Support NeoGAF

[hamchan]

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.

I heard many people criticizing the rush type snow map. That map pretty much consisted of everyone camping on opposite sides of the map trying to snipe each other. I was only playing this a few days ago, isn't it a bit hard for them to change the design in time for launch?

 

[Enosh]

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.

blizzard didn't bother to send out SC2 review copies and there were very few reviews until after 5 days to 1 week after release, but no said blizzard did it beacose they think SC2 is shit and are expecting low scores

 

[Mr. B Natural]

blizzard didn't bother to send out SC2 review copies and there were very few reviews until after 5 days to 1 week after release, but no said blizzard did it beacose they think SC2 is shit and are expecting low scores

You think MOH is in the same boat as SC2? No, of course it isn't. Some games can bypass the typical marketing trend to get sales and praise.

MOH needs to prove itself. People aren't sold on its quality. People aren't sold by name alone. They need to relieve that in one way or another....be it betas, demos, reviews, heavy marketing, word of mouth...something.

 

[Tropicana]

About the whole 4 hour campaign thing, I'm not sure I'm buying this. At least for myself. I like to roleplay my games so I don't rush, I love to spend some time in game world. MW2 for me was a solid 10 hours game on Hardened difficulty and at the time the reviews said "6 hours game". You add to this a second playtrough on Veteran and the MW2 SP last a good deal of time before I moved to Spec Ops and MP.

I don't think everybody plays at the same pace or in the same ways. 4 hours to me means an average time of an overbooked game journalist, but it doesn't mean the SP of MoH is really 4 hours long.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I heard many people criticizing the rush type snow map. That map pretty much consisted of everyone camping on opposite sides of the map trying to snipe each other. I was only playing this a few days ago, isn't it a bit hard for them to change the design in time for launch?

Exactly what the rush type beta map was, each team camping back and picking each other off from a distance. The attacking teams snipers build up huge killstreak chains and unleash hell throughout the match. It was very, very easy to do. Which is why I hope more people use mics in the retail version, to better coordinate and take those bastards out.

They increased the amount of points required to get support actions but I doubt it will help much.

 

[Stallion Free]

blizzard didn't bother to send out SC2 review copies and there were very few reviews until after 5 days to 1 week after release, but no said blizzard did it beacose they think SC2 is shit and are expecting low scores

Blizzard doesn't even need reviews at this point.

 

[Effect]

4 Hours!? Ugh. Companies making these games should just stop with the token single player offerings (this doesn't include those that actually work at the single player). Just put in a offline training tutorial and be clear that they are releasing a mulitplayer only game and be done with it. True everyone plays at their own pace but those numbers keep getting smaller and smaller with each game of this type.

 

[nofi]

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...

It's not, as far as I know.

 

[Insane Metal]

I want to play this so much, I can't wait

 

[paskowitz]

Just finished watching the entire campaign stream. Honestly, it had some good moments but it lacked that epic feel. Not to mention we have been punched in the arm for 2 MW's so most people are a little numb to epic. Overall it looks like a good game, just not a great one. My biggest complaint has to be the lack of recoil in the guns. Having played the MP the SP does not looking any different.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

About the whole 4 hour campaign thing, I'm not sure I'm buying this. At least for myself. I like to roleplay my games so I don't rush, I love to spend some time in game world. MW2 for me was a solid 10 hours game on Hardened difficulty and at the time the reviews said "6 hours game". You add to this a second playtrough on Veteran and the MW2 SP last a good deal of time before I moved to Spec Ops and MP.

I don't think everybody plays at the same pace or in the same ways. 4 hours to me means an average time of an overbooked game journalist, but it doesn't mean the SP of MoH is really 4 hours long.

There is really nothing to explore in this game. It's more linear than MW2. I'm at Chapter 8 out of 10 after 3 hours playing on Hard. Not rushing; it is 4-5 hours long.

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.

I doubt this scores over 85% on GR.

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

What do you want to know?

 

[jakonovski]

Oh gosh, this stings a bit. A really good article from Gamasutra:

So let's review. Electronic Arts made a war game about the U.S.-led war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that game is not about war, not about Afghanistan, not about the Taliban, not political, and not interested in making or supporting any discussion.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6158/persuasive_games_free_speech_is_.php

 

[Mr. B Natural]

Blizzard doesn't even need reviews at this point.

Exactly. THe only things reviews will do for blizzard is detract sales...make the rose tinting fade out a little. 10/10 for blizzard games is just another day-in-the-life for those guys.

EA, Dice and the MOH brand I wouldn't say is in the exact opposite position, but they're not in Blizzard position either They need to actually sell their game...for the most part.

A series of early 10/10 and 9/10's for MOH before release would do wonderful things for it. Gaffers would be pre-emptively eating crow (as would I) and it would be huge news for gaming media. It would corner later harsher reviewers into being positive. And the really cool thing about it is that it didn't cost x million dollars to get such buzz. But that free marketing can very well backfire if the games start to get 6's and 7's. It's a risk and, to me, it appears the PR team doesn't think it's a risk worth taking.

 

[cjtiger300]

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.

What? That is crazy talk! 5 million? KZ2 was an awesome MP experience and they never hit 5 million! The same goes for Uncharted 2 and Bad Company 2.

 

[Varth]

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

Really? I found it far less disturbing than MW2. I actually found some turns touching, for half a second :lol

 

[Neuromancer]

There is really nothing to explore in this game. It's more linear than MW2.

Jesus Fucking Christ, forget this game than. Damn.

 

[Psykotik]

Oh gosh, this stings a bit. A really good article from Gamasutra:



http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6158/persuasive_games_free_speech_is_.php

i thought they only removed the word taliban from the multiplayer?

are the taliban not even in the campaign now? or is that article wrong.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

i thought they only removed the word taliban from the multiplayer?

are the taliban not even in the campaign now? or is that article wrong.

they say the word 'taliban' like 50 times in the campaign
it's just not in multiplayer - changed it to op for there

 

[Chrange]

About the whole 4 hour campaign thing, I'm not sure I'm buying this. At least for myself. I like to roleplay my games so I don't rush, I love to spend some time in game world. MW2 for me was a solid 10 hours game on Hardened difficulty and at the time the reviews said "6 hours game". You add to this a second playtrough on Veteran and the MW2 SP last a good deal of time before I moved to Spec Ops and MP.

I don't think everybody plays at the same pace or in the same ways. 4 hours to me means an average time of an overbooked game journalist, but it doesn't mean the SP of MoH is really 4 hours long.

4 hours, 16 minutes, 23 seconds (give or take 10 seconds or so) from starting it up to the start of the (lengthy) end credits. That's playing on Hard on the first playthrough and spending a little time looking around levels to see if there was anything to find other than invisible walls.

 

[Neuromancer]

4 hours, 16 minutes, 23 seconds (give or take 10 seconds or so) from starting it up to the start of the (lengthy) end credits. That's playing on Hard on the first playthrough and spending a little time looking around levels to see if there was anything to find other than invisible walls.

Damn.

Where are all the reviews for this game, anyone know when the embargo lifts?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

the thing about MW2 as well was that it was super hard on veteran. MoH is easy on Hard difficulty.

Damn.

Where are all the reviews for this game, anyone know when the embargo lifts?

tomorrow morning.

 

[Chrange]

Damn.

Where are all the reviews for this game, anyone know when the embargo lifts?

Tuesday, 6 a.m. PT

 

[Opus Angelorum]

There is really nothing to explore in this game. It's more linear than MW2. I'm at Chapter 8 out of 10 after 3 hours playing on Hard. Not rushing; it is 4-5 hours long.

No sale, although some will argue the value comes in the multiplayer.

 

[Zenith]

First review is up. 8.5/10

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=269047

Is MoH's multiplayer innovative? No. Is it without flaws? Most definitely not - the most painful of which is its incredibly erratic respawning system. But what it does bring to the table is a well-crafted, balanced shooter that's kinder to newcomers at the point of entry than CoD or Battlefield.

So we've fallen big time for Medal of Honor's multiplayer, but as far as the single-player campaign goes? Well, we don't want to say it's a game of two halves... but in truth, it really is. The story mode, which divides its attentions between the adventures of a close-knit team of Tier 1 Operatives working behind enemy lines and the 'everyman' tales of the standard army forces on the frontline, never quite comes together as we hoped it might.

Like Battlefield before it, Medal of Honor is an engrossing online shooter with an above-average campaign mode bolted on. As a result, it's a purchase you should only seriously consider if your console is hooked up to the intarwebs. On a wider scale though, this reboot thrusts Medal of Honor back into the spotlight, and for the first time in ages we can't wait to see where EA take the series next.

it reads like a bought and paid for review, and this is why:

It's hard to pin down why [the SP fails to come together] exactly, because the only area of the game that is noticeably substandard is the AI, and even this can be turned around to your enjoyment (breaking cover to plunge a knife into an insurgent's throat from 20 yards away is a particularly irresistible head rush).

Perhaps it's the Afghan setting, which delivers more variety than you'd credit it for, but ultimately makes for a lacklustre theatre of war in FPS terms.

The wide-open landscapes mean that many fights take place at a disengagingly large distance, and this makes it difficult for Medal of Honor to get any sense of tension rolling.

I'm going to say it's down to the campaign being only FOUR HOURS LONG. Such a huge sticking point that stands out from other games, and the "only area of the game that is noticeably substandard" they bother to note is the AI?

 

[J-Roderton]

Here's to hoping this game gives me a little bit of a break from Reach.

 

[GitarooMan]

I'm a bit baffled as to how they had a whole separate team focused on just single-player and ended up with such a small product.

 

[Dennis]

First review is up. 8.5/10

I posted a 8/10 review on the previous page.

So far an 8 and 8.5 out of 10. Not really the doom and gloom we have seen in this thread what with the silly 6.5-7/10 predictions in here.

 

[Jb]

Why do you think these reviews went up before tomorrow 6AM?

 

[Varth]

First review is up. 8.5/10

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=269047

It's hard to pin down why [the SP fails to come together] exactly,

No, actually it's not. There's so many reasons you'd be confused as to which one to pick first.

 

[kuYuri]

For those who have the game, how many points (XP) do you need to reach Tier 1 rank for a class?

Anyone?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Not really the doom and gloom we have seen in this thread what with the silly 6.5-7/10 predictions in here.

let's revisit this post in 24 hours. games master and psm australia leading MoH to review gracelaaaand
theres a reason these are up before embargo and are from no name outlets

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Damn.

Where are all the reviews for this game, anyone know when the embargo lifts?

well, between online pass and a 4 hour single player, why do you think the critics have been silenced?


Even worse is that not one of them actually did their job and broke it to get the right info to the consumer BEFORE they buy it. I kinda imagine the penalties must be severe.

"...but they took down Edge, what can we do?"

 

[Cyberia]

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...

It's not from CVG, but Games Master. They had the world exclusive review.

 

[chris0701]

There seems to be some tearing in youtube ps3 first 14 minute video,and framerate and texture isn't great in cutscene.

 

[Revolutionary]

Okay, so if I go and pre-order (or buy if it's been released early) the PS3 version, does anyone know if I'll be able to enter for the PC BF3 beta or is it a "PS3 version = PS3 beta" thing?
...or is that unknown at this point?

 

[Vinterbird]

Okay, so if I go and pre-order (or buy if it's been released early) the PS3 version, does anyone know if I'll be able to enter for the PC BF3 beta or is it a "PS3 version = PS3 beta" thing?
...or is that unknown at this point?

It's chained to whatever platform you buy MoH on.

 

[kuYuri]

It's chained to whatever platform you buy MoH on.

What about the M24 early unlock?

 

[Nizz]

There seems to be some tearing in youtube ps3 first 14 minute video,and framerate and texture isn't great in cutscene.

Got a link?

 

[Revolutionary]

It's chained to whatever platform you buy MoH on.

Fuck.
I want the PS3 version for Frontline and to play with my PS3 friends, but I'm going to be playing BF3 on PC. I guess it's not that big of a deal that I'll be playing the beta on PS3, but I'd obviously rather play it on the PC... damn it all!

 

[Click]

It's not from CVG, but Games Master. They had the world exclusive review.

That explains the 8.5 score...

 

[bloodydrake]

What do you want to know?

still waiting for a more thorough break down of Multi-player.

Is it true there are only 8maps total? Or is there 8maps per mode?
If its 8 maps total how many are available per mode?
Are their going to be day one VIP maps same as BC2 had?

I tend to play slower then most but 4hours is not enough.
8hrs average usually works out to be 10 for me i prefer 12 to 14hr singleplayer. 20hrish for games with no multiplayer.

 

[jkanownik]

It's not from CVG, but Games Master. They had the world exclusive review.

CVG put up their own matching 8.5 review.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=269047

 

[sflufan]

As far as I can tell, the GamesMaster and CVG reviews are the same freakin' reviews!

 

[kuYuri]

Ok, I'm seeing threads at EA forums saying the online pass in MoH is for extra content like VIP pass in BC2, not a requirement for online multiplayer. Someone needs to get their info straight either here or at EA forums. And I think it's here.

Especially when this is the wording on PSN store update:

Medal of Honor – Online Pass ($9.99)
Unlocks the ability to access bonus content, including additional maps. Online Pass is non-transferable. Online features can be discontinued at any time with 30 days’ notice at www.ea.com/2/service-updates

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

still waiting for a more thorough break down of Multi-player.

Is it true there are only 8maps total? Or is there 8maps per mode?
If its 8 maps total how many are available per mode?
Are their going to be day one VIP maps same as BC2 had?

I tend to play slower then most but 4hours is not enough.
8hrs average usually works out to be 10 for me i prefer 12 to 14hr singleplayer. 20hrish for games with no multiplayer.

this info may not be right because like i said earlier, it's tough to play MP right now when a) the ranks are being continously reset; b) the servers go down intermittently
8 maps total.. looks like about 4 per mode. I have no idea whether the VIP maps will be day one, because well - it isn't day one yet.

 

[otake]

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.

Betas are demo's now. Every other game has a beta nowadays and it's so near the games it launch it really can't be a beta.

 

[acevans2]

So much FUD in here. Good thing the biggest negative talking points (Campaign length, online pass, multiplayer similarities) don't make me bat an eye.

Just looked at the trophy list for it and Frontline and I think they both look good. Online trophies aren't completely ridiculous, yay!

 

[TheApatheticOne]

So, despite following the game pretty regularly, I must have missed this "online pass" stuff. Even reading Sony's description, Im still not sure what the $10 dollars gets me. Is it just for updates and any maps they release?

 

[Stallion Free]

So, despite following the game pretty regularly, I must have missed this "online pass" stuff. Even reading Sony's description, Im still not sure what the $10 dollars gets me. Is it just for updates and any maps they release?

It means that some maps are locked away exclusively for people who buy brand new copies of the game. And since it's Dice they will release "new" map packs for people who have the code that are really just the same maps reworked for other modes.

 

[steadfast]

So, despite following the game pretty regularly, I must have missed this "online pass" stuff. Even reading Sony's description, Im still not sure what the $10 dollars gets me. Is it just for updates and any maps they release?

It's the same as the VIP pass in BC2 and Cerberus network in ME2; if you buy new, you've got nothing to worry about