EA Now Owns Star Wars Games. Get the Torches.

[R.Nevermore]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/06/ea-acquires-star-wars-game-license

FUCK! Just when I was having hope for Star Wars, we have gone from the hands of a madman bent on ruining his series to a developer who will do anything to ruin a series if it gets them more money.

Now we'll get good movies but shitty games

Good movies but shitty games? Sorry, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the movies will be anything other than a homogenized Disney piece of lens flare filled crap.

I don't know, I think the film industry experts generally agree that the Star Trek reboot was superior to pretty much everything before it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

This is why I don't understand all the people saying that the films will be terrible. JJ Abrams has proved himself to be more than competent with the Sci-Fi genre. The new Star Trek film is excellent and was handled tastefully. And the upcoming sequel looks fantastic as well. People have taken that lens flare meme and gone way too far with it.

 

[You Can't Take the Sky From Me]

Because Lucas Arts were such good publishers >.>

Anyone remember KOTOR 2? No? Ok then.

Anyway about this whole EA *sigh* "controversy" (I use that word in the loosest possible way) it's rather simple. Ok ready?

Mind blow #1.

If the game turns out to be good, buy it.

Mind blow #2.

If the game turns out to be a piece of absolute wank, do not buy it :O

HOW 'BOUT DAT SHIT?!

Now, I can see that you're making a point here, but my synapses are already fried from excessive hatred for a company that produces luxury goods that have absolutely no impact on my life. Now take you're logic and rationality and go sit in the corner until you learn to hate!
I actually do not feel this way, all of this was sarcasm. I only want to, finally see KotOR III, I would give EA my soul for that game.

 

[templar1138a]

*facepalm* I've got two suggestions for you.

1. Wait and see. We don't know what games EA plans to make yet. And some of my favorite games just happen to have the EA logo stamped on. They're going to publish and distribute the games, not make them. In that way, they have a lot in common with Lucasarts.

2. If you're REALLY deadset against this, then just don't buy the games and leave it at that. It's really simple.

Either way, put away the torches before you hurt yourself.

 

[Adept Mechanicus]

Star Trek 11 has problems. But the problems are in the story, not the directing or the visual style.

Lens flare. If a movie is actually physically painful to watch, it's a bad thing. My eyes were actually running after about an hour in the theatre. It was literally unwatchable.

OT: Honestly, Battlefront was just an extremely good copy of BF1942 that happened to be better than the original. I haven't played any of the modern military Battlefield games, so I don't know if they kept the reinforcement-based gameplay or not. If they did, good. Give it to Dice and away we go.

On the other hand, EA's atrocious business practices are definitely turning me off. We'll see how this goes. I really only care about Battlefront 3.

 

[Platypus540]

So just because EA bought SOME of the rights? That means all the games are going to be bad? They've drafted in Bioware and DICE. The people who made KOTOR and BF3. BF3. Yeah, that's Battlefield 3, not Battlefront 3. It'll look bad on their lineup having two BF3s, but yeah it'll happen. I think this is actually a good turnout. EA make great games, and I feel they get a worse press than they deserve.

Battlefield 3 sucked without its multiplayer. C'mon, a QTE where a FUCKING RAT KILLS YOU?! Yeah, that's not really a strong argument in Battlefield's Case

So what? Battlefront was a multiplayer game too, singleplayer was pretty fun, but not exactly its strong suit. I actually think DICE would be a good developer to end up with the IP; Battlefront was practically Star Wars Battlefield anyway.

OT: People have to remember, Lucasarts was doing a rather terrible job with games the past few years. Also, EA still owns a number of good developers. Their business practices and PR are crap, but they still make plenty of good games. If the games they make are good, but them, if not, don't. It at least won't be any worse then what Lucasarts had been doing lately.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

So just because EA bought SOME of the rights? That means all the games are going to be bad? They've drafted in Bioware and DICE. The people who made KOTOR and BF3. BF3. Yeah, that's Battlefield 3, not Battlefront 3. It'll look bad on their lineup having two BF3s, but yeah it'll happen. I think this is actually a good turnout. EA make great games, and I feel they get a worse press than they deserve.

Battlefield 3 sucked without its multiplayer. C'mon, a QTE where a FUCKING RAT KILLS YOU?! Yeah, that's not really a strong argument in Battlefield's Case

So what? Battlefront was a multiplayer game too, singleplayer was pretty fun, but not exactly its strong suit. I actually think DICE would be a good developer to end up with the IP; Battlefront was practically Star Wars Battlefield anyway.

OT: People have to remember, Lucasarts was doing a rather terrible job with games the past few years. Also, EA still owns a number of good developers. Their business practices and PR are crap, but they still make plenty of good games. If the games they make are good, but them, if not, don't. It at least won't be any worse then what Lucasarts had been doing lately.

Battlefront 2 could be played VERY well alone thanks to bots, and Galactic Conquest was a BLAST. How many games do you know these days that let you play the multiplayer modes alone with bots? Add to the fact that it had SPLIT-SCREEN (for 4 players mind you) and you can't really compare all the myriad of options for Battlefront 2 to the brainless "forced to play with other people only" fragfest of Battlefield 3.

 

[Dryk]

Okay so with EA having exclusive rights and putting DICE, Bioware and Visceral on the job, and with them saying that they're only going to make games in popular genres that's what?

FPS
TPS
RPG

 

[Vivi22]

I mentioned it on another forum, but this might bother me more if I'd played a good Star Wars game since the PS2 was king of the playground. As it is, this just means I can continue not buying them and not even have to pay attention to them anymore to see if they're actually bad first. I guess that means they've actually made my Star Wars game purchasing decision more efficient, so thanks EA?

 

[Nowhere Man]

This. This is what happens when the Empire Strikes back.

 

[R.Nevermore]

I enjoyed syndicate. I admittedly hadn't played many. Sim city's train wreck has turned me off of EA for a long time. Not to say the the game was bad, but because it was hideously misrepresented, buggy and the drm fiasco. The game was solid... The framework was truly awful and EA's PR only made it worse.
Are you really trying to tell me that you're afraid you're going to get a soulless Star Wars shooter? I think if they just rebooted some old Star Wars titles we'll be better off than the recent slew of Star Wars garbage games. Perhaps we can get another Red Squadron game? Maybe another pod racing game? Shadows of the Empire was awesome at its time... Lets get away from this ridiculous force unleashed and Star Wars kinect crap.

While I don't think EA is going to damage the Star Wars name more than George Lucas and recent lucasarts already did, I lament that in the event that the games are fairly decent, I may have to deal with EA's terrible business practices.

Let's start off with Syndicate. It's alright to enjoy shooters but the original Syndicate was a strategy game. There are tons of people who like RTS's but find the market is flooded with shooters, replacing the IPs that they loved, and starving the demographic that doesn't want all that.

EA's businesses practices speak for themselves, so I won't bother you with what you already know.

As for Lucasarts and there terrible game releases, EA published SWTOR. Not only is that a flop, but it's losing them money as well.The rest of the recent disappointing releases are admittedly LucasArts fault. However, I was hoping, that with the developer going under, I would see their IPs being sold to game developers that new how to make good games that cater to the correct demographic. The fact is that EA is a business that doesn't know how to make games. They're used to selling Madden Games every single year because it makes them money and there are people that actually spend money on that shit. EA thinks its selling to the same audience as its football loving fans. The type who purchase the same game every year. I'm not that audience so that means that the games I was hoping to see again, such as Republic Commando and Battlefront and KOTOR, won't be made with me in mind.

What does what syndicate USED to be have to do the quality of the new one. Don't get me wrong... I played and LOVED the new syndicate, and was disappointed as ever that it was being rebuilt as a shooter, but when I played syndicate I found it to be one of the best shooters of the year. I haven't played the old republic, so I'm no authority, but from what I understand the game was a failure the moment the 'MMO' card was brought out of the deck.
Leaving EA sports out of the equasion, EA competently makes games when you detach them from the DRM, the customer PR, the micro transactions and on disc DLC, as well as other shady monetization methods.

Whatever you do, don't confuse me with an EA fanboi, o anything so insane... Just rational.

 

[Platypus540]

So just because EA bought SOME of the rights? That means all the games are going to be bad? They've drafted in Bioware and DICE. The people who made KOTOR and BF3. BF3. Yeah, that's Battlefield 3, not Battlefront 3. It'll look bad on their lineup having two BF3s, but yeah it'll happen. I think this is actually a good turnout. EA make great games, and I feel they get a worse press than they deserve.

Battlefield 3 sucked without its multiplayer. C'mon, a QTE where a FUCKING RAT KILLS YOU?! Yeah, that's not really a strong argument in Battlefield's Case

So what? Battlefront was a multiplayer game too, singleplayer was pretty fun, but not exactly its strong suit. I actually think DICE would be a good developer to end up with the IP; Battlefront was practically Star Wars Battlefield anyway.

OT: People have to remember, Lucasarts was doing a rather terrible job with games the past few years. Also, EA still owns a number of good developers. Their business practices and PR are crap, but they still make plenty of good games. If the games they make are good, but them, if not, don't. It at least won't be any worse then what Lucasarts had been doing lately.

Battlefront 2 could be played VERY well alone thanks to bots, and Galactic Conquest was a BLAST. How many games do you know these days that let you play the multiplayer modes alone with bots? Add to the fact that it had SPLIT-SCREEN (for 4 players mind you) and you can't really compare all the myriad of options for Battlefront 2 to the brainless "forced to play with other people only" fragfest of Battlefield 3.

I had actually only been thinking of the campaign when I said "singleplayer"-- I'd somehow forgotten about the bot mode, despite it basically being the backbone of the game haha. Galactic Conquest was, indeed, awesome. Splitscreen really was one of the best things about it as well.

However, I still think DICE would do a good job with a new Battlefront, at least compared to any other developer I can think of right now. They're some of the best at the fundamental big team, class based multiplayer that SW:BF and BF share. Not that I want a BF3/4 reskin for Battlefront, of course, but it's not like that's all DICE and the Frostbite engine are capable of. Also, DICE is the only EA team I'd trust with Battlefront, and I'd honestly rather get a SW:BF3 with awesome multiplayer but no bots than no SW:BF3 at all.

 

[RicoADF]

What does what syndicate USED to be have to do the quality of the new one. Don't get me wrong... I played and LOVED the new syndicate, and was disappointed as ever that it was being rebuilt as a shooter, but when I played syndicate I found it to be one of the best shooters of the year. I haven't played the old republic, so I'm no authority, but from what I understand the game was a failure the moment the 'MMO' card was brought out of the deck.
Leaving EA sports out of the equasion, EA competently makes games when you detach them from the DRM, the customer PR, the micro transactions and on disc DLC, as well as other shady monetization methods.

Whatever you do, don't confuse me with an EA fanboi, o anything so insane... Just rational.

Personally I found TOR didn't feel like star wars, and the amount of grinding just made it boring. Personal preference ofcourse but that's all i can provide. Now Jedi Academy, that's a star wars game.

 

[zacattack14]

What I got out of this is that EA no longer has any excuse NOT to make another Battlefront game. And if they could throw in another Star Wars Bioware joint that'd be nice. I'm calling this a net gain.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

No, don't get the torches out. If the games are good, buy them. If not, Don't. Do not give this any more press than it deserves.

Sensible, it's the way I always approach EA. If their game has something I don't agree with, I don't buy it, the ones they leave alone/get right when it comes to not having DRM/anything bad then I buy it, sales like that if they ever tip the balance will tell them what works and what doesn't.

See everyone! I CAN BE SENSIBLE TOO.

Ok, so it's the first documented case, but it can happen.

I'll admit, we've been at odds in a discussion before, but I'm more then capable of agreeing with anyone when they make sense to me