EA will take over the world...slowly but surely...

[Jason1]

A truly sad day for videogames. I couldnt even read the whole article, I threw up about 1/4 way through...be prepared to be seirously let down....

http://sports.ign.com/articles/572/572886p1.html

"December 13, 2004 - Just when you thought ESPN Videogames was catching up, in one move, they've never been farther behind. Electronic Arts announced today an exclusive licensing agreement with the National Football League and Players Inc. to develop, publish, and distribute interactive football games. These agreements give EA the exclusive rights to the NFL teams, stadiums, and players for use in its football video games for the next five years.


You read that right…exclusive rights to the NFL teams, stadiums, and players.

Meaning no ESPN NFL 2K6, no more NFL GameDay, and bye-bye NFL Blitz. All football fans will be left with are Madden, NFL Street, and a new unannounced football management game that is in the works from, you guessed it, EA Sports.

"All of our data shows that there is a huge market for manager-style games," said Jeff Brown, Director of Corporate Communications for Electronic Arts, "and you could see a new type of football game from EA."

The agreement also provides the opportunity for new games and for EA to access both NFL Films and the NFL Network for use in the games.

"We are pleased to expand our agreement with Electronic Arts, the leading video game manufacturer and a valued NFL partner," said NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. "We look forward to working with EA to continue to enhance the quality of NFL video games that our fans have enjoyed for many years."

"For more than a decade, EA has produced the most authentic football product for fans of the game" said Players Inc. Chairman Gene Upshaw. "This exclusive relationship will maximize the value of NFL players through EA's continued commitment to bring fans closer to the game."

"We are excited about the opportunity to further enhance our relationship with the NFL and Players Inc." said Larry Probst, Chairman and CEO of Electronic Arts. "The five-year agreements will usher NFL fans through the console technology transition with new ideas and innovative game play experiences."

The agreement covers consoles, PC, and handheld systems, as well as console online features. The agreement does not include other games available on the Internet or wireless devices, including cellular phones.

"We (EA) have proposed exclusivity several times in the past, but this year, in the spring the NFL had an off-site meeting, and they decided to consider bids for exclusivity," Brown told IGN in an exclusive interview. "Several bids were submitted but they accepted EA's. I cannot tell you how much this cost, but exclusivity is expensive, we are paying a premium. It wasn't cheap. I can tell you this, though, all parties all happy with this agreement, and Wall Street seems happy with it too."

Brown continued: "Look at what else EA has done, look at FIFA, PGA Golf Tour and NASCAR, we have exclusivity rights for all those licenses as well."

"The reason that you're noticing a certain vagueness to the language in the press release is because the license deals do not include smaller games such as Atari's Backyard Football; it's not subject to this agreement due to their numbers. And any wireless game or cell phone game is not part of the deal either."

Also not part of the deal are, obviously, non-licensed football games. The first company to come forward to IGN with such a game is Midway, makers of classic sports titles like NFL Blitz and NBA Jam.

Midway has hired the writer of the show "Playmakers" to develop a new title, Blitz: Playmakers. The game will feature everything the NFL hated about the TV show, including drug use, and off-the-field habits the NFL likes to pretend never happens.

According to an interview earlier this year with Street & Smith's Sports Business Journal, an NFL spokesperson confirmed that they were through working with Midway: "Midway has been quietly dropped in a 'mutual decision' as an NFL video game licensee after years of controversy over the level of violence in its NFL Blitz game."

When IGN contacted Midway about the rumored Blitz: Playmakers, a spokesperson confirmed the game's existence and told us: "Enough of the 'No Fun League'…it's now time to talk about and prepare for the game the NFL wouldn't let anyone make…Blitz the way it should be played."



The first image of Blitz: Playmakers.




Whether or not ESPN, 989, and Microsoft follow Midway's lead and develop football games without the license remains to be seen.

On a scarier note for these same publishers, rumors are already circulating that EA is attempting to negotiate similar deals with the NBA and Major League Baseball. When IGN contacted Trudy Muller, spokesperson for Electronic Arts about these rumors, she told us: "We cannot speculate at this time about any further plans these other leagues may have."
An ominous sign for sports game publishers everywhere to say the least.

Check back to IGN Sports for the latest on this genre-shattering deal."

[GameMaster]

This is a great step downwards in the chain of videogame sports evolution. :(

Only +rep can turn my frown upside down. :(

[Jonbo298]

Not even +rep could turn it for alot of people. This is a very bad decision by the NFL. No competition means EA could ****up Madden 2006 all they want but they will still make millions off it.

[Dyne]

And I still haven't played more than 10 minutes of football games throughout the years, combined.

[Jason1]

Ive always disliked Electronic Arts, but now I simply despise them.

I wonder how much EA had to fork over for this one...

Im not going to buy another Electronic Arts title. Ever. Wont do anygood because nobody will follow suit, but im still doing it.

[Acebot44]

I hate Madden so I guess there'll be no more Football games for me :)

[Ginkasa]

Not even +rep could turn it for alot of people. This is a very bad decision by the NFL. No competition means EA could ****up Madden 2006 all they want but they will still make millions off it.


Which would mean that the NFL would be rolling in the dough, too, correct? The NFL cares jack about how good the games are. Business, people, business.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Stonecutter]

:Puke:

Wow. way to **** on the consumers EA. Couldn't beat Sega so they just did what they always do, throw a bunch of money at the problem and make it go away.

Lazy ass mutha ****as.

Didn't they try to do this last year too? I thought they got like exclusive NFLPA rights for the 2005 games and then it got shot down.

[Joeiss]

Meh... I always liked Madden better than the 2K series...

[Typhoid]

Meh... I always liked Madden better than the 2K series...


Same.

:D

[Stonecutter]

Meh... I always liked Madden better than the 2K series...
Ok.

Fine.

Now EA has ZERO reason to improve the series though.

[Typhoid]

Ok.

Fine.

Now EA has ZERO reason to improve the series though.


Self gratification and betterment?

[jeepnut]

Self gratification and betterment?

Not if all they have to do is update the rosters to get suckers to buy these games every year. Throw in a few meaningless gimmicks that they have access to as a result of this deal and boom, virtual money machine.

[Typhoid]

Not if all they have to do is update the rosters to get suckers to buy these games every year. Throw in a few meaningless gimmicks that they have access to as a result of this deal and boom, virtual money machine.


Not to seemingly be a post whore...but this is what EA has ALWAYS done.

Remember back to the ond Sega NHL games?

The only reason things were differnet was because of expansion. Thats all. Expansion=updated rosters.

What about the old Madden games?
New sounds and rosters.

Sure they change little things, sometimes they change alot, sometimes not.

Like NHL 92 (I think) didnt have a season, or playoff mode.
NHL 93 (or 94) had blood.
NHL 94 or 95 was the introduction of double minor penalties.

See? Minor changes.

Thats all sports games are. Roster updates, and a few graphic changes, and gameplay.

[Perfect Stu]

as long as they continue to make Madden better, this wont affect me in any way.

if they dont, then I'll be pissed.

[Perfect Stu]

Not if all they have to do is update the rosters to get suckers to buy these games every year. Throw in a few meaningless gimmicks that they have access to as a result of this deal and boom, virtual money machine.

I've put about 500 hours into EA Sports titles over the past 20 months or so

The games may be very similar to the previous incarnation, but I still find that I get more quality gaming out of a few EA Sports titles than I do every other game minus one blockbuster each year.

Different strokes for different folks...

[Joeiss]

I'll be purchasing Madden 2006 to start a dynasty with the Steelers. Unless I purchase a new system, that will be the last football game I probably will ever buy.

[KillerGremlin]

I despise everything EA stands for, and I think the quality of their games are low. They have lots of money, and they appeal to the general masses. The general masses are retarded, unfortunately. If EA can buy the rights for NFL teams, imagine what else they can buy.......

[Perfect Stu]

Battlefield
SSX
Need For Speed

^^ those series are pure quality, I dont care who you are or what your gaming preferences are

[DeathsHand]

I think some people don't give EA enough credit...

As Stu mentioned, NFS, SSX... I'd like to add Medal of Honor (although some would disagree, specifically on the console games)... The Sims/Simcity...

However I don't like the idea of the only NFL football game being madden... I always liked Sega's better...

[Joeiss]

Medal of Honour is awesome on consoles!!

[DeathsHand]

Medal of Honour is awesome on consoles!!

I agree, I actually prefer the two PS2 games to allied assault (havn't even finished it, whereas I played Frontline's missions over and over and over... and over and over...), but most people I've heard say AA is the best :p Although apparently the new PC game (pacific assault) isn't too great... havn't played it yet though...

[KillerGremlin]

Yeah, Medal Of Honor Rocks, almost as much as the James Bond Series. Oh man, EA kicks Rare's ass. Up and down. The fact that all of EAs games all follow the same forumla makes them even better guys! I mean, it's like you get to pay 50 dollars for the same game 14 times! I love spending lots of money on the same thing, that's why I choose EA. F*ck all those developers that focus on innovations and new ideas, old school and lack of inovation all the way! And EA's approach to sports games, adding maybe 2 new things every year and charging full price for a clone of the same game, totally awesome! Better then Sega's cheaper games! Totally awesome guys, totally awesome.

[Typhoid]

Yeah, Medal Of Honor Rocks, almost as much as the James Bond Series. Oh man, EA kicks Rare's ass. Up and down. The fact that all of EAs games all follow the same forumla makes them even better guys! I mean, it's like you get to pay 50 dollars for the same game 14 times! I love spending lots of money on the same thing, that's why I choose EA. F*ck all those developers that focus on innovations and new ideas, old school and lack of inovation all the way! And EA's approach to sports games, adding maybe 2 new things every year and charging full price for a clone of the same game, totally awesome! Better then Sega's cheaper games! Totally awesome guys, totally awesome.


Ok then Mr. Smartypants.

What are the differences in Sega's last sports games?
What about Sega's second series games?

Games are just updates. Thats all they are.

If one game follows another game, its just an updated game.

Halo 2? ( i know) I could Live with the Origional Halo. Whats different with it? Storyline and Graphics? So what.

[Perfect Stu]

Hey Killer,

I love how some people (like myself) enjoy EA's games (:)) meanwhile top EA managers are making millions of dollars ($$$) and people like yourself whine and hate.

I just love it :D

:banana:

dont you?

[KillerGremlin]

Ok then Mr. Smartypants.

What are the differences in Sega's last sports games?
What about Sega's second series games?

Games are just updates. Thats all they are.

If one game follows another game, its just an updated game.

Halo 2? ( i know) I could Live with the Origional Halo. Whats different with it? Storyline and Graphics? So what.


Sega's sports games where considerably cheaper at launch, they were not 50 dollars. The difference is Sega didn't make you pay full price for an updated roster and a few new features, whereas every new EA title to hit the market launches at 50 dollars.

You're dead on with sequals being updates. That's precisely why the gaming industry has gone stale.

Considering the fact that all 3 consoles have online capabilities, new rosters should be included as downloadable content for maybe 5-10 dollars. You shouldn't have to go drop 50 dollars to get an updated roster.

Hey Killer,

I love how some people (like myself) enjoy EA's games (:)) meanwhile top EA managers are making millions of dollars ($$$) and people like yourself whine and hate.

I just love it :D

:banana:

dont you?

I do, because in a few years, when EA has total dominince of the market, and you have to pay 50 dollars every year for an updated roster, everyone will be happy.

I'm trying to take the consumer side. If you want to support the corporal whores, so be it. EA is a powerful company, and the amount of crap they have released easily outweighs the good things they have released. They have ruined several series, and their approach to releasing games is humiliating to the industry in general.

EA seems to aim for a yearly sequal. That leaves little time for actual developement, and you get rehash after rehash. I wouldn't mind if we got a new football game every 3 or 4 years, and if you could just download an updated roster. If you disagree with me, fine. I'm not telling you to agree with me. I'm just pointing out that EA is weakening the industry.

Edit: And EA has done some good things. Clive Barker's Undying is one of the best First Person Shooters ever made. The SSX series is amazing, and Battlefield, despite borrowing many ideas from Tribes, took massive online FPSs to the next level. I don't deny that EA has done good things, it's just that they have fallen into a pattern of releasing a lot of bad games. And as you have probably gathered, I dislike their other habit of releasing annual sequals with very little new content, and making it a new game. I really would like to see a push for downloadable rosters or something...or not charging 50 dollars at launch - because what really justifies that cost?

[Perfect Stu]

EA doesnt force consumers to buy their products. Apparently everyone that's ever bought an EA product enjoys pure crap? If so, either join the party or start your own. EA demonstrates smart business, whether you like it or not. And smart business starts with finding a market and building, rebuilding, building, rebuilding, etc.

They have the money they do because they have served the consumer. This "pointing out that EA is weakening the industry" is completely subjective to each individual, so dont even bother with that. More people are partial to EA products than SEGA products like Seaman or Samba De Amigo, for a combination of reasons...one being advertising and publicity, something which money CAN buy, yes. But that's business.

If EA's growth and expansion TRULY affects you negatively, that's simply unfortunate. Nobody's fault...just unfortunate. I find it hard to believe it's worth the fit you're making over it.

oh, and about "me HAVING to spend $50 every year for roster updates" even if that WAS the case, I would make those fifty dollars in the amount of time you'd take complaining about it ;)

[KillerGremlin]

That's fine.

I'm just a hardcore gamer who has played both the EA titles and the Sega titles, and I can happily say that Sega gave me more bang for a better price.

And same goes to almost every other genre, aside from maybe Snowboarding, that EA has gotten their hands on.

EA targets the masses.

And, just for irony’s sake, you could substitute all the EAs in your first paragraph with Mircosoft.

Just think about corporate powers and what they end up doing over time.

[Typhoid]

That's fine.

I'm just a hardcore gamer who has played both the EA titles and the Sega titles, and I can happily say that Sega gave me more bang for a better price.



So what?

I have both EA NHL 2005, and ESPN 2k5.

In my head, and with all of my friends, Its no contest that EA wins.

You know why Sega sports games are cheaper? Because 30 bucks is all they're worth. I wouldnt pay the price of an EA game for NHL 2k6. Not a chance.

But yes, if you scale it down, with Sega Sports games you do get more "bang for your buck" because They are barely worth the price on the shelf.

With EA, for any title, you know your getting a good game.

Who cares if EA owns the market? Not me. I like their games. If you care so much about how they dominate the gaming industry, why not fork over the dough to another brand so they can make better games.

[Jason1]

Who cares if EA owns the market? Not me. I like their games. If you care so much about how they dominate the gaming industry, why not fork over the dough to another brand so they can make better games.

Hey, been there done that. Ive been an avid Sega supporter for years, because their games are usually great, and we all know how Sega is doing these days. And like I said, I wont buy another EA game. And Im sure as hell standing by that. Im not sure about the rest of you, but I dont want to be playing crappy Bond, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter games exclusivly for the rest of my life. Because thats all EA really makes. EA couldnt make an good origional idea of their own, because all they do is get big liscenses and turn them into mediocre games. And thats all their games all...bought out liscenses turned into mediocre games...That and EA seems to constantly be buying out companies...Maxis comes to mind. EA is nothing but an utter whore of a company that I want nothing to do with. Whats next? "EA buys the FPS genre" ?

[Swan]

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.

[jeepnut]

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.

John Madden is one of their original characters.

[DeathsHand]

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.

See that's the odd thing, they don't have any that I can think of...

But does it really matter? Are you gonna hold that against them?

If we really got to know the guy you play as in MoH, would it make the game better?

Would it be an improvement for The Sims if you got to select from 2 or 3 different sims with specific personalities rather than create your own, for the sake of having a mascot?

Would battlefield be better if each soldier had more PAZZAAZZZZ rather than being anonymous soldier ###?

[GameMaster]

Yep. Knowing the character you're guiding is essential to true enjoyment. You can sit here and tell me that controlling unknown Sims, Medal of Honor man, and Battlefield soldiers is just as fun as controlling Mario, Link, or MegaMan but I know just as well as the next man that it's just a filthy lie to defend an impersonal gaming company. The games that receive 9's and 10's or get labeled as 'Legendary' or 'Platnium One Hit Wonders' are all games with well known lead characters. It's not brain surgery, just a simple, well known formula: Humans associate better with things they know then things they don't know.

[Perfect Stu]

Yep. Knowing the character you're guiding is essential to true enjoyment. You can sit here and tell me that controlling unknown Sims, Medal of Honor man, and Battlefield soldiers is just as fun as controlling Mario, Link, or MegaMan but I know just as well as the next man that it's just a filthy lie to defend an impersonal gaming company. The games that receive 9's and 10's or get labeled as 'Legendary' or 'Platnium One Hit Wonders' are all games with well known lead characters. It's not brain surgery, just a simple, well known formula: Humans associate better with things they know then things they don't know.


game sales say otherwise.

I'm not defending any company...it's a fact

What EA doing is smart business, and no one can blame them of taking advantage of an opportunity like this. EA made their money in the videogame industry...it's not like General Electric decided to just buy out the top 5 game publishers and sit back and watch the money roll in. EA was build by making and selling videogames...so the reason they're as big as they are is a result of GAMERS buying and enjoying their GAMES.

[Joeiss]

I disagree, Gamemaster. When I play Medal of Honour, it feels like I am actually in the war. This adds to my enjoyment alot. In the game, if the person you controlledhad an actually back story and stats and stuff, I do not think I would like it more.

[DeathsHand]

You can sit here and tell me that controlling unknown Sims, Medal of Honor man, and Battlefield soldiers is just as fun as controlling Mario, Link, or MegaMan but I know just as well as the next man that it's just a filthy lie to defend an impersonal gaming company.

But the whole basis of The Sims is that you create your OWN main characters and sorta give them your own personalities... Having to choose from pre-made sims that try to be mascots would take away a huge part of what makes the game special...

As Joeiss said, in MoH it feels like you're fighting the war...

And as for battlefield, of course there's no way to give each soldier PAZZAAAAZZZZ because the whole premise of the game is one army vs. another in a big battle, there's no time for a story or memorable characters...

You could look at it as "But I want to play as the blue bomber! :(" or you could look at it as these are games that don't NEED a recognizable character attached to the name to be great and sell...

[GameMaster]

so the reason they're as big as they are is a result of GAMERS buying and enjoying their GAMES.

I beg to differ, kind Sir. The actual reason is deception. Gamers are led to believe they're buying one thing when in fact they're buying something completley different. Allow me to guide you through the trickery:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009WAVB.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting to preserve honor for his country.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting to preserve honor for their country.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000067O0Q.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting in the year 1942.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting in the year 1942.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009WNZA.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

What We Think: A game focused only on the the characters featured on the box. Along with complete storylines for each character.

What We Get: A game focused on no character. EA didn't want put any more effort into this one so they left it up to gamers to create the storyline and characters for themselves. Everyone who has this game should be given a portion of the profits made since the gamers are essentially the developers for this incomplete fiasco of a mess.

The Point: EA deceives it's buyers with misleading box art advertising. It makes me want to cry to even ponder how many people are getting swindled by EA everyday.

[Perfect Stu]

you have embarassed yourself by backing away from your original statement, instead using a lame attempt at humor.

[GameMaster]

I already backed my original statement within the statement itself. Joeiss says he enjoys the current Medal of Honor scenario. But it is an undisputed fact that if the character was given an actual identity and storyline, Joeiss would enjoy the game more. Controlling someone who you have no historical knowledge of and never presents any exclusive personality or story within the game is not as enjoyable as a character with background info and exclusive personality. End of discussion. Go have dinner with a complete stranger. I guarantee you it won't be as great as dinner with a friend.

[KillerGremlin]

I gotta say, I felt much more involved playing Return To Castle Wolfenstien then I did playing Medal Of Honor. Medal Of Honor took the more realistic approach, but with Wolfenstien's story you felt some character developement.

And, here's my shameless plug: Go play No One Lives Forever. It is probably the best post Half-Life PC Shooter, and by the end of the games 60 levels (It's humongous, I know) you will be feeling for all the characters. Plus it's witty, and it's a bond paradoy. And it's not as shameless as I originally thought! Because as EA was soiling the Bond series, No One Lives Forever was mocking it and innovating it. Ca-ching!

[Joeiss]

I already backed my original statement within the statement itself. Joeiss says he enjoys the current Medal of Honor scenario. But it is an undisputed fact that if the character was given an actual identity and storyline, Joeiss would enjoy the game more. Controlling someone who you have no historical knowledge of and never presents any exclusive personality or story within the game is not as enjoyable as a character with background info and exclusive personality. End of discussion. Go have dinner with a complete stranger. I guarantee you it won't be as great as dinner with a friend.

It is not an undisputed fact, numb nuts. To each his own.

I beg to differ, kind Sir. The actual reason is deception. Gamers are led to believe they're buying one thing when in fact they're buying something completley different. Allow me to guide you through the trickery:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009WAVB.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting to preserve honor for his country.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting to preserve honor for their country.


The Point: EA deceives it's buyers with misleading box art advertising. It makes me want to cry to even ponder how many people are getting swindled by EA everyday.

I never played that MOH game.... I only played the one released on PS2 several years ago... And I really enjoyed it because it felt like I was the character, leading my troops into battle. It was sweet.


And if it is true that EA deceives its buyers with misleading box art advertising, then I am all for it, because the games are awesome anyways.

[KillerGremlin]

You felt like you where leading your troops into battle? One of my main complaints against Medal Of Honor was that the game didn't have as much team combat as it was advertised to have. I mean, I thought the beach in Halo was more effective then the beach in MOH.....

[Typhoid]

Actually...the MoH Rising Sun guy DOES have a backstory....if you read the manual. Like I did. Every character in book has a back story.

And Gamemaster in the Sims 2, you would be stupid to think its about just the people, considering The Sims was focused on Living, and The Urbz is for the people.

Also, BF 1942 isnt about one man. Show me someone who thinks it is. Please. Its a Massive Online Multiplayer War Sim. How can you get "One man army" out of " Massive Online Multiplayer"?

[Null]

I beg to differ, kind Sir. The actual reason is deception. Gamers are led to believe they're buying one thing when in fact they're buying something completley different. Allow me to guide you through the trickery:

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting to preserve honor for his country.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting to preserve honor for their country.

What We Think: A game focused on one man fighting in the year 1942.

What We Get: A game focused on millions of men fighting in the year 1942.

What We Think: A game focused only on the the characters featured on the box. Along with complete storylines for each character.

What We Get: A game focused on no character. EA didn't want put any more effort into this one so they left it up to gamers to create the storyline and characters for themselves. Everyone who has this game should be given a portion of the profits made since the gamers are essentially the developers for this incomplete fiasco of a mess.

The Point: EA deceives it's buyers with misleading box art advertising. It makes me want to cry to even ponder how many people are getting swindled by EA everyday.


i REALLY hope all that was a joke man, cuz if you actually thought that, you had to be living in a cave your whole life.
everyone knew EXACTLY what they were getting with each of thoes games, why? cuz they have at least half a brain.

[KillerGremlin]

Well, technically, with a little work you can do just about everything with half a brain that you can with a full brain. :p

Regardless, the character developement in Medal Of Honor is considerably weaker then that of the developement of characters in many other games.

[Typhoid]

Regardless, the character developement in Medal Of Honor is considerably weaker then that of the developement of characters in many other games.


Thats because the game is a war game.

No, If it was an RPG that required you to know a players background history in order to progress with the game, or to get a better understanding, then I agree.

But since you need none of those to pay MoH I disagree strongly. So strongly it hurts.

Do you need to know the background in a sports game. So why should you for a war game?

Why would you buy a game based on cover art anyways?

You can make that argument for ANY game, for ANY system though.

ESPN NHL 2k5. Mrtin St.Louis is on the cover.

What you think : A game where you play as MArtin St.Louis

What you get: A hockey game.

[KillerGremlin]

People complain about first person shooters being shallow, there's a reason for that.

If you go watch movies like Saving Private Ryan, you see incredible character development. So your argument that Medal Of Honor is a war game so it gets excused from having character development is flawed. The basis for Medal Of Honor, at least Allied Assault, "coincidentally" echoed the elements in Saving Private Ryan, minus the character depth. Medal Of Honor works better as a cinematic shooter, much like Half-Life. The premise of the game is throwing you into the action, and making it as stimulating as possible. That was, at least, Medal Of Honor's intent. I won't break the game down and explain why it didn't work as a whole for me, but occasionally the game shinned, despite its weak character development.

First Person Shooters don't need character development, per se, but it doesn't hurt. You're right, a FPS isn't an RPG and you really don't need to sympathize with your character, but it seems like the First Persons Shooters with the most character development are the most memorable. I remember No One Lives Forever and Clive Barker's Undying very well, and both games featured tones of character development and plot. Hell, even games like Duke Nukem and Serious Sam developed their characters. Duke and Sam where both smart asses, and it was entertaining to play as them.

Also, if a story is included in the manual, that's fine. But if you give a character a huge story, and don't incorporate it into the main game, then it's really just pointless information that will quickly be forgotten. Some games, like Warcraft 3, give you tons of in-depth information on the history of the continents and the races you're playing as, and then that information is presented in the game. I was compelled to read the Warcraft 3 booklet because it helped the flow of the Single Player game.

[Perfect Stu]

ok, this is just getting ridiculous

the only undeniable FACT involved here is that lots of people (more then those towards every other publisher) see quality in EA titles, end of story. everything else I've read is either heresay or BS.

but I'll be the mature one and say "to each his own/agree to disagree/different strokes for different folks" etc. etc.

[GameMaster]

What are you guys so afraid of? So I called EA's bluff, it's not that big of a deal. Some of you are treating this as a startling revelation that you don't want to except. Nintendo isn't getting a free 1UP from this if that's what you're fearing. And who knows, maybe EA will change their ways. Everyone needs to calm down. I don't want to hear anymore name-calling or cut-throat insinuations.

[Typhoid]

All of us are being whiney little fanboys.

Some of us are saying EA makes horrid games, some say they make good games.

Games are objective. It goes person to person.

And obviously EA makes good games, or they wouldnt be a highly successfull company.

Why are people still arguing and complaining over this?

[Joeiss]

Just about MOH... I find the games really fun, because I am a somewhat war buff. I just think it is cool that I can relive some of the biggest battles in the past 100 years!

[Swan]

Probably my favorite game from EA was Freedom Fighters. That game was awesome. It had a character, with feelings. Hell their was one point in the game where I felt patriotic and was really angry that those commies were taking over my country. Then I realized that it was based in the States. Strong affect on me.

[Perfect Stu]

What are you guys so afraid of? So I called EA's bluff, it's not that big of a deal. Some of you are treating this as a startling revelation that you don't want to except. Nintendo isn't getting a free 1UP from this if that's what you're fearing. And who knows, maybe EA will change their ways. Everyone needs to calm down. I don't want to hear anymore name-calling or cut-throat insinuations.

*name-calls*

*initiates cut-thorat situation*

[Acebot44]

EA now has a 19.9% (http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/7380/EA-Invests-in-UbiSoft-Bids-Again-for-DICE/) stake in Ubisoft.

Oh, and I hope that with ESPN's restriction on the NFL will coerce into focusing all it's attention and making amazing Basketball games instead.

[KillerGremlin]

If EA buys ubisoft I'm going to be pissed. The Rayman serious was one of the best, and I don't want EA's hands on it.

[Canyarion]

Ubisoft..... You'd hope that the French would be smarter than that.:( ... on the other hand :sneaky:

disclaimer: I love France and like the French, no offense, just a joke.

[Jason1]

EA Probably will buy Ubisoft just like they seem to buy everything else. They will then most likely proceed to turn Rayman into a Black Eyed peas game and twist Prince of Persia into a girl, voiced by Brooke Burke. EA needs to be stopped.

[Swan]

Does anybody else get the feeling that EA will eventually get so powerful that they will start to buy out the big companies like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft? Then they will go on to make their own system.

[Canyarion]

Haha, if you think anyone can buy Nintendo, you haven't seen their stubbornness yet.

You'd think that nobody can buy them, but of course, enough money can do anything.

[Perfect Stu]

EA Probably will buy Ubisoft just like they seem to buy everything else. They will then most likely proceed to turn Rayman into a Black Eyed peas game and twist Prince of Persia into a girl, voiced by Brooke Burke. EA needs to be stopped.

:banana:

[Typhoid]

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?
Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others
Yadda yadda yadda.


Not to re-quote this, and yeah its old. But I had nothing to do at work today, so for some strange reason I thought of this.

Megaman, is not only a character, but a game name.
Dante and Viewtiful Joe, is the same deal. (obviously minus Dante)

EA has game titles people know them from. Sim City, The Sims, Battlefield, Medal of Honor. It doesnt matter if they were seperate company's at one time, they are EA now.

[Jason1]

Not to re-quote this, and yeah its old. But I had nothing to do at work today, so for some strange reason I thought of this.

Megaman, is not only a character, but a game name.
Dante and Viewtiful Joe, is the same deal. (obviously minus Dante)

EA has game titles people know them from. Sim City, The Sims, Battlefield, Medal of Honor. It doesnt matter if they were seperate company's at one time, they are EA now.


What does Viewtiful Joe have to do with anything? Its made by Capcom........

[Typhoid]

What does Viewtiful Joe have to do with anything? Its made by Capcom........


And So is Megaman...

If you READ what he said.

DOes EA have any actual origianl characters of their own that people know them by?

Followed by:

Capcom: Megaman, Dante, Viewtiful Joe, others

Meaning when people hear "Capcom" they think of "Megaman" or "Viewtaful Joe", or the other way around.

Then I said:


Megaman, is not only a character, but a game name.
Dante and Viewtiful Joe, is the same deal. (obviously minus Dante)

EA has game titles people know them from. Sim City, The Sims, Battlefield, Medal of Honor. It doesnt matter if they were seperate company's at one time, they are EA now.

Meaning that when people hear "EA" they think of the games stated above, or the other way around.

And im not like...meaning this in any assholish tone...although I know it comes accross as arrogant.

[Swan]

And im not like...meaning this in any assholish tone...although I know it comes accross as arrogant.
Yes, yes it does. But we love you anyways. :)

[Vampyr]

EA actually owns more of Ubisoft than the original founders. The founders own about 15 percent.

[Stonecutter]

EA just bought the exclusive rights to the arena football league, and no, this isn't some parody.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/10/news_6116065.html

Somebody on the PA forums said it best. It wasn't bad enough that they disembowled and decapitated someone, they had to piss on their corpse as well. This was pretty much the only other football league that someone could make a game for (keep in mind that you can't put college players names in a college game, so that's kind of moot.)


Assholes.

[Typhoid]

Assholes.


Are you forgetting this is a business?

They are doing what businesses strive to do, in fact, it is the main objective for most businesses, which is to monopolize your category or area.

They are doing that. They are doing it like any otehr company would given the right amount of money.

You cant tell me that any company would pass up the chance to put a rival company out, and get them more profit.

[Null]

i love how everyone gets mad at EA for doing something any other company encluding ESPN/SEGA would do if they could. Why not be mad at the NFL or AFL for selling out to a company?

[Ginkasa]

It doesn't matter if the move was good for that one company or if every single other company in the world would do the same thing if given the opportunity. It still has a negative effect on the business in general, which ticks people off who can realize that.

People are complaining about what EA did, not that it was EA that did it.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Null]

It doesn't matter if the move was good for that one company or if every single other company in the world would do the same thing if given the opportunity. It still has a negative effect on the business in general, which ticks people off who can realize that.

People are complaining about what EA did, not that it was EA that did it.


no, it has quite a bit to do with EA being the ones who did it. and it does matter, thats business, deal with it.

im just sayin, perhaps they're getting mad at the wrong people.

[Jason1]

EA has game titles people know them from. Sim City, The Sims, Battlefield, Medal of Honor. It doesnt matter if they were seperate company's at one time, they are EA now.


But this strays from the origional point: That EA dosent really have any origional Characters that they themselves created...

Yea the have Sim City, but that was created by Maxis long before the EA BUYOUT

buyout is the key word there...thats all they do. Buy liscenses, companies, ect. They couldnt make an origional game out of their assholes.

[Bond]

Are you forgetting this is a business?
Stonecutter doesn't like large corporations. He prefers small hometown grocery stores.

[Typhoid]

But this strays from the origional point: That EA dosent really have any origional Characters that they themselves created...

Yea the have Sim City, but that was created by Maxis long before the EA BUYOUT

buyout is the key word there...thats all they do. Buy liscenses, companies, ect. They couldnt make an origional game out of their assholes.


So what.

Who said the gaming world is based on Original Characters?

Is there some sort of corporate rule saying if you don't have any Original character that your company loses all credibility despite the smart business moves you make?

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

am i the only one here who thinks that more recent Bond games from EA aren't horrid? When nightfire cameout, it slowly started to improve, with Everything or Nothing, it had some SERIOUSLY fun scenarios that i played over and over again, am I missing something here? or am i not being gamer-patriotic by supporting a game that is a virtual sequel to a classic released a while ago. Golden eye was great, no doubt, it ushered in a whole new age in fps's on consoles, but can you honestly say that Everything or Nothing isn't better in everysingle way when compared to it? Rogue agent is a letdown in many ways, but thats because of a number of reasons, they went TOO far from the Bond Formula. and the midst of experimenting, they released it in the midst of Halo 2 and Half Life 2, both of which, well....pWn it. All in all, I actually enjoyed most of EA's bond titles, and this isn't going to at all into my love for the SSX series. EA is not a company that all of a sudden came into the gaming scene and bought massive shares and expects to just make money, they've had more than their fair share of good games, and so i still believe in them.

[KillerGremlin]

Yes, I can honestly say that all the games in the Bond series post-Goldeneye suck. That's my opinion, and I'll tell you why:

No One Lives Forever.

Quite possibly the funnest spy-FPS game, EVER. It's a comical game that mocks the whole genre, but at the same time, it's one of the best assembled First Person Shooters. Its single player rivals that of Half-Lifes, taking time into account.

[Ginkasa]

Wait... So... One game series is bad because another game is better? I like Zelda more than...well...everything, but that doesn't mean everything else sucks...

I don't understand your logic...


*shrugs and walks away*

[Typhoid]

Wait... So... One game series is bad because another game is better? I like Zelda more than...well...everything, but that doesn't mean everything else sucks...

I don't understand your logic...


*shrugs and walks away*


In a scenario like this, its called "Flawgic".


But yeah.

What do people have against EA?

Seriously.

They are a business. They did what any given business does, buy out all chances of the competition beating you. If you can kill your enemy, you do so. Its all about money, EA spend money, to make money in the longrun.

I like EA games. Good graphics, good gameplay. Presentation is key. They do that well.

I dont get where people are coming from with their whole "EA doesnt have an origional character" thing.

So what? I cant see why origionality has anything to do with how good your product is. You can rip off someone elses idea, that doesnt mean it wont be good if you do it better.

And for those of you that are complaining about EA killing its competition, I pose one question.

If you had the chance to put out all of your competition for a genré, and secure yourself major profit for years to come, would you not take it?

[KillerGremlin]

Okay, I'll give you my analogy.

If you had a choice to get a can of plain peanuts, or a can of mixed nuts with different types of peanuts and different nuts, which would you rather have?

I'm pressed for time as it is, when I play a game, I want to get the most out of it. If I sat through every conventional first person shooter out there, I'd be sitting here for about a year.

The execution in No One Lives Forever, in my opinion, is superior to that of the Bond series. No One Lives Forever is my can of mixed nuts - it's more interesting, it has more flavor, and more importantly, it entertains me more. So, maybe the recent Bond games have a few good levels here or there - that's still hit or miss gameplay. I don't recall every being bored in No One Lives Forever - frustrated, yes, but not bored.

Really, I have no problem comparing games, even if both are relatively playable.

Edit: And yes, yes Link. A series can fall victim to a good game. Especially if that series fails to make a large progression over the large period of time it has spanned.

[Ginkasa]

Okay, I'll give you my analogy.

If you had a choice to get a can of plain peanuts, or a can of mixed nuts with different types of peanuts and different nuts, which would you rather have?

I'm pressed for time as it is, when I play a game, I want to get the most out of it. If I sat through every conventional first person shooter out there, I'd be sitting here for about a year.

The execution in No One Lives Forever, in my opinion, is superior to that of the Bond series. No One Lives Forever is my can of mixed nuts - it's more interesting, it has more flavor, and more importantly, it entertains me more. So, maybe the recent Bond games have a few good levels here or there - that's still hit or miss gameplay. I don't recall every being bored in No One Lives Forever - frustrated, yes, but not bored.

Really, I have no problem comparing games, even if both are relatively playable.

Edit: And yes, yes Link. A series can fall victim to a good game. Especially if that series fails to make a large progression over the large period of time it has spanned.


If I could only choose one, yes I'd choose the mixed nuts (actually, I'd choose neither...I don't like nuts), but that doesn't mean the peanuts are bad, just not as good. I'd rather play Final Fantasy X than Xenosaga, but that doesn't mean Xenosaga is bad, just not as good.


And for those of you that are complaining about EA killing its competition, I pose one question.

If you had the chance to put out all of your competition for a genré, and secure yourself major profit for years to come, would you not take it?

I have a question for you: would you rather have multiple companies competing for dominance, and thus have to constantly improve their games to succeed, or one company with a monopoly that could pretty much keep progress to a minimum?

From a business standpoint, for EA, this is a really good move. From a business standpoint, this is what they should have done. But from a gaming standpoint, which, as a gamer, is the standpoint you should be more concerned about, it is a horrible move.

I can't say whether Sega's or EA's football games were better; I don't like sports games, and wouldn't be in a position to compare even if I did. But the fact that there were debates between fans about which games was better shows that there definetely was competition. Competition would mean that both Sega and EA would have to try to do outdo the other in some way or form with each installment to stay alive. Not even in just gameplay, Sega dropped the prices for their sports games, did they not? If EA hadn't bought out the NFL, they would have had to have dropped their prices at some point as well. How would that not have been good for gamers?

But now that Sega (or anyone else) can not effectively compete with EA, EA has no reason to try to improve very radically. Games can be sold at however they're normally sold than at the lower price from Sega. EA may be rolling in the money, at least for a while, but gamers are shortchanged. Since they now have a monopoly, halting progression is also a good business move. Why spend money to improve graphics or insert additions to gameplay when they could just update the roster and be done with it?

Do you want that, Typhoid? Really? I can't see how you could be so concerned over a company's success that you're able to willingly accept a lesser product for it?

And before you start..

I am not saying EA is the only company that would this. Sega would do the same thing if they could (I've already said this..), and it would be just as bad a move for gamers as it is from EA.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Typhoid]

But now that Sega (or anyone else) can not effectively compete with EA, EA has no reason to try to improve very radically. Games can be sold at however they're normally sold than at the lower price from Sega. EA may be rolling in the money, at least for a while, but gamers are shortchanged. Since they now have a monopoly, halting progression is also a good business move. Why spend money to improve graphics or insert additions to gameplay when they could just update the roster and be done with it?




Huh?

So your assuming they wont update anything? Which would be stupid, because then people wouldnt buy it, because there would be no reason to.

And I prefer EA anyways. I bought both ESPN 2K5, and NHL 2005, and EA's game is better by far. Graphics wise, and play wise. It feels more like a real hockey game when I watch it. The sounds, the looks, and the clips.

Yes, in fact, I would rather they got rid of all other competators (Except NFL Blitz, I plan on buying that game soon now because their wont be more), because this just means people will stop their bitching and comparing of games on release dates. At least the bitching about EA buying rights will stop in a month or so.

And No sports game really improves radically year to year. They improve, yes, radically, no. Most of it is just better rendered images, updated soundtrack (In EA's case) and rosters.

But I love EA, who cares if they monopolize things, I dont. I like their games, I have no problem with it.

[Ginkasa]

They'll only update so much to keep players buying. If they didn't radically update it with competition, how much do you think they'll improve now? And there's still the thing about pricing.

And it doesn't matter if you personally like EA better or not. Other people like Sega's ESPN games better, adn bought those instead. If EA hadn't bought exclusive NFL rights, then they would have had to have done something in the games or pricing or something to get the ESPN people to buy the Madden games, and Sega would have had to respond to keep their buyers with them. That's how it works.

And if you're sick of people complaining, then don't listen. Don't care what ESPN fans have to say? Does it not really matter to you which game is released first or priced lowest? Block it out. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean you have to pay attention to it.

Besides, it is ultimately more contructive for there to be people who care to compare dates and prices and dis the other game than it is to have everyone buy Madden just because it is all there is.

And if all you had was EA, I'm sure it'd only be a year or two before you started to wish for something more.


*shrugs and walks away*

[Typhoid]

They'll only update so much to keep players buying. If they didn't radically update it with competition, how much do you think they'll improve now? And there's still the thing about pricing.

And it doesn't matter if you personally like EA better or not. Other people like Sega's ESPN games better, adn bought those instead. If EA hadn't bought exclusive NFL rights, then they would have had to have done something in the games or pricing or something to get the ESPN people to buy the Madden games, and Sega would have had to respond to keep their buyers with them. That's how it works.

And if you're sick of people complaining, then don't listen. Don't care what ESPN fans have to say? Does it not really matter to you which game is released first or priced lowest? Block it out. Just 'cause its there doesn't mean you have to pay attention to it.

Besides, it is ultimately more contructive for there to be people who care to compare dates and prices and dis the other game than it is to have everyone buy Madden just because it is all there is.

And if all you had was EA, I'm sure it'd only be a year or two before you started to wish for something more.


*shrugs and walks away*


Ok.

I know I like them better, and I know other people like other companies better. I was justifying my position on this whole ordeal, because I thought it would save explanations.

I wont listen, lol, its what I plan on doing.

No, it doesnt matter to me which is released first, or how much it is. I pay 70 bucks a year, per EA game. And im damn happy I do. Like I said (not to bring it up) I payed 35 bucks for ESPN 2K5, and, lets put it this way, Thats just over as much as I would pay for that game. haha.

No, if EA was all there is (for sports) I would be happy. Clearly, I am, arnt I? All I buy are EA sports games, I have been doing so since I was 5, I always will. I like EA.

Maybe this will make ESPN make a CFL game, who knows.

If they are ambitious enough, they'll think of something.

[Acebot44]

Oh Snap (http://sports.ign.com/articles/580/580401p1.html) is all I have to say.

[Jonbo298]

That's ****ing BS. EA gets good competition price wise in the Football game area and they go out and buy every last thing to have no competition.

This is a blatant cop out. EA is scared. Little babies. I should just not ever buy anything EA because of the fact they can't stand a little competition.

[Dyne]

Oh wow. Just when you think it can't get any worse.

There's going to be a representative from EA coming to my campus on Tuesday. I'm going to have fun poking him and prodding him about this crap before I sign any of those co-op papers.

[Jonbo298]

Dyne, I'll paypal $20 to punch him once for me :D

[Null]

That's ****ing BS. EA gets good competition price wise in the Football game area and they go out and buy every last thing to have no competition.

This is a blatant cop out. EA is scared. Little babies. I should just not ever buy anything EA because of the fact they can't stand a little competition.


*looks around for where jonbo complained when Sega had ESPN on thier side*

huh, odd, cant find it.



Anywho. why on EARTH does this matter AT .......... ALL?

ESPN is just a name. they did nothing (besides the good comentary) to change the game itself.

Quite frankly i always liked the name SEGA 2k* over ESPN something something for the sega sports games anyway.


Good for EA tho. im enjoying that they're making everyone cry over everything they do :) (obviously as you can tell i dont play many sports games, and no football ones at all :p)

[Dyne]

Dyne, I'll paypal $20 to punch him once for me :D

He's like the head of Tiburon studios... I might. :D

I'll take a picture of the results with my phone and then run like hell. :cool:

[Jonbo298]

When Sega had ESPN on there side, there was still Sega Sports games being made alongside EA. Now that EA is trying to shut out any competition in the sporting area, whats to say EA won't just make a really crap game. Everyone who enjoys a certain sports game will have to buy it unless they want to stick with last years model which people don't like ;)

[Typhoid]

This is a blatant cop out. EA is scared. Little babies. I should just not ever buy anything EA because of the fact they can't stand a little competition.


Stop whining. Seriously.

Fine, dont buy anything EA, have fun never playing any game ever again.

How many tims does someone have to say something before you realise it for what it is?

The game Industry is a business. It is about money. Thats all.

They dont care what people do with their games, they dont care if you burn it, melt it, throw it away, as long as you buy it, they dont care.

By basically buying out the competition, they boost their own profit, and secure the gaming industry in said genré for said number of years.


What about hockey? The real sport?

Remember when the NHL bought out the WHL (or WHA, I cant remember) because they were a rival league? Why did they do that? Because its a business, it will boost their revenue in the longrun, and they screwed the competitors over.

Welcome to the world of capitalism. The all mighty dollar means more than anything. If you dont have money, your worthless. EA has money. They spend it at a whim. They'll make that amount of money back because they will be the only title to buy.

EA is scared.

Excuse me?

Scared?

If you headed a corporation, and you had a chance to put out your biggest, and all rivals, would you not do so? Its not a matter of being scared or not, its a matter of opportunity and funds.

[Jonbo298]

I expect many flames for my comments but my opinion won't change. EA is the Microsoft of the Gaming Industry. I don't like it when there is no competition so that a company can do as they please without needing to make the product good.

I'm not saying EA will make crappy games but with the way EA has been lately, I disprove of it whether you like it or not.

[Bond]

Do you dislike capitalism, Jonbo?

[Null]

When Sega had ESPN on there side, there was still Sega Sports games being made alongside EA. Now that EA is trying to shut out any competition in the sporting area, whats to say EA won't just make a really crap game. Everyone who enjoys a certain sports game will have to buy it unless they want to stick with last years model which people don't like ;)

Sega got ESPN to help get them control of the sports gaming section...
all companies try to put out thier competition, thats the very nature of competition; to be the best and put otu the others.

but EA Sports have competition, always will. Themselves. they always have to add move to make people want it over the old one with new roster updates. thats all sports games ever are anyway.

[Perfect Stu]

LOL @ Jonbo

EA are scaredy cats! :lol:

[Joeiss]

I look forward to getting Madden 2006... I highly doubt they will take away anything from their games, and will continue to improve on them like they normally do (I doin't know about year to year, considering I only buy the same brand sports games every other year or so).

[Jonbo298]

:D :D :D :D :D