Mod War games too samey, says EA

By Ellie Gibson Published 3 December, 2009

Boss reckons MOH can topple 'em.

Electronic Arts boss John Riccitiello has said the Modern Warfare games are all starting to look the same to him.

"If you've played Modern Warfare, and you've played the first one - and you've played the last Call of Duty - it's sort of starting to feel like they're making the same game again," he told Kotaku.

The silver-haired executive was keen to point out he thinks Infinity Ward "are great", adding, "It's not about them being bad for us having to be great too."

Riccitiello's comments came as EA announced a new Medal of Honor game, coming to PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 in 2010. He reckons the release could give EA the edge in the FPS genre.

"I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow," said the platinum-maned chief. "But in the way that Activision sort of alternates sequels of Modern Warfare and Call of Duty and owns the leadership position in first-person shooter, between Medal of Honor and Battlefield, I want it back. And we're going to get there with innovation and quality."

According to Riccitiello, the next Battlefield: Bad Company will be "a worthy competitor to Modern Warfare" - perhaps even good enough to beat it.

"We think we've got an advantage over Modern Warfare 2 with our multiplayer... Frankly, once you get past, sort of, four people on a map, I think our gameplay is better," he said.

Riccitiello cited being able to control vehicles rather than just ride them and take both buildings and their occupants out as highlights. "Personally I get a silly amount of pleasure out of it," he added.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (69) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • bad09 #1 2 years ago

    IW Javelin glitches EA article Shocker!

  • matrim83 #2 2 years ago

    Did someone nuke this page?

  • kangarootoo #3 2 years ago

    Christ. Kettles and coffee pots all over the shop.

  • Lukree #4 2 years ago

    Innovation and quality -warning from EA!

  • Johnson #5 2 years ago

    EA to other company "You're just releasing an updated version of the same game"

    Other company "Dude, WTF?"

  • matrim83 #6 2 years ago

    I know EA makes its own fair share of upgrades passed of as sequels but I agree with him FWIW. Just because EA isnt guilty of it doesnt mean he is wrong. CoD has been stagnating.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/09 @ 09:55

  • secombe #7 2 years ago

    "If you've played Modern Warfare, and you've played the first one - and you've played the last Call of Duty - it's sort of starting to feel like they're making the same game again,"

    In conclusion, not unlike EA: 1999 - 2007 (aka the profitable years)

    They may have improved immensely in the past couple of years, but by the sounds of things they may be heading back to those days as they've now discovered that any other model just isn't working for them.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/09 @ 09:59

  • Brainz #8 2 years ago

    "Electronic Arts boss John Riccitiello has said the Modern Warfare games are all starting to look the same to him."

    Considering the EA lineup with Fifa, NBA, NFL, NfS, The Sims and so on ... i just came to the conclusion: John Riccitiello must be a complete douche!

  • mcmonkeyplc #9 2 years ago

    I never EVER thought I'd say this but GO EA GO! Take em down.

  • rickimalone #10 2 years ago

    LOL Who are EA trying to convience them or us. MOH is not even in COD's league. CODMWF2 was leaps and bounds better than Modern Warfare 1 who is he trying to kid?!?!?!

  • kangarootoo #11 2 years ago

    I am sure the debate that follows will be highly objective, and not at all influenced by peoples' feelings about EA and Activision.

    :)

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #12 2 years ago

    Turn back the clock to 2006 and replace Call of Duty with PES.

    EA can take the lead in this genre if they try. Although they might need annual refinements of very similar FPS games before they eventually do so.

  • Jay-ITFC #13 2 years ago

    FIFA International Soccer, FIFA 95, FIFA 96, FIFA 97, FIFA 98, FIFA 99, FIFA 2000, FIFA 2001, FIFA 2002, FIFA 2003, FIFA 2004, FIFA 2005, FIFA 06, FIFA 07, FIFA 08, FIFA 09, FIFA 10, World Cups, Road To World Cups, Euros, Street, etc. etc. etc.

  • itsfuzzy #14 2 years ago

    Because the world really needs another WW2 FPS!

    Ok nut sacks. Forgive me if i didnt realise it was set in a contemporary Afghanistan.
    So EA drops WW2 for their own Modern Warfare. And that has nothing to do with IW and Cod sucess.
    How fucking original. And since when was it cool to hate a developer so much because they are successful with a title?
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/09 @ 10:28

  • HL706 #15 2 years ago

    @rickimalone

    Are you serious!? It's the same game with an updated 'story' and a slightly modified multiplayer. The only thing praise-worthy about the whole bundle is Special Ops, which were rather good if a bit on the short side.

  • FooAtari #16 2 years ago

    CODMWF2 was leaps and bounds better than Modern Warfare 1

    O_o

  • awb83 #17 2 years ago

    kettle pot black

  • johnboy_johsnon #18 2 years ago

    There is obvious similarities between the games, especially seeing as some of the Infintity Ward crew are made up of MOH developers.

  • s3rioussam #19 2 years ago

    How many times do you have to comment on his hair in one single news story?

  • Beano #20 2 years ago

    "Electronic Arts boss John Riccitiello has said the Modern Warfare games are all starting to look the same to him."

    I could not agree more. MW2 was a huge letdown to me and had to sell it a few days later. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth - something about that game just rubs me the wrong way!

  • Apostle #21 2 years ago

    Bad Company 2 is going to be awesome, hopefully it will be on a par in the single player campaign, as we all know multiplayer is where Battlefield is second to none.

  • Monkey_Puncher #22 2 years ago

    I prefer multiplayer shooter without vehicles personally, so Battlefield doesn't real appeal to me any more. I hope they can do something impressive with the new Medal of Honour, I won't be holding my breath though, I am getting a bit bored of military based shooter if I'm honest.

  • dirk_aircool #23 2 years ago

    Operation Flashpoint is good,apart from the bugs and the online servers ( for 360 at least )that were completley useless for at least 2 weeks after release when my patience ran out.not too good for a game who's main selling point was online co-op play.

  • youhavenomail #24 2 years ago

    Something that's like COD but not just the same old COD, like MW2 is, will be most welcome by me. As cynical as the new MOH might seem, I'm looking forward to something even a LITTLE different.

  • thesombrerokid #25 2 years ago

    Riccitiello teaches Kotic how not to be a dick and how it will make you money, this game is much more intriguing than modern shitfare 2.

  • Earlyflash #26 2 years ago

    Could there be any bigger gap between the two big CEOs? Kotic consistently seems to make an ass of himself and a enemy of the gamer, but Riccitiello seems to just talk a lot of sense. Pretty surprising considering how much EA was hated not all that long ago.

  • Masaroth #27 2 years ago

    new medal of honour does sound promising, modern day setting and DICE doing the multiplayer can only be good for the series.

  • Murton #28 2 years ago

    The way things are looking with this new EA title the goal isn't necessarily to topple IW from the FPS leader position but rather to prove that it's possible to have both a good single player experience and a good multiplayer experience in the same game, something I've been waiting for a damned long time. Modern Warfare is too short, too predictable and too "Hollywood" to really be classed as an A Grade single player experience and the multiplayer is flat out dominated by the guys who have the time to put in to get the perks makinig it difficult to access for newcomers.

    If EA can successfully produce an FPS that gives you a great single player experience and a great multiplayer experience in the same game, then they will become the leader in the genre anyway, whether that's what they set out to do or not.

  • Toothball #29 2 years ago

    Call of Duty and Medal of Honour have always looked the same to me.

  • jonsaan #30 2 years ago

    I think he's got a point quite frankly. The new one is really good fun but it's more of an expansion to 4.

  • beastmaster #31 2 years ago

    People like more of the same. That's why it sells. I'm looking forward to seeing what EA can do. I really enjoy the MP on MW2 and will be interested in what DICE can do with the MP. It'll have to do something to distinguish itself from MW2.

    Don't know how. Probably get away from the Burnout Paradise type reward system and perks? Move it into a more PRG type upgrade system? But certainly the SP can be done well. Make it longer, more realistic that the plot of MW2.

  • metalangel #32 2 years ago

    Medal of Honor games seemed great until you played Call of Duty. Then they just felt stiff and dull. Call of Duty has a great "feel" to it that the MoH games haven't matched. Airborne was a brave attempt but it still felt out of date. Forget them and concentrate on the Battlefield games. A proper new Battlefield game (Desert Combat and Frontlines are your template now, EA as they both beat you at your own game) with usable helicopters and tanks will slam MW2's infantry-only knife fighting. And give us proper complex classes and vehicles, not the watered down simplicity of 1943.

  • Spooke #33 2 years ago

    "Frankly, once you get past, sort of, four people on a map, I think our gameplay is better"

    what the hell does that mean?

    I'd be interested to see what they come up with, if they can pull of something half way between COD MW2 and Flashpoint 2 then I think they might be in with a chance. But EA have made about ten times more shit games than good so it's a long shot.

  • Santino #34 2 years ago

    i just hope they make it 60fps, otherwise i wont even give it a chance.

  • BabyJesus #35 2 years ago

    I think it's hilarious how people seem to think Infinity Ward invented modern war games.(Not specifically targeting anyone here, but seen it alot around the net today..)

    Battlefield?Rainbow Six?Ghost Recon? Do these games not exist? Are people that blinded by IW?

  • hiddenranbir #36 2 years ago

    Come on EA!

  • Kyledanutmeg #37 2 years ago

    He's got a point, but they've looked the same for about four years now, and he's just jealous because his games don't sell as well :p. And Fifas all look the same to me ;)

  • andromeda #38 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett @bEANO

    definately agree.

    I found CODMW2 to be a slightly repetitve affair. Too staged, too predictable, too set-piecey, too meh

    As bombastic as it is, there is a real lack of connection and once I'd trudges though the levels watching my fellow grunts take out most of the opponents and planted the odd explosive when told to , I was itching to load up Far Cry 2 and play a game in which i really felt a part of..

  • MiniAmin #39 2 years ago

    As a Pro Evolution Soccer Fanboy, I sneered when Peter Moore made similar comments about the FIFA franchise. I thought it was cliche. How often do we hear devs/publishers brag about their ambitions? It's the fabric of the game industry.

    However with FIFA they did live up to their promises. You may dislike the game but you can't fault EA's effort. I won't sneer this time.

    Count me in.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/09 @ 12:09

  • Mooglepies #40 2 years ago

    Ellie: Are you obsessed with his hair? Jealous of his platinum blond locks?

    BC2 played well at the expo, and colour me interested in the new MoH game, but I'd like to hear more about it first.

  • Optimaximal #41 2 years ago

    "We think we've got an advantage over Modern Warfare 2 with our multiplayer... Frankly, once you get past, sort of, four people on a map, I think our gameplay is better,"

    So that's basically a roundabout way of saying 'we will have dedicated servers and build our maps & service around more than casual CQB and excessive reward systems'.

  • Benno #42 2 years ago

    he speaks sense though

  • TheApologist #43 2 years ago

    Over the last couple of years EA have earned my respect as a consumer to the point where I think Riccitello can (just) get away with saying this. Let's hope they make good on it.

  • Shadders #44 2 years ago

    We at the Anti-Activision Alliance (AAA) would like to welcome Mr. Riccitello to our way of thinking and invite him to sign up to our quarterly newsletter.

  • muscleblade #45 2 years ago

    "I think the trailer lasted longer than the game "

    I suspect you didnt play it on either hardened or veteran difficulty.

  • jefranklin18 #46 2 years ago

    I do wish they had done Vietnam rather than Afganistan. I have had enough of the WW2 shooters and equally so the contemporary ones.

  • MiniAmin #47 2 years ago

    @ muscleblade

    I suspect he didn't want to be spammed with grenades in order to artificially lengthen the single player mode.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/09 @ 13:00

  • PlugMonkey #48 2 years ago

    In conclusion, not unlike EA: 1999 - 2007 (aka the profitable years)

    They may have improved immensely in the past couple of years, but by the sounds of things they may be heading back to those days as they've now discovered that any other model just isn't working for them.

    @ Secombe

    I don't think you've been paying attention. Yes, Activision's current strategy does seem very close to EA of old, but it was a strategy that made their name dirt amongst gamers, stagnated all of their key IP, obliterated their profitablity and resulted in thousands of lay-offs.

  • tubaros #49 2 years ago

    It is a bit pot calling the kettle black, but we havent even seen the new MoH yet, lets wait. It could well be bloody aweseome! And a bit of competition is always good.

  • Nodebug #50 2 years ago

    Who lets this guy speak all the time? Someone in EA PR should muzzle him.

  • davisorle #51 2 years ago

    lmao.. Big badass words from EA that I certainly have no reason to be against them. I do hope they manage to pull what they burgained for and prove themselves, not as fools, to what they just started. if they do so good for them ( and their pockets ) and better for us. Surelythere will be better online services and I wont hide that I enjoye dthe bit where EA is straight out hitting them about MW2's poor PC online experience. EA is treating us like groupies here but oh well.. They better deliver and ill sex up their next MoH all day long.

    I saw the teaser of the new MoH which is a couple of words with a moving pic of the 360 cover that was provided here yesterday but nothing else. Cant wait for the first footage of the actual game. Bring it on already.

  • jambo74 #52 2 years ago

    Great, what colour was the guy's hair again?
    I forget.

  • Raiten #53 2 years ago

    This'll be somewhat a reference to, what muscleblade said about lengthening a short game experience by increasing difficulty.
    That's what's so wrong about FPS games nowdays, especialy CoD series, you pay more money for less content with just about every new fps games.
    I still remember times when, just on normal difficulty avarage length of fps games were around 10h, those games didnt require you to increase the difficulty to make the game seem longer. Nowdays you get avarage 5h long sp campaings in FPS games yet people pay the same or in some cases even more money for less content, yet people like muscleblade say it's fine, play it on harder.. that's just idiotic, no offence.
    Even the old fps games had good/addictive MP, so you can't even use that as scapegoat for the current trend in fps development.
    Now we can all hope the new MoH would turn the tide finaly, making a desent length and engaging sp campaing while providing us with good old fun multiplayer as extra.

  • Derblington #54 2 years ago

    Games have also become easier, so comparing Normal difficulties between then and now doesn't quite add up. Halo, for example, is designed to be played on Heroic/Hardened/whatever it's called, which is the step up above Normal. I don't think CoD is any different. The key to most SP FPS's (especially) today is to find a difficulty that challenges you while still being achievable. Running through CoD6 on Normal and then complaining it's too easy/not long enough is player error, not that of the game.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/09 @ 14:00

  • Raiten #55 2 years ago

    @Derblington, you've good points.. but they don't change the fact that, even on easy difficulty it took longer to finish those games, than it takes in most cases on hard to finish games nowdays. Yet it's still compearable because fps games have had allways the same difficulty levels available aka, easy, normal, hard, nightmare/legendary what ever the chosen developer has decided to call them. Even if old fps games were slightly harder on normal than current gen fps games on normal, they had more content behind them also.

    Tho you're right on the part that each person should choose the difficulty level best suited for them, but the difficulty level should never be used to artificialy lengthen allready short game.
    Why? because that simply fails, if you're able to finish it on hard/legendary on first playtrough, it just shows you're skilled enough to do so, and most likely compleated the game in same amount of time as avarage player would've done on normal difficulty.
    Besides, if developer claims the game was designed to be played on harder difficulties, it's utter bs. It just shows to us, that the game isn't long enough to begin with, and from there we can return to what i allready said above, and to what you Derblington said about choosing the right difficulty level.

  • Machiavellian #56 2 years ago

    The Problem with MW2 is the same problem with most very popular games. Change is not always great to a game that already has a huge fanbase. When you are at the bottom like MOH or you are trying to upseat the champ like Bad Company, taking risk is more rewarding

  • Machiavellian #57 2 years ago

    On game length, lets be honest its us the game that is the problem then the developers. We want uber graphics, high detail, unique experience but we do not want to retread through the same level. We expect developers to pop out games in 2 years. Games of Old had always added artificial length. I cannot think of any FPS game that gives you more than 10 hours of gameplay on a decent difficulty level that did not have you backtrack through levels you have already played.

  • Stegofreak #58 2 years ago

    I think the big challange that EA face when they challange the Call of Duty series doesn't come from multiplayer as suggested by some people. Call of Duty is great for a quick, small bouts; that's where it excels and that's what it's fanbase want. Tell DICE to give you muliplayer and you get a completely different animal. I literally spent hours combing massive maps on Battlefield, often tracking back to retake lost points; rounds just seem to go on forever. The two series off completely different experiences but given the choice I'd back battlefield all the way.

    As for the single player, both studios really need to improve in my opinion. The Bad Company story was crazy and fun but ultimately not as good as that of FarCry 2 (the best comparison in my opinion) while the stories of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare two just don't interest me as much as the stories of the first two call of Duty games.

    Here's hoping that EA do something special with what they've got coming out. I've had fun with both Modern Warfares but I'm looking forward to more DICE driven action...(and s**ting it when a wall I've been taking cover behind becomes rubble.)

  • ronuds #59 2 years ago

    Apart from the fact that EA has no right to talk about making samey games, I agree with his comments regarding modern warfare games.

    Everyone complains about having too many WWII titles, but we seem to have just as many if not more MW titles these days.

  • HenryFitz #60 2 years ago

    Machiavellian,

    Half Life 2 was more than 10 hours with no filler and no backtracking. Far Cry was also over 10 hours long. Ah, 2004, how I miss thee.

  • X3Entente #61 2 years ago

    why is it that no one seems to be able to make an fps better than half life 2?!!!

  • metalangel #62 2 years ago

    For every great bit in Half Life 2 (Anticitizen One/Follow Freeman, Highway 17) there was an overly long, contrived bit that pushed you to the very bring of giving up. Route Kanal, Sandtraps, Nova Prospekt; all dragged on and on and on with endless, lifeless combat and for-the-sake-of-it physics puzzles. It's like Valve couldn't get enough of how clever they think they are as they were making it.

  • FortysixterUK #63 2 years ago


    All Ic an say to EA about that statement is....

    Good.
    Fucking.
    Luck!

  • YourMessageHere #64 2 years ago

    I can't actually tell if he's talking about BFBC2 or MoH. Not sure he can either.

    On difficulty...when I play a game, I want a fun experience. Dying does not generally qualify as fun. Replaying certain segments twenty times does not generally qualify as fun either. I dare say I will manage it eventually, but I don't really want to have the game make me hate it. More relevantly, replaying certain segments doesn't make the game as a whole experience longer in real terms, it just increases the time it takes you to complete it - if you listen to the first minute of a three minute song four times and then the whole thing, it does not become a seven minute song. That's a totally artificial form of lengthening a game.

    Add to this the fact that, more often than not, by ramping up difficulty in an FPS, what you are doing is simply altering relative properties that ought not to be changeable - for instance, you have less health than your enemies (assuming you are fighting humans) and your guns do less damage than theirs, and you have arbitrary limits placed on your ammunition. It may make the game harder, but it makes no logical sense, and fiction lives and dies on internal consistency; for this reason, I almost always play a game on normal difficulty - if it is normal, that's how it was originally intended to be experienced...anything else is by definition abnormal, no?

    Backtracking through levels is not inherently bad; it's purely a matter of what you do with the idea and how the level changes the second time through that makes it work or not.

  • PlugMonkey #65 2 years ago

    That's a totally artificial form of lengthening a game.

    And game length is a totally artificial form of discerning value for money. I don't automatically rate long books, films or albums as better than short books, films or albums and yet - funnily enough - they seem to cost the same about the same. I do wonder why people seem to think this metric is so incredibly important for games.

    I once paid £50 to bungee jump off a bridge. It lasted about 20 seconds and was great value for money. It would not have been better value for money if they had gently lowered me down over the course of two hours.


  • Raiten #66 2 years ago

    PlugMonkey, unfortunatly everything you wrote falls apart thanks to the first line you wrote.
    Reality is that even if you claim that, game length is artificial way of discerning value for money, it just isn't true when it comes to people buying and playing games.
    I'll give you just a tiny example, you're going out to gameshop to buy a nice new game, you find 2 games that recieved relativly good reviews and that intterest you, but you only got money for one of them. Now the first game lasts only 4hours, while the second one lasts 8hours, games being expencive as it is.. care to guess wich one the buyer picks? ofcourse the second option which guarantees more enttertainment and value for his money.

    Also your book / movie comparison to games falls apart, you dont buy books or movies acording to how long they last, or with the mindset of expecting to spend lots of time with them. You watch a movie, or read a book once, then leave em be for unknown amount of time, till you might feel like you might want to read the book or watch the movie again. With games, you buy them expecting the game to offer you hours after hours of enttertainment, this is where the length of the game and the amount of content it has matters the most.

  • Hassata #67 2 years ago

    Why r u so obsessed with the guy's hair, EG?

  • Caspar_Esq. #68 2 years ago

    Competition is good.

    Really great to see how EA have become hungry over the last five years, there was a time when they wre just shovelware mongers killing the industry.

  • Emmit_Assassin #69 2 years ago

    Drivable vehicles and destructible environments? If that's innovation we are all fucked.

    And he can talk, all MOH games ARE the same. I could never tell any of them apart.