Topic: IGN forfeits its last bit of credibility.

[mouse_clicker]

800 word damage control- I don't think even you believe what you're saying, joe, and if you do that's very sad.  You have a very skewed view of creative material that I'm glad most people don't share. 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. There's a reason producers don't win awards, joe.

[joeamis]

You've made posts just as long, if not longer many times Mouse.....  

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?

[ib2kool4u912]

Quote
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.

I 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.
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. )  

[nitsu niflheim]

Too me the whole thing goes like, they give EA unwarranted praise, just before violently ridiculing and ravaging the crap they are trying to pass off as a game, to make it look like they didn't go into reviewing the game with prejudice.  

[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]

[thecubedcanuck]

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.
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?

[mouse_clicker]

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?

[Bill Aurion]

Fun factor = sales...That's a nifty piece of logic for you...

[thecubedcanuck]

Again, lets put words in everyones mouths.
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.

[thecubedcanuck]

" EA is far from innovative."

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.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Have your hotdogs, pizzas and cheeseburgers.  Whichever you prefer.  Hotdogs, pizzas, and cheeseburgers shouldn't be fighting each other.  It's not Starcraft.

[mouse_clicker]

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?

[thecubedcanuck]

"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"

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.

[mouse_clicker]

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.  

[Plugabugz]

I'll selectively choose to ignore everything to say what i want.

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,

[manunited4eva22]

Hmm Nintendo is obviously not innovative.  Obviously Pikmin is nothing new.  Obviously Animal Crossing is nothing new.  Obviously Gheist is zelda again. Obviously your idea of real baseball is the ability to hit a homerun from the couch.  Or throw a touchdown from the couch, isn't that right armchair quarterback?

[Ian Sane]

"Really Ian, what has been innovative this generation?
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.

[thecubedcanuck]

man united, settle down there tough guy.

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.  

[Bill Aurion]

The problem that lies here is the positioning of personal opinion over common sense...I dislike EA's games, but I don't shadow myself from the truth that people like them...Also, I find it highly ironic for someone to bash one game and complain about being flamed for bashing another...

[thecubedcanuck]

"t'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."

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.

[manunited4eva22]

Okay, so sitting in the couch simulates using your legs, arms, and a real environment.  Obviously, I should have known that.

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.

[thecubedcanuck]

what the hell are you talking about? close the glue bottle and go to bed. Good grief.

[Ian Sane]

"I dont believe that for a minute. People have every chance to play Nintendo games, many have played them on previous NIN systems."

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.

[joeamis]

That's not what I said Mouse, I said, "And you haven't tried to disprove any important things I just posted above you", referring to the post of mine just above yours in which you did not try to disprove anything I said, you just laid down insults.  I wasn't talking about the posts before that one which we already went over.

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...    

[joeamis]

Arguing that Animal Crossing is innovative for this generation of consoles as something brand new isn't really true since it was a N64 game.  It's innovation was brought to life then, so yes it's innovative for consoles now, but it's not brand new innovation that started this generation.

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.  

[Deguello]

"As for Nintendo, I dont think they have INNOVATED in a long time."

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.