All this talk recently of Medal of Honor’s review scores being responsible for dipping share prices, acne, the extinction of the polar bear and that little stone in your shoe brings to mind something EA Games’ head said before his latest controversy courting first person shooter released to a baying crowd of hit-hungry journalists: it didn’t really matter what happened.
I’m paraphrasing, of course, but fortune has it I’ve dug out the old musty copy of Edge that he said it in, the one with a massive portion of the mag dedicated to telling everyone just how lovely EA are. It worked – the company sounds lovely and the article paints a very pragmatic, considered picture of a company enjoying something of a revival, both critically and commercially.
Critically apart from Medal of Honor of course, the Metacritic average for which is a ‘generally favourable’ 75%. As I said during one of several restless tirades about the subject of gaming review scores, 75% to me is a sure fire purchase if I’m a fan of game if I can weigh up the pros and cons from a few select outlets. I’m intelligent, I can read, and I can make my own damned mind up about a game.
The point of all this, though, is that a couple of months back the aforementioned boss of EA Games, a certain Frank Gibeau, told Edge that the battle between Medal of Honor and the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops is something he is “revelling” in. “Anything we can do with Medal of Honor this year is a win,” he said, talking to the magazine.
“They’re the leaders,” he continued, referring to Activision. “Every unit they lose is a problem, every unit I gain, I wasn’t expecting to have. It allows us to exercise a lot of creativity the development and marketing teams. There isn’t this intense pressure to sell 20 million units this year or we’re bust.” He’s got a point, you see – MoH came out of nowhere, EA didn’t have a modern shooter, and now they have.
He’s also rather grounded about how long this is all going to take. “We know we’re not going to do it in a year,” he said. “It’s going to take multiple years just like they did to us. Medal of Honor started the genre, it was the number one game, but COD branched out and over time they took it.” Anyone thinking of parallels with FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer can just replace brand names and be happy.
You’ve got to think of it like this: those niggles with Medal of Honor – the iffy AI, the tunneled scripting and the Unreal-effect textures? They’ll be gone next year, as EA enters into what we assume will be an annual roll out of the Medal of Honor games, constantly tweaking, improving and building on what they’ve done before. Of course, Activision are doing the same, but that just keeps it interesting.
I’m looking forward to the new Call of Duty, Treyarch back behind the wheels should mean that the ridiculous set pieces that spoiled Modern Warfare 2 might make way for some actual game – I know it had its fans, but I spent the duration of the game confused, disorientated and bored – there’s only so much a grizzled old gamer like me can take, and that’s why I preferred MoH’s more realistic approach.
Medal of Honor, like most EA annual titles, is going to be subject to evolution rather than revolution, then, but that’s the hardest part done.
This personal blog does not necessarily reflect the opinions of TheSixthAxis
tonycawley
I personally blame Gt5’s delay on the “low” review scores medal of honour has received. Just not sure why yet!
Dr_mohannad
that would be true if you reviewed MoH
tonycawley
What do you mean?
tonycawley
Also, this whole arguement about review scores is silly. I can honestly see both sides of the arguement. Yes, 75% is quite high when viewed in it’s own light. But what game is ever viewed in it’s own light? We compare. If there is a choice of 2 games for me, i’m interested in both, but can only afford 1, then i’ll get the one that scores 90, not 75. Since so many games these days score 80+ then i can definitely see why 75 is seen as low, it’s low in comparison to other games that score higher.
ico
What really bugs me about review scores (and I’m guessing it’s the majority of online websites that are to blame) is the fact that scores between 60-70% are seen as ‘bad’ review scores. There’s no point in using a 10 point scale if you’re only going to use half or even one third of that scale. TSA isn’t guilty of this but most of the bigger websites seem to be (we all know which they are) and it’s impacting on metacritic and sales of games and as a result and thus by default studio closures and people being out of jobs. It seems to be a sad side effect of gaming becoming such big business.
I agree with the age old argument that a score is only a small part of the review and the text is more important but the sad truth (I assume) seems to be that metacritic is a fundamentally flawed system in the approach it uses but it’s so ingrained into the industry now that it’ll be incredibly difficult, nigh on impossible, to change now.
I know reviews are one person’s subjective opinion but a lot of people I know will buy / not buy a game solely on metacritic’s average which, as I understand it, is weighted in favour of the more prominent websites so isn’t even a true reflection of press scoring. My rant is now over. Time for a cup of tea and some work!
DJ-Katy
I’m with you on that, but Metacritic has its uses. I had Quantum Theory on the counter in GameStop the other week, pulled out my phone, checked its Metacritic score and put it promptly back on the shelf.
OTOH, I don’t really trust the ‘middle of the road’ scores on there – the 50-70 mark; I’ve bought plenty of 60%-scoring games on Metacritic and thoroughly enjoyed them. If a game gets 40 or 90 on there, you can be reasonably confident it’s poor or good, if it lands in the 50-70 region, I will definitely watch a couple of video reviews and will often purchase anyway.
DuffyBox
Wow Katy, you dodged a bullet :P
However, I don’t think even Metacritic can offer a truly fair score because of its input being biased to “>7 or bad” mode. That said, I do think it’s the closest to fairness a system can get (other than TSA’s system of course.)
cc_star
“u’ve got to think of it like this: those niggles with Medal of Honor – the iffy AI, the tunneled scripting and the Unreal-effect textures? They’ll be gone next year, as EA enters into what we assume will be an annual roll out of the Medal of Honor games, constantly tweaking, improving and building on what they’ve done before.”
So EA are saying themselves they’ve rushed it just to get their foot in the door, and you’re better off waiting for a ‘proper’ release next year
bunimomike
I’m not sure they’d have put it like that ;-) but there comes a time when releasing a game makes sense even though it’s not 100% tight or you could take forever and do a “Kaz” as it’s now known. If a game is 95% bug-free and genuinely presentable then it’s time for it to get out amongst the masses.
Obviously they don’t want to release a clanger like *thinks*… was it Fallout or Mass Effect that was bug-ridden?
STILLCANTTHINKOFAGOODPSNNAME
well i know goty edition fallout 3 was a joke and i cant believe they are still using that shitty engine oblivion still looks better im not to bothered about new vagas rage and elder scroll 5 have my western rpg attention for now
cc_star
The next Fallout after New Vegas will use a whole new engine, the current one, which Vegas uses isn’t great – particularly on the PS3
Grey_Ghost13
I agree that 75% is a good score for a game, and as this is a reboot for the series and potentially the first of many to come, I want to be there at the begining to follow the game from the start and make my own mind up.
Watchful
Echoes of the annual FIFA vs. PES battle from a few years ago before FIFA came out on top.
solidsteven
Was i the only who laughed at EA being a lovely company?
DuffyBox
Compared to Bobbivision, they’re paragons of niceness.
iAvernus
Well MoH isn’t a bad game. I’m going to pick it as soon as I get time. Honestly I’ve never been interested in metacritic scores. I go to certain websited, read/watch their reviews, go on youtube, watch some gameplay footage, and make my decision.
I don’t think MoH will take away sales from COD, not yet atleast, but it gives people more options. I’m buying both personally. Hopefully next MoH MP will be allot better.
PriceKitty
I was disappointed with Medal of Honor’s multiplayer to the point where I ended up returning the game.
It is too similar to BC2’s multiplayer, in fact, a very similar, yet limited version of BC2.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved campaign…even though it was extremely short.
I just thought multiplayer was going to be something new and different, which the Beta and adverts somehow lead me to believe.
Perhaps BF:BC3 will get me back on track, that is after I’m burnt out on Black Ops.
Quinlank
Been playing MOH and as expected, a lot of the ‘issues’ are being exaggerated, as I’m finding the game great fun. Not perfect or anything, but worth my time certainly.
I’d be willing to bet when Black Ops starts having it’s inevitable “issues” examined, the majority of reviewers who slammed MOH will happily sweep any COD complaints under the rug.