Topic: IGN forfeits its last bit of credibility.

[KDR_11k]

Read the first paragraph of this and tell me you didn't laugh at their description of EA.

[Shift Key]

Nah, they lost all credibility in my eyes following the IGN 6.9 saga. This just confirms what most already knew

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Sorry, I didn't laugh.  Thus, IGN once again fails at online interweb entertainment.  See, even during those slow N64 days where they made up stuff to keep us reading/visiting, they were quite entertaining.  But now, this is just bad.

[Infernal Monkey]

... Why does Cat Woman look like a bloke? Also, it's pretty cool how this game is made by the same development studio that made StarFox (Star Wing in PAL land) for SNES. Oh wait. No it's not.

[King of Twitch]

I'm trying to think of a dozen "great" EA games (let alone dozens) but I'm coming up short.

[KDR_11k]

Well, if you like sports you could list the entire Madden franchise and have your dozen...

[joeamis]

I take it your referring to the first paragraph.  I don't see anything funny.  It just seems people like to hate EA because they're a juggernaut and mainstream.  This quote from the interview, "Electronic Arts has enjoyed a great run in the last few years" is true.  They've retaken a huge market of the sports genre and pushed 989 and Microsoft to take a year off from their sports titles.  Their stock has done amazing last year (would've made good money for one of us just investing in a few thousand), and they had 3 platinum sellers which were all good games sell in their 1st quarter of this year (april-june 04).  NFS Underground recently hit the 7 million mark.  

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

[mouse_clicker]

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.  

[joeamis]

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.  All the things I stated regarding the quotes from the article are facts, what's their to disagree with?  It's not my personal opinion.  

[The Omen]

I agree with Joe on this.  I can't see why people hate EA so much.  Everything said about EA has been said about Nintendo in the past, and we don't feel the need to disagree with that. (I know EA games is not on the same level, but its all relative) So they're getting too big ?  Who cares?  I think most of the people on this forum hate EA just because of EA sports.   I like EA sports, and am not a dumb,, casual , exclusively sports game buyer.   But even without the sports, they truly have some really good games.  I think people just like to rail against the top rung too much in this industry, as we have seen with the anti-Nintendo dopes.

By the way-IGN had credibility?

[Deguello]

I hate EA because they stick their evil tentacles into some of my favorite companies and then destroy them.

[mouse_clicker]

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.  

[joeamis]

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker

Quote

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.

[KDR_11k]

The bit that got me laughing was the one about innovation. Maybe they had one or two innovative games lately, but that doesn't make their innovation "hard to compete with". Most of the stuff EA throws out is just unoriginal sequels or movie tie-ins. EA sports is trying out new features to have an edge on the competition, true, but the rest of the company creates one mediocre sequel after the other.

[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.  

[ThePerm]

" 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?"
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

[mouse_clicker]

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.

[Infernal Monkey]

EA are boring. Yes, italics and everything. I mean, whoopee, look at their announced launch titles for the PSP. Oh, another Need for Speed Underground, another NBA Street another Tiger Woods and some footy game. WOWOWOWOW so new and fresh! Like a TOILET!

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.

[Uncle Rich AiAi]

I'm still trying to figure out what innovation EA has put in their games.....

And yes, that first paragraph did make me laugh.

[KDR_11k]

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...

[mouse_clicker]

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.

[Bloodworth]

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"I swear Burnout 2 and the Logitech wheel must have been made for each other."

I highly agree with you there.  My only problem is finding an ideal mounting/seating arrangement for the wheel.

[Ian Sane]

The "innovation that is tough to compete with." line is what's hurting my brain.  EA is far from innovative.  All of their titles are generic safe mainstream titles designed for massive sales.  Innovation is too risky and doesn't guarantee sales so thus they rarely make use of it.  I have yet to see a post-Genesis EA game that is risky or pushes the envelope.  They haven't even improved on the James Bond franchise yet after SEVEN years.  They're not innovative.

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.

[joeamis]

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.