Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

I gotta say, I felt much more involved playing Return To Castle Wolfenstien then I did playing Medal Of Honor. Medal Of Honor took the more realistic approach, but with Wolfenstien's story you felt some character developement.

And, here's my shameless plug: Go play No One Lives Forever. It is probably the best post Half-Life PC Shooter, and by the end of the games 60 levels (It's humongous, I know) you will be feeling for all the characters. Plus it's witty, and it's a bond paradoy. And it's not as shameless as I originally thought! Because as EA was soiling the Bond series, No One Lives Forever was mocking it and innovating it. Ca-ching!

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

It is not an undisputed fact, numb nuts. To each his own.

I never played that MOH game.... I only played the one released on PS2 several years ago... And I really enjoyed it because it felt like I was the character, leading my troops into battle. It was sweet.


And if it is true that EA deceives its buyers with misleading box art advertising, then I am all for it, because the games are awesome anyways.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

You felt like you where leading your troops into battle? One of my main complaints against Medal Of Honor was that the game didn't have as much team combat as it was advertised to have. I mean, I thought the beach in Halo was more effective then the beach in MOH.....

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Actually...the MoH Rising Sun guy DOES have a backstory....if you read the manual. Like I did. Every character in book has a back story.

And Gamemaster in the Sims 2, you would be stupid to think its about just the people, considering The Sims was focused on Living, and The Urbz is for the people.

Also, BF 1942 isnt about one man. Show me someone who thinks it is. Please. Its a Massive Online Multiplayer War Sim. How can you get "One man army" out of " Massive Online Multiplayer"?

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

i REALLY hope all that was a joke man, cuz if you actually thought that, you had to be living in a cave your whole life.
everyone knew EXACTLY what they were getting with each of thoes games, why? cuz they have at least half a brain.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Well, technically, with a little work you can do just about everything with half a brain that you can with a full brain. :p

Regardless, the character developement in Medal Of Honor is considerably weaker then that of the developement of characters in many other games.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Thats because the game is a war game.

No, If it was an RPG that required you to know a players background history in order to progress with the game, or to get a better understanding, then I agree.

But since you need none of those to pay MoH I disagree strongly. So strongly it hurts.

Do you need to know the background in a sports game. So why should you for a war game?

Why would you buy a game based on cover art anyways?

You can make that argument for ANY game, for ANY system though.

ESPN NHL 2k5. Mrtin St.Louis is on the cover.

What you think : A game where you play as MArtin St.Louis

What you get: A hockey game.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

People complain about first person shooters being shallow, there's a reason for that.

If you go watch movies like Saving Private Ryan, you see incredible character development. So your argument that Medal Of Honor is a war game so it gets excused from having character development is flawed. The basis for Medal Of Honor, at least Allied Assault, "coincidentally" echoed the elements in Saving Private Ryan, minus the character depth. Medal Of Honor works better as a cinematic shooter, much like Half-Life. The premise of the game is throwing you into the action, and making it as stimulating as possible. That was, at least, Medal Of Honor's intent. I won't break the game down and explain why it didn't work as a whole for me, but occasionally the game shinned, despite its weak character development.

First Person Shooters don't need character development, per se, but it doesn't hurt. You're right, a FPS isn't an RPG and you really don't need to sympathize with your character, but it seems like the First Persons Shooters with the most character development are the most memorable. I remember No One Lives Forever and Clive Barker's Undying very well, and both games featured tones of character development and plot. Hell, even games like Duke Nukem and Serious Sam developed their characters. Duke and Sam where both smart asses, and it was entertaining to play as them.

Also, if a story is included in the manual, that's fine. But if you give a character a huge story, and don't incorporate it into the main game, then it's really just pointless information that will quickly be forgotten. Some games, like Warcraft 3, give you tons of in-depth information on the history of the continents and the races you're playing as, and then that information is presented in the game. I was compelled to read the Warcraft 3 booklet because it helped the flow of the Single Player game.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

ok, this is just getting ridiculous

the only undeniable FACT involved here is that lots of people (more then those towards every other publisher) see quality in EA titles, end of story. everything else I've read is either heresay or BS.

but I'll be the mature one and say "to each his own/agree to disagree/different strokes for different folks" etc. etc.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

What are you guys so afraid of? So I called EA's bluff, it's not that big of a deal. Some of you are treating this as a startling revelation that you don't want to except. Nintendo isn't getting a free 1UP from this if that's what you're fearing. And who knows, maybe EA will change their ways. Everyone needs to calm down. I don't want to hear anymore name-calling or cut-throat insinuations.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

All of us are being whiney little fanboys.

Some of us are saying EA makes horrid games, some say they make good games.

Games are objective. It goes person to person.

And obviously EA makes good games, or they wouldnt be a highly successfull company.

Why are people still arguing and complaining over this?

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Just about MOH... I find the games really fun, because I am a somewhat war buff. I just think it is cool that I can relive some of the biggest battles in the past 100 years!

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Probably my favorite game from EA was Freedom Fighters. That game was awesome. It had a character, with feelings. Hell their was one point in the game where I felt patriotic and was really angry that those commies were taking over my country. Then I realized that it was based in the States. Strong affect on me.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

*name-calls*

*initiates cut-thorat situation*

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

EA now has a 19.9% stake in Ubisoft.

Oh, and I hope that with ESPN's restriction on the NFL will coerce into focusing all it's attention and making amazing Basketball games instead.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

If EA buys ubisoft I'm going to be pissed. The Rayman serious was one of the best, and I don't want EA's hands on it.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Ubisoft..... You'd hope that the French would be smarter than that.:( ... on the other hand :sneaky:

disclaimer: I love France and like the French, no offense, just a joke.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

EA Probably will buy Ubisoft just like they seem to buy everything else. They will then most likely proceed to turn Rayman into a Black Eyed peas game and twist Prince of Persia into a girl, voiced by Brooke Burke. EA needs to be stopped.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Does anybody else get the feeling that EA will eventually get so powerful that they will start to buy out the big companies like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft? Then they will go on to make their own system.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Haha, if you think anyone can buy Nintendo, you haven't seen their stubbornness yet.

You'd think that nobody can buy them, but of course, enough money can do anything.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

:banana:

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Not to re-quote this, and yeah its old. But I had nothing to do at work today, so for some strange reason I thought of this.

Megaman, is not only a character, but a game name.
Dante and Viewtiful Joe, is the same deal. (obviously minus Dante)

EA has game titles people know them from. Sim City, The Sims, Battlefield, Medal of Honor. It doesnt matter if they were seperate company's at one time, they are EA now.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

What does Viewtiful Joe have to do with anything? Its made by Capcom........

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

And So is Megaman...

If you READ what he said.

Followed by:

Meaning when people hear "Capcom" they think of "Megaman" or "Viewtaful Joe", or the other way around.

Then I said:

Meaning that when people hear "EA" they think of the games stated above, or the other way around.

And im not like...meaning this in any assholish tone...although I know it comes accross as arrogant.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Yes, yes it does. But we love you anyways. :)

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

EA actually owns more of Ubisoft than the original founders. The founders own about 15 percent.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

EA just bought the exclusive rights to the arena football league, and no, this isn't some parody.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01...s_6116065.html

Somebody on the PA forums said it best. It wasn't bad enough that they disembowled and decapitated someone, they had to piss on their corpse as well. This was pretty much the only other football league that someone could make a game for (keep in mind that you can't put college players names in a college game, so that's kind of moot.)


Assholes.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Are you forgetting this is a business?

They are doing what businesses strive to do, in fact, it is the main objective for most businesses, which is to monopolize your category or area.

They are doing that. They are doing it like any otehr company would given the right amount of money.

You cant tell me that any company would pass up the chance to put a rival company out, and get them more profit.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

i love how everyone gets mad at EA for doing something any other company encluding ESPN/SEGA would do if they could. Why not be mad at the NFL or AFL for selling out to a company?

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

It doesn't matter if the move was good for that one company or if every single other company in the world would do the same thing if given the opportunity. It still has a negative effect on the business in general, which ticks people off who can realize that.

People are complaining about what EA did, not that it was EA that did it.


*shrugs and walks away*

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

no, it has quite a bit to do with EA being the ones who did it. and it does matter, thats business, deal with it.

im just sayin, perhaps they're getting mad at the wrong people.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

But this strays from the origional point: That EA dosent really have any origional Characters that they themselves created...

Yea the have Sim City, but that was created by Maxis long before the EA BUYOUT

buyout is the key word there...thats all they do. Buy liscenses, companies, ect. They couldnt make an origional game out of their assholes.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Stonecutter doesn't like large corporations. He prefers small hometown grocery stores.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

So what.

Who said the gaming world is based on Original Characters?

Is there some sort of corporate rule saying if you don't have any Original character that your company loses all credibility despite the smart business moves you make?

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

am i the only one here who thinks that more recent Bond games from EA aren't horrid? When nightfire cameout, it slowly started to improve, with Everything or Nothing, it had some SERIOUSLY fun scenarios that i played over and over again, am I missing something here? or am i not being gamer-patriotic by supporting a game that is a virtual sequel to a classic released a while ago. Golden eye was great, no doubt, it ushered in a whole new age in fps's on consoles, but can you honestly say that Everything or Nothing isn't better in everysingle way when compared to it? Rogue agent is a letdown in many ways, but thats because of a number of reasons, they went TOO far from the Bond Formula. and the midst of experimenting, they released it in the midst of Halo 2 and Half Life 2, both of which, well....pWn it. All in all, I actually enjoyed most of EA's bond titles, and this isn't going to at all into my love for the SSX series. EA is not a company that all of a sudden came into the gaming scene and bought massive shares and expects to just make money, they've had more than their fair share of good games, and so i still believe in them.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Yes, I can honestly say that all the games in the Bond series post-Goldeneye suck. That's my opinion, and I'll tell you why:

No One Lives Forever.

Quite possibly the funnest spy-FPS game, EVER. It's a comical game that mocks the whole genre, but at the same time, it's one of the best assembled First Person Shooters. Its single player rivals that of Half-Lifes, taking time into account.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Wait... So... One game series is bad because another game is better? I like Zelda more than...well...everything, but that doesn't mean everything else sucks...

I don't understand your logic...


*shrugs and walks away*

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

In a scenario like this, its called "Flawgic".


But yeah.

What do people have against EA?

Seriously.

They are a business. They did what any given business does, buy out all chances of the competition beating you. If you can kill your enemy, you do so. Its all about money, EA spend money, to make money in the longrun.

I like EA games. Good graphics, good gameplay. Presentation is key. They do that well.

I dont get where people are coming from with their whole "EA doesnt have an origional character" thing.

So what? I cant see why origionality has anything to do with how good your product is. You can rip off someone elses idea, that doesnt mean it wont be good if you do it better.

And for those of you that are complaining about EA killing its competition, I pose one question.

If you had the chance to put out all of your competition for a genré, and secure yourself major profit for years to come, would you not take it?

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

Okay, I'll give you my analogy.

If you had a choice to get a can of plain peanuts, or a can of mixed nuts with different types of peanuts and different nuts, which would you rather have?

I'm pressed for time as it is, when I play a game, I want to get the most out of it. If I sat through every conventional first person shooter out there, I'd be sitting here for about a year.

The execution in No One Lives Forever, in my opinion, is superior to that of the Bond series. No One Lives Forever is my can of mixed nuts - it's more interesting, it has more flavor, and more importantly, it entertains me more. So, maybe the recent Bond games have a few good levels here or there - that's still hit or miss gameplay. I don't recall every being bored in No One Lives Forever - frustrated, yes, but not bored.

Really, I have no problem comparing games, even if both are relatively playable.

Edit: And yes, yes Link. A series can fall victim to a good game. Especially if that series fails to make a large progression over the large period of time it has spanned.

Re: EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...
 

If I could only choose one, yes I'd choose the mixed nuts (actually, I'd choose neither...I don't like nuts), but that doesn't mean the peanuts are bad, just not as good. I'd rather play Final Fantasy X than Xenosaga, but that doesn't mean Xenosaga is bad, just not as good.


I have a question for you: would you rather have multiple companies competing for dominance, and thus have to constantly improve their games to succeed, or one company with a monopoly that could pretty much keep progress to a minimum?

From a business standpoint, for EA, this is a really good move. From a business standpoint, this is what they should have done. But from a gaming standpoint, which, as a gamer, is the standpoint you should be more concerned about, it is a horrible move.

I can't say whether Sega's or EA's football games were better; I don't like sports games, and wouldn't be in a position to compare even if I did. But the fact that there were debates between fans about which games was better shows that there definetely was competition. Competition would mean that both Sega and EA would have to try to do outdo the other in some way or form with each installment to stay alive. Not even in just gameplay, Sega dropped the prices for their sports games, did they not? If EA hadn't bought out the NFL, they would have had to have dropped their prices at some point as well. How would that not have been good for gamers?

But now that Sega (or anyone else) can not effectively compete with EA, EA has no reason to try to improve very radically. Games can be sold at however they're normally sold than at the lower price from Sega. EA may be rolling in the money, at least for a while, but gamers are shortchanged. Since they now have a monopoly, halting progression is also a good business move. Why spend money to improve graphics or insert additions to gameplay when they could just update the roster and be done with it?

Do you want that, Typhoid? Really? I can't see how you could be so concerned over a company's success that you're able to willingly accept a lesser product for it?

And before you start..

I am not saying EA is the only company that would this. Sega would do the same thing if they could (I've already said this..), and it would be just as bad a move for gamers as it is from EA.


*shrugs and walks away*