I wasn't arguing that point. I was arguing that it was rushed. Which is usually the fault of a publisher/parent company.MercurySteam said:
Why EA are a good fit for BioWare.
- Thread starter YesConsiderably
- Start date
Recommended Videos
LOL you must be trollin' us. So EA is a great company that doesn't pressure their studios to rush games just because....of the way they design their logos? Based on the logo, all we can assume is that the person who designs the logo is uh, good at designing logos.
No, it was pointed out that it's fairly standard practice for film publishers to incorporate their logo into a thematic graphic in a movie's opening title sequence. It was also pointed out that they retain their brand identity by using a standardised logo on published media, such as dvd cases.Metalhandkerchief said:
By failing to understand the difference between this and my point in regards to the Dragon Age and Mass Effect game cases, i can only assume that you're being intentionally dense in an attempt to troll my thread.
Similarly, i'm kind of above April fools jokes. Discuss my point like an adult, or simply don't discuss at all. Trying to draw parallels between my motives and the day of the year has as much credibility as astrology. Are you going to do my horoscope next?
to be fair DA:O took a long time because they created it from "zero", i suspect 2 years of playing around with the concept and 3 years of actual development process. but still, yes 1,5 year for a sequel of DA:O was extremely short and considering awakening was started after DA:O dev is finished...i mean, i started to think that DA2 was suppose to be a 3 or 2,5 years but something happened at the middle where something/someone/EA drop the ball and someone/something/bioware shapeshifted to an "yes,sir" creatures. true, both sides are at faultRedEyesBlackGamer said:
oh crap i'm rambling...weekends...sorry
Their logos are nice, but this is hardly evidence of Bioware and EA being a good fit for each other. I mean, they did the same exact thing with Hellgate London (the intro was the best part of that game). Does that mean that Flagship Studios was a good for EA too? ;p
[sub][sub]Yes Im aware this is an April fools joke.[/sub][/sub]
[sub][sub]Yes Im aware this is an April fools joke.[/sub][/sub]
Happy April Fools Day to you too, OP!
Here's a cookie!
NO COOKIE FOR YOU!
EDIT: Wow, denying it being a joke? Alright, I'll make an argument here:
You're wrong.
They do it because it's good PR. That's it. Sure, not everyone at EA is a greedy bastard, and many-if-not-most probably do respect BioWare. But, do you really think the higher-ups choose what to do with the logo? They have a group of people designated to take care of that, and they thought they'd have a little fun and get a little creative since it's a boring-ass job to just create one logo and animation every few years.
So, in other words, that's an ATROCIOUS reason to trust EA with BioWare. Trust them with BioWare because they're fuckin' loaded and can fund massive games. Sure, they might miss sometimes, but most of them are fuckin' fantastic!
Here's a cookie!
NO COOKIE FOR YOU!
EDIT: Wow, denying it being a joke? Alright, I'll make an argument here:
You're wrong.
They do it because it's good PR. That's it. Sure, not everyone at EA is a greedy bastard, and many-if-not-most probably do respect BioWare. But, do you really think the higher-ups choose what to do with the logo? They have a group of people designated to take care of that, and they thought they'd have a little fun and get a little creative since it's a boring-ass job to just create one logo and animation every few years.
So, in other words, that's an ATROCIOUS reason to trust EA with BioWare. Trust them with BioWare because they're fuckin' loaded and can fund massive games. Sure, they might miss sometimes, but most of them are fuckin' fantastic!
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I don't see where they were told to develop as fast as possible by EA or did I miss that part?
Ahm...what about the fact that they publish games that no other big company would touch? Deathspank and Shank come to mind. Or even green lighting something as risky as Mirror's Edge. A First-Person-Platformer? Are you crazy? No one is going to buy something like that, let's just stick to shooters. Speaking of which, they gave the go-ahead to Mirror's Edge 2 despite the original suffering from poor sales.
If you were at-all confident with your position, you wouldn't feel the need to baselessly denigrate mine by insisting that i'm "joking".ZeroMachine said:Happy April Fools Day to you too, OP!
Here's a cookie!
NO COOKIE FOR YOU!
EDIT: Wow, denying it being a joke? Alright, I'll make an argument here:
You're wrong.
They do it because it's good PR. That's it. Sure, not everyone at EA is a greedy bastard, and many-if-not-most probably do respect BioWare. But, do you really think the higher-ups choose what to do with the logo? They have a group of people designated to take care of that, and they thought they'd have a little fun and get a little creative since it's a boring-ass job to just create one logo and animation every few years.
So, in other words, that's an ATROCIOUS reason to trust EA with BioWare. Trust them with BioWare because they're fuckin' loaded and can fund massive games. Sure, they might miss sometimes, but most of them are fuckin' fantastic!
If you want to talk about the subject rationally do so, but without being needlessly rude.
I definately prefer EA to Activision, (but dont have a lot of hate for either other than when it comes to MW2- ARG! I HATE THAT GAME!) But the thing that bothers me about Dante's Inferno was that as lovely as the poem is, it just seemed like a copy and pasted God of War, it had nudity just like god of war, had the same kind of powers like god of war, you collect souls- just like in god of war, and it plays EXACTLY like god of war. I have nothing against using the same play style more than once, hell I love a good FPS even though Activision has pretty much cornered that area of video games, but when it so blatantly shows lack of imagination it bothers me.CM156 said:
Oh, and I dont know about these problems that happened in Dragon Age 2, (didnt get it) so I'm not going to give an opinion on that, (people who know nothing about a topic always tend to have the strongest opinions and I dont want to do that) but I will say that EA has to be a company and has to make money, with that said, the video game industry needs to learn that if they want a game to be really good, it needs to be given a release date by the developers, not the publisher.
I'm being needlessly rude? Look who's talking. Assuming that an argument one sees as absolutely ridiculous is a joke on a day that is FULL of jokes isn't a showing of lack of self confidence- it's a reasonable assumption. I was going to leave that post there and then be off to enjoy my day thinking it was chuckle worthy. Then I read your other posts and realized you were actually serious, so I made my point.YesConsiderably said:If you were at-all confident with your position, you wouldn't feel the need to baselessly denigrate mine by insisting that i'm "joking".ZeroMachine said:Happy April Fools Day to you too, OP!
Here's a cookie!
NO COOKIE FOR YOU!
EDIT: Wow, denying it being a joke? Alright, I'll make an argument here:
You're wrong.
They do it because it's good PR. That's it. Sure, not everyone at EA is a greedy bastard, and many-if-not-most probably do respect BioWare. But, do you really think the higher-ups choose what to do with the logo? They have a group of people designated to take care of that, and they thought they'd have a little fun and get a little creative since it's a boring-ass job to just create one logo and animation every few years.
So, in other words, that's an ATROCIOUS reason to trust EA with BioWare. Trust them with BioWare because they're fuckin' loaded and can fund massive games. Sure, they might miss sometimes, but most of them are fuckin' fantastic!
If you want to talk about the subject rationally do so, but without being needlessly rude.
What DOES show lack of confidence in a position is hiding behind that very argument you just tried to make against me. Instead of making a counter point to my counter point, you hid behind the hilariously wrong idea of me not having any self confidence in my point. And for some reason, you think I have no confidence in my point because I assumed YOUR point was a joke. And yeah, I was a tad rude with the "denying it's a joke?" line. But I'm in a rather snide mood, and I actually find your original argument to be just that ridiculous.
So yes, I'm willing to argue rationally- which I DID after realizing I saw you were actually SERIOUS.
I've made my point, though, and you seem to have no interest in potentially being wrong, so unless you make a hell of an argument against what I said about the subject of the thread, I'm done here.
I think it gave a good laugh to all of us also!Irridium said:
for mockery: EA made racing games, that has nothing to do with RPG's.
now seriously, as i said in other similar topics, EA stopped being a gaming company and transformed itself into a corporation when they started to put as the Top Heads, guys that had nothing to do with gaming. While in a gaming company you put the main guy that was involved in all the games (example Double Fine) instead of a random CEO in business administration, i don't say it isn't necesarily incompatible, since they invented the sh¡t DLC for even more money, since that's their credo making more money. AND THAT's Where you start noticing the changes between the 80-90's with the 2000's, where the quality and lifetime of a game decreased significantly, and on the other hand there were even more sequels, since the franchise had shorter games, more DLC's for those who where hooked, among other things.
Yes, you are being needlessly rude.
As far as i'm aware this is a video games forum and not a clown convention. Writing off somebodies thoughts as a silly attempt at humour, simply because it is April the 1st, is rude.
I didn't make a counter-point to your counter-point for two reasons.
1) As i stated, i have little to no desire to engage somebody with no manners.
2) It's not really worth retorting. My entire point was about brand identity, which EA willingly diminish in order to make a video game case look cooler. Whether the higher-ups make that decision or not is irrelevant.
You can guess at EA's motives, but i deal in cold hard facts. And the facts are that EA, as a company, do something that goes against good business practices in order for the aesthetic feel of a games case to not be compromised. That shows the utmost respect to the developer.
As far as i'm aware this is a video games forum and not a clown convention. Writing off somebodies thoughts as a silly attempt at humour, simply because it is April the 1st, is rude.
I didn't make a counter-point to your counter-point for two reasons.
1) As i stated, i have little to no desire to engage somebody with no manners.
2) It's not really worth retorting. My entire point was about brand identity, which EA willingly diminish in order to make a video game case look cooler. Whether the higher-ups make that decision or not is irrelevant.
You can guess at EA's motives, but i deal in cold hard facts. And the facts are that EA, as a company, do something that goes against good business practices in order for the aesthetic feel of a games case to not be compromised. That shows the utmost respect to the developer.
Everything's fuzzy at 2am.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I'm now attentively looking at what came after that part:
That means anything else that's not to do with the score is an opinion. I'm sure there are those who thought EA was hurrying Bioware up, but the game is still worth playing (like every other Bioware game) and yes, it has bugs (like every other RPG). Almost every game could be better if more time was spent on it but let's be thankful Activision wasn't calling the shots on this.