Topic: IGN forfeits its last bit of credibility.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

My wallet is my standard.  Hail the leathery thing in my pants!

[KDR_11k]

If anyone will argue over sales numbers, keep in mind that EA serves a market approximately four or five times as large as Nintendo's (PC, GC, GBA, PS2, XB vs GC, GBA, whereby the GBA counts half since the games are cheaper and the tie-in ratio is much lower). Nintendo is the #2 publisher in the US (and #1 in Japan...), so they can't be that unpopular, EA is three times as large as Nintendo, IMO caused by the larger market they're serving. EA gives the market as the market wants. If Nintendo was EA, Super Mario Sunshine would have been like Super Mario 64 with new levels and we'd have reached Super Mario 72 already.

[Shift Key]

Super Mario 72? How'd you figure that number out?

blol makes as much sense as Naked Gun 33 1/3, but that doesn't say much either  

[Uncle Rich AiAi]

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?

[mouse_clicker]

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.

[joeamis]

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...

[joeamis]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker

Quote

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.  

[Deguello]

"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... "

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.