EA is not evil.

[gim73]

Sorry, your argument is invalid. They are NOT there to make money, there are there to make fucking GAMES. Quality games. Not this Action 52 crap they've been churning out. Anyone who thinks Mass Effect 2 was better than 1 is crazy. Anyone who thinks that Dragon Age 2 was better than the first is drunk.

You know what EA is like? They are like those companies that see a popular movie and then release the video-game tie-in to the movie, only it's rushed and makes no sense. Or worse, a CHILDRENS movie video game tie in, because parents are stupid and know jack shit about what a good game actually is. How many good video game tie in games are there? Think really hard...

It's funny when you see Zynga and EA duking it out, because zynga is essentially EA from the other side. However, if EA had a low quality, highly addicting game, they sure as shit would mark it up to 60 bucks!

 

[Bostur]

All companies are in it for the money, but some are better at providing a quality product or service than others. So as consumers why shouldn't we call them out on it if we are dissatisfied? It's not our responsibility to worry about their profitability.

I don't buy EA games or UBISoft games. I've simply been shafted one too many times. Some people use the term evil for it, thats just a typical internet exaggeration.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 94

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

There's my Bioware example. Oh, and despite the hate-on for ME3, it has a Metacritic score of 93. Worst of the series, true, but many developers would be ecstatic over breaking 90.

I'm not gonna get too into this debate, but I will say right here and now that using Metacritic scores to judge the quality of a game is incredibly silly. All it tells you is the critical reception of the game, which in some cases can be rather suspect.

Comparing ME1 and ME2 as objectively as possible, using factors such as story structure/pacing, gameplay mechanics, overall plot, and user friendliness, it becomes pretty clear that ME1 is the better product. The gameplay mechanics are a bit clunkier, but just about everything else (sans the technical details) in ME1 is quite a bit superior to its sequel, especially in the story/plot department.

Literally the only thing ME2 has over ME1 is that the shooting and inventory is more refined.

You say that you are comparing them "as objectively as possible", yet I've discovered that plot and story structure are quite subjective. What one person thinks is a great story, another could hate. I've seen it happen many times.

And I'm a bit confused on one thing. You say that the user friendliness and gameplay mechanics are better in ME1 (as you list those in categories to show how ME1 is clearly the better game), but then say that in ME2, the shooting and inventory are more refined, and that the gameplay mechanics are "a bit clunkier" in ME1. Which is it?

And to me, that's not a minor quibble, as I place gameplay above all else in a game. If the game doesn't play well, I can't enjoy it.

Edit: And my point, to anyone who said something similar, is not to convince you to start buying EA games. I understand that you may have problems with them, and that's all right. My entire purpose in this topic is to show that EA is a company that is trying to make money above all else. They aren't good, in the sense of Double Fine who makes games for the sake of making games, but they aren't the bastard offspring of Cthulu and Satan, flipping off gamers with one hand while eating a baby in the other. Which is how I feel a lot of gamers receive EA, judging from the comments on how EA needs to die for the good of the gaming industry on literally every newspost that involves EA.

 

[Agayek]

Sorry, your argument is invalid. They are NOT there to make money, there are there to make fucking GAMES. Quality games.

No.

No no no no no no, and just to be sure: fuck no.

Every business and business venture in existence exists for one reason and one reason only: to generate money for the people who funded/created/implemented/etc the business. Anything and everything else is subordinate to that purpose. You simply can't run a business with any other mentality and expect it to survive.

A lot of executives these days though don't seem to understand that cutting corners to maximize short term profits has (sometimes extremely) detrimental effects on the long term profits, and that's the primary problem with most large publishing firms.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

The OP is *fucking* stupid.

There is no way to meaningfully engage with his points since he himself has failed to refute the many, many arguments as to why they are satan's baby. Since he has no idea about the issues, how can we discuss his response to them?

Try a few Jimquisition episodes if you need a crash course.

Of course, he is free to make a statement like "I think EA are ok".
He has that right.

He's still a FUCKING MORON.

Also, one point. And I apologize if I seem rude to you, but I think it's only fair, given the content of your post.

Which is more stupid? Doing some research, and coming to your own conclusions about how good or bad a company is? Or listening to something someone tells you with no questions whatsoever, and not trying to see if there is another side to it?

Sorry, your argument is invalid. They are NOT there to make money, there are there to make fucking GAMES. Quality games.

No.

No no no no no no, and just to be sure: fuck no.

Every business and business venture in existence exists for one reason and one reason only: to generate money for the people who funded/created/implemented/etc the business. Anything and everything else is subordinate to that purpose. You simply can't run a business with any other mentality and expect it to survive.

A lot of executives these days though don't seem to understand that cutting corners to maximize short term profits has (sometimes extremely) detrimental effects on the long term profits, and that's the primary problem with most large publishing firms.

That is a fair assessment of EA, I feel. They are probably going to have long term monetary issues, due to cutting corners. But they aren't like, say, Activision, who has gone actively out of their way to screw up games. See, there's a comparison. Activision shut down several games (Brutal Legend and Ghostbusters among them), because they felt they couldn't "exploit" those games to make a strong enough profit. They nearly killed the Tony Hawk series by implementing that skateboard peripheral (a feat that also took out Neversoft), and they put Guitar Hero on hiatus because the games weren't getting as much profit as they were several years ago.

That, to me, is..well, not evil, but poor business sense in both the short and long term. With EA, it's more like they can see short term profit, but don't have long-term projections in place.

 

[CrazyJew]

ITT: A corporation that fucks us over is okay because it needs to make money. It's not like there are ones that fuck us over less and still make fat cheddar cheese.

 

[oplinger]

As for Westwood, first game they made after EA bought them was Tiberian Sun, which became the fastest selling EA game to date. The second? Red Alert 2.

Correctness just forces me to do this, sorry.

Tiberian Sun was only published by EA, the game was basically complete before EA stepped in. As was Red Alert 2

Tiberian Sun was rushed as soon as the acquisition happened, resulting in very little testing, and the removal of featurs, that were later added in the Firestorm expansion.

Red Alert 2 was at least mostly complete, but EA still rushed it, resulting in many things to be cut as well, but they were more prepared for the insanity. Many employees left by this time. Even the expansion, Yuri's Revenge was still mostly a westwood development. Renegade as well, as the engine it was used on, was being designed when they were acquired.

The first game to be under the full control of EA, and the end of westwood, was C&C: Generals. Which was going to turn C&C into more of an E-sport. EA has kept with that idea ever since. culminating in C&C4, which was more or less rejected by fans.

The only thing good EA did with C&C, was C&C3, which is regarded very highly. Sadly that was after they destroyed westwood, much in the way they did pandemic, with crazy deadlines, and very high expectations.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Edit: And my point, to anyone who said something similar, is not to convince you to start buying EA games. I understand that you may have problems with them, and that's all right. My entire purpose in this topic is to show that EA is a company that is trying to make money above all else. They aren't good, in the sense of Double Fine who makes games for the sake of making games, but they aren't the bastard offspring of Cthulu and Satan, flipping off gamers with one hand while eating a baby in the other. Which is how I feel a lot of gamers receive EA, judging from the comments on how EA needs to die for the good of the gaming industry on literally every newspost that involves EA.

But the thing is, they are the bastard offspring of Cthulu and Satan, at least in terms of how they treat gamers. They may not do it just for the thrill of being evil. But telling me they're doing it for the money isn't telling me anything I don't already know, and of course I'm not going to sympathize with them on that account. Make another thread when Dragon Age III cures cancer and see how things go. I imagine most of these other jokers probably feel the same way.

 

[Agayek]

You say that you are comparing them "as objectively as possible", yet I've discovered that plot and story structure are quite subjective. What one person thinks is a great story, another could hate. I've seen it happen many times.

This is quite true... If I was talking about "enjoyment of the story".

There are objective rules of storytelling and literature that have been developed and furthered over the last 5,000 years, and both ME1 and ME2 follow one of the most common archetypes (coined as "The Hero's Journey" by Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces). Using the rules and patterns laid out for such stories, ME1 is objectively better, insofar as a story can be.

To be brutally honest, I actually found ME2 much more fun to play. But it's in the same kind of way that I find watching Evil Dead more fun than Shawshank Redemption, if that makes any sense.

Edit: Just for an example of the kind of discrepancy that I'm talking about in the quality of the story, when you look at ME1, you have a damn near perfect hero's journey, taking Shepard from ordinary dude to galactic savior. When you look at ME2, you have the protagonist murdered in the first 2 minutes. This is bad storytelling. Killing the protagonist is a plot device used to accomplish one or more of a handful of things:

1) Raise the stakes
2) Introduce a new protagonist
3) An example of how depraved the antagonist is
4) Start making extreme changes in how the story is told

(Check out Song of Ice and Fire for a good example of this -- Ned Stark manages to accomplish all 4 with his death)

ME2 doesn't accomplish any of these. Shepard is revived, invalidating #2, with no change in their circumstances, invalidating #1, and with no relevant changes to the story dynamic, invalidating #4. You could kinda make an argument for #3, but the fact that the Collectors have no character in the first place makes it a bit of a stretch.

And I'm a bit confused on one thing. You say that the user friendliness and gameplay mechanics are better in ME1 (as you list those in categories to show how ME1 is clearly the better game), but then say that in ME2, the shooting and inventory are more refined, and that the gameplay mechanics are "a bit clunkier" in ME1. Which is it?

No, I said explicitly that ME2 has the superior gameplay mechanics. I listed some of the categories I personally used to compare them, that have objective measures. ME2 has much smoother gameplay; that's just all it has over its predecessor.

And to me, that's not a minor quibble, as I place gameplay above all else in a game. If the game doesn't play well, I can't enjoy it.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to make any subjective statements here. As I said above, I actually liked playing ME2 quite a bit more than the first game. That doesn't make it a better game though. That makes it a game more focused on the gameplay and less on the more substantive (not sure this is the right word, but I can't think of anything better) aspects.

Edit: And my point, to anyone who said something similar, is not to convince you to start buying EA games. I understand that you may have problems with them, and that's all right. My entire purpose in this topic is to show that EA is a company that is trying to make money above all else. They aren't good, in the sense of Double Fine who makes games for the sake of making games, but they aren't the bastard offspring of Cthulu and Satan, flipping off gamers with one hand while eating a baby in the other. Which is how I feel a lot of gamers receive EA, judging from the comments on how EA needs to die for the good of the gaming industry on literally every newspost that involves EA.

You're right, EA is not the redheaded stepchild of Satan. That doesn't mean they don't use abhorrent business practices to attempt to squeeze as much money out of its customers as it possibly can, with no regard whatsoever paid to its customers or really anything other than its bottom line.

Personally, I don't mind most of what they do, mostly because it simply doesn't inconvenience me in any way. That doesn't mean I can't recognize shady and/or impotent and aggravating business practices for what they are.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

ITT: A corporation that fucks us over is okay because it needs to make money. It's not like there are ones that fuck us over less and still make fat cheddar cheese.

Which corporations do? Surely you don't mean Valve, who has a clause in their Steam TOS that they can shut down your account at any time, for any reason, and recently put in a clause that states you cannot file a class-action lawsuit, right?

That's my point. A lot of what people hold against EA, other corporations do, but because those other corporations aren't EA, they get a pass. For example, when the stuff I just mentioned was revealed/pointed out, they just shrugged and moved on. In the case of the first, it was "well, that's just how digital distributors work, it's standard". For the latter, it was "well, were you planning to file a class action lawsuit against them?"

But when EA revealed that they would close down your Origin account if it was inactive for two years, people flipped out, talking about how EA had no right to do that. Can you see the double standard there?

 

[Frostbite3789]

and Online Passes.

The fact that you mention Origin then Online Passes next to each other is funny to me. Your dislike of Origin means you play PC games, but then you turn and say you hate online passes.

Do you hate CD keys? Do you hate that Steam assigns every game you use a CD key and that it's instantly tied to your account?

As a PC and console gamer, I always laugh at people who ***** and whine about online passes. It just doesn't add up at all in my mind. Oh no, you're locked out of some content for awhile unless you type in a few digits. Boo hoo. I'm locked out of an entire game until I do that on the PC.

Man up a little.

 

[Dys]

Somewhat valid, though a hostile takeover isn't really unheard of. You didn't discuss the rise of the DRM (in the beginning EA were big pushers of secuROM), the introduction of paid DLC packages that were originally a part of the game, the constant lawsuits against other companies, the often poor quality of their products and (perhaps less relevant now) the absolute lack of innovation put forward by the company-for a long time the only interesting or platform progressive games EA was involved in were from developers they'd bought out.

Evil might be a bit of a stretch, they certainly aren't as bad as Activision and probably even less anti-customer than Ubisoft. But even so, they are and have been for a long time, shady.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

and Online Passes.

The fact that you mention Origin then Online Passes next to each other is funny to me. Your dislike of Origin means you play PC games, but then you turn and say you hate online passes.

Do you hate CD keys? Do you hate that Steam assigns every game you use a CD key and that it's instantly tied to your account?

As a PC and console gamer, I always laugh at people who ***** and whine about online passes. It just doesn't add up at all in my mind. Oh no, you're locked out of some content for awhile unless you type in a few digits. Boo hoo. I'm locked out of an entire game until I do that on the PC.

Man up a little.

And you've just discovered double standards. See, it's all right if it happens on PCs, you're used to that. But consoles deserve more freedom, dang it! I bought the game, I should have full access without having to buy it new!

 

[AsurasEyes]

EA isn't evil in the same way that vampires aren't undead.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Somewhat valid, though a hostile takeover isn't really unheard of. You didn't discuss the rise of the DRM (in the beginning EA were big pushers of secuROM), the introduction of paid DLC packages that were originally a part of the game, the constant lawsuits against other companies, the often poor quality of their products and (perhaps less relevant now) the absolute lack of innovation put forward by the company-for a long time the only interesting or platform progressive games EA was involved in were from developers they'd bought out.

Evil might be a bit of a stretch, they certainly aren't as bad as Activision and probably even less anti-customer than Ubisoft. But even so, they are and have been for a long time, shady.

You bring up an excellent point, one I wish I had addressed, that of SecuROM. Yes, it sucked, and was stupid. But here is the thing. Fan backlash resulted in:

1) Bioshock being raised from 2 installations to 5, and then given a pre-installation device to reactivate installation slots. In 2008, the installation limit was removed completely.

2) Mass Effect first had the ten day re-authentication period removed, then had a de-authentication tool issued to people who played the game.

3) Spore had the limit of 3 installations raised to five, then removed entirely for the Steam release.

These examples show that, while EA is not without shady practices, they do at least listen to fans, or rather, their wallets.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I am not quite sure how that misconception came to be in the first place.

Let me direct you to the very article that was posted on The Escapist on the subject.

Title: EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games
Blurb: EA Labels President Frank Gibeau boasts that Electronic Arts no longer develops any games as single-player experiences.

Boy, I just can't imagine how misinformation gets spread to gamers. Can't imagine it at all.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You say that you are comparing them "as objectively as possible", yet I've discovered that plot and story structure are quite subjective. What one person thinks is a great story, another could hate. I've seen it happen many times.

This is quite true... If I was talking about "enjoyment of the story".

There are objective rules of storytelling and literature that have been developed and furthered over the last 5,000 years, and both ME1 and ME2 follow one of the most common archetypes (coined as "The Hero's Journey" by Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces). Using the rules and patterns laid out for such stories, ME1 is objectively better, insofar as a story can be.

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING even those rules are not objective in the strictest sense. But they are the next-best thing. You can write very valid and useful rules about how to make a story good. But even with universal acclaim and undeniable merit, the concept of "good" remains a subjective idea. I'm not arguing that you can't make a structured argument about why one story is good or better than another. I'm just saying that, technically, all arguments of that type are still subjective, no matter how authoritative they are.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Snip

And using the opinions of others on those things is a bad way to judge a game.

Every time I want to start to play original Mass Effect, I remember what a horrible slog it was, and I just download a save from online and start off with ME2...because it's a joy to play through. It doesn't feel like work. That's not to say I disliked ME, but it's not the kind of game I want to play through again.

And I loved ME3, which according to the community here evidently makes me some kind of backwards hillbilly, but y'know.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

"EA is not evil." yes "evil" is smarter than that

the big problem with EA (and Activision) is that its not a "publishers" job to own the creatives.

in terms of an industry with creative output that is NOT what a publisher is for.
it works fine when making things like textbooks but not in a creative industry.

"a Publisher" is supposed to publish the work of external others based primarily on merit and demand. to make a pre existing "it" more widely available. NOT to make "it".

when the two are separated then the principals of what some people might call "the free market" simply work far better.

this is why EA and Activison are dying but you wait - it will sort itself out in the end.

imo EA and Activison will end up only making guaranteed money in their eyes off the kinds of products that are suited to being made by such "publisher" ie products which are almost akin to "factual books" because they never change and have a guaranteed market and new layers of distribution will collectively take over as the "big publishers" in the sector.

That's a very interesting point, and one worth considering. And I don't disagree with it necessarily, either. I will point out that there are times when a game only gets made because of a publisher (System Shock 2, Bayonetta 2), but by and large, you have a good point.