Talk:Medal of Honor (2010 video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Someone revert the ED vandalism and lock this page maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.32.22 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we expect this game to have similar controversy to Six Days in Fallujah, or will it take a safer approach? 74.73.148.228 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

IGN most certainly did not hand out a 10/10 to this game. I frankly remember a 6.5/10. Even then, the reviews were not "extremely" positive, it actually got more average reviews. Someone should update this page with the actual scores, not the ones some anti-Call of Duty fanboy posted. Taco033 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cowboy"[edit]

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/12/03/news-bearded-guy-on-medal-of-honor-cover-is-real.aspx Might be of interest if that is the final game cover. 164.107.91.186 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if that Special Forces dude is real - we have to wait adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.198.168 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's real. I saw him on a documentary about SF in Afghanistan. Spartan198 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's Dusty Hammer. That's who Dusty (the character) is based upon. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Engine"[edit]

Superfans of the Battlefield series are assuming this game will be using the frostbite engine, and are editing the article to say that. No engine has been announced, this is simply speculation. 67.193.211.217 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today a few hours ago facebooks official MoH page said: "Medal of Honor's single-player will use the Unreal Engine 3 and multiplayer will use the Frostbite engine." The decision to use the Frostbite engine has been made, openly, since the E3 presentation of MOH. Go to the D.I.C.E official website for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonzeJ (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Compare"[edit]

I think we should, no, we have to compare the "new" MoH-Game to the Modern Warfare-parts of the Call of Duty series. ~~

I agree 24.144.116.147 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Though with what seems to be EA's commitment to authenticity, I personally think it's gonna blow MW/MW2 out of the water. Spartan198 (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"commitment to authenticity"? So they hired consultants from the military. Isn't that what basically every war game has done? How much they use them will really demonstrate their commitment. Besides which I don't want realism if it comes at the expense of fun. If they *really* have a commitment to authenticity then the game will basically be hours and hours of patrolling with nothing happening except accidentally shooting some civilians, before you step on an IED and get your leg blown off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Arma2 is for, and it's amazing and fun. :) 203.217.150.69 (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question to you people is this: why do you want to compare this to a game that only came of existance because of the first game in this series? If it wasn't for Medal of Honor, you CoD fanboys/fangirls wouldn't even have your CoD. So no, this should not be related to any call of duty game. As a matter of fact, the only games that're even comparable to this one now are the Battlefield games since the multi uses the same engine. 98.233.33.3 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they focused on the boring stuff, then it would be no fun. You can have a war game without focusing on every little facet of combat/warfare. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a comparison would have to be made in a reliable source, then cited. The comparison itself would have to be notable to begin with. The game is not out yet, so such a comparison seems rather premature to say the least. This is not a forum, remember that as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rated 18+[edit]

Is there a source for the PEGI rating on the cover? I would be very suprised if this game recived an M rating.Cheddarjack (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the PEGI website and there is no offical rating for it. I think a picture without the rating would be much more approproite for the article.Cheddarjack (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shows on the official UK site. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T Rating[edit]

Is there a source for this?74.96.176.141 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is, it should be eliminated. I checked multiple resources containing no information on what the ESRB's final rating for the game will be. Anyways, from the looks of the trailers so far, I personally suspect the game will receive an M. It should be an M. User:Thetextfixer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"digital download"[edit]

Added since its on steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/47790 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.132.49 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section[edit]

Edited the controversy section to make it grammatically correct and actually bearable to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.71.68 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added that some of the armed services of the us have blocked the game from being sold on there bases worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.54.172 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about some response to the controversy from freedom of speech advocates? How come it is OK to play as the nazis in WW2 and not as the Taliban? Is it just because WW2 was half a century ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.166.153 (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The producers changed it of their own free will so that people wouldn't be put off as much, because military stores at bases weren't willing to stock it. It's about money, not free speech.209.129.113.159 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalyst[edit]

That new LP song that is coming out on the 1st is gonna be in this game or something. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2010/07/linkin-park-links-up-with-ea-for-medal-of-honor/1 Q̬̲̜̲͔̤̓̈́̿̿͑̄́͜W̉ͬͯ͗̄ͥͩ͑̎̚҉͡҉̨̯̰͚̰̩̹̗̳̪͎͈̲͖͕̀ͅE̸̵͓͖̳̠̤̣̞̠̤ͯ̓ͮ̄͋͂̃ͦ̈̓͊ͮṚ̛̣̘͇̩̘͚̯̞̤̮͍̥̰͇̻͔̯̾ͯ̒̑̾ͤ̏̑̋͠ͅT̴̛̗̥̺̠̖͙͓̟̙̞͙͇̳̖͈͊ͫͦ̔ͪ͑̏̊Y̢̛̫͚̘̪̅̇͐ͣ̈̈͋̕͜ talk 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?[edit]

I don't think it reads like an advertisement.Gari22 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advert tag was placed here; [1]. The article is still quite young prior to the games release and not a huge amount of change has occurred. I wouldnt view the article more of being an advert (it is largely written with the information which is available), however; i do find that undue weight and neutrality isnt being shown in the multiplayer section of the article. For example the game is subject to a huge deal of controversy at the moment with respect to the ability to play as the taliban, yet the article (rather section under multiplayer) seems to be written in a defensive tone to this rather than dealing with both sides to give it a neutral view of the issue. Maybe not an advert but I personally feel theres POV issues here. Though Id probably be comfortable placing a POV Tag on the section if there is no objection (or subsequent development). Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been modified now and I think the advertisement tag can now be removed if there are no objections. 03jkeeley (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are no longer an issue. Cant speak for everyone but i wont object to the removal of the tag right now. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material[edit]

Heres an article from the Sydney Morning Herald's Digital Life section (link) talking about the military banning the video game. Salavat (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't ban it, the PX/NEX guys said they wouldn't sell it. 98.231.240.220 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heres another article from the same people, talking about the developers removing taliban as a playable side. Salavat (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the actual message from Greg Goodrich himself, and the open beta which has no reference to the Taliban, etc etc. It's old news and completely confirmed. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot?[edit]

What proof is there that it's a reboot? I mean, it's a new setting, but that was the same with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I'm just looking for specific insight on how it's a reboot. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no sub-title. All MoH games with the exception of the very first one (and this one) have had a sub-title. If it was just another game, it would have a subtitle. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not official proof. I'm sure there are various films and/or games that've done the same thing, but not been a Reboot. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good proof would be a reliable source saying so. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is said that there is a James Patterson in this game, the grandson of the original. You can see the video proof here...so it is not a reboot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5AymA3RMwQ#t=4m11s Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that EA stated that they are "...rebooting the series...". It's a reboot. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a reboot within the same canon. I trust the people that wrote the scripts with the status more. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to third-party sites[edit]

When there is already a link straight to the horse's mouth (the EA forums or the MoH official site) is unnecessary. We don't need a link to an IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot, etc news article when there is already a link to the blog post or forum post put up by the devs, which is, by the way, a far more reliable source than any 3rd-party site. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are in many cases preferred over primary sources. Some guy (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who wants to do serious research looks for primary sources because secondary sources often get information wrong or are biased. Why you would want to cite a biased, incorrect article is beyond me. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of countless times when developers/movie makers have said one thing and done another or appeared biased towards their product in primary sourcing. Im not saying the primary sources here are biased, I am saying you can have biasy anywhere. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the long run, primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. Even if occasionally a dev does something different than they had been letting on, the context is generally more reliable. 98.231.240.220 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its also not just about biasy, its to do with wiki styles; See WP:reliable sources. So long as primary resources are being used to describe fact, and not being used where editors are interpreting them creating original research, then they can work, generally though the pref is to use a secondary source here. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only use such sources to cite things. (By the way, I was the two anons above. Too lazy to log in at work/after work) YuriKaslov (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated it is very common for primary sources to be biased and in many cases it may be more accurate to refer to a secondary source. This is not only my opinion, it is Wikipedia policy. If you're going to be contributing significantly to the site you should take the time to familiarize yourself with editing guidelines. Some guy (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have much intention to be editing wikipedia. The layout is terrible. Better than the old monobook version, but still terrible. Ugly. And some of Wikipedia's policies don't really make much sense, IMO. I've always been more keen to edit at wikia.com instead. Just made an account here a while ago in case I ever decided to start editing seriously, which by this point that possibility is about nil. I'm a bit too busy with managing my own wiki for the release of this very game next Tuesday. At that point I probably won't be here for another... several weeks to a few months while we get all straightened up over there, depending on how long the game is and if there are any DLCs. YuriKaslov (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are based on consensus of the editors on this project. Anyone can voice their disapproval on a talk page, but ultimately the policies are consensus. In time they can change (some are multiple years old, some are days old, but only so if people participate in the process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which constantly evolves into the form where someone without any knowledge of the subject may come and be (a better word i guess) 'enlightened on the subject'. Its been my experince that wikia is more about gaming guides, and how tos, which are not what this project is about (See what WP:wikipedia is not). If your services and time are better fit for those mediums no one is going to stop you from going there. Obviously the more voice the better in this project. Good luck with your wiki. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The older, larger wikis tend to have drifted from that sort of miscellania. 205.222.248.19 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novel.[edit]

I was watching this vid, and Greg Goodrich mentioned a novel being released? YuriKaslov (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Released today![edit]

I'm about to play it for a while. I started making some edits in the first paragraph. Please continue making it present tense. Justin Tokke (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you, good job. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tariq in the game is not actually an M1951[edit]

It appears to actually be an MP-443 Grach. This should be stated on the article, but i'm not sure where or how. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will need a source for that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find a source, but if you look at any gameplay with it, you will see what i mean. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the gameplay, then look at a pictures of a Tariq and an MP-443. There's your proof right there. What's next, is Wikipedia going to need a source proving that sand is dry and water is wet? This site really needs to institute a common sense policy. -_- Spartan198 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sequel[edit]

Please add that the sequel, Medal of Honor 2 will be released at February 18 2012 later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.203.190 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its on Medal of Honor Wiki. search it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.203.190 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The medal of honor wiki is not a reliable source, if you can provide a source that would be great. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on that account, but no that's not the release YuriKaslov (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, one wiki saying the other is not a reliable source? Now that's a hoot! lol Spartan198 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious statement[edit]

During a sales meeting in February 2011 EA reported that the game has sold 5 million copies within the first 2 months of release along with the recent game Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit.

This is unsourced, which it really needs to be. Also, why is Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit a relevant mention? So what if it also sold 5 million copies in 2 months, how is that in any way relevant to Medal of Honor? Spartan198 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beware[edit]

If you see this game in the discount bin and you have Windows 8 beware, for me at least, it hangs on install and is therefore unplayable. Thanks EA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.140.159 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Medal of Honor (2010 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medal of Honor (2010 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medal of Honor (2010 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medal_of_Honor_(2010_video_game)&oldid=1203953519"