DICE: EA Gets "Too Much Crap for Not Being Innovative"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dead Space 3. A series about a lone protagonist in a claustrophobic environment is now co-op and actiony because they wanted "to open up the accessibility of the IP a little bit by adding a little bit more action".Terramax said:
Mass Effect 3. A single-player series grows multi-player that you need to play to have a better shot at the optimal single-player ending.
I'm all for spinoffs and tweaking the established formula, but they're changing the cores of their other franchises because Battlefield's action/multi-player sells well, so everything else has to get in line.
But I'm just a hack. Andy Chalk said it better. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119449-EA-Turns-Its-Back-on-Single-Player-Games] Heh, "gong show".
So, where's Mirror's Edge 2 then? Because using that would probably help it's sales of getting people to the Battlefield 4 beta...but the problem is that Battlefield 4 is coming out soon and is now part of the copy-and-paste schedule EA now has to copy-and-paste compete with Activision.
2008 EA, perhaps but whan ever new IPs that has came out since, unless you're owned by EA, they're not going even try puting much or any advertising out there before launch.
*IP; singular. And you're right, you haven't been able to take care of your 2 IPs (ok, just Battlefield since Mirror's Edge is pretty much a single-player endeavor) as we would have liked (like curved bullets, shitty netcode, shitty spawning EVEN with low amount of players, questionable gameplay decisions, discovering shitty hit detection from the terrain of your just now released map pack).
...actually no, innovation doesn't make things better. It can be and often we used that word in that context but otherwise, no, all it can do is make or break something. Also, you doing it all the time is very much up to debate since you've added Gun Master which, so far, only one big recently released shooter that you've competed with has...
Depends on how big because if you just add stuff that EVERYONE else is adding, no, I can say that's probably not innovation...wait, didn't you just claimed that EA is innovating?
Why do I bother? DICE probably isn't reading this because THEY really need to do a Die Hard or John Woo game because, quite frankly, that first level in the SP portion of BF3 screamed that franchise and they need to do Heroic Bloodshed because they have the destructive software to do so.
im mad at EA for online passes, killing developers and fucking gamers over when they stop being arses then we will not hate them so much, its not that hard
Hickory dickory dock, EA's not being innovative...
ohhhhh
Mass Effect 3 blew, it needed the money.
Ya hear me?
I feel like that was just a very descriptive way of saying that EA rapes virgin IPs, very literallyShinsei-J said:
Not to mention that comparing the innovation gap between mario/zelda games to the innovation in Madden NFL is about as proportionate as a toothpick compared to the Eiffel tower.Zachary Amaranth said:
Call me biased, but the difference to me is extremely staggering compared to Madden. And I didn't choose Wind Waker and Twilight Princess just because they're polar opposites, I chose them because they're one game apart.Zachary Amaranth said:
As are the two Madden examples. But what's the difference between the two? MAYBE the numbers on the jerseys, sometimes hardly so. Sixty bucks still, though.
He may have a point.
Then again, DICE is releasing Battlefield 4 in about a year. And the Pokemon analogy only works when the games ARE different from each other.
So, point rendered null.
Then again, DICE is releasing Battlefield 4 in about a year. And the Pokemon analogy only works when the games ARE different from each other.
So, point rendered null.
Focusing on polish and leaving a lot of innovation to other people is fine. Polished games are great, and not everyone needs to invent a new genre. But, uh, not being innovative is the last complaint I hear about EA. Usually people complaining will talk about draconic anti-piracy measures, running good studios into the dirt, showing contempt for there customers, and pursuing short term windfalls instead of long term sustainability.
You might as well be saying, "Everyone gives getting stabbed in the chest a bad rap, but in reality scars look kind of badass". Maybe they do, but the scar isn't really the problem. The problem is the gaping stab wound in your torso.
You might as well be saying, "Everyone gives getting stabbed in the chest a bad rap, but in reality scars look kind of badass". Maybe they do, but the scar isn't really the problem. The problem is the gaping stab wound in your torso.
Oh, my word! A game about killing in war with shooting, another game about killing in war with shooting, a game with it's fair share of death-by-shooting, and an insignificant game about going really, really fast!
Yeah, that's some mighty-fine innovation you got, right there! Keep doing what everyone else has been doing for the past decade!
Yeah, that's some mighty-fine innovation you got, right there! Keep doing what everyone else has been doing for the past decade!
OK time for devil's advocate. how many of us truthfully buy games based on a series we already play BF3, MW3, madden, FF, etc. compared to buying a brand new IP. For instance how many people people are going to buy either AC3 or RE6 compared to ones buying say dishonored. for companies like EA it's easier to put time and money into updating and improving existing franchises compared to creating brand new one's. Also, on mass effect let's not forget that it was originally developed underneath Microsoft game studios (which is why ME1 will never be seen on the PS3) and Microsoft has killed a number good studios, the smart ones got out bioware and bungie.
Solution:
If we want better games from great developers there needs to be some sort of way we, as gamers and fans, can support them so they don't have to rely on publishers to give them the budget for the games we want to see. for instance if bioware was to create a game outside of EA but we have to buy it from the directly we should, but until that time comes we will have to push for developers to keep being creative and for publishers to give a little more breathing room to developers.
Listen Day 1 DLC isn't a problem for me it's an incentive to buy new or a collectors edition(ME:N7 sets) what ticks me off is if a portion of the game was rushed and sent out faulty. If we want to support developers it's better to buy new because then we know developers get part of the share but when we buy used and get stuck buy project 10 dollar we are giving are mone to the publisher with no clear knowledge if the money ever gets back to the developer.
Rant Over
really if you don't like EA vote with your money - don't buy EA games - however just remember for all we talk bad about them how many (and i have no idea so if someone does know help pls.) developers has EA backed with cold hard cash to create the games we like. want to complain look at game budgets for mass effect 2 and 3, battlefield, and MoH. We want good games keep talking, we want great games start buying those great games EA will put money into project that make money.
EDIT: comments appreciated on thoughts just please give reasons not just more EA hate (who i'm not particularly fond of my self)
Solution:
If we want better games from great developers there needs to be some sort of way we, as gamers and fans, can support them so they don't have to rely on publishers to give them the budget for the games we want to see. for instance if bioware was to create a game outside of EA but we have to buy it from the directly we should, but until that time comes we will have to push for developers to keep being creative and for publishers to give a little more breathing room to developers.
Listen Day 1 DLC isn't a problem for me it's an incentive to buy new or a collectors edition(ME:N7 sets) what ticks me off is if a portion of the game was rushed and sent out faulty. If we want to support developers it's better to buy new because then we know developers get part of the share but when we buy used and get stuck buy project 10 dollar we are giving are mone to the publisher with no clear knowledge if the money ever gets back to the developer.
Rant Over
really if you don't like EA vote with your money - don't buy EA games - however just remember for all we talk bad about them how many (and i have no idea so if someone does know help pls.) developers has EA backed with cold hard cash to create the games we like. want to complain look at game budgets for mass effect 2 and 3, battlefield, and MoH. We want good games keep talking, we want great games start buying those great games EA will put money into project that make money.
EDIT: comments appreciated on thoughts just please give reasons not just more EA hate (who i'm not particularly fond of my self)
Yeah, I know, not hating and I know the new games improve it but... the joke was just sitting there begging to be madeNameIsRobertPaulson said:See, that's exactly what the guy was talking about. The changes made to Madden every year really benefit the series, and make great improvements that a patch or DLC wouldn't do.Vrach said:They do. It's called EA SportsPureIrony said:
I would have bought Madden 13 this year if they didn't make the colossally stupid decision to remove Franchise and Create-A-Character for asinine reasons.
And as they say, there's a bit of truth in every joke, you have to admit that it's not exactly as new a game as something else would be, they are the same game every year (for a long time now), just slightly improved (imo, not worth, or rather fairly charged, the 60$ every year... perhaps if there was a discount/upgrade plan for those who owned the previous game(s))