Yeah, I do suppose I can see that, he made it a bit obscure in that quote. I officially rescind my point.4173 said:I think what it translates as is "we conceive of games that people are really excited to play, but then fuck-up the execution."elilupe said:WHAT?Fanghawk said:-snip-
Ok. So, first of all, Moore just said, 'Our games being mediocre at best is not the problem that keeps them from being accepted by gamers.', which is obviously incredibly untrue, and second of all, how does he differentiate between "the products themselves" and "certain game elements"? Aren't the "game elements" what make up the game, i.e., the "product"?
Yes. I'm sure it was a random statement and not a response to an interview question. Nah, can never be the logical answer that makes sense, because we always have to find a way to demonize EA.Dexter111 said:Fact: You never come out and say that nothing is wrong if there is indeed nothing wrong, there wouldn't be the need for a statement like this in the first place...
You have to realize that he's talking not as a man interested in games, but as a man interested in money. What he's effectively saying is "people have criticized our games into the ground but we still made tons of sales, so what's the problem?"elilupe said:WHAT?Fanghawk said:EA Still Confident in BioWare
Moore noted that most of the problems faced by these games had little to do with the products themselves, all of which enticed the gaming community. Mass Effect 3 alone generated over $200 million in sales while <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111932-Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic-Breaking-EAs-Pre-Order-Records>The Old Republic was EA's most pre-ordered game ever. The difficulties were based almost entirely on the receptions of certain game elements, which Moore and BioWare can use to better develop games in the future.
Ok. So, first of all, Moore just said, 'Our games being mediocre at best is not the problem that keeps them from being accepted by gamers.', which is obviously incredibly untrue, and second of all, how does he differentiate between "the products themselves" and "certain game elements"? Aren't the "game elements" what make up the game, i.e., the "product"?
I mean they pissed off fairly large portions of the older established fanbase with Dragon Age 2, Large amounts of the ENTIRE purchase base for Mass Effect 3, and the slow decline of The Old Republic which went form a touted "WOW killer" to going to a free to play model.animehermit said:What the fuck does any of this mean? Traded in a lot of goodwill and multiple IPs? Could you use any more buzzwords? Bioware has done well, the last 3 games they made have sold extremely well. They aren't going away anytime soon. Regardless of what a few forum posters say, they can't change reality.Ed130 said:The NAME Bioware could still be considered successful yes, (for how long that remains true could be debatable with EA sticking it on everything.) The company itself, you could make a good argument that it's still going strong. Its just that it traded in a lot of goodwill and mulitple IPs in order to do so.
There are no buzzwords, just plain English. What it means is: BioWare used its solid fan loyalty (aka "Goodwill") and the reputation of its top-notch previous game series' (aka "IPs") to offload tons of copies of mediocre games (that would on their own merits - ie without the aforementioned goodwill and IP exploitation - not have sold anywhere near as well). Because people trusted BioWare and they enjoyed the previous excellent games, the mediocre ones (ME3, DA2 and SW:TOR) sold well. However, as the saying goes, you can shear a sheep many times, but you can only slaughter it once. BioWare have chosen to slaughter its sheep so there may be lots of meat now from that (and that's why Peter in this interview can see nothing wrong), but there can be no more shearing. The next BioWare games will need to actually be good to sell as well as the last cash ins.animehermit said:What the fuck does any of this mean? Traded in a lot of goodwill and multiple IPs? Could you use any more buzzwords? Bioware has done well, the last 3 games they made have sold extremely well. They aren't going away anytime soon. Regardless of what a few forum posters say, they can't change reality.
And that is exactly what depresses me heavily. It's people like Moore that make me thankful for the small group of industry leaders like Peter Molyneux, Hideo Kojima, Sid Meier, Will Wright, Lord British, etc. Yeah, maybe their games aren't always perfect shining pillars of amazing-ness, but they are motivated not by money, but by passion for gaming and the drive to do interesting things.anaphysik said:You have to realize that he's talking not as a man interested in games, but as a man interested in money. What he's effectively saying is "people have criticized our games into the ground but we still made tons of sales, so what's the problem?"elilupe said:WHAT?Fanghawk said:-snip-
Ok. So, first of all, Moore just said, 'Our games being mediocre at best is not the problem that keeps them from being accepted by gamers.', which is obviously incredibly untrue, and second of all, how does he differentiate between "the products themselves" and "certain game elements"? Aren't the "game elements" what make up the game, i.e., the "product"?
EDIT: To clarify, 'the product' is what EA sells; 'the game' is what we're left with. EA's primary concern is with how many units they sell and how many pre-orders they get, not with what people think of the game.