Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening
Home
stats
  • 6515
  • 729
  • 124
  • 4
  • 2232
Friends

MoH: Warfighter – The People Versus The Video Game Industry…

Moderator
by Saint on November 20, 2012 at 07:43 PM
1,629 Views
13 3

Injustice seems like such a harsh word to describe how I felt when I read review after review for Medal of Honor Warfighter from the many different video game journalists who evaluated the game, especially when so much of the feedback from the community was positive...or should I say, not as negative. I couldn't help but think of a court proceeding...

The bailiff steps forward and announces, "All rise. The Honorable Judge Phoenix Wright (he was recently appointed) presiding. Case number MH-W-2012, the People versus The Video Game Industry, one count defamation of character."


I always chuckle when I read a user review posted by a disgruntled fan of a particular game. The review will sometimes result to name calling, accusations of drug use...and in the most extreme cases, demands to cancel subscriptions (if applicable) and vows of never returning to the company's website who posted the review. What I realize though, it isn't so funny when it happens to you. When you read a review that you couldn't disagree more with. Then what do you do?

Now I'd like to think I'm a mature adult, above name calling and slandering those who I, on any other given day, admire and respect. But I'm also a passionate gamer devoted to certain principles and particular games; and when I vehemently disagree with something I have been known to resort to blogging about it to voice those concerns. In case it isn't obvious it's probably worth stating, I realize the audience I might reach is significantly smaller than those who read these same industry reviews...and yes, I'm aware that saying "devoted to certain principles" can be loosely translated to mean I am biased. It's true, I am. I am biased towards video games, especially military shooters...that essentially emulate or capture what the military does in a positive light and pays tribute to those accomplishments and sacrifices. Well, in response to all of the opposing views, the following blog was born.

As I discuss the stark contrast between the video game industry's professional reviewers and those opinions offered up by the regular every day gamers like you and me, please allow me to introduce a concept that I know exists in the military and might even exist in the civilian workforce too. As gamers, when we hear the term "headshot" we instinctively associate it with a shooter game where "one player scores a hit, usually fatal, in the cranial region of another player, real or otherwise". But in the realm of military jargon, at least in my branch and field...and at the management level, a headshot takes on an entirely different meaning.

In my professional experience a headshot is a label associated with the actions taken to make a sharp point especially when it is to ensure someone isn't competitive for promotion; typically it is a mark or comment made on a performance evaluation such that whoever sees or reads it knows this individual has issues and shouldn't be promoted or retained. It can be subtle, the person it refers to might not even be aware, but to those who know where to look and how to interpret the sign, it is typically a fatal blow to that person's career - it's accurate and deadly.

Imagine if you will...you are transferred from one department to another and your old boss bumps into your new boss and the new boss says, "Hey...HR sent me one of your former employees to help us out...what can you tell me about him?" And the old boss says something like, "He has a lot of potential."

Ah...the ole "he has a lot of potential" kiss of death. It sounds kind of positive, right? For those that don't know, potential means the following:

po·ten·tial

adjective

1. possible, as opposed to actual.

2. capable of being or becoming.

So in this case one can conclude it's either possible you're a good worker or you're capable of being a good worker but you're not necessarily a good worker at the moment. Not a very strong endorsement, eh? In my experience...that's a generic example of a headshot. Regardless of how good of a first impression you make with your new boss, you still have this negative mark against you...and that is often hard to overcome (but not impossible).

I say all of that so when I ask this question, you understand my position...

Did the video game industry give Electronic Arts a headshot?

And if so, why?

Now it might seem like I am specifically targeting Game Informer's review published by Matt Bertz that awarded the game an abysmal score of 5.0 out of 10. I think we can all agree that score can be classified as abysmal, can't we? Well, I'm not attacking Matt Bertz or his review. I happen to really like his work. I have analyzed the score as I try to come to grips with it and understand it, but I respect the integrity and capability of Matt and if that's his score, then so be it. Besides, the truth is, the collective whole of the video game industry's professional reviewers (the one's getting paid to do it) overwhelmingly reported similar scores as demonstrated by this quick snapshot I pulled from Wikipedia. So it wasn't just Matt Bertz, it was nearly the entire industry.

This is wildly different from a majority of the user reviews I've read here at Game Informer; from discussions I've had with a handful of gamers; and perhaps even more than that, my own personal experience with the game. Now, I've already admitted I'm biased, so take this for what it's worth, but in 25+ years of being a gamer, I don't think I've ever disagreed more strongly with a review of a game than with the industry's assessment of Medal of Honor Warfighter. Then again, I'm not the expert. I'm just a simple gamer with a slanted view. Guilty as charged.

If it were just me that saw it so differently I'd be compelled to keep my mouth shut and go play some Halo 4 or Black Ops II...but having witnessed the disparity between perspectives and seeing the damage it has caused with the reception of the game, I am so inclined to at least mention it.

So, I'm here to discuss how and why the game scored so low and whether it was justified or if it was indeed a headshot, the video game journalists sending a message back to EA. My goal is to remain as diplomatic and fair as I can be with my assessment and remind everybody that these are my views which may or may not differ from your own views.

How can we justify the low score?

First and foremost, maybe the game really did suck and deserved the low scores. I don't think it's as easy as that though because of the number of gamers who played it, enjoyed the game and questioned the review scores. Compare Medal of Honor Warfighter to other games from 2012 that scored worse, that scored the same and even one that scored better...and tell me if the scores were fair and justified.

Worse than Medal of Honor Warfighter:

007 Legends

Amy

Call Of Duty: Black Ops: Declassified

Dragon's Lair

Fable Heroes

Neverdead

Postal III

Rabbids Land

Realms of Ancient War

South Park: Tenorman's Revenge

Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor

 

Equal to Medal of Honor Warfighter:

Dungeon Hunter: Alliance

Epic Mickey: Power of Illusion

Fable: The Journey

Mugen Souls

Ridge Racer

Silent Hill: Book Of Memories

Spirit Camera: The Cursed Memoir

ZombiU

 

Better than Medal of Warfighter:

Kinect Star Wars (5.5)

Seriously?

So, there are other plausible theories to consider. The game shipped with a pretty hefty day of release patch amounting to roughly 1GB of ones and zeros to make the game run better. It fixed all sorts of nasty bugs and glitches. Now if I played the game pre-patch and experienced technical difficulties I could see taking this into consideration and holding the game accountable for this practice. But that's not what the reviewers really hammered the game for. Patches typically fix issues like graphics, balancing, or stability issues but they really aren't there to shore up the story or make the missions more entertaining, which the bulk of the complaints seemed to focus in on. Do I think Warfighter scored as low as it did because of the patch? Not likely, certainly not in every instance. But it certainly didn't help.

 Another interesting possibility is the notion that since EA didn't provide any advance copies to the professional reviewers and media outlets prior to the official release as has become standard practice (this is documented), the industry retaliated by scoring the game so harshly. By not providing advanced copies, this means we had the opportunity to play the game the same day the experts got it...and the same day their competition got it. This resulted in everybody scrambling to get their official reviews posted. One could argue the demands of plowing through a game at an accelerated pace to finish the game (they all did...finish the game...didn't they?) just to turn around and hammer out a review under the pressure of a deadline could have impacted the experience and enjoyment of the game. Do I think reviewers not getting access to a game before everybody else affect review scores? I honestly don't know but I can't see how it would help, that's for sure.

There is another possibility clawing at my brain that I hope with all my heart is not the case, but it's there. I've already admitted when it comes to Warfighter, I am biased. I am in the military and I enjoy military shooters. Period. Any flaws or hiccups with the game I'm more inclined to overlook or dismiss because I have my Red, White and Blue blinders on. And while I say that, I live in a nation where the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have divided us; the support having subsided long ago. While I'd like to think the support of the military would never falter or waiver, the truth is it has. I know this because I have experienced it. Could it be this game is too interwoven into real world operations that many who are dissatisfied with the wars, and the politics of war, somehow associate the two entities ...as if liking Warfighter and its tribute to the military somehow endorses or condones that we still have a physical presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gosh, I sure hope not. The people I've talked to at work seem to like it...some of the people I've talked to online are former military, or pro-military and they like it. But having read tweets prior to the presidential election from a number of personalities who reviewed the game and scored it poorly, clearly there are some who are not as supportive of the military, and that worries me. Did Warfighter score so badly because it was overly patriotic?

In closing, I'll draw my final conclusion. If Medal of Honor Warfighter is as bad as the critics say it is, then how come all, or at least a fair amount, of the preview coverage which included feedback from those who actually played it was for the most part...positive? Did the game somehow get worse overnight? Google the previews and you'll see...you'll see some of the features that were praised in the previews were scorned in the actual reviews of the game (like driving the vehicles).

I don't know if the video game industry gave EA a headshot over the day of release patch, over the fact they didn't get advanced copies of the game, or for some other reason...OR if they truly thought Warfighter was "boring and unpolished" "brazenly unremarkable" and "dropped the ball", but I do know this...EA got the message loud and clear. It's just a shame they shot the messenger to make their point.

 

Roger Out.

 

NOTE: For an alternative perspective on Medal of Honor Warfighter from a Redneck, White Trash, Blue Collar American turned Navy guy...I humbly submit a link to my personal review of the game.

 

Filed under:
Comments
sort by date:
  • by Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 09:11 PM
    I do admit, for your sections of games rated worse, same, and better than MOHW- I would have rated them all worse than MOH. Quite honestly however, I did not enjoy this iteration of my once beloved franchise as much as the last (also created by Danger Close, but with DICE's help). While both have their flaws, I still stand by that being the better game. For all of the excitement this one provided me, in the long run, it still shied just close to a seven in my book... While it is by no means terrible, it simply wasn't as impressive as they built it up to be. I do also, of course, grade a lot harder generally than most people happen to (and sadly that will always be the same, as that is one way I will not change- unless of course you have some monetary balance to send my way... ;-) In all seriousness however...

    Well argued sir. Well argued indeed.
  •
    by Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM
    Personally, I don't know why either.

    I am someone who liked the singleplayer well enough and LOVES the multiplayer despite a glitch or two (really just in multiplayer being unable to vault over the sandbags in the map on the hillside, and not being able to shoot through most trees). Though I, too, may be biased.

    There are absolutely a couple of things like the day 1 patch the contribute to the unprofessional release of the game and could subsequently result in a poor review score. Here's another:

    http://www.offdutygamers.com/2012/11/warfighter-leader-removed-before-launch/

    I read a post from a moderator of the MoH:W forms on Battlelog--a Danger Close employee--that verified the story in the link above (or at least the disappearance of the executive producer portion of it). Needless to say, there was some serious internal drama going on and this may(MAY) have actually caused the hellstorm and lag in game quality in the first place.

    I've read articles before(Game Informer specifically, though to an extent also public opinion) where people bashed EA for destroying good development teams. It would seem that the same thing has happened here. The same post by that moderator i mentioned before indicated 4, or so, other employees that have left Danger Close since the debacle. Reviewers might be likely to denounce this game due to the unprofessional problems encountered BUT ALSO seeing history repeat itself (or so one might assume) as EA once again tears away at a solid group of devs.

    Maybe EA didn't have much of a say in relieving Goodrich. I would like to think that this is the case because he seemed passionate about the franchise and the upcoming game. This is purely a hypothetical, but maybe EA had to forfeit him or others to government officials who needed to know what he found out from the operatives that collaborated on MoH:W. It sounds a lot like conspiracy theory, but who knows.

    I also agree that I saw a lot of positive early coverage of game details. I'm not sure how late those articles were written, since there were multiple issues of game informer that had positive or neutral-ish remarks. They may have all been written before the date of the following interview. Here's a video source of Goodrich in an interview with Gamespot.

    http://www.gamespot.com/medal-of-honor-warfighter/videos/a-matter-of-authenticity-6381457/

    Goodrich argues that MoH strives for authenticity (as revealed in the video specifically within the singleplayer setting of storytelling) but that he's also selling an entertainment product that people will play only if it's fun which explains some of the more arcade-like multiplayer modes. All valid remarks, and he even goes so far as to admit/praise Arma for having more realistic multiplayer. Tom McShea from gamespot argues in the article that the multiplayer is not authentic because of health regeneration and respawning (an argument that has existed forever). Much of the debate is nothing new and seems somewhat pointless as they pound the same points to death which don't exactly contradict each other because they comment on two different portions of the game...the circular debate continues.
    The point here is that other reviewers might react negatively to a lead developer confronting a reviewer for doing his job--aka having an opinion. This could have caused a PR meltdown at EA, who wouldn't want consumer lines being drawn over such a debate. Eventually when reviews were released other reviewers might want to have Gamespot's back, so to speak.
  •
    by Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 10:41 PM
    2 things

    - Its not uncommon to find negativity missing from a preview. Editors want to give the developers the benefit of a doubt when it comes to an unreleased product. I noticed it long ago right here with GI. Weeks or days before a game is released one of the editors previews it. They mention a few concerns they have and simply say "Hopefully these issues are addressed before release" Which is impossible for a game only weeks away from being in stores because it is, at the very moment, being printed, boxed and shipped. Then when review time comes along, those minor issues are put under a microscope and thoroughly brought to light.

    - The few people I've heard say positive things about Warfighter have been current and ex military. I've concluded that Danger close must have done a phenomenal job in aiming for the authenticity they advertised. I'm not a vet. But my 4 years in military school and my own personal research into military history has shown me that civilians have no idea how to get into the mind set of a military member. The calculated and abbreviated jargon; the no nonsense get *** done attitude; the precision and efficiency of everything a military does is completely foreign. We try to understand it as best we can but we end up fantasizing and filling in the blanks.

    With the games we love, we relate to them in one way or another. I believe the negative reviews are that the authors simply can't relate. "Why do they relate with call of duty?" Because its like "a Michael Bay movie"!!!! Something they relate too! Something familiar! That of course is double edged, because any seat of your pants moment in that came would assuredly be compared to COD. Why? BECAUSE WE NEED TO RELATE TO SOMETHING!
  •
    by Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 11:39 PM
    Hearing your perspective on Warfighter is what really counts, Saint. You know what the military is like since you've served (which I am thankful for), and if you say Danger Close did a pretty great job of getting some realism into this FPS, then I believe you. I'm glad you liked the game.

    I actually purchased it on release day and have played it for a couple of hours. So far, I'd say the game is somewhere around a 7.5 for me. The graphics, gameplay, and sound (especially the music) of the game are great. However, I'm personally having a hard time relating to the characters, following the story, and think a couple of the unique gameplay elements are just downright boring and uninspired (this video humorously describes one of them...pardon the language: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ew-awbsNw). Despite the negatives, I think the game is an overall fine package. It's nothing special in my eyes so far, but like you said, I would not consider it a flawed game.

    Hopefully I can get a review up as well when I finally get out of school. :) Thanks for the great blog, Saint!
  •
    by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 02:54 AM

    I haven't played Warfighter, or the last Medal of Honor, so I can't weigh in on what I think. However, I can say I felt this way just this month. Resident Evil 6, while Game Informer gave it a good score, many...many did not.

    I felt like I was playing a different game entirely. And really enjoyed it.

  • by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 09:02 AM

    Medal of Honor Warfighter is my favorite shooter of all time. I bought the care package edition of Black Ops 2, mostly because the sweet helicopter was to hard for me to pass up, but haven't even put the game in yet. I am devoted to getting that 100% on warfighter. Love that game and as some one who is a little overly patriotic (Love you brothers and sisters, all 4 in or were in the military) but this game was amazing. The missions had a great mix to them, the online play is great and I like unlocking the characters. I had no idea the reviews were so bad and well I will simply but it this way, I have said this a lot so sorry.

    Until they show the system and criteria they use for reviews, I dont trust any review that isnt from someone I know personally.

  • by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 09:17 AM

    Another great blog Saint. I have the game, I've had it since a day after launch, and so far I'm not liking it. I haven't played it much though, so I'll still give it a chance, but I don't think EA is the reason it got low scores. Just look at ME3, another EA game released this year. Reviewers loved that game, and for understandable reasons. I'm sure they weren't biased or anything like that. Then again, the reviewers (at least at GI) were different. Maybe it's just shooter fatigue hat got them though. I dunno'.

  •
    by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM

    Great commentary Saint. I read your and Noobtoobin8er's feedback and reviews on MoH:W and found myself agreeing with you guys. It's a flawed game, but I didn't find it anywhere near a 5. The campaign (and the last MoH's campaign) continue to be my favorite single player FPS experiences currently available.

    Interestingly (or sadly,) I saw a similar correlation when looking at reviews of Act of Valor (and the MoH:W campaign was very similar it tone and content.) I absolutely loved the film - another mainstream piece of entertainment that enlisted SEALs to ensure they made it authentic - and most negative reviews simply dismissed it as propoganda or pro-war, rather than recoginizing it as pro-military, or offering any substantial criticism.

    I can understand that a lot of people are dissatisfied after a decade of engagement overseas, but at some point people need to be able to separate the war from the warriors.

    Again, great blog.

  •
    by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 01:44 PM

    I agree that games are often shot down without much care or consideration for what they are. For you, it's Medal of Honor, and in my case it was Syndicate. It's why I take personal player accounts into consideration over most 'official' reviews.

  •
    by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 02:31 PM

    I'm just gonna hazard a guess here and say this is probably better than Kinect Star Wars...

  • Staff
    by Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 04:02 PM
    Interesting blog, Saint. The one thing I would point out is that the user review average for Warfighter on Metacritic is between 5.2 and 5.6 depending on the platform, which is virtually identical to the critical response. I think you're right, though, that those who serve in the military have a much more favorable opinion of the game. I don't think that means anyone is biased or trying to make a statement; I think it's just connecting to veterans in a way that's different from the average gamer, which is naturally making them enjoy it more. That's not a bad thing, however, and makes user reviews from veterans like you even more helpful to like-minded users. :)
  • Mod
    by Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 02:18 AM

    This is a great -- and necessary -- perspective. Why? Because in general it highlights an important truth that too many forget. Namely, media reviews are NOT objective. With all due respect to Game Informer staff, whom I do believe are the least biased, reviewers are people too with their own experiences, beliefs and preconceived notions as anyone else. Did the issues you describe contribute to their professional opinion? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's hard to say. But as much as you admit to bias, media reviewers have bias too, and these days there's less of a stigma attached to that. So, in my opinion. all the issues you raise likely had some influence however small. So long as others speak out when they disagree (respectfully, one can only hope), consumers can only benefit from the breadth of opinion.

  • Mod
    by Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM
    @John Wrek - Yeah, I only put those in as a comparison. I'm still shocked Kinect Star Wars scored higher. You bring up an interesting point about the objectivity of reviews and that's whether it should be evaluated on its own merits and whether you enjoyed it or not. That's a hard ability to master. For example...I caught some heat because I didn't like Skyrim, but I rated very well and predicted it would win GOTY. I dunno, I guess I'm able to evaluate a game whether I enjoy it or not...I can still evaluate what it has to offer.

    @CruciformSWORD - Yup. Agree. I'm certainly not defending the patch, but I do think it is interesting to consider: who cares whether the patch is available day one or day one hundred and one. If I wait 6 months to get a new game, I'm going to expect an update or two...so why would I get upset if on day one there was a patch? All I really care about is when I turn the game on, does it work. That is an interesting story and thanks for sharing. I vaguely remember hearing about that. That was an awesome response...thanks.

    @Warbuff - Oh, I agree about the previews...I've seen and heard that before. But it just seems odd when features that are specifically praised are then condemned. I thought adding the vehicle scenes in the game was brilliant, and several of the previews indicated the same - but then some of the reviewers bashed them for having it.

    Danger Close did do a phenomenal job with the authenticity. Apparently that's not very popular...which isn't all that surprising. Games like the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six were never widely popular but were often criticized for their degree of realism and difficulty. You do make some great points about the military to civilian translation and interpretation.

    @DrJoeystein - Hah, well thanks...but unfortunately I don't really influence whether people buy the game or not. I can appreciate if the reviewers didn't like the game, but rating it as low as they did negatively impacts sales, and in my opinion...this time it was unwarranted. I think 7.5 is a fair score, and if that's what it got from the reviewers, I doubt we would be having this conversation. Funny video...also funny how all games like CoD have scenes like that, but MoH changes it up and adds some variety to it...yet gets mocked for it. Thanks for the feedback.

    @Masterassassin - It's a good point...I saw some scores and then I saw some other and they were so different I had to double check and make sure they were for the same game. Makes you wonder, heh heh.

    @Coachscorner00 - Not my favorite, but definitely top five I'd say. I'm not getting into Black Ops II as much as I'd hoped, but I am playing it. I agree with you, heh heh...thought it was great.

    @Companion Cube - Thanks. So the question becomes, should a game you play that you don't really like get a good review score or a bad one? Yeah, I get what you're saying about EA... I dunno, I guess I look at it as there are the publishers, the developers and the media. And in theory they all get a long at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean there can't be issues between them that causes friction. All of this is a business, and while I'm not one of those who thinks publishers can buy good scores from the media, I do think publishers can engage in behavior that is offputting to the media that they will have less tolerance for.

    @markus1142 - Thanks. Appreciate the feedback. No, you're absolutely right about Act of Valor. That is great illustration and perfect discussion point. Thanks for sharing.

    @Paradigmthefallen - I agree - I am far more likely to value a user review, especially if its from someone I've come to appreciate their views.

    @Harry - I KNOW RIGHT!

    @Jeff Marchiafava - Thank you kind sir for taking the time to comment. That means a lot, and of course I always appreciate your perspective. I see what you're saying about the Metacritic averages, but given there were quite a few zeroes figured into the equation (and a few tens too) , I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are. There are definitely more positive reviews than negative though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who thinks reviews are rigged or bought...but I do think it's possible for reviewers to be lenient or harsh with their reviews. I'm not defending Warfighter as a perfect or near perfect game...only that it's not "flawed" and worse than Star Wars Kinect. I look at comparable games and most seem to score 2-3 points higher than Warfighter but have many of the same flaws that Warfighter was hit on.

    @Kyle Wadsworth - Thanks buddy. Yeah, I don't think they're objective, but should they be? Or do the try to be? I know the review process has long been debated and I'm normally very supportive and tolerant of the varying standards, but man...this one really got me...I mean, we're talking a five. A good point - I'm sure everybody has bias...
  •
    by Friday, November 23, 2012 at 02:02 PM

    Great blog. Also, Operation raccoon city got just as bad reviews, same with Neverdead. the reviews are what have held me off of the game, but after christmas, I might check it out. Two cousins say its awesome

  •
    by Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM

    I personally didn't like the game, but I think that's merely through comparing it to Black Ops II and Spec Ops: The Line, two games this year that I think did the military shooter far better. It was solid in a lot of ways (graphics, weapons), broken in a lot of others (AI, UI, linearity), but I know plenty of people that love the multiplayer and enjoyed it so I can't fault them for enjoying something I didn't.

  •
    by Sunday, November 25, 2012 at 01:16 PM

    @Saint, you managed to take a blighted, biased viewpoint; you made this blog worth reading.  You have a way of making the hated series, something that is food for thought as to why the people rated the game the way they did. You  also show a viewpoint that is one from an understanding, informed, and passionate gamer. As always I think you did an excellent job being modest AND neutral for such a beloved series as this, no?