EA will take over the world...slowly but surely... - Page 3

Swan · 12-15-2004, 12:33 AM

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.

jeepnut · 12-15-2004, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deejzguy

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.

John Madden is one of their original characters.

DeathsHand · 12-15-2004, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deejzguy

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.

See that's the odd thing, they don't have any that I can think of...

But does it really matter? Are you gonna hold that against them?

If we really got to know the guy you play as in MoH, would it make the game better?

Would it be an improvement for The Sims if you got to select from 2 or 3 different sims with specific personalities rather than create your own, for the sake of having a mascot?

Would battlefield be better if each soldier had more PAZZAAZZZZ rather than being anonymous soldier ###?

GameMaster · 12-15-2004, 04:32 AM

Yep. Knowing the character you're guiding is essential to true enjoyment. You can sit here and tell me that controlling unknown Sims, Medal of Honor man, and Battlefield soldiers is just as fun as controlling Mario, Link, or MegaMan but I know just as well as the next man that it's just a filthy lie to defend an impersonal gaming company. The games that receive 9's and 10's or get labeled as 'Legendary' or 'Platnium One Hit Wonders' are all games with well known lead characters. It's not brain surgery, just a simple, well known formula: Humans associate better with things they know then things they don't know.

Perfect Stu · 12-15-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

Yep. Knowing the character you're guiding is essential to true enjoyment. You can sit here and tell me that controlling unknown Sims, Medal of Honor man, and Battlefield soldiers is just as fun as controlling Mario, Link, or MegaMan but I know just as well as the next man that it's just a filthy lie to defend an impersonal gaming company. The games that receive 9's and 10's or get labeled as 'Legendary' or 'Platnium One Hit Wonders' are all games with well known lead characters. It's not brain surgery, just a simple, well known formula: Humans associate better with things they know then things they don't know.

game sales say otherwise.

I'm not defending any company...it's a fact

What EA doing is smart business, and no one can blame them of taking advantage of an opportunity like this. EA made their money in the videogame industry...it's not like General Electric decided to just buy out the top 5 game publishers and sit back and watch the money roll in. EA was build by making and selling videogames...so the reason they're as big as they are is a result of GAMERS buying and enjoying their GAMES.

Joeiss · 12-15-2004, 10:14 AM

I disagree, Gamemaster. When I play Medal of Honour, it feels like I am actually in the war. This adds to my enjoyment alot. In the game, if the person you controlledhad an actually back story and stats and stuff, I do not think I would like it more.

DeathsHand · 12-15-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

You can sit here and tell me that controlling unknown Sims, Medal of Honor man, and Battlefield soldiers is just as fun as controlling Mario, Link, or MegaMan but I know just as well as the next man that it's just a filthy lie to defend an impersonal gaming company.

But the whole basis of The Sims is that you create your OWN main characters and sorta give them your own personalities... Having to choose from pre-made sims that try to be mascots would take away a huge part of what makes the game special...

As Joeiss said, in MoH it feels like you're fighting the war...

And as for battlefield, of course there's no way to give each soldier PAZZAAAAZZZZ because the whole premise of the game is one army vs. another in a big battle, there's no time for a story or memorable characters...

You could look at it as "But I want to play as the blue bomber!

" or you could look at it as these are games that don't NEED a recognizable character attached to the name to be great and sell...

GameMaster · 12-15-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Stu

so the reason they're as big as they are is a result of GAMERS buying and enjoying their GAMES.

I beg to differ, kind Sir. The actual reason is deception. Gamers are led to believe they're buying one thing when in fact they're buying something completley different. Allow me to guide you through the trickery:

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting to preserve honor for his country.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting to preserve honor for their country.

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting in the year 1942.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting in the year 1942.

What We Think: A game focused only on the the characters featured on the box. Along with complete storylines for each character.

What We Get: A game focused on no character. EA didn't want put any more effort into this one so they left it up to gamers to create the storyline and characters for themselves. Everyone who has this game should be given a portion of the profits made since the gamers are essentially the developers for this incomplete fiasco of a mess.

The Point: EA deceives it's buyers with misleading box art advertising. It makes me want to cry to even ponder how many people are getting swindled by EA everyday.

Perfect Stu · 12-15-2004, 03:50 PM

you have embarassed yourself by backing away from your original statement, instead using a lame attempt at humor.

GameMaster · 12-15-2004, 04:01 PM

I already backed my original statement within the statement itself. Joeiss says he enjoys the current Medal of Honor scenario. But it is an undisputed fact that if the character was given an actual identity and storyline, Joeiss would enjoy the game more. Controlling someone who you have no historical knowledge of and never presents any exclusive personality or story within the game is not as enjoyable as a character with background info and exclusive personality. End of discussion. Go have dinner with a complete stranger. I guarantee you it won't be as great as dinner with a friend.

KillerGremlin · 12-15-2004, 04:14 PM

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!

Joeiss · 12-15-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

I already backed my original statement within the statement itself. Joeiss says he enjoys the current Medal of Honor scenario. But it is an undisputed fact that if the character was given an actual identity and storyline, Joeiss would enjoy the game more. Controlling someone who you have no historical knowledge of and never presents any exclusive personality or story within the game is not as enjoyable as a character with background info and exclusive personality. End of discussion. Go have dinner with a complete stranger. I guarantee you it won't be as great as dinner with a friend.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

I beg to differ, kind Sir. The actual reason is deception. Gamers are led to believe they're buying one thing when in fact they're buying something completley different. Allow me to guide you through the trickery:

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting to preserve honor for his country.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting to preserve honor for their country.

The Point: EA deceives it's buyers with misleading box art advertising. It makes me want to cry to even ponder how many people are getting swindled by EA everyday.

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.

KillerGremlin · 12-15-2004, 06:01 PM

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.....

Typhoid · 12-15-2004, 07:18 PM

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"?

Null · 12-15-2004, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

I beg to differ, kind Sir. The actual reason is deception. Gamers are led to believe they're buying one thing when in fact they're buying something completley different. Allow me to guide you through the trickery:

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting to preserve honor for his country.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting to preserve honor for their country.

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting in the year 1942.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting in the year 1942.

What We Think: A game focused only on the the characters featured on the box. Along with complete storylines for each character.

What We Get: A game focused on no character. EA didn't want put any more effort into this one so they left it up to gamers to create the storyline and characters for themselves. Everyone who has this game should be given a portion of the profits made since the gamers are essentially the developers for this incomplete fiasco of a mess.

The Point: EA deceives it's buyers with misleading box art advertising. It makes me want to cry to even ponder how many people are getting swindled by EA everyday.

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.