Support NeoGAF

[Ephemeris]

Dug the campaign. I can't tell you what the entire story was about lol) but there were a couple stages that really stood out for me. The one where

Spoiler

you had to make what definitely seemed like your last stand in the desert was pretty good.

Wasn't sure how that one was gonna end.

If this came out last year I definitely would have preferred the multi over MW2's, but sadly it's not as fun as the other shooter coming out next month.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

some of the frame rate drops and texture work is so awful you can't tell what to kill . specifically mission 6

Spoiler

helicopter.

good god those buildings look straight out of a n64 game.
mission 5 was pretty bad-ass though.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I've decided I will just Gamefly the game. If the MP is good enough, I will buy the $10 online pass and just play it until Black Ops drops. If it isn't any good, which I think is about 50/50 right now based on all the impressions I have read, then I will just play it for a week and send it back. I loved the beta though, so who knows.

Really sucks that the reviews can't come until the morning the game releases though. EA must not be expecting great reception.

 

[Ephemeris]

mission 5 was pretty bad-ass though.

Yes yes. That's the one I'm talking about.

 

[RiotPelaaja]

It'll be interesting to see the reaction to the reviews from the publisher side. I'm pretty sure that some of the defense towards the negativity of the game will be about how "realism is not supposed to be so much fun". The game tries to be realistic in it's scenarios, but...that doesn't make for a fun videogame nor does the enviroment. From an European perspective, this game is even more Republican than Modern Warfare

I really thought that as this was MOH's comeback the campaign would be a real statement of quality and intent, but it isn't.

 

[kevm3]

Black ops 4 hour campaign, Co-Op Zombie mode canceled, and new Cod is a Cod rip-off confirmed. You heard it here first, folks.

In other words MOH sucks and needs to fail because it shares similarities with MW2, but WAW with a MW2 theme update is awesome. A battlefield feel to the guns with smaller maps is stale, but having the exact same gameplay as the past 3 iterations of your series isn't. Got it.

And the graphics in MOH sucks, but this is acceptable? The snow warehouse stage looks like it came directly from MW2 except it manages to look worse graphically. There is also a stage that looks like Karachi/Invasion. Graphically speaking, how does this look good?

Black Ops Multiplayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_fsM6LBi54

MW2 Sub Base for comparison's sake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1acgb__Eo1Y

I don't see how Black Ops graphics look good compared compared to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaz7r2r_Fik


Maybe I'm missing something. I don't believe MOH will be some kind of AAA title that will redefine shooters, but frankly, I don't understand all the bagging MOH is getting and yet many who will bag on MOH are licking their chops at Black Ops. If MOH is going to get hit for MW2 similarities, why not bag BO for the same thing? There is a difference between BO sharing a similar style of gameplay to MW2 because they are the same series and having maps that almost look like they were lifted from MW2 and using some of the exact same graphical overlays.

The 4 hour single player is something that MOH can rightly be criticized over, but I will be playing for multiplayer mainly. The cinematic style single-player gameplay looks COD-esque, but the multiplayer looks much more like battlefield to me, although it does share the UAV style with COD and the smaller maps and quicker kills. My main concern with MOH overall is the 8 multiplayer maps. That's a big problem when MW2 comes with 16 out the gate. In the end I'll probably get both, but neither this or BO really seem to be doing anything worth getting excited about, and this looks to be getting unfairly harped on in some ways -- especially in the area of graphics and in terms of sharing similarities to COD, when BO looks to have worse graphics and almost looks like a Treyarch developed MW2 expansion pack at times.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

In other words MOH sucks and needs to fail because it shares similarities with MW2, but WAW with a MW2 theme update is awesome. A battlefield feel to the guns with smaller maps is stale, but having the exact same gameplay as the past 3 iterations of your series isn't. Got it.

...

This is a reboot of a franchise. It should be a statement of intent.

 

[Stallion Free]

Comparing graphics via Youtube videos is kind of retarded.

 

[Rubezh]

It'll be interesting to see the reaction to the reviews from the publisher side. I'm pretty sure that some of the defense towards the negativity of the game will be about how "realism is not supposed to be so much fun". The game tries to be realistic in it's scenarios, but...that doesn't make for a fun videogame nor does the enviroment. From an European perspective, this game is even more Republican than Modern Warfare

I really thought that as this was MOH's comeback the campaign would be a real statement of quality and intent, but it isn't.

More...Republican? :lol

 

[Enosh]

From an European perspective, this game is even more Republican than Modern Warfare

what the fuck is this even suposed to mean?

 

[Zenith]

what the fuck is this even suposed to mean?

Hawkish, jingoistic, shallow portrayl of freedom fighters vs cackling evil doers.

 

[El-Suave]

I was going to get this at launch but I will wait a week or two. The review embargos that seem to be in effect made me suspicious.
I would buy this game for its single player component (as I do with most of my games) and I had really hoped the campaign would be special considering the MoH roots and the fact that it would be the best way to differentiate itself from the most recent CoD.

What's making me extra cautious is that even if the campaign would disappoint, I'd be looking forward to playing MoH Frontline again in HD, but I haven't seen a single decent screenshot of it or read impressions.

 

[Vinterbird]

I was going to get this at launch but I will wait a week or two. The review embargos that seem to be in effect made me suspicious.
I would buy this game for its single player component (as I do with most of my games) and I had really hoped the campaign would be special considering the MoH roots and the fact that it would be the best way to differentiate itself from the most recent CoD.

What's making me extra cautious is that even if the campaign would disappoint, I'd be looking forward to playing MoH Frontline again in HD, but I haven't seen a single decent screenshot of it or read impressions.

A page or two back someone posted a video of the Frontlines remake.

 

[El-Suave]

Cool, must have scrolled past it, thanks.

 

[Rubezh]

I was going to get this at launch but I will wait a week or two. The review embargos that seem to be in effect made me suspicious.

A review embargo tells me they've got something to hide.

 

[industrian]

4 hour single player? No dice.

 

[taku]

4 hour single player? No dice.

I see what you did there..

 

[Vinterbird]

A review embargo tells me they've got something to hide.

It's the most common thing in the industry (and from the press side, it is a wonderful thing)

 

[RushOliver]

Can anybody write a bit more over the multiplayer, if the server is online? I have personally no interest to the campaign.

 

[industrian]

CoD while enjoyable is more akin to an over the top action movie.

It's been this way since day one too. Some set pieces were taken directly from WW2 movies, the other based on true events. It was the best compromise I've ever seen in a game. CoD1 and UO were absolutely incredible because of this.

 

[Cornbread78]

Oh $hit about 15 hours to go from this bad oby to drop on the east coast.....Not that I'm counting or anything, LOL.

 

[Jb]

It's the most common thing in the industry (and from the press side, it is a wonderful thing)

It's also a wonderful thing for the consumer. Oh wait, it isn't.

 

[Stallion Free]

It's been this way since day one too. Some set pieces were taken directly from WW2 movies, the other based on true events. It was the best compromise I've ever seen in a game. CoD1 and UO were absolutely incredible because of this.

Yeah, they were boss. My mind was blown by the early trailers that showed the Russian campaign that was heavily inspired by Enemy at the Gates.

 

[Vinterbird]

It's also a wonderful thing for the consumer. Oh wait, it isn't.

It actually also benefits the consumer. Instead of having reviewers rushing to finish the game, playing multiplayer for 40 minutes and then writing up a review in order to make it before Kotaku, Eurogamer or IGN throws something up is not beneficial to the consumer.

With embargoes there is no rush to make it first, everyone posts at the same time, giving reviewers time to actually play the god damn game, and write something that has been given some thought, instead of the rush texts.

 

[sflufan]

It's been this way since day one too. Some set pieces were taken directly from WW2 movies, the other based on true events. It was the best compromise I've ever seen in a game. CoD1 and UO were absolutely incredible because of this.

From Hollywood, CoD and UO "borrowed" quite liberally from Band of Brothers (for the American segments), Enemy at the Gates (for the Soviet segments), and the Guns of Navarone (for the British segments).

 

[cjtiger300]

It actually also benefits the consumer. Instead of having reviewers rushing to finish the game, playing multiplayer for 40 minutes and then writing up a review in order to make it before Kotaku, Eurogamer or IGN throws something up is not beneficial to the consumer.

With embargoes there is no rush to make it first, everyone posts at the same time, giving reviewers time to actually play the god damn game, and write something that has been given some thought, instead of the rush texts.

This

 

[Dennis]

The Medal of Honor series has been a bit of a shambles ever since Medal of Honor: Frontline. The quality of this contemporary reboot, then, might surprise you. The presentation is terrific. It's a far more realistic and compelling single-player campaign than either Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2; we were hugely engrossed and thoroughly recommend it.

Score: 80%

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

In other words MOH sucks and needs to fail because it shares similarities with MW2, but WAW with a MW2 theme update is awesome. A battlefield feel to the guns with smaller maps is stale, but having the exact same gameplay as the past 3 iterations of your series isn't. Got it.

And the graphics in MOH sucks, but this is acceptable? The snow warehouse stage looks like it came directly from MW2 except it manages to look worse graphically. There is also a stage that looks like Karachi/Invasion. Graphically speaking, how does this look good?

Black Ops Multiplayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_fsM6LBi54

MW2 Sub Base for comparison's sake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1acgb__Eo1Y

I don't see how Black Ops graphics look good compared compared to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaz7r2r_Fik


Maybe I'm missing something. I don't believe MOH will be some kind of AAA title that will redefine shooters, but frankly, I don't understand all the bagging MOH is getting and yet many who will bag on MOH are licking their chops at Black Ops. If MOH is going to get hit for MW2 similarities, why not bag BO for the same thing? There is a difference between BO sharing a similar style of gameplay to MW2 because they are the same series and having maps that almost look like they were lifted from MW2 and using some of the exact same graphical overlays.

The 4 hour single player is something that MOH can rightly be criticized over, but I will be playing for multiplayer mainly. The cinematic style single-player gameplay looks COD-esque, but the multiplayer looks much more like battlefield to me, although it does share the UAV style with COD and the smaller maps and quicker kills. My main concern with MOH overall is the 8 multiplayer maps. That's a big problem when MW2 comes with 16 out the gate. In the end I'll probably get both, but neither this or BO really seem to be doing anything worth getting excited about, and this looks to be getting unfairly harped on in some ways -- especially in the area of graphics and in terms of sharing similarities to COD, when BO looks to have worse graphics and almost looks like a Treyarch developed MW2 expansion pack at times.

It boils down to the simple fact that for many people, why would you buy an imitation of a AAA franchise, when the latest iteration of that franchise launches a month after the imitator? Yes, we know Call of Duty: Black Ops shares some similarities with Call of Duty: MW2. They share the same engine. They are the same franchise. Of course there are going to be similarities. That simply isn't comparable to MoH, which used to be a AAA franchise, getting a "reboot" and becoming a CoD clone. As a FPS fan, why would I want a cheap imitation of a game I am already planning to buy a month later?

Also, I don't see the point you're trying to make with these YouTube videos. The BO maps in the video look nothing like Sub Base imho. If anything they look much more like WaW maps. I got definite Battery, Asylum, Sub Pens, and Dome vibes from that video. Of course, I am speaking solely about the layout and look of the map. Maybe you just mean graphically, in which case, who cares.

MoH used to be a AAA franchise and was known for its incredible single player. I think a majority of the criticism is stemming from the news that the SP is as MW inspired as the multiplayer and clocks in at only 4 hours. So instead of a campaign of MoH quality, it's a short, scripted knockoff and then all you're left with is multiplayer that many people don't seem to care for. Did you play the beta? Not sure how anyone could feel that plays more like Battlefield than MW. Is it confirmed that it only has 8 total maps? Jesus. Another valid complaint right there. Only a 4 hour campaign, no co-op, and only 8 maps? And there are two separate teams working on this? Where is all the content? Is there any sort of VIP program bullshit like BC2?

 

[NHale]

A review embargo tells me they've got something to hide.

Not really. Most publishers have review embargoes until the day of release or the day before. I would say this is better than having an embargo and have IGN post an "Exclusive review" on the Friday before.

Just an example, all Activision games have review embargoes until the day it's released and it doesn't mean a thing about the quality of the products or the score it's going to get (see COD4 and MW2).

 

[JB1981]

Hawkish, jingoistic, shallow portrayl of freedom fighters vs cackling evil doers.

And you would characterize the Taliban how, exactly?

 

[Windom Earle]

Great, this thread has convinced me to want neither MoH nor Black Ops. Thanks for saving me money I guess...

 

[Rubenov]

I expect review scores to range from 6 to 7.5. I am getting it, if only because I like the shooting-focused aspect of the multiplayer as opposed to the Air War of MW2 or the vehicle mayhem of BC2. That said, I'll probably drop the game like a hot potato once Black Ops hits.

 

[Cornbread78]

Great, this thread has convinced me to want neither MoH nor Black Ops. Thanks for saving me money I guess...

Sounds like your first day cruising GAF. If it's not by team ICO or Bungie, it sucks.... LOL:lol

 

[NHale]

I expect review scores to range from 6 to 7.5 I am getting it, if only because I like the shooting-focused aspect of the multiplayer as opposed to the Air War of MW2 or the vehicle mayhem of BC2. That said, I'll probably drop the game like a hot potato once Black Ops hits.

It will get the "World at War" treatment, it's going to be compared to the latest Infinity Ward game instead of what it is.

My guess is the scores are going to be around 8 but I can see Eurogamer giving it a 5. But after the MW2 reviews, I'm not going to trust what reviewers have to say about FPS single player campaigns...

 

[Mr. B Natural]

It actually also benefits the consumer. Instead of having reviewers rushing to finish the game, playing multiplayer for 40 minutes and then writing up a review in order to make it before Kotaku, Eurogamer or IGN throws something up is not beneficial to the consumer.

With embargoes there is no rush to make it first, everyone posts at the same time, giving reviewers time to actually play the god damn game, and write something that has been given some thought, instead of the rush texts.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but an embargo that lasts up until release date is a different beast than an embargo that has the reviewers wait until a week or so before release.

 

[acevans2]

Score: 80%

In the midst of all this pre-release bickering, thanks for posting this. Their comment on the campaign is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear.

I have this game preordered for day of release from Amazon and I'm pumped. Don't mind the length of campaign rumors at ALL. I don't have enough time to play games and a shorter campaign is better for me.

 

[Vinterbird]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but an embargo that lasts up until release date is a different beast than an embargo that has the reviewers wait until a week or so before release.

It's a marketing decision. If the marketing wants to have a big release-day media coverage blow out, that can have advantages over doing a three week long run of PR. ModNation Racers was hurt by this a lot, embargo was up two weeks before the game release, and by the time the game was out to the public, all the positive buzz surrounding the reviews had been lost in the storm of other game news, games coming out and so on.

Some games benefit from release date embargoes, and some benefits from embargoes that is up before a game is available (primarily the big AAA games that will sell no matter what)

 

[Cornbread78]

In the midst of all this pre-release bickering, thanks for posting this. Their comment on the campaign is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear.

I have this game preordered for day of release from Amazon and I'm pumped. Don't mind the length of campaign rumors at ALL. I don't have enough time to play games and a shorter campaign is better for me.

Price of watching a movie (1-1/2 hours) a drink, popcorn and some Snowaps= $25 no replays, multiplayer mode = almost $50 total.

MoH fee online play, unlimited replays, 4 hour campaign.... Hmm. this is why video games are suck a gerat value IMO.

 

[Jb]

It actually also benefits the consumer. Instead of having reviewers rushing to finish the game, playing multiplayer for 40 minutes and then writing up a review in order to make it before Kotaku, Eurogamer or IGN throws something up is not beneficial to the consumer.

With embargoes there is no rush to make it first, everyone posts at the same time, giving reviewers time to actually play the god damn game, and write something that has been given some thought, instead of the rush texts.

I understand your point, but in this particular case, do you really think "serious" reviewers would not have had the time to properly evaluate the merits and failings of such a short campaign? Since I don't know when review copies were sent out, I can't say for sure reviewers have been able to thoroughly test the MP, but given its relatively limited scope content-wise I'm going to assume they did.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I expect review scores to range from 6 to 7.5. I am getting it, if only because I like the shooting-focused aspect of the multiplayer as opposed to the Air War of MW2 or the vehicle mayhem of BC2. That said, I'll probably drop the game like a hot potato once Black Ops hits.

Did you play the beta? I know it was a beta but just saying, the objective map was just as bad in terms of air war as MW2 is. Fucking cruise missiles and air strikes every other second. Maybe it will be improved in the actual game since I assume people will actually use their mics.

 

[Cornbread78]

Did you play the beta? I know it was a beta but just saying, the objective map was just as bad in terms of air war as MW2 is. Fucking cruise missiles and air strikes every other second. Maybe it will be improved in the actual game since I assume people will actually use their mics.

Another BETA comment, did you look at teh post BETA changes. The meta for MoH was a true BETA, which means the feedback that people supplied helped mold the game for launch, I wish more people would have treated the beta as a beta and not as a demo.... there is a whole list of changes on page 1 or 2.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Question for the people who have played it:

Is there a lot of in game shouting and so on? What I mean is, in Bad Company 2 there was quite a lot of shouting, cries and taunting which makes the game just that bit better.

If this game is going for the authenticity, then I would expect a shit ton of it.

 

[RiotPelaaja]

It's the most common thing in the industry (and from the press side, it is a wonderful thing)

It is very common these days, AC: Brotherhood I think has the same embargo thing. This is problematic for us in the print media because most of the time magazines come out at the beginning of the month and not the middle.

Review code's been out for weeks and the code works online, but obviously you got a very limited amount people playing, but a few weeks ago EA had hands on events where you could play the online compoment, but at least in our case, we are simply gonna play the retail code and see whats up.

 

[Gritesh]

Whatever, haters gonna hate.

Will be there tomorrow for the PC community. GAF should represent in online.

 

[nofi]

Question for the people who have played it:

Is there a lot of in game shouting and so on? What I mean is, in Bad Company 2 there was quite a lot of shouting, cries and taunting which makes the game just that bit better.

If this game is going for the authenticity, then I would expect a shit ton of it.

In single player? It's not really a shouty game - it's meant to be special forces...

 

[LegoDad]

CVG gave it a 8.5/10

 

[Mr. B Natural]

It's a marketing decision. If the marketing wants to have a big release-day media coverage blow out, that can have advantages over doing a three week long run of PR. Mod Nation Racers was hurt by this a lot, embargo was up two weeks before the game release, and by the time the game was out to the public, all the positive buzz surrounding the reviews had been lost in the storm of other game news, games coming out and so on.

Some games benefit from release date embargoes, and some benefits from embargoes that is up before a game is available (primarily the big AAA games that will sell no matter what)

Right, but if they expected rave reviews, they probably would have opted for the 1-2 week hype-building run of amazing journalistic hyperbole before the big release date. If they don't expect great convincing reviews, then they probably want to wait and hold them back as long as they can. It's not impractical for some people here to be suspicious of release date embargoes, but not embargoes, in general, that last up until a week or so before the game is out.

Marketing is all about the hype and these days hype is all about getting people excited for release day. Holding back reviews up until release date isn't going to do anything for that hype. Maybe after, but by then, it's too late and the inevitable downward exponential sales curve will already be in effect.

But again I'm not really disagreeing with you. It is up to the marketing department to decide when, where and why reviews come up. It's a question of motive and it can easily be construed as suspicious, especially when similar tactics are used in other forms of media... movies being the most obvious parallel.

 

[Yopis]

This might be a good buy for people that want a small but loyal fps community game. If this follows the vip garbage then count me out though period. Every fps that isnt 5 million deep in multi is a bad experience.

 

[Raiden]

Any more reviews on this game? I am fairly interested and will probally buy it if it scores around 85%+ on reviews. Otherwise i'll just wait to Black Ops for my shooter.

 

[LegoDad]

Any more reviews on this game? I am fairly interested and will probally buy it if it scores around 85%+ on reviews. Otherwise i'll just wait to Black Ops for my shooter.

Nope, gotta wait for the embargo to hit, idk if its different for the UK/europe and that's why CVG's review is up...