Gaming press, print and internet, gave EA a free ride and allowed it to become the behemoth that is gobbling everything in its way. For the longest time, they gave EA titles praise and high review scores just because they were made by EA. No one wanted to offend EA, and no one thought EA can produce anything less than stellar games.
I blame the gaming media for making EA what it is today!
- Thread starter kard
- Start date
Mike Works
Member
I blame our loose registration process for you.
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
I blame it on the average joe who's to stupid to know any better and buy into anything like the sheep they are.... 
Kcerrid 31
Member
Might as well post in another EA thread (and work on losing this Junior tag due to a lack of posts). Now I think the people protesting are not Anti-EA because of their game quality (they've actually gotten better with each generation ), it's the fact that they are eliminating competition, meaning choices, meaning quality. My nephew had a copy of Madden 2005 and I was SHOCKED at how much the players DID NOT resemble actual NFL stars.
I mean, come on man, last time I checked Michael Vick was not a light skinned dude. I saw ESPN's game, and 98% of the players were dead ringers for the real thing. This is what ticks me off about EA's Madden division. These guys had YEARS, not to mention plenty of fucking money, to get these guy's faces cyberscanned, but of course since they had no one to compete against (or so they thought) they figured they could just sell the masses a bunch of zombie faces, slap on some team uniforms, and just call it a day.
Well, Sega/VC ENDED THAT BULLSHIT, which is why you have EA throwing out those media preview shots demonstrating some indication that they'll actually CARE next generation. Anyway, after Street Vol. 3 I'll join some type of protest, but i know my artistic loving side's gonna take over ( I swore I wouldn't get an Xbox, but PDO, Ninja Gaiden, and OutRun 2 won me over
I mean, come on man, last time I checked Michael Vick was not a light skinned dude. I saw ESPN's game, and 98% of the players were dead ringers for the real thing. This is what ticks me off about EA's Madden division. These guys had YEARS, not to mention plenty of fucking money, to get these guy's faces cyberscanned, but of course since they had no one to compete against (or so they thought) they figured they could just sell the masses a bunch of zombie faces, slap on some team uniforms, and just call it a day.
Well, Sega/VC ENDED THAT BULLSHIT, which is why you have EA throwing out those media preview shots demonstrating some indication that they'll actually CARE next generation. Anyway, after Street Vol. 3 I'll join some type of protest, but i know my artistic loving side's gonna take over ( I swore I wouldn't get an Xbox, but PDO, Ninja Gaiden, and OutRun 2 won me over
Ferrarisimo
Member
Disco Stu said:
Fun Fact #2: Coit Tower was built by a wealthy San Francisco socialite to resemble a fire hose nozzle after firefighters saved her from her burning HIZOUSE.
Oh, and the original poster needs to jump in a lake.
captmcblack
Member
All is forgiven if James fucking Pond returns. ROBOCOD!
the12thplanet
Member
I've had enough of this EA bashing.
Why are people giving EA such a flogging lately! Microsoft have been buying-up everything in the computer industry for years and nobody seems to care, and they will also try and do the same with the video games market. (because they are one of the few companies that can stand to lose billions and still continue to operate.)
Why are people giving EA such a flogging lately! Microsoft have been buying-up everything in the computer industry for years and nobody seems to care, and they will also try and do the same with the video games market. (because they are one of the few companies that can stand to lose billions and still continue to operate.)
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I complete agree with the topic starter. I mean, what's the point of having a gaming media if they won't excessively criticize titles made by successful companies while awarding extra points to smaller one's? Seriously, things like gameplay, graphics, sound, ingenuity, etc are really secondary to a company's financial situation, which is why you need to go to my website "geocities.com/iluvgames/gamingstuff/mianpage2.html". We accurately review games months before our competitors. How? Because as soon as a game's announced, we check out the publisher's financial situation, and assign a rating accordingl.
Examples:
John Jillson: Pro Paintballer 2005, produced by JaMazing Studios scored 9.9/10.
Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, produced by Nintendo, received 2.5/10.
Madden NFL 2005, produced by EA, got a -.5 ranking.
Examples:
John Jillson: Pro Paintballer 2005, produced by JaMazing Studios scored 9.9/10.
Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, produced by Nintendo, received 2.5/10.
Madden NFL 2005, produced by EA, got a -.5 ranking.
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
OpinionatedCyborg said:
:lol :lol :lol Examples rock!
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
the12thplanet said:
You can blame EA for the bashing they've received lately. Look at all the high profile deals they've been making, then compare those to a typical year for a gmaing publisher. Since December, EA's been on a roaring rampage of monopolization. They've roared, and they've rampaged. And so far, they're getting bloody satisfaction.
If EA wants its public opinion to improve (it's really not that bad outside of videogame forums), then they'll just have to slow down the dealings a bit--something I doubt will happen, and here's why: EA's recently been hit with a class action suit from a bunch of employees. This lawsuit really, really doesn't look good for EA, in the gaming community or outside of it. Whether the recent business deals were designed mainly to distract attention away from the suit, I can't tell you (I really doubt it), but they do serve that purpose as well as the purpose any successful business has in mind: to make money. /ramble
Mr_Furious
Member
Man oh man, is this gonna be a busy year for all the EA haters and an expensive one for all the EA lovers.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
etiolate said:
Can you give any specific examples where this has happened? Let's keep 3rd rate gaming websites out of this too; they might let their judgement be influenced by things of this nature, but I don't see obvious bias in any videogame mag.
It's just a general observation, from sites like Gamespot to mags like EGM. It seems a lot of EA games hover around 7-8 in scores. EA gets a lot of free passes on sequels and just overall doesn't hace the same scrutiny a Capcom or Nintendo faces. SSX3 got great scores and I read some of them, but none of them made much mention of the dropoff in track design quality. The Lord of the Ring games are nice, but the Return of the King combo system doesn't work as well as Two Towers. So when they fix one problem (no 2player), they add a new one with the combos. The games also have overly difficult areas which are not fun after repeating them for the gajjilionth time. There are also some camera issues and hit detection issues as well. The games though get high 8s and 9s. It just seems if the game is good or adequate, it gets scores similiar to what I'd see for a truly great game.
It just feels like EA produces a lot of fastfood software. Games that are fun for about a week, maybe even just a few days, but after that I never play them again. SSX Tricky is the only title which overcomes this. Return of the King and SSX3 sit on my shelf waiting for some reason to play them again. The Bond games are good for a day or two, but minus the production value they are often average at best.
It just feels like EA produces a lot of fastfood software. Games that are fun for about a week, maybe even just a few days, but after that I never play them again. SSX Tricky is the only title which overcomes this. Return of the King and SSX3 sit on my shelf waiting for some reason to play them again. The Bond games are good for a day or two, but minus the production value they are often average at best.
Mr_Furious
Member
I honestly don't see the standard of mediocrity in EA's games being generalized by many of the posters on this forum. EA didn't get where they are today by way of mediocre titles. Acclaim, Interplay, Titus, 3DO. Any of these ring a bell? To be fair, EA has definitely published some great games (Madden series, Sims, 1942, NFS, MOH, LOTR, just to name a few currents) and it is the success of those games that helped them get where they are today. I may not like some of the tactics EA's using but I'm not an EA hater either so I'll reserve judgment until there's actual damage to gauge.
satterfield
BIGTIME TV MOGUL
When are people like this guy going to admit that EA makes money because it consistently delivers on its products and consumers have come to trust the brand? It's as simple as that. The average consumer is concerned about wasting the $100 it spends per year on games and is afraid to take risks. Can you blame them? The average consumer doesn't care if programmers are working 70-hour weeks to complete games. The average consumer could care less if EA buys out small developers. The average consumer won't lose a wink of sleep over the fact that EA just purchased its way to the football crown for at least the next half-decade.
And lastly, journalists could care less how many ads EA buys. Ask my countless friends who have been laid off from writing gigs if their enjoyment of EA's games put food on the table while they looked for a new job.
And how am I a junior member? I've been posting here for five years.
And lastly, journalists could care less how many ads EA buys. Ask my countless friends who have been laid off from writing gigs if their enjoyment of EA's games put food on the table while they looked for a new job.
And how am I a junior member? I've been posting here for five years.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
etiolate said:
I think the problems you mentioned are overlooked in a wide variety of games, not only the EA titles, and since you can't provide any specific evidence, I'm assuming there really isn't any. Hey, I like your theory, but you've got to be able to back it up with some substance. Why would editors pander to EA? If it's for ads, that ain't gonna happen--videogame editors and the marketing department are two seperate entities that don't mix. If it's because EA titles are expected to suck, don't you think after a couple good games the editors would catch on that EA isn't pumping shit out? If anything, editors would score EA harder simply because their titles are often blatant attempts at cashing in on a successful franchise. I think that, and EA's recent reputation as the bad guy in gaming, isn't a helper--it's a hinder.
satterfield said:
If this guy = me, then I ask are you disagreeing with my assesment of the two games I listed?
I actually like your reviews Shane, but the games I talked about have issues which are ignored. The track design issue with SSX3 is not mentioned in the Gamespot review. I loved Tricky, if I recall correctly you liked Tricky as well and it was the course design and arcade feel which made Tricky so great. Now you have SSX3 which tries to be more realistic in ways, through stats and 'real' mountains and customizations, but the mountains just end up being filled with tracks that just don't measure up to its predecessor, customizing that feels like playing dolls and stat building and 'free roaming' which just slow down a game designed to be fast and arcadey. Hell, the free roaming isn't even that and the Gamespot review talks quite a bit about the Mountain setup that boasts this. Gamespot, and other media sources had already spent a lot of time with EA Big hyping the One Mountain idea before the game even released. I read the previews, so I remember. I myself was interested in it, but the final product just didn't work. At least the Gamespot review took part of a paragraph to mention the fact you can't tell the free roamable areas from the off course areas, since they often look similiar.
Meanwhile Return of the King has a weakened Combo system and areas where you can't see what or who you are attacking. If Capcom released a Vs or SF game with a messed up combo system it would be reflected in the game's grade and textual review. It just wasn't with this EA game, but it was mentioned that you can get through the game with one combo. It just doesn't detract from the score. It just feels covered up. Track design and earning new combos that worked better were all a part of the 'good' in games like The Two Towers and SSX Tricky that turned into gameplay miscarriage in their sequels.
Really, if the consumer is buying based on what brand they should trust then there would be a lot more software companies challenging EA. Challenge everything? License + Estalbished Genre + High production value doesn't challenge anything for me lately except my patience for the amusing but limited type of games that philosophy produces. I like that Return of the King and Two Towers have interviews and movie clips, but I'd rather have more levels. I like that Homer is 'borrowing' cars and creating mayhem, but it feels like I've played it before and I'd rather not play it much more. It's just fastfood software.
Outside of pushing the sports genre, EA as a software company hasn't wowed me much. It's not the games people trust, its the tagline at the end of the commercial.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
etiolate said:
That's cool, but I still don't see a correlation between EA's supposed rep as a shovelware producer and inflated review scores. You've provided two games with some nitpicky details that you personally don't like. The reviewer obviously didn't take issue with the problems you've mentioned, but that doesn't mean they're catering to EA. It simply means you have a difference of opinion.
Oh, and two more things:
1. I like the term fast food software
. I'll be stealing that one from ya in the future, just so you know. 2. ROTK isn't a fighting game, so your comparison to SF is totally off base. A flawed fighting game engine makes for an unplayable game. A flawed hack n slash engine doesn't ruin the experience unless it's totally busted.
EDIT: Is that Shane Bettenhausen of EGM fame? If so, good--EGM's the mag that came to mind when I mentioned unbiased reviews.
satterfield
BIGTIME TV MOGUL
etiolate said:
You have concentrated on very small aspects of those two games that the average consumer who buys two games a year will never notice. Most people liked the freedom that the mountain gave them in SSX3 versus using a menu to get from one event to another. As for Lord of the Rings, it's still heads and shoulders above most games based on movies, and in its own right, is still a solid action/RPG. From what I remember, it scored in the seven range, which is basically average in the industry today.
And that's the thing with EA, at the very least, consumers can usually count on buying a competent game from the publisher. Honestly, Catwoman and Madden for the DS are flashes in the pan if you look at the big picture. The point I was really trying to make is that there's no secret agenda among editors to keep propping up EA. It just so happens that most editors find the lot of the publisher's games to be above average.
Legal Step
Member
I blame Seinfeld
To the both of you: course design is not a small aspect of the game. =P
I'd agree Lord of the Rings is better than most movie based games. I still see a lowered standard or perception for EA and actually Sony games as well. Return of the King actually has an average of 85%, with 9s and 5 out of 5s. On the other hand, 1080 Avalanche, a game that surprised me is in the low 70s and got a 6.7 from Gamespot. I liked 1080 as much as SSX3 for different reasons and the course design in 1080 is better than SSX3. The reviews are far apart though. I'm a big basketball fan and the NBA Live series has been second to the Courtside series on the N64 and then the 2k series on Dreamcast and beyond. And it wasn't even slightly a close race between the EA game and those two. I look up reviews though and Live got better or equal reviews. Why?
You might not want to think there is any reason for it, but there is an imbalance in how the media has treated EA software. I think they just need to sack up and say "you need to do something more than adequate to impress me", because thats the sort of attitude I see given to the Capcoms, Sega, Nintendo and Namcos of the world.