EA: MOH didn't meet quality expectations

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 2 November, 2010

Judged harsher than it should be, says exec.

EA's admitted Danger Close and DICE's recently released Medal of Honor reboot "didn't meet our quality expectations".

However, the gargantuan game maker denied the Afghanistan shooter was a failure, and promised gamers next time it'll make "something they appreciate more".

"I'm not going to comment on the sales because EA has an earnings report going out and we will unveil sales in that meeting," Patrick Soderlund, the executive in charge of EA's driving and shooting games, told Eurogamer.

"What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations. In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong.

"Medal of Honor is to some extent judged harsher than it should be. The game is better than today's reviews are indicating."

Eurogamer awarded Medal of Honor 8/10 upon its release, and it's currently sitting on a 75/100 Metacritic review score average, but critics have argued the game's "lukewarm" 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.

While Soderlund refused to offer an appropriate review score of his own, he did insist that Medal of Honor was a successful reboot.

"I'm not going to say a specific number. I'm proud of what the game is and proud of what the team did. I just think the market is obviously telling us they think the game is X. We need to convince the market we can make something they appreciate more, particularly to be able to compete.

"We're looking at that clearly. We're taking that seriously. I'm not at all saying Medal of Honor is a failure. It is a successful reboot of that franchise. We're going to be strong in the future."

Soderlund confirmed Danger Close is "absolutely working on something", but declined to comment on the suggestion than another developer is hard at work on the next entry in the franchise.

Whatever the plan, developers will be given more than eight months to create entries in the series.

Could Battlefield: Bad Company and Medal of Honor be alternated year on year?

"I wouldn't say they're more similar than a COD game is from one year to another. They're shooters and they have multiplayer. There are similarities and there are differences," is all Soderlund would offer.

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 (52) Latest comment 1 year ago

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

  • NimbusTLD #1 2 years ago

    From what I've played, 75/100 average is just about right...

  • space_ace #2 2 years ago

    suits discussing score numbers is worse than discussing revenue numbers.

  • mashk #3 2 years ago

    Hard to believe it got an '8' from Eurogamer.

  • StolenGlory #4 2 years ago

    "Hard to believe it got an '8' from Eurogamer."

    Not really. MOH marketing was all over the site at the time of review.

  • ZizouFC #5 2 years ago

    Just as good as Red Dead Redemption?

    Lulz!

  • PoundHound #6 2 years ago

    I can hardly remember anything about the SP portion and online was a ridiculous spawn-camping sniper-fest mess. I'm stunned they managed to average 75%.

  • bad09 #7 2 years ago

    MOH is a unfinished rush job. Fairly decent but 2 engines and some of the problems make it look like a really rough game. Will be forgotten forever in a week.
    Edited by bad09 at 02/11/10 @ 13:17

  • darleysam #8 2 years ago

    This is good to see, that they're setting the bar high and want to raise their game (ho ho) to meet it. Good luck with the next one, I say.

  • makeamazing #9 2 years ago

    There were some really serious bugs on the SP campaign... i would say 75% or less is a fair reflection of those issues at launch.

  • Colin8703 #10 2 years ago

    I found this title to be a sack of shit.

    Bad graphics and horrendous AI coupled with extremely mediocre gameplay.

    I think the reviews were generous and only on the side of favourable probably due to DICE being involved.

    I am referring to the single player though and haven't tried multiplayer as play BFBC2.

  • efebayor #11 2 years ago

    The price you pay for wanting to get it out before Black Ops.

  • Whatsfor #12 2 years ago

    I wonder if the series will be 'Respawn'ed next year...

  • jefranklin18 #13 2 years ago

    I do not like to be overly critical of developers, but Medal of Honour really didn't do that much for me. As I said to a mate recently: MOH is like a low-rent Spielberg movie (big noise, passable plot and emotionally manipulative in a cheesy hamfisted way – I am sure the developers wanted the player to get up and salute the flag at the end).

    I hope the reboot of the reboot is a little better - maybe using a Frostbite engine rather than UT3, you know to differentiate it slightly?

  • Kenshin001 #14 2 years ago

    I actually really enjoyed the SP, more so than MW2's. Decent amount of variety and representation of the different facets of combat, good feel to the weapons, a satisfying vehicle section and a story devoid of nonsense. Worth a play through. MP didn't do much for me but neither did MW2's.

  • LR100 #15 2 years ago

    I didn't get on with the story in MOH, it made me play as too many characters that I didn't care about or know anything about. The story wasn't particularly strong, the vehicle sections were bland and objectives weren't very clear (there was one part where you have to grab an RPG on a cliff edge, which I didn't see until 4 deaths later and wasn't sign posted. I am not an idiot, but I shouldn't have to guess what the developer wants me to do as part of a scripted scene).

  • BuffoonBassoon #16 2 years ago

    i completely agree with #12. The more i play the mp aspect of MOH the more i love it :)

  • chessboxer #17 2 years ago

    I enjoyed the campaign. It was short, but then again so were both Modern Warfare games but people don't complain about those. MP isn't too bad, although I think it could benefit from a spotting system like in Bad Company and more maps. 5 just isn't enough. I do enjoy Sector Control though, which is just a faster version of Conquest from Battlefield.

    @ LR100

    Did you not press UP on the d-pad to show you where the objective was?

  • Whizzo #18 2 years ago

    Perhaps Danger Close can do some better research next time? The taking of Bagram airbase was so far from reality it was bizarre.

  • scottofdarwen #19 2 years ago

    What about us mugs that bought the game , on xbox 360 ?? no patch NO free dlc as promised , your just a set of robbing B*****s .. me and many of my m8s that were suckered into buying this unfinished shit game will be trading it in ...

  • Darren #20 2 years ago

    Medal of Honor, what I've seen of it, looks pretty average and just like every other military-based shooter out there which is why I skipped it. I'm guessing that if the game sold poorly then it will be simply because people are waiting for the new Call of Duty game instead. EA should perhaps have chosen a more sensible release date really, something like May/June when the next CoD is almost half a year away.

  • Machetazo #21 2 years ago

    "What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations."

    But you released it, anyway, and hoped people wouldn't notice?

  • sneetch #22 2 years ago

    @ZizouFC
    Just as good as Red Dead Redemption?

    Lulz!

    Yeah, I know, it's far, far better than RDR. LAWL!

    Mind you that's just my opinion and opinions vary. I personally really enjoyed MOH and I found RDR a bit tedious, although bugs did irritate the crap out of me on a couple of occasions and the plot was, shall we say, cliché rich it's a fun shooter.

    YMMV, of course.

  • JonFE #23 2 years ago

    Played through the entire campaign last weekend and found it to be passable, but not particularly memorable. Hard difficulty was not really taxing or a challenge and I mostly struggled with the controls (until I switched melee to the Right Bumper) and the rather slow pace of movement. Did not encounter any bugs, though, and would award the single player campaign a 7/10.

  • Super_Zee #24 2 years ago

    The last third of the campaign was excellent, once it stopped trying to be CoD in the most obvious and shameless way possible. Whole thing is a technical mess, though. Also, the team objective MP is actually really good once you get used to the gazillion snipers.

  • mkreku #25 2 years ago

    It just saddens me when a 4 hour long cash-in from a gigantic publisher gets 8/10 and a game like Risen, unpolished, rough and 40 hours long, gets 4/10. One of those games is a labour of love.

  • OldRavenNL #26 2 years ago

    I really like the multiplayer. It's à bit rough here and there.. But it's pretty hardcore. People complaining about getting shot all the time by snipers should change tactics and start using smoke. Sp was good. But it's noticable that THE mp and sp are made in different engines.

  • abot #27 2 years ago

    For those that have purchased the game you know that there are many issues in MP that need to be fixed. It feels that the game was rushed in order to be in the stores before Black Ops. Time will tell if EA will support this game.

    I find it interesting that instead of releasing a patch to fix the issues with the game they release DLC instead.

    Hopefully the next MOH game will be better.

    Edited by abot at 02/11/10 @ 14:23

  • youhavenomail #28 2 years ago

    I almost feel more offended knowing that EA are now happy to come out and admit that they conned me good and proper with this one.

  • HonestJoe #29 2 years ago

    >>> ," Patrick Soderlund, the executive in charge of EA's driving and shooting games, told Eurogamer.

    Erm, shouldn't he be firing himself?

  • geeza2020 #30 2 years ago

    "EA: MOH didn't meet quality expectations"

    What do you expect when you release one of the blandest games ever made?

  • dwalker109 #31 2 years ago

    On the one hand, I appreciate the honesty here - but the motivation is hardly altruistic. It's a bit of damage limitation, a way of saying "sorry this was kinda mediocre, please don't abandon our franchise".

    As Machetazo points out, they released this on time despite it being (to paraphrase) unfinished. The only reason is to beat CoD into the shops and (successfully, as it happened) get a significant number of sales.

    Are we gamers becoming as easy to mug as football fans?

  • LazyNinjaUk #32 2 years ago

    I don't think it's a bad game at all, I've played some proper "suck-shit-through-a-straw" games and this isn't one of them.

    However after all the hype and chest beating they did, raving about "Tier 1 is the best of the best" and "The multi-player is being developed by DICE, the same guys that did Battle Field Bad Company", the final game just turned out to be a real disappointment. I'm sure Tier 1 is the cream of US armed forces, but that doesn't mean they alone can make up for a lacklustre 4-hour campaign mode.

    BFBC2 had excellent multiplayer, but I'm guessing since they are working on Battlefield 3, only a small team was tasked with getting the multiplayer working in a short space of time. Needless to say this falls into a pattern that many developers are going with these days, don't get it right on the first attempt otherwise what are we going to put in the sequel?
    Edited by LazyNinjaUk at 02/11/10 @ 15:06

  • chasejamie #33 2 years ago

    EA are quick enough to release the 800 points Hot Zone pack on the marketplace, yet no sign of the free Clean Sweep mode. I actually enjoy the multiplayer, even though you don't even have time to fart without some nonce sniping at you.

  • CHACK #34 2 years ago

    You spent $70 Million on a project that didn't meet expectation?

    Bummer

    Look at what your competitors are doing before you open the chequebook next time, it lacked content, it lacked customization and it lacked innovation.

  • mAc062 #35 2 years ago

    Im maybe an hour or two into it and so far its been pretty boring, maybe it gets better later on, Im hoping anyways.
    Edited by mAc062 at 02/11/10 @ 15:14

  • TitusCrow #36 2 years ago

    I sense a shift in game buyers, slowly but surely they audience of gamers are able to see a good from bad. To developers - all you need to do is make a game right and we will buy it in droves. It costs less to make a great game and profit than make 2 average one's that sink like stones -and take a companies rep with them.

  • kongzi #37 2 years ago

    It didn't meet expectations, but we had to make a quick buck before CoD paralyzes the market, so 'haha' on you all that bought it. It's not a bad game, no.. the blandness of it all is very competent.

  • davisorle #38 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Turbotim3 #39 2 years ago

    I don't think the opinions of a bunch of ego maniacal ooooo look at how much influence I have videogame journalists will ever dictate which games I buy. I have friends and that is where I go for my game reviews. Metacritic can eat a d@ck.

  • dingo75 #40 2 years ago

    Longer single player next time EA and less "fences" we bump against (waiting for scripts to play etc.).
    Those kill immersion in no time.

  • abot #41 2 years ago

    @rojjer

    Actually I have played it alot. There are many issues that need to be fixed such as lag. For a game that emphasizes a tactical style of gameplay I feel that players are not given the proper tools to do so. For instance if I want to talk to my fellow mates there is no indicator as to who is talking. There is also a map grid coordinate in your HUD but on the map I don't see any coordinate system so how am I supposed to tell my mates what my location is on the map.

    There are also issues with the hitbox, spawn raping etc. To be honest I don't see a big difference between the m4, m16 and ak47 when I use them.

    As a person who likes shooters I was hoping for something different to play. I enjoy Halo, COD and BC but this game to me is just unplayable and unenjoyable. If all of the issues were fixed perhaps this could be a decent game but we all know that when it comes to support game developers are rather lacking in that area so I don't expect anything from Danger Close and DICE

    I think the fact that they have released DLC instead of fixing the core game first shows me that they don't really care about their customers. The rather make money instead of fixing the game.

    I sold it back for credit towards BO. Perhaps in the future I might buy it from the discount bin IF all the issues are fixed and depending what folks say in forums.




  • Instinct #42 2 years ago

    For the people who think Eurogamer accepted money from EA to give Medal of Honor 8/10:
    Do you genuinely think that? The average Metacritic score is 75/100. So Eurogamer is among the general consensus for every review for the game, bearing in mind Eurogamer only marks out of ten and doesn't do decimals.

    Do you think EA really paid off every single review (67 on Metacritic)? Don't you think that having offered amounts of money to Eurogamer, they'd ask for more than 8/10? Do you genuinely think that a marketing campaign alongside a review is a sign of foul play? Do you not see The Fight adverts, and accompanying 5/10 review? How do you suggest that your favourite gaming websites should fund themselves?

    Can you seriously not play through Medal of Honor, and think to yourself, well, I'm not really enjoying this, there are several flaws, but I could see how one could give this an above average score without the incentive of money.

    Jesus Christ.

  • arcam #43 2 years ago

    @Instinct

    I think most people suspect it doesn't go down like that.

    It's more that that these are the publishers that basically pay all the gaming sites' bills (when was the last time you saw a car ad on a gaming website?) and there is a general feeling that one hand washes the other.

    EA wouldn't outright demand a high score in return for a brown envelope of cash, but they would make the sites aware of what an important game this is for the company, how hard people worked on it, and how the success of this title is vital to continuing advertising budgets for next year.

    Everyone knows what these things mean, and I suspect there is a mutually benficial arrangement to be more lenient when it comes to scoring some games.

    Basically PR put on pressure, and games sites give in because standing up to them would only hurt their business.

    Not saying that happened here, but I have no doubt that it happens all the time.

  • CatWeazle #44 2 years ago

    Yawn. So long as you retards continue to buy these boring 4-hour long shooting galleries, the suits will continue to make them.

  • chasejamie #45 2 years ago

    Haha, the free clean sweep dlc is delayed on consoles. There may be a 'slight' chance that they are holding back so players get bored waiting, and buy the 800mp pack that somehow wasn't delayed. That won't work on me EA you cheeky so and so's.

  • CaptainKid #46 2 years ago

    "didn't meet our quality expectations" but we released it anyway.

  • funkadelichika #47 2 years ago

    I was pissed at this piece of...mostly crap game. I could deal with a short game so long as it kept me engaged and didn't glitch so much I wanted to throw my computer out the window.

    I find it sickening that they ADMIT they let the game out on release without tweaking at all from the BETA testing...What the hell is the BETA for then? Kicks?

    The AI in this game is the stupidest I have ever seen. One point an AI on my own team stood and shot at a wall for five seconds... O_O And the enemy AI stood there staring at me for awhile once before shooting at me.

    There is horrendous glitches throughout the single player...so much so I don't even want to own this game anymore...EA DICE whoever...give me my money back...YOU ADMIT you put out a flawed game. Give it back!

  • espibara #48 2 years ago

    Was agonna buy it but now tehy ahve admitted its shite will waint for the 19.99 price range

  • Bluetooth #49 2 years ago

    Eurogamer gave it an 8 because of advertising revenue pressures, but the review itself was were the reviewer's true feelings were shown - it read like a 5/6. In the end everyone is satisfied - the opinion is out there for everyone to read, but EA marketing will be happy because they have their high number which is what matters to them - they know most people won't bother reading the review.

  • YourMessageHere #50 2 years ago

    The MP beta was enjoyable in a rather disposable way. Good shotguns, and the sound design of all things really stood out as well implemented. I did however spend the whole time thinking "wait, they expect me to pay actual money for this? It's so not-new."

    +1 for the people astounded by a company executive basically coming out and saying "we feel our game wasn't as good as we wanted it to be, but we sold it anyway". IIRC there was a chap called Gerald Ratner who said something similar with fairly appalling consequences...

  • rookie2202 #51 1 year ago

    This is probably one of the worst shooters I've ever bought... Besides Sniper Ghost warrior ofcours :) what a blooper!

    I preordered the game, got into the multiplayer (even though the beta was accesable if you had BC2, which I did) and absolutely hated it. Poor weapon arsenal- VERY, VERY poor hitbox, CoD feel to the weapon recoil and accuracy (insanely unrealistic) though I love CoD because of exactly that. But they said "we're taking a more realistic approach to storytelling set..." However, the game was insanely unrealistic in every way. Sure, MP is always unrealistic, but the SP part could at least have had a hint of realism. The tactics, the weaponary used, AI etc. Most people dont know this, or even notice it, because most of the costumers are your typical casual civilian gamer yadayada... this is Medal of Honor! It's supposed to be awesome in every way, but its the exactly opposite. This is the first game with the "MoH" title to have sucked this badly. I had really hoped this title would have kicked MW2 in the ass... gameplay wise.

    The funny part however ... was that I absolutely hated the game, and wanted my money back, which i did. Then a month or 2 after launch, i bought the game again, hoping it would have improved, since it just was a beta I played 2 months earlier. Nah, the only thing that had improved, was the ability to type a message ingame, without your whole keyboard locking up, leaving you with "boot" or Ctrl+alt+delete as options. That was a huge improvement tbh. without being sarcastic... This is the result of a game they only took 6-8 months to develop. It was a succes nontheless... if you look at the sale numbers!

  • rookie2202 #52 1 year ago

    This is one of the worst FPS games I have ever played. Even "Sniper: Ghost warrior" is more entertaining, and that game is bull****.

    There is absolutely NO creativity or originality about this game. It's an absolute copycat, and its not even a half decent copy cat. It's just plain ol' crap!

    This should have gotten a 60 metascore or lower... I'm amazed at how many people actually play it.

    I've got nothing good to say about this game. This game should'nt ever have been released. DICE should stick to the battlefield series, which it does best. Or make something original and new. They took one of the most awesome FPS series, Medal of Honor, or at least the title, and took a big dump on it.

    If you're a fan, please tell me what you think is good about this game. Just anything. And compare it to other games, that has all the same stuff, just better.