Could you clarify a few things? I don't think the story adds up.
Wikipedia has the followin information. Medal of Honor was made by DreamWorks interactive. [..] Filmmaker Steven Spielberg Spielberg founded DreamWorks Interactive in 1995. [1] And: Danger Close Games (formerly DreamWorks Interactive LLC and EA Los Angeles) was an American video game developer based in Los Angeles. [2]
This doesn't sound like 'a small game studio in Oklahoma'.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor_(1999_video_gam...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Close_Games
Edit: It seems you were talking about the acclaimed: Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.
Made by: 2015, inc[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Games
Edit 2: Spelling
The first two Playstation only MoH games were not exactly failures, but they were little more than Goldeneye clones with WW2 themes.
The first PC game is really the start of what we think of as the Medal of Honor franchise proper.
The team that bailed founded Infinity Ward, which was the origin of Call of Duty, or at least the first like 8 games in the franchise.
So yes, my story does in fact check out. Which is because I lived it. My friend tried to get me to join the team for 2 years because he knew they were onto something, but I'd fled a childhood in Kansas to build a life on the west coast and wasn't looking to move back to Tulsa of all places. That proved to be a bad career decision but I'm ok with it as a life decision.
Can you have some self awareness of how annoying it is for you to adopt this skeptical fact checker tone when you have so little familiarity with the events and people involved you don't even really understand what to google for and which wikipedia articles to read?
Edit: I'm annoyed because if you tell someone their story doesn't check out, calling me a lair in this case as the story is direct personal experience, you probably need more of a basis for that claim than googling a wikipedia article about a story you'd never heard of 5 minutes ago.
Not enough detail in someone's response? Here are some ideas:
1. Ask moar polite. Not, "I don't think the story adds up."
2. Assume the story is yet true and go to prove it to your satisfaction. Post the links and thank op for the interesting nerd snipe.
3. Enter the proposition into your mental database with some lower level of confidence and move on.
Not really. GP straight up accused the OP of lying, under a thick but transparent layer of euphemisms. Coming at someone out of nowhere with accusations that "your story doesn't add up", specially after failing to do their homework, is the opposite of politeness.
Storytelling does not require that one cites their sources. Especially when that source is, "I lived it"
Wow cool! Can you tell us more about the story? Edit: Spelling
Instead it's a wikipedia dump.
I agree OP could have been a bit less confrontational, but...
> The first PC game is really the start of what we think of as the Medal of Honor franchise proper.
> They took that momentum and started on their own novel IP [...] They couldn't take the IP with them
That may be your opinion, it certainly isn't mine, having played both the Playstation games and none of the PC games. I very clearly remember the splash screen for Dreamworks on starting up the first Medal of Honor game. I'm still not sure how the third game in a franchise could be considered 'novel IP', especially as it seems they were approached by Dreamworks[1], so it's not surprising they couldn't take it anywhere else.
Without the explanation above, I would have dismissed your comment as nonsense out of hand without bothering to engage.
However, OP questioned, you clarified, and I learned something. Choosing your own definition of when the franchise started made it very difficult to accept your comment as it stood initially though.
Perhaps you could also have some self-awareness of how often people post about 'my friend who told me this anecdote about this big thing' with red flags in their story, and how much it's important not to believe everything you read?
1: Wikipedia mentions this on the 2015 page with a reference to https://www.tulsapeople.com/tulsa-people/july-2009/powering-..., but unfortunately I'm not able to open that link to verify its contents. https://venturebeat.com/games/the-making-and-unmaking-of-inf... seems to indicate as well that Dreamworks approached 2015, https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/11/06/ign-presents-the-his... suggests EA 'employed' 2015 which sounds about right (Dreamworks Interactive was sold to EA)
If your suggestion is for people to not question, or be curious at all then I think you're in the wrong place...?
In my opinion the original story was a bit misleading though, reading as if the small game company's novel IP was the original Medal of Honor, so I do think the follow-up was warranted: "They took that momentum and started on their own novel IP as a quake licensee. They made a ahem mildly successful game named Medal of Honor."
I also think the response to the questioning was a lot more hostile than it needed to be but ultimately that there was rudeness on both sides
Then, you'll be reprimanded for pointing it out, asking you to "not do that here."
I wish moderation would curtail this obnoxious behavior, because I see HN as a place where experts can detail their experience, and over the years I see more and more amateur butt in or sealioning behavior take place, and people I know have left over it.
Whatever happened to assume positive intent?
I dunno if it does any good, but these days when I smell ill intent beneath the surface of a "just asking questions" post I just flag the bastards rather than trying to help them by answering. Responding is simply feeding trolls, and HN threads are full of that sort of thing. Argumentative jerks who are just trying to argue, while staying just civil enough that they don't get slapped down (not too quickly, anyway).
My kingdom for sigs and blocklists.
There is no semantics challenge in a random coming at someone out of the blue with accusations of being a liar. The only lawyering involved is determining if it would represent libel or slander.
I think positive intent is different from truth.
To make good decisions, I need to drill down to the truth of the situation. People can be super honest and be wrong or conflate ideas.
So for me, I work on being politely skeptical and assume it’s false until substantiated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DZKwCVKneg
Sorry, found the typo funny. Not trying to antagonize anyone this morning.
https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news/publishing/the-medal-of-...
>Yet 2015 would never get the chance to make another Medal of Honor. EA decided to take all development for the franchise in-house. Morale was low amongst the team and they were looking to start up on its own.
>We had bonded as a team, but decided we wanted to work with new management. Many members of the team were actually going to leave to find new jobs, regardless of potential royalties coming in from Medal of Honor.
>After leaving 2015 we were working with a major publisher. For legal reasons I will say things didn’t go as planned with it. We were left in a situation of unpaid milestones that were delivered and no finances to operate on,” says Thomas.
>The company was potentially going to disband. In a last ditch effort our then president, Grant Collier sent out a signal to all the major publishers in the industry letting them know that the majority of the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault team was available. Within days of closing the doors on the studio, Activision responded immediately with an offer.”
Those are very different things. One isn't a "simplified" version of the other.
