[Game] Medal Of Honor (2010)

[Amerikaner]

+ some people don't want to think and do not have high requirements from games.

Friend of mine loves new SP and MP MoH. I asked him why, he told me he likes it cause game is easy, fun, maps are small and full of action. I told him, that weapons act wierd and doesn't have recoil. For him it's fine, cause he can kill other player easier...Also he likes AI and scripts from single player, those are fine cause he doesn't have to think too much where to go, what to do - game does everything for him... He also been playing in CoD 4, only ONE map, on same server all time. When I got bored after a week playing same small CoD maps over and over again, he enjoyed one map for years. And no, he isn't 12 yo, he's 32 now.

All MoH's BS are ok, cause they are "fun"...

and now whatever will be in new CoD people buy it, cause there is no other FPS around and game can't be as bad as MoH is.

/me looking @ TWI and hoping, that RO2 beta will be released before CoD :IS2:

Yeah see I just don't get people like that. Maybe if MOH was $10-$20 bucks I could understand someone who likes shooters and cant be bothered to look at reviews or whatever...but the fact that they're getting the same game simply with new maps and some slightly new weapon models for 60 ****ING DOLLARS and they don't care is so unbelievable to me. When I was 10 years old I wasn't that willfully ignorant and careless.

 

[Grobut]

---------------------------------
EDIT:I just read through some reviews of the game and only could shake my head at those constant lines like "the game is very realistic" or "the game's blend of realism and action is perfect".

Did I miss the realism bit?

That's what gives me the blues aswell, games can suck as much as they want to, as long as they don't do it on my harddrive, i can just point and laugh at them, but i really wish people would wake up and realize what "realism" is (hint: nice graphics are the least of it!), and i'm tired of seeing Quake with Tommyguns or M4's beeing hailed as

 

[omarfw]

+ some people don't want to think and do not have high requirements from games.

Friend of mine loves new SP and MP MoH. I asked him why, he told me he likes it cause game is easy, fun, maps are small and full of action. I told him, that weapons act wierd and doesn't have recoil. For him it's fine, cause he can kill other player easier...Also he likes AI and scripts from single player, those are fine cause he doesn't have to think too much where to go, what to do - game does everything for him... He also been playing in CoD 4, only ONE map, on same server all time. When I got bored after a week playing same small CoD maps over and over again, he enjoyed one map for years. And no, he isn't 12 yo, he's 32 now.

All MoH's BS are ok, cause they are "fun"...

and now whatever will be in new CoD people buy it, cause there is no other FPS around and game can't be as bad as MoH is.

/me looking @ TWI and hoping, that RO2 beta will be released before CoD :IS2:

you're right some people just want to casually play a game that isn't too challenging. there's nothing wrong with that. everybody has their preferences.

I have no problem with those kinds of gamers, the ones I do have a problem with are the people who judge a game before it's even released. smart gamers know to wait a while after a game has been released to see what kind of official and user reviews it gets. if the game ends up blowing chunks, why throw down 60 bucks for it?

The fact is that many game developers are getting away with putting less and less work into making their games good because they know that people are basically going to buy it anyway. If they can get people to buy it, they don't care what you think about the game.

everytime you pay 60 bucks for a crappy game on it's release day, you are giving the company who released it more incentive to not make their future games any better, because they got your money and that's all they want. your words don't matter, your money does.

Blizzard doesn't do this because they want people to continue paying monthly subscriptions.

Tripwire doesn't do this because they are still small and need to attract as big of a fanbase as possible to keep their business running.

IW threw together a sloppy multiplayer for MW2 knowing fully well that it would be hacked to crap and ruined, but they didn't care because they would still make a huge profit on the game since CoD4 was so successful and they had so many people hyped up from the trailers for it.

 

[Amerikaner]

you're right some people just want to casually play a game that isn't too challenging. there's nothing wrong with that. everybody has their preferences.

I have no problem with those kinds of gamers, the ones I do have a problem with are the people who judge a game before it's even released. smart gamers know to wait a while after a game has been released to see what kind of official and user reviews it gets. if the game ends up blowing chunks, why throw down 60 bucks for it?

The fact is that many game developers are getting away with putting less and less work into making their games good because they know that people are basically going to buy it anyway. If they can get people to buy it, they don't care what you think about the game.

everytime you pay 60 bucks for a crappy game on it's release day, you are giving the company who released it more incentive to not make their future games any better, because they got your money and that's all they want. your words don't matter, your money does.

Blizzard doesn't do this because they want people to continue paying monthly subscriptions.

Tripwire doesn't do this because they are still small and need to attract as big of a fanbase as possible to keep their business running.

IW threw together a sloppy multiplayer for MW2 knowing fully well that it would be hacked to crap and ruined, but they didn't care because they would still make a huge profit on the game since CoD4 was so successful and they had so many people hyped up from the trailers for it.

Nicely said.

 

[Nenjin]

Here's the difference:

A less than fanatical gamer isn't looking for a game they can play for 4 years. They will say it's "fun because it's easy", because in their minds 6 months or less of entertainment out of MP FPS for $60 is about fair. I'd wager most people that are getting their fun's worth out of MOH won't even touch it again later.

We take a totally different approach. I know I play games I enjoyed as a kid still, today. Hundreds, maybe more than 1,000 hours of joy for something I paid $10 to $30 for.

That's our mindset as hardcore gamers, and in this case I define hardcore as "gives a a **** about the whole thing." We judge games based on whether or not they'll establish a legacy, or at least stand up to 500+ hours, on par with the titles that made us become hardcore gamers.

I don't think the rest of the market really sees it like that. Which is bizarre. Because you would think that those more devoted to the hobby would be willing to spend more at every quality level. But it's completely the inverse. We measure our dollars against game quality pretty rigidly compared to the rest of the market, which seems to be ok with throwing $60 at a new title every 2-3 months.

Maybe it's the fact we've played so many games, we're constantly getting a diminishing return on our investment. People who play less games have far fewer experiences to reference when they make their purchasing decisions.

 

[omarfw]

Here's how things should work

A video game is just that: a game.

Look at some non-video games and sports.

Baseball, football, soccer, frisbee, monopoly, foosball, poker etc

All of these games have been continuously played for how many years because they are good.

A video game should be the same way.

Video game sequels only exist for the sake of upgrading a game to utilize newer technology and doing a lot of improvements on the first game.

If a new sport was created once every few months and everyone stopped playing the old ones, nothing traditionalized about them currently would exist.

A multiplayer video game is inherently supposed to be played for a long time. and by long time I mean years until the technology it's made with is just too outdated to tolerate anymore. That's why it's up to the developer to make it good and have lots of re-playability.

But recently developers have just been making games that purposefully only provide about a year of entertainment value so you will get bored of it before they release the next one. (i.e: the force unleashed)

If people want this to stop, they must talk with their wallets. Don't buy games on release, wait and get player opinions on it and watch reviews on it. If the consensus is "this game blows balls", then make the developer suffer the consequences by NOT GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY.

After all, WE are what keeps developers running so they can continue making games. It is up to us if they succeed or not. They know this, so don't fall for their tricks trying to get you to hand over your money without fairly judging the game first.

Why do you think so many developers are putting out fewer and fewer demos nowadays? They don't want you to play the game ahead of time in case you decide you don't like it.

 

[Apos]

(...)

It maybe wouldn't be a problem to pay 60$ if game offer two game modes, for casuals and veteran fps players. So everyone can find something for self and be happy. But we all know, EA or IW prefer to make dumb FPS shooter with 3 hours campaing for consoles and port it to PC, than brand new game with many new features, realistic weapons models etc dedicated only for one platform like TWI does.

Atleast MoH here cost now 20-25 euros only. Fair price for such game.

 

[gusone]

I don't want to play the same game for 10 years. My benchmark is 10 hours entertainment for my 60 bucks and I am happy. That's the same as going to the movies 5 times (at least in theUK) so I consider that a more than decent return for my investment. And anything extra is extra. For example I've clocked nearly 600 hours on Killing Floor. So all I can say is TWI should have charged more haha!

 

[mamoo]

The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter are actually pretty nice books to read.

These are classic examples of books that should never have been made into films.

 

[Bluehawk]

The Da Vinci Code reads like a script anyway, so I don't see a problem there.

 

[Nimsky]

That's what gives me the blues aswell, games can suck as much as they want to, as long as they don't do it on my harddrive, i can just point and laugh at them, but i really wish people would wake up and realize what "realism" is (hint: nice graphics are the least of it!), and i'm tired of seeing Quake with Tommyguns or M4's beeing hailed as

 

[hockeywarrior]

Yeah see I just don't get people like that. Maybe if MOH was $10-$20 bucks I could understand someone who likes shooters and cant be bothered to look at reviews or whatever...but the fact that they're getting the same game simply with new maps and some slightly new weapon models for 60 ****ING DOLLARS and they don't care is so unbelievable to me. When I was 10 years old I wasn't that willfully ignorant and careless.

Yeah these days I avoid games like MoH and CoD like the plague because I want alot of bang for my buck -- not the same recycled crap over and over again.

Games like SC2, Men of War, Total War games, Red Orchestra, ARMA games, and RPG's like Oblivion, Dragon Age, and Mount and Blade give you a ton of variety and depth which continue to give long after you buy them. And that's not even counting the mods.

 

[Nenjin]

I don't want to play the same game for 10 years. My benchmark is 10 hours entertainment for my 60 bucks and I am happy. That's the same as going to the movies 5 times (at least in theUK) so I consider that a more than decent return for my investment. And anything extra is extra. For example I've clocked nearly 600 hours on Killing Floor. So all I can say is TWI should have charged more haha!

See, I quit seeing movies in theatres years ago. The theater experience just doesn't do it for me, for the cost. I'd rather be at home, comfortable, getting drunk or whatever, and it's worth the price I pay.

So to me, $60 for 10 hours of entertainment is a rip off. A complete and a total rip off. I should get less entertainment hourly out of my purchase than I make at my job? Er no. That's not math I accept, and wouldn't even if I had lots of money to toss around.

I don't want a game I can play for 10 years, but I want a game I'll play more than 2 months. I'm already sick of BC2, and that only took me less than 100 hours. Comparatively, I played BF2 for two years or more... and KF for probably 6 months. Those are substantial returns on my gaming investment.

 

[Nezzer]

Man, that's such a terrible game. It's definetely not worth telling why... This is the kind of game I pirate proudly, just to check the campaign (which sucks too).

 

[Murphy]

Why would you even pirate it? What you're saying is that it's good enough to play but not worth 60$. So how much is it worth? At least your time, then, right?

To me it isn't worth anything. I respect the work that went into it and it looks nice and all, but I'm really not interested in playing that kind of game at all. Except on a Lan maybe, but even there there are much better alternatives, so why bother?

 

[Moyako]

Man, that's such a terrible game. It's definetely not worth telling why... This is the kind of game I pirate proudly, just to check the campaign (which sucks too).

Just played the SP for half an hour at my neighbor's place. I'm not felling well... made me so dizzy that I went back to my house :s Weird, I played the beta for a full day without problems, and never had this problem with any FPS before

 

[dogbadger]

Man, that's such a terrible game. It's definetely not worth telling why... This is the kind of game I pirate proudly, just to check the campaign (which sucks too).

games either worth buying or it isn't - of course the price you are prepared to pay varies.
in my case for games like this it's when i find it somewhere for under

 

[Amerikaner]

i just can't wrap my head around this idea that ppl simply getting on with enjoying what is after all a leisure activity - and nothing more - are wrong.

They're wrong because they're supporting bad business practices with their purchases: lazy development, false or misleading advertisements, bloated prices, etc. If they didn't, developers and publishers would be forced to spend more time making quality games or they simply wouldn't make money. So now all of us who are aware of what's going on must either look to indie games or wait for the rare "mainstream" game that is actually good.

It's very simple. Players buy ****ty, underwhelming games, thus developers continually make ****ty, underwhelming games. So supporting an industry of ****ty, underwhelming games = wrong.

 

[Fedorov]

They're wrong because they're supporting bad business practices with their purchases: lazy development, false or misleading advertisements, bloated prices, etc. If they didn't, developers and publishers would be forced to spend more time making quality games or they simply wouldn't make money. So now all of us who are aware of what's going on must either look to indie games or wait for the rare "mainstream" game that is actually good.

It's very simple. Players buy ****ty, underwhelming games, thus developers continually make ****ty, underwhelming games. So supporting an industry of ****ty, underwhelming games = wrong.

A pity I can't hit the "like" button more than once

 

[dogbadger]

sorry i still don't get it.
I wish i lived in a world where I thought the idea of bad business practice was merely producing repetitive, formulaic video games that weren't realistic enough for my liking.