EA dismisses poor MOH review scores

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 13 October, 2010

"This is a marathon not a sprint."

EA has defended shooter Medal of Honor after critics claimed "lukewarm" review scores led to a six per cent share drop in the company.

EA described the launch of the game as a "marathon not a sprint" as Metacritic showed a 74 per cent review score average.

"Critics' scores are highly subjective," EA told The Los Angeles Times.

"The game had the highest pre-orders in the 11-year history of the Medal of Honor franchise. This is an essentially big achievement considering Medal of Honor has been dormant for several years. This is the first year in rebooting the franchise. Medal of Honor is part of a larger EA strategy to take share in the shooter category.

"This is a marathon not a sprint - today's Medal of Honor launch represents a step forward in that race."

Critics have argued that Medal of Honor's review scores failed to match up to those traditionally gained by Activision's Call of Duty series – a franchise EA's shooter is pitched squarely against.

But some analysts have questioned the suggestion that MOH's review scores led to the drop in share value.

MKM's Eric Handler said the drop might simply have been the result of "some of the air being let out of the balloon following a nice run in the shares and high expectations for the Medal of Honor reboot".

Tom awarded the controversial Danger Close Games and DICE-developed shooter 8/10 in Eurogamer's review.

Medal of Honor will release on the UK on Friday.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (60) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • tomjoadsghost #1 2 years ago

    That was quick, its almost as if they've been on the defensive ever since it was first announced.

  • supermaniacs #2 2 years ago

    yet they continue to boast when FIFA gets a high metascore!!

  • AllenSpawn #3 2 years ago

    "The game had the highest pre-orders in the 11-year history of the Medal of Honor franchise.

    More people on the interweb these days and a battlefield 3 beta might have helped that methinks

  • CharlieStCloud #4 2 years ago

    So, are 7-8/10 scores considered 'poor' these days or something...?

  • Gambit1977 #5 2 years ago

    This is a big u-turn from 'if MOH doesn't get blah blah then we won't make any more'.

  • Shikasama #6 2 years ago

    hah, when Fifa does well on Metacritic its the shit, when MoH doesn't do very well Metacritic is just shit.

  • Freek #7 2 years ago

    The problem the game has is that it's lacking it's own identity. Being a solid 7-8 game that's allot like 2 other excelent games already out isn't going to cutt it. If you want CoD you are going to play CoD, if you want Battlefield, you go play that.
    MoH being a bitt of a mix of the two makes it irrelevant. Solid as it may be, you need more then that.
    It's needs to be it's own franchise with it's own reason to exist beyond "we want some of that CoD money".

  • butler` #8 2 years ago

    "This is a marathon not a sprint."

    and

    "Critics' scores are highly subjective,"

    yeah... about that...

  • Skandalle #9 2 years ago

    Oh cmon, the reviews aren't that bad!

  • clarkwgriswold #10 2 years ago

    So if your game gets 7/10 or less its "poor"? What's the point of review scores then?

  • mattniche #11 2 years ago

    I've not played MoH but 'The company described the launch of the game as a "marathon not a sprint"' just tells me they're thinking 'we know it's a bit poor but the next one'll be better!'

    Bit odd.

    It does look pretty poor though, from that 15 minute video on here yesterday, and the review read like a five to me.

  • LazyNinjaUk #12 2 years ago

    From what reviews ive read, they all seem to take fault with the fact that the single player is only 5-6 hours long.

    When you're expected to pay £40 for a game, you kind of want something that's going to last longer than an afternoon to complete.

    Ill reserve full judgement until ive played the finished game, as the beta felt pretty underwhelming.

  • Freek #13 2 years ago

    The point of reviews hasn't changed, but when there's three games on top of the genre, two of them 9/10 and one 7 out 10, wich are you going to buy?
    It's such a competative genre with verry loyal fans that invest allot of time in thier favorite game that you are either the best or you go home.

  • MiniAmin #14 2 years ago

    "Critics' scores are highly subjective,"

    Water is highly wet.

  • UKGN_Zoidberg #15 2 years ago

    Was playing it last night, it's certainly no better or worse than COD 4 or Modern Warfare 2. The only reason for the supposed "lower" scores is COD fatigue due to too many similar games.

  • Cronan #16 2 years ago

    A lot of sites use a partial 10 point scale for reviews, where most games score somewhere between 6 and 9. The occasional outstanding game will get 10, the occasional very poor game will get 5 or less.

    If you're into the mulitplayer side of war FPSs, you're either playing Battlefield or COD, and you're probably waiting for Black Ops. Either that, or you're playing Halo: Reach. I'll rent this game, but I'm not going to waste time on the multiplayer.
    Edited by Cronan at 13/10/10 @ 09:31

  • ubergine #17 2 years ago

    In this case, sales will matter more than scores, and I doubt this game will flop. It won't brush the feet of CoD, I think it will sell 5 million copies max. Which means EA gets only a measly million billion dollars instead of CoD's billion billion dollars.

    [returns to not giving a shit.]

  • ChthonicEcho #18 2 years ago

    @MiniAm

    Are you positive? You might have been misinformed as to the state of its wetness.

  • Machetazo #19 2 years ago

    Even if that were true, Zoidberg, it's got to be part of the consideration, because as Freek well said before, it's a crowded, competitive genre, no-one should be naive enough to think otherwise. That means that expectations are going to be higher for the game that wants to stand out, and attract players, and, MoH is looking increasingly as if it is weak in several areas, causing it not quite to reach that bar.
    Edited by Machetazo at 13/10/10 @ 09:35

  • Fab4 #20 2 years ago

    I miss Marathons...

  • darkmorgado #21 2 years ago

    To be honest, it really wouldn't surprise me if the new COD gets similar scores.

    It's less about a game being "bad", and more about people frankly being sick to death of the same old shit being farmed out over and over again. Activision have pretty much killed any lingering interest in the "realistic" FPS area.

  • Nighthawk_08 #22 2 years ago

    Big Pre-orders don't necessarily mean big sales, so I don't know why there bragging about it. I pre-ordered this game months ago but after finding out it's got a shameful 4 hour campaign it's been cancelled. 3 of my other friends have done the same thing. I'm actually gutted bout this game being a let down as I was looking forward to it

  • lockload #23 2 years ago

    Well 8/10 is not bad from wurogamer so il be trying the game out

  • Shikasama #24 2 years ago

    I must say I do feel a bit sorry for DICE.

    They made a great game in BFBC2 and where then told to make the game again, swap snow for sand and turn up the broforce-o-meter.

  • frugtkompot #25 2 years ago

    Cronan, you're not gonna be able to spend time on multiplayer, if you rent it. EA charges you for MP, if you have'nt bought it new.

  • bodypopper #26 2 years ago

    Well said darkmorgado.
    However, people never seem to tire of computerised football being put out every year as FIFA X or Pro Evo X. Formulas sell games and times are hard for those wanting to do something new.

  • gjgjg #27 2 years ago

    I guess in an age of BBC2, MW2, HR etc 7/10 is ...bad?

  • butler` #28 2 years ago

    well yes, "bad" being a relative term and all.

  • Paulie_P #29 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado

    I disagree, I'll be very suprised if COD gets similar scores. There's too much of a hype around it.

    If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll hold my hands up.

  • thedaveeyres #30 2 years ago

    With the new CoD so close, it's a no-brainer that unless this was outstanding, people would hang on for what is almost certainly a better game.

    As for FPS fatigue, I disagree. This argument could be levelled at any genre - however it seems to be directed more at FPS's than anywhere else due to their enduring popularity. The CoD series, (and the Halo series etc etc) really are fun games to play, especially online, so their popularity is hardly a mystery. Unfortunately, for some of our younger readers - popular and cool are mutually exclusive, but hey, you grow out of ridiculous vanities like that in time. :)

  • Spekingur #31 2 years ago

    I think that this MOH is a solid comeback/re-launch title, even if it isn't a stand-out like CoD. If EA keeps at it they might end up with a proper MOH next time around.
    Myself, I like the weight behind the guns better than in CoD for some reason (in multiplayer).

    Btw, I notice that the release date for CoD Black Ops is 09.11.10, according to the adverts on this site - which automatically makes me think of the 9/11 incident. Looks like a cheap way to get people to remember the release date.

  • FortysixterUK #32 2 years ago

    Meh ! It's EA, people love to hate EA for its bulldozer take over tactics / corporate image. I know I do.
    They still publish some awesome games. ( Burnout , Bioshock, Bad Company 2 ).

  • thedaveeyres #33 2 years ago

    @Spekingur

    Not sure about that - as a US-centric operation, 11/9 doesn't have a great deal of meaning.

  • metalangel #34 2 years ago

    @frugtkompot: You mean the Online Pass which is for EA Sports games which they still give you a 'trial period' of so you can still play it online if you rent? :p

  • karooo #35 2 years ago

    "marathon not a sprint"

    Hmm heard that before, but where?



    aaah Sony.

  • seabassuk #36 2 years ago

    For those giving MOH a 'poor' score, expect a call from EA telling you that you're not playing it right.

  • FogHeart #37 2 years ago

    What is there to distinguish this game from others of its ilk? Graphics? It's using UE3, the off-the-shelf solution that produces solid but unspectacular results unless you go to town on the art style (Borderlands, Batman, Enslaved) which of course a realistic game can't do. Story? The dialogue is cliche- and jargon-riddled, the plot is made-for-TV stuff. Multiplayer? It takes a previous military shooter's multiplayer and removes the very aspects that made that stand out (e.g destructible environments).

    Did they sit down at the outset and decide how to differ from the competition, or how to be as generic as possible?

  • levitate #38 2 years ago

    Marathons are usually a drawn out chore to watch or participate in, unless you really like pain, so I think EA hit the nail there.

  • darkmorgado #39 2 years ago

    Btw, I notice that the release date for CoD Black Ops is 09.11.10, according to the adverts on this site - which automatically makes me think of the 9/11 incident. Looks like a cheap way to get people to remember the release date.

    I thought exactly the same thing initially. Our brains are now hardwired to see 9/11

  • BBIAJ #40 2 years ago

    @FortysixterUK:

    Since when did EA publish BioShock? That's 2K Games.

  • drxym #41 2 years ago

    A single review score can be considered subjective (especially if the text shows the reviewer is biased in some way). A meta score consisting of many reviews can be considered to be a pretty accurate appraisal of how good a game is with respect to its peers.

    It should also be pretty obvious that EA and other software houses pay a lot of attention to review scores. A game which scores < 70% is going to have a tough time selling to informed gamers. I would not be surprised if EA uses as a factor (combined with sales) when determining contract bonuses and renewals.

  • layleeloo #42 2 years ago

    Stuck with the MW2 bum brigade mixed with the EA hate machine who ever expected this to get a good reception, even if it pissed all over MW2?

    It's essentially the same game from what anyone can see so no reason to get less. Just shows how over hyped MW2 actually is. Same games shouldn't be that different in reviews surely. As anyone can see, I finished MW2 on all difficulty levels and I'm sorry, it does not deserve the 9s it gets. It's as generic as every other FPS so this scoring a 7 means to me it's on par which is no surprise for the same game. As for the new cod, made by treyarch-won't be touching that with a 50ft pole. Why buy the same game yet again? People think it's gonna be any different or better then you are deluded.
    Edited by layleeloo at 13/10/10 @ 11:44

  • Nephirion #43 2 years ago

    I think its best to enjoy games for what they are and not moan about what they could have been.

  • kupocake #44 2 years ago

    "This is an essentially big achievement considering Medal of Honor has been dormant for several years"

    People are blinking and missing this, but it's the worst symptom in this article of the complete creative bankruptcy of the modern shooter market. The last Medal of Honor game was released only three years ago and its own studio considers that in the distant past (and also a valid excuse for underperforming critically, which makes no sense whatsoever).

    The one thing I'm going to take away from this is... Half-Life 3 is going to smash this genre to pieces. No, really! This is just like the last rut that the shooter got itself into (the WW2 shooter) and we've got the same old candidates centre-stage. All we need now is a fake E3 presentation, an alpha leak and a good helping of inter-generational PC eliteism and we're all set.

  • chrisola #45 2 years ago

    Black Ops looks to actually offer new things over other military FPS's around at the moment, whereas MOH doesn't.

    It has player controllable flying levels, a different take on the MP level system, customisable MP players, zombie mode and offline training BOTS, it's also set in a different (underused) period.

    Assuming you like FPS games - those points alone mean its well worth checking out instead of going for yet another by the numbers FPS like MOH, which does seem a bit generic.

    Of course, the Kotick \ COD hate will mean alot of people won't even give the game a fair shot on it's own merits -- i think Black Ops will be a solid 9 if it takes the 60fps 'cod twitch run and gun gameplay' and gives us updated gfx and a coherent story filled with some good set piece levels.
    Edited by chrisola at 13/10/10 @ 12:21

  • ProGrasTiNation #46 2 years ago

    This Q=Black Ops/BFBC2vietnam
    Next Q=KZ3/Crysis2/
    Might rent if bored=Medal of Honor

  • retr0gamer #47 2 years ago

    The highest pre-orders in the series history? Sure when the last MoH game came out pre-orders weren't a big thing back then and Gamestop weren't shoving them down peoples throats. It means nothing.

  • djed #48 2 years ago

    "The game had the highest pre-orders in the 11-year history of the Medal of Honor franchise. This is an essentially big achievement considering Medal of Honor has been dormant for 11 years.

  • RedSparrows #49 2 years ago

    to be honest, (not played it, obv) I don't really see how this is any different from CoD. In pretty much any meaningful way.

  • des #50 2 years ago

    MoH will flop like a rock,nobody cares about it
    Sorry EA...

  • CatWeazle #51 2 years ago

    From what I understand from all the reviews, the new MOH is a calculated attempt by a big corporation to muscle in on the success of a rival big corporation.. and the result is precitably derivative and lacklustre.

    Good, because the Call of Duty formula itself is starting to get very boring - get back to developing more innovative games, EA.

  • darth_paul #52 2 years ago

    the BEATTLEFIELD 3 BETA almost had me preorder the game... almost. Lofe the "Battlefield x" franchise (not the bad company one... i mean the traditional BF)

  • wickedshells #53 2 years ago

    whoever said that cod shouldn't get better reviews for black ops because their puttin g out the same stuff every year. Your crazy moh is shell of a fps. Cod elevates it's game every year. BO will have wager play, customization, fixes to overpowering loadouts and streaks. Which makes this a new game unlike the whores at ea who suck up all your money by giving you the same product every year I.e. Madden, FIFA, the dreaded NBA crap game. Ea and dice make a fps for those who don't have quick hand eye coordination and need time to processes what there seeing. It's basically a fps for the handicapped. That's ok but dice fanboys don't get mad because your no good at cod and cod players are good at your game. That just make you a poor sport. So take your ball and go home. See y'all in hell

  • Vin #54 2 years ago

    So it took THREE years to make the shambolic SP campaign, eh?

    You're slipping, EA.

    SORT IT OUT.

  • wickedshells #55 2 years ago

    Yeah I read somewhere this moh had the highest preorders in it's history. That's not a stat. Nobody preordered games 10 yrs ago. That like saying automobiles are better transportation than horses...... No Shit! Thanks to these reviews all those preorders just got changed to cod black ops. Breaking news........... The first time in 11 years moh preorders have changed to cod preorders this has just surpassed it's previous record of making stupidass records that don't make any sense and are a marketing ploy for the morons who can't think.

  • ExplodingClown #56 2 years ago

    In the interests of authenticity, do we get to waste Linda Norgrove in the next game?

  • Ternon #57 2 years ago

    The campaign is simply terribly linear and scripted to the point where enemy soldiers are invincible if they are needed to complete the script.

    A very primitive lazy design.

  • inutaihanyou #58 2 years ago

    Just a heads up guys, in the US we put dates "MM/DD/YY" so it was most likely switched around for international release :p

    As for the article, as my first time posting here, i'm not surprised by EA's PR talk, but it would be nice to hear less of it and let the game speak on its own merits. Nobody appreciated Real Time Worlds any more when they went into the same defensive position over the lackluster review scores of APB...if EA wants to see better review scores then just make a product that can stand out more.

    I personally have a problem with trying to ape COD for the franchise's success anyway, i think COD's fun, but playing a game just like it has less of an impact than trying new things, the setting for the reboot shouldn't be the only thing that differentiates it for people who play COD or Battlefield.

  • dmt2 #59 2 years ago

    Judging by the tat that EA has put out for years I find it hard to believe that they even read reviews... or playtest... or even know what their products are.

  • IwastheStig #60 2 years ago

    I been playing it and all i can say is dont listen to reviews, this game is awesome. I love anything Military and this to me makes MW2 to feel like an arcade game and it helps that it looks alot better too. For me the best FPS game so far this year and ill give it 9/10.