent if middling game...

The first Medal of Honor game was actually pretty fucking great all round.

Vor ist ein papier?

Ah Senor Spielbergo's finest work, I still remember local multiplayer, if you enter SSPIELBERG at the password screen you unlock a velociraptor dinosaur for multiplayer mode.

Pure awesome :-)

#78 Posted by Genkkaku (730 posts) -

@altairre said:

@Fattony12000 said

Vor ist ein papier?

What?

Also that patch is insane. But at least it is more realistic than CoD and not totally cliche-ridden right?

Oh well.

That setpiece looked kind of okay.. but the gameplay looked pretty terrible..

#79 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@rebgav

@Brodehouse said:

It's okay for me to lay waste to Viet Cong with a light machine gun but shooting Al Qaeda with an assault rifle is war profiteering?

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment; the previous MOH game attempted to sell itself on authenticity while this one opens with a cavalcade of explosions before dumping you into a terrorist compound for the tutorial, in which you gun-down training targets in a makeshift airplane. It's not war profiteering but it's definitely tacky and almost kitsch in its attempts to be "shocking."

But in the same medium, we have stuff like Metal Gear Solid and Tom Cahlancy's, where they go to painstaking lengths to make sure that the guns are modelled correctly and they consult with futurists and they look at declassified documents and learn the proper jargon and model the equipment exactly right; and then go on to have completely nuts stories where the President is in danger but also the President is evil and the defends grid is in the hands of rogue agents and you've got to use evil methods for the greater good and blah blah blah.

I'm sure if you asked the teams making those games, they'd say they're trying to be authentic too, even as they produce their action movie scripts. The only difference is MoH has the biggest, and thus most unpopular game genre and setting. I think people are just looking for an excuse to justify not liking the genre, rather than just going "genre's played out and not for me anymore". Instead of that they go "they're war profiteering and being shady!"
#80 Posted by outerabiz (640 posts) -

it will probably still be better than mw3s single player, i just finished that yesterday and have forgotten pretty much all but two things that happened in that game.

#81 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@rebgav agreed on both accounts. Beyond expectation management I'd say rampant confirmation bias is one of the things that keep video game enthusiasts perpetually angry.
#82 Edited by Baal_Sagoth (1205 posts) -

Many comments already touched this subject but I still find it kind of amusing how MoH gets the ass-kicking CoD should have gotten all that time. I don't see the game being anything else than a mediocre or maybe even respectable entry in a genre that is inevitably very close to being pure gun porn and distorting war into a cool, fun action activitiy.

I don't think all of that shit is particularly gentlemanly at all but I have enjoyed parts of it once upon a time (MoH1 and the even better CoD1) and don't really mind kids indulging in the same idiocy I did. This internet outrage reeks of herd mentality and a telling desperation to prove just how fucking grown-up one wishes to be. If you truly wanted a 'real' take on the horrors of war you'd have so much else to do than shit your pants because of another generic modern military FPS. I hope the game gets it's fair assessment in the end despite shit marketing, whiny nerds and questionable review practices.

Until then I'll still have my fingers crossed for that game that has you explore a goddamn warzone as a single parent protecting a child, a civilian doctor treating mutilated victims, a war journalist or whoever else that isn't a fucking cowboy gunning down hundreds and being a supposed badass.

#83 Posted by Yanngc33 (4496 posts) -

@Genkkaku said:

@altairre said:

@Fattony12000 said

Vor ist ein papier?

What?

Also that patch is insane. But at least it is more realistic than CoD and not totally cliche-ridden right?

Oh well.

That setpiece looked kind of okay.. but the gameplay looked pretty terrible..

That set piece looks cool! I think this game will be fine, I really enjoyed the last Medal of Honor for some unknown reason so I'm sort of excited for this one

#84 Posted by Sackmanjones (4609 posts) -

Has anyone been playing the game? How is it? Im one of the fewenjoyed the first ones campaign. Not really the multiplayer ( I'm more of a battlefield person compared to the quick cod style) but I thought that campaign had some really cool moments. Sure the scripting was messed up in spots but that's easy to get over because video games

#85 Posted by jerseyscum (852 posts) -

It's most likely over the Day 1 patch. Which is not a good sign.

#86 Posted by Branthog (7332 posts) -

I wouldn't have sent out reviews for it, either. Even after the patch it is buggy as shit. I have hit a point in the game where I finish a car escape sequence in dubai and as soon as I am dragged out of my car by some locals, the game crashes. I kill the process, start over, do the entire game segment again. Crash in the same place. Also, every time you go to a cut-scene, it pops out to the desktop and goes to windows mode and hangs for awhile. Then jumps back into the cut-scene/game. Also, the scripting is just as half-assed as in the last game. Characters walk through objects. If a certain point in an environment is hit, everyone just vanishes. I was at one point with three guys on the field in front of me and we were engaging in a firefight... and someone walked past the right spot or something and . . . all the enemies just vanished. Like ghosts. Even the guy right in front of me who was charging at me.

#87 Edited by MikkaQ (10225 posts) -

I wouldn't call that super shady at all, just EA not having much confidence in it's game, it happens all the time in hollywood. I mean if anything, that's the closest a company is going to get to saying "Just... don't bother with this", so I appreciate their honesty.

#88 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

This isn't that surprising. I mean, is anyone really expecting this game to be any good?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.