EA is worse than Activision which, of course, is like saying Hitler is worse than Napoleon or Genghis Khan. And speaking as an outside observer who's never played either I can't honestly tell you the difference between CoD and Battlefield.
"At least they aren't Activision"- Says my friend about EA
- Thread starter DustyLion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sarge034 said:
I take issue with this one. the entirety of me1 could be beaten with a sniper rifle and no power usage at all. the "upgrades" of skill tree's in 1 didn't mean shit man, by the endgame you could have all but like 2 maxed out. guess what? me3 is the same way, except it FORCES you to give up on half the powers down most tree's, thats a much more complicated choice in my mind. Now don't get me wrong, I agree the rpg elements are way less in 3, no exp per kill, no leveling up mid mission, etc. I'm just pointing out that your "in depth customization" isn't, entirely true. Well for the weapons...it sorta is... the upgrade system in 3 is very similar to 1's, only you don't have to trade off and buy new guns every 2 hours. now granted I do prefer me1's loot based gun system. But to say they didn't attempt to bring back some semblance of gun customization in 3, when they took it out of 2 entirely, is just flat out wrong. Also on the cover thing, you can play almost the entirety of me3 without suing cover. I know, I have done it.....barring the 1 key does all glue yourself to a wall when i meant to run around the corner... stuff... Thats my big complaint with 3, why the hell does 1 button....do pretty much everything, form cover, to run, to pickup and interact with objects.. UGH... its annoying
To reiterate, I agree on some points like gun customization being less then 1's, disagree on others, the skill tree's almost all end up maxed in the endgame of 1, just like in 3. And have my own criticisms. But I'm not gonna broadly point at it and state: this is why EA is bad!! this is why bioware is shit!! No... no its not. Its not even remotely a bad game. Subjectively to you it is, but objectively, its not. Its not an amazing fantastic game either, subjectively to me it is, but objectively its not. its a competent game. It does its job. just like me2 before it, and me1 before that. none of them are objectively the best games ever, but none of them are objectively bad either.
Not a whole lot lately. They were pretty hateable when they were busy running Guitar Hero into the ground with multiple releases per year, pulled some silly bullshit with Infinity Ward shortly after Modern Warfare 2 was released that saw them trying to deny most of them their bonuses unless they immediately started working on another COD, despite being told they'd get to work on something else originally, and when Bobby Kotick was running his mouth every five minutes.DustyLion said:
They seem to have a muzzle on Kotick now though, they haven't had any major public blowups with developers that I can think of, and while annual releases still happen, they're far from the only people guilty of it and at least they aren't trying to sell multiple peripheral based games every year now.
The only really stupid thing I can think of is that last time I logged into the Playstation store I saw they were selling a DLC season pass for the new COD for $50 or something. It's a stupidly high price tag for what they typically offer with their DLC, but if the worst thing they've done is make their DLC more expensive than it should be that's pretty mild, and easy to avoid.
I just checked my case. 2 EA logos and 2 Bioware logos. I also checked the ME3 box and it's the same on that.Saelune said:
OT: When you call the game 'unplayable' do you really mean unplayable or do you mean you find it hard to enjoy playing it? Because I've only ever found one game to be unplayable and that was because the second level wouldn't load (Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb on PS2)
Also I really don't see what's wrong with paid DLC, micro transactions or Activision's yearly CoD. If you didn't know and I assume you don't, they have 2 teams making it who alternate so each team gets 2 years instead of 1 to develop. That means the games aren't rushed out.
I like both EA and Activision. Sue me.
Hitler is totally worse than Genghis Khan, not even on the same level here.canadamus_prime said:
getting to brass tacks here, Genghis Khan was a brilliantly strategic thinker and leader of men, Hitler was pretty much just a really charismatic speaker and had no strategic mind of his own.
Genghis Khan's forces invaded Russia in winter and won every major battle (and it was a scouting force not an actual invasion force).
not to mention 1 in every 200 asian men is a direct descendent of Genghis Khan. Hitler wishes he was in Genghis Khans league.
On topic:
when it gets down to it, both companies had ruined franchises in the name of money. Ea has probably destroyed more companies in terms of nostalgic value which probably means more to the older gamers around and they did turn Dead Space into a co-op action game.
Activisions image cleaned up alot when they stopped letting Kotick speak to the gaming press.
but honestly I don't like or hate either company enough to not buy a game published by them and I will continue to do so unless they start using the money to push a religious or political agenda.
TehCookie said:
Adam Jensen said:
this and this. activision is king of milking stunted growth of games, i mean fuck they give super mario a run for it's money with the call of duties that are making annual releases.
activision as of the past few years has mostly slipped under the radar in terms of PR, but they are just as fucking bad as EA if not worse, between their price schemes, horrible assumption of customers and killing troika, i pretty much actively avoid activision now, i know i'm a walking wallet to them and they won't be getting any money from me, EA at least occasionally seems to learn from a mistake. (and as said, they actually make enjoyable IP's)
1 word: Bobby Kotick.DustyLion said:
Annualizing its franchises alone justifies a considerable amount of complaint. Anytime a quality series sells moderately well, Activision attempts to acquire it if it doesn't already own it and then fires the original developers if they're still around. It then proceeds to run the franchise into the ground by releasing yearly sequels with absolutely no attempt at innovating or enhancing the boilerplate formula its ripping off.
Activision admits to focusing on franchises where it can sell peripherals at insane prices. It also admits to jacking up prices whenever it thinks it can get away with it. It eats up good studios left, right, and center and effectively ruins them and their franchises; everything that Blizzard does nowadays is shit. Activision makes no attempt to optimize for any of the platforms it releases products on, always content to develop to the lowest common denominator and port it to all systems.
The difference between EA and Activision is that Activision is open about its complete and utter distaste for gamers, video games, and developers, and its attempt to exploit the market for any and all pennies it can extract. It does everything it possibly can to feed money to its shareholders, including fucking its customers and development studios over, and it can get away with it because it makes the cash to acquire new properties constantly. EA, conversely, is merely grossly incompetent, or at least disguising its crap as incompetency.
Now, granted, lately they haven't drawn much attention, but that's because they were focusing on stockpiling cash so they could split from Vivendi. Wait until the split is all over and they start focusing on expanding again and you'll start hearing about them buying up studios and firing all the developers, acquiring popular franchises to milk, hiking the prices of their new releases, or whatever.
While EA may sometimes be out of touch with gamers, Activision has shown itself to be immensely more greedy. When you have a CEO openly badmouthing gamers, flouting his corporation's business model, bragging about profits, and focusing its development/publishing strategy almost entirely for maximum profitability, then you know you have a pretty terrible and corrupt company.
Activision's like the Walmart of the game industry, only not only do they treat their customers like crap, they also overprice their redundant merchandise.
Activision's like the Walmart of the game industry, only not only do they treat their customers like crap, they also overprice their redundant merchandise.