EA Admits It Blew Medal of Honor: Warfighter

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

EA Admits It Blew Medal of Honor: Warfighter

image

Electronic Arts says the Medal of Honor franchise will return but not until it's able to actually do a decent job with it.

It's not often that a game tanks so badly that it effectively kills an entire franchise, but that's exactly what happened with Medal of Honor: Warfighter. Electronic Arts Chief Operating Officer Peter Moore said the publisher is "taking Medal of Honor out of rotation," but not before claiming that "the game was solid, but the focus on combat authenticity did not resonate with gamers."

Chief Creative Director Rich Hilleman, however, has a different and somewhat blunter take on the situation, which is quite simply that EA blew it. "We don't think its a genre problem. It's an execution problem," he told Rock, Paper, Shotgun. "We don't think Medal of Honor's performance speaks to any particular bias in that space against modern settings or World War 2 or any of that. It's much more that we had some things we should've done better."

"I think a key part of this is having the right amount of high-quality production talent," he continued. "And we didn't have the quality of leadership we needed to make [Medal of Honor] great. We just have to get the leadership aligned. We're blessed to have more titles than we can do well today. That's a good problem, frankly. In the long term, we have to make sure we don't kill those products by trying to do them when we can't do them well."

I can't tell if that second remark is an admission of culpability or a pass-the-buck cheap shot at Danger Close, the EA studio responsible for both Medal of Honor and Medal of Honor: Warfighter. Danger Close is - or at least was - headed by industry veteran Greg Goodrich, who served as executive producer on both games, but his LinkedIn profile indicates that his tenure at the studio came to an end in December 2012.

Whatever the case, it's clear that Medal of Honor will be back, but for now Hilleman confirmed that EA is putting its eggs in the far more successful Battlefield basket. "What we think right now is that, for the next couple years, we can just have one great thing in that space," he said. "So we're choosing for it to be Battlefield."

Source: Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Permalink

So Battlefield will be run into the ground for a while now?

"the game was solid, but the focus on combat authenticity did not resonate with gamers."

haha they made dragons lair with soldiers and wondered why it didnt work so its the gamers fault

This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

Every time a shooter series dies, an angel gets its wings.

I'll give them credit, one of the few times I've heard EA actually own up and admit a mistake. Granted it's not much, but baby steps.

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

It was a pale imitation of every other war-shooter out there and was buggy as all hell. In a world were stuff like CoDBlops2 was released within spitting distance, Warfighter had no need to exist.

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

Well...

I think a video. One that demonstrates just a portion of whats wrong with Warfighter.

Oh hey, when did EA get a sense of self-responsability?
Granted, it was only one employee and the official statement is "The consumers just don't understand", but EA does come off slightly cleaner in the wake of this.

gigastar:

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

Well...

I think a video. One that demonstrates just a portion of whats wrong with Warfighter.

The video I thought of last time "Doorfighter" came up. As I said there, it's amazing how in denial EA and it's people can be about their games, and why they underperform and get bad ratings. I mean even when you get past Totalbiscuit's opinion, that is a bad game, you have sniper bullets phasing through pillers right in front of him... and as he demonstrated he's basically invulnerable, just basically walking from point A to point B to set off a cinematic...

To say this is a good, well designed game, is complete delusion. I'm sorry, you should not have magical phasing bullets (in the form of white dashes) in a game that has been (allegedly) playtested and marketed by EA.

Then when you get to the opinion-centric bits, about the nature of the game, linear progression, unable to go backwards, dying for stupid reasons on a tiled floor to force actions, etc... it's not like Totalbiscuit is expressing some truely outrageous sentiments unique to him.

The bottom line is it's not a FPS anymore, and it looks and plays like crap, and even the basic mechanics like the bullets, shooting (those were headshots, rly?), are all borked. I mean sure, a pretty explosion might be "good graphics" but with the restored door and the way those bullets were going through the pillar, you have to say the graphics are pretty much crap, there was just a good "moneyshot" thrown in.

No amount of leadership changes seem likely to have fixed this mess, the problems involved here are something you kind of have to blame the entire team for. It's just flat out a bad game... an expensive one with high producton values, but just flat out a bad game.

I think it's amusing that even in admitting they blew it, they seem to be trying to deflect
blame and criticism.

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

Let me put it like this: A friend of mine quit his job as a beta tester for EA because of this game. THAT is how bad it is.

Also for Doorfighter fans, a LOT of the breaching sections were cut from the final game because they were too buggy.

Yeah. There were more. Lots more.

wombat_of_war:
"the game was solid, but the focus on combat authenticity did not resonate with gamers."

haha they made dragons lair with soldiers and wondered why it didnt work so its the gamers fault

What I love is the second guy is directly contradicting that 'We don't think its a genre problem. It's an execution problem,"' We don't think Medal of Honor's performance speaks to any particular bias in that space against modern settings or World War 2 or any of that. It's much more that we had some things we should've done better."

There is clearly a fight going on between those two people.

Seriously, okay EA probably has some culpability for how the game turned out, but if the game was bad and it wasn't a direction decision, then some of the responsibility does have to end with the people who actually made the game. Maybe they needed more time, but time is money and a game is only going to make so much money. We laugh at games needing to sell 2 million to break even, but thats what extra time can equate to.

"We have so many titles we have trouble making them indistinguishable from one another." :P

wombat_of_war:
"the game was solid, but the focus on combat authenticity did not resonate with gamers."

haha they made dragons lair with soldiers and wondered why it didnt work so its the gamers fault

Didn't you know all solders have battle royal collars that are set to explode if they don't call in an airstrike EXACTLY where Michael Bay wants them to?

gigastar:

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

Well...

I think a video. One that demonstrates just a portion of whats wrong with Warfighter.

Wow. I have to ask, do people really take the stuff that idiot says seriously?

Little Gray:

gigastar:

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

Well...

I think a video. One that demonstrates just a portion of whats wrong with Warfighter.

Wow. I have to ask, do people really take the stuff that idiot says seriously?

You opinion on him doesnt come into this, take thy flamebait elsewhere.

This does not bode well for my preferred shooter IP. Sigh. So we are going to get more single player filler crammed into Battlefield now? And probably no BF2143. Double Sigh.

I hate to say it but if they bring back proper voice communications and tighten the netcode in BF4 I'll probably buy in. I quite like BF3 despite a couple of issues. I've gotten used to small squads and a lack of the Commander. The maps in the DLC post Close Quarters have been much improved, it is almost like DICE remembered how to make the game fun with cap points giving an actual advantage and naturally occurring hotspots.

Also in BF4 they won't need to restrict console player numbers as the new consoles should be able to handle the same amount of players as PC. The same maps for all, not those little ones from Vanilla, should result in an overall better game.

They should sell the single player and the multi-player separately though so they can see that no one wants BF for the single-player.

gigastar:

You opinion on him doesnt come into this, take thy flamebait elsewhere.

Im asking because that is all his video was. He didnt make any real points other then he hates modern shooters and is willing to cherrypick a game to try and prove a point.

So EA is bi-polar now?

They should leave Peter Molyneux's anti-sane medication then.

EA are blaming the dogs they taught to piss up the wall for pissing up the wall.

I hope no one buys the next Battlefield either, just to prove a point.

I can tell no one responding actually played Warfighter because it is actually the best online console FPS this entire console gen. Warfighter has the tightest and best FPS controls this gen. Here's a list of things Warfighter has that almost no other online FPSs have: leaning (a must for any FPS in my opinion, COD and BF don't have leaning, just embarrassing), dedicated servers (no host migrations!!!), and a slide and shoot mechanic that makes gun battles so much more dynamic (there's nothing like sliding around a corner to shotgun a camper). The guns in the game all feel great and there's actually recoil as well. The class system is very well done. The game is actually BALANCED unlike other FPSs (*cough*COD*cough*). The game is less laggy than most other games and there's only a few glitches after the patch (VOIP is still crappy).

With all that said, the single player was complete shit. But people buy games like this for the multiplayer, and the multiplayer is just awesome-sauce. Reviewers don't have a clue on how to review online multiplayer, they play for a few hours and that's it, not even enough time to learn the maps and mechanics fully. The game didn't deserve the scores it got, you definitely have to dock points for the single player, but 5s out 10 were unwarranted when the multiplayer is fantastic and that's what you buy a game like Warfighter for.

Hats off to Danger Close for actually making a good online FPS for a change. DICE is far worse at making multiplayer like MOH 2010 or they break anything decent they did like BF3. DICE needs to just make Mirror's Edge 2.

The problem is, that people wanted a decent FPS, not a Dragon's Lair clone (and a bad one at that).

Little Gray:

gigastar:

You opinion on him doesnt come into this, take thy flamebait elsewhere.

Im asking because that is all his video was. He didnt make any real points other then he hates modern shooters and is willing to cherrypick a game to try and prove a point.

Did you watch the video? It took him less than 10 minutes to show how awful the single-player campaign is. Walking the wrong way kills you? Walking the right way, at the wrong time, kills you arbitrarily? When you can stand still and get shot a dozen times, it becomes fairly obvious the game isn't there to challenge. It's there to look nice and send you off to the multiplayer.

Little Gray:

gigastar:

You opinion on him doesnt come into this, take thy flamebait elsewhere.

Im asking because that is all his video was. He didnt make any real points other then he hates modern shooters and is willing to cherrypick a game to try and prove a point.

Now see, if you said that to begin with i wouldnt have come off as a dick.

And when TB gets like that he just does the demonstration and lets his viewers decide. He still hasnt done a proper first impressions of Warfighter yet.

Now, he stood his character in front open view of the sniper, and was shot multiple times with little observeable effect of the bloody screen. Worth noting that even amatuer snipers in an urban enviroment can manage a higher hit/miss ratio than the game snipers did.

When he goes outside without airstriking the biulding, he dies. Not of bullets, but of a death wall. Even in Eidos's old, forgotten, defunct squad-based MMS series on the PS2 when you had to 'laze' a target for airstrike that target was a tank sitting smug behind a road block of some kind, because once you took control of your sniper and picked off other snipers you didnt need to fear them endlessly respawning.

When the biulding is airstruck, instead of seeing a nice explosion worthy of Mr Torgue, with the biulding crumbling under the impact as the game engine (Frostbite 2, as seen in Battlefield 3) is theoretically capable of, your screen is obscured in solid grey for a few seconds while presumably the biulding models are switched around. Or maybe the entire map is reloaded around you.

Also on the video, just as the airstrike hits, the tree on the left suddenly teleports a short distance to the right. I cant think of a game in the last 10 years to come with that as a bug.

And in another video, which i truly cannot be bothered to find, he went into another detail for which he hated Warfighter. Those generic, thinly veiled Taliban soldiers are literally just that. Generic brown people whose sole purpose in the game is to be shot at either by you, or your toy robot. No characterisation is spared for them, even when you play as them during the campaign. If youve ever seen what a one-dimensional character is, the bad guys from Warfighter dont even qualify as that.

If theres anything more you need to know to see just how much of an utter shit Warfighter is, please consult a full review that is not by IGN.

Phoenixmgs:

Now, if EA Los Angeles wanted to make a good online FPS, why did they tack on an all but neglected single player mode?

If the single player was totally absent, nothing of real value would be missing from the game (going from your comment) and reviewers cant shit on a game for a game mode it doesnt ship with. They might lament it, but they cant mark down a game for it.

The point of criticism is to point out things that are done poorly. For Warfighter, this was its entire single player.

Oh thank goodness. I was worried that I just "didn't get it".

karma9308:
I'll give them credit, one of the few times I've heard EA actually own up and admit a mistake. Granted it's not much, but baby steps.

It would be, if they hadn't said "the game was solid, but the focus on combat authenticity did not resonate with gamers."
which translates to " we made a good game, but everyone else is to blame for not enjoying it." which takes the baby step then jumps backwards off a cliff.

gigastar:

Phoenixmgs:

Now, if EA Los Angeles wanted to make a good online FPS, why did they tack on an all but neglected single player mode?

If the single player was totally absent, nothing of real value would be missing from the game (going from your comment) and reviewers cant shit on a game for a game mode it doesnt ship with. They might lament it, but they cant mark down a game for it.

The point of criticism is to point out things that are done poorly. For Warfighter, this was its entire single player.

You buy a FPS like COD, BF, MOH, etc. for the multiplayer. Yeah, the game needed to be docked points for a shit single player but people don't really buy the game for single player so the multiplayer should probably make up 3/4s of the review really. Reviewers need to actually review the multiplayer instead of just "trying" it when it's mainly a multiplayer game. There's no professional reviewers that actually do just a decent job at that let alone a good to great job at it. I don't ever see a online shooter review talking about balance issues and important stuff like that. The reason Warfighter and even a BF have a single player is because they are just supposed to have it and it's on a checklist of features that need to be in the game, nothing more. I'll play something like Bioshock, Borderlands, Deus Ex for my single player FPS fix.

Tradjus:
This game flew completely under my radar, what was so bad about it?
I mean, it was put out by E.A so that could have been the problem right there, but I'd like specifics.

It had more options of ways to break down a door than actual gameplay. It was nicknamed Doorfighter (a play on warfighter) because half the game creation seems to have been concentrated on breaking down the doors.
Oh and apperently peopel said the gameplay sucked. you know, those people that played COD... so their credence.....

You buy a FPS like COD, BF, MOH, etc. for the multiplayer.

No, you buy a MMO for multiplayer. unlike what you think, people still do buy games fomr singleplayer only. as far as im concerned, multiplayer in COD, BF and MOH are exactly 0 worth in my opnion becuase im not going to play them. make me a decent singleplayer or you lost a sale there.

also the "bad leadership" part seems like a jab at their leadeship and quite an open one. i wonder if he will have to spend time in EA mosnter dungeon for a while for this.

'combat authenticity'

the combat authenticity where you regenerate health?
the combat authenticity where the same few groups of soldiers are combating problems worldwide, where the Coalition special forces community apparently consists of about ten blokes?
the combat authenticity where one bloke takes over an entire ship without a scratch?
the combat authenticity where the battle space consists of one singular path that the entire team goes down at half meter spacings?
the combat authenticity where your pistol has unlimited ammo?
the combat authenticity where the only ieds that you encounter are marked clearly for you in bright yellow paint?
the combat authenticity where a fast deployment team apparently can pull UGVs out of their arses?
the combat authenticity where the insurgents attack you with a helicopter?
the combat authenticity where half of the karachi dockside is blown up during an undeclared operation and there are no repercussions?
the combat authenticity where all operations are direct action engagements?

There is no 'combat authenticity in this game, it is a bundle of bullshit dressed up in the newest uniform and using the newest kit, not fooling anyone. Honestly, some 12 air softer is more convincing than this game. And I know, I know that they had SEALs consulting, but they used that consultation to spray paint their game, instead of building something better.

I honestly don't give a fuck about whether or not a game is authentic, I enjoy battlefield, I enjoy borderlands, I enjoy COD and I enjoy crysis, but don't try and blame the failure of your game on the customer's inability to process your non-existent authenticity.

Strazdas:
multiplayer in COD, BF and MOH are exactly 0 worth in my opnion.

So...every Battlefield game before BF3 didn't exist? Is that what you're saying? I just want to make sure. Because that's an extremely stupid thing to say.

the clockmaker:
'combat authenticity'

the combat authenticity where you regenerate health?
the combat authenticity where the same few groups of soldiers are combating problems worldwide, where the Coalition special forces community apparently consists of about ten blokes?
the combat authenticity where one bloke takes over an entire ship without a scratch?
the combat authenticity where the battle space consists of one singular path that the entire team goes down at half meter spacings?
the combat authenticity where your pistol has unlimited ammo?
the combat authenticity where the only ieds that you encounter are marked clearly for you in bright yellow paint?
the combat authenticity where a fast deployment team apparently can pull UGVs out of their arses?
the combat authenticity where the insurgents attack you with a helicopter?
the combat authenticity where half of the karachi dockside is blown up during an undeclared operation and there are no repercussions?
the combat authenticity where all operations are direct action engagements?

There is no 'combat authenticity in this game, it is a bundle of bullshit dressed up in the newest uniform and using the newest kit, not fooling anyone. Honestly, some 12 air softer is more convincing than this game. And I know, I know that they had SEALs consulting, but they used that consultation to spray paint their game, instead of building something better.

I honestly don't give a fuck about whether or not a game is authentic, I enjoy battlefield, I enjoy borderlands, I enjoy COD and I enjoy crysis, but don't try and blame the failure of your game on the customer's inability to process your non-existent authenticity.

as far as MMS is concered this is realistic.

personally i play ARMA2, and if you really want realism you play VBS2

Maybe this will cause EA to get its shit together and not do something like this for awhile. So hopefully they won't do the same to Battlefield.

Phoenixmgs:
I can tell no one responding actually played Warfighter because it is actually the best online console FPS this entire console gen. Warfighter has the tightest and best FPS controls this gen. Here's a list of things Warfighter has that almost no other online FPSs have: leaning (a must for any FPS in my opinion, COD and BF don't have leaning, just embarrassing), dedicated servers (no host migrations!!!), and a slide and shoot mechanic that makes gun battles so much more dynamic (there's nothing like sliding around a corner to shotgun a camper). The guns in the game all feel great and there's actually recoil as well. The class system is very well done. The game is actually BALANCED unlike other FPSs (*cough*COD*cough*). The game is less laggy than most other games and there's only a few glitches after the patch (VOIP is still crappy).

With all that said, the single player was complete shit. But people buy games like this for the multiplayer, and the multiplayer is just awesome-sauce. Reviewers don't have a clue on how to review online multiplayer, they play for a few hours and that's it, not even enough time to learn the maps and mechanics fully. The game didn't deserve the scores it got, you definitely have to dock points for the single player, but 5s out 10 were unwarranted when the multiplayer is fantastic and that's what you buy a game like Warfighter for.

Hats off to Danger Close for actually making a good online FPS for a change. DICE is far worse at making multiplayer like MOH 2010 or they break anything decent they did like BF3. DICE needs to just make Mirror's Edge 2.

While I don't agree with your last statement, Everything else is spot on. I do find it mind boggling that everyone looks at CoD, BF3, and say "Yes, the SP is short and underwhelming but really, just play the Multiplayer" and then when it comes to Warfighter, which I agree, arguably has the best FPS Multiplayer system and controls this gen, is completely passed over for the many flaws of the single player.

MoH Warfighter wasn't bad, it was the punching bag of a tired genre.

EDIT: Also, while the single player wasn't great. It was still miles better than that pointless dredge Battlefield 3 had. That Jet mission? Even Blackburn says "Well I don't see what that has to do with my story" in which I responded with out loud "GOOD! CAUSE NEITHER DO I! WTF WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!"

Skops:
MoH Warfighter wasn't bad, it was the punching bag of a tired genre.

The thing is Warfighter revitalized the genre for me. I hadn't played an online FPS in 5 years before Warfighter, I played COD4 (the 1st and last COD I played) and got tired of that in a couple months. I have to have leaning in my FPSs (and TPSs) because I lean all the damn time, I lean more in the open during gunfights than I do to lean around corners. I also love the slide and shoot move, I do that all the freaking time (and my shooting accuracy doing it is ridiculous) to where my platoon hates playing against me when we get switched teams because I'm never a stationary target, always leaning and sliding, leaning out of a slide lol. This one time the enemy and I were moving towards each other, I slide past him, move the camera to where it's facing his back, and pull off the tomahawk behind the back kill animation during my slide (COD ain't got shit on that); he must've been so pissed. I like the fireteam buddy system and the classes are well done and balanced. The FPS genre is so stale in my opinion and Warfighter put life back into it. I initially wrote off Warfighter because of the reviews and me not liking online FPSs much, but I heard some people talking about how good the game was, I read it had leaning, then I watched a couple matches and saw the slide and shoot mechanic, and I just had to give it a try.

Can we all just take this as EA is finally starting to learn something?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

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