Ben-DutkaAfter the disappointment that was Medal of Honor: Warfighter , EA decided to stick with Battlefield and put the MoH franchise on temporary hiatus.
And in a recent Rock, Paper Shotgun interview with EA chief creative director Rich Hilleman, the publisher believes the problems Medal of Honor face don't stem from a genre issue; rather, "it's an execution problem." He says there are quite simply things they "should've done better."
This is why they're sticking with one great shooter franchise, and that is going to be Battlefield for now. It's just that MoH never had the requisite production talent behind it and until EA assembles that talent, the series will remain on hold. Said Hilleman:
"I think a key part of this is having the right amount of high-quality production talent. And we didn't have the quality of leadership we needed to make [Medal of Honor] great. We just have to get the leadership aligned. We're blessed to have more titles than we can do well today. That's a good problem, frankly. In the long term, we have to make sure we don't kill those products by trying to do them when we can't do them well."
We have no doubt that Medal of Honor can be great again. We just know Warfighter wasn't a completely finished product, so maybe it's best to look forward to a new Battlefield right now.
Related Game(s): Medal of Honor: Warfighter
This is a flawed analysis, I'm playing Warfighter right now and the vision is solid, the product has the potential and I think the leaders even had their heads in the right place. They simply didn't FINISH making the game, it needed another year of development so the problem lies with how much they want to spend on the project and the development time allotted (EA are buttholes about that last one).
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 2/12/2013 11:34:34 PM
I agree. I can tell what they wanted to do, but what they had to do with the time they were given. Imagine something major like CoD being rushed out the door. It'd end up being repetitive and boring in most areas.
Im still waiting for Bad Company 3
same here… I hope they get back the humor from the first one
Thats a shame. Ive enjoyed every MoH game ive played, and disliked (well liked less than MoH) every BF game I've played. Lots of good memories with the MoH series.
I liked the first reboot a couple of years ago. Only problem was in Multiplayer they only had 4 or 5 maps. So you played the same 2 or 3, as it also depended on the game mode you played. Otherwise was a good game. But honestly is pretty much the same game as BF3 but following different units.
The mp was yes, and thats a gimme as Dice handled the mp for the reboot. The sp was much different (aside from ganeplay) as MoH always adds some substance, in an effort to care about the character.
OH PLEASE!
EA warfighter did not plummet because of a "leadership" issue.
it plummeted because YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH TURNING EVERYTHING INTO COD!!!!!!!!!!!!
there, did that get through your thick skulls or do we need to add some flashing neon lights, megaphone, and a sledgehammer?
IF you let the developers stick to their tactical patient gameplay of the reboot, and gave it a extra 6 months at least of development time, it would of done extremely well!
sorry EA, but warfighters failure is YOUR fault, not the developers "lack of leadership"!
as the saying goes, only a bad tradesmen blames his tools!
It failed because they released a game that wasn't finished.
EA does this, they try to force devs into 2 year developement cycles and clearly it doesn't work well for them.
Also trying to copy CoD in the layout of the SP campaign didn't help. If people want a CoD like experience they will play CoD. They need a different angle to provoke people to get both.
EA hire me and pay me millions to tell you this so you don't keep f%#@^ing up.
Ummm, CoD and MoH sp are nothing alike. One is all about the flash the other tries to supply more substance and a realistic approach.
I haven't played this game bigrailer so I'm going purely off of what I have seen. I know you really liked this game and I'm not bashing it or anything like that.
What I heard was instead of following the formula that the first MoH followed this MoH went for a more micheal bay explosion approach. But that is only what I heard.
The main point was I think that they rushed this out. Some people had terrible bugs and glitches, and others like yourself had none. The game would have done better to stay in the cooker for a couple months to a year I think to really polish it up.
Absolutely correct Mr. Hilleman, the problem is poor leadership. And it starts at the very top of EA.
MoH:Warfighter was a solid game – I bought and played it on day one, and while it was clearly rushed in places, it was playable, on the whole enjoyable, and brought something new to both SP and MP. Why it got critically savaged is beyond me. Only thing it needed was a bit more time, but it was clear that Danger Close weren't resourced to produce the game in the time they had. And, as wackazoa well says, that's an issue with EA as a whole, not Danger Close ;).
Like bf3 – warfighter is a vastly superior experience on the pc – the ps3 version is decent but nothing special