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

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Jason1

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.

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?

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

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.

[KillerGremlin]

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.

[Ginkasa]

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*

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Link1130

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*

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?

[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.

[Ginkasa]

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.

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*

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Link1130

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?

Huh?

So your assuming they wont update anything? Which would be stupid, because then people wouldnt buy it, because there would be no reason to.

And I prefer EA anyways. I bought both ESPN 2K5, and NHL 2005, and EA's game is better by far. Graphics wise, and play wise. It feels more like a real hockey game when I watch it. The sounds, the looks, and the clips.

Yes, in fact, I would rather they got rid of all other competators (Except NFL Blitz, I plan on buying that game soon now because their wont be more), because this just means people will stop their bitching and comparing of games on release dates. At least the bitching about EA buying rights will stop in a month or so.

And No sports game really improves radically year to year. They improve, yes, radically, no. Most of it is just better rendered images, updated soundtrack (In EA's case) and rosters.

But I love EA, who cares if they monopolize things, I dont. I like their games, I have no problem with it.