8 Games From EA That Don't Suck

[LaoJim]

I have never had any issues with EA's games, in general. It's their business practices that are the problem. In fact, I wish they did make shitty games. If they didn't make games I wanted to play then their policies wouldn't make a difference to me because they wouldn't affect me

This.

Lots of people have rushed in with their favourite EA games. Regardless of how you feel about the sequels they did make the original Dead Space. They've published Mirror's Edge. Kingdoms of Amalur, Bulletstorm, Shadows of the Damned, Dante's Inferno, the Burnout series. (I know some of these are under EA partnership programme and they didn't completely oversee the development)

Despite yearly releases, I wouldn't say that Fifa sucks and I guess most of their other sports franchises are at least solid. Skate is good. I actually really enjoyed the latest SSX, even if the trick mechanic wasn't really satisfying.

I don't play Battlefield, but whether you prefer CoD or not, I don't think it's fair to say it sucks.

The simple truth is that EA produces a lot of good games. I think people get angry with EA when they make what is or would have been a good game just suck a little bit more by shady business practices (on-line passes, microtransactions, always-online etc)

Now Activision on the otherhand: 8 games that are not CoD that don't suck...? (Prototype, Wolverine, Blur... and I'm out)

 

[Fasckira]

I know hating on EA is popular and all, and I can get that the Escapist staff wants in on that, but there are significantly more EA games than 8 that doesn't suck.

I'd go as far as to say a large majority of their games dont suck. The reason why people get arsey with EA has typically been their business practice and ethic, not because they release "bad" games.

 

[LiquidGrape]

I maintain that Dragon Age 2 is a diamond in the rough, so it's nice to see it get some recognition. It's a very different game from Origins in a lot of ways, and with the exception of the obviously rushed dungeons, I think it was an improvement in every conceivable way.

 

[shrekfan246]

I think it was an improvement in every conceivable way.

I would've preferred the enemies not be quite so damage-spongey, myself.

Of course, there's one thing Dragon Age II is unequivocally great at no matter your opinion on it: Rustling the jimmies of the internet.

Ah, gamers. Please, always remain predictable.

 

[Qvar]

I don't think it was a parody list, with good games like Mirrors Edge and Battlefield 1942 included in it.

If the OP wanted to make one he should have gone all out rather than this (possible?) half-arsed attempt.

Pretty much the whole list is composed of either games that were released 10 years ago, or games that weren't even developed under EA management. Except Mirror's edge and Tiger Woods, which I assume nobody in the world cares about.

Maybe you don't, but I get the idea that the reviewer was blatantly saying "Look at this, I just couldn't find any current, real EA game that didn't suck" with sarcasm.

Btw I couldn't get myself to finish Mirror's edge.

 

[loa]

Um ok, who says no EA game doesn't suck exactly?
Their business practices suck but they have some good games in their claws.
That's what makes it so frustrating to watch.

Also they are a publisher/slaver/sitter of IPs more than a developer so a list like that doesn't even make much sense.
If your point was "look, they haven't made any good games themselves in years lololol" then conglaturations, you have just discovered the difference between publisher and developer.

 

[Sidmen]

I don't get why everyone hates it. I find the story interesting, the quests interesting, the characters fun, their interactions with each other as I run around fun, their back stories and the back stories of the people you meet interesting.
Beating in the faces of people, monsters and dragons feels satisfying.

For me, it was the combat, and the game turned out to be mostly combat. I couldn't stand the spawning enemies who flip over tiny rocks to enter the fight right around the time you think the fight's over, because they're inevitably jumping into the fight behind you so you have to turn around and grind your way back the way you came from.

The story and characters weren't interesting enough for me to play the game to completion, not with 10+ more hours of grinding action to look forward to.

 

[Humanity1]

Hmmm... That was a pretty passable attempt at satire. I think I'll check the comments to see what captions people found the most facetious...

I forgot how much the internet never seems to get subtle satire. Damnit internet, every single caption quietly whispered "The only reasons I can come up with for describing an EA game as good all involve making jokes about the title/graphics/fan reactions" but all anyone heard were "EA" and "Don't suck" and reacted to that. Sigh.

 

[xmbts]

EA doesn't make bad games, EA makes bad decisions and treats people like dirt.

Big difference. :O

 

[Tactical Pause]

I don't understand this list... Half of it reads as satire, but the other half seems to play it completely straight. I'd like to imagine it is satire, and I just don't get it, because otherwise this is stating that EA has never published/developed more than eight good games. Even the most diehard EA haters will admit that they've made/published more than 8 "games that don't suck" over their lifespan.

 

[Ticklefist]

Strange article when you consider them being the top reviewed major game publisher.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2012-releases

Perhaps people that make articles like these don't realize what the actual problem is with EA.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I've generally found that the best EA games were released after EA had bought over a studio, in a very brief "sweet spot" time period that was just long enough for the studio to benefit from EAs extra funds, and just early enough that EA hadn't had time to begin their corporate meddling in the developers business.

Command and Conquer Red Alert 2 (and generals) falls into this, as does Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 2, Medal of Honor Allied Assault and Frontline.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Strange article when you consider them being the top reviewed major game publisher.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2012-releases

Perhaps people that make articles like these don't realize what the actual problem is with EA.

The problem there is that as Metacritic themselves state, "Sales and user reviews do not factor into these rankings; only critic reviews (as captured by each game's Metascore) are used to evaluate performance."

So EA's top game of 2012 according to Metacritic?

Mass Effect 3 with 93%.

Yeah. That rating system definitely has issues.

 

[Sarge034]

I can't tell if this list is legit, half and half, or full on... "intentionally obtuse" (in not so nice of word). The inclusion of DA2, ME3, and a golf sim makes me wonder.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well maybe I'm in the minority here - scratch that, I AM - but I'm okay with EA. I mean this may sound like a cop-out, but no company is perfect. If you ask me, the wait for Half Life 3 from Valve is JUST as bad as releasing a subpar game from EA. Worse, because 0 work goes into NOT releasing a game.
If a game looking fun, I'll give it a try, EA or not. I don't see why EA gets hammered for bad choice(granted they are very bad choices) when other companies are give a free pass, because...

And that's where the community loses me.

 

[Caiphus]

Oh Greg Tito, you're never going to live that down, are you? We love you, really.

And EA's games tend to be mostly decent. It's the least of their worries, really. If their games were all shit, people probably wouldn't get so mad when they inevitably screw the pooch in other areas*. No, it's just their silly PR machine, dedication to money grubbing, and slightly obnoxious unwillingness to listen to feedback that gets them so much hate instead.

*Edit: Then again, if my theory were correct, people wouldn't have been so angry at Zynga. D'oh well.

 

[Vivi22]

There's a reason why they're the biggest triple A publisher now.

It's called having all of the popular pro-sports licenses for most of gaming history and, at one point, crushing their NFL competition outright by buying exclusive rights to the league.

EDIT: And I just checked, and they're not the biggest triple A publisher by any relevant financial measure. Activision Blizzard at least earns more revenue, has higher operating income, higher net income (to the tune of almost $1.1 billion), and substantially more assets and equity.

Hell, for all of the games they publish and for the size of their literal billions in revenue, EA makes less than $100 million in net income. Financially, they're a mess and their competition are eating them alive.

 

[Fearzone]

All of them are good except DA2 seemed weird. Serious? The rest I think were serious picks except the taglines were in jest, so DA2 seemed out of place. I mean, DA2 was metacritic-bombed worse than ME3, across all platforms.

 

[Kugel]

The quality of EA's games in general is not my greatest concern.
It is the way EA succeeds to destroy perfectly good IP's like Mass Effect with an endless stream of game fragmenting DLC that makes me puke.
I am not against DLC per se, but the way EA/Bioware did it with for example Mass Effect 2 is in my view completely wrong and game breaking.
Compared to ME1 they deliberately left out weapon choices and armor choices from ME2 to begin with. But that is not the worst. The way EA/Bioware implements DLC is destroying the game itself. They also release core missions as DLC, containing main characters of the game they obviously deliberately ripped out to begin with, to sell them to you later for too much money. It chops up the game into little disconnected chunks. It destroys the gameplay experience, because what use is it to play through a mission that gains you a new teammate for use in your main mission after you already played through the complete game at least twice? Yeah of course you can play through the game a third and a fourth and a fifth and a sixth time for every single DLC that is released, but my point is... a DLC should not be implemented that way. It is bad for the game and the coherence of your gaming experience. To me as a long time gamer this a crime against gaming.

Rockstar for example did a much better job with the release of two large and completely independent large DLC with new player characters for GTA 4 that were smartly interconnected with the main story. I gladly bought these DLC and I would have bought many more from Rockstar if done the same way. By contrast I did not spend a single dime on any of the Mass Effect 2 DLC. EA's/Bioware?s greed even made me decide I would not fall into the money trap twice. I will only buy Mass Effect 3 when it is released as a complete edition with all the DLC parts integrated into the game, or I will never buy it at all. It is not an easy decision for me, because I love Mass Effect. As far as I am concerned it is the best scifi IP out there and at the moment it is the only scifi IP that can fill the gap that the wanton destruction of the Star Wars game IP left behind.

 

[pilouuuu]

Is it just me or that is a screenshot of the Amiga version of Wing Commander?

And Dragon Age 2? Really? Couldn't you have included Dragon Age Origins instead? And what about The Sims? Sim City 4?