DICE: EA Gets "Too Much Crap for Not Being Innovative"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So that's what innovation is. Alright. So what do you call it when EA takes a survival horror franchise and turns it into a co-op 3rd person shooter? Is that innovation or homogenization so that you can, quote "reach out to a broader audience because if this game doesn't sell 5 milliion copies the franchise is getting the axe"?Grey Carter said:
Sorry. Mr. DICE, but your argument falls flat when a game like Dead Space 3 cries out in agony "I coulda been somebody! I coulda been a contender!"
He does have a point.
Problem is, nothing in what he says apply to EA.
Also, as others pointed out, a tiny innovation in a game doesn't make a full IP innovative. It just add a little good thing.
Problem is, nothing in what he says apply to EA.
Also, as others pointed out, a tiny innovation in a game doesn't make a full IP innovative. It just add a little good thing.
I'd just like to point out that DICE only co developed NFS: Hot pursuit, and I'm pretty sure the same can be said for Medal of Honour too.
The only major new IP DICE has released is Mirrors Edge (which was fantastic imo) and yet that is what hasn't been re addressed often. Medal of Honour is getting another sequel, and that reboot from a couple of years ago sucked big time.
EA probably does get more crap than they deserve you're right, but they still deserve to get crap.
The only major new IP DICE has released is Mirrors Edge (which was fantastic imo) and yet that is what hasn't been re addressed often. Medal of Honour is getting another sequel, and that reboot from a couple of years ago sucked big time.
EA probably does get more crap than they deserve you're right, but they still deserve to get crap.
Huh, you make some good points DICE, to bad that all of 'em get squashed by EA's yearly games being as stagnant as a white turd.
Glorified patches I tell you.
Now let's talk about "niche markets" shall we? Hmm?
Think of them as a small hole at the back of gaming that gets filled nicely by smaller developers.
This is where EA jumps in and buys out these "smaller" guys, but EA is not happy with the size of these hole.
So EA starts cramming extra things in to stretch the holes out, this may make some extra room eventually and this pleases EA but over time it does nothing but damage the hole and make it too stretched out to be filled any more.
In the end EA leaves the hole, damaged and hurt, because EA can't fill it any more and doesn't want to anyway.
It will take awhile for this hole to be fixed and sometime for someone else to want fill it.
Thanks EA the hole has been broken, just because they wanted a bigger, looser hole.
Glorified patches I tell you.
Now let's talk about "niche markets" shall we? Hmm?
Think of them as a small hole at the back of gaming that gets filled nicely by smaller developers.
This is where EA jumps in and buys out these "smaller" guys, but EA is not happy with the size of these hole.
So EA starts cramming extra things in to stretch the holes out, this may make some extra room eventually and this pleases EA but over time it does nothing but damage the hole and make it too stretched out to be filled any more.
In the end EA leaves the hole, damaged and hurt, because EA can't fill it any more and doesn't want to anyway.
It will take awhile for this hole to be fixed and sometime for someone else to want fill it.
Thanks EA the hole has been broken, just because they wanted a bigger, looser hole.
Ahem... Changing the font is not innovation and neither is changing the color of your HUD.
When i first read this one major thought jumped into my mind, who the hell is DICE? Then i read the list of games and thought, "ok so they made mirrors edge and... o god what is this drivel."
Developers of some of the least innovative games in the history of gaming don't have the right to support other peoples ability to innovate. They make crap, and making a game like mirrors edge doesn't remove the stain of mediocrity that covers them from head to toe. Saving a child from a fire does not excuse a life of mass murder.
Atleast the pokemon series generally adds more than just a updated roster of new vermin that you have to collect, like you know... a story.
When i first read this one major thought jumped into my mind, who the hell is DICE? Then i read the list of games and thought, "ok so they made mirrors edge and... o god what is this drivel."
Developers of some of the least innovative games in the history of gaming don't have the right to support other peoples ability to innovate. They make crap, and making a game like mirrors edge doesn't remove the stain of mediocrity that covers them from head to toe. Saving a child from a fire does not excuse a life of mass murder.
Atleast the pokemon series generally adds more than just a updated roster of new vermin that you have to collect, like you know... a story.
"innovation" is a meaningless buzzword. Sure, they're "innovative," I'll give them that, because it's an empty word.
But what of the games he listed besides Battlefield? Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit even taks its name from a prior installment in the franchise that has had a yearly release for most (if not all) of that decade he references. And a MoH reboot.
the only game left is Mirror's Edge. Congrats, you worked on one new and different franchise in the last decade. You also made 9 gazillion Battlefield spin-offs.
Even if we accept that "different titles=innovation," which I don't, you're not helping your case.
But what of the games he listed besides Battlefield? Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit even taks its name from a prior installment in the franchise that has had a yearly release for most (if not all) of that decade he references. And a MoH reboot.
the only game left is Mirror's Edge. Congrats, you worked on one new and different franchise in the last decade. You also made 9 gazillion Battlefield spin-offs.
Even if we accept that "different titles=innovation," which I don't, you're not helping your case.
People love Mario and Zelda. >.>Zaik said:
Not my first complaint about EA, but whatever.
My artistic problems with EA aren't so much that it's "not innovative", more that it's creatively bankrupt. Retooling a franchise from one genre to make it more like your biggest sellers in the hopes of dragging along the IP's fans and bringing in the fans of the homogeneous pap you already release is a nakedly cynical cash grab with no respect for buyers, and has less artistic merit than the blood spatter pattern at a murder scene.
"Not innovative" is painting multiple paintings that are similar. EA is running around the art gallery and painting over everyone else's stuff.
My artistic problems with EA aren't so much that it's "not innovative", more that it's creatively bankrupt. Retooling a franchise from one genre to make it more like your biggest sellers in the hopes of dragging along the IP's fans and bringing in the fans of the homogeneous pap you already release is a nakedly cynical cash grab with no respect for buyers, and has less artistic merit than the blood spatter pattern at a murder scene.
"Not innovative" is painting multiple paintings that are similar. EA is running around the art gallery and painting over everyone else's stuff.
My goodness, it almost seems like they are some sort of... business. Next you will be telling me that they actually plan to try to make money in the most efficient way possible, especially if that means as little cost for the most profit available. EA makes what sells, if you have a problem with that take it up with humanity, not with some guys trying to get paychecks.PureIrony said:
Another day, another hackneyed EA employee defence.
EA aren't innovative even on their best days. Would they ever take risk with a Limbo, a Braid, a Dear Esther? Never. They'll always be behind because they are interested in what statistically gamers would buy, not what would make an interesting, fresh idea for a game. That's good business, but it's not innovation. Innovators always disregard the audience and focus on the product.
EA aren't innovative even on their best days. Would they ever take risk with a Limbo, a Braid, a Dear Esther? Never. They'll always be behind because they are interested in what statistically gamers would buy, not what would make an interesting, fresh idea for a game. That's good business, but it's not innovation. Innovators always disregard the audience and focus on the product.
Yeah... There's a point there, and as other people have said there is more to be annoyed at EA other than innovation.
But also there is the world wide industry misconception about the increasingly meaningless word "Innovation":
"Innovation is something that actually changes something for the better, renews something -- and I think we do that all the time,"
By definition, innovating is not making something better, it's making something new. NEW is not necessarily better. However BETTER, is always necessarily new. What he is describing is improvement -NOT- innovation, and that is very worthy by itself.
Again SAFE doesn't define the quality of a game.
The problem comes when it becomes clear that there has been a decision to favor quick buck over quality, or when a perfectly strong and interesting game has been bent into a "more mainstream" shape, as to attract a bigger audience (I'm looking at you dead space).
By contrast with something like Nintendo, Would a mario FPS sell a million copies?.. yeah probably. Does it fit the world, I doubt it, Will it get done? Probably not, because nintendo has a lot of respect for its tradition, which doesn't stop them from making a lot of improvements to its tired and true formula.
And that is the real problem with many of today's publishers, the loss of focus, not the lack of innovation.
But also there is the world wide industry misconception about the increasingly meaningless word "Innovation":
"Innovation is something that actually changes something for the better, renews something -- and I think we do that all the time,"
By definition, innovating is not making something better, it's making something new. NEW is not necessarily better. However BETTER, is always necessarily new. What he is describing is improvement -NOT- innovation, and that is very worthy by itself.
Again SAFE doesn't define the quality of a game.
The problem comes when it becomes clear that there has been a decision to favor quick buck over quality, or when a perfectly strong and interesting game has been bent into a "more mainstream" shape, as to attract a bigger audience (I'm looking at you dead space).
By contrast with something like Nintendo, Would a mario FPS sell a million copies?.. yeah probably. Does it fit the world, I doubt it, Will it get done? Probably not, because nintendo has a lot of respect for its tradition, which doesn't stop them from making a lot of improvements to its tired and true formula.
And that is the real problem with many of today's publishers, the loss of focus, not the lack of innovation.
Oh , they change things all the time... like in BF3
Nice server browser in game .. changed to a web based browser with lots and lots of stats.
Community servers ... changed to using EA partner server providers only with limited control and access.
Balanced weapon and sidegrades ... changed to a CoD style leveling system, complete with all the patting on the back for each bloody shot you take.
Changed thier tune (BadCo 2 PC - we wont split the community by selling maps) ... to several DLCs which not only include maps for MP but different modes... now the community is fractured by maps and more modes.
or Syndicate ?
A inovative for its time title , into a generic FPS.
Ahh , the Sims.
Make a bare bones base game, then add a crap tonne of expansions, then make a updated bare bones base game without the content of the old game + expansions... then re-introduce old content from expansions back...as more expansions...
... then make a bare bones base game, add a micro transaction shop to buy more content for that base game, and still make a lot of expansions.
Mass Effect 3
Day 1 DLC, only offering you a character that was mythic in the first 2 ME's as a sidekick to boot about.
Tacked on MP, because hey MP is the new word.
Sold off utilities to help you in game , to get to the best ending.
Dragon Age 2
Tossed out the rich and vast story line for a single repeated set of locations, changed the battle system to something more twitchy and button mashing (oh sorry, interactive), and gutted much of the RPG from the RPG.
...and, I have no readers by this time
Nice server browser in game .. changed to a web based browser with lots and lots of stats.
Community servers ... changed to using EA partner server providers only with limited control and access.
Balanced weapon and sidegrades ... changed to a CoD style leveling system, complete with all the patting on the back for each bloody shot you take.
Changed thier tune (BadCo 2 PC - we wont split the community by selling maps) ... to several DLCs which not only include maps for MP but different modes... now the community is fractured by maps and more modes.
or Syndicate ?
A inovative for its time title , into a generic FPS.
Ahh , the Sims.
Make a bare bones base game, then add a crap tonne of expansions, then make a updated bare bones base game without the content of the old game + expansions... then re-introduce old content from expansions back...as more expansions...
... then make a bare bones base game, add a micro transaction shop to buy more content for that base game, and still make a lot of expansions.
Mass Effect 3
Day 1 DLC, only offering you a character that was mythic in the first 2 ME's as a sidekick to boot about.
Tacked on MP, because hey MP is the new word.
Sold off utilities to help you in game , to get to the best ending.
Dragon Age 2
Tossed out the rich and vast story line for a single repeated set of locations, changed the battle system to something more twitchy and button mashing (oh sorry, interactive), and gutted much of the RPG from the RPG.
...and, I have no readers by this time
Yeah, yeah, I know, they're a business, and businesses exist to make money. I don't think EA are supervillains or anything, and I understand that most companies would love to be in the position I described as well; what I was trying to express is that isn't a good thing, and we shouldn't give companies brownie points for being what they are, and given what EA seems to be, they'd probably have the sheer tenacity to try.Immsys said:
We shouldn't like or accept what EA is. EA is a company run by people that don't care about games, don't really understand the fanbase, and will never attempt to push any kind of bar or give the customer any concession without a pricetag, not unless they're dragged into it first. Again, they're not unique in that aspect, but they seem to embody it better then any other game company. I don't hate EA, and I definitely don't think they're the worst company in America, but what they are is something to be fought, and I'm sure as hell not going to give them a pat on the back for not giving a shit about me or my favorite hobby.
I came on here prepared to hate on this from the title. But he certainly makes a good point. I mean, EA does rely too much on sequels I think. And when they raise the bar, I don't think they raise it right (aka, getting rid of the solo play on Dead Space 3). And I also feel their "indie" selection is really weak. Well... I think I talked myself down from almost believing this guy. Wow, bullet dodged.
I'll say this, being innovative a little bit doesn't balance out the 99% of the time they are just releasing sequels. But, that is why EA is declining like it is. They are doing the opposite of THQ did. THQ put all it's cards on innovation and new products and it bit them in the ass ( I love THQ, btw). EA puts very little effort into innovation (not no effort, very littel) and it is giving them a bad image. Seems like the smart money is less on the extremes of the two and more on a balance, 50:50-ish. But I am not a CEO, you can keep that job.
I'll say this, being innovative a little bit doesn't balance out the 99% of the time they are just releasing sequels. But, that is why EA is declining like it is. They are doing the opposite of THQ did. THQ put all it's cards on innovation and new products and it bit them in the ass ( I love THQ, btw). EA puts very little effort into innovation (not no effort, very littel) and it is giving them a bad image. Seems like the smart money is less on the extremes of the two and more on a balance, 50:50-ish. But I am not a CEO, you can keep that job.