EA Exec says "Gears of War has 0 innovation"

[quote name='PyroGamer']It's quite obvious why he said this:

He is trying to slam GoW in hopes of attracting attention to Army of Two (the game he is currently in charge of up at Montreal).

Army of Two's supposedly "innovative" system of multiplayer jump-in control of an AI teamate was taken away by Dom, and now Army of Two is nothing but a GoW rip-off.

That's it, just gaming politics, that's the only reason he supports the Eurogamer review: because it bashes Army of Two's competition.[/QUOTE]

Is there an echo in here? :)
 
i don't know why everyone is dissing the AI. i think its actually pretty good. Although, a couple of times Dom will just get stuck behind a wall and not follow me. But usually i tell Dom to go out and attack, while i stay behind covering, and shooting. It's almost always a suicide but he kills a couple guys before he dies, and once you kill all the guys, he automatically re-spawns, so no big deal
 
[quote name='Roufuss']
At least Gears of War didn't take content out of it for a next gen release, and then take out MORE content to charge $$$ for on the marketplace... that's innovation, thanks EA![/QUOTE]

It's pretty innovative for the shareholders. Whoever thought of this idea is a genius.
 
It may not be "innovative," but they nailed the co-op experience for me. It's not the best co-op game ever, but it's definately one of the best since the era of Turtles in Time/Double Dragon/Bad Dudes/Streets of Rage. Co-op gameplay (especially online/over Live) is what's missing in most games these days, but it looks like it may make a comeback if this game is any sign. Just need to allow more save files and fix up the save system a little.
 
I like Gears pretty well, but now that I'm about 75% through the campaign mode, I can't shake the feeling that I'm replaying Resident Evil 4 to a certain extent - the mansion/Fenix's house, mine cart, lava environments, etc. I hope Capcom has different ideas in store for RE5 because Gears has already answered the question of what the RE4 environments would look like rendered in 720p.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']It's quite obvious why he said this:

He is trying to slam GoW in hopes of attracting attention to Army of Two (the game he is currently in charge of up at Montreal).

Army of Two's supposedly "innovative" system of multiplayer jump-in control of an AI teamate was taken away by Dom, and now Army of Two is nothing but a GoW rip-off.

That's it, just gaming politics, that's the only reason he supports the Eurogamer review: because it bashes Army of Two's competition.[/QUOTE]

It would be great if CliffyB made a press release quoting what that guy said as his own but switching Gow with army of 2 once its released. :lol:
 
Hmm.... well... EA has put out some innovative days in their day, such as SSX and MVP Baseball, but they were followed by (mostly) boring, rehashed updates (save for SSX Tricky, which was actually improved). Many of EA's titles get stale fast because of this.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']This is how I think as well, but I've noticed ever sense the Wii came about there is this grass roots movement that "graphics don't matter" and "if a game dosen't innovate, it's garbage".[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying better graphics are a bad thing but I also don't think more intuitive gameplay one might call innovative and draw more people in is a bad thing either. Is Nintendo using this as a substitute for the graphics capability that the Wii can't provide? Absolutely. Is this neccessarily a bad thing? No because I think we're headed in the direction of the supposedly phony Nintendo ON and the Wii is the first step from Nintendo.
Originally part of the reason I wanted Nintendo to be successful for the Wii is because I like getting into the game more but I also want Nintendo to survive because they're the only GAME company left that makes consoles. Now with their bullshit gouge move on the $250 price point I'd like to say I don't care if they crash and burn eventually but I'd like to see thee Wii's setup survive. Oh btw the crash and burn sentiment does heartily go for MS and Sony, I'd rather a GAMING company take their place making consoles.
 
Joystiq has an article that outlines why innovation and gameplay are good, but also why graphics are important. Not that I want to rip on the Wii or Zelda, but its an important point.
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/11/nintendos-new-zelda-falls-flat/
In the latest Zelda, the game's designers have been forced to sabotage game play to atone for the console's graphical shortcomings. Example: roadside signs are illegible. In Zelda, merely reading signs becomes laborious and annoying. You must first walk up to the sign. You must then press the controller's "a" button. When you do this, the game zooms in on the sign (taking a moment to do this). The game then shows you the text of the sign. Finally, having read the sign, you must hit another button to zoom away from the sign and regain control of your character.

To read a sign in The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, merely stand in the street and look at it. Signs (by design) are meant to be read from afar. Zelda's clumsy sign-reading is just one example of how graphical shortcomings result in decreased immersion and a lower overall fun factor. Oblivion won praises for its immersive feel. Zelda falls short of the bar set by modern virtual worlds.

This simple example demonstrates the importance of graphics to game play. There are plenty of other game play elements affected by the Wii's weaker graphical engine. One more example: at one point the player must catch fish in order to solve a puzzle. Thanks to the indistinct graphics, it's actually impossible to tell how much of your bobber is underwater, making it more difficult to know when to set the hook in order to reel in a fish.
Click to expand...
Gameplay is important, but immersion is also important, and graphics are a big part of that. You can have a Katamari Damashii with tons of innovation and little on the graphical end, and still have an immersive and fun game. But, when the graphics detract from gameplay and immersion, as in the Zelda example, it hurts the game.

Also, something does not have to be innovative to be good, theres nothing wrong with taking an established formula and doing it well. Has Final Fantasy really been that innovative? This ties into the Eurogamer article on Gears of War, the same reviewer that panned it for "not being innovative", gave Resident Evil 4 a 9, Half Life 2 a 10... Were those more innovative? He calls Gears of War a template shooter... Which template had this kind of gameplay where cover is so important and fairly seamless? That in itself is a gameplay innovation.

Eurogamer's article smacks of typical European high brow, nose in the air arrogance and distaste for anything American. This guy gave Rallisport Challenge and a bunch of other rally race games great reviews, games that appeal to a European audience, and games that have been done to death.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
Eurogamer's article smacks of typical European high brow, nose in the air arrogance and distaste for anything American. [/quote]

But...Half Life 2 was made by Americans.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Joystiq has an article that outlines why innovation and gameplay are good, but also why graphics are important. Not that I want to rip on the Wii or Zelda, but its an important point.
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/11/nintendos-new-zelda-falls-flat/

Gameplay is important, but immersion is also important, and graphics are a big part of that. You can have a Katamari Damashii with tons of innovation and little on the graphical end, and still have an immersive and fun game. But, when the graphics detract from gameplay and immersion, as in the Zelda example, it hurts the game.

Also, something does not have to be innovative to be good, theres nothing wrong with taking an established formula and doing it well. Has Final Fantasy really been that innovative? This ties into the Eurogamer article on Gears of War, the same reviewer that panned it for "not being innovative", gave Resident Evil 4 a 9, Half Life 2 a 10... Were those more innovative? He calls Gears of War a template shooter... Which template had this kind of gameplay where cover is so important and fairly seamless? That in itself is a gameplay innovation.

Eurogamer's article smacks of typical European high brow, nose in the air arrogance and distaste for anything American. This guy gave Rallisport Challenge and a bunch of other rally race games great reviews, games that appeal to a European audience, and games that have been done to death.[/QUOTE]

I would agree that's a very good point, although kind of made with a crap example, perhaps. I mean, you have to click on signs to read them in Zelda, while you can read them just by looking at them in Oblivion? That's nice for Oblivion, but you still have to click on a book and read the pages once they fill the screen, don't you? Can't quite just look down and read the pages while you're standing next to it, like you would in the real world, right? Does that now suddenly make Oblivion less immersive? If we apply the standards of the Joystiq article across the board, that's what we're arguing for.

We're dealing with technology here. There will ALWAYS be limitations. And usually, there's nothing wrong with them. The technical limitations of the PS2 are what resulted in Okami's watercolor look, rather than the realistic look they originally planned, and that game is plenty immersive. It's "creativity limitations" that are the problem.

Let's remember that all of the games we play and love and are considered classics are, or were at one time, innovative. Final Fantasy was innovative. Resident Evil was innovative. Resident Evil 4 was innovative (look it its influence on Gears of War and Metal Gear Solid 4). Half-Life was innovative. Were they all nice looking games for their time? Yeah. But that's not why they're classics.
 
[quote name='trq']I would agree that's a very good point, although kind of made with a crap example, perhaps. I mean, you have to click on signs to read them in Zelda, while you can read them just by looking at them in Oblivion? That's nice for Oblivion, but you still have to click on a book and read the pages once they fill the screen, don't you? Can't quite just look down and read the pages while you're standing next to it, like you would in the real world, right? Does that now suddenly make Oblivion less immersive? If we apply the standards of the Joystiq article across the board, that's what we're arguing for.[/QUOTE]
You read signs far more often than you'd need to read a book. Plus, in real life, the expectation is that you could just look at a sign and read a sign from a fair distance, while you'd have to pull out a book and turn to the page you want in order to read it. So yes, Oblivion having readable signs (among quite a few other things) makes it more immersive than having to click on a sign, wait to zoom in, then click back out, and wait to be brought back to what you were doing.

This doesn't mean Zelda is a bad game, but graphics and immersion are important elements of any game, innovation doesn't necessarily trump all if your game is made less enjoyable by graphical or gameplay limitations. I don't buy the argument that a game can not be great if its not innovative. There are plenty of all time classic games that did absolutely nothing new, they just did it better.

Gears of War has great graphics, great gameplay, and its at least somewhat innovative. Whats wrong with that? I don't care that theres little in it that hasn't been done before (though I'd argue the gameplay is somewhat unique for a console shooter), what they do is done extremely well.

Okami is a great example. It took lemons and made lemonade... It became extremely immersive in spite of limitations. Zelda unfortunately did not go that route in this circumstance. Okami was very innovative in this area, while Zelda was not.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']
I just don't get why everyone is hating on Gears of War... not every game has to refine and innovate the industry. Gears of War does what it does and it does it great, and its fun as hell, and that's all that matters.[/QUOTE]

People are just arguementive sons of bitches that just can't help but go against the grain, that's why.

OMFG, you can't read the signs in LoZ:TP?! That's . . . a slight convience. Guess it'll just be a not that perfect 10.

I can't wait for dumb fucks to start complaining about the having to deal with title screens :lol:
 
Who cares about innovation? Well I don't. I just wanted this to be a bloody as fuck, ridiculously fake shooter and that's exactly what I got, and I'm happy.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You read signs far more often than you'd need to read a book. Plus, in real life, the expectation is that you could just look at a sign and read a sign from a fair distance, while you'd have to pull out a book and turn to the page you want in order to read it. So yes, Oblivion having readable signs (among quite a few other things) makes it more immersive than having to click on a sign, wait to zoom in, then click back out, and wait to be brought back to what you were doing.[/QUOTE]

The book issue was an arbitary example; there are an infinite number of them for any game you care to name if you start including things like having to click on signs as "technical limitations." I could have mentioned the floaty animations when you play Oblivion in 3rd person. It's not like it's a crippling framerate, or shoddy collision detection (well...). But the graphics hurt the gameplay and immersion here too, even on a nice new console like the 360.

I'll sum up this way: there have always been technical limitations, and there ALWAYS will be. But there are NEVER any limitations on creativity, so there's no excuse for when a game doesn't have any.

It's still amusing that this criticism is coming from EA, though. I mean, that's irony, folks.

[quote name='dafoomie']though I'd argue the gameplay is somewhat unique for a console shooter.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, agreed.

[quote name='dafoomie']Okami is a great example. It took lemons and made lemonade... It became extremely immersive in spite of limitations. Zelda unfortunately did not go that route in this circumstance. Okami was very innovative in this area, while Zelda was not.[/QUOTE]

Well ... that seems like taking a lot for granted, considering how much of Zelda any of us have played. Not that Okami isn't an excellent game, but it's not like I couldn't find some minor technical point to grouse about if I really wanted. For example, it would be more immersive if you just fought monsters as they roamed the fields, rather than having to go to a cordoned off RPG-style battle screen. That doesn't bother you? Once again, my point, ladies and gentlemen.
 
[quote name='trq']Well ... that seems like taking a lot for granted, considering how much of Zelda any of us have played. Not that Okami isn't an excellent game, but it's not like I couldn't find some minor technical point to grouse about if I really wanted. For example, it would be more immersive if you just fought monsters as they roamed the fields, rather than having to go to a cordoned off RPG-style battle screen. That doesn't bother you? Once again, my point, ladies and gentlemen.[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to paint Zelda as a bad game. I'm just saying, some of the criticism of Gears of War comes from people who say its not "innovative" enough, that its all graphics. My point is that all aspects of the game, gameplay, immersion, all of it matters. The example I used was just to show how graphics can impact gameplay and immersion a great deal, beyond just looking pretty. Innovation also doesn't make a great game alone. Derek Smart's Desktop Commander was full of innovation... And it was terrible.

There are plenty of fair criticisms for Gears of War, the campaign is extremely short and multiplayer options are a little limited. But lets not get into this debate with the Eurogamers of the world about how it can't be a great game if its not radically innovative, thats just silly.
 
Speaking of first-person shooters... there was one that EA put out. What was it called... oh yeah, BLACK. While I liked the game a lot, one thing it certainly did NOT have going for it was innovation. Did Black bring anything new to the first-person shooting genre? Um, no. Did I complain while playing it? No. But a high-profile EA exec certainly shouldn't be spouting off his mouth about Gears of War when his own company's product brought even LESS inovation to the first-person shooter.
 
[quote name='jtrey333']Speaking of first-person shooters... there was one that EA put out. What was it called... oh yeah, BLACK. While I liked the game a lot, one thing it certainly did NOT have going for it was innovation. Did Black bring anything new to the first-person shooting genre? Um, no. Did I complain while playing it? No. But a high-profile EA exec certainly shouldn't be spouting off his mouth about Gears of War when his own company's product brought even LESS inovation to the first-person shooter.[/QUOTE]

Wow, I totally forgot about that "jem" of a game. No multiplayer and about a 10 hour single player campaign. Well worth the price. /sarcasm.

Like someone else said, I believe this guy is just pissy because Epic beat them out the gate for kickass Co-Op. I'm sure when they release Army of Two they'll make wild PR statements saying "we've come out with the first ever Co-Op game" or something. Just wait and see. Crazy EA & Sony. At least they're always a good laugh.
 
I bet he made those remarks because Brothers In Arms uses the same gameplay mechanic (hiding and flanking) and they are now publishing that series. Plus BiA uses the unreal engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top