|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Malcolm 
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,07:45 |
|
   |
Front paged here.
I still hate him, though.
Edited by GORDON on Nov. 09 2007,16:27
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,08:40 |
|
 |
Too much emphasis on graphics, not enough on gameplay.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,09:10 |
|
|
Which is why like I've said before... I'll be happy when we reach photo realism in games, so developers will start focusing on other areas of game making, besides graphics.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,10:32 |
|
|
(The following post was put on the front page-G)
Bull-fucking-shit.
That article is fucking infuriating. John Riccitiello needs to be publically bitch slapped for making such a stupid fucking statement.
What's the saying about the devil? "The greatest trick he ever pulled was to make you believe he didn't exist"??
Innovation in gaming isn't dead. Corporate monsters like EA just do their best to make sure it never sees the light of day.
Anyone remember Origin Systems? They made a few games you may have heard of like Autoduel, Wing Commander, Crusader, Times of Lore, System Shock, and some little series of games with "Ultima" in their title. Then EA came along and bought them. All those series are now dead. All their smartest people are gone, including Lord British himself.
Innovation 0 - EA 1
Anyone remember Bullfrog Productions? They didn't make anything of note, except maybe: Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, and Dungeon Keeper. Then EA came along and bought them.
Innovation 0 - EA 2
Anyone remember Westwood Studios? They made some games like Dune, Lands of Lore, and Command & Conquer. Then EA came alone and bought them. Only C&C still stands and it took years for a sequel to finally hit. Then EA's president shits on it.
Innovation 0 - EA 3
Ever heard of Maxis? They made games nobody ever heard of like SimCity and The Sims. Then EA came along and bought them.
Innovation 0 - EA 4
There are more, go look them up. Anytime you see a small publisher that gets a single hit game EA or Microsoft or someone comes along and gobbles them up. Then THEY fucking release sequel after uninspired sequel rather than spending some of their billions in profit on a little bit of innovation.
Look at EA's sports line. They haven't made a new game in well over a decade. All their do is rehash the same shit over and over and the moronic console players eat that shit up despite the gaming press calling them on it every single year.
Say whatever you want about Steam, but one of the reasons I defend it is because it was born out of the idea that power should be taken away from publishers like EA. Valve and Steam have given the independent game maker a central place where their game will be seen by consumers and be advertised without having to sell their souls to a corporate wasteland like EA.
I don't mind entities like EA, but I do mind that they do everything in their power to purchase these little innovative guys and then stifle them. Take a fucking chance and let these smaller teams make something unusual. Unusual can work, there are a million examples of new things selling. Every genre had to start at one game that someone took a chance on to introduce a new way to play.
The problem I have with EA's president is that he'll easily spend $30 million making and marketing the new Madden, but won't give a smaller team $1 million to make something different. That's not "lower risk", that's being greedy. You know where that $1 million is going and as long as assholes like that are running the show, there won't be innovation. No, he and his cronnies are content to sit back and reap the rewards from their bonuses and stock options, all the while complaining that innovation is dead. They have the power to allow for innovative games to be made, but they won't risk their cash to let it happen.
You want to see innovation? Get on Steam. Get on the web and search. Pick up PCGamer or OGFWM (formerly known as CGW) and check out the single page articles they have about innovative titles they've found on the web. The games, ideas, and innovators are out there, they just aren't allowed a chance to shine because of publishing giants like EA.
P.S. The article is even fucking stupider as it contradicts itself. Innovation is dead! But hey look at Guitar Hero and the Wii.
Anyone who thinks innovation in gaming is dead just isn't looking hard enough. The problem just lies in getting the mainstream public to see the products.
Edited by GORDON on Jul. 14 2007,13:51
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,11:18 |
|
|
Excellent counterpoint.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,11:19 |
|
|
You should contact the author of that article with your points. See if he can get EA CEO to respond, especially to the "everything they take over turns to shit" point.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,11:30 |
|
|
Yea, EA used to be a good place. Just like Interplay used to be a good place. I still remember names like Bioware & Black Isle working in conjunction w\ them. Where the fuck is Looking Glass Studios when I wish they'd come back to life?
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,12:01 |
|
|
Thanks Catt. I just might do that. Maybe if Gordo front pages it first, I can just send a link to the author and see if he wants to get EA's response?
We'd have to check the legality of what I said though as we'd be risking the ire of a big name company. I am pretty sure that I'm allowed to call his statements bullshit and I'm allowed to call him an asshole. (Thank you Penn & Teller!) Not sure if anything else I said could be considered libel or slander.
Go ahead and front page it Gordo.
QUOTE Yea, EA used to be a good place. Just like Interplay used to be a good place. I still remember names like Bioware & Black Isle working in conjunction w\ them. Where the fuck is Looking Glass Studios when I wish they'd come back to life?
Exactly Malcolm. Those companies wanted to make good games, not cash cows.
As an example, Origin made a kick ass game called Autoduel way back int he 80s. It was light years ahead of it's time. Picture living as Mad Max from a top down perspective. Living on the lonely roads, running from town to town doing missions, fighting outlaws on the roads, selling the scraps from their cars, etc.
This was Grand Theft Auto before Rockstar was even formed. In the late 90s, rumors were swirling that it was being resurrected and remade. People were psyched. Then EA turned it into a MMO and it was released to little fanfare. Now it's dead.
That sums up a publisher like EA. Instead of sticking with a product that will do fantastic with a certain segment of the market, they decide to screw that segment and go after everyone's money. Thus, all interest in the game was lost.
Score one for corporate greed!
Edited by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,12:03
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,12:08 |
|
|
Here's another bit:
Why is it that all the new innovative games that people are truly excited about like Hellgate London and Bioshock come from new game studios formed by people who used to work for studios that were bought out by the mega publishers like EA?
It's because companies like EA are only interested in established properties. They don't even want the people who created those properties, right Richard Garriott?
(Gordon, if you're front page posting, try and work this bit in.))
Edited by Leisher on Jul. 09 2007,12:09
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
WSGrundy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 1506
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,12:42 |
|
|
Even though I enjoy some of EAs games I won't disagree that they follow are cookie cutter approach to much of what they make.
I don't agree that EA is the one deserving the most scorn from gamers though. No one put a gun to origins head or westwoods or anyone elses to force them to become part of EA.
I can see giving origin or whoever was first to join up with EA a little slack but the other companies haven't noticed that when EA buys an established property it turns to shit.
I'm more pissed at the companies that take a great product that they created and then turn around and sell out to EA and turn their games to shit for more money.
How many of these companies would still be making kick ass games if they would have just not signed up with EA?
EA makes/publishes shit but they still need others help.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,12:45 |
|
|
Well, part of it is that the personalities who invent and come up with great ideas don't want to be under the control of others. And, I would think, fully know what they are worth and want to reap the rewards of their own great ideas, and not have them be diluted through a large corporation.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
WSGrundy
Group: "Members"
Posts: 1506
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,13:38 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Jul. 09 2007,13:30)
QUOTE So for EA's president to make a statement like that means he is either lying or knows nothing about his own industry.
I agree with that statement but I don't believe that Origins, Westwood, or Maxis were having issues getting UO, Wing Commander, Ultima 1-10, C&C, Sim City, etc sold before they joined up with EA.
Yeah a little guy needs EAs money and assistance but that isn't who EA is interested in.
Origins, Westwood, and Maxis ruined their products by making a deal with the devil.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 09 2007,20:21 |
|
|
QUOTE but I don't believe that Origins, Westwood, or Maxis were having issues getting UO, Wing Commander, Ultima 1-10, C&C, Sim City, etc sold before they joined up with EA.
Ultima Online was built under EA and then ruined when EA stooges took control of the project and Garriott left.
QUOTE In 1998, Westwood was acquired by Electronic Arts (EA). In response to what was perceived as an unwillingness to maintain the Westwood brand and independence from EA, many long-time employees quit over the next few years.
QUOTE After the immense success of SimCity, Maxis attempted to go into new areas. However, their new games, including The Crystal Skull and SimCopter, were commercial failures. They also acquired Cinematronics to create a game called Crucible. Heavy losses and lack of direction led Maxis to begin considering acquisition offers.
Like I said, financial concerns forced these developers to "sign a deal with the devil." Remember in the 90s EA was buying up everyone they could. As I stated earlier, due to developers being the first to spend money and the last to see it returned, it made staying in business tough unless you signed with a publisher. Very few survived that era. I think only Blizzard, id, and 3DRealms did so successfully.
QUOTE Yeah a little guy needs EAs money and assistance but that isn't who EA is interested in.
Considering they bought everyone they could in the 90s, I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement?
QUOTE Origins, Westwood, and Maxis ruined their products by making a deal with the devil.
If you can honestly blame these developers for making deals they felt like they were forced to make considering the state of the industry at the time, that still isn't a good defense for EA destroying their IPs with poor business decisions.
Look at Ultima X and how buggy it was when it shipped. The entire development team fought to try and prevent the game from being shipped, but EA pressed the issue because they wanted a return on their investment and didn't give a damn about the quality of the product. They figured it'd sell based on the IP's rep and didn't care if it was damaged.
Feel free to continue scolding the developers for selling out in a tough time for the industry, but don't try to turn it into a defense for EA's slash and burn tactics with their IPs. That sin is all on EA.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 10 2007,04:53 |
|
|
Game production has become strangely analogous to movie production to me. Games take a lot of coordinated effort and money to make. Some games are large hits that spawn franchises, others die a quick, unpopular death.
The reason I find this strange is that I would think tech's constantly falling prices and increased capabilities would counter a fair amount of the movie-fication. I know that I can write games for the XBox 360, using software that's pretty much free. There are tons of flash games out there. But I guess there will always be extra resources needed to do the new stuff (1080p games, photo-realism, networking, etc).
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 10 2007,05:11 |
|
|
Leisher, here's the original article (Wall Street Journal)
Edited by TheCatt on Jul. 10 2007,05:11
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 10 2007,06:56 |
|
|
QUOTE Game production has become strangely analogous to movie production to me. Games take a lot of coordinated effort and money to make. Some games are large hits that spawn franchises, others die a quick, unpopular death.
Budgets have skyrocketed for understandable, but totally avoidable reasons. For example, I haven't seen a ton of difference between fire effects in Duke Nukem 3D and fire effects today, but I know millions have been spent improving them.
If an effect doesn't directly affect gameplay, is it really needed?
Look at the upcoming Crysis and how every preview is devoted to the technology behind the game. That's great and all, but if the game isn't fun and/or a good story isn't told, who gives a shit? Doom 3 had lots of new effects courtesy of it's new graphics engine, but the game was simply "ok" and id's rep took a bit of a hit because of it.
Too much time, money, and effort are put into pushing the limits of technology and not enough is put into the story, level/character design, or gameplay.
It's funny that the gaming industry keeps getting compared to the movie industry because I think they're both suffering from the same problem right now. They both rely on technology too much, not only in terms of how much they put into their products thinking it makes them better, but also their mistaken impression that the audience craves it.
How important is cutting edge technology to gaming? Well, let's see:
-Mobile gaming is huge right now and those games aren't even up to Nintendo DS standards for music, graphics, and content.
-Pogo.com usually has 100,000+ people online at any given time. (9:55 am on a Tuesday and there are 131,833 on right now.)
-Before the ignorant law banning online gambling, poker sites were immensely popular.
-Sites dedicated to web based games are everywhere and are popular enough that people can make a living running them.
-Every "Top games ever" list known to man has games at the top that revolutionized storytelling and game design in terms of gameplay. No games are listed for the new shading technologies they brought to the table.
-The VAST majority of people who play any given game will NEVER see the effects the developers spent so much time and money on because their PCs can't handle them.
That list could continue, but I think the point is made.
But that's not the only place money is wasted during game development...
I don't need Billy Dee Williams, Michael Ironside, and other random B-listers to appear in FMV to make my game entertaining. The FMV moments in C&C:TW actually hurt the player's level of immersion. How many units sold specifically because those people were involved? Not too many I'd bet. So was their involvement worth it? What did they bring to the table that was worth the money spent on them?
That's not to say decent voice acting isn't worth it at times. Look at Splinter Cell and what a great job Michael Ironside does there. The series wouldn't be the same without him.
Developers need to pick the perfect opportunities for these cameos and be sure they make sense. Patrick Stewart making an appearance in a Star Trek game makes sense and will help sell units. Patrick Stewart doing the voice of the king in Oblivion doesn't sell a single copy.
To be fair, developers have made better choices with music than they have actors. Yes doing the title song on Homeworld was fantastic. GTA:Vice City's soundtrack bordered on brilliant because it blended with a perfectly designed city that made everyone who played it think they were actually in the 80s.
But then, nobody is expecting to sell a game based on the music...except for the Journey game, which sucked.
To sum it up, developers should focus on the story and the gameplay. Anything else they can throw in is a bonus, but not necessary. No actor, song, or graphic technology has ever sold a game to the mass market.
Instead of making the graphical effect of looking into the sun more realistic perhaps developers should try spending more time making PC gaming more accessible to the average PC owner. Now that would be money well spent.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 10 2007,07:15 |
|
|
(Leisher @ Jul. 10 2007,09:03)
QUOTE QUOTE Leisher, here's the original article (Wall Street Journal) What do you think? Should I just send Nick Wingfield a link here or should I send him a more "professional" email detailing my points?
Depends how much you want to rock the boat.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
