44 réponses à ce sujet

[SlottsMachine]

Yeah: how about no?

I've been gaming since I was 3 years old, started out on a PC without a harddisk and those big ass floppies you could bend to your hearts desire... and they;d still work. I could be called a hardcore gamer in every definition, both in time spent on games as well in in intensity.

But I refuse to call myself a hardcore gamer. Because hardcore gamers are ruining gaming.

'Hardcore gamers' have these idiotic ideas about how a game should be, and they go nuts if it isn't like that picture perfect thing they designed in their mind.

If you're looking for an example of this: go the Obsidian forums. Check the Pillars of Eternity section. It's like a copy of the DA:I forums after release. Game's different in every possible way, complaints are almost identical.

With every game's release, I move farther away from identifying with hardcore gamers. They don't want better games. They just want games they can play in their own nerd clique. They don't want their hobby to become big, they want to be different.

They are like those guys who only like bands that are 'underground' *puke*

 

As a self-identified hardcore game I take offence to this!

 

Am i doing it right?

[wolfhowwl]

Oh, EA...

 

 

It's not like EA would even have to bribe anyone for ME3 scores.

 

The series was an overhyped critics' darling from the beginning with ME1 having severe problems, probably worse than anything in ME3, and still getting a 91.

[Farangbaa]

As a self-identified hardcore game I take offence to this!
 
Am i doing it right?

Yes, almost.

You should proceed with claiming you'll never read any of my posts again. You'll boycot me forever cause you have been hurt in your hardcore gamer balls.

AND EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW HOW EVIL I AM.

So yeah, almost.

edit:
And while I'm in my drunk whining mode:
Gamers love to pretend that decades ago things were better. Companies cared about their customers and all the blabla.

Really? That's funny. I remember struggling trough Super Mario Bros 3, leaving my NES on at night because, oblivious as I was, I thought that saving just wasn't possible on a cartridge. But it was. Final Fantasy 1 (1987, people), already allowed you to save your game.

They just didn't allow you to save to make the game harder.

Imagine that, a company releasing a game without a save option today. World would be too small.

[SlottsMachine]

T

 

Yes, almost.

You should proceed with claiming you'll never read any of my posts again. You'll boycot me forever cause you have been hurt in your hardcore gamer balls.

AND EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW HOW EVIL I AM.

So yeah, almost.
 

 

That sounds like too much work so I guess I'll forgive you. 

[Killdren88]

My Vengeance will be eternal if Battlefront 3 is terrible.

[TurianRebel212]

Eh, the only great EA IP that has always been an EA IP was Battlefield, and they have killed it. It's dead. BF4 was the coffin and Hardline was the final nail. Apart from Battlefield....... I mean, they have had BioWare since 2010, but BioWare's best game in the last 5 years (Mass Effect 2) was already going gold when EA took the helm so they weren't really responsible for ME2. BioWare did have back to back to back stinkers under EA- (Dragon Age 2, SWOTOR, ME3) all were pretty lame, DA3 is a somewhat return to form for BioWare but vastly overrated and not without it's issues and game breaking bugs, cause Frostbite is such an awesome engine :-)

 

But really..... EA isn't really that good. They have some good studios but they have stained and tarnished most of them. 

 

 

Visceral is going to be the next Maxis. And if DICE Stockholm fails with Battlefront like they did with BF4, they'll be gone too. 

 

 

EA destroys almost every studio the acquire. BioWare seems pretty safe tho, because despite the lackluster fan reception of ME3 and SWOTOR, they sold very well. And the multiple game breaking bugs of DA3 couldn't stop many fans and critics liking the game and even awarding it game of the year awards..... (Paid for by EA, I have no doubt, but still..... I guess it's good for BioWare)

 

 

However, at the end of the day the customer only has themselves to blame. If you keep buying EA games as they currently are (Broken, un-polished, rushed products) then they won't change. And why should they???? If customers are stupid enough to buy them........ Then good for EA. 

[Dermain]

It's not like EA would even have to bribe anyone for ME3 scores.

 

The series was an overhyped critics' darling from the beginning with ME1 having severe problems, probably worse than anything in ME3, and still getting a 91.

 

There's something I'm going to nitpick here.

 

Mass Effect 1 was developed BEFORE EA bought BioWare.

 

The PC version of Mass Effect 1 was released AFTER EA bought BioWare.

[Dermain]

I don't think he was implying that EA was involved in Mass Effect

 

Well since he compared it to ME3 I felt like pointing out that all of the problems with ME1 could be blamed entirely on BioWare. Then again, you could say that about ME3 as well given the people involved in the ending.

[wolfhowwl]

Well since he compared it to ME3 I felt like pointing out that all of the problems with ME1 could be blamed entirely on BioWare. Then again, you could say that about ME3 as well given the people involved in the ending.

 

I know ME1 wasn't published by EA. My point was that from before EA was involved, the series was getting excellent reviews that gave a pass to serious problems. ME1 got a 91 with terrible combat, poor RPG elements (dat inventory and loot), and repetitive, low quality side content. The 360 version also had some very bad performance problems. ME2 and ME3 just continued this trend with game journalists.

 

After the ending caused everyone to lose their minds, people got angry that the free pass the first two games enjoyed was applied this time to a game they didn't like. But really if reviewers didn't give a damn about ME1's serious problems they're not going to be giving much scrutiny to ME3 stuff like a videogame story being bad.

 

I don't think there was any bribery or sinister agendas at work with ME3 though there is probably a discussion to be had about how "story driven" games are reviewed and standards applied to certain developers.

[Garryydde]

Never forget Ultima IX

[mybudgee]

 there is probably a discussion to be had about how "story driven" games are reviewed and standards applied to certain developers.

There it is

[SlottsMachine]

Agreed. I'm not even sure where EA would start finding that balance though. They've been in the business of accessibility for years. I do know their companies shouldn't pull a Sims 4 again and remove legacy features from a series. 

 

That's a good point. LOL. 

[AventuroLegendary]

Is it weird that my best memories of EA came from a little licensed movie game from 2003?

[ApocAlypsE007]

Should EA go back to its roots?

Nahhh...

More like roots should stab EA's back.

[Shepenwepet]

I just finished watching a video today about a game called Archon. It's somewhat similar to chess but has an interesting real time fight mechanic. I was shocked to find out it was produced by EA and had some blurb about it being by gamers for gamers yada yada.....

 

If EA want to rescue their reputation they need to remake games like this instead of buying out companies and destroying them. I found the game to look very enjoyable and with a major update could prove to be a big hitter.  

 

There was a game that came out in 2004 that might be what you're looking for - it was called Wrath Unleashed. 

 

...Archon was still much better, though. 

[Riven326]

I would say Ubisoft has always been worse. EA is bad, but Ubisoft had DRM that would literally melt your HDDs.

Worse on PC, sure. But EA is bad on consoles as well.

[Cunning Villain]

There is only one way to "change" a company like EA, and that's to stop giving them your money for their products. I don't believe the gaming community will organize on a mass level to boycott publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft, so I don't know when shady business practices like paying $60+ for glorified beta tests or removing content/features from a game and making it day-one DLC/adding it to a collector's edition just to leech an extra $10-$20 out of the consumer will ever end. Gamers want to play games, and I don't think we'll give that up to take a stand against the shysters who run these multimillion/billion-dollar companies. Plus, the community is too fragmented for it to happen. It's like high school cliques or the gangs of New York out here.