I've my disagreements with EA: they perpetually fail to fix the passing and goalie bugs in their FIFA series, and they did screw over Westwood, but I'd eat shit before I would believe that Activision is a better company than EA---wait, let Kotic eat shit.
Kotick Takes a Swing at EA
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Thats a pretty funny statement to make from Kodick, considering most Activision published games kinda play and look the same. The ones that don't however come from Blizzard...hmmmmmmm
Its also kinda funny how Kodick is always ratting on EA when he wants people to agree with him.
Its also kinda funny how Kodick is always ratting on EA when he wants people to agree with him.
However, I think Lionhead was better when they were under EA because they did well making PC games too, and I wish they'd go back to their Black&White series.Riku said:
And I miss Rare doing their Conker games. Both studios under MS have done nothing but this: LH has moved to milking their Fable series (for the 360 mostly while waiting a year or two for a PC release), and Rare has moved into making childrens' games such as Kinect Sports and Viva Pinata instead of their good, more dedicated gamer games.
Over the past two years, however EA is running their company, they have been doing so much better than Activision. The only reason why Activision is/was doing so well at all was they had two crutches in Blizzard (which they still have and use) and Infinity Ward (which they pissed on and lost). Well, the crutch they lost has now gone over to EA in Respawn Entertainment.....so, good luck with that.
What is up with the corporate trash-talking lately? Stop acting like the haters and just do your job. I think EA is one of the few we haven't heard anything from, but I don't know these big wigs' names. This childish behavior is not becoming of any of them.
Wait, I'm confused. I get it, you're taking the Anti-Activision side on this one, but...EA doesn't copy-paste their old ideas with new skins? Really? So, FIFA, MADDEN, NFL, NHL, Need For Speed, the Sims, Medal of Honor, Burnout, Battlefield, NCAA, and Rock Band all have completely unique installations every time, with nothing similar to their preceding entries?GamesB2 said:
Huh. Well. Color me baffled.
Mass Effect seriesBehattedWanderer said:
Dragon Age series
Mirrors Edge
Dead Space
Dantes Inferno
Crysis
Bulletstorm
The Sims series
Bad Company series.
All of those are innovative or have evolved substantially over the series.
I'd like to see Activision pull off anything like that.
Bad Company is a subset of Battlefield, and they haven't all been stellar examples of evolution. The Sims series is renowned for making entire games out of minor expansion packs. Bioware is the EA equivalent of Blizzard, in that they're owned but, as one of the primary names of industry, are given mostly their own will, with supervision when it needs to happen. Dante's Inferno is hardly a powerful name drop, and Crysis doesn't exactly put out titles frequently enough to be persistent in its payoff. Oh, and I'm pretty certain Bulletstorm can't account for anything yet, seeing as it's only been released for, what, negative 6 months?GamesB2 said:
Here, just for discussion sake, I'll put a few of the games that bear Activision's name:
Call of Duty
Guitar Hero
Tony Hawk
Project Gotham Racing
Geometry Wars
As of 9, July, 2009--Anything by Vivendi, the guys behind Blizzard
As of earlier this year--Anything Bungie produces from now on, for the next 10 years
Oh, and most anything Star Wars, or Marvel
And, just for jollies, Prototype
Turns out, neither list has all that much innovation or uniqueness, except for a title here or there. For the titles of a high amount of innovation, it's mostly the other companies, the ones that take the flack, but don't say much to the news. You know, groups like Sony, Nintendo, Ubisoft, Sega, Take-Two, PopCap, and Microsoft. Each of them have their own fall back IP's, and collectively they make up the market with their repeats and sequels. No one group can claim more evolution over the others, as they all love to rehash old concepts, since remaking brings them money. Yes, there's plenty of examples here and there of "Wow, look how much it changed!", but there's also plenty of examples in each where it's familiar ground with a new coat of paint and some name swaps. EA and Activision have a different focus, namely in that they are there to be to publishers for many, many small studios trying to get the buck or get firm ground, and the money they offer is a stable protection. Most of the others support only one or two companies, and work their own games in-house. EA and Activision are umbrella companies supporting quite a few of these smaller companies, so they have less opportunity to take risks, as they have to have a continuously reliable way of supporting these smaller companies.
They brought in a lot of destructible cover. Which has been around before but Bad Company 1 and 2 pushed it forward in the tactical FPS front.BehattedWanderer said:
But they've all grown, they release a lot of expansion packs yes. But from Sims 1 to 2 to 3 you can see massive leaps in all the right places. And the expansion packs are fun anyway...
But they are still under EAs publishing therefore fall under EAs selection of games. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are very good games that deliver amazing storytelling (because it's Bioware) and each try their own approach at the cross genre FPS/RPG.
This is more on innovation though, Activision doesn't come out with a risky project like this and though it wasn't to my taste I respect EA for trying.
Again this is about innovation and not money. Crysis has made 3 games in the last 10 years but all of them have been astounding from a technical point of view.
Well I don't see why it can't account for anything. There's enough gameplay floating around to see that its only equal is potentially Duke Nukem Forever. So that may not be innovation as it's a rehash of Duke but again... I don't see Activision doing that.
Yeah I agree they don't do the most innovation in the field. Especially not Activision. But in a toss up between Activision and EA... EA is the one who has some innovative, if not successful, titles on its bill.
I have a lot of companies I hold in high regard at the moment.
Somewhere near the top of that list are THQ, Capcom(for sheer awesome), EA for actually trying, Microsoft Game Studios for picking up Hydrophobia and a few others I can;t remember right now.
But when I see what Activision create, they create sludge, they sell money makers, and while I respect this is completely reasonable as they are a business and need money. They cannot be given points for innovation as they have none to be accredited with.
Actually no... in Activisions defense I really enjoyed Singularity.
But everything else! Is sludge...
I think I lost myself a long the way there... I often do in long debates.
Anyway I think most of that is in order, I just base Activisions popularity off the whole 'people are stupid' idea.
The general public know no better therefore want no better. And people who do suffer.
Now I'm definitely lost...
Well, in fairness, Activision (to my knowledge) was the first to push current contemporary warfare. And they had Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, which was pretty different. And Prototype, and the aforementioned Singularity. And, while it's en-route from GameFly right now and therefore this is said cautiously, Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions looks like it's fairly innovative in actually letting us play as the four versions of Spidey. I agree that the policy of only putting out what is guaranteed to sell is a bit annoying, but mostly I was just pointing out that both companies are pretty guilty of selling their sludge, even if it does get a little shinier or more jam-packed this time around.GamesB2 said:
I haven't heard of this guy until only recently. So far, he's riled me up, made me agree with him (i.e. the latest game regulation law the supreme court is debating over is stupid), and made me completely not care at all (this one). Maybe I haven't heard enough bad things about him yet, but does this guy really warrant that much bile against him?
