sooo why is MOH getting Bad reviews Compared with COD

Im not saying MOH deserves better reviews. Infact I havent played it yet, but all of the reviews give it outrageously low scores because its somthing we have seen done before. If this is the case, why is COD constantly getting good reviews. I can already assume BO 2 will get at least an 8. I can help but think this is inconsistant. Any oppinions?

To my understanding it isn't getting low scores because it's been done before, but because it is awful.

There are so many ways to answer this.

1. One answer is in your question, it ISN'T COD

2. Most review sites have COD fanboys that review each game that comes out

3. Activision does pay certain reviewers (allegedly)

4. But perhaps the biggest answer is that for some reason every since this game was announced it has been getting destroyed. It was killed when the sequel was announced, when the official title of the game was announced, etc. It was like it never had a chance.

I mean the first game in this reboot of MOH was pretty bad because the maps were awful but they are definitely improved in this one. You read these reviews and it's just pure negative vitriolic destruction and the positives are that the guns sound good. But we all know whed Black Ops 2 comes out it will get a 9 and the reviewers will say it's just like it's predecessor, sooooo good.

Call of Duty is good,MoH is not.

Call of Duty is good,MoH is not.

brimmul777

I disagree. The first MOH,IMO, was better than the continuose COD releases. I didnt like the online, but now this game gets a good online mode, it gets even worse reviews. Its rediculouse. So It has a 5 hour story, thats typical of an fps these days. ITs like watching an action movie. In most shooters I prefer a short campain vecause I hate when an fps feels drawn out. MOH and COD are so friggen different on just about evety level. I dont see why people keep saying this was activisions attempt to beat COD. Isnt it possible that they wanted an FPS to come out this time of year to make money and release a classic title...

Treyarch makes very significant and notable improvements upon the predecessors, Black Ops is still an amazing game to this day. As is World at War.

Treyarch makes very significant and notable improvements upon the predecessors, Black Ops is still an amazing game to this day. As is World at War.

NirdBerd

I honestly don't understand it. Granted, opinions are like butts, everyone has one, but the campaign was miles better than MW3 -- both in gameplay and story, and the multiplayer is something decidedly different -- at least, moreso than CoD has been for a long time (I'm looking forward to Black Ops 2 though). It's like Team Fortress 2 meets CoD/BF without being remotely close to a knockoff of either three. Yet, despite all of this, the game is lambasted for being more of the same. It's a 7.5 game in my honest opinion.

because it's a broken game where achievemnets dont pop like they should, stupid A.I, scripted events not working right, etc.. at least when they put out a COD the basic game mechanics actually work.

Call of Duty is good,MoH is not.

brimmul777

because it's a broken game where achievemnets dont pop like they should, stupid A.I, scripted events not working right, etc.. at least when they put out a COD the basic game mechanics actually work.

JayQproductions

all of the reviews give it outrageously low scores because its somthing we have seen done before.

scouttrooperbob

You do not understand a single review then

[QUOTE="scouttrooperbob"]

all of the reviews give it outrageously low scores because its something we have seen done before.

Jaysonguy

You do not understand a single review then

Maybe I made a general statement. But every review I've seen basically state the game feels good, looks good, but other than that it suffers the flaws of all other fps games in the genre (Including COD). I have actually found 2 reviews on Youtube who gave it an 8. I wasnt expecting this game to get a 10 by any means. It just seems like COD gets away with murder.

[QUOTE="NirdBerd"]

Treyarch makes very significant and notable improvements upon the predecessors, Black Ops is still an amazing game to this day. As is World at War.

k2theswiss

Get over it.

Hate to say it, but even if this game got decent reviews I highly doubt it would have sold much better. Last MoH was the same way. Even MoH Airborne didn't do very well, which I avoided at first, then years later tried it thinking "what the hell were people smoking badmouthing this game". There's a political aspect to review scores, one being I don't think a review site wants to upset its viewership, which is why something popular like COD may create an uproar if it were rated low, people would start whining in masses, write petitions demanding re-reviews, threaten to stop going to their sites and move their patronage to another website, whereas a series with very little fanbase doesn't have that political consideration to account for. Also, no advanced copies of the game seemed to be given, so most reviews were rushed reviews. And having spent more time with this game since it released I think this is a game that grows on you some the more you play it, but critics didn't have that time to make those considerations.lamprey263

This is the best answer ive seen. All are good points. Ive been hesitating to pick up the game because of the reviews and Im assuming it will go down in price, however I might pick it up because I really liked the first games campain and I really liked the beta. In the end I guess it all depends on our own oppinions.

Hate to say it, but even if this game got decent reviews I highly doubt it would have sold much better. Last MoH was the same way. Even MoH Airborne didn't do very well, which I avoided at first, then years later tried it thinking "what the hell were people smoking badmouthing this game". There's a political aspect to review scores, one being I don't think a review site wants to upset its viewership, which is why something popular like COD may create an uproar if it were rated low, people would start whining in masses, write petitions demanding re-reviews, threaten to stop going to their sites and move their patronage to another website, whereas a series with very little fanbase doesn't have that political consideration to account for. Also, no advanced copies of the game seemed to be given, so most reviews were rushed reviews. And having spent more time with this game since it released I think this is a game that grows on you some the more you play it, but critics didn't have that time to make those considerations.lamprey263

Which is all well and good but at the end of it all, this game IS crap, and so was the previous Medal of honor. It's was so linear it was borderline pathetic. there was quite a few shooters from the early 1990's that had so much more freedom than these turkeys.

With these so called first person shooters EA and Activision are banging out it really does seem like we are taking so many steps backwards when it comes to being creative in gaming and so many people just lap it up and rave on about them like they are the second coming.

...But, I'll agree that Airborne was great. But yet again it was only because you could branch out to a slight degree and to be honest we've seen it all before so it was nothing new or imaginative. Fun, yes, quite so. New, it was not...

In my personal twenty eight years of gaming it's been very odd to see that with flashy whizz pop bang graphics the actual core gameplay has taken a serious nose dive over the last few years in so many so called AAA games. Yet they sell so well.

I miss the Amiga days personally. I dont think there has, or will be ever again such a diverse pot of ideas all on one system. Well, the C64 was a winner an all if I'm honest. But I guess we are now in a day and age of whizz pop bang down corridor yawn shooter #3435, now with added blur and smoke!

It sells well so why should the bigwigs ever try to be creative again. (Although to be fair when gaming was actually creative it was normally by small studios with grand ideas and not much to loose, unlike the money churner it is nowdays)

Bah.

2 words: RENT IT

you cant trust reviews completely. but MOST likely MoH just isnt that great of a game if it is getting poor reviews. but thats what Gamefly, Blockbuster, and Redbox are for. You cant try the game out yourself and see if it's any good. Reviews are just to keep you in the right direction, but sometimes they are totally wrong. just like with movie reviews.

2 words: RENT IT

you cant trust reviews completely. but MOST likely MoH just isnt that great of a game if it is getting poor reviews. but thats what Gamefly, Blockbuster, and Redbox are for. You cant try the game out yourself and see if it's any good. Reviews are just to keep you in the right direction, but sometimes they are totally wrong. just like with movie reviews.

Talldude80

I just found a trial for ps Plus and I get an hour to sink my teeth in the game. See if its anygood.

Because it doesn't have 'CoD' before it.

And it also isn't a very good game.

well I played the story for about 20 minutes... I like the plot and the characters, I like the emphasis on authenticity, how ever the gameplay isnt as smooth as Id like. During the breach I felt like bullets alot of bullets were missing even though I was aiming right down the sight, The game directs you very slopily. The game still suffers from all the downfalls of the first. Ill rent or pick it up in a bargon bin.

Pros. The game looks AMAZING, and the voiceacting is really good. They brought all of the BA characters from the first and Im looking forward to the story.

I agree with the ratings that are set around 6. From what Ive played the game is very unrefined. ITs a shame really because I felt like they would have improved tramendously over the first.

COD Is a much better game over all. There Is always a solid, short campaighn, multiplayer that lasts forever, and zombies (Worth it just for zombies) Cod Is defenatly alot more bang for your buck. Now that Ive played the game I understand. I still want to play it though.