So in the wake of the latest Medal of Honor But as it turns out, EA wasn't quite willing to bow out without throwing a few parting shots in it's wake.
According to the EA Chief Operating Officer Peter Moore, the problem wasn't so much that Warfighter was a bad game, but that gamers and reviewers simply didn't 'get it'.
Does that strike you as the flimsiest excuse a company can reach for in the wake of bad results? It does? Good. As long as we're on the same page.
But that's the standpoint Peter Moore is sticking to, claiming that "Critics were polarized and gave the game scores which were, frankly, lower than it deserved". Ah yes, of course, it was the critics fault.
It's true that Warfighter was fairly harshly scored in perspective of most games, racking up a paltry average score of 55 on Metacritic, I don't feel like such a score was entirely undeserved. If you are willing to make a game to hop on the Modern Warfare bandwagon, and it only turns out to be mediocre, then I feel like mediocre scores are to be expected.
But now that the dust has settled, EA has simply decided to leave Medal of Honor behind, and to move forward with other titles and franchises.
So great, the gaming industry has less focus on the already bloated FPS genre, excellent! I wonder what EA is going to move forward with next? Perhaps there will be a chance for another genre to have its moment in the sun?
"We are taking Medal of Honor out of the rotation, and have a plan to bring year-over-year continuity to our shooter offerings."
Oh...so year-to-year offerings of Battlefield - your other modern military FPS - is your solution? Well, I guess that is my lesson about expecting too much innovation from EA...
Source: Polygon
