635 réponses à ce sujet

[billy the squid]

slimgrin wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

EA is a legal entity like a person is a legal entity. Both can be held tortiously and criminally liable. In effect Companies are "people" in the legal sense, governed by the minds of the executive board, like a person.

But by their structure, can't it be argued they become a seperate entitly apart from the people that created it?

Yes, they are seperate from the people who created it, providing they are a ltd., the Company will be tortiously liable in a civil case, but the people that governed it a can be held criminally liable, despite the actions being that of the company.

[Maverick827]

Degs29 wrote...
Obviously it means I think there [/i][i]should be a concept of respect or disrepect with regards to industry.  I wasn't even bashing your point of view.  I basically said that I could understand your point of view, even if I disagree.  Not sure why you felt that required sarcasm.   

If that was your point, it wasn’t obvious at all.

It reads like the same annoying, tautological “EA is bad because EA is bad; you’re wrong because you don’t think EA is bad” argument that haters continuously make.

[slimgrin]

 http://www.youtube.c...v=XZxXEidtxHk#!

[Zanallen]

That video has some interesting "facts" about ME3.

[bEVEsthda]

I really don't believe EA's problems comes from not understanding that quality is important. I think they do understand this, and that they're prepared to invest in quality, and have - as they see "quality".

I think those problems comes from them not understanding WHAT quality IS. They think quality is things like "iconic" looks, and strict adherence of the gameplay paradigm to the ancient console formula, flashy, supposed to be"fun"-things, cinematic videosequences, things like an easily recognisable, cartoonish brand-look. Those things are supposed to be "quality". Well, they might be for marketing, but they sure aren't for gamers.

And what maybe happens, is that their marketing people, and their game design consultants, in providing "help and support" to newly acquired and reorganized developer studios, are perverting their every game.

Dice escapes to a degree, because it's dark and cold there, and because of the geographic distance.

And EA's problems with understanding what quality is, comes from their overriding misunderstanding of who gamers are. I mean - you really have to have a really weird perception of who your customers are, when you think something like EC fixes ME3, not to mention thinking the first ending of ME would hack it. That picture is reinforced by the dramatic and imbecilic changes to the DA franchise in DA2. Further so, by the direction Spore was forced into. And who are supposed to play the new Sim City? Why is it even named 'Sim City'? 'The Sims' City' would be more appropriate. 

I think quality is the big problem for EA. I think critics are too focused on first day dlc, DRM and microtransfers. I think EA could have gotten away with DLC and microtransactions, just as DRM, if they had made them in a solid quality way. As it is, it's just forced-on rubbish that annoy people. And now, well now gamers are really sensitive to these things. And what was supposed to happen, when you give people a bad experience?

It's hard to get the impression that EA understands the situation, or what to do about it. One is left with the feeling that the people, whoever they are, who caused the various disasters, are left to continue their crusade against the enemy. "- We didn't actually do anything wrong, it's the gamers' fault". I've already seen several statements from wellknown EA, Maxis and Bioware figures, to the effect that the problem is really the kind of persons that gamers are. It's the personality makeup of the market, that has the industry in a crisis. Even some developers have said things to this effect, which I take as proof of how good the inner brainwashing mechanism is.

Despite that EA and Bioware constantly claim they're listening, and actively invite feedback, there's not a single shred of evidence that they're listening to any feedback, from anyone other than those who already likes  their DA2, or ME3. "Opinions differ a lot",  they say (no, not really), "there's no clear majority voice" (Oh yes, there is).

Might it not be so that their own marketing viral forum posters and EA stealth posters, actually confuse and mislead the developers? When they try to defend the failed games?
Make the thought-experiement to assume that there really are EA stealth posters out there, and viral marketing posters. How would you recognize them? Wouldn't they always stand for the EA/Bioware official position, on any issue? Contrieve longwinded, contorted nonsense to defend something undefendable? Post prolifically all day? Be immune to moderators?  How many identities would they represent in total? As a reasonable estimate. How does that figure correspond to the number of votes (in the various polls) that say the ME3 ending is good? Or the number of votes that say the changes to DA2 are good? Wouldn't it be basically all of them, give or take a few?

I'm committed to give DA3 aka DA:I a fair chance. But sofar, from what have trickled down, I absolutely don't feel listened to. On the contrary, I've been told that all the changes to DA, which I don't like, stays in. "It's not productive to even discuss this, because it'll not change, ask for something else", I get told. "I'm easy to please, I want role play", I say. "We discourage any discussion on what role play is", I get told.

So what is going to separate DA3 from being just a polished DA2:2? A game I want as little, as I would want a Sim City, that is far removed from anything that the Sim City franchise used to stand for. The "quality" of DA3 doesn't matter, as long as the EA/Bioware view on what "quality" is doesn't change. Spend 3-4 years and many millions, in the end it doesn't matter how polished it is, if it's a game I don't want.
It appears EA makes perverted games that noone wants, just because their marketing department sees a chance to sell comics- and anime-licences, or be able to nickle and dime people. They honestly believe they ship "quality", but they don't. They have their priorities wrong. Really. How else could anyone ever assume the ME3 ending was not important?

How could they even release ME3 as it was? It's not an issue that is in any way either subtle or trifle! How could they think MP was more important? How could they think EC would fix it? Why do they persist in telling us it did? Those four questions are mindboggling, hinting a corporation that is, collectively, insane (there's no other word for it). But in the answers, lies the core of all of EA's troubles.

If EA are able to face those questions, instead of fleeing and denying them, and change their inner corporation culture and workings accordingly, they have a bright future.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 avril 2013 - 04:45 .

[Degs29]

Maverick827 wrote...

Degs29 wrote...
Obviously it means I think there [/i][i]should be a concept of respect or disrepect with regards to industry.  I wasn't even bashing your point of view.  I basically said that I could understand your point of view, even if I disagree.  Not sure why you felt that required sarcasm.   

If that was your point, it wasn’t obvious at all.

It reads like the same annoying, tautological “EA is bad because EA is bad; you’re wrong because you don’t think EA is bad” argument that haters continuously make.

I could just as easily label you EA's white knight for jumping down my throat with that.  I think companies should respect their customers and I think some actions EA and it's derivatives have participated in shows a lack of that.  I think the majority of complaints stem from that lack of respect.

If you think a company doesn't owe that to their customers, that's your belief and that's fair.  I certainly don't hate Bioware, even though their reputation isn't as sterling in my eyes as it used to be.  I despise some of their practices and that is all I criticize.  I also praise their great works.  I'm one of few, I think, on this board who repeatedly praises both DA2 and ME3, even with their flaws, because I think people focus too much on the negatives.  I take issue with company policies, not the company's products.

[Chromie]

This is worth a read.

Vito Gesualdiwrote...
Of course, Electronic Arts themselves actually brought back the NFL Blitz franchise in 2012, which is pretty disgusting when you think about it. It’s one thing to commit murder, it’s another to reanimate your victim's corpse and force it to dance for nickels. 

I lol'd.

Modifié par Skelter192, 23 avril 2013 - 04:45 .

[bEVEsthda]

EntropicAngel wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

 I mean - you really have to have a really weird perception of who your customers are, when you think something like EC fixes ME3, not to mention thinking the first ending of ME would hack it. That picture is reinforced by the dramatic and imbecilic changes to the DA franchise in DA2. Further so, by the direction Spore was forced into. And who are supposed to play the new Sim City? Why is it even named 'Sim City'? 'The Sims' City' would be more appropriate. 

I don't necessarily agree with all of this. I personally was a person who went into ME3 fully expecting it to fail, and wanting it to fail--and being blown away by how amazing it was. Especially the ending.

Sure. That might be your opinion, and if this was a thread on discussing the end of ME3, rather than EA's problems, we could have a discussion here. But as it is, it's hard to discern what your point is here?
I mean, you can't seriously suggest that "it's the gamers' fault", right?

And your points about the changes? All data we have says that EA takes a hands-off approach to their companies--which renders your point invalid. Unless you have proof otherwise, of course.

So it's just bad luck, eh? Or the developers own fault? What's your theory here?
Or maybe nothing is wrong? - It's the gamers' fault? I don't want to sound hostile here, but I think you do have to question the background for EAs disasters.

Leaving the developers independence, I understood as primarily one of J.R.'s solutions to EA's quality problems. Meaning it wasn't so much in effect in the past. Though I know that Will Wright and 'The Sims' got an early 'hands off' -status. I had great hopes for the changes J.R. was going make to EA. And he did one thing: Have EA establish themselves in digital sales. However, my impression is that he was unable to follow through on other ambitions. As to why, would mostly be speculations. I do note, however, that he quickly became vulnerable through disasters which he didn't see coming. Maybe he was unwittingly part of engineering some of them? I don't know, but he does seem to have been completely unaware of some other things. After SWtOR tanked, finances became his main concern. And those concerns may have been driving other disasters. Certainly, such things must have preoccupied his mind, when he gave a certain, unfortunate interview on microtransactions.

As for hands off, that may have been the policy, but I think it's safe to say that it cannot actually have worked out in practice, the way many things are handled.

Let's start with the MP requirement, for example. That's not 'hands off'. And it's sure to affect the game design (and it did, ME3). And this elaborate scheme of nickel&diming, that Sim City is entirely built up around, and is unfortunately its major content, - are you so sure that Maxis came up with this independently? That theory is not  reasonable, since this scheme depends on EA server infrastructure. And we had also already heard about these marketing ideas, long before, from EA officers. So excuse me, but I find it quite easy to believe that Maxis was under influence. There are a number of other things like this, which reeks of influence, wether the ultimate decision is taken by the studio or not.

Based on things, which can be read through the lines of statements the doctors have made publically, as well as things various developers have said, I could speculate at length about DA2. I won't do that though, as it would still only be speculations, and it might also be a diservice to some persons. I'm just going to put forward the idea, that maybe the developer get a choice, and a suggestion, when they are in a situation where it represents "a deal they can't say no to". 

In the case of Spore, I actually know for a fact, that the design of the gameplay was under influence of EA's marketing department. But I don't want to go there.

Yet another circumstance which influence the developer studio: Personel transfers. So a person gets transfered from EA to Bioware. Then he's Bioware now, right? And the decisions, he influence, now come "independently" from Bioware themselves, right? Again, this concerns persons, and I don't want to go there.

It's not important enough to convince you. This discussion concerns EA's problems. They're real enough, whatever is the cause. You're not really suggesting that it's all just bad luck, are you?

I'll not say SWtOR tanking was obvious. But I did, actually, repeatedly predict, couple years in advance, that SWtOR would tank. And I gave the exact reason for it: - There are no other additional 12 mil gamers who are interested in playing a game like this. Not in the entire world. Everybody who's interested in that kind of gamerplay, is already playing WoW. If there were others, they would already also be playing WoW. If EA want gamers to care, EA must do a different kind of game. Chasing others' success is mostly a recipi for failure.

But:
Spore's original DRM scheme.
Spore's gameplay.
Origins EULA.
DA2's changes to the DA franchise.
ME3's end.
EA officers public statements on microtransfers.
Sim City launch.
Sim City gameplay.

All of these are disasters, which are starkly obvious, well in advance. Why weren't they obvious to EA? That question is the core of EA's problem, regardless if you think ME3's end is good or not. 

I can see only four possible answers to that question:
1 - Either, everything just floats with a massive momentum, which those, who have the ultimate responsibility, are unable to halt. So they just duck and pray. Which means EA's culture needs a major shakeup.
2 - Or, a load of explosive **** just floats, inevitable towards the fan, everybody desensitized and conditioned it must be OK, since noone else reacts, while those who have the ultimate responsibility are completely unaware. Which means EA's culture needs a major shakeup.
3 - Or, those who have the responsibility, have abyssmally poor taste and judgement, and shouldn't have the position inside the company that they have.
4 - Or, Large parts of EA personel are, heart and mind, completely convinced gamers are morons and idiots, who won't react whatever **** they're fed, as long as the **** is "awesome".

'1' is my favorite, - though I'm leaning towards that it's actually all four.

My point in these long posts, is that EA must, somehow, find a way to deal with itself. It's not just that they have made a few mistakes, "lets try do better next time". the problem is inside EA. It's not my task to find it, nor am I in a good position to do so. But EA must do so.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Not to derail the thread or anything, but Greg said recently that "EA gives you just enough role to hang yourself with." Meaning with a new acquisition and access to more money, these smaller studios suddenly have access to capital, resources and abilities they didn't before. So they can either play it too conservative, and wind up with a stale product, or go and shoot for the moon and wind up in a mess where they have gotten way outside their realm of expertise and strengths and created an entirely new beast with headaches they didn't even imagine.

I'd say Bioware is more guilty of the latter than being enslaved to EA. I'm sure there are some things that are handed down the line as "you must do this" but I would say ultimately, there is less of that then the ability to use tons more money... and the sudden pressure recouping said money involves.

[bEVEsthda]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Not to derail the thread or anything, but Greg said recently that "EA gives you just enough role to hang yourself with." Meaning with a new acquisition and access to more money, these smaller studios suddenly have access to capital, resources and abilities they didn't before. So they can either play it too conservative, and wind up with a stale product, or go and shoot for the moon and wind up in a mess where they have gotten way outside their realm of expertise and strengths and created an entirely new beast with headaches they didn't even imagine.

I'd say Bioware is more guilty of the latter than being enslaved to EA. I'm sure there are some things that are handed down the line as "you must do this" but I would say ultimately, there is less of that then the ability to use tons more money... and the sudden pressure recouping said money involves.

I heard Greg say that, but I'm not so sure that he meant exactly what you interpreted as the meaning. But nor do I believe that he was interested in telling things. Part of the game is that you don't. And the doctors walked away with full wallets.

Certainly not "enslaved". But brainwashed to embrace new (and false) perceptions?

Anyway, the 'strange' disasters aren't endemic to Bioware.

[Degs29]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I personally was a person who went into ME3 fully expecting it to fail, and wanting it to fail--and being blown away by how amazing it was. Especially the ending.

Why would you want it to fail?

I went into ME3 with a large amount of trepidation, but aside from the first and last 1.5 hours, I loved it.  Yes, there were aspects I didn't like, such as the lack of ME2 character content (which has been in part mitigated by Citadel), but it was still a very enjoyable game.  Especially the improvements to combat.  The ending was a hard thing to take, but I don't see why that would reflect negatively on the rest of the game.

[Battlebloodmage]

Capcom is the worst company with their shady practice of DLC "key" to unlock contents already in the game, re-releasing game like super-ultra-ultimate-arcade street fighters and Gold edition, etc. I personally don't think EA is as bad as people make them out to be.

[eroeru]

I just damn want to be able to play a game I've paid for. But for some reason or other I've been locked out of SWTOR, for instance (one-time-passwords that don't work, customer service that says "fvck off"). Also from the Sim City game - a game I'd happily buy if it weren't with a sh!t lying-spree and online system. Also from DA2. Which I'm locked out because of the pure and utter undignified mockery they've made of the series and the values it used to hold.

Modifié par eroeru, 24 avril 2013 - 07:04 .

[bEVEsthda]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 For Bevesthda, Greg said that, in addition to that EA rep that came out after the ME3 fiasco and said that they didn't "force" Bioware to change ME3. In addition, we have hoorayforicecream's link here in this very thread to an article that states quite plainly, as I understand it, that Origin was given free reign and EA only stepped in when Origin started messing up.
In light of that, I see no reason to believe claims that EA is messing up things.

??? But this is EA. The developers are part of EA. And EA do messup. That's why they win this poop award.
I mentioned this question about what's your point? Already before? I know that the developers have artistic freedom. That should have been obvious already from my previous posts. But that doesn't matter. Yes, the developers screw up. But there is likely a reason. Or else we wouldn't have this 100% screwup record. You want to believe, cathegorily, that since it's formally 'handsoff', EA doesn't have anything to do with it. That's not reasonable. Of course there is something in EA's ways to operate, which causes these disasters. Even if it's the 'hands-off' policy, itself. Now, I would say EA have many different customer-relations problems, but I've focused on their talent for messing up game franchises. But those other problems gives some hints, as well, that there is something peculiar about EA's company culture.

As I went into, already in my previous post, there are many ways in how a developer might be influenced, and reasonably always are. 

Your answers seem, to me, to be spinal column, defensive statements for EA. Why? I'm not arguing that EA is some evil organisation which do these things on purpose. And I do not understand what your point is? Are you really arguing that nothing is wrong? There is no evidence in your posts that hint that you think anything is wrong? So no need for change, right? No need to examine what went wrong, right? Just continue, business as usual?

I'll try to take these one at a time.

Spore's original DRM scheme.

I agree, any always online is stupid. This is the reason why I never bought Spore, and never will (unless that's patched out). But honestly, if you're going to hold this against EA, you should also hold it against Ubisoft, who didn't just do it for a one-off game, but used it consistently for thre or for years for all their releases.

That wasn't Spore's original DRM scheme. It was possible to play Spore offline. It only needed online authentication every tenth day.

The first DRM scheme entailed that each game-disc could only be installed three times. And each install needed an online connection. Further, Spore installed SecuROM on your computer without telling you so, any way whatsoever. It wasn't even mentioned in the EULA.
Now, I have to say that SecuROM have always promptly sent me patches that did indeed fix my various incompatibility problems with SecuROM. My experience with them was much better than my experience with EA customer support. But those things still meant many hours of frustration and extra work for me, many days with a dysfunctional PC. I'm not sure any of my problems were ever caused by the particular version of SecuROM that shipped with Spore. Still, people are wary of SecuROM for good reasons, and to just install it on peoples PCs, secretly, is quite offensive. Even illegal, I'm sure.

You have to keep in mind, that everybody then believed Spore was this wonderful game which we had followed for years in development. In one's mind, was thus the perception that one would live with this game and it's creations for a long time. Just like people do with previous versions of Sim City, for example. Also keep in mind that, not only a new computer, but also changes to the computer, like a new videocard, new hd, requires a new install of the game. So everybody immediately realized that the game would quickly be 'used up', had it got the life as a normal game. Another problem was that the game would also stop working the day the authentication servers were removed. And this for a game many had expected to be playing, on and off, for a decade, or even decades.

In the end nothing of this mattered, because gameplay was so abyssmally simplistic, uninteresting, even stupid. It wasn't the Maxis classic everybody had expected. This despite that the game contained fantastic, never before, or after, seen technology, which truly worked as advertized.
 
The problem was the gameplay, which was adapted for children. So in the end nobody cared, nobody reinstalled the game, nobody kept playing it. But that is beside the point. As is the fact that EA changed the DRM scheme to something much more acceptable: Five installs, and each uninstall could roll-back an install, and a removal tool for SecuROM was issued (which of course meant you couldn't play Spore any longer, but still...).

All that is beside the crucial point: Why could noone in EA see that the original DRM scheme was totally unacceptable? That's a complete mystery. And there you have a typical side of EA's problems.

Spore's gameplay.


I don't know anything about this, having not played it. Regardless, considering our knowledge--that EA takes a hands off approach--this tells me that the Maxis team, or whoever it was, messed up.

Of course Maxis screwed up. Is it important to blame the individual developer for you? Do you have a need to have EA stand shining, unblemished?
However, Maxis screwed up while being under a lot of pressure from EA's marketing, in tailoring the game for the market, which the marketing guys percveived for Spore. All decision were Maxis, sure. But they were under pressure to succeed, and they received lots and lots of "help" and "support" to "succeed", to "understand" what they had to do, to succeed. In particular about what the promised market for Spore looked like.

Origins EULA.

Valid, but I saw it and it was little more than Steam's EULA, so I didn't let it bother me--if I'm going to blame EA for software that scans my system, I'm going to do the same for others. In addition, Origins has a true offline mode that has never, never locked me out--Steam has done this to me dozens of times. I'll take the program that scans my system, but can't send that anywhere, and lets me play offline, over the program that doesn't scan but still retains uncomfortable control in their EULA, that tells me that my login information is "missing" every two weeks.

I think you miss this too. I meant the scandal-EULA. Not as it reads today. (though I'm sure it's still bad).
This pose the same question as Spore's DRM: How could it even happen?



<Opinions skipped>

EA officers public statements on microtransfers.

I've recently come to the realization that microtransactions are not a bad thing.

Of course they aren't!  But making greedy and mischievously sinister statements, publicly, on them, is a bad thing.
 Again this pose the question: - How could it even happen?

Wether microtransfers and DLC is good or bad is entirely up to the implementation. Just like DRM.
Here is unfortunately no reason to trust that EA is in a shape that knows how to make good implementations. And that's a problem.

Sim City launch.

What about it?

What exactly happened with the SimCity launch? What happened was, there were not enough servers. While it's not good, it's certainly not BAD. It's certainly not a premeditated thing.

Now, I'm led to believe that the servers were also down for longer than would be expected. But, again, that's nothing premeditated. That's not deliberate. Deliberate actions concern me, not accidents.

????
But yes, I sense that you somehow mainly want to argue that EA do not do bad things intentionally?
Why? Do you think I'm arguing that they do? Whether it's premeditated or not is not the issue.

That something, which should have been possible to prevent, and something which everybody else had foreseen and warned about, still is allowed to happen, does concern me. - Exactly these sort of things is at the core of EA's problems! EA has every reason to care, since it's EA that's damaged. Why are they so inept, at some things like these?

It seems like a lot of your arguments, and further the arguments of many in this thread, are predicated on the idea of EA "ruining" developers, when we have three sources telling us differently. I've yet to see proof that they're wrong.

No, my main argument was that it was easy to see the various disasters long in advance. So the fact that EA didn't and don't, is an issue that likely lies at the core of their problems. It's an striking aspect of their ineptitude as a company. If I had any power inside EA, I would leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of things like this.
There are things that desperately need to change. What exactly, I do not know, of course.

Developers become "ruined", inside EA. This is a well-established fact. An actual, historic, tangible fact.
The exact cause, or theories or discussions about the causes, cannot be used to 'prove' or 'disprove' this fact. It's a connected issue, but a different thing. Highly interesting, particularly for EA themselves, but still, that's not that developers are ruined or not, it's why or how. And that's a different thing. Connected, relevant, but a different thing.

I sense that you've skidded over the fact that EA studios did not have independence after Origin. It's a policy that reemerged somewhat more recently.
You also cling hard to your perception that the developers have independence, somehow rules out that they're not influenced. That position is not even reasonable. - Of course developer studios are affected and influenced by being a part of EA!  That's selfevident. Already in previous post I gave examples of how that can work. Besides, we have all sorts of 'positive testimonials' from purchased developers, on how much help and support they get from EA and how great it is to be part of EA. Already there your argument crumbles into dust. Further, we also had public parts of a discussion on how EA perceive that Dead Space must change, in order for the franchise to continue. ...So basically, you're just wrong.

But all of that concerns your point. It's not my point. (I repeated my point a couple of paragraphs above.)
But of course, as long as EA don't have their act together, the more independence, the better.

[Degs29]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Degs29 wrote...

Why would you want it to fail?

I went into ME3 with a large amount of trepidation, but aside from the first and last 1.5 hours, I loved it.  Yes, there were aspects I didn't like, such as the lack of ME2 character content (which has been in part mitigated by Citadel), but it was still a very enjoyable game.  Especially the improvements to combat.  The ending was a hard thing to take, but I don't see why that would reflect negatively on the rest of the game.

The MP.

I hated that with the fire of a thousands suns.

I still despise it, but I can ignore it now.

Oh, come now.   Couldn't you give it a fair chance?

I was skeptical of MP, but ended up liking it.  The only thing I didn't like about it was its link to the SP campaign.  In fact, ME3's MP was the reason I renewed my xbox live Gold subscription after 3 years.

[Ravensword]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Degs29 wrote...

Why would you want it to fail?

I went into ME3 with a large amount of trepidation, but aside from the first and last 1.5 hours, I loved it.  Yes, there were aspects I didn't like, such as the lack of ME2 character content (which has been in part mitigated by Citadel), but it was still a very enjoyable game.  Especially the improvements to combat.  The ending was a hard thing to take, but I don't see why that would reflect negatively on the rest of the game.

The MP.

I hated that with the fire of a thousands suns.

I still despise it, but I can ignore it now.

I don't know why so many people hated MP when other BW games had MP in them.

[spirosz]

Ravensword wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Degs29 wrote...

Why would you want it to fail?

I went into ME3 with a large amount of trepidation, but aside from the first and last 1.5 hours, I loved it.  Yes, there were aspects I didn't like, such as the lack of ME2 character content (which has been in part mitigated by Citadel), but it was still a very enjoyable game.  Especially the improvements to combat.  The ending was a hard thing to take, but I don't see why that would reflect negatively on the rest of the game.

The MP.

I hated that with the fire of a thousands suns.

I still despise it, but I can ignore it now.

I don't know why so many people hated MP when other BW games had MP in them.

Just because it works for a past title in Bioware, doesn't mean it will make sense for the context of a present title.  I personally do like the MP, but I'd rather it not of been in there, I miss SP only games, tbh.  Everything has to be social this, social that.  

[slimgrin]

 http://www.ea.com/ne...zational-update

[AresKeith]

I personally wasn't against adding MP to ME but I understood why others didn't

But my Issues with MP was: pre-EC Bioware tried to force you to play it to get the "best ending"

The MP only had one game mode, when I think multiple co-op game modes could have worked

And it didn't have a real connection with the SP other than that retarded EMS system

[spirosz]

slimgrin wrote...

 http://www.ea.com/ne...zational-update

EA and that mobile... 

[spirosz]

AresKeith wrote...

EMS system

I dislike EMS greatly.

[slimgrin]

spirosz wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

 http://www.ea.com/ne...zational-update

EA and that mobile... 

 "EA has aligned all elements of its organizational structure behind priorities in new technologies and mobile....in other words, we're making app games b*tiches. Sayonara."