EA lives in a different reality

[Amentep]

A, B, C, D, F, IP, I, W, WF, WM, K, S, U, V are the approved grades here.

[Mamoulian War]

Unfortunately most of the pupils give FO grade back to their teachers...

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

t makes me raise an eyebrow when someone says they're proud to not buy BioWare games anymore.

 

Sorry Al, that's me. Not supporting, and thereby perpetuating, crap makes me proud.

[Amentep]

Weirdly, I take no pride in buying or not buying games. I just buy the games that interest me and don't buy the ones that don't.

[alanschu]

We have different criteria in what can illicit pride in us then.  I'm not sure why it would make you proud, but to each his or her own.  I have decided to not buy games from companies in the past, but consider it more of a "non-event" that I don't really think twice about.

 

On the other hand, I just self-taught myself programmable shaders in OpenGL last week.  That made me feel proud.  You might not care any less if you were to accomplish that.  I consider thumping one's chest because you don't do an obvious thing (i.e. don't buy things that you think are poor) to be a rather low bar.  On the other hand, it's probably pretty easy for you to feel proud of yourself, so I guess there is that.  To me, it'd be like feeling proud because I don't buy fast food, or feeling proud because I don't buy low quality clothing.

 

The only way I can see it bringing out pride is if someone had a compulsion to purchase the games.  In the sense that they were a slave to their own purchasing habits, and after buying several bad games you feel a sense of pride in no longer being a slave to your purchasing habits, which were compelling you to purchase poor games.

[Malcador]

We have different criteria in what can illicit pride in us then.  I'm not sure why it would make you proud, but to each his or her own.  I have decided to not buy games from companies in the past, but consider it more of a "non-event" that I don't really think twice about.

 

On the other hand, I just self-taught myself programmable shaders in OpenGL last week.  That made me feel proud.  You might not care any less if you were to accomplish that.  I consider thumping one's chest because you don't do an obvious thing (i.e. don't buy things that you think are poor) to be a rather low bar.  On the other hand, it's probably pretty easy for you to feel proud of yourself, so I guess there is that.  To me, it'd be like feeling proud because I don't buy fast food, or feeling proud because I don't buy low quality clothing.

 

The only way I can see it bringing out pride is if someone had a compulsion to purchase the games.  In the sense that they were a slave to their own purchasing habits, and after buying several bad games you feel a sense of pride in no longer being a slave to your purchasing habits, which were compelling you to purchase poor games.

Heh, nice one. Course he didn't really specify the degree of pride he feels. Some people can be a little bit proud of themselves, after all, even if it's not as awesome as the stuff you're feeling proud of.

[alanschu]

I guess it reminds me somewhat of Chris Rock's skit:

Edited April 25, 2013 by alanschu

[Nonek]

I used to feel pride when I worked as a lion tamer.

[Malcador]

I guess it reminds me somewhat of Chris Rock's skit:

Think you've made it clear by now, heh. That is a pretty funny skit, that's not the best bit of it though, the bit about failing 2nd grade always makes me chuckle.

 

But ultimately, what does it matter if someone's boasting about not buying a company's stuff.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Malcador

[Morgoth]

Another EA firing spree: http://www.ea.com/ne...zational-update

 

https://twitter.com/JesseCox

 

Apparently 2000 lay offs.

 

EA. "We can't keep up with firing people fast enough"

 

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman is talking bull**** about a recovery.

[Zoraptor]

Ain't great when you're effectively shutting down a company you paid $400 million for not that long ago. Could have spent a fraction of that to buy Saint's Row- which would fill the GTA shaped hole in EA's portfolio- and other THQ titles at a pretty bargain rate.

[alanschu]

Yeah.  I'm guessing it's a bit of a "welcome to turnover and we're scrapping a lot of the things the former-CEO bought into" type of stuff.  I'm certainly skeptical that EA got positive ROI on that purchase.  Although at the same time, if it IS seen as a sinking ship, it is better to cut losses.

 

I'm not too surprised that there's a lot of cuts going on in the wake of Riccietello's departure.  I suspect the FY report isn't going to be very good, which is likely what prompted his dismissal.

 

 

 

 

But ultimately, what does it matter if someone's boasting about not buying a company's stuff.

 

Because creates a (justified?) perception that gamers in general are typically mudslinging brats.  They often justify said actions because of things like "it's just how the internet is" and other stupid stuff like that.  It paints gamers in a poor light when they champion absurd things.

 

For instance, when people vote EA the worst company in America, or run off and file an FTC complaint because they were mad at the ending of a video game, it undermines both gaming and gamers and makes us the butt end of jokes.  Now, I know some people are innately insular and are very much of the "KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE I LIKE IT THIS WAY" (i.e. whenever people ask for a game, they always ask for sequels or make explicit comparisons to other games they are familiar with).  I do feel this undermines gaming as a whole, however, because I like to see *new* things attempted.  I always say "Thank goodness we didn't get another sequel instead of Planescape: Torment."  Heck, in some of the more ambiguous cases it can be argued that Mr. Fargo's inability to make Wasteland 2 in the late 90s worked out so well for us (because we got Fallout in its stead).

 

Of course, keeping it the way it is is NOT an abundance of RPGs or the types of games that we all like to play here.  Keeping the way it is is not taking risks, and it's sticking with where the money is.  Ironically, for all the love that Kickstarter is getting, it's a class A example of not "keeping it where it is."  On some level it's "going back to where it was," although I'm curious to see how effect that will truly be in the long term, but it's also the place where devs CAN take more risks.  The only problem with that, of course, is gamers tend to not know what they're missing when they have never gotten it.  No one clamors for another Civilization game, without having experienced a Civilization game.  As such, if Sid Meier doesn't make a Civilization game, we all miss out.

 

I'd love to see increased diversity in games, and part of what can motivate that is an increased diversity both in the types of game players, and the types of game developers.

 

So yeah, when I see such glorious things like "Yes!  I didn't buy that video game because I don't like that developer!" or even "This dwindling stock price makes me happy" I get frustrated because I'm of the mind that it's not a positive thing for the games industry when someone can look at the demographics and go "these are the type of people that make up such a vocal part of this population."  Yes, I'm sure I'd be content with nothing but a lot of isometric RPGs.  But then, I only know that because someone decided to go out and try to make an isometric RPGs when there hadn't been any before.  Thank goodness he did.  Maybe there's something even more awesome out there and we just don't know it yet.

 

tl;dr I dislike it because it seems the perspective that gamers are in many ways immature, is a very accurate assessment when taking into account how overrepresented the vocal people are.

[Gorgon]

If keeping it where it is is the same boring formula applied to every IP then I'm happy to be where it was. but hey, you could say the same about Hollywood. The big money makers are rarely ever inventive.

[Nonek]

I've got to agree with you there Gorgon, this is something that's been rather irritating me for awhile now, for twenty years or so we've been told repeatedly that we're judging games through nostalgia glasses and forming an inaccurate image of games past. Well the reason I support Kickstarted games is not because of either of these, it's simply because most modern games have been streamlined and dumbed down beyond the pale, look at Bioshock Infinite, an on rails shooter that gives no choice and no consequences, with a narrative a twelve year old with a second hand copy of Nietzsche musings could tear apart. Probably going to be game of the year, judging by the rapture with which gaming journalists have greeted its release.

 

When we're happily accepting the total removal of features as a good thing, and applauding what is basically the same game but with less content, then something is very wrong. Playing through Ultima 7 at the moment, and there are only two things that I find have been handled better in modern games, graphics and the combat. In all other areas this twenty year old game totally embaresses the modern genre, only New Vegas has even tried to add features, content and real meat into the genre, rather than settling for being a consequenceless hiking simulator. It's time that this overused crutch of graphical fidelity harming the games was kicked away, what is harming the games is our settling for less and less every year, and developers having no ambition or wish to innovate.

 

When I play a modern game, and am basically herded down dull brown and grey corridors, with alternating areas of combat and conversation, that are ultimately consequenceless, then yes I want choice and consequence back. When worlds and narratives make no sense, and are not even given the benefit of a logical approach, then yes I want good writing back. When side characters, protagonists and antagonists are all as equally stupid and unmotivated, then yes I want quality characterisations back. When we are forced into pointless boss fights because of BUT THOU MUST and insulted by plot devices as feeble as McGuffins and Deus Ex Machina, then yes I want a satisfying nuanced and reactive conclusion back.

 

By prioritising accessibility to the widest possible demograhic, modern games have essentiallly lobotomised the genre.

 

Sorry for the overlong preaching, all my opinion and whatnot.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Nonek

[Malcador]

I suppose the funny reactions people have at EA's history or attitude or activities does make the market look immature, but those people still fork out their cash, so I can't really see that doing much other than painting the 'community' (if such a thing exists).

 

Don't people hate on EA for not trying new ideas with their games and just doing same old same old, rather than the other way around ?

 

Anyway, thanks for the explanation on why this bother you.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Malcador

[Nepenthe]

I've got to agree with you there Gorgon, this is something that's been rather irritating me for awhile now, for twenty years or so we've been told repeatedly that we're judging games through nostalgia glasses and forming an inaccurate image of games past. Well the reason I support Kickstarted games is not because of either of these, it's simply because most modern games have been streamlined and dumbed down beyond the pale, look at Bioshock Infinite, an on rails shooter that gives no choice and no consequences, with a narrative a twelve year old with a second hand copy of Nietzsche musings could tear apart. Probably going to be game of the year, judging by the rapture with which gaming journalists have greeted its release.

 

 

I think this is one of those cases where the truth is in the middle, obviously you are right regarding (most) modern games, but I think that a lot of those "good old games" weren't as brilliant as they are held to be. The change for worse, while probably there, isn't as dramatic as it's held to be.

 

i think dragon age origins is a good example of the way nostalgia distorts things... it looks old-school if you squint and is (over)long, so people act like it was the last glimmer of hope for old-school RPGs, instead of a soulless patchwork of overlong sections and tedious gameplay that pushes zero boundaries.

[Nonek]

Though I like the combat in Origins, and the game having choice and consequence in its quest hubs, I would overall agree with you. It is on the whole a renaissance fayre setting, with very few features and almost no interactivity or verisimillitude. The high points where it pushes boundaries were the origin stories, the dwarven civilisation and the Qunari, fairly much everything else was blandly underdeveloped.

[HoonDing]

I'll never understand liking something against something else.

 

Or whatever that Sartre quote was.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Drudanae

[Cultist]

I suppose the funny reactions people have at EA's history or attitude or activities does make the market look immature, but those people still fork out their cash, so I can't really see that doing much other than painting the 'community' (if such a thing exists).

 

Don't people hate on EA for not trying new ideas with their games and just doing same old same old, rather than the other way around ?

Not quite. People hate EA because they fail at everything they do

- They fail at introducing new ideas when they are needed, like with template fps with autoregeneration or other stagnated franchises.

- They fail at preserving best aspects of their games, overhauling thing that were not broken and sweeping them away completely in favor of risky experiments.

 

They overhauled Syndicate, discarding traits that brought it initial popularity, they ovehauled Dragon Age, turning it into a slasher, same story with C&C, Red Alert. People would not be so angry if EA actually improved the games they earned with company acquisitions. But they ruin franchise afte franchise, spawning unsuccessful low quality games.

[Hurlshort]

Ea has had major missteps of late, but they really aren't total failures.  In fact a lot of the games at the core of their experience are very good, even though they have been marred by server issues and such.  BF3, SimCity, and TOR are all very playable games that also sold very well at release.  Are these games inventive?  Heck no, but that just means EA is the same as every other large publisher.

[greylord]

And none of those old any appeal for me with their new versions.  EA is improving them how?

 

Not for me at least on those games that were just listed.

[Calax]

And none of those old any appeal for me with their new versions.  EA is improving them how?

 

Not for me at least on those games that were just listed.

If you didn't like the original, you wouldn't like the updated games. That's the point, they're releasing updated versions of the games to keep cash flowing so they can take chances on other ips

[greylord]

 

And none of those old any appeal for me with their new versions.  EA is improving them how?

 

Not for me at least on those games that were just listed.

If you didn't like the original, you wouldn't like the updated games. That's the point, they're releasing updated versions of the games to keep cash flowing so they can take chances on other ips

 

 

I enjoyed SW:KoToR and SimCity.  I still play them.  EA hasn't released anything that I see as an improvement on them really...though there was the release of the double disk set of SW:KoToR I and II that I got...didn't think that was an EA release though was it?  If it was I guess I got something, but their MMO and always online SC aren't improvement in my book, more like...putting more restrictions down without actually enhancing anything other then more restrictions.  IMO of course.  I'm not an MMO type of guy if you couldn't tell.

[Calax]

EA is also responsible for SimCity 4, which most people enjoyed overall (although it was 2003 release). Recently they've made a few missteps with updating franchises, but it's not like they don't make good games.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

And none of those old any appeal for me with their new versions.  EA is improving them how?

 

Not for me at least on those games that were just listed.

If you didn't like the original, you wouldn't like the updated games. That's the point, they're releasing updated versions of the games to keep cash flowing so they can take chances on other ips

 

 

I enjoyed SW:KoToR and SimCity.  I still play them.  EA hasn't released anything that I see as an improvement on them really...though there was the release of the double disk set of SW:KoToR I and II that I got...didn't think that was an EA release though was it?  If it was I guess I got something, but their MMO and always online SC aren't improvement in my book, more like...putting more restrictions down without actually enhancing anything other then more restrictions.  IMO of course.  I'm not an MMO type of guy if you couldn't tell.

 

 

The always online stuff doesn't really have anything to do with the quality of the games though.  Your complaint about TOR is totally valid, they took the franchise in a very different direction.