Post by: KDR_11k on July 24, 2004, 01:02:54 AM
Post by: Shift Key on July 24, 2004, 02:02:34 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 24, 2004, 02:04:22 AM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 24, 2004, 03:34:46 AM
Post by: King of Twitch on July 24, 2004, 06:11:42 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 24, 2004, 11:16:17 AM
Post by: joeamis on July 24, 2004, 12:26:36 PM
The next quote, "trumping everyone with dozens of great games" is also true. Just a few examples are trumping all the other snowboarding titles this generation in both sales and quality, taking over the racing market especially the street racing category from Rockstar Games Midnight Club series and now Burnout 3 garnering more accolades than any racing game known to be in development from just about every gaming source that went to E3. That's just 5 games right there (SSX series, NFSUG not counting its sequel, and Burnout 3) so there are atleast a dozen examples, I won't bother typing another 20 lines to mention it all.
Next quote, "million-plus selling franchises" also very true as I mentioned 3 titles this 1st Q 04 all went platinum in 3 months. Most of their sports titles do that on a yearly basis. Then theres SSX, NFS, LOR, Bond, MoH, Sims, Sim City, Battlefield, etc. The list goes on and on.
Next quote, "and innovation that is tough to compete with" is also true. Don't expect it in every game because that's not in the nature of innovation, that's why it's innovation it only happens once in a while. There latest boxing title was innovative in letting you control your punches using the analog stick as well as what they did for golfing with Tiger Woods analog control. And it was done remarkably well in both games resulting in fun gameplay, not something bad like Rise to Honor's usage of it. That's all the quotes, and they're all true so I don't see why IGN is so wrong.
and tons of people here on this forum are salivating over Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 24, 2004, 01:08:49 PM
Quote
and tons of people here on this forum are salivating over Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3
Neither of which are being developed by EA, might I add- I shouldn't have to explain to you the difference between "developer" and "publisher", joe, since you got on Deguello's case in another thread for making the same generalization you just did.
I could go into detail why I disagree with you about EA, but it's pointless since the argument won't go anywhere. I just had to point out that glaring mistake.
Post by: joeamis on July 24, 2004, 02:03:03 PM
Post by: The Omen on July 24, 2004, 02:56:28 PM
By the way-IGN had credibility?
Post by: Deguello on July 24, 2004, 03:46:37 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 24, 2004, 06:18:24 PM
Quote
The post in the other thread was about how much time a developer has to develop new games in house. Burnout 3 wouldn't be as good as it is going to be if it was to be published by Acclaim again with less money on the project and it's lower standards. Timesplitters 3 will also benefit from EA publishing it.
I seem to recall both Burnout and Burnout 2 being incredible when Acclaim was publishing them. The quality of a game is not determined by its publisher or how much money is being pumped into it. I also seem to recall Timesplitters 2 blowing me away despite not having EA's near infinite money supply being thrown at it. In fact, I recall it being my favorite console FPS to date. EA has nothing to do with how Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3 turn out- they're merely funding the projects. Those two games' quality will rest in the talent of the developer. It's insulting to them to suggest their games will be good because of EA.
Post by: joeamis on July 24, 2004, 08:34:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
I seem to recall both Burnout and Burnout 2 being incredible when Acclaim was publishing them. The quality of a game is not determined by its publisher or how much money is being pumped into it. I also seem to recall Timesplitters 2 blowing me away despite not having EA's near infinite money supply being thrown at it. In fact, I recall it being my favorite console FPS to date. EA has nothing to do with how Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3 turn out- they're merely funding the projects. Those two games' quality will rest in the talent of the developer. It's insulting to them to suggest their games will be good because of EA.
Burnout 1 and 2 were decent, but did not compare to other racing games on the market. And now suddenly Burnout 3 is supposedly the best racing game according to people who have played it so far. The amount of money doesn't guarantee that the game will be better, but it certainly helps when your being funded by the most successful 3rd party rather than a low class Acclaim. And you can be sure that the online play for Burnout 3 will benefit a huge amount compared to if it was online through Acclaim...
How does EA have nothing to do with how the games turn out, they're funding them. If the games were never picked up by a publisher they would not exist. Tell that to all the developers who's games were never picked up by publishers or were dropped by their existing publishers. The Burnout series sold below expectations in North America despite doing extremely well in Europe, and it's been said it was because a lack of marketing. That won't be the case now with EA's money behind the project.
Tell it's insulting to the developers who're extremely happy to be with EA as they've said in interviews. Criterion holds the property rights to Burnout so it's not like they didn't goto EA for a publisher instead of EA coming to them (when they already have a 7 million dollar seller in NFSUG after it being out for only 8.5 months, and the sequel coming out right after Burnout 3). Finally, I never said there games would only be good because of EA, I said they would be better.
What are some more easily tangible aspects of having EA and more funds for the games? It will allow the developers to hire more employees for the project if need be, a much better online network, possible and probable talent for voice acting, enough money to get licensed music tracks if they desire, great marketing, etc.
I don't see why you would want financially troubled Eidos (publisher of the last TS) publishing TS3 instead... they don't have enough money especially with the marketing TS3 will need to compete with Halo 2, Doom 3, Half Life 2, and Killzone releasing right before TS3, not to mention all the other shooters coming to market.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 24, 2004, 08:54:48 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 24, 2004, 09:37:08 PM
Post by: ThePerm on July 24, 2004, 10:15:55 PM
id praise both...Tolkien could have written the book(s) and never talked to a publisher and it could be sittign on a shelf collecting dust.
But because of the publisher everyone gets to read it.
Personally, im not a fan of EA's own games. I am a fan however at the way they do business. If a company can capitalise on a genre and make alot of money and do other projects godspeed to them.
Oh and thanks for the eternal daughter info
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 24, 2004, 10:19:09 PM
Quote
But because of the publisher everyone gets to read it.
That doesn't warrant the publisher being given special credit, especially not over the artist. Besides, that's not always a necessity- one of my favorite albums ever, Goggins by Pain, was released on their own record label and distributed themselves.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 24, 2004, 10:44:59 PM
What do EA have coming for consoles? Another Need for Speed Underground, another Sims, another Tiger Woods and BWAAAAA. I'd rather go play Microcosm on Sega CD than another hip cuulllchaaa Need for Speed YOOOOOO. And the microwave has more gameplay than Microcosm.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on July 25, 2004, 02:50:59 AM
And yes, that first paragraph did make me laugh.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 25, 2004, 04:21:41 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 25, 2004, 05:40:08 AM
Quote
mouse: I never got to play Eternal daughter very far, in the woods/jungle/whateverthehellthatis my framerate would drop to one fps and I couldn't play any further...
Sounds like a computer problem- I never had any framerate issues. The only thing that kept me from playing the game was the fact that it was hard as $#%&.
Fun as hell, though.Post by: Bloodworth on July 25, 2004, 01:15:44 PM
Quote
Burnout 1 and 2 were decent, but did not compare to other racing games on the market.
I'm sorry, but Burnout 2 was considered one of the top racing games of the year by most reviewers. Now there are people that are really into realistic driving mechanics and licensed cars, but that's an entirely different type of racer. Comparing those games to Burnout makes as much sense as comparing them to F-Zero. For fans of the first two Burnout games, the praise for Burnout 3 hasn't been surprising since the sense of speed and risk in the first two games is unmatched.
Now, here's to hoping that they make a GC version so I can keep using my steering wheel. I swear Burnout 2 and the Logitech wheel must have been made for each other.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 25, 2004, 02:11:45 PM
I highly agree with you there. My only problem is finding an ideal mounting/seating arrangement for the wheel.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 26, 2004, 07:26:02 AM
And it makes no sense to praise EA for Timesplitters 3 or Burnout 3 because of two reasons: 1. They haven't been released yet and 2. The anticipation for those titles is based on prequels that EA have NOTHING to do with thus they shouldn't be given any praise. Anybody can jump in and secure the publishing rights to a hit series. Praising them for Burnout is as ridiculous as praising them for the Bond franchise which is only popular because of Goldeneye which they had nothing to do with whatsoever and they have been riding on the coat tails of ever since.
EA is the videogame equivalent of easy listening top 40s pop. Dull, unoriginal, and carefully manufactured to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Post by: joeamis on July 26, 2004, 09:49:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Tell me, joe- say you just read Lord of the Rings and you liked it. Who would you praise? J. R. R. Tolkien or Ballentine Books? Say you listened to Porcelain and really liked it. Who would you praise? Sparta or Geffen Records? Say you watched Lawrence of Arabia and loved it. Who would you praise? David Lean or Columbia Pictures? So when you play Burnout 3 and like it, why should you be praising EA instead of Criterion? Criterion is responsible for making the game good, not EA- EA just gives them money and distributes it. It's not all about funding or team size, joe. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were funded by one man and made with his group of friends- case in point Clerks (which Kevin Smith paid for himself with credit cards and by selling his comic book collection). And some of the best games I've ever played were made by a single person working in his free time- case in point Eternal Daughter (download it if you haven't- it's on the same level as Super Metroid). If the developer has the willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions. And if a game was meant to be bad, no amount of money is going to change that.
I would praise both the creator and the publisher for bringing me the entertainment. Without the publisher like the Perm said, we would probably have never heard or got to enjoy the Lord of the Rings. If the idea of a publisher never started in the world, things would be alot worse. You would not be enjoying countless amounts of entertainment and things you need to live with (the success of publishing works pushed other industries to follow the same model). I'm not praising EA instead of Criterion, my quote, "and tons of people here on this forum are salivating over Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3" was meant to say why are people bashing EA so much when EA is publishing games they want so very much. Ofcourse Criterion deserves the most praise in this case because they're the creators of the series, and it had been published priorly by someone else. If the topic was who deserves the most praise for Burnout 3, I would have alot more varied things to say, but it's not.
As far as team size and funding... they do help. Sure you've seen Clerks and played Eternal Daughter that were made chiefly by single people, but those are rare cases. There are far more cases where 1 person developed forms of entertainment were just plain horrible. How many more great movies can you list that were made by 1 person, or games. Some of the earliest games were made by a handful of people, but look what team size and funding has done for games. If there wasn't increased team size and funding games wouldn't have progressed as far as they have. You wouldn't have played many, if any, Shigeru Miyamato games, if he tried to make every part of the game by himself and without a publisher. Your second to last quote I find fault with, "If the developer has the willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions." This is simply untrue. There are so many scenarios of different restrictions you could come up with that would result in the game being bad despite the developer having the most willpower he could ever have. Remember ET on the Atari 2600? Howard Scott Warshaw certainly had great willpower, and had made the classic Yar's Revenge. His restrictions were pretty large, and there have equally difficult restrictions in the industry for some developers since. Not to mention all the smaller restrictions on developers that resulted in bad games.
Bloodworth I admit I was tough in saying Burnout 1 & 2 didn't compare to other games on the market. But I'm saying it in the context of how Burnout 3 is being compared to other games on the market. I'm not saying in terms of quality of the racing games. But rather how reviewers see them. Burnout 1 & 2 were not the talk of the press when they were previewed at E3 or even after they released compared to games (of all genres on the market released before and the same year as those). But Burnout 3 has been seen by most to be one of the top 10 games (of all genres) at E3, and the best driving game at E3. That's a huge jump.
Personally though, I'm not partial to Burnout 3 based on what people have said, I've always been a fan of the series, I rented the first game (I rent about 2 games per year) and I own Burnout 2.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 26, 2004, 10:14:11 PM
Post by: joeamis on July 26, 2004, 10:48:23 PM
You contradict yourself in the sentence right after the first one in which isn't just there to lay insults.
"I'm grateful to a publisher as far as distributing goes, but credit for quality of the product belongs soley to the creator. Even things like more funds and bigger team size are just tools the creator uses to perfect his product."
If the creator uses more funds and a bigger team size to perfect his product (both provided by the publisher), then how does that make the publisher completely separate from any stake in how the quality of the product will be??? I guess the budget of games means absolutely nothing then right? All the best games always have the lowest budgets... And you haven't tried to disprove any important things I just posted above you, why not, when insults win an argument the easy way?
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on July 27, 2004, 06:49:23 AM
QuoteI just want to point out that i'm pretty sure the previous publishers for both those series have dropped Gamecube support. I only own a Gamecube, so im very happy that EA picked both them up.
Originally posted by: joeamis
I'm not praising EA instead of Criterion, my quote, "and tons of people here on this forum are salivating over Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3" was meant to say why are people bashing EA so much when EA is publishing games they want so very much. Ofcourse Criterion deserves the most praise in this case because they're the creators of the series, and it had been published priorly by someone else. If the topic was who deserves the most praise for Burnout 3, I would have alot more varied things to say, but it's not.
Not that that really had that much to do with the discussion, i'm just saying that if EA ,didn't publish them, many Nintendo fans wouldn't be able to play those 2 games. (i'm sure that was the last thought on EA's mind when the decided to publish them, but hey it works for me.
)
Post by: nitsu niflheim on July 27, 2004, 08:23:52 AM
[rant]To me, the fact that the movie, and the game it is based on, gets a big old ZERO for trying to rewrite the story of Catwoman. I don't mind that Halle Berry is playing the role, but they should not have changed who Catwoman is, and how she became who she is. It's a slap in the face, as far as I am concerned.[/rant]
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 12:52:23 PM
I love all the EA bashing that goes on around here, it really couldnt be any funnier. A bunch of know it all wanna be game critics. Most EA games sell well, andmost review extremely well. Maybe its you guys who just dont get it?
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 27, 2004, 01:00:18 PM
Quote
I for one, think the majority of EA's games, are much more fun than anything I have played made by Nintendo this year. Sales tell me I am not alone.
Last I checked sales don't necessarily link to quality. Ico is one the best games I've played this generation and it sold horribly.
Quote
I love all the EA bashing that goes on around here, it really couldnt be any funnier. A bunch of know it all wanna be game critics. Most EA games sell well, andmost review extremely well. Maybe its you guys who just dont get it?
What I DO "get" is having my own opinion instead of claiming a reviewer's as my mine. Honestly, cubed, do you READ your own posts? You sold Wind Waker and Twin Snakes because you didn't like them, despite the fact that both got extremely good reviews. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but if an abundance of good reviews "prove" a game is good, why didn't you like those two games? They MUST have been good, right? According to your own logic, of course. Maybe you're sharing a bit of our ignorance here.
Quote
If the creator uses more funds and a bigger team size to perfect his product (both provided by the publisher), then how does that make the publisher completely separate from any stake in how the quality of the product will be??? I guess the budget of games means absolutely nothing then right? All the best games always have the lowest budgets... And you haven't tried to disprove any important things I just posted above you, why not, when insults win an argument the easy way?
They're TOOLS, joe. I've already argued with you in my other posts- did you just skip them? Let me quote one of them for you, since it applies directly to what you're saying now:
Quote
If the developer has the willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions. And if a game was meant to be bad, no amount of money is going to change that.
Read that, joe. Then read it again. What I'm saying is that if developer REALLY wants their game to be good, it's going to be good no matter what restrictions are put on it, as in lack of funds, lack of manpower, etc. And if a game was meant to be bad, you can't change that by tossing money at it. Publishers fund the game and then distribute it- nothing more. Developers CREATE the game. So why the hell should I credit the publisher at all with how well the game turned out when it was the developer that used the tools at his disposal to create a good product? You don't credit the paint manufacturer when an artist creates a masterpiece, do you? Going by your logic, they provided him with the excellent paint, so that must be a big reason why the painting was so good! Does that make any sense?
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 27, 2004, 01:02:05 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 01:10:00 PM
You can go to almost any gaming site on the net and find loads of people who love EA games.
Justr because YOU dont like them doesnt make them bad, or boring or what ever the hell else you want to call them.
You guys seem to think you are the be al,l end all authority of video games, guess what, your not.
Nintendo is in last place in north america because the majority of gamers prefer playing other companies games. To these people Nintendo games are not as much fun as say, Ea's games. That is why EA sells the most games. People like what they have to offer. Get over yourselves.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 01:14:51 PM
Really Ian, what has been innovative this generation?
Almost nothing.
Ea makes a great sports game that is a blast to play, it is their bread and butter. MVP baseball 2004 is my favorite game I own right now, not because of any innovation, but because it feels like real baseball. Remeber not everyone is after something new and original all the time.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 27, 2004, 01:21:00 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 27, 2004, 01:21:55 PM
Quote
You can go to almost any gaming site on the net and find loads of people who love EA games.
Justr because YOU dont like them doesnt make them bad, or boring or what ever the hell else you want to call them.
Replace the word "EA" with "Nintendo" and you're describing yourself, cubed- are you really in any position to be criticizing us? And if you are, how does that keep US from criticizing YOU?
Quote
Nintendo is in last place in north america because the majority of gamers prefer playing other companies games. To these people Nintendo games are not as much fun as say, Ea's games. That is why EA sells the most games. People like what they have to offer. Get over yourselves.
I. DON'T. CARE. You're really quite hard to get through to, cubed. **** sales- they don't mean jack to me. All that matters is if I like a game. What if I told you that in America Wind Waker outsold Splinter Cell- that must mean Wind Waker is more fun, right? It MUST be, because it sold better. You seem to have an opposing opinion, though, don't you? Are you wrong? No. So why am I wrong for disagreeing with the sales, too? And if you're not saying I'm wrong for disagreeing with the sales, why the hell did you bring it up at all?
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 01:29:40 PM
hip hip hooray for you. They why the hell do you see the need to rag other developers?
All I am saying is that when people rag EA or MS everyone here thinks its a great time to pile on. Yet someone says they hated WW and they get thrown to the wolves.
I just find it laughable is all.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 27, 2004, 01:37:43 PM
Quote
hip hip hooray for you. They why the hell do you see the need to rag other developers?
Perhaps because I don't like their games? That might have something to do with it.
Quote
All I am saying is that when people rag EA or MS everyone here thinks its a great time to pile on. Yet someone says they hated WW and they get thrown to the wolves.
I just find it laughable is all.
Then don't try to "prove" that by pointing out EA's reviews and sales, because they mean absolutely nothing. I agree with you, that there is selective criticism among fanboys, especially Nintendo fanboys, but I don't see how sales and reviews apply to that.
Post by: Plugabugz on July 27, 2004, 01:41:57 PM
EA are EA - They are mainstream and cater to what the majority wants. While I don't like some of what they develop, I'm glad of what they are publishing - In this case Burnout 3.
As far as I know, EA only have publishing rights to the game, and so don't necessarily develop or oversee it's development - As Nintendo oversee production of Metroid Prime and Echoes do - so if anything it'll "be" the same game as it predecessors.
Innovation in that instance is down to Criterion, and not EA,
Post by: manunited4eva22 on July 27, 2004, 01:48:45 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 27, 2004, 01:52:10 PM
Almost nothing."
I'll mostly agree with that (unless you consider the Dreamcast part of this gen) though GTA3 and Devil May Cry both influenced tons of games this gen. In terms of just Nintendo I consider Pikmin, Animal Crossing, and Metroid Prime unique enough from other games to be considered innovative.
Not only do sales not equal quality they also don't accurately indicate people's opinion of a game. Most people who buy EA's games own PS2s. Thus it's likely that a lot of those people have not played ANY of Nintendo's games this gen. Thus they don't really have an opinion. They didn't buy Nintendo's games because they didn't own a Cube and a lot of people who don't own a Cube have never EVER played on one before. A lot of them are ASSUMING they don't like Nintendo because the mainstream indicates that Sony is where it's at and Nintendo is kiddy. It's not that most people feel that EA makes better games than Nintendo it's that most of them THINK they don't like Nintendo's games because they've never given them a f*cking chance.
As for reviews well I think the Nintendo double standard is pretty apparent since many reviewers will bash Nintendo for not making a sequel "different" enough and then will give a different company a favourable review that says "sure it's the same as last year but who cares?!" I see that sort of inconsistency all the time. It's not fair to compare EA's and Nintendo's reviews when reviewers don't even review the two company's games with the same criteria.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 01:53:49 PM
For your info, I hit .359 in my final year of University. In 40 games, I hit 12 homers, drove in 39, and stole 17 bases.
As for Nintendo, I dont think they have INNOVATED in a long time.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 27, 2004, 01:54:01 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 01:59:26 PM
I dont believe that for a minute. People have every chance to play Nintendo games, many have played them on previous NIN systems. Nintendo games are well known, they just dont draw the same interest they once did. The same goes for many movie style, clothing ect. Times change.
"Also, I find it highly ironic for someone to bash one game and complain about being flamed for bashing another... "
if you are referring to me, I am not talking about a specific game. Not all games are for everyone. I just think when someone says "all EA's games suck", that they are being a little biased.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on July 27, 2004, 02:05:48 PM
One more thing, if the sales of a game are any indication of how good anything is, why don't we apply this to movies. Why didn't Bad Boys Two receive a few oscars last year? Why didn't MIB2 the year before? Why didn't Harry Potter win the same year? Why didn't Pearl Harbor either? All grossed huge amounts of money, none received oscars.
Lets do it again.
More people buy say a Ford Taurus than a Porsche or Maserati. Does that mean that a Ford Taurus is a superior car to either a Porsche or Maserati? No.
I could go on and on manipulating statistics, both of us know that they mean nothing if used incorrectly, if you went to college, you should know better than to try this.
However, if you do believe that statistics back up your opinions, I know someone who you would be real buddy buddy with, Tommy Tallarico.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on July 27, 2004, 02:07:46 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 27, 2004, 02:09:38 PM
There are tons of gamers who first started playing in 1997 and have never owned anything but a Playstation. I meet people like this all the time. There's a whole generation of gamers who are not that familiar with Nintendo.
Hell I've met a fair bit of people who say Nintendo sucks and is kiddy and they own a Gameboy and play Nintendo games on it and are completely unaware that Gameboy and Nintendo are the same company. I also know people who think Nintendo makes every game on the Cube and bashes them for games like Universal Studios that they have nothing to do with (and then gives praise to Sony over GTA3). Ignorance runs rampant in the game market.
Post by: joeamis on July 27, 2004, 03:01:36 PM
And now you're using the quote, "If the developer has the willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions." AGAIN? When I already clearly pointed out that is not the case. And now you state it a third time.
Since you blatantly ignored what I said about that whole deal, here it is again: "Your second to last quote I find fault with, "If the developer has the willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions." This is simply untrue. There are so many scenarios of different restrictions you could come up with that would result in the game being bad despite the developer having the most willpower he could ever have. Remember ET on the Atari 2600? Howard Scott Warshaw certainly had great willpower, and had made the classic Yar's Revenge. His restrictions were pretty large, and there have equally difficult restrictions in the industry for some developers since. Not to mention all the smaller restrictions on developers that resulted in bad games."
The whole paint analogy is, with no offence, one of the worst I've heard. There is not much of a seeable difference in the paint that's available. While there is a huge difference in what technology is available to make games. There is also so many different variables related to making games (thousands), while paint has 1 variable, its appearance. And the people who make the paint don't fund the painter for his development time, nor do they distribute his painting...
By your logic, if a team has 50 people working on a game and a year and a half to make it, if their publisher has financial trouble and cuts 20 people from the team and tells them they now have to finish the game in 12 months, the game will still be as good if those restrictions were not part of it. Because as you say, if the developer has willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions... Also I guess you've never used the term, "it was rushed" ever about a game coming out too soon (for say the holidays among other reasons) while it has bugs, glitches, etc...
Post by: joeamis on July 27, 2004, 03:54:18 PM
Mouse you shouldn't say it's justified to rag on developers just because you personally don't like their games. And like I said back in May, just because a game doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it bad. Every successful developer is part of what makes the industry what it is, it would be a smaller, less successful industry without them. And if that was the case, things would be worse for other companies and consumers. Singularly for EA's case, if they stopped supporting the Cube it would be one of the biggest blows Nintendo would receive in it's current status, and I'm sure you would be complaining about it.
Ian you claim that EA's games and Nintendo's are reviewed with a double standard, that if Nintendo doesn't make enough changes they're bashed by reviewers and the opposite for EA. The only case where EA games aren't changed enough and seen as not a big problem is sports games... it's not in the nature for sports games to have big changes in gameplay especially when people demand having yearly additions so they can play out the current rosters and their new favorite players. And when Nintendo makes a sports game without huge changes to the actual gameplay, like NBA Courtside and Mario Golf, they're not bashed either. And I don't see how you've met lots of people who own a gameboy, play games on it, and don't know it's made by Nintendo. That's just absurd, for one thing, every time you turn the gameboy on, it says Nintendo on the screen, and theres two big Nintendo logos (1 on the outside of the unit, 1 on the inside). Not to mention when you see a game's box.
Manunited, you shouldn't use that car comparison, those cars you used to compare to the common man's ford taurus are supercars that not many people can buy. So you shouldn't talk about other people manipulating statistics if you're going to.
Post by: Deguello on July 27, 2004, 05:25:18 PM
I have a problem with this sentence. What is it...?
"I dont think"
Aha! This part. They haven't done because I said so.
"Ian you claim that EA's games and Nintendo's are reviewed with a double standard, that if Nintendo doesn't make enough changes they're bashed by reviewers and the opposite for EA."
"it's not in the nature for sports games to have big changes in gameplay"
That's the double standard he's talking about. IT's like, no matter how similar an EA sports is to the last version, it will always garner 8, 9, (god forbid)10 thereabouts from the reviewers. Which is great. No Problem. Peachy-keen. Fine and Dandy. Except how come they always put the tetch on Nintendo's being or for that matter any onther company's being whenever they feel a game is too similar? There's the double standard. And to say that it is not the nature of sports games to change is supporting that double standard. From what I've noticed, it is as if Regular Games, Sports games, and (I am gonna catch holy hell for this) RPG's all get rated by different standards. For Sports games, it seems to be okay to release a barely updated version of a game and chuck it out for $49, AND to take the unupdated version and slap a college license on it and BAM, new game, which the reviewers have no problem with. If it is a good game, hey that's great! But when they escape the scrutiny put down on other games, it becomes a problem. RPGs, heh, you can release a game that has ZERO gameplay at all, or if not absolutely none, a sports-game style update of a pre-existing battle engine, and still get 9's for something as superflous as the game's story. What I think is worse about this standard is that it seems to disappear when convenient. Like if F-Zero GX gets a slammin' for having a "bad story," yet if a game has something that can be considered an "RPG quality" story, no mention and no praise. However, in reverse, if you call an RPG out for being a crap game despite its text and by rating it against the standard that is used for other games, be prepared to get flamed.
Double standards are bad things.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 27, 2004, 07:40:23 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 27, 2004, 09:22:59 PM
Post by: Shift Key on July 27, 2004, 09:47:34 PM
blol makes as much sense as Naked Gun 33 1/3, but that doesn't say much either
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on July 28, 2004, 12:47:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
For your info, I hit .359 in my final year of University. In 40 games, I hit 12 homers, drove in 39, and stole 17 bases.
Ummmmmmm.....I have your baseball card from your uni. days. If I mail it to you, will you sign it?
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 28, 2004, 01:29:50 AM
Quote
Since you blatantly ignored what I said about that whole deal, here it is again: "Your second to last quote I find fault with, "If the developer has the willpower, the game will be good no matter what restrictions." This is simply untrue. There are so many scenarios of different restrictions you could come up with that would result in the game being bad despite the developer having the most willpower he could ever have. Remember ET on the Atari 2600? Howard Scott Warshaw certainly had great willpower, and had made the classic Yar's Revenge. His restrictions were pretty large, and there have equally difficult restrictions in the industry for some developers since. Not to mention all the smaller restrictions on developers that resulted in bad games."
Okay, you have me backed in a corner- I'll concede the fact that I grossly exaggerated my comment. However, that doesn't change the fact that the base of it still remains a same. A developer is almost exclusively responsible for the quality of his product- while their are singular cases that break the mold, this is largely the truth. It's the developer that chooses how to use the tools at his disposable to create a good product. The publisher just provides the tools. I'm sorry you didn't like the paint analogy, but you completely overanalyzed it. My point is that you shouldn't praise the provider of the tools, you should praise the person who uses those tools. I think you're greatly glorifying the role of the publisher- I know I wouldn't want to share credit with the people who gave me money, because it was through MY hard work and effort my product turned out good, not THEIRS. I guess what I should say is that obstacles and restrictions CAN be overcome rather than WILL be overcome. Just because a project has little funds and small team doesn't mean it'll turn out badly, and just because a project has ample funds and a large team doesn't mean it'll turn out well. A publisher can only increase the potential for a good game- if the potential isn't there to begin with, nothing the publisher can do will change that. It's up to the developer to fill that potential, and if they do they should be the ones given credit, not the publisher.
Look, the whole reason I got into this argument with you in the first place was because you were implying that Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3 would be good because they were being published by EA. I fail to see how they suffered from the LACK of EA's publishing before- Burnout 2 is possibly my favorite racer this generation and Timesplitters 2 is easily my favorite console FPS to date. I think their sequels will be good because the DEVELOPER has shown they possess the talent to deliver in that regard, and if they DO deliver, I'll be saying "Free Radical did a good job" or "Criterion did a good job", not "EA did a good job", because EA did NOT make either game.
Quote
Mouse you shouldn't say it's justified to rag on developers just because you personally don't like their games.
I should have clarified- it's not that I just don't care for EA's games, I don't care for EA as a whole. Sports games and movie licenses are the only things keeping them alive in my opinion.
::EDIT::
Well this was a nice thing to wake up to, wasn't it? EA's just eating up all ym favorite developers. PLEASE tell me Free Radical isn't next.
Post by: joeamis on July 28, 2004, 08:26:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
"
IT's like, no matter how similar an EA sports is to the last version, it will always garner 8, 9, (god forbid)10 thereabouts from the reviewers. Which is great. No Problem. Peachy-keen. Fine and Dandy. Except how come they always put the tetch on Nintendo's being or for that matter any onther company's being whenever they feel a game is too similar? For Sports games, it seems to be okay to release a barely updated version of a game and chuck it out for $49, AND to take the unupdated version and slap a college license on it and BAM, new game, which the reviewers have no problem with. Like if F-Zero GX gets a slammin' for having a "bad story,".
You conveniently cut out the important part of what I said about all that. Here it is again, "And when Nintendo makes a sports game without huge changes to the actual gameplay, like NBA Courtside and Mario Golf, they're not bashed either." The reality is that really NO companies get bashed for not changing gameplay alot in sports games, its not in the nature of sports games to drastically change gameplay. And furthermore if you played a sports game in the same intervals (about every 4 years) as a new Mario game, there would be as many gameplay changes as in Mario if not more. But you're comparing something that comes out annually, and most people don't want huge gameplay changes every year, they want the new rosters, star players, and teams that are performing different from last years offering. The companies who put out sports games are giving fans of sports games exactly what they want... If they weren't their sales would be going down, not up (and this year up a he11uva lot). Finally your comment that they take the unupdated version and simply slap a college license on it is completely FALSE. If you've played the two different versions before (for example NCAA 2004 and Madden 04) you would know they play differently with things unique to each's environment in real life. Or atleast if you've read reviews of them you would know that. Here's one quote from a review that supports this even further, "Tiburon's Madden team and NCAA team are constantly sharing ideas and tech and fiercely competing against one another." And noone slammed F-Zero, dropping its score because they thought it had a bad story, most everyone gave it extra praise for having a story mode...
Post by: joeamis on July 28, 2004, 08:56:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
A publisher can only increase the potential for a good game- if the potential isn't there to begin with, nothing the publisher can do will change that.
Look, the whole reason I got into this argument with you in the first place was because you were implying that Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3 would be good because they were being published by EA.
I would praise Criterion a whole lot more than EA for Burnout 3. I indicated this earlier in one of my posts on page 2 of the thread. I know a large team and big funds doesn't guarantee a good product and a small team and less funds doesn't mean it will be bad. What I've been trying to say is that, a larger team and more funds will almost always help make the game better. And in this case we were talking about a game that was already good, so I was saying more funds and more team members could help make the game even better.
I was not implying Burnout 3 and TS 3 would be good because of EA, as I said earlier in the thread (page 2, paragraph 1, of my post) my quote, "and tons of people here on this forum are salivating over Burnout 3 and Timesplitters 3" was meant to say why are people bashing EA so much when EA is publishing games they want so very much That's the only reason why I said "and tons of people on this forum are salivating... I can see how it could be interpreted that "those games are good because of EA" so I'm sorry I didn't clarify my point in my first post. So I'm clarifying it for a second and final time now.
Lastly, I don't really dig most of EA's games myself, I recognize they do put out good products though despite not personally liking most of them. They do have good games other than sports and movie licenses, and would be alive without those (but would be a helluva lot smaller). There is the SSX series (which I don't count as sports because its not an annual game), all the different Sim games (city, sims, etc), the medal of honor series, Battlefield series, NFS series (always have been good racers). And I really like what they're doing with the new Lord of the Rings rpg coming out this year, it's a new direction for the company (good to see them branch out). I think both of us made some good points Mouse, and we see more eye to eye about the whole deal than both of us thought the other was heading with what they were saying.
Post by: Deguello on July 29, 2004, 12:40:22 AM
I may have been had there. Maybe I need to quit going to gamefaqs, heh.
"Finally your comment that they take the unupdated version and simply slap a college license on it is completely FALSE."
And I'm shot down here too, but understand how someone might think that way, especially when they are released within 2 months of each other. That and I swear I heard this from somewhere. But it is probably false.
For the rest, You missed my point. I was not comparing review standards on EA Sports games vs. Nintendo Sports games. I was comparing the way sports games and RPGs and regular games (which includes everything besides the previous 2 mentioned.) Here's a good example. Mario Party. Vilified for its supposed rehash nature. Yet I bet more changed between MP1 and MP3 than changed from Madden 2001 to Madden 2005. For it's Minigame-themed nature, I would think MP has a distinct advantage over Madden since it can change a lot of its gameplay and still remain true to its original concept. And yet is treated by reviewers (Despite being around 75% overall for the series) lamenting that Nintendo keeps making these. And then everytime EA releases Madden it's like an ass-kissing line forms immediately behind them with 9's and 10's, sometimes even to the tune of it winning some GOTY award. Which is OK. Strange, a little bit disturbing even, but OK. But it really is unfair to gush all over Madden and ignore the sameness, while at the same time docking points and acting "disappointed" when games like Mario Kart or MegaMan Battle Network 4 are being "too similar" to their core concept while spouting "rehash" and such.
Do I want all sports games to have drastically-changed gameplay from now on? As you said, the fans want that, so I have no problem with it. But I wish they would quit getting a bonus for not changing anything while other games get hounded on for being too similar.
P.S. I see eerie parallels in the way Madden "updates" and the Yu-Gi-Oh! GBA cards games "update." Roster: NFL's current teams and players and Yu-Gi-Oh!'s current season characters + Current Cards up to expansion at release. AI: Slightly improved to include both new cards and football player algorithms. Graphics: Slighty Improved. Gameplay: the same, usually with some tack-on thing like Owner Mode or Hot Dog Vendor Mode (it's a joke, son) or new card tournament rule sets that really just allow you to do the same thing you've already been doing, i.e. playing football or Yu-gi-Oh! just a thought.
