Analyst: Warfighter Failure May End Medal of Honor Franchise

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

We're listening to Michael Pachter? Again? Are there no other independent analysts who comment upon the medium? Are we that lonely...?

Annnnywayyyy...

If what Pac-Daddy says proves to be accurate, I'd have to say it's unfortunate, if predictable, that the holy grail of the big publishers has become "a franchise so big that it sells like hotcakes even when the games under that title are a steaming pile of 'meh'." Doubly so if as consumers we've led them to believe that was a tenable way to run the business.

at least MoH is actually making a nod towards the SF in real life :/ unlike CoD MW lol but yeah I gotta agree...I barely noticed WF came out this week or last idk

sir.rutthed:
All these stories about this game being a franchise killing flop and all I can think is:

'Warfighter' is a really stupid name for a game. What idiot OK'd that?

Dunno, but I lament that now we'll never see the even further blunted titles like "Gunshooter" and "Dudekiller".

AzrealMaximillion:
He's the only one that speaks to gaming media and not stuffed suits in mainstream media that have no clue about games. That much I respect. Can't see why this guy gets so much hate simply for doing his job.

That's why

He is so misinformed that it's almost miraculous. He makes assumptions and forecasts out of his ass and, once he is inevetably proved wrong, he changes his tune withaut missing a step hoping that noone will take notice. The list of his sins is really long.

AzrealMaximillion:

cieply:
Why do you give this idiot any publicity. If you have any self-respect or respect for gaming you should never report anything he says and just let him fade into obscurity, gods know he deserves it like noone else

He's the only one that speaks to gaming media and not stuffed suits in mainstream media that have no clue about games. That much I respect. Can't see why this guy gets so much hate simply for doing his job.

Well, there's the fact that, more-often-than-not, Pachter is completely and laughably wrong in his predictions.

I remember, some four or five years ago, when I used to frequent GamePolitics.com, constantly seeing "predictions" by him that were always laughed at and only rarely proved to be anywhere close to correct.

Seeing him on this site is similarly grating, unless he's suddenly become psychic over the past year or two.

Edit: Ninja'd. Damn. Yeah, what cieply said.

means little, Battlefield and CoD will still get more games after all

We're tired of the hottest setting du jour
We're modern gamers and we expect more, than shooting of humans and punishing doors!
The copies and pastes are making us sick
Who does the green-lighting, they must be thick!

We've traveled through time, all over the place
You ruined Garriott, he took us to space!
We're really expecting to see so much more, than all the dead bodies and kicking of doors!

One Call of Duty is more than enough
You're lucky that Battlefield's strutting its stuff
For 60 bucks we want more on the plate
So get off your asses and please innovate!

This is somewhat surprising. Since all the things reviewers like IGN and Gamespot complain about the game seem to be exactly like CoD...except CoD gets great reviews. One of the complaints was that the campaign was ' a brief five hours long'. Don't piss down my back and call it rain. On medium (Or whatever the second difficulty was), the MW3 was only four and a half hours long. None of the characters were remotely interesting. The scripted set scenes were about as fun to watch as Transformers (So...fun to watch, but not to think about or remember much of later). And Warfighter was exactly that.

I will actually go out on a limb and say Warfighter was better than the MW series together. But Warfighter gets raped by the critics. This makes me wonder either A: just how much money Activision throws at critics...or B: (And one I find much more likely) Critics review games with a lot less objective perspective than they claim.

Besides, the main reason CoD has such a success was for it's multiplayer, not it's single-player campaign. That's one of the reasons Medal of Honour didn't do as well or compete as well as EA expected.

cieply:

AzrealMaximillion:
He's the only one that speaks to gaming media and not stuffed suits in mainstream media that have no clue about games. That much I respect. Can't see why this guy gets so much hate simply for doing his job.

That's why

He is so misinformed that it's almost miraculous. He makes assumptions and forecasts out of his ass and, once he is inevetably proved wrong, he changes his tune withaut missing a step hoping that noone will take notice. The list of his sins is really long.

I admit that he should be speaking on how genres of games should sell or technical specs of anything, but that's not his strong point. He's an anylyst. He makes predictions based on what info he's given.

Being angry for an analyst for being wrong is like getting mad at the weatherman. You know that there's a decent chance that they aren't 100% right, or hell even in most cases in general. Its their job to tell you what's likely to happen, not what will happen.

By the way, he has be accurate with some of his predictions. Like the Wii U's price point. He was almost dead on with that one.

He was also right on the Kinect outselling the PS Move 5 to 1

He's also been right about some price drops and about COD charging people for online (via ELITE)

I still don't get the rampant hate.

It may die.

Well you know, 'til it gets a Reboot. A GRITTY ONE.

Formica Archonis:

sir.rutthed:
All these stories about this game being a franchise killing flop and all I can think is:

'Warfighter' is a really stupid name for a game. What idiot OK'd that?

Dunno, but I lament that now we'll never see the even further blunted titles like "Gunshooter" and "Dudekiller".

We can still hope Capcom comes out with Street Fighter: Kickpuncher. Or maybe Bethesda will put out the new Skyrim DLC Dragonyeller.

I hate when this guy talks, right or wrong he isn't making statements of any meaning. Though, in all fairness, he isn't speaking to us so a story like this does gamers such as the people who frequent this site and others like it no good. He is making statements based on summation of data that affects EA and EA investors. But he can still lick my balls.

By this analysts logic Nintendo, EA, Capcom and many others should be bancrupt by now.

PErsonally i thought that Warfighter combined the best of COD and BF3. not that it makes it the best game, but why hasnt these 2 gotten low scores is beyond me.

Also, Medal Of Honor was never a "big" franchise. it was always that game you remembered about only when you saw it, so to expect a miracle is stupid.

Jandau:
I'd love to say that's sad, but what exactly makes Medal of Honor a distinct franchise? I'm not trying to troll here, I'm honestly not sure. Granted, I'm not a fan of Modern Military FPS games, but for the most part the various franchises kinda blend together. If you shwoed me some Warfighter footage and told me it was the new CoD:MW game or the new BF:Bad Company or something, I don't think I could tell the difference.

So what exactly makes MoH distinct? Why would its "end" be a loss? What does it bring to the table?

The problem is that it, and a bunch of other lesser franchises, keep trying to out-COD, COD. You can't win that way, not with how massive and ubiquitous COD has become in the gaming community. The fact is, Call of Duty basically created the present-day modern military shooter genre. There were others before it, like Counter-Strike and Battlefield 2 (I think it came out first. Maybe not though), but COD is the one that truly hit the mainstream and kept running. It put in place and began to refine most of the tropes and elements that the other games are trying to imitate... and when you put a newer, less polished product up against an older, more refined one, people are going to stick to that more refined product.

You can't beat COD by becoming COD. It's already got a massive head-start on the sub-genre it helped create. Even Battlefield only still exists because it already had a massive online community, and at its core, plays differently enough to be its own thing.

Honestly, Medal of Honor would have done better to go back to World War II, or even jump into the future. The only way to do a modern-era military action game is to pull a Spec-Ops and go for something totally different... something darker, more introspective and serious, instead of a Michael Bay-esque explosion-fueled gun-porn, borderline propaganda, patriotism simulator.

Jandau:
I'd love to say that's sad, but what exactly makes Medal of Honor a distinct franchise? I'm not trying to troll here, I'm honestly not sure. Granted, I'm not a fan of Modern Military FPS games, but for the most part the various franchises kinda blend together. If you shwoed me some Warfighter footage and told me it was the new CoD:MW game or the new BF:Bad Company or something, I don't think I could tell the difference.

So what exactly makes MoH distinct? Why would its "end" be a loss? What does it bring to the table?

well, it does play different that CoD. For example, the knife is not an instant kill and running and gunning your enemy won't work most of the time. It requires more thought and precision. So yeah, visually, it's the same.

However, that's not to say MoH:W isn't a clone of its stepbrother, Battlefield 3. Because it is. Minus some vehicles.

OT: It sucks because it was supposedly written by real soldiers and stuff. So it could have been interesting. But its not just the fact that its another clone but the game itself has connection problems, the menu is difficult to navigate and so on.
Is it safe to say this game was just a quick way for EA to get some extra bucks and build up the hype for Battlefield 4? Sounds like something EA might do.

Warfighter failure may end MoH franchise.

PROMISE?

Because seriously, this shit is tripe.

Who is this analyst, and why does he care so much about MoH?

Random berk:

Mcoffey:

Random berk:

This raises a question for me: How exactly was Dead Space butchered? Agreeably, I didn't like it as much as the first game, but just off hand, I can't think of any hugely significant changes they made, with the exception of giving Isaac a voice and having him remove his mask occasionally. For the most part the gameplay was the same, the setting was very similar, and the plot... got a bit weird towards the end, but it wasn't like the game suddenly wasn't a Dead Space title any more.

Oh, I'm not referring to Dead Space 2. I actually really liked 2 for the most part. 3, however, looks to be lacking, what with the coop, cover shooting, action focus.

I'd love to be wrong about it, but I doubt it.

Cover based shooting? Oh yeah, I don't like the sound of that. The necromorphs do not. Need. Guns. And who the hell wants to play a Dead Space game where you're just fighting other guys with pulse rifles? Now that is not a Dead Space game.

The Necromorphs don't have guns, the Unitologists do.

It is kind of the logical progression, since in all of the EU material, Unitologists have been major antagonists and were often armed with weapons, like that one guy with the laser chainsaw who chopped another crew member in half. It's just Isaac's turn to deal with the crazies now.

I'm apathetic to this news. E.A could throw a three day money burning and booze guzzling party, with massive bonfires of cash rising far as the eye can see blazing away fed constantly by shovels of fat wads of bills, and at the end of that three days they'd still be solvent.
It doesn't matter if one game fails to meet expectations, it's not going to change anything. E.A will march on, doing what it does, regardless.
Of course, you can't only screw up this bad so many times, but I'd say E.A has at least a few... dozen more chances to release a game that people actually want to buy before they've really and truly screwed themselves beyond repair.

You won't see me shedding any tears if it does.

Kopikatsu:

Random berk:

Mcoffey:

Oh, I'm not referring to Dead Space 2. I actually really liked 2 for the most part. 3, however, looks to be lacking, what with the coop, cover shooting, action focus.

I'd love to be wrong about it, but I doubt it.

Cover based shooting? Oh yeah, I don't like the sound of that. The necromorphs do not. Need. Guns. And who the hell wants to play a Dead Space game where you're just fighting other guys with pulse rifles? Now that is not a Dead Space game.

The Necromorphs don't have guns, the Unitologists do.

It is kind of the logical progression, since in all of the EU material, Unitologists have been major antagonists and were often armed with weapons, like that one guy with the laser chainsaw who chopped another crew member in half. It's just Isaac's turn to deal with the crazies now.

The Unitologists would fall under the 'other guys with pulse rifles' group that I mentioned.

erttheking:
I'd defiantly call this a blow against EA. It doesn't help that they were using this game to get people hyped for Battlefield 4 via beta. Also apparently this was their calling card to compete with COD, Halo, Assassin's Creed, Dishonored, and XCOM. Not particularly impressive EA, this may hurt you in the future.

It doesn't take Michael Pachter to see something like this.

MOH against 3 major sequels, a amazing new IP and a reboot that is actually good?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here