Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Mediocre Reviews Of Medal Of Honor Cause EA Stock To Fall
firefly2003
Member UncommonPosts: 2,527
Electronic Arts really wanted Medal of Honor to be the next Call of Duty. It had been heavily hyped, and the company even said it would get "dangerously close" to outdoing Activision's juggernaut. Unfortunately for them, it turns out that the game isn't very good. The gaming media aren't the only ones taking note, as EA's stock dropped 6% today.
According to Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter, "Shares [are] down because apparently some investors are disappointed by these early reviews." Tough news for the publisher, as they clearly expected the MOH reboot to be a big part of their holiday lineup.
http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/10/12/medal-of-honor-causes-stock-drop.aspx
Comments
If this was the thinking they had (competing with COD) then why would they include the Taliban as refferenced in another post by you, no one thought that some Americans would not play the game simply based on that fact? I'm not one who is all up arms over it but it really is a curious decision.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Been playing the multiplayer a bunch since release and looking at the reviews especially IGNs 6.0 it is apparent that they reviewed it expecting it to be Call of Duty with the Medal of Honor name. MoH is a healthy mix of elements from Bad Company and Call of Duty with a few of its own unique aspects added in. I love CoD big time, but it is pretty blatent that a lot of reviews are so incredibly biased.
It just launched today. How the hell can anyone claim the game is good or bad just yet? In a week, maybe. 2 weeks sure. But day 1? I havne't gotten a chance to play it yet and I'm sure I'm not alone. Payday is this weekend. I'll be picking it up.
It's fair to say that they were taking a big risk by referencing the Taliban, but they were probably hoping that people would see it as "edgy" and "modern", so I can't say it was a totally bad idea, just a risky one that ended up back firing. Sure, maybe they should have done more market research to find out how it was going to go before it was too late.
(shrugs) All I know to me its a video game and that's it there are too many uptight sensitive politically correct #$%@s in this world today I remember when they made a big stink about the airport scenario in COD MW2 killining all those innocent civilians as terrorists (which by my own admittance was very fun) they will get over it and all will be forgotten in a few months until the next big social nono in a game comes around in their eyes.
It's a FPS... you can beat the single player like 5 to 10 hours, plus Review sites get a copy in advance, normally.
I had this Pre-ordered awhile back, which got me in to the multiplayer beta.
Let's face it multiplayer is the real reason I was buying it...
I didn't find it fun, but I did give it a chance and keep playing it for a about a month before I canceled the pre-order.
I was hoping they changed something... but soon I realised there was nothing they could have done to make it fun, for me, the core of the game was set and wasn't going to change.
I had this Pre-ordered awhile back, which got me in to the multiplayer beta.
Let's face it multiplayer is the real reason I was buying it...
I didn't find it fun, but I did give it a chance and keep playing it for a about a month before I canceled the pre-order.
I was hoping they changed something... but soon I realised there was nothing they could have done to make it fun, for me, the core of the game was set and wasn't going to change.
Fair enough. However, I remember beating the CoD single player campaign in a day as well. I think that's just a given with FPS games. Guess I'll have to wait and see how the multiplayer is. From the videos it looks visually better than CoD, at least to me. I'll make my judgement after the weekend.
I wonder if those reviewers are so biased toward CoD and BF2 gameplay though. It does happen, I've even been guilty of judging a game because it didn't play like the one I was used to. Like I did with GW1 when it launched not playing like WoW. I missed a good 3 years of a great game because of my bias. Now I'm playing GW1 and wondering what I was thinking and actually enjoying the fact that it plays differently than WoW.
I enjoyed the beta a lot more then CoD4.
If I were to buy a next fps (since I'm only playing BC2/GA for a shooter), I'd buy MoH. Wouldn't touch MW2 with a 2 mile pole.
I think the realism in MW went out the window. People bunny hop to victory all the time in that game. The game just isn't fun for trying to be so realistic. And it isn't realistic in the least.
But anyways, to the topic.
I heard a bird flew by the EA offices, and that caused their stock to drop. Or some homeless man found a penny, and that caused it. One or the other.
Black Ops is out in under a month, and Treyarch seems to have added/fixed all the things that IW did to make MW2 an exercise in masochistic self-mutilation. MOH wasn't even a blip on my radar.
The only two names from EA that can produce genuinely great stuff are BioWare and DICE. I'm not surprised.
While I havent played the game yet I still have to see it in action before I decide all I see ware multiplayer videos Ill probably write a review one I get to play it they should base the score on fan scores
Well, just got the game, played the single player campaign a little bit. It's OK. Same as any other single player FPS campaign really.
After playing 3 matches in Multiplayer though I'm hooked. It just has a very fun and hectic feel to it and it was just plain fun. I'm addicted to it already. More so than I was for CoD: MW2
I just don't see any reason why I should play this game, which is clearly trying imitate Call of Duty when Call of Duty: Black ops will come out in a month with just a lot more content. Call of Duty Black Ops will have singleplayer, co - op, Zombie survival co - op and more multiplayer game types.
It will probably play better too.
Funny cause this is what I thought about the first CoD as MoH was in first and saw Cod being a cheap version of MoH but got improved over time and Cod did became the better one out of the 2.
The first CoD I felt the croughing was really terrible.
As for this new MoH I have not played it, and only base a game experiance opinion on my own playing experiance, unless a reviewer would be a very close friend of mine who knowns what I like and dislike about games.
And this taliban issue I see reviewers having is just plain stupid, geuss we shouldn't have war games with any country or side involved. Or perhaps wait another 30/40 years before it may be accepteble to be placed inside a GAME!!
The only thing that really bothers me with the CoD series is this nonsens with having zombies in it, I mean seriously zombies?? common....just because zombie's are somewhat hyped with this generation does it mean we really need zombies in a wargame?, Unfortunaly and obviously I see that that portion of the game seems to be very succesfull, but personaly still find it very stupid. There are plenty of games zombies fits right in, just feel it totally makes no sense in putting it into a game like CoD.
Sadly the multiplayer is the only bright spot for me when it comes to MoH.
Such a shame.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
If I remember my MoH history, the team that made MoH Allied Assault were messed about by EA so they left to form Infinity Ward and produced CoD for Activision which turned into a successful series. More recently, those same people were messed about by Activision and have returned to EA under the name Respawn. I don't think they'll produce another MoH type game though but will focus on a new IP.
By the by, my clan is still playing MoHAA multiplayer 8 years later. Still a blast.
EDIT: Also, what the hell were EA thinking by initially including Taliban?? Did no one, not one single person in development or management, think too soon? I wouldn't be surprised if the bad rep has contributed a hell of a lot of the poor sales.
I got a copy of the game all I can say is it is pretty mediocre it looks like it was made for the consoles as a PC gamer im dissapointed the visuals where horrible and the gameplay generic
That's pretty easy, look on FF XIV here on it's launch day.
Journalists usually gets a copy earlier to try it out.
And while it might be fun I am not surprised if it isn't so good, EA spend too much time making a few games over and over instead of making fun games, like they once actually did for Amiga. That was what made them big, not buying up companies and re releasing sports games every year with little difference.
I am so old that I remember when you got exited when you saw EA on a game, that was a long time ago.
I don't see why that should bother you, considering that the zombie mode is completely seperate from the singleplayer mode. They are not related at all.
I like it, it adds something silly to the franchise. It is still the best survival mode in any game in my opinion.
they need to make a new ultima thats what they were good at no some shitty sports game
The Taliban issue was cooked up to build attention and hype, just like the fake protests against Dante's Inferno.
I think the drop in stock has more to do with EA's basketball game they made for console's....I think they had to pull the plug on it because it was so bad.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
YAY
Maybe this will teach EA to actually develop ideas of their own instead of always buying some weak company or marketting some group's idea and branding it under their own name. People who work at EA know they were stupid to do so in the beginning.
Westwood studios? They were bought out, but then later when they had enough when they were shutdown...they remade themselves into Petroglyph. System Shock II? Sorry, but that was Warren Spector's vision...who was the man speaking about fusing roleplaying and first person gameplay...(made DeusEx later...you know....AFTER HAVING LEFT EA GAMES)...
When they were making their sports series of games, after acquiring arcade companies and changing existing code....after a while...they couldn't stand working under EA...so they joined SEGA and managed to steal market share with the SEGA SPORTS series.
The Sims anyone? Sorry, but that was Will Wright from Maxis who was also the Author to the SimCity Games (as well as Spore) and wanted a more personal simulation game. ^_^. Need for Speed? Sorry but that EA canada tried to make the first one...It wasn't that great and then when Black Box Games demolished EA Canada...EA simply bought BlackBox Games and renamed them to EA Black Box..
EA publishes titles much more than just "Develop" titles..and most of their publishing deals require a developer to consider them more to be co-developers. Warhammer online? Guess what...EA purchased Mythic Entertainment while they were DEVELOPING Warhammer Online...
Bioware anyone...Its amazing how bioware started and once again it was the usual...."We can't make a game, so we will buy out your studio and then flood it under our money"
EA games amazes me. For the last 15 years, they have not written a single game on their own central teams without stealing or buying out someone elses work. Never have EA itself ever made a product from scratch.
Unlike Blizzard, Epic Games, ID, ArenaNet and many other companies who have a track record of actually DEVELOPING their own games, marketting them and releasing them and making those games from scratch....As far as Programming Teams go, EA only has strength because of the individual studios they bought while they had titles in production. Some smaller studio makes a game, and wow "its an EA game" ^_^
I am happy their stock went down...Maybe people are smartening up regarding the same garbage...being rehashed a number of different ways.