Riccitello: Low MOH scores come from a “narrow demographic of reviewers”

Low scores come from bad games. Period.

“Demographic”? How on earth does the “demographic” of games reviewers differ from the people this game is targeted at? Or does this have some kind of 14-21 Year Old Female target audience we weren’t aware of?

No John Riccitello, the low scores because many of us reviewers aren’t stupid enough to give high scores to unpolished, clumsily scripted, buggy, shitfests.

The game is about a 7. So most of the reviews are right, i’d say.

On a sidenote, you cant trust customer/user reviews most of the time. People who put down money for something tend not to like admitting that they spent their hard earned cash on crap. Then there are the fanboys, especially when “DICE” is written on the box and the game is being considered the main competitor of a CoD game…

bla bla bla bla
Low score because your game is shit

70% isnt verry good… Its just good but with a 3hours single player campagn im not buying this game. Ill rent it.

Im still trying to figure out how Bad Company 2 scored well. Its pants! Too many bugs.

^ any new FPS without (near) full destructible environments is dull, imo. Plus you have a proper balanced vehicle arsenal. What brings MoH to the party?

But you are right DICE must update their bugfest. Hopefully with the release of the Nam pack.

@1 I agree!

BFBC2 and MOH has choppy framerate, its FPS its suppose to be crisp and good gameplay.

@10 Than buy a PC.

MoH and Battlefield:BC2 hardly can manage to run on both consoles. PS3 and 360 in BC 2 even support only 24 players…

@10 Your telling yourself to buy a pc? Cheap joke aside, telling someone to buy a pc misses the point. This gen of consoles has been around long enough (360) especially for devs with the rep of dice to sort this shit out.

Im going out on a limb here and say theres alot of cod fanboy’s that have been messing up moh’s reviews.

@12 yes and no. Whatever you think of Activision or COD, it set the benchmark & not just for *hardcore* players, but more importantly casual gamers like myself.

Face it, the game is a flop.

it´s the rental of the year. 10 out of 10. worldwide.

@ 12
for the record, I didnt touch CoD because it was a PC port. Either way, the quality of FPS games has dropped. Too many bugs at launch spoil game play – publishers and developers only have themselves to blame.

Blizzard are number one for a reason. They release crap but yet reap the rewards because they are the masters of polishing turds…

@16 CoD is a PC port now? no it’s not. its lead dev platform was xbox 360.

Blizzard release crap, woe! woe! woe!, I don’t even want to know what u’ve been smoking son…

All in all I had better experience playing MoH than I had with CoD: MW2. And I’m not kind of person to play a shooter on shitty console, unless there’s no other option like killzone or Gears of War.

PS: So Blizzard releases crap and its monthly sells are even higher than all titles sold on every single platform!

@3: Best thing i have read all day. Thank you.

@Riccitello: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_-e_iSFE6g&feature=player_embedded

@14, it sold the same as Left 4 Dead 2 within the same time, granted Medal of Honour had the PS3 available, but still, 2 million is hardly a flop.

Every time I read something about this game, the length of the single player campaign goes down. I see somebody mentioned 3 hours up thread… I mean come on, I’m 4 and a half hours in, and it doesn’t seem to be ready to end yet.

My brother finished it in 8 hours.. which may sound reasonable, but it usually takes him about 18 hours to get through an 8 hour game.

It can be blitzed in 3 hours. On average, it will take a normal player 4-5 hours to complete (including cutscenes)

the multiplayer is really good in my opinion. not as good as bfbc2 but far better than that tiny-map-bug-fest called mw2.