EA 'destroying' gaming - Minecraft creator

aN.Droid

gizmo wrote: »

Do they stifle creativity. Given the disparity in our experiences with games, what do you think?

Yes. Evidenced by Ultima 8.

gizmo

Limericks wrote: »

Yes. Evidenced by Ultima 8.

If you're going to use Ultima as an excuse for something then at least do it right.



*spits*

aN.Droid

gizmo wrote: »

If you're going to use Ultima as an excuse for something then at least do it right.



*spits*

I used Ultima 8 because it was rushed by EA, what about the door that lead to no where that was meant to be used for the never apearing expansion! Or the many.... many shades of grey... And yes Ultima 9 was much worse in terms of gameplay and everything else really!

gizmo

Limericks wrote: »

I used Ultima 8 because it was rushed by EA, what about the door that lead to no where that was meant to be used for the never apearing expansion! Or the many.... many shades of grey... And yes Ultima 9 was much worse in terms of gameplay and everything else really!

Oh I know Ultima IX is just a personal *ahem* issue for me given my level of excitement for it and then the crushing sense of disappointment when the US reviews started to come in that, even today, has yet to be matched.

As for Ultima 8 though, I think another thing to bear in mind was that despite being "rushed" to release it, they were still three months behind schedule by the end of the project. So, allowances were definitely made and I don't think it's right to place the blame solely on them.

EA, outside of the sports brand and for the most part, are a different company now though and unlike the people Overheal referred to above, I do believe companies can change for the better. They're sure as hell a damn sight better than the company who promised there would be no significant changes to DICE prior to acquiring them back in 2004 yet only hours after finalising the deal, closed their Canadian office.

Doodee

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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!

Hi!


I would just like to say that since becoming an EA employee I have yet to see them do anything that would destroy creativity or destroy gaming.
I think Kevin Dent covered it perfectly in his tweet

From @TheKevinDent: The way people use the word indie is rather silly. If we were to use the pure definition of the word, no one is indie.. http://twitter.com/#!/TheKevinDent/status/198162815092129792

BlitzKrieg

Do they stifle creativity. Yes.

with the exception of mass effect (which started with microsoft publishing) both ssx and battlefield got their start with EA publishing them. You cannot accuse a publisher of stifling creativity when it was by that publisher's hand these original franchises exist. DICE did not hold a successful track record before battlefield.

You can shoot them down for Ultima, they bought that and burnt it, they didnt start it. Same with the System Shock series except they buried it and I'e already said my fill on C&C, that would be cases of stifling creativity. But when it is a franchise that not only got its break with this publisher but also has been kept with that same developer from the beginning, then I'd say issues with the end product are more likely concious decisions made by said developers.

Say what you will but in the case of DICE, EA have been more then generous on what they could do. From different eras (2142) to different franchises (Mirror's Edge) EA gave DICE more room then in comparison Activision with Infinity Ward.

gizmo

On the subject of System Shock, I was admittedly quite glad to see Syndicate was so badly received at retail (although I do of course hope it doesn't affect Starbreeze too badly since it wasn't actually that terrible in context) as I can think of little else which would disappoint me more than to see the SS IP diluted in such a manner. The final nail in that particular coffin should hopefully be the forthcoming XCOM reboot from 2K which, at this point anyway, looks like a complete train wreck.

hypersquirrel

gizmo wrote: »

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?


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.

Bulletstorm was just mean Gears of War. Same character design, same gameplay with a minor change awarding points for "skill". A fun game no doubt. For the 6 hours it took to complete the campaign I was greatly enjoying it. It was not however creative in any way shape or form.

Shadow of the Damned, a suspense thriller with no suspense and no thrills.

The fact that EA only made one of the games actually helps prove my point. EA see a good franchise and they buy out. Suddenly that franchise becomes an EA clone of everything else on the market.

Mass Effect 2 was heralded for it's story, for it's character development. The one complaint people had about it was that the combat was nothing special. Sure EA had a name on ME2 but it was early days. Then we look at ME3. The dialogue is gone, the story is a mess, the character development is non existent. The entire game was streamlined into a 3rd person cover based shooter. Who exactly is James, I don't think I've ever seen a more stereotypical non entity character..... In fact he reminds me an awful lot of Grayson Hunt.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy the games. I'm saying they're not creative and it has been a long time since I played a "creative" game.

BlitzKrieg

i dont think you understand what a publisher does...

gizmo

hypersquirrel wrote: »

Bulletstorm was just mean Gears of War. Same character design, same gameplay with a minor change awarding points for "skill". A fun game no doubt. For the 6 hours it took to complete the campaign I was greatly enjoying it. It was not however creative in any way shape or form.

Apart from them both using the same version of the Unreal engine and both having similar character designs (sans colour and sense of humour in one) I have neither seen anyone refer to the games being the same nor seen any similarity myself.

hypersquirrel wrote: »

Shadow of the Damned, a suspense thriller with no suspense and no thrills.

Calling Shadows of the Damned a suspense horror is like calling From Dusk Till Dawn a psychological horror.

hypersquirrel wrote: »

The fact that EA only made one of the games actually helps prove my point. EA see a good franchise and they buy out. Suddenly that franchise becomes an EA clone of everything else on the market.

Except none of the above are technically good franchises? Bulletstorm had neither the required setting nor the typical multiplayer mode that was going to win it a larger audience, especially in the face of the dominance of Call of Duty. Shadows of the Damned came over a year after the failures of Bayonetta and Vanquish, two other fairly unique action games to come from Japanese studios which were also poorly received commercially and also came from a studio who, despite having critically well received games, had failed to see any kind of commercial success since its inception. And Alice? That took 11 years to get a sequel.

So no, if EAs goal was to find a commercially viable franchise and buy it out then they were doing a ****ing terrible job with those titles.

hypersquirrel wrote: »

Mass Effect 2 was heralded for it's story, for it's character development. The one complaint people had about it was that the combat was nothing special. Sure EA had a name on ME2 but it was early days. Then we look at ME3. The dialogue is gone, the story is a mess, the character development is non existent. The entire game was streamlined into a 3rd person cover based shooter. Who exactly is James, I don't think I've ever seen a more stereotypical non entity character..... In fact he reminds me an awful lot of Grayson Hunt.

Early days? EA bought Bioware in 2007, a month before Mass Effect 1 was released. I don't, for one second believe that they left them to their own devices for ME2 and then waded in to ME3 demanding the addition of cookie cutter characters such as James and dramatic changes to the story structure.

Winston Payne

There's always been a character like that in Mass Effect to be fair. Kaiden was mainly a stable character. Jacob was assigned to be just that. There's good story reasons for James to come along following the opening. If you want a soldier run all can be handy too.




I would disagree pretty strongly that ME 3 was watered down. I thought that ME 2 was the thinnest one in a lot of ways, no weapons customisation and the Citadel was pretty cut down. ME 3's melee combat was more fluid and I quite liked micromanaging my weapons again.

hooradiation

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

i dont think you understand what a publisher does...

When it comes to this kind of "EA is the nega-midas" whining, knowing what a publisher does isn't important, all that matters is having a boogyman to blame everything you don't like on.

Game has flaws - EA's fault
Made changes I did not care for - EA's fault
Didn't make any changes - EA's fault
Stubbed toe on way to put disc into drive - EA!!!!! *shakes fist*

Throw in nebulous, subjective words like "creative" or "original" as things that are lacking (not that you'd ever define what those terms mean to you) and you've got the perfect recipe for an perennial fall guy for any kind of fault you find with anything.

It's perfect as long as you don't think about it.

johnny_ultimate

hypersquirrel wrote: »

I'm saying they're not creative and it has been a long time since I played a "creative" game.

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit? Deathspank? BoomBlox? The various Burnout games? Mirror's Edge? Bejeweled 3? Brutal Legend? We Love Katamari? Stranger's Wrath? Rock Band? Shank? Spore? Skate? Other games that begin with S? All games published by EA.

I'd say every one of those games (except maybe Shank) are several degrees more interesting and creative than most things Bioware have done.

Mindkiller

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Here's a list of great things EA have done in the last decade:

• Have proven themselves a vocal opponent of homophobia in gaming.

But was that really a genuine stand against homophobia or was it not just carefully orchestrated to coincide with that 'Golden Poo' award they just won? Right wing indignation against gay sex in Mass Effect is nothing new, yet it's only when EA is branded 'the worst company in America' that they suddenly emerge as this bastion of gay rights in the video game world.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I don't believe for a minute that EA are doing that out of any altruistic purpose. Although I know someone will probably say that that's besides the point.

Brutal Legend sucked btw

BlitzKrieg

But was that really a genuine stand against homophobia or was it not just carefully orchestrated to coincide with that 'Golden Poo' award they just won? Right wing indignation against gay sex in Mass Effect is nothing new, yet it's only when EA is branded 'the worst company in America' that they suddenly emerge as this bastion of gay rights in the video game world.

Actually right wing indignation was against sex in general in mass effect. Gay Sex between male characters was only introduced in ME3. Also the issue isnt isolated to just Mass Effect, a large part of that *right wing* indignation was aimed at The Old Republic for allowing gay star wars characters.

Brutal Legend sucked btw

It was original though and it was supporting a developer that had a huge following but poor financial success.

In fact Brutal legend's originality worked against it, as most people expected it to be a god of war clone with heavy metal humour and got put off when it broke out all the RTS elements.

johnny_ultimate

Mindkiller wrote: »

But was that really a genuine stand against homophobia or was it not just carefully orchestrated to coincide with that 'Golden Poo' award they just won? Right wing indignation against gay sex in Mass Effect is nothing new, yet it's only when EA is branded 'the worst company in America' that they suddenly emerge as this bastion of gay rights in the video game world.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I don't believe for a minute that EA are doing that out of any altruistic purpose. Although I know someone will probably say that that's besides the point.

Well since EA has been an advocate of same-sex relationships in games since at least 2009 (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/16/ea-glaad-to-host-panel-addressing-homophobia-in-online-gaming/) one cannot accuse them of holding this policy just as a reaction to their moronic Worst Business award... It's a discourse well worth opening up, and out of the major publishers they seem to be the only ones even attempting to address it.

Pretty much all companies have to (for various reasons) have some sort of social responsibility policy, and one could argue that is cynical. But EA have been so vocal about their gay relationship policy it's rather admirable. I don't see any other major game's company out there so sternly trying to address one of gaming's most unfortunate and backwards issues of equal representation, and so firmly shouting out against sometimes all-too-accurate gamer stereotypes. Some of their quotes go well beyond the remit of mere token responsibility:

EA has not been pressured by any groups to include LGBT characters in our games. However, we have met with LBGT groups and sponsored industry forums to discuss content and harassment of players in online forums. In short, we do put options for same-sex relationships in our games; we don't tolerate hate speech on our forums

And given that such statements will alienate them from a rather sizable amount of right-wing crazies, it's not an entirely commercially beneficial strategy.

Brutal Legend sucked btw

I can only repeat the essence of what Blitzkrieg said above. While it certainly struggled on a number of accounts, and anyone would be hard pressed to label it a great game, it is a unique clash of genres on a scale usually unseen in mainstream gaming. RTS, brawler, open world, even a bit of rhythm game in there too. So yes, while it's not as great as Tim Schafer's other game, it is a fascinating, often very entertaining game that - if we're too accuse it of anything - is almost too ambitious for its own good. That's why I'd have no problem including it in a list of creative, unique EA-funded titles.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

But if you replace the word FIFA in your post with CoD, the same thing still applies surely?

johnny_ultimate

EnterNow wrote: »

But if you replace the word FIFA in your post with CoD, the same thing still applies surely?

Yes and no.

While it is a frustration seeing CoD sell millions year after year, there is a very clear market for it so Activision cannot be blamed for providing them with a new game every year.

The slight difference between CoD and FIFA is that CoD is stifling creativity in a way FIFA does. FIFA occupies a niche market with few competitors, so they can work away and do what they want, without any direct impact on us. We can simply ignore the series, like I tend to.

CoDification, on the other hand, affects us as 'core' gamers in a much more obvious way - creating an unfortunate and slightly desperate consensus in a genre we tend to be very fond of - I can understand why gamers are more negative about it.

While I can certainly shout out many negative things about CoD - and I have and will do, especially the unfortunate impact it's had on multiplayer gaming - nor do I entirely begrudge its success as it really has captured the mainstream imagination. And CoD4 was a relatively hard-earned success that was hugely ambitious in a number of ways. It's only after that that said ambition had some knock-on effects.

I should end this post with the observation, however, that Activision's business policies tend to be far more objectionable than anything EA do, and have far fewer great games to show for it recently

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes and no.

While it is a frustration seeing CoD sell millions year after year, there is a very clear market for it so Activision cannot be blamed for providing them with a new game every year.

The slight difference between CoD and FIFA is that CoD is stifling creativity in a way FIFA does. FIFA occupies a niche market with few competitors, so they can work away and do what they want, without any direct impact on us. We can simply ignore the series, like I tend to.

CoDification, on the other hand, affects us as 'core' gamers in a much more obvious way - creating an unfortunate and slightly desperate consensus in a genre we tend to be very fond of - I can understand why gamers are more negative about it.

While I can certainly shout out many negative things about CoD - and I have and will do, especially the unfortunate impact it's had on multiplayer gaming - nor do I entirely begrudge its success as it really has captured the mainstream imagination. And CoD4 was a relatively hard-earned success that was hugely ambitious in a number of ways. It's only after that that said ambition had some knock-on effects.

I should end this post with the observation, however, that Activision's business policies tend to be far more objectionable than anything EA do, and have far fewer great games to show for it recently

Fair points, but surely then it's not the fault of CoD really, & more so the insane demand for it by...gamers?

johnny_ultimate

EnterNow wrote: »

Fair points, but surely then it's not the fault of CoD really, & more so the insane demand for it by...gamers?

Probably the core problem. The problem is not people who play FIFA and CoD: there is a place for them, and on their own terms they're perfectly good games. It's people who only play FIFA and CoD that cause problems for everyone else.

N64

EA is quite simply a joke of a company. The only reason Stephen Fry supported the company is for including gay content in SWTOR. EA are trying to twist the negative PR they are receiving (Origin, ripping off gamers, etc) by just using the gay controversy as a scapegoat. Plain and simple.

calex71

Some recent points made me think..... brutal legend for one, that was a game that suffered from trying too hard for the sake of it imo , had it been more like a GTA clone or what ever it could have been a great game, I'm not against RTS games or being inventive but that game smacked of being just for the sake of it at the cost of it being fun for more than the first few hours, and i'm sure EA where telling Schafer to do xyz in that case and I would have supported them, it really could have been a good game had it chose to be one thing or the other, sometimes conforming to what sells is not a bad thing!!!!


Don't get me wrong I'm all for someone with vision putting the foot down for what they believe in but here Schafer was wrong.

Cork24

FIFA is a joke this year ...

The euro game is a joke I got England twice in my group and I got Germany in the knockout stage but yet I had Germany as well.

Varik

calex71 wrote: »

Some recent points made me think..... brutal legend for one, that was a game that suffered from trying too hard for the sake of it imo , had it been more like a GTA clone or what ever it could have been a great game, I'm not against RTS games or being inventive but that game smacked of being just for the sake of it at the cost of it being fun for more than the first few hours, and i'm sure EA where telling Schafer to do xyz in that case and I would have supported them, it really could have been a good game had it chose to be one thing or the other, sometimes conforming to what sells is not a bad thing!!!!


Don't get me wrong I'm all for someone with vision putting the foot down for what they believe in but here Schafer was wrong.

Not sure this is a great example as the game still has a good multiplayer following even now and received a good overall review from most at release. There were games prior to this that shared a similar rts element but there are few now, the problem when you shift to a more GTA/fifa/COD type of game is that you're now directly competing with them and these games.

Spending a fortune on developing a new game with some fresh aspect is likely to make a loss unless it sells a huge amount, as long as the game is budgeted well then successful ideas can be grown in sequels.

gizmo

On the subject of Brutal Legend, people are aware that without EA it would never have even seen the light of day after Activision dropped it post Vivendi merger, right?

Overheal

All I can say is right now I'd rather see THQ do well. If Darksiders becomes another commercial success we might get a Homeworld 3

Varik

Overheal wrote: »

All I can say is right now I'd rather see THQ do well. If Darksiders becomes another commercial success we might get a Homeworld 3

They'll likely pull though, or at least i hope so. If things do turn out well then we'll still have to wait with Warhammer/COH/downsizing. Considering the response to Homeworld 2 they're unlikely to rush it.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

All I can say is right now I'd rather see THQ do well. If Darksiders becomes another commercial success we might get a Homeworld 3

Why THQ as a matter of interest? Is it specifically their ownership of Relic and their games? I mean applying the same logic that a lot of people seem to be doing with EA they're just as bad, no? For instance they:

• Messed up Homefront and lied about it to customers. They then closed down the studio after it was released.
• Ruined the Red Faction franchise with the release of Armageddon.
• Engaged in questionable DLC practices with Saints Row: The Third.
• Embraced the online pass concept for some of their titles.
• Released yearly iterations of their sports games (WWE)
• Released a bunch of shovelware

Varik wrote: »

They'll likely pull though, or at least i hope so. If things do turn out well then we'll still have to wait with Warhammer/COH/downsizing. Considering the response to Homeworld 2 they're unlikely to rush it.

Not to mention that THQ specifically acquired the IP from Vivendi outside of their acquisition of Relic. Id wager we'll be waiting until after CoH2 for news on that one though.

Anyway, as long as they survive long enough to publish Devil's Third then I'll be happy. :pac:

johnny_ultimate

N64 wrote: »

The only reason Stephen Fry supported the company is for including gay content in SWTOR. EA are trying to twist the negative PR they are receiving (Origin, ripping off gamers, etc) by just using the gay controversy as a scapegoat. Plain and simple.

You mean the anti-homophobia policy they've had in place since at least 2009 is 'plain and simpl[y]' a long-gestating scapegoat to try and deal with a bunch of embarrassing, backwards homophobes and large amounts of gamers pissed off by a bad ending EA probably had little to do with? Fair enough.

Also curious how they're ripping you off? You don't have to buy any of their games or DLC if you don't want to. I know I don't. Caveat Emptor and all that jazz.

Sabre0001

EA has released these games under the indie listing though and they've been under the indie tab on various sales platforms for a while. Fair enough, the bundle is new, but why lash out now.

Incidentally, Minecraft is being released on Xbox 360 this week for 1600 Microsoft Points - THE most expensive XBLA title? And if your game isn't appearing in the "indie games" market (only available in certain countries), then you're not doing badly or you've signed a deal.