Well, they're Not Complete Shit *Cough*HACKTIVISION*Cough*
oh and they make fun games, sometimes...
so there's that......way to go EA.....Uh....Yay?
oh and they make fun games, sometimes...
so there's that......way to go EA.....Uh....Yay?
Wait, isn't that Ubisoft?Hero in a half shell said:Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was amazing, and the newest Splinter Cell that's coming out may be slightly more stealth-based than the previous abomination that was "Conviction".
They made Red Alert 2 and Tiberium Wars, before completely balsing up the franchise with the inexcusably dreadful C&C4.
ERM... The Old Republic is going Free2Play so a stingy waster like me can enjoy it without giving them any money!
So what you're saying is that EA are good in the same way the Daleks are good:Erana said:I suppose in theory I should be thankful for the games they've published, but...
I can't think of anything positive that they've done that wouldn't have just been filled by another publisher if there were a void in another world in which EA weren't around. Has EA done anything good that is unique to them and their way of doing things? To me, it mostly looks like this thread is saying, "Hey EA, thanks for existing, I guess."
Dammit you're right, Splinter Cell was Ubisoft. Well, that combined with the news that from now on the entire Command and Conquer series is going Free2play multiplayer only, means the only praise I can give EA are for things done well and truly in the past.MrTwo said:Wait, isn't that Ubisoft?Hero in a half shell said:Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was amazing, and the newest Splinter Cell that's coming out may be slightly more stealth-based than the previous abomination that was "Conviction".
They made Red Alert 2 and Tiberium Wars, before completely balsing up the franchise with the inexcusably dreadful C&C4.
ERM... The Old Republic is going Free2Play so a stingy waster like me can enjoy it without giving them any money!
OT: They publish plenty of good games, I don't really have a problem with EA at all. Woooo!
Rubbish. Indie games are thriving thanks to word of mouth, micro-payment business strategies, and Kickstarter- none of which has anything to do with how the big guns make their games. You could argue that on phones it's a different story, but the technology would have got where it is with or without big game publishers.Draech said:EA were among the big studios that carved out the market we have to day. If not for the big guys moving gaming from a niche to the common consumer the market wouldn't be big enough to support the indie titles of today.
Ok, I see where you're coming from- but I still don't see how the big game companies have anything to do with it. Even if gaming was still a niche, we'd still have consoles, and since a lot of indies have strong roots to the older niche arcade games of yesteryear, there probably would have ended up being a variation of XBLA on consoles even if companies like EA never existed.Draech said:You missed my point.Squilookle said:Rubbish. Indie games are thriving thanks to word of mouth, micro-payment business strategies, and Kickstarter- none of which has anything to do with how the big guns make their games. You could argue that on phones it's a different story, but the technology would have got where it is with or without big game publishers.Draech said:EA were among the big studios that carved out the market we have to day. If not for the big guys moving gaming from a niche to the common consumer the market wouldn't be big enough to support the indie titles of today.
A lot of indie games are self funded anyway, so the gaming market doesn't really 'support' them regardless of how it operates.
You think that the indie market could exit without the big titles having made the market available?
Let me say it like this.
How many consoles do you think XBLA sold?
People bought the consoles for the big game titles, that then allowed the platform to carry something smaller.
The big publishers broke the market open for more benefit than their own.
Yeah the indie market thrive from word of mouth, but it wouldn't thrive if the big genres hadn't made the medium popular to talk about.
I think the general opinion is that Fable was mostly good if a bit skimping on what Molyneux promised (as always), and then the sequels are absolutely terrible because they didn't do hardly anything to innovate the previous game, and instead charged forward into mediocrity.Lucem712 said:They bought out 'Bullfrog' which caused Molyneux to leave 2 years later and create Fable[footnote]I loved the first Fable too, so don't worry.[/footnote], one of my favourite games.![]()
How do you keep posting if your banned.Suki_ said:They help make some of the best games out there.