The lights are on
Veteran Member - Level 11
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
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
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
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
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
Call Of Duty: Black Ops: Declassified
Realms of Ancient War
South Park: Tenorman's Revenge
Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor
Equal to Medal of
Dungeon Hunter: Alliance
Epic Mickey: Power of Illusion
Fable: The Journey
Silent Hill: Book Of Memories
Spirit Camera: The Cursed Memoir
Better than Medal
Kinect Star Wars (5.5)
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.
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.