EA Says Medal of Honor Will Return Once They “Get the Leadership Aligned”

EA has followed up on earlier statements regarding the Medal of Honor franchise being pulled from the company’s yearly rotation of shooters, saying it wil return once they “get the leadership aligned.”

Speaking to RPS during the recent DICE conferences, EA chief creative director Rich Hilleman admits, “We don’t think its a genre problem. It’s an execution problem.” He added, “We don’t think Medal of Honor’s performance speaks to any particular bias in that space against modern settings or World War II or any of that. It’s much more that we had some things we should’ve done better.”

What we think right now is that, for the next couple years, we can just have one great thing in that space. So we’re choosing for it to be Battlefield.”

Hilleman also explained how EA plans to be more careful with IP’s like Medal of Honor and that caution must be taken in order to not “kill those products by trying to do them when we can’t do them well.”

He elaborated, saying “I think a key part of this is having the right amount of high-quality production talent, and we didn’t have the quality of leadership we needed to make [Medal of Honor] great. We just have to get the leadership aligned. We’re blessed to have more titles than we can do well today. That’s a good problem, frankly. In the long term, we have to make sure we don’t kill those products by trying to do them when we can’t do them well.”

According to Hilleman, Medal of Honor will return, but it just needs someone to properly helm the project.

“There’s always someone at EA who’s sticking up for any number of the properties we have. You know, I had somebody the other day say, ‘Come on, Mutant League Football. We gotta bring back Mutant League Football.’ So, to my mind, there’s always somebody at EA who loves a property. That property will come back when it’s time is right and there’s someone to carry it.”

Looks like its not all doom and gloom for the series after all. Are you happy to know Medal of Honor isn’t gone for good?

  • Alex

    Maybe if they weren’t so damn occupied with releasing every game before Call of Duty it might perform better…

    • SangheiliSpecOp

      I agree. When they stop worrying about the sales and worry more about making a good game, the sales will come!

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      The publishers are run by businessmen who believe in old-school refined methods of doing business. No truly polished game can ever come out of that. Once the trend became “annualization” of the product, the entire industry went to hell.

  • tludt888

    I appreciate the level of detail Warfighter went to with their gunplay (leaning and BUIS) as well as the actual look of the game… if only they had applied these aspects to Battlefield 3.

    • Jason

      I get what you mean, but i think it would get in the way of gameplay on bf and make the game run at a slower pace for the worse

      • tludt888

        Not everything, especially Battlefield, has to be super high-speed-low-drag at the expense of sensible systems. Having a BUIS would no doubt “speed-up” combat by allowing for enhanced versatility in optics. Leaning would no doubt add new diversity to their terrible attempt at CQC. BF3′s shooting mechanic (in my opinion) is horrible. Things like “random spread” disabling me from hitting a man-sized target at 50m are ludicrous and is what “slows down” the gameplay.

        Having to shoot someone more than five times on Hardcore, is what slows down gameplay. For those who’ll read this and go to the simplistic “Get better” argument, totally ignore the fundamental problems in how BF3 was executed. I love BF3, it’s a wonderful game… but that does not mean it has no flaws.

        Making things “faster”, often times simplifies the experience. I want a complex experience, Battlefield has always offered that. What is readily apparent to me, with this in mind, is how ludicrous teleporting into vehicles is. Entry/exit animations are needed, not only for immersion… but for balance. It makes no sense for a player to just teleport out of a fully armored tank to, without transition, enter into combat as an infantryman… or steal a tank from another player.

        You might say, “Well, if they put in an entry/exit animation, that would slow down gameplay”. A 1-2 second animation, vulnerability before you enter a powerful vehicle, is a balance issue. If 1-2 seconds counts as “slow gameplay”, then I don’t know what to tell you outside of recommending that CoD replace BF3. Quality and depth of gameplay should never be sacrificed for “pace”.

        • born2expire

          Saying go play CoD to people who want fast gameplay is like me telling you Arma is that way.

          The gun play in BF3 is great, DICE nailed it (for once!), the “random spread” is very easy to adjust to and shooting people at 50m it easy once you understand the mechanics.

          • tludt888

            I have a 2.84 K/D, I understand the mechanics of getting kills in BF3. It doesn’t make it fun, or perfect… (Don’t want to throw around stats to measure my epeen… but it’s not like I struggle). There are serious flaws with the mechanic that make no sense, it really is as simple as that.

            I disagree completely that the gun play is “great”. It’s both wholly unrealistic and wholly unsatisfying and visceral. Random spread has no purpose in a game other than to fix the whopping problem of people getting kills. On a properly zeroed weapon, the rounds go where the reticule/sight is aimed… not cutting out a cartoon outline of a man-sized target at 50m.

            • born2expire

              2.84 in hardcore (easymode) doesn’t count :P

            • regular mode is noob mode

              First off its a game if the shooting was like real life nobody would get kills. Second bf3 has got the best shooting mechanics in a fps shooter. Third real bf players does not give a flying fuck about kdr. Sure some modes require good kdr but then there are modes like conquest where Kdr does not matter. You can have 50 kills and 0 deaths and if we lose the match your still a shit player to me. And for people saying hardcore mode is easy mode is retarted or have not played true hardcore mode without a sissyfied map to show you where the enemy is. Ask yourself this if you did not have the mini map how good would you really be. Play bf3 on the no map hardcore mode up against My squad and i will show you just how not easy it can be.

            • DeviousBoomer

              Even Counter Strike has a degree of randomness to spread, but each spray follows a general pattern. My problem with random spread in BF3 is that it is far too high on particular weapons such as the LMGs and when compounded with a poorly-implemented suppression system (increased deviation), you tend to miss shots that you should’ve hit because your target has poor aim.

              In my opinion, first shots should be reasonably accurate across all weapons with the exception of most pistols and there should be more of a focus on mastering recoil patterns that are more complex than simply up and to the right. Bullet velocity already makes hitting distant targets multiple times in succession a reasonable skill to master. Let’s raise the skill ceiling when it comes to shooting and not leave it down to DnD gunfights. The issue of pacing can be dealt with in terms of map design and movement.

            • DeviousBoomer

              Oh yeah, forgot to mention SMGs and certain carbines alongside pistols.

        • The Army Ranger

          I’m alright with the random spread of certain weapons. Maybe the suppression is overkill, but mastering the spread and recoil of guns will certainly make you a greater player than one who uses the “easy” gun.

          But what I’m not alright with is that there’s no leaning mechanic or cover system to go by in Battlefield. Why the hell should I show my whole body just so I can take some shots at an enemy down the hallway? It makes more sense to either peek only your head out or blindfire and hope the target that was right next to you would be hit by your storm of bullets.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

    yeah well if its like the other two then im not looking forward to its return anyone else want a WW1 or WW2 MOH?

    • tludt888

      Not really to be honest, I’d rather that be taken up by Brothers In Arms. Modern settings are great, I don’t really understand the recent backlash against them. Just encourages developers to stretch the premises of their games even further out of the realm of possibility.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Gannoncbecker Gannon Becker

        Im with you. I dont really wanna play with weapons from the early 1900′s. The modern setting is what makes the games cool to me.

      • born2expire

        Before the socalled backlash against modern shooters people whined about WW2 games. WW2 will always be a strong point in gaming, the weapons archtypes have been so defined over the dozens of games the weapon balance just works. Besides the only bolt action rifles in modern games are sniper rifles, i really miss the DOD Kar98 (and BAR).

        I would love to have MOH as the “WW2″ shooter.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

        the recent backlash at the modern setting is EVERYONE AND THEIR MOTHER IS DOING IT.Just like WW2 last gen mark my words the future setting is gonna be the main thing next gen which everyone will want MW again XD

        • tludt888

          I’m not saying that people can’t agree/disagree with trends, but, simply because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s bad. Modern settings resonate with people because it’s relatable. This is coming from someone who has a degree in 20th Century History… I think modern settings should -always- be the mainstay, with historical and future settings being nostalgic/innovative outliers but with modernity always being the base for which past/future is operated upon.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

            its not that i hate modern setting i loved it at first BUT like i said almost EVERY shooter now is in a modern setting so you can see how it can get boring.

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      Well, for me it’s more about how the game plays than it is the setting. I would take WW2 or modern setting, but I don’t want it to play like a hard line simulation (at all).

    • The Army Ranger

      I’m looking more towards the Korean or Vietnam War.

      They’re both great settings for MOH to have a gritty story and an interesting multiplayer.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

        yeah would not mind that either

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Schulze/1505305164 Ryan Schulze

    Killing off an IP that is the grandfather of many of our favorites wasn’t a good idea. Retool or get better leadership or whatever you need and then bring it back to the table. It’s still a name we know and one that will get us to take notice when you release a new MOH.

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      Get Respawn.

  • Lucas Gomez

    I can’t wait until EA dies off and some new non-greedy company takes over. I can only dream.

    • MegaMan3k

      I’ll take the way EA is treating fans any day of the week over the way Ubisoft or Activision is treating their fans.

      Yeah the ending to ME3 sucked and a huge misstep with Dragon Age 2… but ME3′s co-op got tons of free DLC. Battlefield 3′s expansion packs are possibly the best DLC gamers have *ever* received outside of Take Two titles. Project Ten Dollar doesn’t bother me.

      EA is not the company it once was – the EA of the late 90s, gobbling up the little guys and disbanding them months later, really isn’t out there now. EA is willing to take chances – see: Kingdoms of Amalur, Respawn Studios getting a new big budget IP, Need For Speed: Shift was, imo, a huge risk that paid off big…

      • Dirtknap

        I like the way you think good sir!

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.huggins.7 Thomas Huggins

        I don’t see how giving Respawn a big budget IP is taking a chance. The only risk I can see with that situation is releasing it around the same time as C.o.D. but maybe they learned their lesson after the M.o.H. debacle.

    • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.huggins.7 Thomas Huggins

      “Non-greedy company” is an oxymoron. Even non-profit organizations are greedy.

  • MegaMan3k

    Warfighter had an amazing class system and I loved the Fireteam system. But it needed more weapon diversity and it needed to not release in the drawback of impending Tsunami that is the combined force of Halo 4 and Black Ops 2…

    My posting habits clearly indicate that I’m a fan of Warfighter, so I know I’m biased. But Warfighter was great, and I tend to think that the reason it was a failure was that it was marketed to compete with Call of Duty, when they should have stressed the class system and microcosm teamwork involved in the Fireteam system. All I ever heard was “Authentic nations!” and “See people through walls, authentic situational awareness!” But the Fireteam system, to me, meant so much more than that. It let two players be a totally functional source of chaos on the battleground. If two players worked together, they were unstoppable. It was an excellent middle ground between the lone-wolf hungry COD franchise and Battlefield, where anything short of a full squad makes the match a grab bag.

    When my fireteam buddy and I played Warfighter, we could easily get six or even eight times the score of the second place Fireteam. We never felt justified in blaming a defeat on our teammates. That kind of disparity hardly exists in games now. Warfighter had a niche. But it played it’s hand against it and tried to hide it.

    I’m rambling… Ugh. I hope Danger Close gets a stab at another game. I don’t think they’re bad devs. They made an excellent single player with MOH2010 and an excellent MP with Warfighter, now they need to bring it all together.

    • http://mp1st.com/ David Veselka

      Totally agree man. Well said.

    • prostynick

      Hey man! You don’t need a past tense! I play it every day and many others too. Of course there aren’t too many servers, but it’s not that there is none. Of course I’d love to see more Hotspot only servers, but I still love the game. I’ve had 1 week break for BF3:Aftermath and 1 month for FC3, but I’m back and I’m curious if BF3:End Game will be able to attract me for more than a week this time.

    • Brian Anthony

      I totally agree! I love the game, just they should have marketed for a release during this years E3 and would have given them more time to polish and market better…between all of BLops2 failure, and a month or so after BF3′s end game, the timing would have been perfect!
      But we are not the Decision makers, but you said it very well bro!

    • http://www.facebook.com/awkenney Aaron Kenney

      Warfighter was mostly DOA for 4 reasons:
      1. The user interface was horribly inefficient.
      2. The MP wasn’t appealing enough to a large enough player base.
      3.
      The movement and animation still felt a bit too stiff like Battlefield
      3. The game could have used less movement based on the real world and
      more movement that would have produced cleaner flow and gameplay
      mechanics.
      4. They tried too hard to make it authentic. Immersion in a
      real-world scenario down to precise details does not always produce the
      best gameplay experience.

      That said, I love the game. I just don’t know anyone else who plays it.

      • dpg70

        Warfighter failed because it was a rushed and buggy piece of crap. Never stood a chance against CoD and Halo anyway. They nailed just about every aspect of the MP from a pure gameplay perspective. I’d say the maps weren’t all that great, but that was about it. I played it quite a bit until I just couldn’t take the freezing and other issues anymore.

        • Backslap_Bob

          “Never stood a chance against CoD and Halo anyway.”

          Both are unapologetic cartoons.

      • swalker

        I think that the main problem was all the touting of realism but the damn weapons looked cell shaded. COD at least sort of looked real.

  • Sgt. Mofo

    How to make MoH successful:

    Step 1: Bounce….

    Step 2: …and do the Harlem Shake.

  • BlaineReinsma

    “What we think right now is that, for the next couple years, we can just have one great thing in that space. So we’re choosing for it to be Battlefield.”

    I really hope this doesn’t mean they are going to try to shit out a new BF game every single year… Splitting a franchise between two studios simply isn’t a good idea, and expecting a single studio to make a game with shorter than a 2-year development cycle sends quality and creativity down the shitter.

    • MegaMan3k

      I hope that what they is alternate and give “off years” a sort of semi-Battlefield release. Like Battlefield 1943. I would love it – absolutely love it, EA!! – if 2013 saw Battlefield 4, and then in 2014 they released a budget-targeted micro-title. A 1943 style game set to the world of 2142 would be amazing. And then 2015 could bring a new Bad Company 3.

      … Or just give Battlefield 4 multiple DLC content seasons. If BF4 has DLC as rich as BF3 did, and if BF4 comes out on next-gen consoles, I would buy multiple “seasons” of DLC content if each season was as rich, diverse, and high quality as BF3′s Premium. With the post release support EA put out for BF3, I don’t see why they need a yearly iteration in the conventional sense… Clever marketing of the DLC *might* work just as well.

      • born2expire

        I’d gladly play another 4 DLC’s of BF3, until BF4 comes out. I’ll be sad when endgame drops as thats the beginning of the end for BF3.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.huggins.7 Thomas Huggins

        If EA were to take the release/half-release each year with Battlefield games, they would over-saturating the market with their games like Activision did with Guitar Hero. I think their current formula works just fine, no need to go messing with a good thing.

  • soperdoper

    The best solution is hand over MOH to Respawn, this will surely challenge COD for this kind of play style and let them square off. The end result is better games and we have a choice especially if one frustrates you with balance or mechanics (lag) issues.

    • DanDustEmOff

      Respawn have their own ip that they are working on I cant see them doing moh tbh bit vince and zampella did start out on moh so who knows

  • CaseyFTW

    This kinda makes me sad. As a moh: warfighter fan I would rather see them invest into making warfighter better. This just reads, “no more warfighter support… ever!”.

    @megaman3k:disqus Love ya man, will you be my valentine? (read firebuddy) ;)

  • roland0811

    Would love to see MoH fill the long empty tactical shooter niche on console. Operation Flashpoint and GRAW2 are the last two tactical shooters I can remember being released and those died. It could go big like Flashpoint and have vehicles or just big infantry maps like GRAW2. I don’t care either way.

  • Thanks for the Beta

    Why dont they realize that 90% of people that bought the game was to get into the BF4 beta. If the BF4 beta was not included it would have been a even more epic fail.

  • oofy

    Quote:
    What we think right now is that, for the next couple years, we can just have one great thing in that space. So we’re choosing for it to be Battlefield.”

    Ruh-Roh…

    • WarHero

      They might change that if Respawn had a good reviews and sales then most liekly go Battlefield then Respawn and Battlefield again.

  • Casavult

    They need it to return back to WW2. I’m so fed up with “modern day” shooters.

    • The Army Ranger

      WW2 isn’t the only war that games can be made in. Let’s not forget WW1, the Korean, Vietnam, Falklands and 1990′s Gulf War.

  • Alan

    EA should really take a hint or two off of Rockstar, they are delaying their game to simply make it look as good as possible which is a great thing that EA should implement. When publishers come out and say things like that it gives confidence in the consumer that the game will be excellent.

    • The Army Ranger

      Only sad thing about it is that GTA 5 is coming out in the Fall season, which is basically a hornet’s nest for AAA games. I was more hoping that EA would release their games in Spring or Summer instead.

  • Wiking

    The only fault MoH:WF have is that it’s not done yet. 6 more months in the making could have done it.

  • MasonMei

    Lemme reply to this with an “unconventional” quote of Marcus Kincaid, the arms dealer in Borderlands 2.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha…
    No.

  • Chris

    For me and the rest of the folks who were suckered into buying Warfighter, maybe EA will give us the next one free as an apology?

  • al client

    Give the damn thing back to the guys at Respawn that started the franchise. Let them make a better version of COD out of it with dedicated servers. Instant win.

  • Chacale47

    I bought MOH2010 and MOH Warfighter both FAIL for support, the hell with you EA !No more for me!!!!EA should learn from COD the respect theyre fanbase by giving support
    for the game!!!!

  • Nate

    I’m glad the game isn’t permanently gone. I see medal honor being a great game with better leaders who can make sure the game is polished and the multiplayer is enjoyable to play. I think an extra game mode would do great. By the way, even with the problems, I did enjoy both Medal of honor campaigns and would be happy to play another.

  • Alex

    the fact i played the reboot + Warfighter and have not completed either. Whilst i still replay Frontline,Allied Assault and Rising Sun. Says it all…. MOH lost it’s soul with the jump into the modern era. sure Airborne wasnt the best but it was still better than either of the Modern ones.

  • DrunkMonk74

    Very very simple as to why Warfighter failed. EA !!! Thanks to EA, first rushing the game, then taking the one and only map pack in the one direction that the lead designer (Greg Goodrich) didn’t want to go, linking it to the film release of the killing of Obama, before finally panicking when those navy Seal guys who’d “consulted” on the game got in trouble for apparently disclosing too much, and EA deciding to pull a whole host of content from the game just before the release, (hence for example the lack of weapon variety in each class and why there were variations of the same weapon for each nation in a class), you add all that together, alongside EA’s almost paranoid need to release games before CoD, and what hope did the game have.

    In my mind if they’d just waited a few months, allowed the team to complete the game, kept Greg to help ensure that the game was polished and heading in the right direction, they would have had something really special.

    That all said, I still play this game. I think it’s an awesome game and even with the bugs and glitches that are still there because EA cancelled all support within a few months of releasing the game, (shocking for what was supposed to be a AAA title), and I’m not alone, there are still plenty of other players.

    I look forward to a future release of this game and hopefully this time the team that get’s given the task of putting the game together is given the resources, time and backing to make it a success.

    • Doughboi

      Ditto Drunkmonk!

      I love MOHW compared to Black Ops or BF3 …I just wish there were more variety in load outs and maps – love it in spite of its flaws
      EA needs to learn from this failure!!

  • Michael

    The game had a great concept I will give them that but I honestly think they rushed the release. It’s pretty obvious that MoH was intended to compete with CoD but no matter what, CoD will always have a huge fan base unless they go back to WW2 games. My opinion, Danger Close should have made the game a 2013 release and took more time fixing the bugs and glitches. Had they of done that, the game would have been great. I loved the class system and I really liked how you could pick your nationality but I didn’t like the attachment system for weapons. You should be able to have every attachment for every gun (not including snipers, sidearms, etc.) If games like MoH really want to succeed they need to target BF fans and MoH fans, not CoD fans. If you go for CoD fans your going to fuck up the formula and lose the games true fans.

  • Pingback: Awtheme | Medal of Honor Franchise Still Part of EA’s “Key Considerations for Fiscal Year 2013 Plan”

  • Mizore Shirayuki

    MOH 2010 was great they should have kept it like that but Warfighter was kinda crappy. Mainly just the multiplayer

settings

close