To all the EA haters: EA Sports the #2 publisher in gaming, based on review scores

[quote name='VanillaGorilla']What do you have against the Burnout games? What about Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2? I could go on and on...[/QUOTE]

Here you go VanillaGorilla.

Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 were both made by DICE. Burnout? Criterion. Oddworld Stranger's Wrath? Oddoworld Inhabitants.

None of those were EA Games developed. They just published them.

EA's LOTR hack n slashes sucked. I don't care what you say about the score for those, they sucked. Too many reviewers were blinded by the LOTR license. Call it Medieval Madness or whatever those games get 50's. Harry Potter games? Sucked. Bond? Everything or Nothing, okay but generic. Nightfire, ditto. Who can make James Bond less entertaining than a non-licensed character, Sam Fisher? Goldeneye and AUF, they flat out sucked.

Without the Sims EA has not put out an original franchise that hasn't sucked in 10+ years.

EA is pure unadulterated shovelware.

Need proof? 360 launch titles.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Without the Sims EA has not put out an original franchise that hasn't sucked in 10+ years.
[/quote]

Def Jam. Yes, it's just one series but its a very good one.
 
Yeah I dont see what this topic has tried to prove other than the fact that Vanilla is a jackass. Lock this shit up homie.
 
[quote name='Msia']Yeah I dont see what this topic has tried to prove other than the fact that Vanilla is a jackass. Lock this shit up homie.[/QUOTE]
So I'm a jackass for not foaming at the mouth whenever anything "EA" is posted?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Here you go VanillaGorilla.

Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 were both made by DICE. Burnout? Criterion. Oddworld Stranger's Wrath? Oddoworld Inhabitants.

None of those were EA Games developed. They just published them.

EA's LOTR hack n slashes sucked. I don't care what you say about the score for those, they sucked. Too many reviewers were blinded by the LOTR license. Call it Medieval Madness or whatever those games get 50's. Harry Potter games? Sucked. Bond? Everything or Nothing, okay but generic. Nightfire, ditto. Who can make James Bond less entertaining than a non-licensed character, Sam Fisher? Goldeneye and AUF, they flat out sucked.

Without the Sims EA has not put out an original franchise that hasn't sucked in 10+ years.

EA is pure unadulterated shovelware.

Need proof? 360 launch titles.[/QUOTE]

Then don't give Nintendo credit for either Metroid Prime game, either Mario and Luigi RPG games, Paper Mario for the GameCube, any of the Mario sports games, or Fire Emblem, since none of those games were developed in house by Nintendo. And while we're at it, lets just pretend Square had nothing to do with Dragon Quest VIII, since Level 5 developed that game.
 
The title says publisher so you're not really saying anything new, IMO.

EA is still awful.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Here you go VanillaGorilla.

Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 were both made by DICE. Burnout? Criterion. Oddworld Stranger's Wrath? Oddoworld Inhabitants.

None of those were EA Games developed. They just published them.

EA's LOTR hack n slashes sucked. I don't care what you say about the score for those, they sucked. Too many reviewers were blinded by the LOTR license. Call it Medieval Madness or whatever those games get 50's. Harry Potter games? Sucked. Bond? Everything or Nothing, okay but generic. Nightfire, ditto. Who can make James Bond less entertaining than a non-licensed character, Sam Fisher? Goldeneye and AUF, they flat out sucked.

Without the Sims EA has not put out an original franchise that hasn't sucked in 10+ years.

EA is pure unadulterated shovelware.

Need proof? 360 launch titles.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It's easy for those companies when you pretty much develop for one console (obviously MS, Nintendo, and Square Enix). Tecmo has Fatal Frame I, II, and DOA 2 getting multi-console releases and Ninja Gaiden was re-released with new content in Black. Other than that, Tecmo is a one console developer.

Sega had their sports series that added a lot to their totals when they became a third party developer with a few years of NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA Basketball and Football, and MLB games on multiple consoles before selling 2K Sports, then there's the ports of some of their DC games to the PS2 and GC when they dropped the DC. There's the multi-console releases that they've done for their classics line of games for the general library, their Sonic series of games, and many more. Then there's the numerous multi-console releases of their various games (Shadow, Sonic Riders, Spartan, and many others).[/QUOTE]

But if you look at the quality of Sega's console-exclusive vs. their multiplatform games, you'll clearly see that many of their multiconsole games, such as Sonic Riders and Shadow, are complete garbage.

[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Wait, you're saying Killer 7 is better than Burnout 3, Battlefield 2, or Burnout Revenge? HA! Yeah, an artsy rail shooter, sure.[/QUOTE]

Your inability to read is amazing. I said BF2 was better than Killer 7. Killer 7 is better than any Burnout game, though.

[quote name='snotnose_colossal']doesnt Capom whore out MegaMan and VJ as crappy ass cartoons?[/QUOTE]

We're talkin' games, homie.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Then don't give Nintendo credit for either Metroid Prime game, either Mario and Luigi RPG games, Paper Mario for the GameCube, any of the Mario sports games, or Fire Emblem, since none of those games were developed in house by Nintendo. And while we're at it, lets just pretend Square had nothing to do with Dragon Quest VIII, since Level 5 developed that game.[/QUOTE]
You know that Intelligent Systems (Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, etc) and Retro Studios (Metroid Prime, etc) are owned by Nintendo, right?

I'm not sure about the Mario sports games, but I think you're right about those [Mario Golf, Mario Tennis: Camelot, Mario Baseball: Namco, Mario Strikers: Next Level]. But on that vein, the Mario Party titles are from Hudson.
 
[quote name='botticus']You know that Intelligent Systems (Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, etc) and Retro Studios (Metroid Prime, etc) are owned by Nintendo, right?

I'm not sure about the Mario sports games, but I think you're right about those [Mario Golf, Mario Tennis: Camelot, Mario Baseball: Namco, Mario Strikers: Next Level]. But on that vein, the Mario Party titles are from Hudson.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't help too much since I believe EA aquires most of the developer studios that they publish as well. Don't quote me on that, though. There might be exceptions to that rule. I'm pretty sure they aquired Criterion and Maxis though (two companies I actually followed that got swallowed by EA).
 
[quote name='trendon']Let's take a step back and look at it this way. Do you think that EA has not thought about doing this? Without having any fact, I am just guessing that - one day, one time - someone said the following at a EA Sports meeting.

"Hey, why don't we try and just offer downloads for rosters?" Then, someone from the marketing department laughed their balls off, using sales charts to mock that thought.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Surely someone with a tendency to try and be cute will come here and try to tell me that Madden itself is broken. It will be hilarious, I am sure. However, what I meant is if the system is not broke, then why should they change it? Madden - and to a slightly lesser extent NCAA Football - have been the top selling football games for over 10 years (more for Madden.) Shall they change their formula for success? Hell, if they did, the "EA rests on their laurels' comments would double from the Peanut Gallery plus they'd severely piss off their loyal fanbase that'd buy a new Madden game if it came out twice a year!

If that is how you want EA to act, then I propose that you are the arrogant one in the equation. Not EA.[/QUOTE]

The way some of these people bash EA's and EB/GS business practices, I REALLY hope none of them plan on a career in business.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Then don't give Nintendo credit for either Metroid Prime game, either Mario and Luigi RPG games, Paper Mario for the GameCube, any of the Mario sports games, or Fire Emblem, since none of those games were developed in house by Nintendo. And while we're at it, lets just pretend Square had nothing to do with Dragon Quest VIII, since Level 5 developed that game.[/QUOTE]

Did I give Nintendo credit for anything? Was I bringing in any other publisher into the argument?

No.

You really need to keep expanding your argument like this? It's pretty obvious, EA Games does not have talent in developing new franchises and the franchises you're talking about being so great they didn't make.

Even companies they publish for and end up buying like Bullfrog, Westwood and Origin that made them obscene amounts of money they shutter and close. EA sucks, period.

They make a decent game like MOH and then kill the franchise by releasing sub-par sequels. Ditto SSX. There's nothing to love about EA anymore.

Hey, during the 16 bit era I thought they could do no wrong. I loved just about everything they released. However the EA mystique started dying when we had the unreleased Madden for the PSone. After that they became completely franchise and license driven.

I'd love to say they make fantastic stuff. I'd love to be able to say that the largest U.S. developer is on par with the best Japanese companies as far as creativity, innovation and fun factor. They're not though.

They aren't close to Namco, Nintendo, Capcom, Konami, Square Enix or Sega. In the U.S. they're eclipsed by countless studios including Microsoft. EA can't come close to matching the consistent quality of Ubisoft's best in the three Clancy lines (Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell.) and even their licensed movie title, King Kong, came out better than I ever expected (Due to Michel Ancel being a real developer as opposed to assembly line foreman.) how many EA licenses have exceeded expectations?

None that I'm aware of.

This isn't a bash it's an educated gamer stating an opinion. EA is so representative of what's wrong with this industry. Even though I don't believe in "boycotting" any one publisher it's very easy for me to stay away from EA as a developer, publisher, that's a different story, I'm hard pressed to think of the last EA developed game I had to have on launch day. I think I'd have to go back to NHL 96 or 97.

Oddworld Stranger's Wrath was the only EA published game I couldn't wait to get my hands on in a decade. If that doesn't speak of their worth to me as a gamer, I don't know what does.
 
[quote name='daroga']That doesn't help too much since I believe EA aquires most of the developer studios that they publish as well. Don't quote me on that, though. There might be exceptions to that rule. I'm pretty sure they aquired Criterion and Maxis though (two companies I actually followed that got swallowed by EA).[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's true. The difference in my eyes is that Retro was a GameCube-exclusive developer that Nintendo acquired (though that's closer to the EA situation), and Intelligent Systems was a spin-off of Nintendo R&D.

Whether it would have changed the rankings any in the OP, I think a more worthwhile tally would have been developers, as we've been discussing the last few posts.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']I would rather EA build their sports games from the ground up for the 360, than take the 2K route and port the current generation versions of NBA and NHL to the 360, and only buff up the character models, which you can hardly tell if you don't have an HDTV. And since when were ANY launch sports games any good anyways?

And don't give me this crap about EA hyping games with fake screenshots. EVERY publisher does that. Wasn't there just a topic ON THIS BOARD about Activision being sued in Britian for their misleading COD2 commercials? The one thing I hate about all these EA bashers is how they will cry about how evil EA is, as if there aren't any other companies on Earth who treat their employees like dirt or rehash games. You're gonna tell me EA is the only company who rehashes games? Shoot, how many different re-releases and versions of Resident Evil 2 has Capcom made? Wanna moan about EA trax? Shit, Amped 3 had over 100 damn songs in their soundtrack. Only with EA will people bitch about menu music.[/QUOTE]

QFT. I mean seriously, EA could have just ported their XB games like Activision & 2K did, but they built it from the ground up. (Where is all the bitching from them?) Of course it's not going to be perfect, it's a launch title...but at least they got their foot in the door.

Secondly, every publisher has their own properties that they "rehash" but yet everybody bitches about EA while Activision's Tony Hawk and the million Capcom & Sega titles go overlooked. I won't even go into Nintendo. Every generation, it's the same titles with better graphics. Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pokemon, I could go on and on.
 
[quote name='Scahom1']QFT. I mean seriously, EA could have just ported their XB games like Activision & 2K did, but they built it from the ground up. (Where is all the bitching from them?) Of course it's not going to be perfect, it's a launch title...but at least they got their foot in the door.

Secondly, every publisher has their own properties that they "rehash" but yet everybody bitches about EA while Activision's Tony Hawk and the million Capcom & Sega titles go overlooked. I won't even go into Nintendo. Every generation, it's the same titles with better graphics. Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pokemon, I could go on and on.[/QUOTE]
If EA only did one Madden per generation, I don't think anyone would complain. Mario Tennis doesn't really fit in that group unless you think Mario Tennis for N64 was the same as Mario Tennis for GBA was the same as Mario Tennis for GC. And people do complain about Mario Party, a lot (myself included).
 
[quote name='botticus']If EA only did one Madden per generation, I don't think anyone would complain. Mario Tennis doesn't really fit in that group unless you think Mario Tennis for N64 was the same as Mario Tennis for GBA was the same as Mario Tennis for GC. And people do complain about Mario Party, a lot (myself included).[/QUOTE]

From a business standpoint, why would EA only do one Madden a generation? It's their #1 money maker! Things like outdated rosters, old arena's, old uniforms, etc might seem like no big deal to people who don't play or like sports, but most people need to have the latest and greatest.

Yes, they could release a disc each year for say $19.99 with all of the above that you can use with your current Madden...but let's see: A $49.99 sale vs. A $19.99 sale....I'll take the $49.99 please.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
EA's LOTR hack n slashes sucked. I don't care what you say about the score for those, they sucked. Too many reviewers were blinded by the LOTR license. Call it Medieval Madness or whatever those games get 50's. Harry Potter games? Sucked. Bond? Everything or Nothing, okay but generic. Nightfire, ditto. Who can make James Bond less entertaining than a non-licensed character, Sam Fisher? Goldeneye and AUF, they flat out sucked.[/QUOTE]

By that reasoning...explain why 9 out of 10 movie based games flop? Why weren't people blinded by "The Matrix" name in Enter The Matrix or Path of Neo? Hell, why did the first LOTR game flop financially and critically?

You are simply just finding any excuse to hate EA.
 
Here's a thought to consider:

How many people still play Madden '04? How many people still play Mario 3 or Sonic & Knuckles, or Mario Tennis N64? I think other publishers just have much more longevity to their games than EA because most of EA's titles invalidate the previous in the series.

EDIT: My issue with EA isn't necessarily their business practices or their over-milked game series. It's just that they don't make or publish many games worth playing in my opinion. I always sided with Sega's 2K games over the Madden series. When EA got the exclusive contract, that was pretty much the end of official NFL video game football for me. EA bought some of the studios I enjoy (Criterion, Maxis, etc.) which I don't really care too much about as long as the quality of games isn't compromised. To this point I don't think it has been too greatly, but I worry about the future. As it is, I buy games because they're good games, not because of who makes it or what system they're on. Anyone who would do otherwise (whether buying exclusively one publisher or avoiding everything by one published based solely on who makes/publishes it regardless of the game) is pretty darn stupid.
 
[quote name='evanft']But if you look at the quality of Sega's console-exclusive vs. their multiplatform games, you'll clearly see that many of their multiconsole games, such as Sonic Riders and Shadow, are complete garbage.[/QUOTE]
And the sports games weren't? Those would make up a large portion of their multi-platform stuff.
 
[quote name='Scahom1']
Secondly, every publisher has their own properties that they "rehash" but yet everybody bitches about EA while Activision's Tony Hawk and the million Capcom & Sega titles go overlooked. I won't even go into Nintendo. Every generation, it's the same titles with better graphics. Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pokemon, I could go on and on.[/quote]

Man, I forgot about the Tony Hawk games. Those have been done to death for sure.
 
[quote name='Scahom1']The way some of these people bash EA's and EB/GS business practices, I REALLY hope none of them plan on a career in business.[/QUOTE]


see it's comments like that which is exactly why everyone thinks they have to be the biggest douchebag in the world to succeed in business. I would rather fail miserably than burn in hell for my poor business ethics.
 
[quote name='Scahom1']Secondly, every publisher has their own properties that they "rehash" but yet everybody bitches about EA while Activision's Tony Hawk and the million Capcom & Sega titles go overlooked. I won't even go into Nintendo. Every generation, it's the same titles with better graphics. Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pokemon, I could go on and on.[/quote]

Mario Tennis for every itteration added new elements and gameplay. It is on it's third title in that many systems it is on. Mario Party are fun games, but I don't own a single one of them and I agree that is the most whored out game Nintendo publishes. I think Pokemon is Nintendo's Madden, some new features and a roster update. But that is a game I like to play, even if the story is pretty much the same cart after cart. I guess that is my gaming guilty pleasure, even though I am far from a poke-fanatic. But that is a little off the point I was trying to make.


Earlier it was said that "You don't see Madden:Subsitance", but you do see NCAA and Prosoprts titles. Yeah there are differences in the rules, but isn't it basically the same game with different players? Sure the play clock strategy is different in NCAA and time managment, but you are still playing a damn football game. EA just markets it's multi-version same game titles in a different package. I bought the last two Burnout games new and the last two SSX titles. I loved SSX3, SSX4 is ok. Burnout 4 is badass and probably the best EA published game I own. Sameway traffic collisions are the best thing to happen to the game.

I don't boycott EA, because they have hardly anything to keep me interested. I don't buy games from one publisher, I lime some more than others, but I just like playing games. I dislike EA as a company, but wouldn't pass up a great game I want to play if it was published by them.


Making an argument based on other people's thoughts as a reason why you think a certain publisher are god's gift to gaming seems rather dimwitted, for the lack of better words. Reviews are just people who get paid to talk about what they like. They aren't experts on gaming and what you would like. They just got one of the coolest jobs any of us would like to have. Who here wouldn't want to play games and get paid to talk about them? Sure they are usually right on turds, but just because a game gets a near or perfect score, doesn't mean it isn't going to have a following that hate it.
 
[quote name='takingchase']see it's comments like that which is exactly why everyone thinks they have to be the biggest douchebag in the world to succeed in business. I would rather fail miserably than burn in hell for my poor business ethics.[/QUOTE]

Are you willing to tell me that Sega wouldn't do the exact same thing with the NFL deal if they could afford it? EA simply had the money that Sega didn't.

I don't agree with it either, but that's reality. Business is a "dog eat dog" world.
 
I guess I'll jump in. EA is a business. They'll continue to release Madden football games until the Apocolypse. Fanboys will continue to pay 50 bucks on release date. EA will continue to release all of their other sports games every year. This won't change. We'll probably continue to see a Burnout and a James Bond every year or every other year. Do you have to buy these games? No. So, what's the argument about? EA is doing what any other company would do in it's position. They're all about getting to the top and staying at the top. I thought of a pretty good comparison. Video games are like soda. The same reasons people always drink Coke are the same reasons people buy Madden every year. It's familiar. You pop in Madden and you know what you're going to get. You crack open a Coke and you know what you're going to get. When Coke tried that new flavor in the 80's, people freaked out. They tried to give the public something new and everyone said they just wanted plain old Coke. Profits tanked and Coke was nearly out of the soda business. Wisely, they went back to the classic formula and everyone calmed down. This is why innovation never comes from the industry leaders. It's way too risky and it hurts the bottom line. The CEO wants to sit in his office and get blowjobs from the interns. He doesn't want to have to sit in long meetings answering to board members and share holders.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Wisely, they went back to the classic formula and everyone calmed down. This is why innovation never comes from the industry leaders.[/quote]

Actually, it did more than calm down, they had the greatest sales a cola distributer has ever had off of one product. I believe they tripled it... its called marketing... if you didnt think this was the end concept all along, then you've been mesmerized.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I guess I'll jump in. EA is a business. They'll continue to release Madden football games until the Apocolypse. Fanboys will continue to pay 50 bucks on release date. EA will continue to release all of their other sports games every year.[/quote]
You do realize you're talking about sports games right?

I buy madden or NCAA football every year but I can tell you that I get more "gaming value" from those games then any other game.
 
[quote name='DT778']You do realize you're talking about sports games right?

I buy madden or NCAA football every year but I can tell you that I get more "gaming value" from those games then any other game.[/quote]

Oh, I agree. Sports games have great replay value. I never said they weren't a good value, just that people will continue to pay 50 bucks every year regardless if there's real improvement or not. I try to buy every other year to spread it out a little. Wasn't trying to confuse you guys. Just saying that EA's gonna keep milking their cash cows until they dry up. We can choose to buy or not but they're not gonna stop selling the games. Madden is the video game version of crack and I've never seen a crack dealer suddenly give up when they've conquered the competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top