Medal of Honor PC Open Beta To Begin October 4

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by BradNicholson (812 posts) -

Another Medal of Honor beta is on the horizon, and this time all of us can join in on the fun, provided that we have a PC that meets the game's requirements.

EA has announced an open beta for the PC version of the modern shooter that'll kick off on October 4 and run until October 7. It'll feature two maps and modes fit for up to 24 dudes have been plucked out of the full game: Sector Control in Kunar Base and an objective-based shindig in Shahikot Mountains. 

Sector Control, to be a bit more specific about the former mode, appears to be real similar to your standard hold and keep territory-based mode where two fight for control of select positions on a map. EA neglected to get into the nitty-gritty of the objective-based stuff in Shahikot Mountains, but it did mention that we'll "battle through a series of objectives to defeat the opposing team." Neat! 
 


== TEASER ==Getting in the beta simple. On the start date, just head to this portion of the official Medal of Honor site and do what needs to be done (sign a few things, promise your first born, whatever).
 
In an odd twist, EA's marketing department has decided to remind us of the recent mini-controversies over Medal of Honor. Since it's unveil, an outlet or two has taken issue with the fact that players can control a Taliban soldier in the game's multiplayer. Reportedly, GameStops located on US military bases aren't permitted to take pre-orders on the game as a result of the creative decision. In a statement, EA Games label president Frank Gibeau says EA hopes the beta "can clear up any misunderstanding about the patriotism and respect that are the foundation of this game." Sure, OK. Best of luck on that one.

Medal of Honor hits on October 12 for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3.     
#1 Posted by BradNicholson (812 posts) -

Another Medal of Honor beta is on the horizon, and this time all of us can join in on the fun, provided that we have a PC that meets the game's requirements.

EA has announced an open beta for the PC version of the modern shooter that'll kick off on October 4 and run until October 7. It'll feature two maps and modes fit for up to 24 dudes have been plucked out of the full game: Sector Control in Kunar Base and an objective-based shindig in Shahikot Mountains. 

Sector Control, to be a bit more specific about the former mode, appears to be real similar to your standard hold and keep territory-based mode where two fight for control of select positions on a map. EA neglected to get into the nitty-gritty of the objective-based stuff in Shahikot Mountains, but it did mention that we'll "battle through a series of objectives to defeat the opposing team." Neat! 
 


== TEASER ==Getting in the beta simple. On the start date, just head to this portion of the official Medal of Honor site and do what needs to be done (sign a few things, promise your first born, whatever).
 
In an odd twist, EA's marketing department has decided to remind us of the recent mini-controversies over Medal of Honor. Since it's unveil, an outlet or two has taken issue with the fact that players can control a Taliban soldier in the game's multiplayer. Reportedly, GameStops located on US military bases aren't permitted to take pre-orders on the game as a result of the creative decision. In a statement, EA Games label president Frank Gibeau says EA hopes the beta "can clear up any misunderstanding about the patriotism and respect that are the foundation of this game." Sure, OK. Best of luck on that one.

Medal of Honor hits on October 12 for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3.     
#2 Posted by cravins90 (118 posts) -

Wish I had a pc.

#3 Posted by President_Barackbar (3438 posts) -

Why would anyone even bother with this game, it looks like what you would get if you made a COD imitator mod for BC2. Why buy it when you could just own one of those games instead?

#4 Edited by Trnck (448 posts) -

Why are these violence advocating video games teaching my kids about how fun it is to be in the Taliban?
Oh wait, are you saying that I'm the one who's supposed to educate my kids? Nonsense.

#5 Edited by Joeasis (60 posts) -
@President_Barackbar:  Because some of us aren't  pretentious and don't try and fit in to some sort of social [gamer] group by thinking that it's cooler to buy "one of the other games" just because the said title may or may not be similar in some way to another game in the same genre. Simply put: Because we want to.
#6 Posted by NubMonk (209 posts) -
@President_Barackbar said:
" Why would anyone even bother with this game, it looks like what you would get if you made a COD imitator mod for BC2. Why buy it when you could just own one of those games instead? "
What Joeasis said and because the beta is free.
#7 Posted by Milpool (506 posts) -

I'm excited for this, because so far I haven't been sold on MOH.   
 
Everything I've seen / heard has suggested MOH is a BC2 clone, and if that's the case I am not interested.

#8 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

SAY WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT 
 
 
 
 WOOOOOOOH WOOOOOOOOOH !!! 

#9 Edited by Franstone (1095 posts) -

Medal of Honor is a long running series that mostly focused on the WWII era just like CoD did... 
No reason not to play this just because CoD went modern first, that's just stupid.  
 
I'm pretty excited about the single player campaign anyway. 
Games aren't just about multi-player which most competent journalists make fun of as is.
 
Already pre-paid on Steam, can't wait.
#10 Posted by Warchief (653 posts) -

so wait its ok to play as a: Viet Cong , Axis, or general Terrorist in multiplayer but not a  Taliban soldier? 
Is it just because they are part of the current war?  

#11 Posted by President_Barackbar (3438 posts) -
@Joeasis:  I'm not being pretentious, I'm just honestly trying to figure out who this game is for. When you think about it, it brings literally nothing new or unique to the table.
#12 Posted by Subjugation (4718 posts) -

Unless this has radically changed since the last multiplayer beta, I still stand by my opinion that it sucks. Heavily. I guess the difference now is that everyone else will be able to see that too.

#13 Posted by DeadMonkeys (821 posts) -

Oh shit. Mothers, lock up your daughters; it's a  three day beta.

#14 Posted by thecartel (19 posts) -

i have no problems with this.  its almost like the level in codmw2 with killing people.  maybe ea should put a caution you will play as taliban in the multiplayer

#15 Posted by N0_va (29 posts) -
@Milpool said:
" I'm excited for this, because so far I haven't been sold on MOH.    Everything I've seen / heard has suggested MOH is a BC2 clone, and if that's the case I am not interested. "
I played the PS3 beta and it's nothing like BFBC2. It was pretty bad and it made me cancel my preorder, you should definitely try it before buying it.
#16 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Three day beta? Really? 

#17 Posted by Zatoichi_Sanjuro (945 posts) -

"Getting in the beta simple."
 
Getting into EA's servers,on the other hand, is not. If there are posts and posts on their forums of people saying they've stooped so low as to put their routers in DMZ just to get your game to work, the problem is on EA's end.
 
I'm just glad this game isn't worth learning network protocol for.
 

#18 Posted by Joeasis (60 posts) -
@President_Barackbar: Fair enough.
#19 Posted by Absolute_Zero (242 posts) -

A beta where you don't have to pre-order the game, or be a Fileplanet or XBL subscriber? Color me surprised.

#20 Posted by Mikemcn (6958 posts) -

But we already had a Beta and it proved Medal of Honor kinda sucks.

Online
#21 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

heh... so pathetic....  even their demo is called BETA!
 
So many stupid fanboy supporters out there... WTF are you guys going to say if there is a problem with the "3 day beta" ? that it's a beta, wait for the full version? GTFO big time.
 
You gotta hand it to these companies, using DEMO and BETA interchangeably.  In order to cover their asses, they use the BETA shield. This way if you find a problem: "oh it's a BETA, that's why it's there" . GTFO. Either you complete the game or you don't. What the heck is EA/DICE saying? Their final, release version product is in fact a BETA.... a work in progress? LOL 
 
HEY... give us 59.99 for an incomplete game. Give us your money, you are supporting a BETA version.
 
 I love it how they come out and use the "controversy" as the reasoning for the "PC OPEN BETA".
 
When I read the title to the article, you know what I thought? 
 
"They want the people to play the game again because the first 'taste', a couple months ago, of the game sucked.  They came to the scene saying how they wanted to take the fps crown from MW2/Activision. The game they displayed was piss poor and not worth the ego pricing of MW2. It was/is a pathetic mod of BC2.  MOH has such a bad after taste, they MUST do this stupid gimmic to at least earn some funds."
 
I remember acquiring MOH: Pacific Assault, via a savvy manner, and the game was so bad I didn't even finish the single player. I just deleted it within a couple hours. It was THAT bad. The multiplayer, I had played the 'beta' of it and it sucked. Good thing I didn't waste my money on it. 
 
All EA product must be approached with caution. This should be the standard operating procedure of all gamers. And now they are taking the cost up another notch to 59.99 for PC, yo... don't even fuck around. This company has released so much garbage. I don't expect anything less from them now. For you console people, you've been conditioned to accept the rip off price of 59.99 price for so long.  Blizzard, Infinity Ward, Activision.... they can get away with 59.99 .... but EA/DICE? Are you fucking shitting me?

#22 Posted by smiddy (353 posts) -

I found the previous beta to have very flat, unoriginal gameplay. I hope they can do more this time to make it stand out as right now it's a blend of MF2 and BC2 with only half the features of each.

#23 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@Evilmetal: 
 
Open betas are stress tests. Of course open betas are publicity tools too. I don't think there's much of a 'Beta' shield intention behind calling it an open beta. It's just a second chance at making a good first impression.
 
There are just way too many players who took the 'real' bugfixing and balancing Beta and looked at it as a Demo, which it clearly wasn't.
#24 Posted by Luck3ySe7en (240 posts) -
@Warchief
so wait its ok to play as a: Viet Cong , Axis, or general Terrorist in multiplayer but not a  Taliban soldier? 
Is it just because they are part of the current war?  
Exactly. Maybe in 20 years society will be ok with the Talerbans.

I think we're still trying to be respectful of our veterans and those who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, which I completely understand. But all in all, Cod and MoH always have you battling against the said terrorist group, whether its OpFor, Russians, or Taliban. Playing as those groups in multiplayer is no different than playing with green vs tan army guys on your bedroom floor.

Oh yeah, green guys always win.
#25 Posted by raikoh05 (414 posts) -

Kill stuff! YEAH!

#26 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
@Seppli: 
 
It wasn't a beta before. They alleged that the game had/has many guns and accessory thingies... these were unavailable during the 'beta'. Why? It was a promotional download with no real purpose at letting the players test it.  It's like you enter a fight with one hand tied behind back and/or one eye covered by a patch.  Are you there for a fight or to fuck around? You can't properly test something if it's limited to begin with.  It doesn't make sense.
 
Now they are releasing this "new beta" just days before the final version is released.... A few days separation warrants "BETA" ? That's terrible.  
 
The term "open" means that now you don't have to pre-order MOH to 'get in on the action'. Basically the translation of the PR is this: "Play a 3 day demo of MOH multiplayer to see the changes we've made"  (they are not even acknowledging that there was a problem with the game before, they are using some silly controversy thing as the 'reasoning').
Before 'only a select few' got access to the "thing" (beta/demo/whatever/promotional thing)...
 
*side thing* 
Because EA is super marketing savvy ( I think their marketing people are more experienced than their programmers ) this 'open beta' is to get the media people, who were making an issue of the use of Taliban in the game, to play the game and see. EA is hoping the media people 'set the record straight'... EA doesn't really care about the record, they care about the news people showing video clips of the game on TV or other medium.... that's the marketing aspect.  This is my hypothesis... that they are betting 'dumb fools' who watch TV and see MOH in the news (or online) will want to be the first on the block claiming to be playing as or against the Taliban; because they saw it on news, yo.
*side thing*
 
EA/DICE have people who are paid to do real testing which includes documenting the issues (I assume). These days however, money is money... I think the first wave to get cut in the company are the testers.  Unless there are testers who volunteer too? Maybe more volunteers than paid testers? EA can fool kids to work for a free game and free food possibly: "OMG I play test games at EA, I AM SO SUPER LEET-IEZ".  The kids get something and EA can claim their advanced testing facilities take games through stringent tests...
 
And if the few testers miss a bug, big deal right? The company just pulls off an escapade like with BC2's patch and DICE uses the "Frostbite 1.5 engine is difficult to modify" defense, so they can dodge fixes to bugs in this manner.  Awww, let's feel sorry for them and their poorly thought-out engine design. This is sloppy. Paying for the product means you support and want them to continue this style, it's a vote.
#27 Posted by raikoh05 (414 posts) -
@Evilmetal said:
" @Seppli: 
 
It wasn't a beta before. They alleged that the game had/has many guns and accessory thingies... these were unavailable during the 'beta'. Why? It was a promotional download with no real purpose at letting the players test it.  It's like you enter a fight with one hand tied behind back and/or one eye covered by a patch.  Are you there for a fight or to fuck around? You can't properly test something if it's limited to begin with.  It doesn't make sense.
 
Now they are releasing this "new beta" just days before the final version is released.... A few days separation warrants "BETA" ? That's terrible.  
 
The term "open" means that now you don't have to pre-order MOH to 'get in on the action'. Basically the translation of the PR is this: "Play a 3 day demo of MOH multiplayer to see the changes we've made"  (they are not even acknowledging that there was a problem with the game before, they are using some silly controversy thing as the 'reasoning'). Before 'only a select few' got access to the "thing" (beta/demo/whatever/promotional thing)...  *side thing*  Because EA is super marketing savvy ( I think their marketing people are more experienced than their programmers ) this 'open beta' is to get the media people, who were making an issue of the use of Taliban in the game, to play the game and see. EA is hoping the media people 'set the record straight'... EA doesn't really care about the record, they care about the news people showing video clips of the game on TV or other medium.... that's the marketing aspect.  This is my hypothesis... that they are betting 'dumb fools' who watch TV and see MOH in the news (or online) will want to be the first on the block claiming to be playing as or against the Taliban; because they saw it on news, yo.*side thing* EA/DICE have people who are paid to do real testing which includes documenting the issues (I assume). These days however, money is money... I think the first wave to get cut in the company are the testers.  Unless there are testers who volunteer too? Maybe more volunteers than paid testers? EA can fool kids to work for a free game and free food possibly: "OMG I play test games at EA, I AM SO SUPER LEET-IEZ".  The kids get something and EA can claim their advanced testing facilities take games through stringent tests... And if the few testers miss a bug, big deal right? The company just pulls off an escapade like with BC2's patch and DICE uses the "Frostbite 1.5 engine is difficult to modify" defense, so they can dodge fixes to bugs in this manner.  Awww, let's feel sorry for them and their poorly thought-out engine design. This is sloppy. Paying for the product means you support and want them to continue this style, it's a vote. "
U mad?
#28 Posted by Ryax (4630 posts) -
@raikoh05 said:
" @Evilmetal said:
" @Seppli: 
 
It wasn't a beta before. They alleged that the game had/has many guns and accessory thingies... these were unavailable during the 'beta'. Why? It was a promotional download with no real purpose at letting the players test it.  It's like you enter a fight with one hand tied behind back and/or one eye covered by a patch.  Are you there for a fight or to fuck around? You can't properly test something if it's limited to begin with.  It doesn't make sense.
 
Now they are releasing this "new beta" just days before the final version is released.... A few days separation warrants "BETA" ? That's terrible.  
 
The term "open" means that now you don't have to pre-order MOH to 'get in on the action'. Basically the translation of the PR is this: "Play a 3 day demo of MOH multiplayer to see the changes we've made"  (they are not even acknowledging that there was a problem with the game before, they are using some silly controversy thing as the 'reasoning'). Before 'only a select few' got access to the "thing" (beta/demo/whatever/promotional thing)...  *side thing*  Because EA is super marketing savvy ( I think their marketing people are more experienced than their programmers ) this 'open beta' is to get the media people, who were making an issue of the use of Taliban in the game, to play the game and see. EA is hoping the media people 'set the record straight'... EA doesn't really care about the record, they care about the news people showing video clips of the game on TV or other medium.... that's the marketing aspect.  This is my hypothesis... that they are betting 'dumb fools' who watch TV and see MOH in the news (or online) will want to be the first on the block claiming to be playing as or against the Taliban; because they saw it on news, yo.*side thing* EA/DICE have people who are paid to do real testing which includes documenting the issues (I assume). These days however, money is money... I think the first wave to get cut in the company are the testers.  Unless there are testers who volunteer too? Maybe more volunteers than paid testers? EA can fool kids to work for a free game and free food possibly: "OMG I play test games at EA, I AM SO SUPER LEET-IEZ".  The kids get something and EA can claim their advanced testing facilities take games through stringent tests... And if the few testers miss a bug, big deal right? The company just pulls off an escapade like with BC2's patch and DICE uses the "Frostbite 1.5 engine is difficult to modify" defense, so they can dodge fixes to bugs in this manner.  Awww, let's feel sorry for them and their poorly thought-out engine design. This is sloppy. Paying for the product means you support and want them to continue this style, it's a vote. "
U mad? "
he mad
#29 Posted by MrKlorox (11208 posts) -

They're calling it a beta because the word "demo" is usually reserved for things that last longer than THREE DAYS. I remember the backlash at the BC2 demo and how it was limited to a few weeks of availability.

#30 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
@Ryax said:

" @raikoh05 said:

" @Evilmetal said:
" @Seppli: 
 
It wasn't a beta before. They alleged that the game had/has many guns and accessory thingies... these were unavailable during the 'beta'. Why? It was a promotional download with no real purpose at letting the players test it.  It's like you enter a fight with one hand tied behind back and/or one eye covered by a patch.  Are you there for a fight or to fuck around? You can't properly test something if it's limited to begin with.  It doesn't make sense.
 
Now they are releasing this "new beta" just days before the final version is released.... A few days separation warrants "BETA" ? That's terrible.  
 
The term "open" means that now you don't have to pre-order MOH to 'get in on the action'. Basically the translation of the PR is this: "Play a 3 day demo of MOH multiplayer to see the changes we've made"  (they are not even acknowledging that there was a problem with the game before, they are using some silly controversy thing as the 'reasoning'). Before 'only a select few' got access to the "thing" (beta/demo/whatever/promotional thing)...  *side thing*  Because EA is super marketing savvy ( I think their marketing people are more experienced than their programmers ) this 'open beta' is to get the media people, who were making an issue of the use of Taliban in the game, to play the game and see. EA is hoping the media people 'set the record straight'... EA doesn't really care about the record, they care about the news people showing video clips of the game on TV or other medium.... that's the marketing aspect.  This is my hypothesis... that they are betting 'dumb fools' who watch TV and see MOH in the news (or online) will want to be the first on the block claiming to be playing as or against the Taliban; because they saw it on news, yo.*side thing* EA/DICE have people who are paid to do real testing which includes documenting the issues (I assume). These days however, money is money... I think the first wave to get cut in the company are the testers.  Unless there are testers who volunteer too? Maybe more volunteers than paid testers? EA can fool kids to work for a free game and free food possibly: "OMG I play test games at EA, I AM SO SUPER LEET-IEZ".  The kids get something and EA can claim their advanced testing facilities take games through stringent tests... And if the few testers miss a bug, big deal right? The company just pulls off an escapade like with BC2's patch and DICE uses the "Frostbite 1.5 engine is difficult to modify" defense, so they can dodge fixes to bugs in this manner.  Awww, let's feel sorry for them and their poorly thought-out engine design. This is sloppy. Paying for the product means you support and want them to continue this style, it's a vote. "
U mad? "
he mad "
hehe... it's becoming fashionable these days... when one sees many words, they are intimidated, can't put together a collective thought to reply/counter and they simply fall back onto memes, an existing thought.
#31 Posted by Ocean_H (290 posts) -
@N0_va said:
" @Milpool said:
" I'm excited for this, because so far I haven't been sold on MOH.    Everything I've seen / heard has suggested MOH is a BC2 clone, and if that's the case I am not interested. "
I played the PS3 beta and it's nothing like BFBC2. It was pretty bad and it made me cancel my preorder, you should definitely try it before buying it. "
@Mikemcn said:
" But we already had a Beta and it proved Medal of Honor kinda sucks. "
Seriously? Do you guys even know what "Beta" means?
#32 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
@MrKlorox: 
Something else to consider too is that Steam allowed twice, free weekends for MW2; they didn't call it a beta or demo. It was the final version, get a taste. Here they are using 'beta' when the window of 'beta' and release is a week. Observe what they are doing. Right now MOH is gold and they will release a 'beta' soon.  The game went gold early September, no? They need to send the game to EA to test on the hardware, get approval and then to send the master disc to be replicated. MOH is done and they are applying the term 'beta', now?
 
If they don't know the loads, they should just use whatever they used for BC2 as the baseline. If they see that the hardware they have dedicated to MOH is overkill, then they can cut back. Their marketing team is doing the wording. 
 
They are afraid/defensive; so they use the term 'beta' as a shield. Seppli disagrees, but to me a short window between 'beta' and release, indicated a concern that what they release a week before retail may brush people the wrong way. In order to cover their asses, they use 'beta' to say "hey, we will change it; so don't hesitate to buy the product'. Then you buy the product and see it takes a long time for any changes to occur; if they occur. It's crafty marketing.
#33 Posted by InfamousBIG (3200 posts) -
@Ocean_H said:
" @N0_va said:
" @Milpool said:
" I'm excited for this, because so far I haven't been sold on MOH.    Everything I've seen / heard has suggested MOH is a BC2 clone, and if that's the case I am not interested. "
I played the PS3 beta and it's nothing like BFBC2. It was pretty bad and it made me cancel my preorder, you should definitely try it before buying it. "
@Mikemcn said:
" But we already had a Beta and it proved Medal of Honor kinda sucks. "
Seriously? Do you guys even know what "Beta" means? "
It means an almost-finished version of the game that will mainly receive bug fixes and slight balance tweaks, not a full blown recreation as a finished product.
#34 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -
@Evilmetal: Lol you actually justify Activision getting away with the $60 price tag on PC games but not any other companies. Sucking Activisions dick much? NO company should be charging that much for a PC games, games in general are too expensive as is, piracy is a response to that condition.
#35 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
@RsistncE:
LOL... they got away with it. Logically that means they can charge $60.  If that price point was bad, I'm sure they would have lowered it.  Or maybe not. Maybe even if it didn't sell well at $60, they just want to hit home that $60 is where it's at. I don't know. They may be playing mind games.
 
I didn't buy MW2 nor SC2. But they got away with it. Why? Look at the Steam stats and see that MW2 is the number 1 game. Those guys developed a gameplay that made people want to pay $60. I know that $60 is too much. I won't pay that price tag. But others threw down $60 like nothing; the PC users, they pushed aside the idea of $50 being the max. I don't know,  unless Activision has bots to artificially inflate the player count   it seems that they got away with it.  No dedicated servers.... EVERYONE BITCHED AND THEY STILL FUCKING BOUGHT IT!!  I mean, what the fuck? Either all of the people who bought MW2 are the lowest tier of humanity, or there must be some form of good addictive gameplay in MW2.
  
I don't have MW2, I look at videos of others who play and I conclude that Infinity Ward polish their products better than DICE. To compare MW2 to MW1, I can't say anything to that; I have no clue. You may have knowledge, you have background, of MW2 and MW1 (or other releases from them) and think $60 is rip-off..... it probably is. I only know MW2(videos) and a little of CoD1(played long ago via savvy methods). 
#36 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -
@Evilmetal: Obviously they got away with, all it takes to jusitfy the price tag is profit. Of course they do their own quantitative decision analysis to determine whether or not the $60 price point is the best price to charge. I'd argue that Activision is still worried about the PC sales, even though it sold well, they knew that if they didn't add in certain features, the sales of Black Ops would probably be ultra low (ie. dedicated servers). You're also forgetting that most people are indifferent. So many MW2 players are kids who got their parents to buy the game for them and in general, most people are pretty apathetic when it comes to economic action, a condition that doesn't exist just in the gaming industry. 
 
I fully disagree with you on the "IW polishes their games better than DICE". Bad Company 2 was a MUCH better game than MW2 and DICE developed that. Let's not forget pretty much the entire Battlefield series to date, particularly the excellent PC exclusive BF games. I think it may be premature to judge MoH just yet based on that beta that happened a while back because the trailers seem to indicate a much improved MP. Either way if it turns out to suck I think this may be an issue of EA just getting DICE to work on the multiplayer when DICE may not even have been interested in doing so.
#37 Posted by ReaperOfLiving (491 posts) -
@Evilmetal said:
" @Seppli: 
 
It wasn't a beta before. They alleged that the game had/has many guns and accessory thingies... these were unavailable during the 'beta'. Why? It was a promotional download with no real purpose at letting the players test it.  It's like you enter a fight with one hand tied behind back and/or one eye covered by a patch.  Are you there for a fight or to fuck around? You can't properly test something if it's limited to begin with.  It doesn't make sense.
 
Now they are releasing this "new beta" just days before the final version is released.... A few days separation warrants "BETA" ? That's terrible.  
 
The term "open" means that now you don't have to pre-order MOH to 'get in on the action'. Basically the translation of the PR is this: "Play a 3 day demo of MOH multiplayer to see the changes we've made"  (they are not even acknowledging that there was a problem with the game before, they are using some silly controversy thing as the 'reasoning'). Before 'only a select few' got access to the "thing" (beta/demo/whatever/promotional thing)...  *side thing*  Because EA is super marketing savvy ( I think their marketing people are more experienced than their programmers ) this 'open beta' is to get the media people, who were making an issue of the use of Taliban in the game, to play the game and see. EA is hoping the media people 'set the record straight'... EA doesn't really care about the record, they care about the news people showing video clips of the game on TV or other medium.... that's the marketing aspect.  This is my hypothesis... that they are betting 'dumb fools' who watch TV and see MOH in the news (or online) will want to be the first on the block claiming to be playing as or against the Taliban; because they saw it on news, yo.*side thing* EA/DICE have people who are paid to do real testing which includes documenting the issues (I assume). These days however, money is money... I think the first wave to get cut in the company are the testers.  Unless there are testers who volunteer too? Maybe more volunteers than paid testers? EA can fool kids to work for a free game and free food possibly: "OMG I play test games at EA, I AM SO SUPER LEET-IEZ".  The kids get something and EA can claim their advanced testing facilities take games through stringent tests... And if the few testers miss a bug, big deal right? The company just pulls off an escapade like with BC2's patch and DICE uses the "Frostbite 1.5 engine is difficult to modify" defense, so they can dodge fixes to bugs in this manner.  Awww, let's feel sorry for them and their poorly thought-out engine design. This is sloppy. Paying for the product means you support and want them to continue this style, it's a vote. "
A beta is not a promotional part of a game.  A demo is.  The first beta was used to fix problems publicly.  Why would you promote a game to people that have already pre-ordered it?????  That doesn't make sense.  I was on the forums they did fix a lot of problems people were complaining about.  They did respond.  It was made to test BASIC implications of the game not every part of the game.
#38 Posted by Bigandtasty (3202 posts) -

Will this version still have that awkward freeze upon every death? Serious question. Hopefully it's gone by now.

#39 Posted by S0ndor (2715 posts) -

Yay, I'm curious about these new maps and modes. Really hated the Team Deathmatch stuff, but I liked the objective based desert map in the previous beta.

#40 Posted by 137 (481 posts) -
@Franstone said:
" Medal of Honor is a long running series that mostly focused on the WWII era just like CoD did... No reason not to play this just because CoD went modern first, that's just stupid.   I'm pretty excited about the single player campaign anyway. Games aren't just about multi-player which most competent journalists make fun of as is. Already pre-paid on Steam, can't wait. "
Technically Dice/EA went modern first... 
#41 Posted by Franstone (1095 posts) -
@137 said:
" @Franstone said:
" Medal of Honor is a long running series that mostly focused on the WWII era just like CoD did... No reason not to play this just because CoD went modern first, that's just stupid.   I'm pretty excited about the single player campaign anyway. Games aren't just about multi-player which most competent journalists make fun of as is. Already pre-paid on Steam, can't wait. "
Technically Dice/EA went modern first...  "

Technically I was talking about the game series, not the developer or publisher...
#42 Posted by punkxblaze (2957 posts) -
@Franstone said:
" @137 said:
" @Franstone said:
" Medal of Honor is a long running series that mostly focused on the WWII era just like CoD did... No reason not to play this just because CoD went modern first, that's just stupid.   I'm pretty excited about the single player campaign anyway. Games aren't just about multi-player which most competent journalists make fun of as is. Already pre-paid on Steam, can't wait. "
Technically Dice/EA went modern first...  "
Technically I was talking about the game series, not the developer or publisher... "
Battlefield went modern first, then.
 
Anyway, why is everyone getting up in arms? Don't like it? Don't eat. I mean. Don't participate. Simple.
#43 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
@ReaperOfLiving said:
" @Evilmetal said:
" @Seppli: 
 
bla bla bla
A beta is not a promotional part of a game.  A demo is.  The first beta was used to fix problems publicly.  Why would you promote a game to people that have already pre-ordered it?????  That doesn't make sense.  I was on the forums they did fix a lot of problems people were complaining about.  They did respond.  It was made to test BASIC implications of the game not every part of the game. "
I played the alleged beta back then, I didn't pre-order.  I think those who pre-ordered could get their money back too, which makes it stupid to limit it to pre-orders. Maybe they thought  that there would be people who pre-ordered and felt that they couldn't get their money back if they didn't like the 'beta'. It's all about the money at the end of the day. Anyway, people wanted to see what the fuss was about.... "EA is working on the single-player, DICE is working on the multiplayer... dun dun duunnnnnn"... LOL. Silly marketing. I wanted to see what it was about, as did others.
 
 Ahh you said basic. Can't they use internal testers for that? What? the regular player has suggestions on what would make MOH even better? Any improvements I assume would be along the lines of "make it more like MW2".  "Where's the prone?"    DICE will probably say: "Prone in MOH? slows gameplay down!" (aka: we can't implement it because Frostbite 1.5 is garbage).
 
Many people assume that MOH had bugs or missing features. You don't know until the final version. Haven't you seen the videos of interviews within DICE? they give a tour and show dry-erase boards with designs and such? Well, they put thought into the game. They have a path of where it's going, they are the drivers. I think they just say they fixed bugs and that they listened, just to make it seem like they are listening; when in fact it is a logical step forward for them because that was on the drawing board all along. It's meant to be an illusion of community involvement in the final product.  Unless of course if they show their design plans and we can see for our selves (obviously they don't show these things, nobody really does)
 
If they really listened, they would've included mod tools (for example, this is 1 example there can be others...) in the designs of the engine (for PC releases, because that's what we know and have received in the past); they didn't. They have their own path.
 
Also there was no method to submit bugs for MOH. What? Go to their forums and post? In their BC2 forums the community guy printed out forum pages and took pictures of the printed pages tacked onto an alleged cubical to show they are reading suggestions/complaints; bull shit, I can hit ctrl+p too.  It was just crowd control. (though granted it could be true what they did)

I mean wtf... am I lost?
 
I remember going to forums of the Point of Existence mod, Project Reality, Eve of Destruction and others, long ago, and the developers would post in the forums. Gameplay concepts were up to debate and discussion. I don't know about now, but back then that's where there was real interaction with a developer. DICE is corporate. They have other projects and deadlines and their crew may not be avid players of the game. Just because DICE may have good programmers doesn't mean they like or play the games; they may not have a passion for it because they do it for the money.    Community mods work on their own time and they do it because they want  to and like it.  DICE's workers may feel like modifying BC2 or MOH is like pulling a tooth out: "GAHHH do we have to continue working on this shit?".  Programming sweat shops.
#44 Posted by Franstone (1095 posts) -
@punkxblaze said:
" @Franstone said:
" @137 said:
" @Franstone said:
" Medal of Honor is a long running series that mostly focused on the WWII era just like CoD did... No reason not to play this just because CoD went modern first, that's just stupid.   I'm pretty excited about the single player campaign anyway. Games aren't just about multi-player which most competent journalists make fun of as is. Already pre-paid on Steam, can't wait. "
Technically Dice/EA went modern first...  "
Technically I was talking about the game series, not the developer or publisher... "
Battlefield went modern first, then.  Anyway, why is everyone getting up in arms? Don't like it? Don't eat. I mean. Don't participate. Simple. "

Jesus Christ, I never said anything about Battlefield... 
Some1 said something about MoH looking like a CALL OF DUTY mod for BFBC2.  (All because Dice happens to be doing the MP which doesn't equal the entire game, there is a campaign)
Cleary it was one of those people who mainly focus on CoD and dislike just about every other shooter.  
I've played (or read about) just about every shooter since Doom 1, I think I know what came first.
#45 Posted by R4ZOR (25 posts) -

Do anyone know the requirements to run this game? i dont have the best pc in the world but its not that bad.. i really wanna play this game and the beta if i can get it.
#46 Posted by Arkanti (255 posts) -

Hmmm all this reminds me of is that I really need to get around to buying Bad Company 2 at some point.

#47 Posted by kratier (223 posts) -

"
raikoh05: U mad?"
 
Pretty much the reason why i dont debate with idiots online as much anymore. Its not worth my time.

#48 Posted by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

I'd had enough of this beta after the first 20 minutes I'd played months ago.

#49 Posted by Ocean_H (290 posts) -
@zudthespud said:
" I'd had enough of this beta after the first 20 minutes I'd played months ago. "
See? That's the problem. People will take the Beta and wants to play for enjoyment instead of actually realizing you're testing the game, find bugs/glitches and report them for the developer to fix.
#50 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Trnck said:
" Why are these violence advocating video games teaching my kids about how fun it is to be in the Taliban? Oh wait, are you saying that I'm the one who's supposed to educate my kids? "
YOUR job as a parent is to select and filter what YOUR children are allowed to play and/or watch.  IF you can't or won't be a responsible parent don't scream at responsible adults who want to enjoy games which are made for and sold to adults.   Adults can handle these adult concepts.  Your kids can't.  Obviously nor can you.
 

" Nonsense. "

I agree.  You do speak a lot of it.

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.