329 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Fixit]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...


If I give someone money and they lack the talent to make something good, how is that my fault?

Well, there is this thing called culpa in eligendo.

Not entirely applicable, but still.

[Realmzmaster]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...


Bethesda is only publishing them; they're not actually making those games just like they aren't making TES Online.

Which is the same as  EA which publishes a lot of games, but people still point to them and say EA put flops on the shelf. Same holds true for any publisher. If your name is on the box you take part of the responsibility and blame. Also Bethesda provided the money for some of those flops.

We're not blaming EA because they happen to publish bad games; we're blaming EA because they cause games to turn out bad, or at least worse. I don't see Bethesda marketing as many day 1 DLCs and item packs as EA does, or hiring people like David Silverman. Bethesda also doesn't have a history of ruining franchises that were good and closing down studios.

If I give someone money and they lack the talent to make something good, how is that my fault? Will Brian Fargo fanboys be to blame if Wasteland 2 ends up sucking?

Bad investment, sure, but the quality of the product wasn't up to me.

If the company sticks its name on the product and publishes it yes it must assume part of the blame if it sucks. If the game is successful it recieves part of the praise. Bethesda pulished those flops hoping to recoup some money.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 23 août 2012 - 07:29 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...


Bethesda is only publishing them; they're not actually making those games just like they aren't making TES Online.

Which is the same as  EA which publishes a lot of games, but people still point to them and say EA put flops on the shelf. Same holds true for any publisher. If your name is on the box you take part of the responsibility and blame. Also Bethesda provided the money for some of those flops.

We're not blaming EA because they happen to publish bad games; we're blaming EA because they cause games to turn out bad, or at least worse. I don't see Bethesda marketing as many day 1 DLCs and item packs as EA does, or hiring people like David Silverman. Bethesda also doesn't have a history of ruining franchises that were good and closing down studios.

If I give someone money and they lack the talent to make something good, how is that my fault? Will Brian Fargo fanboys be to blame if Wasteland 2 ends up sucking?

Bad investment, sure, but the quality of the product wasn't up to me.

If the company sticks its name on the product and publishes it yes it must assume part of the blame if it sucks. If the game is successful it recieves part of the praise. Bethesda pulished those flops hoping to recoup some money.

So should Bethesda be praised for Fallout: New Vegas if Obsidian created it? 

I can't say I agree, but regardless, this is not why EA gets the blame.

[bEVEsthda]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...
Bethesada deserves much praise for knowing exactly what made their games so fun and addictive and then enhansing that and shrugging off things that were holding them back . . . Bethesada's on top of the game right now.

I don't mean to wade into any of these discussions, and I realize you're on the other side of the aisle when it comes to DA2 opinions, so my apologies for using your quote to make my point, but this passage is exactly how I've felt about Bathesda and the exact opposite of how I've felt about Bioware.  

To me, Bioware "just doesn't seem to get it" because it keeps downplaying its strengths and playing up its weaknesses.  It wants to take DA into a cinematic direction when the graphics just aren't that good and (imo) the art direction is very lackluster, ugly really.  I just can't understand that conjunction.  DA has never won much praise for its looks, but the cinematics that Bioware wants just bring looks to the forefront.  At least make the game look great before making cinematics such a focus!

Plus, they keep marginalizing their strengths.  The used to have a great reputation for storytelling, but (partly b/c of the cinematic focus) they keep making the storylines shorter (it was true going from DAO to DA2, and if the rumor on the "DA3 Information & Speculation" thread is true, DA3's story will be shorter than DA2's as well).  Although here maybe their strength is becoming their weakness.  Their reaction to the request that the story be more epic was (apparently) to offer another formulaic save-the-world plot via membership in an elite, secretive organization.  (Imo, "epic" is an issue of scope rather than content - surely there are other plotlines that could be epic?)  And of course, from "Witch Hunt" to DA2's Act III to ME3, they really need to work on their endings.

Then there's roleplaying, which is another strength they seem imo to be marginalizing.  They seem determined to narrow the scope of roleplay even though they've been very good at providing a diversity of roleplaying experience within a single game (although I realize some people like to argue the diversity of experience there was "illusory" or "cosmetic"; imo it's the player experience that's relevant, so whatever).

Anyway, just my opinion.

I think this is a great comment/analysis.

It's also admirably on topic. Unlike a certain utterly failed attempt to *defend* (or whatever) EA, by contrieveing that our all fav developer Bethesda is on the same level as EA. (Why would one even think that angle stands a chance? )

Not that I don't want success for EA. I truly do. Honest. I wish them the very best. May they release a new generation of Simcity that is not dumbed down the least, and as great as such a sequel deserves to be. And may it sell as well or better as SimCity ever sold (which was dam good).
May they release a new game based on Spore's technology. For adults this time (or at least +14). And about evolution this time. And may it this time achieve the success everybody expected from Spore.
And may they release a 'DA3:More Origins' that fulfills the promise of a spiritual successor to BG. And which, despite it's somewhat less than epic length, establishes the DA franchise as a slick new standard for the western cRPG. And makes DA a worthy rival of TES. And may they make lot's of money and may everybody buy all the dlc.
When it comes to what I think about EA, it's not me or Bethesda that is the problem.

[Realmzmaster]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...


Bethesda is only publishing them; they're not actually making those games just like they aren't making TES Online.

Which is the same as  EA which publishes a lot of games, but people still point to them and say EA put flops on the shelf. Same holds true for any publisher. If your name is on the box you take part of the responsibility and blame. Also Bethesda provided the money for some of those flops.

We're not blaming EA because they happen to publish bad games; we're blaming EA because they cause games to turn out bad, or at least worse. I don't see Bethesda marketing as many day 1 DLCs and item packs as EA does, or hiring people like David Silverman. Bethesda also doesn't have a history of ruining franchises that were good and closing down studios.

If I give someone money and they lack the talent to make something good, how is that my fault? Will Brian Fargo fanboys be to blame if Wasteland 2 ends up sucking?

Bad investment, sure, but the quality of the product wasn't up to me.

If the company sticks its name on the product and publishes it yes it must assume part of the blame if it sucks. If the game is successful it recieves part of the praise. Bethesda pulished those flops hoping to recoup some money.

So should Bethesda be praised for Fallout: New Vegas if Obsidian created it? 

I can't say I agree, but regardless, this is not why EA gets the blame.

 They should be praise for publishing a good game and Obsidian gets praised for creating one since Bethesda gave Obsidian the opportunity to create it. Bethesda holds the license to all things Fallout!.

I would fault EA the same way. I do not have a fav developer or publisher. I will call it as I see it. If the developers and publisher puts out a flop. I do not care how well they have done with other games. That one was a flop. I give Bethesda props for Skyrim even though it is a game that I think falls short compared to Morrowind.

Many think Skyrim is a great game. I praise Bethesda for that, but if Bethesda chooses to publish a dud I will call them on it especially when they front the money for it. Take back control when it was not done right . Gave it to another company to fix and still published a flop with even worst QA.

I will do the same for any publisher or developer. I do not have a fav developer or publisher. I have fav games.

I have games by the same companies. I praise them for their successful games and give them grief for the ones I think tanked.

I look at the game. If I like it I will give my praise and my comments on what could have been done better. 

Many gamers praise KOA as a excellent game. I give props to 38 studios for making a excellent game and for EA publishing it. But, 38 Studios no longer exists due to poor management. This left 400 people without jobs. Did not matter how great the game was if you do not watch the bottomline. 

What EA/Bioware did may affect it in the long run. The point is you have to make it to the long run. If you do not have the money to cover the short run, the long run does not matter.