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

[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.

[Ginkasa]

They'll only update so much to keep players buying. If they didn't radically update it with competition, how much do you think they'll improve now? And there's still the thing about pricing.

And it doesn't matter if you personally like EA better or not. Other people like Sega's ESPN games better, adn bought those instead. If EA hadn't bought exclusive NFL rights, then they would have had to have done something in the games or pricing or something to get the ESPN people to buy the Madden games, and Sega would have had to respond to keep their buyers with them. That's how it works.

And if you're sick of people complaining, then don't listen. Don't care what ESPN fans have to say? Does it not really matter to you which game is released first or priced lowest? Block it out. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean you have to pay attention to it.

Besides, it is ultimately more contructive for there to be people who care to compare dates and prices and dis the other game than it is to have everyone buy Madden just because it is all there is.

And if all you had was EA, I'm sure it'd only be a year or two before you started to wish for something more.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Link1130

They'll only update so much to keep players buying. If they didn't radically update it with competition, how much do you think they'll improve now? And there's still the thing about pricing.

And it doesn't matter if you personally like EA better or not. Other people like Sega's ESPN games better, adn bought those instead. If EA hadn't bought exclusive NFL rights, then they would have had to have done something in the games or pricing or something to get the ESPN people to buy the Madden games, and Sega would have had to respond to keep their buyers with them. That's how it works.

And if you're sick of people complaining, then don't listen. Don't care what ESPN fans have to say? Does it not really matter to you which game is released first or priced lowest? Block it out. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean you have to pay attention to it.

Besides, it is ultimately more contructive for there to be people who care to compare dates and prices and dis the other game than it is to have everyone buy Madden just because it is all there is.

And if all you had was EA, I'm sure it'd only be a year or two before you started to wish for something more.


*shrugs and walks away*

Ok.

I know I like them better, and I know other people like other companies better. I was justifying my position on this whole ordeal, because I thought it would save explanations.

I wont listen, lol, its what I plan on doing.

No, it doesnt matter to me which is released first, or how much it is. I pay 70 bucks a year, per EA game. And im damn happy I do. Like I said (not to bring it up) I payed 35 bucks for ESPN 2K5, and, lets put it this way, Thats just over as much as I would pay for that game. haha.

No, if EA was all there is (for sports) I would be happy. Clearly, I am, arnt I? All I buy are EA sports games, I have been doing so since I was 5, I always will. I like EA.

Maybe this will make ESPN make a CFL game, who knows.

If they are ambitious enough, they'll think of something.

[Acebot44]

Oh Snap is all I have to say.

[Jonbo298]

That's ****ing BS. EA gets good competition price wise in the Football game area and they go out and buy every last thing to have no competition.

This is a blatant cop out. EA is scared. Little babies. I should just not ever buy anything EA because of the fact they can't stand a little competition.

[Dyne]

Oh wow. Just when you think it can't get any worse.

There's going to be a representative from EA coming to my campus on Tuesday. I'm going to have fun poking him and prodding him about this crap before I sign any of those co-op papers.

[Jonbo298]

Dyne, I'll paypal $20 to punch him once for me

[Null]

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

That's ****ing BS. EA gets good competition price wise in the Football game area and they go out and buy every last thing to have no competition.

This is a blatant cop out. EA is scared. Little babies. I should just not ever buy anything EA because of the fact they can't stand a little competition.

*looks around for where jonbo complained when Sega had ESPN on thier side*

huh, odd, cant find it.



Anywho. why on EARTH does this matter AT .......... ALL?

ESPN is just a name. they did nothing (besides the good comentary) to change the game itself.

Quite frankly i always liked the name SEGA 2k* over ESPN something something for the sega sports games anyway.


Good for EA tho. im enjoying that they're making everyone cry over everything they do (obviously as you can tell i dont play many sports games, and no football ones at all )

[Dyne]

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Dyne, I'll paypal $20 to punch him once for me

He's like the head of Tiburon studios... I might.

I'll take a picture of the results with my phone and then run like hell.

[Jonbo298]

When Sega had ESPN on there side, there was still Sega Sports games being made alongside EA. Now that EA is trying to shut out any competition in the sporting area, whats to say EA won't just make a really crap game. Everyone who enjoys a certain sports game will have to buy it unless they want to stick with last years model which people don't like