Medal of Honor Warfighter | Why This Game Is Dead

My thoughts on why this game is already dead. Thanks for watching!

i dunno, I don't think authenticity or the lack of it, due to a rush by EA is the reason this game might not have a huge fan base, but why do you say it's dead, your gameplay was in a 16v16 match. There were plenty of people in it, so what led you to say its dead?

Even if that's just a bad example, I think the real problem is, that people are getting tired of the same copy/paste crap, and all I have to say about that is, "Thank God". Activision (or Vivendi) and EA have been pushing this crap for as long as they can, and I believe with the release of BO2, we'll see the death of them shortly after. They won't make it another generation, that's for sure. People want to play things that are different and you can say it's based off of the authenticity or whatever, but it's really because Warfighter has the same choppy feel that it's predicessor has, and it has the same slow reaction times that BF3/2 and BadCompany have. I personally have played nearly all of these games, they all 'feel' the same, so why bother paying full retail for a game you've already played?

I think that is the root cause, I bet Warfighter will have a steady player base over time, because as the price drops more people will pick it up. I know I'll play it when it's about $8-$15 on gamefly, but no sooner unless I get a borrowed copy.

But in all seriousness, look at the huge transition of players that happened recently, we just had TONS of good/great games released. I know I don't have to pull out the list, but I'll say it none-the-less. Borderlands 2, RE6, Dishonored, TTT2, and more... but you get the picture. There is a lot to play right now and the masses are waiting on their precious Bo2, so of course other games aren't going to be seeing the huge market like some of Warfighter's predecessors had seen.

No1leftB3HIND wrote:i dunno, I don't think authenticity or the lack of it, due to a rush by EA is the reason this game might not have a huge fan base, but why do you say it's dead, your gameplay was in a 16v16 match. There were plenty of people in it, so what led you to say its dead?

Even if that's just a bad example, I think the real problem is, that people are getting tired of the same copy/paste crap, and all I have to say about that is, "Thank God". Activision (or Vivendi) and EA have been pushing this crap for as long as they can, and I believe with the release of BO2, we'll see the death of them shortly after. They won't make it another generation, that's for sure. People want to play things that are different and you can say it's based off of the authenticity or whatever, but it's really because Warfighter has the same choppy feel that it's predicessor has, and it has the same slow reaction times that BF3/2 and BadCompany have. I personally have played nearly all of these games, they all 'feel' the same, so why bother paying full retail for a game you've already played?

I think that is the root cause, I bet Warfighter will have a steady player base over time, because as the price drops more people will pick it up. I know I'll play it when it's about $8-$15 on gamefly, but no sooner unless I get a borrowed copy.

But in all seriousness, look at the huge transition of players that happened recently, we just had TONS of good/great games released. I know I don't have to pull out the list, but I'll say it none-the-less. Borderlands 2, RE6, Dishonored, TTT2, and more... but you get the picture. There is a lot to play right now and the masses are waiting on their precious Bo2, so of course other games aren't going to be seeing the huge market like some of Warfighter's predecessors had seen.

Def agree with you. The big problem that a lot of people find with Warfighter is the lack of polish. It just feels like an unfinished game. If you buy a military title, you can only assume it plays similarly to other games of the same genre. What I would look for is different things that this specific game implements.

I do think a lot of people are skipping it as well because the influx of new games. People are tired of the same formula and look forward to something different. And like you said, CoD will take away a majority of the players.

In terms of the match, it was only 10v10, the max for this game. It was also an older gameplay from the week of release.

Thanks for watching and commenting!

The quality of a game shouldn't be defined by its implementations. It should be defined by it's originality. That's my biggest problem with these copy/paste dynasties. It's not about the different guns, it's not about the different maps, it's not about if you can jump or crawl or hide your position, it should be about, "have I played this before?". These games were fun when they first came out because they finally got close to realism (even though it's still very far away from it), well that novelty has worn off, and it's time to develop a different style of gaming. These games have lost their playability not because they've failed to adapt, but because they've gone as far as they can go, at least with the current systems or 'console technology'.

People like these games because for the most part they are quick. You can pick it up, play for 20 minutes or so, and then go back to whatever you were doing, but at the same time you can dedicate long-periods of your life to playing them, so they have that diversity working for them, but why don't these major development companies extend that same idea to different genres? The market is there, but we don't see it. Why is that? (rhetorical)

I personally believe that is probably the core reason why this game, and other games, will continue to fall off with gamers. People want something original, and Warfighter and the rest are all lacking that aspect, and sure having this huge competition with all the other big releases that have just come out or are coming out was/is detrimental to the game's prosperity, but I don't think a better polish on the game would have helped much more. These other games and their genres haven't been worn out yet (at least for most people), like this genre has been, so that has a lot to do with it as well. I guess what I'm saying is that MoH:W was doomed for failure before it ever hit the shelves.

I just feel FPSs have had their run, we may see a few more that hold some form of uniqueness to keep the tradition going, but for the most part, the majority of FPSs to be released will end the same was MoH is, at least until the new consoles drop, which may only continue it for a few more years. I know I personally am always searching for an exceptionally well developed game, that has a variety of multiplayer incentives, that allows for both quick & long term play, that has absolutely nothing to do with shooters, but still has a good 'flow'.

There is one final thing I'd like to add about these games, which is that, the learning curve needs to be steepened. These games are too easy, and while that might make for a good market, because you have a broader audience to sell too, I know it leads some people, especially those who share my views, to only play a game once. If it was a 3 hour playthrough on hard, I don't really care to play it anymore. I want to play harder games, I want to be challenged, I want to feel that a challenge is worth it. Getting shot in the back by some guy who has three favorite camping positions isn't challenging, it's frustrating, that's one reason I liked RFOM, you couldn't camp, and if you did, it was really hard to do so. These games play into that while at the same time devaluing a need for teamwork. MAG was a great example, you had to be on a good team to get anything done, you had to have people cover your flanks, make strategic pushes, corner off certain areas to force enemies into a corridor, it was really fun because it added a completely new element other games had never played with. It was also really hard to get a team together that was able to use those elements to their advantage. These games probably didn't have all the hype, but they don't have the massive advertising teams that Vivendi and EA have, either.

So to broaden the topic I'll recap:

The reasons MoH:WF failed and why other games of it's genre will continue to fail are:

• The style is played out / unoriginal (this is the majority of the opinion)
  
• excessive competition in the market
  
• They are too easy (and you can't make a game more difficult by making the efficiency of the controls more difficult)
  
• realism is no longer fun (because it isn't even close to real-life)
  
• Exorbitant marketing can only take a game so far
  

No1leftB3HIND wrote:The quality of a game shouldn't be defined by its implementations. It should be defined by it's originality. That's my biggest problem with these copy/paste dynasties. It's not about the different guns, it's not about the different maps, it's not about if you can jump or crawl or hide your position, it should be about, "have I played this before?". These games were fun when they first came out because they finally got close to realism (even though it's still very far away from it), well that novelty has worn off, and it's time to develop a different style of gaming. These games have lost their playability not because they've failed to adapt, but because they've gone as far as they can go, at least with the current systems or 'console technology'.

People like these games because for the most part they are quick. You can pick it up, play for 20 minutes or so, and then go back to whatever you were doing, but at the same time you can dedicate long-periods of your life to playing them, so they have that diversity working for them, but why don't these major development companies extend that same idea to different genres? The market is there, but we don't see it. Why is that? (rhetorical)

I personally believe that is probably the core reason why this game, and other games, will continue to fall off with gamers. People want something original, and Warfighter and the rest are all lacking that aspect, and sure having this huge competition with all the other big releases that have just come out or are coming out was/is detrimental to the game's prosperity, but I don't think a better polish on the game would have helped much more. These other games and their genres haven't been worn out yet (at least for most people), like this genre has been, so that has a lot to do with it as well. I guess what I'm saying is that MoH:W was doomed for failure before it ever hit the shelves.

I just feel FPSs have had their run, we may see a few more that hold some form of uniqueness to keep the tradition going, but for the most part, the majority of FPSs to be released will end the same was MoH is, at least until the new consoles drop, which may only continue it for a few more years. I know I personally am always searching for an exceptionally well developed game, that has a variety of multiplayer incentives, that allows for both quick & long term play, that has absolutely nothing to do with shooters, but still has a good 'flow'.

There is one final thing I'd like to add about these games, which is that, the learning curve needs to be steepened. These games are too easy, and while that might make for a good market, because you have a broader audience to sell too, I know it leads some people, especially those who share my views, to only play a game once. If it was a 3 hour playthrough on hard, I don't really care to play it anymore. I want to play harder games, I want to be challenged, I want to feel that a challenge is worth it. Getting shot in the back by some guy who has three favorite camping positions isn't challenging, it's frustrating, that's one reason I liked RFOM, you couldn't camp, and if you did, it was really hard to do so. These games play into that while at the same time devaluing a need for teamwork. MAG was a great example, you had to be on a good team to get anything done, you had to have people cover your flanks, make strategic pushes, corner off certain areas to force enemies into a corridor, it was really fun because it added a completely new element other games had never played with. It was also really hard to get a team together that was able to use those elements to their advantage. These games probably didn't have all the hype, but they don't have the massive advertising teams that Vivendi and EA have, either.

So to broaden the topic I'll recap:

The reasons MoH:WF failed and why other games of it's genre will continue to fail are:

• The style is played out / unoriginal (this is the majority of the opinion)
  
• excessive competition in the market
  
• They are too easy (and you can't make a game more difficult by making the efficiency of the controls more difficult)
  
• realism is no longer fun (because it isn't even close to real-life)
  
• Exorbitant marketing can only take a game so far
  

I actually agree with almost everything you've said. The only piece I would disagree with you on is CoD. CoD is literally all of those things you were just talking about and is extremely popular. Haha. I, by no means, am a CoD fanboy and will not be getting Blops 2 for a while but the success of the entire franchise goes against everything you just said. It seems like it's just an anomaly in the genre. Seems like most games are trying to move towards CoD, when in reality the players want them to do the opposite.