U.S. Military Stores Won't Sell Medal of Honor Despite 'Taliban' Multiplayer Faction Name Change
Today, Joystiq reports that the AAFES has maintained its position and will not allow the first-person shooter to be sold on military bases.
"Out of respect to those touched by the ongoing, real-life events presented as a game, Exchanges will not be carrying this product," Commander Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella of the Army & Air Force Exchange Service said. "I expect the military families who are authorized to shop the Exchange are aware, and understanding, of the decision not to carry this particular offering." Following controversy surrounding Medal of Honor's "U.S. soldiers versus Taliban fighters" multiplayer structure, the AAFES requested GameStop locations on military bases to not stock the game when it becomes available.
In response to the AAFES' decision, EA's senior public relations manager Amanda Taggart said, "We respect AAFES' authority to decide what's best for their customers. EA has not asked for, and does not expect, a change in the Defense Department's decision to restrict the availability of Medal of Honor on bases."
-
Batmanshack
replyIs this really a big deal? The games beta was pretty awful anyways..
-
Awful? Really? Would be curious what you consider to be good then.
Looks pretty well put together, imho. Don't really see much in the beta that will differentiate it from MW2 or BC2, but in terms of production value, it is certainly up there with both.
-
Why does the production value mean anything if it ain't fun?
I haven't played, just want to put that out there. Cus it's this empty idea of "production value" that gives +10% to big publishers' avg-mediocre titles, reviewers grading in the 70-100 range, and why people trust user review avg and word of the mouth more. -
im a huge fan of bc2 (and whats up with the shack server always being empty?) and MoH feels like a completely different game. which it is, i guess, but still... i played the beta for about an hour and wasnt impressed. not that it isnt a good game, its just not my kind of game. its hyper-kinetic... everything plays VERY VERY FAST. the map is positively claustrophobic, matches are *extremely* short. no squads, no support abilities like the ammo box, medkit, defib, or repair (that i am aware of, maybe those are later unlocks?)... no sense of coordination on the part of any of the players, all very run and gun. play feels more like UT/quake team deathmatch than a bc2 conquest match. which is fine, lots of people love that style of play... but if youre a fan of bc2 conquest, youre going to be disappointed. youre probably also going to be reflexively mashing Q and wondering why nothing is happening, too :)
i havent played the other game mode that sounds more like "rush" although ill probably give it a shot tonight, and i havent played the modern warfare games so i can speak as to how it compares... but i definitely can see how someone coming from bc2 might be disappointed if they were hoping for "bc2 with new maps"...-
-
the "socialize" button... although why its called that i dont know. Q is the general-purpose context-sensitive button for doing things like spotting, or asking a medic class for healing or an engineer for repairs, or indicating which point your squad should attack/defend. which i guess is kinda social... anyhow, play enough bc2 and banging the Q button (or whatever the analog on a 360/ps3 controller is) for all kinds of things becomes almost instinctive...
-
-
All Battlefield elements are a trademark of Battlefield and shall not be used in another franchise even with permission to do so.
-
im trying to figure out if youre being sarcastic or serious...
-
either way, DICE striped out all Battlefield stuff from the game.
-
that, i will agree with... unfortunately...
-
Why would a MEDAL OF HONOUR game have -anything- to do with Battlefield ??!??!!?!!?!??!?!?!??!?!!?!!?!
-
because DICE (the battlefield people) handled the multiplayer? maybe?
-
-
no answer for that, im only saying that i was hoping for something more like bc2. personally, id buy it in a heartbeat if it had turned out to be pretty much bc2 with different maps/weapons/teams... whereas i wont be buying it now. so in my mind its questionable as to whether it would help or hurt their sales...
-
-
-
Why not go with tried and true aspects that have made their games so popular in the past?
They don't have to use the same game modes but they could have come up with something better than a frantic paced generic shooter, you can squeeze all the fun out of this game in a mater of days not weeks or months.
-
-
-
-
-
I quite enjoy the fact it plays fast. I can sit down, play a round in 10mins and actually get a dozen or so kills. And it does remind me of a quake/UT style gameplay. But I grew up on that gameplay and I love it.
-
-
-
That was the multiplayer beta, which was essentially Bad Company 2 Lite on Frostbite, developed by DICE. The single-player component is on Unreal Engine 3, developed by Danger Close (née EA LA).
-
-
i think the source of most of the grumbling is that a lot of people are coming from other similar games (modern warfare, and in particular bad company 2 which was made by the same folks that handled the multiplayer portion of MoH) and being disappointed when the beta doesnt measure up in one aspect or another compared to their game of choice. and by that measure, its definitely not objective to say "the game totally sucks, because it isnt exactly like game X" which is a lot of what ive been hearing...
that said, there ARE objective issues that people have with the beta as well... mine being that it doesnt really bring anything new to the table. in fact, it feels very much like a throwback to the more hyper-kinetic FPS games of the past. which is great if thats what someone likes, but i think a lot of folks were hoping for something more, and their disappointment is being expressed in typical internet fashion, e.g. "this game sucks! rabble rabble rabble!"
-
-
I just played it for an hour. I thought it was ok. Better than I had heard.
Hated:
-FOV
-messages/ kill info flashing on the screen. Oh, and the capture bar is in a bad place.
-The mountain map. Whoa that was pretty damn horrible.
Liked:
-No recoil (wait..... this is my sole redeeming factor for the game? I can't think of anything else that stood out)
I didn't mind the map size but then I was playing 2v2 and I could see it being kind of fun up to 6v6 but not more. 6v6 is stretching it though (I usually prefer a small number of players and not the clusterfuck that the common gamer likes).
-
