DICE: MOH controversy affected reviews

Competing with Battlefield "awkward".

DICE, the studio behind the multiplayer portion of the recently released Afghanistan shooter Medal of Honor, reckons reviews were affected by the controversy surrounding the game's setting.

Medal of Honor hit the headlines for being set in Afghanistan, touching on fresh in the memory battles, and allowing gamers to play as the Taliban in multiplayer - the faction was eventually changed to Opposing Force.

"The controversy did affect some reviews," DICE veteran Patrick Liu told Eurogamer.

"It stirs a lot of feelings, just the setting. And that does affect people's judgement. But otherwise, this is a reboot of a franchise. It's an investment for EA as a company. We need to build upon what we have achieved so far and improve and build up the franchise again from scratch, basically.

"In that sense, I think we're off to a very good start."

Liu's view tallies with EA's. This week the company announced two million units had been sold to consumers since launch.

The news followed an admission from Patrick Soderlund, the EA executive in charge of EA's shooters and driving games, that Medal of Honor "didn't meet quality expectations".

"In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong," Soderlund said.

"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 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.

Liu said another factor that played into Medal of Honor's supposed lukewarm reception was the competition.

"It's partly because we're in a very competitive genre," he explained. "We're also competing with ourselves. Obviously we're competing with Call of Duty. It's a very tricky situation to be squeezed in between those giants.

"Either the reviews are favourable, or they're not. There's nothing in between. It's polarised opinion about the game."

How did DICE feel about competing with its own Battlefield series?

" It can feel awkward sometimes," Liu admitted.

Whatever the case, EA confirmed this week that the game was successful enough to warrant a sequel, turning thoughts to the future.

While, according to Liu, "plans aren't set yet" for a MOH sequel, DICE is in the envious position of being able to pick and choose which game it creates next alongside Battlefield 3.

"Both yes and no," Liu replied when asked if DICE would like to work on MOH again.

"It would be cool to continue to develop the franchise. At the same time we have a lot of exciting stuff going on in DICE as well that we have been working on in parallel.

"I'm in a very good situation in that sense. I could pick and choose. It's a win win situation."

Comments (18) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Gambit1977 #1 1 year ago

    No it didn't. It just wasn't great.
  • Shikasama #2 1 year ago

    It really annoys me when they talk about games as a 'first step' and it's a 'building process' so the next one will be better.

    If thats the case, why the fuck should I buy the full price beta for the sequel?
  • Ultrasoundwave #3 1 year ago

    Thats funny, i thought it was the average gameplay and copycat multiplayer that affected the reviews..........
  • Jay-ITFC #4 1 year ago

    It didn't review as well as Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2 because it simply isn't as good as either title.
  • CHACK #5 1 year ago

    The setting did not affect reviews whatsoever - if anything the setting help push this past 1.5 Million units in less than a week because the marketing and concept was faultless, the problem is EA delivered a sub standard product that automatically competed against your own product in BC2, furthermore you brought a product to market which didn't innovate enough to compete with Black Ops.

    Now you have to find a way to balance MOH and Battlefield as tentpole EA products that both offer different experiences and you have to find a slot in the release calendar where you can effectively own retail.
  • TheElfishGene #6 1 year ago

    The multiplayer whilst marvellous for a few hours just felt like a scaled down poorer version of BF, yes i enjoyed it but i soon drifted back onto its superior bigger brother.
  • MiniAmin #7 1 year ago

    According to Metacritic most reviewers have awarded this game a score between 6-8.

    Does this man know what "polarising" means?
  • AidyD #8 1 year ago

    It just felt like a genric fps game set in the middle east... Considering the companies putting this game together that is a major fuck up.

    Dice and EA need to put alot more thought into the next one.
  • minusblindfold #9 1 year ago

    Nothing to do with the fact that you could quite comfortably finish the SP on Hard in one sitting...
    Multiplayer is quite good though. It's all a step down compared to BF:BC2 though.
  • sjmlondon #10 1 year ago

    The scenery and level of detail on the multiplayer map on Medal of Honor probably looked as good as BFBC2 which was about the only thing going for it.

    It was just the gameplay the stank. Maps too small for the amount of players. Players channeled into narrow paths to get to objective, to leading to duck shoot scenario. Too many campers and ability to spawn kill made playing the game soul destroying. Limited range of weapons, snipers acting liking assault rifles, limited environment destructability, invisble walls. Confusing perks system. Poor miss mash between Modern Warfare and BFBC2.

    Were DICE afraid of overshadowing their own existing product.

    I've gone back to playing Battlefield BC2 which is so superior is so many ways, as is Modern Warfare 2 in its own right.
  • Golgo #11 1 year ago

    They stirred up the controversy themselves, no doubt hoping to affect sales positively. So fuck em.
  • coolbritannia #12 1 year ago

    It failed. Stop trying to justify it.
  • metalangel #13 1 year ago

    Why the hell would anyone buy MoH over BC2?? It's like buying a warm can of Carling instead of six ice cold bottles of Pilsner Urquell.
  • Viz1 #14 1 year ago

    Publisher admitting we rushed it, out and its crap, we were trying to cash in on mw2 and failed..... But the sequal will be better pleasw buy...
  • TheEnforcer000 #15 1 year ago

  • Lee_Morris #16 1 year ago

    I think DICE were drafted in to do the multiplayer because EA LA had cocked it up. I don't expect em to be doing the sequel
  • goondocks74 #17 1 year ago

    hmmm, the single player campaign is poor, online is ok, but I've moved back to BC2, because it's so much better.
  • soaponarope #18 1 year ago

    I don't think i've ever seen a developer publicly make so many excuses about why their game flopped. if a game gets one or two bad reviews, then you can make the argument that there is some bias involved. but when the overwhelming number of players and critics negatively review it, it's not the bias, it's not the controversy. your game just isn't very good, it's that simple. here's the deal: medal of honor brings absolutely nothing new to an already crowded genre. everything that MOH does has been done before, and in many cases better. any developer that is going to put a contemporary warfare first person shooter out there in today's market is well aware that the first thing players will do is compare their game to games like Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2- and rightfully so. they set the new standard for this genre. so if you're going to put a game out there it better have something unique about it to set itself apart-- and this is where medal of honor falls short. it fails to bring anything new, it does nothing to separate itself from excellent titles like Modern Warfare and Bad Company. as a FPS it's not a terrible game, in my opinion it's not as bad as some people say. and the whole "controversy" means nothing to me, since I am reviewing a game solely on its merits as a video game. it just doesn't bring anything new, it rehashes everything that's been done before, and quite honestly doesn't even do some of those things as well as the best games in its genre. THIS is why it gets bad reviews. and quite honestly this is not even discussing my opinion of DICE as a developer, I do not have a very high opinion of them ever since Battlefield 2, I've had a distaste for the way they approach the genre and certain aspects of all their games. in summary, stop blaming other people- your game isn't good.