@Frost451 @PS2fweak That was a very ignorant statement and Tom quickly highlighted just how ignorant it was by suggesting a very viable, easy-to-implement idea that would allow for what he was arguing for. Death can be handled in ways that pays to respect to what it is without making the game unplayable or ludicrously harsh on the player.
@track55 I never said they should scrap the fun factor. A game can be authentic/realistic AND fun. They gave up on achieving their vision of an authentic experience and sold themselves short by crafting their multiplayer as a carbon copy of CoD.
EA is obviously a business, but them being concerned with sales to the point that their pigeonholing this genre and the industry as a whole is atrocious, and will come back bite them eventually. This saturation of certain genres we have seen over the last decade is going to come back to haunt several publishers and developers that have been involved.
@DONTMAKEFUNGAME It clearly worked very well for another product in this medium, Call of Duty. They drastically changed the time period, the multiplayer and much more from CoD 3 to 4 and that marked the beginning of that franchise's rise to fame and eventual dominance over the video game market. CoD4 propelled the franchise like that not because what they did with the multiplayer or setting was extremely creative or innovative, but because it was well executed. If Medal of Honor pushed for a level of complete authenticity with game mechanics that made it work, while executing well, they could very well see a growth in their fanbase.
@DONTMAKEFUNGAME So you're telling me that Greg achieving complete authenticity with his game would have resulted in it selling poorly? Not likely. This is an established franchise with an installed fanbase, and plenty of marketing behind it. If they put the time into ensuring the multiplayer was still fun, balanced, etc... while not sacrificing the authenticity, why would it not sell well? Because it would be different? Every true multiplayer shooter success was a success because it broke some kind of mold, took some kind of risk or did something different. This game would have still sold well, or well enough with actual authentic multiplayer.
EA doesn't expect this game to compete with Black Ops 2. Black Ops 2 will outsell this by at least 3:1, just like MW3 did with Battlefield 3. IW knows this. They want this game to sell well, but you're kidding yourself if you think they are going to compare side-by-side with CoD's success.
So developers shouldn't try to make a game that is both authentic yet accessible or fun?
If game developers had limited themselves to what existed at the time they developed something, and what was popular at that time, throughout the years since the 70s, many, many great games that broke molds and created and offered new experiences would have never been put in our hands.
Just because the market isn't saturated with completely authentic, yet fun and accessible shooters, doesn't mean that the games of that nature couldn't sell well or couldn't be made popular.
Okay, but in a game that hangs its hat on authenticity, why wouldn't the hardcore mode be the featured, main multiplayer mode? Why not craft the multiplayer around that, rather than featuring it as something incorporated on the side?
elpooz's comments