Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Typhoid
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?
|
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*