EA Vows to Continue Making First Person Shooters

[Greg Tito]

EA Vows to Continue Making First Person Shooters

Despite Medal of Honor getting a critical flogging, Visceral says that EA is committed to winning the first person firefight.

Electronic Arts has realigned its corporate structure with with three general managers in charge of different genres. Nick Earl, head of EA's Visceral Games arm, is in charge of the third-person action adventure leg with a second group handling MMOs and a third tackling first-person and driving games. He said that even though Earl's group focuses on third person games, that doesn't mean that EA is giving up the ghost on beating Activision in the FPS market [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.234287-EA-Medal-of-Honor-Will-Overtake-Call-of-Duty]. In his view, it doesn't matter what kind of reviews Medal of Honor is getting; EA fully expects the game to be a commercial, if not a critical, success.

"We are absolutely and positively not giving up on the first-person space," said Earl. "The reaction to Medal of Honor notwithstanding, we believe it's certainly going to be a commercial hit."

"Battlefield is a very strong franchise in the first-person space. We're going to continue to pursue first-person - but I'm personally completely laser-focused on the third-person action-adventure space," Earl said. "It has nothing to do with our success or lack of [success] in the first-person space."

So there you have it. Medal of Honor may not be the best shooter ever created by human beings (check back tomorrow for Steve Butts' review) but EA still believes that it can contend with Call of Duty for the FPS crown. And if MoH is a miss, maybe the Battlefield game will hit with audiences a little better.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30961/Interview_Earl_Reveals_EAs_Expansion_Of_Visceral_Label.php]

Permalink

 

[JeanLuc761]

Given how much of the game we've sold at Gamestop over the last couple of days, it's certainly possible Medal of Honor will, indeed, be a commercial success.

That said, while Activision does hold the rights for one of my favorite shooters (Call of Duty), EA still has Crysis and Battlefield, which is good enough for me.

 

[Irridium]

Want to make a name for yourself in the FPS space? Do something no other game does. Give them something unique and interesting. Something thats not the same as your competition.

Battlefield 3 is your chance to do this. The (main)Battlefront games are about large-tactical 64-player combat thats being guided by one player(or general). The general orders squads to attack area's, calls in support, vehicles, and radar scans. Squads follow the orders because if they do they get a nice experience boost, along with the other boost when working with your squad.

It makes what could be a large clusterfuck into a well-oiled machine. And its fantastic.

It works, and its fun. It gives an experience not found in Call of Duty. So go with that.

You also had Crysis 1's multiplayer that was like a combination of Counter Strike and Battlefield. And that was relatively fun. Needed a bit more work, but it was serviceable. But it seems you already got rid of that in favor of a Call of Duty multiplayer but with Nano-suits.

 

[Korenith]

Isn't the FPS market flooded enough as it is? I mean I'm not saying there can't be inovations made in the genre but come on, how many more "realistic" shooters can we stomach?

 

[Weaver]

Maybe they SHOULD stop making FPS games.
I just don't fucking care about them anymore.

 

[LastMondaysHangover]

I agree that they should, because I prefer EA's shooters. I think the online competition is more intense, and that getting your kills requires skill. And this is not my fanboy bias talking.

I do agree with some of the above posters that they should do something no other shooter has done yet. Like Mirror's Edge for example, it wasn't perfect but I love the sensation of running and around and timing your jumps and movements. THAT was an original idea and EA would be wise to invest in a sequel. Perfection can only be achieved through Trial-And-Error in my opinion

 

[Netrigan]

Isn't the FPS market flooded enough as it is? I mean I'm not saying there can't be inovations made in the genre but come on, how many more "realistic" shooters can we stomach?

I think there's always going to be a market for them and I think there's enough scenarios to keep it going for a long time to come... but I'm waiting for the trend to shift so military shooters aren't the primary focus of game companies like they are now.

I'm half-curious about Medal Of Honor. Will definitely check out the demo to see if it can match the standards of the Call Of Duty 4. But it's going to have to seriously impress me to get a purchase, because I'm pretty bored with the underlying concept by this point.

 

[qbanknight]

If you want our attention stop canabalizing the FPS Modern Warfare market. You already have a modern warfare game, it's Battlefield, and it's fun. Make a new FPS that doesn't involve modern military warfare to attract something that CoD won't. And for fuck's sake don't do another space marine game

Sigh, I love Aliens, but sometimes I blame that fucking movie for inspiring every asshole developer to make alien killing games with bland, uninteresting, samey space marines

 

[Matt_LRR]

If Medal of Honor is the best they can do, they should just pack their bags now. It is easily the most generic, dull, buggy, ludicrously easy shooter I've played in ages, and further outings of this quality can't possibly hope to stand against it's more established competitors in the market.

I won't buy it, and no one else should either. It's a poor clone of MW2, and it's certainly not worth purchasing at anything even aproximating it's current price point.

I'm half-curious about Medal Of Honor. Will definitely check out the demo to see if it can match the standards of the Call Of Duty 4. But it's going to have to seriously impress me to get a purchase, because I'm pretty bored with the underlying concept by this point.

It doesn't come anywhere even close.


-m

 

[Woodsey]

Stick to publishing the Crysis series.

 

[Mortons4ck]

I'm confused as to why EA thought it would be a good idea to release both of their "modern day" FPS games in the same year fiscal year.

Maybe they saw the success of two Bioware RPGs being released around the same time and hoped lightning would strike twice (and in the process totally forgot that said games were very distinct and separate).

 

[Woodsey]

I'm half-curious about Medal Of Honor. Will definitely check out the demo to see if it can match the standards of the Call Of Duty 4. But it's going to have to seriously impress me to get a purchase, because I'm pretty bored with the underlying concept by this point.

It doesn't come anywhere even close.


-m

I found the multiplayer to easily surpass the (frankly hideous) likes pf CoD when I played the beta.

It's restrained and was balanced (that may have changed upon release, I don't know) quite well; all they do with CoD is throw some more perks and shit at it each year, reduce the campaign length and then sell MOAR than before.

 

[Matt_LRR]

It's restrained and was balanced (that may have changed upon release, I don't know) quite well; all they do with CoD is throw some more shit at it each year, reduce the campaign length and then sell MOAR than before.

MoH has, like, a 4 hour campign on hard mode.

the idea that you could defend MoH by complaining about the length of the CoD campaigns is laughable.

-m

 

[himemiya1650]

MoH was really easy to beat, and you'd never know the ending was coming. I still like the mutiplayer better than CoD, even though there's less weapons at least I don't need to worry about marty, dogs and AC130s.

 

[Woodsey]

It's restrained and was balanced (that may have changed upon release, I don't know) quite well; all they do with CoD is throw some more perks and shit at it each year, reduce the campaign length and then sell MOAR than before.

MoH has, like, a 4 hour campign on hard mode.

the idea that you could defend MoH by complaining about the length of the CoD campaigns is laughable.

-m

...

Can people not read anymore?

My main point was evidently aimed at the multiplayer aspect since I haven't played MoH's campaign; I was simply stating what else happens with CoD every single year.

And I've seen loads of people saying MW2's campaign is only 4-5 hours (like the guy below), so what'cha' talkin' 'bout Willis?

 

[Matt_LRR]

It's restrained and was balanced (that may have changed upon release, I don't know) quite well; all they do with CoD is throw some more shit at it each year, reduce the campaign length and then sell MOAR than before.

MoH has, like, a 4 hour campign on hard mode.

the idea that you could defend MoH by complaining about the length of the CoD campaigns is laughable.

-m

...

Can people not read anymore?

My main point was evidently aimed at the multiplayer aspect since I haven't played MoH's campaign; I was simply stating what else happens with CoD every single year.

I can read just fine. I was addressing your comment with regards to the element of the game that I'm actually currently playing, and can, therefore, comment on.

You derided CoD for shortening it's campign - well, even the shorted MW2 campaign is at least twice the length of MoH's, which goes back to my point of MoH being not worth the money they're asking for it.

There's less in MoH. It's less pretty. It's less polished. It's less stable. It's less precise. It's less immersive. It's less interesting. It's less game. And it's less good.

-m

 

[Woodsey]

It's restrained and was balanced (that may have changed upon release, I don't know) quite well; all they do with CoD is throw some more shit at it each year, reduce the campaign length and then sell MOAR than before.

MoH has, like, a 4 hour campign on hard mode.

the idea that you could defend MoH by complaining about the length of the CoD campaigns is laughable.

-m

...

Can people not read anymore?

My main point was evidently aimed at the multiplayer aspect since I haven't played MoH's campaign; I was simply stating what else happens with CoD every single year.

I can read just fine. I was addressing your comment with regards to the element of the game that I'm actually currently playing, and can, therefore, comment on.

You derided CoD for shortening it's campign - well, even the shorted MW2 campaign is at least twice the length of MoH's, which goes back to my point of MoH being not worth the money they're asking for it.

There's less in MoH. It's less pretty. It's less polished. It's less stable. It's less precise. It's less immersive. It's less interesting. It's less game. And it's less good.

-m

Just basing this off of everyone one else who's played the game, but they've all said that MW2's campaign is 6 hours maximum. That is not double 4 hours, and that is likely not the average time it takes to play; which makes what you're saying rather odd.

Anyway, since multiplayer is basically treated as the main reason to buy FPS's these days (unfortunately), my point stands that MoH's less-is-more approach surpasses CoD's offerings.

 

[mParadox]

I had forgotten that EA had Battlefield games to their name. :S

 

[MurderousToaster]

Since when is the aggregate reviews totalling at 76 a "critical flogging"?

That's generally positive reviews. The lowest review on Metacritic is 60, and that's not even that bad.

 

[Sacman]

Well I'm not going to be buying any shooters for a while since innovation comes down to giving your character a beard now...