EA 'destroying' gaming - Minecraft creator

johnny_ultimate

JohnMarston wrote: »

I was playing a copy of fifa '09 with some lads back in february. My little nephew owns fifa '11 now and was playing some matches with him last week to keep him occupied. I was blown away by the different soundtrack and slightly different roster

This is in sharp contrast to the hardcore FIFA fans to whom a minor variation in mechanics can provide months of discovery and readjustment. I'll be the first to admit I have absolutely no knowledge of FIFA, and don't 'understand' the appeal of yearly updates, but I know fans love the changes that come with every subsequent installment. Explains how it sells millions of copies every holiday season to huge commercial and critical acclaim.

It's a football game anyway: what massive changes do you actually expect? I think after twelve years, they'll have got the formula pretty consistent and can rely on tinkering, as they can't really rely on new enemy types, dual wielding or setpieces to keep things fresh.

TheDoc

Completionist wrote: »

No one is saying EA don't publicise good games, But they do stop creativity.

Here is a comment from the article above, It describes perfectly why EA are ****e.

And fromthat

On one side you have the more intuitive consumer ( and i call it intuitive because there is plenty of bandwagon jumpers who try to be snobs with the ooh i play indie games Aruin everything) who understands and becomes frustrated that there is a lack of innovation.

Then they are those who will actually appreciate the approach EA hav taken in terms of generating massive profit, providing game developers massive budgets and in fairness pushing gaming in some aspects to the virtual and visual limits.

I wouldnt be suprised if EA approach to business bcomes a case study in universities in years to come.

They have essentially done in the video games industry what Microsoft did with computers and what Volkswagen did with cars.

TheDoc

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's a football game anyway: what massive changes do you actually expect? I think after twelve years, they'll have got the formula pretty consistent and can rely on tinkering, as they can't really rely on new enemy types, dual wielding or setpieces to keep things fresh.

They dont get enugh credit for essentially winning what was an epic tussle beteween Fifa and Pro Evo.

Fifa got stale and rigid while Pro Evo was fluid and pacey.

FIFA took a new direction and is undoubtably king of the football games , has been for some time and looks to be for some time.

Shiminay

I'm a *very* casual FIFA player, but I have noticed genuine game-play and handling differences between 9 - 10, 10 - 11 and 11 - 12. All stuff I believe could still have been rolled out with a software update along with the new teams, but differences none-the-less.

JohnMarston

TheDoc wrote: »

It is not EA's fault there is a massive market for yearly updates to sports games and yearly updates to first person shooters.

And people shouldnt feelbelittled for enjoying them either

Massive Battlefield fan
Enjoy Fifa aswell

If people had their way Fifa yearly updates would be free and new maps and equipment in Battlefield would be free

Get a grip

I have absolutely no problem buying a new installment in a game franchise, and i have. I have bought and played the Infamous, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls and Fallout game series'
I paid for them because they offered improved gameplay mechanics and new storylines.
I wouldnt demand yearly updates for free for those games, because they are entirely new games even though they are in a series

Otacon

Don't the FIFAs and Maddens and other such franchises basically fund more out-there projects like Mirror's Edge?

ShiverinEskimo

Otacon wrote: »

Don't the FIFAs and Maddens and other such franchises basically fund more out-there projects like Mirror's Edge?

They fund shareholder's lavish lifestyles.

Whatever is left over goes to Mirror's Edge and the like.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

They fund shareholder's lavish lifestyles.

Whatever is left over goes to Mirror's Edge and the like.

yes yes, you are the 99%

ShiverinEskimo

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yes yes, you are the 99%

No i'm not. I'm minted me. Light cigars with paintings me.

johnny_ultimate

JohnMarston wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem buying a new installment in a game franchise, and i have. I have bought and played the Infamous, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls and Fallout game series'
I paid for them because they offered improved gameplay mechanics and new storylines.

FIFA offers improved gameplay mechanics from game to game.

It doesn't offer new storylines because it's a frickin' football simulator.

ShiverinEskimo

The differences between the last 3 are actually pretty large.

The defending was completely overhauled with the latest incarnation for a start. And was it the season before that they introduded be-a-pro mode? That was new. No arguing with that.

Krusader

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

FIFA offers improved gameplay mechanics from game to game.

It doesn't offer new storylines because it's a frickin' football simulator.

The €50 price tag on FIFA every year though is a bit ridiculous, €30 would be more apt for what is minor tickering with the mechanics, the new thing in FIFA 12 was that players would fall over better with the new collision engine which actually makes them more clumsy with them falling over the ball when you'd want them to stay on their feet, that sort of thing isnt worth €50 imo.

johnners2981

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

FIFA offers improved gameplay mechanics from game to game.

It doesn't offer new storylines because it's a frickin' football simulator.

Quit talking about fifa will you, you've admitted yourself that you don't play it so how can you know anything about improved gameplay mechanics?

Fifa is ok, it's less crap than pro evo at the minute but that doesn't mean it's a fantastic game.

Some of the 'improved gameplay' additions in 2012 are ok, a patch could of achieved the same, definitely nothing worthy of a new game. 09, 10 and 11 are nearly the same.

The game is far from perfect so yes there are a lot of things that could be changed.

johnny_ultimate

johnners2981 wrote: »

Quit talking about fifa will you, you've admitted yourself that you don't play it so how can you know anything about improved gameplay mechanics?

I've been a long term cynic towards the FIFA series, but seeing how so many people I know are literally obsessed with it I've grown to learn there is a place for it. I've seen their reactions to new games: how the slightest shift in mechanics can provoke months of practice. Most of these wouldn't be considered 'gamers' in the traditional sense, but their mastery and dedication to the game is something I've learned to begrudgingly accept. Critics seem to agree: the lowest score for FIFA 12 on metacritics is an 80. I wouldn't have held the same opinion a year ago, when I just would have told people to play better games. But now I accept that these fans are more than happy with the yearly updates.

So now, I can't explain to you exactly why it's better, but I've heard from people who know better than me that it is better annually. Of course it would be great if the games were released cheaper, but why would they release a patch when they can release a game that is a guaranteed seller (although the recent Euro 2012 add-on rather than full release is a wise decision)?

There's only so much complaining one can do until you realise it doesn't make any sense for EA not to release a FIFA game every year, and that they've hit a stride of tweaks and adjustments the fans seem happy with. And, as others have said, it's helping fund the games we - the niche, the hardcore, the hobbyist - want to play.

Sarky

Football games reached perfection with Sensible World Of Soccer on the Amiga anyway, so all this fifa talk is pointless.

WildCardDoW

FIFA costs are more in the licensing department, they have to pay to license the leagues, unsurprisingly this costs a lot.

Since 08 I've been very impressed by the series, they beat Pro Evo and have kept the series fresh, don't think some of you realise that with sport simulators it's not a simple case of a new physics engine and a lick of paint, they have to try to reach perfection, they've had some weak moments but it sells for a reason.

EA have produced some of my favourite games of this generation: Dragon Age, Dark Space, Crysis 2 etc.

Also I'ld point out they moved away from generic licensing on games and instead seek orginal ideas, whereas Activision publish crap games with a license!

johnners2981

WildCardDoW wrote: »

FIFA costs are more in the licensing department, they have to pay to license the leagues, unsurprisingly this costs a lot.

Since 08 I've been very impressed by the series, they beat Pro Evo and have kept the series fresh, don't think some of you realise that with sport simulators it's not a simple case of a new physics engine and a lick of paint, they have to try to reach perfection, they've had some weak moments but it sells for a reason.

EA have produced some of my favourite games of this generation: Dragon Age, Dark Space, Crysis 2 etc.

Also I'ld point out they moved away from generic licensing on games and instead seek orginal ideas, whereas Activision publish crap games with a license!

Crytek produced crysis 2.

And I don't see how they keep fifa fresh, it was the same from 2009 - 2011 and changed a few things in 2012.

I think why people dislike EA is because they seem to tarnish each developer it buys like bioware, dice and westwood studios and of course their stupid online pass crap.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it was not the same from 2009-2011
i loved 2009, was kinda fond of 10 and I gave '11 to a friend of mine after 2 weeks as I just couldn't warm to it

they might seem the same if you dont play the game much but there are loads of subtle and important differences in each version

calex71

Ah the way i see it if they rake in the profits on Fifa and their other big titles then they can afford to release and take a chance and likely a loss on some other gems, not sure how successful it was but the most recent one I played was shadows of the damned, what a game.

And Dice where the hell is Mirrors Edge 2????? Surely you have made EA enough $$$$$ to have had this out by now in Frostbite 2 glory :mad:

hooradiation

So....guy with raging neckbeard and shitty taste in hats laments the existence of EA on the Internet.

And this is different to any other day, how?

BlitzKrieg

FFS


Bitching about the evil of EA makes sense 1999-2005 when they crippled the dreamcast*, buried the system shock franchise and killed westwood and literally treated their workforce as slave labour.

But since then they've improved vastly.

Anyone complaining otherwise is either >12 or has incredibly short memory.

Also you are not allowed use how EA have handled Command & Conquer as an argument against them because based on how I've seen the community act since then, I'm pretty damn sure most people dont actually know what they want from the franchise.

I've seen people rip on every entry on the franchise since westwood left and honestly in almost all of them the mistake EA makes is they try to give the players what they were asking for.

Generals cuts the big single player element of C&C to try and focus it as an online competitive game.

People bitch about no FMV singleplayer

C&C3 is practically a love letter to the original command & conquer's single player

people bitch about multiplayer

Red Alert 3 was an actually very well done attempt at a balanced competitive multiplayer

people bitch about the stale RTS formula

C&C4 was an attempt at a completely new approach to the RTS system.

People bitch because...ok yeah the system for C&C 4 was broken.

and now we are back to generals 2.

I remember people bitching endlessly about generals when it was released and cursing EA, now its brought up with a whiff of pleasent nostalgia when it's mentioned on the command & conquer forum. Every time a new C&C comes out its ripped apart and then 2-3 years later when the next one comes out they talk about the last one like it was gold and the current one is sh*t.

C&C fans are impossible to please.

*though considering how sega treated them during the mega drive and saturn era, some might say they were right to stick it to them.

Overheal

I could make the same argument about Norton, back from when they rehashed all their code in 2009, and got rid of a **** ton of bloat. But people don't listen to that either. Ultimately their software is still awkward to uninstall, comes annoyingly preloaded on most consumer PCs as an adware component (buy meeee!) etc.

Similarly I'm sure EA has made improvements, but they still make some really bad choices. People are going to be unforgiving about it. The company hasn't done anything to really give it back it's reputation, evidenced above. Once a company's image becomes tarnished, it's very hard to undo.

ShiverinEskimo

I don't think the hundreds of millions of people who buy EA games give that much of fúck tbh.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

Similarly I'm sure EA has made improvements, but they still make some really bad choices. People are going to be unforgiving about it. The company hasn't done anything to really give it back it's reputation, evidenced above. Once a company's image becomes tarnished, it's very hard to undo.

Apart from all of this?

As for the "evidence" above, suggesting that an entirely new physics engine be "patched" into a game is evidence of something alright, but it sure as hell isn't EA destroying gaming.

hooradiation

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

C&C fans are impossible to please.

Ain't that the truth.

johnny_ultimate

One could also point out they're also employing several hundred people in Galway through the new Bioware studio, plus (indirectly) supporting the staff of PopCap in Dublin. Many of whom read or post in these very forums (Hi!).

But using the word 'indie' in an actually rather accurate context? Unforgivable!

gizmo

Actually, if you think about Notch's complaint and the studios he does regard as indie, it highlights how silly the whole thing is.

He regards Team Meat and Polytron as indie yet they partnered with MS to release Super Meat Boy on XBLA.

Trapdoor and Klei, the developers of Warp and Shank, for example, partnered with EA (specifically EA Partners) in order to release on XBLA/PSN/Steam.

So, using that logic, it is a bundle of indie games.

hypersquirrel

In the last year I have bought 3 games with an EA label.

Battlefield 3 - Huge disappointment, Removed all positives from the previous games and replaced them with a more generic shooter feel.

Mass Effect 3 - Huge disappointment, Removed all positives from the previous games and replaced them with a more generic shooter feel.

SSX - Huge disappointment, Removed all positives from the previous games and replaced them with a more generic shooter feel.


......... Ok I'm slightly exaggerating with SSX. It wasn't a huge disappointment because having played the previous two I wasn't expecting it to be anything like it's predecessors. I wish I was joking about the generic shooter feel but under EA SSX actually managed what I thought was impossible they turned a fun, trick based snowboarding game into and action packed, ice hooking, paragliding, volcano snowboarding mess.

Do EA produce good games. Yes
Do they produce any sort of variety in there games. Marginally
Do they stifle creativity. Yes.


I'll give EA their credit, they know how to make a good game and they know how to rebrand that one game 100 times over and force into every genre until they all merge into one unrefined joke.

Overheal

gizmo wrote: »

Apart from all of this?

I could enumerate a ton of things Norton has done too, and a bunch of awards they have won since. But has it seriously changed their image from a piece of **** software company? No. It has not.

gizmo

Yet in the last year hypersquirrel, I bought three different games from the EA label.

Bulletstorm - Massively enjoyable FPS.
Shadows Of The Damned - Massively enjoyable third-person shooter.
Alice: Madness Returns - Massive enjoyable third-person action adventure.

I also, for what it's worth, really enjoy Battlefield 3 on the PC. It has some flaws but nothing I can really point the finger at EA for. I also enjoyed the hell out of Mass Effect 3 right up until the ending. Unfortunately I'm not really sure who to blame for that last one but I don't think "make the ending as ****ty as possible" was an order which came down from the top.

I could also point out that EA, as a developer (EA Canada in this case), only made one out of all the games we've listed above, the rest were simply published by them so the claim that they can "make a good game" is entirely irrelevant.

So,

Do EA publish good games. Yes
Do they produce any sort of variety in there games. Most certainly.
Do they stifle creativity. Given the disparity in our experiences with games, what do you think?

Overheal wrote: »

I could enumerate a ton of things Norton has done too, and a bunch of awards they have won since. But has it seriously changed their image from a piece of **** software company? No. It has not.

I can't speak for Norton since I've never actually used any of their products but in the case of EA, there's unfortunately very little they'll ever be able to do about a demographic so ignorant that they'd name them the worst company in America.