Now that I think about Mike Laidlaw did say during DA2's production in a interview that when looking back at DAO and getting ideas for DA2 that he hated the idea how having to queue actions and having to wait for them to be executed in game, he felt the game should respond as soon as you pushed the button.
It's where the term "You push a button and something awesome has to happen" originated...
Voting EA the worst company seems quite stupid, its videogames and not the end of the world. Aren't there corporations that take part in war? or uses child labour in 3rd world countries to save money and earn even more money, or just foreclose on houses leaving people on the street with nowhere to go. Yeah the vote seems justified!
But they made videogames some people didn't like. Obviously that is the gravest of sins.
But they made videogames some people didn't like. Obviously that is the gravest of sins.
I really don't like this argument. Not one bit. People keep questioning why EA won two years in a row over others that are far more heinous. But they're not looking at it a certain way. If Bank of America had won worst company ever for that year, they literally would not give a single iota of a rat's ass. The difference with EA is-and that link posted above proves this-is that they WOULD care. And they did. They finally looked at themselves in the mirror and wondered why they were suddenly growing a forked tail on their backside and giant red horns on their head.
Additionally, I find the fact that EA won two years in a row the most beautiful exercise in democracy since America revolted against their tyrannical British overlords. Sure, Bank of America IS a worse company. But that's not the point. An entire generation collectively said "**** it, we've had enough, here's your seal of disapproval."
It certainly wasn't the baby boomers who voted for EA those two years. And it probably wasn't generation X either. It was the millennials. And that makes this whole thing even more special. Because right now, baby boomers are pretty much still in play all over America. But millennials finally made their voice heard for something that was important to them. That is something to behold.
I really don't like this argument. Not one bit. People keep questioning why EA won two years in a row over others that are far more heinous. But they're not looking at it a certain way. If Bank of America had won worst company ever for that year, they literally would not give a single iota of a rat's ass. The difference with EA is-and that link posted above proves this-is that they WOULD care. And they did. They finally looked at themselves in the mirror and wondered why they were suddenly growing a forked tail on their backside and giant red horns on their head.
Additionally, I find the fact that EA won two years in a row the most beautiful exercise in democracy since America revolted against their tyrannical British overlords. Sure, Bank of America IS a worse company. But that's not the point. An entire generation collectively said "**** it, we've had enough, here's your seal of disapproval."
It certainly wasn't the baby boomers who voted for EA those two years. And it probably wasn't generation X either. It was the millennials. And that makes this whole thing even more special. Because right now, baby boomers are pretty much still in play all over America. But millennials finally made their voice heard for something that was important to them. That is something to behold.
A generation said "I don't care about the economical collapse that influenced most of the world and destroyed people's lives, I care about some entertainment products that weren't perfect and the company who published them cares about *gasp* profits!" Go democracy! What a time to be alive!
EA didn't change their course, because people complained on some stupid poll, they changed, because their tight budgeting and developer rushing caused some studio/franchise deaths and generated tangible losses for developers under their command.
Nothing really.
The tiny microscopic bit of faith I do have, is more because of Bioware and their past glories, not EA.
This is kind of where I'm at. While their games have slowly, steadily gotten worse (IMO) in the qualities I look for in a good game, they've done enough in the past that I liked to make me hold out hope they might "get it" once again.
Also, I actually didn't mind the DLC that Bio Montreal worked on for ME3. Not very RPG-heavy, but then again I'm not expecting EA or Bio to bring the ME franchise back to its RPG roots. It's a shooter with a good story and minimal RPG elements now.
I just hope they don't do "open world" like they did with Dragon Age Inquisition. Fun enough story, great companion characters, but most of the open world content was boring as all hell.
I really don't like this argument. Not one bit. People keep questioning why EA won two years in a row over others that are far more heinous. But they're not looking at it a certain way. If Bank of America had won worst company ever for that year, they literally would not give a single iota of a rat's ass. The difference with EA is-and that link posted above proves this-is that they WOULD care. And they did. They finally looked at themselves in the mirror and wondered why they were suddenly growing a forked tail on their backside and giant red horns on their head.
Additionally, I find the fact that EA won two years in a row the most beautiful exercise in democracy since America revolted against their tyrannical British overlords. Sure, Bank of America IS a worse company. But that's not the point. An entire generation collectively said "**** it, we've had enough, here's your seal of disapproval."
It certainly wasn't the baby boomers who voted for EA those two years. And it probably wasn't generation X either. It was the millennials. And that makes this whole thing even more special. Because right now, baby boomers are pretty much still in play all over America. But millennials finally made their voice heard for something that was important to them. That is something to behold.
You do realize all I have to say is that the poll is wholly arbitrary and ushers in nothing because, like most online polls, it is full of **** right?
Never mind the real problem of people on the net having sour grapes; when those two polls commenced, Mass Effect 3 and SimCity were just released. Something to keep in mind, considering the masses were in the throes of a temper tantrum over both games at the time made the feelings raw.
But yeah, those polls were always bs in the end, I don't know why people take it so seriously.
I have nothing but good memories of EA published games. So, they have given me a lot of hope.
I think Ubisoft should buy EA off to be partners with BioWare to make better games and not ripping people off.
Ubisoft and not ripping people off in the same sentence? We're talking about the company, which firmly inserts microtransactions everywhere, keeps pumping out sequels without adding much, delays and ships mediocre pc ports, blacklists websites which dare to criticize its shady process, and releases broken games and enforces an embargo on reviews that ends after the game hits store shelves (and lies to customers asking not to trust reviews). Ubisoft is certainly no better than EA, and they have been extremely anti-consumer in the last years. And Ubisoft does not have enough money to buy EA.
Also, Sony buying EA or Bioware would mean PS4 exclusivity, no one would want that.
Iron bulls romance, BioWare still knows funny.
Yes. They finally mastered writing for sitcoms.
They've been pretty good about identifying the worst parts of their combat and improving upon them.
But they also "improve" working aspects of combat sometimes and make them worse. All in all combat tends to become more streamlined and engaging with each successive game, at the expense of depth.
Melee, for example, was significantly more interesting in DAI than it was in DAO. But magic was significantly dumbed down.
So if you're like "I want to play X playstyle, but it sucks" then chances are it's going to improve. But if you're like "I love Y playstyle, more of that please!" then you're probably gonna be disappointed.
Still, that's the best I can come up with.
You do realize all I have to say is that the poll is wholly arbitrary and ushers in nothing because, like most online polls, it is full of **** right?
Never mind the real problem of people on the net having sour grapes; when those two polls commenced, Mass Effect 3 and SimCity were just released. Something to keep in mind, considering the masses were in the throes of a temper tantrum over both games at the time made the feelings raw.
But yeah, those polls were always bs in the end, I don't know why people take it so seriously.
Sour grapes, temper tantrums. Hmm...
Not very original, but it does have the expected condescending ring to it.
It's always funny to see the shills religiously defending a company that the best thing that can be said about it is that it is possibly not the worst.
Sour grapes, temper tantrums. Hmm...
Not very original, but it does have the expected condescending ring to it.
It's always funny to see the shills religiously defending a company that the best thing that can be said about it is that it is possibly not the worst.
EA these days is actually decent enough, I find, all things considered
Origin has great customer service (far better than Steam's that's for damn sure) and finally got around to making sales and gives free games once in a while. It also seems to be way less of a ressource hog than Steam too.
They fudged up Battlefield 4's launch, but then had a dedicated team polish it so that it is now a very good game.
They had no problem giving Bioware the time to do their games post DA2.
I mean, it's still EA, so they still do stuff like the cash-grab that was Battlefront (and even then I'm not sure how much DICE is to blame here) and the timed-exclusive DA:I DLC, but compared to ye olde EA they have much improved, both in being gamer-friendly and profitable.
And yes, comparison does tell us something. In a time where Activision still releases Call of Duty 65: Electric Boogaloo every year, Bethesda still releases bug-filled messes, Square Enix milks their franchises dry with episodic nonsense and sketchy pre-order schemes, Ubisoft rushes out nigh-identical sequels ad nauseum, and even Blizzard is starting to fall into the money trap (to say nothing of *yuck* Konami), EA stands as definitely the least bad AAA publisher of today as I see it. I'm not sure how pointing this out makes anyone a shill.
It doesn't matter what EA does, they aren't developing the game.
I enjoyed DA:I for the most part and the enjoyment I have gotten out of EA games over the years far outweighs the few negative experiences I've had with their games.
Sour grapes, temper tantrums. Hmm...
Not very original, but it does have the expected condescending ring to it.
It's always funny to see the shills religiously defending a company that the best thing that can be said about it is that it is possibly not the worst.
Not really shilling, more so an observation from what really happened.
As someone in those trenches at the time here, it was pretty obvious. Besides, I already posted a more reasoned response three pages back anyway, but with all the AAA companies have flaws to them, the last point is kind of moot.
They've been pretty good about identifying the worst parts of their combat and improving upon them.
But they also "improve" working aspects of combat sometimes and make them worse. All in all combat tends to become more streamlined and engaging with each successive game, at the expense of depth.
Melee, for example, was significantly more interesting in DAI than it was in DAO. But magic was significantly dumbed down.
So if you're like "I want to play X playstyle, but it sucks" then chances are it's going to improve. But if you're like "I love Y playstyle, more of that please!" then you're probably gonna be disappointed.
Still, that's the best I can come up with.
The melee combat is still boring as all hell for me in Dragon Age. Any time I try a warrior its an exercise of patience, outside of the 2-handed types who are a bit more fun but usually more fragile.
I do agree on the skill trees being gutted though, especially for mages. It was kind of sad to see the flavor disappear.
Ive actually had a lot more fun being rogues in Inquisition. Archers and dual blades just have more variety to them for some reason, despite the same shortcomings as all the skill progression in the game.
Yes. They finally mastered writing for sitcoms.
What can you actually blame EA for?
Pulling the plug on failed franchises and studios? Would you love EA if they swallowed those losses and kept pumping money into bad investments? If EA pulls the plug on BioWare; BioWare will have brought it on themselves.
It's not always failed studios. EA have interfered in the development of games more than once, then blamed the developer for its failings when it fails to generate sufficient sales. In this though, EA are not better nor worse than any other big publisher.
It's not always failed studios. EA have interfered in the development of games more than once, then blamed the developer for its failings when it fails to generate sufficient sales. In this though, EA are not better nor worse than any other big publisher.
True, although in some cases the developers shoot themselves in the foot.
Westwood studios is a prime example, when half of the development team quit when EA purchased the studio. That team was also working on Tiberian Sun at the time, so they left it half-complete.
EA did put restrictions on them, but when half of your studio quits before they even get into the door...i'm all for developers doing their own thing and living stress free but you at least finish your contracted job before looking for work elsewhere. Quitting mid-way caused more damage for the people who stayed.
It was after that they tightened the reins, although that was mostly under Larry Probst who was notorious for some terrible practices, the EA spouse did come from his oversight.
Ubisoft and not ripping people off in the same sentence? We're talking about the company, which firmly inserts microtransactions everywhere, keeps pumping out sequels without adding much, delays and ships mediocre pc ports, blacklists websites which dare to criticize its shady process, and releases broken games and enforces an embargo on reviews that ends after the game hits store shelves (and lies to customers asking not to trust reviews). Ubisoft is certainly no better than EA, and they have been extremely anti-consumer in the last years. And Ubisoft does not have enough money to buy EA.
Also, Sony buying EA or Bioware would mean PS4 exclusivity, no one would want that.
Hey Ubisoft are very successful with their franchises especially the Assassin's Creed series, true they are making the game over and over, but people love that game and their games are your money's worth. The game got almost everything right such as a good story to make people think, gameplay and combat is off the charts and better than Dragon Age combat gameplay, characters, graphics, and the best of all their open world is more alive and authentic more so than DA:I. So I think that Ubisoft can be a potential publisher for BioWare, because I like the way of how they make games more fun to play and they put a lot of passion to make games better and better.
How successful a franchise is has nothing to do with quality or content. Call of Duty sells tens of millions, doesn't mean the franchise is perfect and innovative. And the writing in Assassin's Creed is so weak at times. They have no idea what to do with the "modern day" plot. Graphics are comparable to DAI, and BW will get better, because they cut old gen and got more comfortable with developing under Frostbite. Gameplay has many terrible elements (tower defense, trinket collection, empty missions). They definitely don't have more passion than BW. Their formula is not making better games, but pump out however many they can without changing anything, and then react if people complain. The fact that they're making 2-3 AC games at the same time is a clear sign of that.
And EA would never sell Ubi their only RPG division. Even if Ubisoft could afford it.
What has EA done in the past couple of years that gives me hope for ME:A ?
Mass Effect (1) and Dragon Age: Origins.
Those two games are always, and will always be the two games I look back to and think "That was BioWare's highest points". If they made those two games, they can make anything (good). That, I believe, is what gives me hope. More realistically, however, I'd say that specifically for ME:A what gives me hope is that 1) it's the team responsible for ME3's multiplayer (which I absolutely love, and I do refer only to multiplayer here), and 2) it has a different lead writer (to put it softly).
Retour en haut