What I miss

Wait, but I read at a POPULAR INTERNET SITE that it was hip and clever and witty to bash EA!

Did you know that they make SPORTS GAMES?! And that people who enjoy SPORTS GAMES will buy them!? Crazy!
 
ChrisReid said:
EA is the company that paid for Origin to make fifteen Wing Commander games in five years.
Click to expand...

Fifteen? Where did they all disappeer to?
 
Karl, if you count the SO's and SM's in (plus Priv RF), you get somewhere close to that number. Amazing.

OT: I guess that's just what Dommo meant - we're getting all too quick to whip up a smart discussion about the shortcomings of net culture. This may have its place, it's a part of coping with the changed in life and relating our past to the present, but it can get wearisome after a while.
This weekend I just did hang out on a site for a current game (won't tell which, way too embarassing), and reading through the comments of those kids all going OOooh and Aaahh about the details of the game reminded me of my own impressionable youth behind the joystick. Yes, for us it may all have been said and done, and looking through the eyes of an adult reveals all the flaws we glossed over with youthful eagerness.

But is it just this? We can look at art, movies, music, and perceive them as classic, even if the colors are faded, the recording is hissing, and the props are cheesy. In case of insecurity, we adopt a critical, intellectually mocking posture, detachment. I suspect that it is actually hard for many, to admit the fun they might still get out of something they enjoyed as kids, and opt out for the safer alternative of deconstructing and analyzing it.
 
Wait, but I read at a POPULAR INTERNET SITE that it was hip and clever and witty to bash EA!
Click to expand...
Ok maybe I should elaborate my point. MODERN EA. And every second gaming company seems to spend to much money on shiny graphics and not enough attention to level design or plot. 10 years back games had to have a good plot to get people playing thier game over those made by opposing companies. So even games with a good story line tend to be finished by any idiot in a weekend and no replayability at all. Wing Commander still gets my attention after 9 years of playing the first game on the main basis that it has replayability , something sorely lacking in the industry today :(
 
EA isn't the problem. It's the dynamic of the industry. Back in the earlier years of gaming it wasn't really a big huge billion dollar market yet. Therefore quality and replayability had to be paramount to attract an audience. The industry now is infused with a hell of alot of capital to work with and the market continually begs for new and shiny stuff. This is not created by EA. This idea that the state of the quality of games is EA's fault is false. It's the consumers that dictate what they are willing to accept. So shut up and blame yourself for buying games in this modern era.

From the way you talk it's like there are no great games that are fun replayable, fantastic and have a great story. If that's how you feel then you have really high standards that will never be met or you are full of it

-Rance-
 
I think EA's problem is that people look at the changes that took place (and had to take place!) in the game industry as a whole, and inevitably blame EA for all of them. It's not EA's fault that games now cost millions of dollars, making it impossible to justify production of original games because of the risks involved. EA plays it safe because they have to - they get their money from stockholders, who want to earn money. And so, EA uses most of this money to make sequels, which have a guaranteed market. When you blame EA for only making one original game per year, remember that those heady days when 9/10 new games were completely original, were also the days of garage companies. You can take risks when you work on a game alone or with a friend - but it's an entirely different story when the game you're making costs upwards of ten million dollars.

Edit: Pah, that's what happens when you keep the post-reply window open for too long - somebody else goes and beats ya to it :p.
 
We could rag on EA and the modern state of video games all day but is this really the right topic for that?

This weekend I just did hang out on a site for a current game (won't tell which, way too embarassing), and reading through the comments of those kids all going OOooh and Aaahh about the details of the game reminded me of my own impressionable youth behind the joystick. Yes, for us it may all have been said and done, and looking through the eyes of an adult reveals all the flaws we glossed over with youthful eagerness.
Click to expand...

I remember being young when the video game industry was still growing up more often new games with new gimmicks or new technology would always be around the corner to shock me. There was always that game that added that one extra feature or ability that no game ever did before and with that revolutionized some genre or another and it was very exciting. Wing Commander initially floored me with the ammount of depth and detail since I was mostly used to Genesis and SNES games before it.

It doesn't happen to me very often anymore, maybe because with the technology today I expect them to be able to do anything so things don't surprise me much.
 
vindicator said:
EA isn't the problem. It's the dynamic of the industry. Back in the earlier years of gaming it wasn't really a big huge billion dollar market yet. Therefore quality and replayability had to be paramount to attract an audience. The industry now is infused with a hell of alot of capital to work with and the market continually begs for new and shiny stuff.
Click to expand...

That makes little sense. A larger market makes companies want to put out a lesser product? Theres not many other markets out there that have such a scrutinizing or fickle consumer base.

Bad games have always been made. Of course the amount of bad games is going to grow if the whole consumer base grows - the same goes for great games.
 
My sole intention was not to stir argument, but to emote my feelings on how I really do dislike being lumbered with this adult cynicism that prevents me from playing the Wing Commmander I used to know. I took some liberty with my wording of this because I can't really put across what I wish without perhaps a .... formal dissertation.

In the older days of playing the games, it seemed so much more raw in terms of I didn't know the best way to fight and I certainly didn't attempt to phase in Socratic rationality into my dealings with the Kilrathi. As a case in point of how things change, I remember how I used to choose the Longbow almost whenever I could for WC3 missions. Unthinkable now! Heavy shielding and armo(u)r means little compared to the insane kill-rate one can attain with a fast and versatile craft, yet the way I used to play meant all ships had their use. The first time I finished WC3, I had only 3 pilots available from the roster. The last time I played it, I simply couldn't gain that kind of development 'spontaneity', noone died except those with a black cross in the Roberts' book of destiny. Escort missions used to actually BE difficult (especially in WC1); I lacked that kind of sixth sense that a seasoned space sim player gains that it's taking "too long" to kill this particular bogey, and it's time to turn back to your escort craft and engage another close in enemy.. if you know what I mean.

I could moan about nuances forever, but it seems I can no longer lose myself either in the story or the combat, and damn it sucks.

I'm not sure the apparent dilution of creative forces by EA is something that can be blamed for the seeming loss of good gameplay on the market. I think the problem lies with me.
 
The problem with bitching about EA using the same brilliant thought processes (heh) as the Slashdot losers is that making sequels to games is exactly what we want them to do.

The 1990s were great because EA was releasing a new Wing Commander game each year, not because they were doing any innovating. What care we for innovation -- what care we for Cybermage?

(Of course, the other issue is that the modern oh-no-sports-games! stupidity contest is that EA developed annual sports games since the beginning of time... so much so that they manage, corporate and promote EA Sports as being a separate entity specifically because it sells to a vastly different audience than ordinary games. Complaining about how dare they develop games that aren't for me is the pinnacle of selfishness, especially when everyone except you realizes for whom and why those games are being made.

That makes little sense. A larger market makes companies want to put out a lesser product? Theres not many other markets out there that have such a scrutinizing or fickle consumer base.
Click to expand...

Quarto is exactly correct. In 2005 you need to spent millions to develop a video game to essentially the same audience that you would have spent a hundred thousand dollars to develop a game for ten years ago.

The profit ratio is significantly lower than it was in the 1980s and early 1990s when games could essentially be developed in garages and then sink or fly on their own merits. That means a large company like EA will focus on surefire hits instead of risky projects that could go nowhere.
 
Hm, market politics aside, Dommo may have a point.

Games - after a while, especially when you get to be good at them, start to be boring. Especially when you're experienced enough to guess what the game will do each step of the way.

So, tell me Dommo - is online gaming a way out of this?
Humans should provide a more erratic enemy behavior than scripted opponents, and stories/campaigns cooked up by human players may be less linear.
 
Ok but still, EA leads the markets right? So why cant they make one game with a decent STORY and that requires SKILL and TIME to play. Whenever I play a game these days when I feel like im really getting into it BAAM game over you....win? One game cmoes to mind (yet the name eludes me) where the legion of men gaurding the boss is harder than the end game boss itself.
I've nothing against sports games or sequels. Just the lack of anything that really grabs hold of a player in much the same sense as a good book or movie. It's a pity the current CEO of EA can't quite grasp this idea that if im spending X ammount of money on a game i expext Y ammount of gametime.

Think it may be best to let this lay dormant for another thread.
 
criticalmass said:
So, tell me Dommo - is online gaming a way out of this?
Humans should provide a more erratic enemy behavior than scripted opponents, and stories/campaigns cooked up by human players may be less linear.
Click to expand...


Online gaming is fun for what it is, but that "magic" of gaming is now gone for me. As we get more eloquent with age.. we bitch more about the failings of modern games, rather than learning to enjoy, warts and all. I believe a game would have to be near perfect these days to garner the respect from the same people a "good" game would have gained say pre-Win95.

Luckily however, some things you never grow out of. Like Rocky 4. 4 years after Balboa downs Drago, the Berlin wall comes down. Coincidence? I think not.
 
Ok but still, EA leads the markets right? So why cant they make one game with a decent STORY and that requires SKILL and TIME to play. Whenever I play a game these days when I feel like im really getting into it BAAM game over you....win? One game cmoes to mind (yet the name eludes me) where the legion of men gaurding the boss is harder than the end game boss itself.
I've nothing against sports games or sequels. Just the lack of anything that really grabs hold of a player in much the same sense as a good book or movie. It's a pity the current CEO of EA can't quite grasp this idea that if im spending X ammount of money on a game i expext Y ammount of gametime.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that you've played every EA game -- something like the new Oddworld game (and, holy crap, they made a new Oddworld game?) or Black and White probably counters your claim.

Yes, they don't own *our* studio or publish *our* game anymore -- but they make games with stories, games that let you race cars and games that let you shoot your friends on the internet. There is no template "EA game", as EA owns many studios and publishes about a zillion games in a year.

But all the moreso, the very oh-EA-is-so-evil-notice-me-notice-me games you mentioned earlier are completely innovative and unique -- The Sims and Ultima Online both featuered attention grabbing gameplay that created entirely new genres. You're raging against them because they're popular, not because EA did anything wrong (and rather, EA did something very right by devleoping them in the first place).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top