Did Medal of Honor: Warfighter’s Failure Doom Battlefield?

With Medal of Honor: Warfighter being abandoned by EA, there’s a lot of concern that Battlefield developers DICE will be tasked with keeping an EA FPS game on store shelves in November year after year.  The concern comes from the fact that developing games like Call of Duty and Battlefield take at least 3 years to really get the best game out of the process.  People are worried that a stinted development cycle will hurt the BF franchise, and I agree.  Games like these need that extra time to really be the games they’re intended to be.

The way I see it, the fall gaming season is a traffic jam of half-baked game releases.  Honestly, I’m glad that EA dropped MOH.  Yes, it was unique and a bit more development probably would have made it a great game.  But as good as MOH:WF could have been, it still would have felt like a BF game with some gameplay differences, whereas games like Crysis 3 are almost wholly unique in the FPS genre right now.  That said, Frostbite 2 is a very robust engine and if MOH:WF proved anything, it’s that it could handle a variety of gameplay options that aren’t BF3-esque.

Hopefully EA recognizes that having a different feeling game coming out in addition to the lock & stock experience is a good thing.  Could DICE being stuck with making a yearly BF installment after MOH’s failure hurt the franchise?  Of course, but maybe it will lead to something better. Here’s to hoping that perhaps the highly secretive “AAA” shooter from ex-Infinity Ward heads and Call of Duty creators, Respawn Entertainment, now under EA publishing, might also bring something fresh to the over saturated ocean of fall shooters.

What do you guys think? Does MOH:WF’s failure put a burden on the head of developers like DICE?

  • WarHero

    I wouldn’t necessarily say MoH doomed Battlefield..as far as I know DICE is used to year to year Battlefield starting at Battlefield 2. I can see the points of people being concerned about this though. I have full confidence in DICE due to the effort they put in their games and I applaud them for that also I believe it is Respawn Entertainment’s turn to take the shot to fill the gap of the Battlefield series.

    • Retro

      Beat me to it!

    • Battlefield’s greatest asset is that it is “Not CoD”. I would hope DICE learns this for Battlefield 4, and not try to make it into EAs “Call of Duty”. Maps of all sizes and shapes, various tactics to approach control points, various methods of approaching them (light vehicles, tanks, jets, choppers etc).

      I briefly played the Warfighter beta, and it felt like a carbon-copy of Battlefield (minus vehicles), which to me, made it -definitely- into an EA Call of Duty. The point is to -compete- with the opposition. Not copy.

      • Sells is all EA or any publisher care about & as of right now there is no game within Call of duty’s range of units sold. CoD is a game where your brain always as to be thinking where as battlefield is just slower not mutch thinking required.

        • Retro

          Just when I thought the internet could not get any dumber.

          • inFamous2-VIC

            Read my comment below.

        • TTRedRaider27

          woooow. Did you really say that?

        • Arendsb

          The only reason you think BF3 is slow, is because you’re so terrible at it, that you have to slow-play it. Sad for you, and not that you know it, but BF3 regulars are laughing at your evaluation. It’s hilarious.

          • inFamous2-VIC

            The fanboydom is great in this post. If you lack real common sense, you guys are really showing that. Don’t be stupid or bias. How is one to have faster thinking when on a map that is 4 to 5 to 6 times bigger then cod? The fact is, tiny maps allow for more critical thinking, What critical thinking are you going to do when you are running on a wide open plain on bf3 when no enemies are around you, and it would take about 1 minute to get to the actual enemy? Say you are on hijacked. You are telling me, that your brain runs at a slower pace, when enemies are all around you, and are reachable at about 10 to 20 sec tops? Real bigotry tell you. Real Bigotry. And I have Both games, and they are both different. One is more fast pace = faster thinking i.e. COD, and one is slower pace = bf3. You cannot tell me BF is more fast paced than COD. You just can’t.

            • EXACTLY what i was thinking. I also own both games. And personally i much prefer BF3.
              But CoD is fast paced. Therefore requiring the thinking involved to be a lot more faced paced too. It’s just common sense, and it’s an honest statement.

            • inFamous2-VIC

              Thank you for being honest. Those other guys need to stop the bias, and own up to the truth.

            • Glock Lover

              Fast paced=faster thinking? wtf you talking about? I dont have to think to play CoD or BF ffs, both are shooters, what we playing here? Chess? ……..Da Mystery of Chessboxing “The game of chess, is like a swordfight You must think first, before you move” and you talk about fanboydom lol

            • inFamous2-VIC

              You lack alot of common sense as well. I clearly said I have both games and like both of them. Of course this isn’t chess. Otherwise we’d have scholars with actual common sense here in this thread. And to you, you are a mere anomaly of the actual shooter crowd. Only few have your way of thinking, and Most people (remember common sense) Have my way of thinking, Like Gannon up there.

            • Would be a cute story if true

              Your comment would be true if there was any thinking to be had in COD. So you mean to tell me that running around a map the size of a pdded room with your mind solely focused on a gun and KDR is thinking. Your funny. Try thinking about objectives, tanks after you, jets after you, choppers after you, infantry after you, squad mates to look after, reviving people, giving people ammo, repairing vehicles, laying down anti tank mines, and shit ton of other things. BF has more thinking in one match than the entire COD series. You guys need to get your facts straight.

            • Ryanide

              Someone hasn’t played Close Quarters….Or Team Deathmatch on Noshahr Canal…

            • inFamous2-VIC

              Yeah, I have. I’m talking about in general. (Cod is more fast pace) Of course it has those modes, but in general, the grand scheme of things, BF3 is slow pace. COD is always Fast pace.

          • inFamous2-VIC

            And no one cares about laughing about people’s opinions. The difference here is, that it is fact.

        • Glock Lover

          lol Are you serious? hahahahaha, “battlefield is just slower not mutch thinking required” I really think you are a slow minded gamer hahahahaha

        • COD is just fast paced, not much thinking, just run, shoot,kill,die,respawn,repeat. While BF3 requires tactics and a lot of thinking

        • gea

          As a whole I prefer the cod series (though mw3 and bo2 were terrible). However to say that it requires more thinking or talent that BF is insanity.

        • Whats your IQ

          You might be smoking way to much pot bro. Like that may be the dumbest comment I have seen on here. You must be a COD troll. COD sells well because it requires no thinking. Anybody and I mean anybody can be skilled on COD. Thats what Activision nailed is audience and how to sell a game. Put a game out that anybody can play and requires no action on the player and you got a seller on your hands. COD reminds me of Kinect and Nintendo with all the family friendly noob friendly kids games they shove down are throats. the greatest argument I like to go up against from a COD fan is vehicles. They always say BF got vehicles you hide in and it requires no skill to use. Then I say BF is not the game that requires a one button push for a vehicle and you got a AI to fly you around the maps with giant red squares to show you exactly where the enemies are. That is always a failed approach from COD fans.

        • Stoshy

          Call of Duty has tactic and fast based gameplay.

          Battlefield 3’s predecessor games had both strategy and tactic, with slower gameplay.

          Battlefield 3 has tactic and fast based gameplay.

          Battlefield 3 feels like Call of Duty 3.0. The only difference being server based, client-side networking and lack of hitscan.

          • Stoshy

            Oh and some destruction. Some.

  • Battlefield 3 had plenty of development time, and it still wasn’t absolutely groundbreaking. Sure the graphics are better than anything we’ve ever seen, but I thought we were over that “graphics always make games better” stage.

    • asgaro

      That’s because game development and innovation have been held back by outdated consoles since way too long…

      Come play the PC version of BF3 with brilliant 1080p graphics and on a full 64 player server with chaos everywhere, and you will revise your opinion. 🙂

      • WarHero

        No it isn’t that,it doesn’t even matter what platform you play on what matters is that Shooters are trying to become other shooters especially ones high in sales THAT’S the real reason of lack of innovation and developments that is holding it back.

        • asgaro

          That’s also true. I feel Battlefield is actually the only franchise that tries to stay away from the “CoD feeling” because there are no perks and not that many small maps. (except that one DLC which I don’t have a problem with really)
          But indeed, look at Crysis: Crysis 1 had big maps and helis, VTOLs, tanks, etc. It was really unique. But when CoD became insanely popular, they scrapped all that and went for small maps and the introduction of perks. :-/

          • There was nothing wrong with the COD feeling in COD4 and World at War. The problem was that Activision wanted to continue to sell COD and in MW2 and subsequent titles, they confused more guns, perks and killstreaks with progress. People are aware of this now, and COD is no longer bulletproof.

        • Games that are high in sales indicate the preference of the consumers. Innovation doesn’t necessarily make a game better. It provides a new experience, but that only matters to attention deficit gamers who constantly need something new.

      • I play on PC. I’m not amazed. The players hold back the gameplay with the random chaos.

        • Its players not the game

          Exactly so why are you saying in other comments like DICE and the game is the problem. I see it everyday I am playing. Shit players is shit players. If the players don’t want to do anything there is nothing nobody can do about it. The only thing maybe if in BF4 you are required to play objectives or you would lose points but that would not go over well with anybody. Sadly we are stuck with all these BF noobs from here on out. Time to find a clan i guess. Playing with randoms is just a chore lately.

          • Stoshy

            The game doesn’t motivate players to work as a team. Even Bad Company 2 had more teamwork than this piece of crap. It was common sense in BC2 that KD/R meant nothing so long as you helped your team win. In BF3, I believe the lack of team-play elements and focus being driven towards the next unlock are to blame.

            The maps are condensed and bland. You can tell maps like Metro weren’t made for 64 players. What happened to BF2 styled 16, 32, & 64 player maps?

            The visuals are severely limited on PC. I remember DICE even commenting that they had to scale back visuals and gameplay elements to make sure that BF3 could properly run on the consoles. They had to compromise and sacrifice. So much for PC fans.

            Increased spread, low damage, lack of range, nerfed suppression, fast firing weapons, and compacted maps only motivate players to run and gun CoD style. I have no problem with Call of Duty, I enjoy the games, but I didn’t buy BF3 to play CoD.

            Large maps are empty. Everything is compacted in the center. There’s no motivation to explore. There’s so point of the extra space. It’s like you extended the death barriers on Caspian. Big whoopdeedoo. Just more grass and bushes.

            What happened to the enhanced destruction and terrain deformation that they promised? That’s gone too. I can’t even blow up a bridge, let alone a wall.

            I can go on and on…

            • Stoshy

              There’s no point in the extra space.* ^

              I don’t know how I missed that.

    • airsoftsn1p3r

      We can’t always blame EA/DICE because it’s also that 12 year old kid who complains on forums because “it’s boring” etc. developers take that to heart.

  • Shinigami | JA

    It’s possible that MoH has put some pressure on EA. In order to generate revenue they must turn out a game ever season, yet still they can use the intel extracted from there last failure to make an awesome game. BF3 doesn’t disappoint and I’m totally looking forward to BF4 giving Activison a run for their money.

  • MikePembo951

    After playing beta and alpha of Crysis 3, and Crysis 2 and Crysis, and Crysis Warhead, I wouldnt certainly NOT call Crysis’s multiplayer “unique” at all. Its just a bog-standard FPS mutliplayer with some slightly interesting game modes. Crysis is NOT a multiplayer game, the majority of people buying crysis are getting it for the campaign/single player.
    As much as I love the crysis series (campaign), its multiplayer has never been very unique, nor stand out against other FPS multiplayer games like CoD.

    No, MoH WF has not ‘doomed’ BF imo.
    MoH WF deserved much more praise for it’s multiplayer than it got. Whilst the campaign was disappointing, I honestly think Danger Close made a really good, tactical, slightly-stealty(slightly slower pace than other shooters) FPS multiplayer. Maybe not as good as BF multiplayer but still pretty solid.

  • PatchedToDeaf

    Im more worried with the direction they went with bf3 patches. Taking away alot of teamwork and making stingers the end all be all for “air combat”. Ir smoke is unfair and flares shouldn be the same as ecm. Also in a big team game i can only guarantee 3 others on my team. I used to love the game

    • ” I’m pretty sure DICE didn’t patch the unmute button..

  • Doubt it really. EA would just pick Respawn or some other studio to pick up what MOH left off.

  • No, what a very stupid article. – That is like asking if THQ’s SAINTS ROW 3 CONTROVERSY effects Metro Last Light.

    • BOSS jediZOHAN

      Considering EA was going to go with a MOH>BF>MOH release cycle, I’d say it has a major impact on the future of BF. Now DICE has to make up for the fact that they’re going to be responsible for the yearly fall title rather than having a separate IP being developed by a separate studio every other year.

      • Retro

        DICE has pretty much released a full triple A BF game every year since 2004. And yes the Bad Company titles count. DICE has shown that they are more than capable of a major release on an annual basis. Chances are though they won’t have to as Respawn will more than likely fit into the schedule where Danger Close was suppose to be.

        • Ian

          Danger Close aren’t dead, just MoH. Hopefully they will just make original FPS’s now.

          • Retro

            Oh I know. I just meant with MoH now out, DC are probably out of the rotation for now.

        • The Army Ranger

          I’m pretty sure Danger Close might work on another game, unless EA decides to shut down the studio for good.

  • Breadmaker6

    COD has two teams working on their games to bring one out each year. If EA set DICE up right they could easily match that output and probably make two games that people would buy. MoH failed as it didn’t sell enough. But if DICE released a BF and a BFBC game on alternate years I would buy them. And I know my online gaming friends would too.

    Also. EA have the rights to the ex Infinity Ward guys (Respawn Entertainment) new IP. Whose to say they don’t work a 3yr cycle with that included.


    They should just let call of duty have November and put their shooters out in Jan-Mar when players start looking for something new.

    • PuddingAuxRais1ns


    • Dirtknap

      SMART! You’re right, if they launch in that window they would have a greater chance of taking a larger portion of CoD’s market share, and pick up those extra sales in a typically dry period for AAA titles.

      • Arendsb

        Except that you would miss out on the automatic seasonal purchases. Don’t get me wrong, I would rather see quality versa quantity, but the business model requires seasonal participation due to inherent consumer intelligence (or the lack therof, ie, “mom” only buys what’s newest for Xmas).

        • Dirtknap

          This a very good point, before BF3 there was no intent to compete directly with CoD. Though I’m going to be optimistic like some these other folks and hope that Respawn can pick up some of the slack which will allow DICE to proceed with quality development, regardless of release schedule. Conversely, I wouldn’t like Respawn to be disadvantaged as the result of a year on, year off arrangement.

    • colin

      i completely agree. if i recall correctly, bad company 2 came out around that time of feb-mar and was able to gain a significant share of the shooter market because of that timeframe.

    • Mr. P

      Yes! Let CoD fizzle out like it does every year around Feb-Mar and then release BF or BC3 in March and bam!

    • The Army Ranger

      Exactly. EA should release the beta during the fall just like they did for BC2 back in November of 2009 (PS3 beta in Arica, not demo in Valdez), then do what RockMoney just said.

  • Oliver Cooksey

    Most deffinetly not. EA will fill the gap with another game, continuing the 1.5y season for a BF game with DLC. Battlefield 3s content was released over 1.5Y so there’s no reason to suggest this theme won’t continue into the future.

  • You have to remember that DICE started from scratch from BF3, New engine, framework, gun sounds, animations everything was re-built from scratch in a 1.5 year cycle.

    BF3 was rushed we all know, but doing the work they did in that super short time deserves abit of credit.

    Still the game needed at least another 6 months in the studio.

    • Ian

      They should have a 3 year Battlefield cycle, with every 6 years a new engine. Then in between have the Bad Company / Respawn / Danger Close titles.

    • Jonchr2

      Extra 6months is what they just gave Battlefield 4, which wont come out till 2014. Probably March or April, like the Bad company series.

    • B_Boss

      Makes one wonder about the time they’ve used wisely to work on BF4 since about the time BF3 launched….looking forward to the BF future.

  • Jerry

    Alternate Battlefield and Bad company every other year and I will buy them all.

    • The Army Ranger

      Jeez, Bad Company is a series revolved around singleplayer, not multiplayer. When the story of the four squadmates (Marlowe, Sweetwater, Redford, Haggard) ends, the whole series ends. There’s no point calling a game as a Bad Company game without them.

  • hey

    DICE/EA does NOT listen to the community, this is what is killing them.

    • LOL. The fact that they’ve rebalanced every single weapon in the game (and there are a TON of them) and some of them multiple times TOTALLY says they don’t listen to the community -.-

      • hey

        Really, the community including myself wanted to get rid of the blue tint so someone on battlelog named a thread that said ”Retail to Alpha” It’s basically 90 pages of the COMMUNITY telling dice that the blue tint is absolute crap. There’s also 120 pages of console players begging DICE to add more flags in the vanilla maps.

        • airsoftsn1p3r

          You may beg them, but with the console’s limitations, it’s impossible for them to add more. The maximum they could do is add more for Wake Island but that is it. Also DICE probably have been wanting to get rid of the tint but i doubt EA will let them.

          • The Army Ranger

            Why would EA not let DICE remove the blue tint? I doubt EA actually gives a f**k about DICE’s art direction and more so about whether they’ll make money or not.

          • hey

            Actually it was very easy to remove the blue tint and here is a video of the COMMUNITY removing the blue tint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJU-JKFPsTo

  • did ya take comment down?

  • Ian

    One word: Respawn

  • TeamKiled

    Please please someone out there influence these developers to create Single Player / Multiplayer / and BIG COOP games – I have lots of friends that do not play multiplayer anymore because of HACKERS (cancerious scum) but they like to play Ghost Recon Advance Warfighter 2 because people are STILL creating huge COOP maps – upto 32 team players, over 1000 enemy, heaps of objectives etc. Why can’t we have this in Battlefield 3 / MOH etc…

  • Don’t really see the point of writing an article on this… I think it’s obviously EA will find some other bi-annual FPS game to take MOHW’s place. Yearly Battlefield games would be impossible.

  • Wrathchildx666x

    What if Homefront will go into the rotation?

    • it will either be Homefront or or Respawn’s new IP

    • The Army Ranger

      Is Homefront 2 going to be published by EA even? Crytek isn’t owned by EA, so that means just about any company will want to publish the game, though it’s probable since Crytek trusts EA the most.

  • inFamous2-VIC

    It’s true. Cod maps are much tinier and require more thinking; battlefield 3 maps are much larger and deals less room to think. You are running in a big open snow plain on bf3, what critical thinking will you use as opposed to being on the enemies spawn on cod, which would require lots of thinking and strategy to stay alive. Anyways, they are 2 different games. Fast pace = more thinking slow pace = less thinking. Stop being fanboys and own up to the truth. (Never said Cod or bf3 is better, I like both games, but let’s be real here.)

    • keith berry

      its obvious you have never played Battlefield. There is way more to it than running around large maps, there are tanks to utilize AND deal with, there are attack helo’s to utilize and deal with, there are jets to utilize and deal with, CoD is VERY one dimensional, there is SO much more to Battlefield than your CoD mind can even understand. 😉

      • inFamous2-VIC

        Idiocy. It sounds like you never played battlefield as well. Are you always in a heli? are you always in a Tank? are you always in jets? And yeah, stating the truth means I have a CoD mind. You missing the facts probably means you have a 12 year old mind. Do you understand that? I CLEARLY stated above that I have both games, and I like both of them. I’m stating facts. What you are doing isn’t factual. Why? Because what if everyone is using vehicles, and you are at Damavand Peak? Oh. And even if CoD is one dimensional. It still doesn’t take out the fact that it requires more thinking. I like Battlefield 3, and I know that it is at a slower pace then CoD. Why do I have to lie? So I can get likes from my Battlefield Brethren? No. So yeah, there is more to real truth than your BIASED mind can even understand. 😉

        • Retro

          CoD is completely dependent on muscle memory reflexes. It’s not about “thinking” or any kind of strategy in CoD, it’s a twitch shooter.
          Slower paced does not mean less thinking nor does faster paced mean “more thinking”.
          CoD=Checkers, BF=Chess. And I do love me some Checkers.

  • CaseyFTW

    Errrm… MoH:W lover here, let’s adress the statement and give warfighter some TLC at the same time 🙂

    So true in the part you wrote: “Yes, it was unique and a bit more development probably would have made it a great game. … ”

    Could dice make MoH:W a blockbuster? Maybe, could Danger close do it? Maybe. I think the concept is good and MoH could be a good supplement on BF. All things need time to evolve but, from an understandable point of view, companies don’t have time to “give things a change”. They need blockbuster in 1 go. Marketing labels everything AAA but sale figures decides what was a succes.

    Does MoH:W failure pressure the developers? No, marketing put’s the apple on your wifes head. Developers just have one year to make a new and exciting gun which hits the target right of the assembly line.
    So, less shouting tripple A, more time for developers to stress test on the field.

  • Nelson

    EA want call of duty players and money so much, that there fps franchises are the same. battlefield 3 should been made from the begining with big maps with vehicles and gameplay optimized for it. bad company should be the rush mode with linear medium size maps and gameplay optimized for it and medal of honor should be open small maps and gameplay optimized for it and maybe ww2 setting. EA wants cod money so much that they are destroying what maked there franchises unique to there fans and EA is not smart enough to understand it.

  • Brian Anthony

    Dice has nothing to worry about. They prove they can do the fast pace/ which from the people’s comments below who think the Frames/sec is a game problem, it isn’t, that’s the console issue. BF4 with ps4 is gonna set the frame rate and high def issue to sleep. Have you ever played close qtrs on BF3? Slow? No action? sad fanboys can’t open their little eyes and see quality over quantity!

  • Guest

    I’m pretty sure EA has more than one FPS come out each year…

  • All of my friends left bf3 for bc2, the point is dice should stop DIRECT competition with activision because they have the majority of the sheep and will win every time until CoD is dead (which its about to die) then after that DICE can learn from CoD’s mistakes and know not to run the developers out of ideas and resort to recycling the game. I bought bf3 not because it was battlefield but because it looked like a completely new experience from the other battlefields, if you can do that every time (which i understand that is very hard to do) then you will be successful.

  • Maybe if EA didn’t cut funds for MoH:W in the Alpha stage and cut sponsors without Danger Close’s consent, it would have been a much better game! And it still is very fun to play, for me! And yes, I know what I’m talking about. I’m a BF3 and Planetside 2 regular (almost every day), capable of high thinking levels, and I’m very tactical. If you look at the amount Danger Close was able to do with the little funds and support they received, you would at least not bash the game for everything it has. Just because it’s not on the uber-caliber of developers like DICE and SOE, doesn’t mean it’s a pile of steaming shit.

    Thanks for reading, and please, reconsider you opinions based on these facts.

  • roland0811

    “Games like Crysis 3 are almost wholly unique”. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • No way

    Considering I have played BF3 for over 900 hours and still not bored with it I find this whole article shit. All DICE has to do is make sure BF4 is on next gen. They all ready got the new engine out of the way so now they can focus on gameplay tweaks and making the game even better. DICE knows there shit. BF4 was planned even before BF3 was done. Why do you think they made a new graphics engine. The only problems they need to fix is RUSH mode and objective play. Rush mode in BFBC2 was a lot better because every map it was on you had flanking positions and multiple ways you could approach the objective. In Bf3 there is way to many noob friendly choke points and hallways that pretty much stalls any chance of arming MCOMS unless pure luck takes over. And as far as objective play its there but in BF3 there seems to be a more focus on guns with the assignments. I think they should remove assignments all together or make them objective based. Right now as it is its causing lots and lots of uneven matches. If you got five people getting assignments in Conquest and not focusing on objectives you mind as well prepare for a spawn trap. Assignments are fun, but they are ruining the BF formula vets know and love. .

    • Retro

      Could not agree more.
      I would also get rid of showing K/D on the score sheet. Too many people are concerned with it. I liked how in BC2 it was recorded but on the total points earned was displayed at the end of a match. It made playing the objective the focus.

  • Artdafoo

    What doomed MOH that they said hey ” there is another shitty FPS war shooter that comes out every year. Surely we can do no worse !” Well, turns out you can only pump out the same crappy game every year if it has COD in the title.

  • DarthDiggler

    What has indicated that DICE will release Battlefield year after year from now on?

  • MegaMan3k

    I hope that EA doesn’t make Battlefield annual. They have other options, even with pushing Medal of Honor out. Or, heck, they could create a new IP to compete and maybe one year use a sub-Battlefield game (ala Battlefield 1943) as a digital release to serve as stop gap to Call of Duty.

  • Respawn Entertainment makes the “headline” of this article irrelevant and will take the pressure off of DICE to make a new game yearly.

  • Bf3 guy

    Bf3 the best meanwhile in cod a ten year old rage quits .

  • leetmeat

    Lol “Crysis 3 is wholly unique in the FiPS (intentional…) genre right now…” that is hilarious…the whole Crysis series is so pathetically generic.