E.A. is destroying the gaming business?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Yes and no respectively.

EA pioneers bad business practices and is continuously looking for more ways to trick customers out of product and money. It also ruins games studios and series. It uses its influence to stifle competition. It's everything wrong with videogames and their industry and it's getting wronger by the day.

The second question is a bit easier because thankfully none of the games I care about are published by EA any more. So I don't buy them, not out of principle, but because I don't want to. I do have certain business practices I will deliberately avoid a game for though.

Draech:

canadamus_prime:

Yabba:

Wait, what did Square-Enix do?

Well to be honest, that one I'm going on the word of our resident Jim Sterling, but apparently they've turned that mobile Final Fantasy game into a Free 2 Pay type thing, IE you buy the game and then you have to buy more through microtransactions.

I hadn't actually read your comment until now and it quite well highlights the whole problem with the big corporate part of the gaming industry.

They are not as useful as they once were and what made the necessary in the past is making them arbitrary now. With stuff like digital distribution, kickstarter and the ability to target your audience directly, the concepts of hitting the largest demographics has become outdated. Furthermore what used to be the speed bump of distribution has become non-existent in the form of digital.

The worst part is that the need for security hampers their ability to succeed. When you only want safe bets, but it turns out that the only safe ones are experimental then you got problems brewing.

There is also the point that a lot of the DRM today comes as part of a package today that has more potential than it is showing off. Something as "simple" as Eve and Dust intergame connection is made possible through Eve being always online. In the meantime a large part of the gaming audience doesn't see the potential because its fruits just isn't there yet and it is just another pill they have to swallow.

The reality is that publishers are becoming obsolete and they're not exactly doing anything to improve their situation, if anything they're only making it worse.

Draech:

DioWallachia:

Draech:

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

Quick Question. Since most of your answer DO have some basis in facts, this one seems the weakest one of all. Where do you get the idea that is only a minority?

Sales figures compared to stuff like petitions.

I will give you the ME3 echo chamber thing, but the people who like DA2 are the minority, not the people that hate it. If it was a minority that hated it, it would have sold better than its previous game

image

But it didnt.

Then again Mass Effect 3 seems to have sold about a million less than Mass effect 2 as well..

image
image

So I guess make of that what you will :P

FelixG:
-snipping-

Yeah the overall point was that if you compared (for example) the number of people who Meta Bombed any of the titles to the number of units that were it would make up less than 1% of the people who played the game. To make that small percentage representative off the overall number of units sold. It would be no more fair to represent opinions of Starcraft purely by people at blizzcon.

And like you are saying with minority liking it. I dont consider "not liking it" and putting it under constant fire to be the same thing. Speaking as a guy who doesn't really like it.

There is one funny thing I couldn't help but notice by your first chart and that is how DA:O's sales over the first 10 weeks kinda goes up and down where DA:2 is above DA:O the first, but follows an almost logarithmic graph. I think it gives us insight into how new franchisees are received compared to established franchises.

My question is two-fold:
- Do you believe EA is harming the gaming business? Yes
- Do you still buy games from EA? No

EA needs to go die in a fire.

EA is a big company and make choices based on this, not based on gamers. If they buy up other companies or games then its because they thought they could make them money. If they closed them down, its because they failed. EA are huge, and as such have a lot of clout and money to do whatever they please. This is a good thing when you think they can release any title they want. Without EA the game market would be a lot less. Granted they do a lot of stuff gamers hate, but get over it. Its like people moan because MS buys the rights to release a game 3 months before the PS3 release. Dont blame MS for doing its best to sell its consoles, blame the game developer who took their money.

Remember, your just a consumer. They want you for your money, they dont care that your a fan.

I do think they are harming the business and I refuse to tolerate their bullshit, but once a blue moon an EA game I am interested in comes out (see Crysis 3 and the now In Development Mirrors Edge 2) and I feel conflicted. I sometimes end up buying it (not for full price usually, mostly I would get them used), and if I do I wont get the DLC unless I absolutely need it.

4RM3D:
There is a general consensus that EA is doing more bad than good to the gaming business.

Quite a few arguments have been made against EA (in no specific order):
- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)
- (EDIT) Rolling out yearly installments of the same game (e.g. EA Sports)

...And the list probably goes on.

My question is two-fold:
- Do you believe EA is harming the gaming business?
- Do you still buy games from EA?

I ask because I still see a lot of people pre-ordering / buying games from EA and at the same time see a lot of people complaining about EA. So, why don't just stop buying their games altogether?

On a side note, I should mention that the shit storm that was the ending of Mass Effect 3, did show the incredible influence Bioware holds over people and in turn that gamers can rise and stand up.

yes, they are.

EA also is:
- poisoning water wells and drinkable resources in general.
- genetically altering diseases and viruses, they currently made superaids
- prime suspect of killing and post mortem raping of bambies mother.
- infecting old yeller with rabbies with cybernetic foxes made of living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.
- dipping their tempura covered food twice!
- telling you they call you back and they don't!
- drinking straight out of the milk carton and leaving the empty carton in the fridge.

yes, it is getting ridiculous with EA.
they do all the things other companies do but get a special bad stamp on them when they do it.

yes, they are screwing themselves up with some desicions but other than that, the internetz and the whole gaming scene is having a temper tantrum over pretty much nothing at all.

Stop using the tired "oh, but this is business, all game companies want money" line as a defense for EA. Truth is, all game companies want to make money, but the good ones listens to their customers and try to make them happy. EA seems to only care about money, but they have to realize that caring about their customers are going to make them money anyway.

If you're complaining about the yearly sports franchise updates as though they're going to be the end of everything, then I calculate that they've probably been making them longer than you've been alive. First Madden I bought was 1994, it had already been running for a few years before that, and it has updated every year since. If EA Sports is wrecking the gaming industry, then it's taking a very long term approach. It must be one of those "slowly poison your spouse with a chemical that takes 20 years to build up enough toxicity in the kidneys to finally manifest mild symptoms that if left untreated for another 5-10 years might eventually kill them" kind of plans.

4RM3D:
There is a general consensus that EA is doing more bad than good to the gaming business.

Quite a few arguments have been made against EA (in no specific order):
- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)

...And the list probably goes on.

My question is two-fold:
- Do you believe EA is harming the gaming business?
- Do you still buy games from EA?

I ask because I still see a lot of people pre-ordering / buying games from EA and at the same time see a lot of people complaining about EA. So, why don't just stop buying their games altogether?

On a side note, I should mention that the shit storm that was the ending of Mass Effect 3, did show the incredible influence Bioware holds over people and in turn that gamers can rise and stand up.

Draech:

- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
We going to get the sob story of how EA killed Westwood again? Forgetting to mention that the original founders of Westwood were the ones that sold out and about half the employees walked out the door the sec they did? No we keeping the revisionist history then? Ok then. Welcome to business. Wrecks happen. Did EA wreck THQ while they were at it?

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
I am sorry I am going to break this to you, but none of the game developers love you. They dont even know you. They are looking for the best way to get as much money from their work as possible. Just like you are trying to get as much product as possible from your money. Greedy greedy both of you. You dont like the deal, then walk away and take your money else were. This is business. Not a Democracy. Only voice that matters is the one you do with your wallet.

- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)
Yes we have never seen anything about EA admitting fault. I mean its not like a thread jumped out about how a beta tester got banned from Simcity for posting in a thread turned out to be nothing but jumping the gun, and as soon as it was cleared up then it is like it never happened. Like as if people were actively looking for fuck ups to rage about, but wont even admit fault when they jump the gun....

so much for general consensus huh?

Bro fist right here! Couldn't agree more with you Draech. I don't know how many times I've argued these same points, such as EA's supposed killing of the publishers they've bought, the small die hard haters of DA2 and ME3 that just wont let it go, EA being a business, SOO happy to see someone else saying this.

EA is not the big bad wolf, they are a company that follows very simple rules: Make product, make profit. Capcom is worse, but they are also NOT the big bad wolf. The big bad wolf is the customer whom complains about the product, yet pays for it anyway. Same goes with any industry, gaming just has more longevity over it's hold on the consumer.

Don't like how something is done, don't invest money in it, simple as that!

Bocaj2000:
The problem with the industry really is that the only games that "gamers" care about are the AAA budget games. Indie devs are the future of gaming if we allow it. They are the ones who attempt to revolutionize, experiment, take risks, and care about customers. Yet, as a subculture, "gamers" brush off the indie games as "other" with little regard to how that affects the industry. AAA devs tend to to very shitty things for the sake of profit, but you don't have to put up with it if you don't want to. If you don't like a business practice but still want the game then don't buy it; play it if you can, but please don't buy it. It's that easy.

This also very much applies to the (Hollywood) movie industry and probably applies to the music industry as well. The only difference is that the movie and music industry are getting far less 'complaints' (as far as I know). Which is kinda funny because most Hollywood movies get shitty reviews from critics. But that doesn't really seem to dent the numbers of visitors going to the cinemas. This while most games get high ratings. But if a game drops below the 80% mark, it is considered mediocre and sells will plummet because of it. I don't really know why that is.

Draech:
I would say there is a large issue with brand building here where expectations clash with reality. The concept of refining a experience is setup to create division as well. Maybe there are people who wouldn't have like ME 1 who tried ME 2 and only liked it for the changes that a person who liked ME 1 disliked. Is the new guy wrong for liking it then?

"expectations clash with reality"

Yes, but there is a difference between realistic exceptions and hoping for a miracle. Let's take a look at Bioware...

Dragon Age 1 is almost a complete different game than Dragon Age 2. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the marketing of DA2 made it out to be a true sequel rather than just a spin-off. That's the issue with creating expectations and having lousy marketing. It would have been interesting to see if DA2 was actually a good game. Would the fans still have had as many issues with DA2 for being different?

Mass Effect 2 is a different story. I haven't played part 3, so I can only talk about the difference between the first and second game. Mass Effect 2 is also different from the first game in terms of gameplay. But it was still a decent sequel and it had still most of the things that made Mass Effect... well Mass Effect. The 'steamlining' of gameplay didn't go over well with some people, turning Mass Effect 2 one step further from RPG to a cover-based shooter. But the Mass Effect essence was still there.

In short: Mass Effect 2 I can accept as a sequel even with its faults, Dragon Age 2 I cannot.

No, I think EA is run too much by focus groups. If anyone is killing the gaming industry its the console manufacturers. I can only point the finger at Microsoft here since thats the only company that I know enough about. Things like ridiculously expensive certification fees on top of taking a rather largish chunk out of every sale only serves to push development costs ever higher. This as a result causes devs to stop taking risks and the big players only ever churning out the same tried and tested formula's over and over again.

Draech:

- The forced use of Origin (a broken system)
Unlike the forced use of Steam?
Origin is not without its merits, and while it doesn't suppass the current lvl steam has gotten to by being the first to really strike it big it by far surpasses what steam used to be. If you want to hold this against EA then keep your complaining consistent.

- The gaming companies EA has bought and pretty much wrecked
We going to get the sob story of how EA killed Westwood again? Forgetting to mention that the original founders of Westwood were the ones that sold out and about half the employees walked out the door the sec they did? No we keeping the revisionist history then? Ok then. Welcome to business. Wrecks happen. Did EA wreck THQ while they were at it?

- EA Bioware is under constant fire (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2)
By a relatively small demographic in an echo chamber yes (relative to the number of customers). Yeah thats the problem with the internet. You can easily find yourself in a bubble.

- EA looking for easy cash grabs (which has been brought up again since Dead Space 3 announcement)
I am sorry I am going to break this to you, but none of the game developers love you. They dont even know you. They are looking for the best way to get as much money from their work as possible. Just like you are trying to get as much product as possible from your money. Greedy greedy both of you. You dont like the deal, then walk away and take your money else were. This is business. Not a Democracy. Only voice that matters is the one you do with your wallet.

- Whenever sometimes goes wrong at EA, instead of admitting they screwed up, they are blaming it on other things (like they did with Warfighter)
Yes we have never seen anything about EA admitting fault. I mean its not like a thread jumped out about how a beta tester got banned from Simcity for posting in a thread turned out to be nothing but jumping the gun, and as soon as it was cleared up then it is like it never happened. Like as if people were actively looking for fuck ups to rage about, but wont even admit fault when they jump the gun....

so much for general consensus huh?

Who's got two thumbs and agrees with the above quote? THIS GUY!!!
......
Ok that don't work well in text, but I do! Good post...

OT: PPl stop blaming EA for the industry's faults. They're not the illuminati of the gaming industry.

That history of Bioware pic from GameFront.

Jade Empire was published by Microsoft when they were independent, and Sonic was published by Sega when under EA's ownership. But notice now they completely gloss over two games which have been reported as weaker offerings from the studio? Nope, all eyes on how EA ruined ME3 and DA2. Nothing to see here folks, any fault in bad game design is clearly the fault of their EA overlords, even on games not published or made when not owned by them.

And making events out of non-events (one employee posting a personal review of a game != astroturfing).

4RM3D:

Draech:
I would say there is a large issue with brand building here where expectations clash with reality. The concept of refining a experience is setup to create division as well. Maybe there are people who wouldn't have like ME 1 who tried ME 2 and only liked it for the changes that a person who liked ME 1 disliked. Is the new guy wrong for liking it then?

"expectations clash with reality"

Yes, but there is a difference between realistic exceptions and hoping for a miracle. Let's take a look at Bioware...

Dragon Age 1 is almost a complete different game than Dragon Age 2. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the marketing of DA2 made it out to be a true sequel rather than just a spin-off. That's the issue with creating expectations and having lousy marketing. It would have been interesting to see if DA2 was actually a good game. Would the fans still have had as many issues with DA2 for being different?

Mass Effect 2 is a different story. I haven't played part 3, so I can only talk about the difference between the first and second game. Mass Effect 2 is also different from the first game in terms of gameplay. But it was still a decent sequel and it had still most of the things that made Mass Effect... well Mass Effect. The 'steamlining' of gameplay didn't go over well with some people, turning Mass Effect 2 one step further from RPG to a cover-based shooter. But the Mass Effect essence was still there.

In short: Mass Effect 2 I can accept as a sequel even with its faults, Dragon Age 2 I cannot.

I still cannot comprehend when people take up the ME franchise they refer to ME1 as the best one.

It was mechanically boring and once you have the story done there is nothing left. I really tried playing through all 3 in order to do the save game transfer, but I just couldn't get past ME1.

If RPG elements mean
- Weapons that are Kinaestheticsly similar with some stat swaps
- To do stat comparisons for all your chars (and doing it multiple times because you cant compare all unless you are back at the Normandy)
- Broken Skills in an effort to force RPG elements into the shooter genre
- Exploring wast empty wastelands to excuse open RPG feel

I miss none of it. Yes they removed your ability to throw away 100 weapons for the one with with the best number on it, but gave you mechanically solid gunfights with weapons that actually felt like more than "this one does more dmg than this one". They removed the wast empty planets and gave us a few well constructed planets play through for tid bits of actual interesting story about the world (finding the leftovers of a mining expedition raided by the blood pack was way more exciting than tumpling through a big empty planet to find a random house that was suppose to be some pirate hideout). Me2 cut some stuff and to some people that stuff was what made the game. I am not one of them. A lot of those thing were in the way of my enjoyment and I am glad to see them gone.

They have a lot of negative effects but they also published a lot of good games. They haven't done as much bad as Activision and Ubisoft did, but they advertise their games and themselves very poorly, which ends up giving them very bad PR.

So, not. They aren't destroying the business, but they could do better to keep their customers happy.

Draech:
I still cannot comprehend when people take up the ME franchise they refer to ME1 as the best one.

It was mechanically boring and once you have the story done there is nothing left. I really tried playing through all 3 in order to do the save game transfer, but I just couldn't get past ME1.

If RPG elements mean
- Weapons that are Kinaestheticsly similar with some stat swaps
- To do stat comparisons for all your chars (and doing it multiple times because you cant compare all unless you are back at the Normandy)
- Broken Skills in an effort to force RPG elements into the shooter genre
- Exploring wast empty wastelands to excuse open RPG feel

I miss none of it. Yes they removed your ability to throw away 100 weapons for the one with with the best number on it, but gave you mechanically solid gunfights with weapons that actually felt like more than "this one does more dmg than this one". They removed the wast empty planets and gave us a few well constructed planets play through for tid bits of actual interesting story about the world (finding the leftovers of a mining expedition raided by the blood pack was way more exciting than tumpling through a big empty planet to find a random house that was suppose to be some pirate hideout). Me2 cut some stuff and to some people that stuff was what made the game. I am not one of them. A lot of those thing were in the way of my enjoyment and I am glad to see them gone.

I am not sure about other people, but I do prefer ME2 over ME1. Both games have gameplay and balancing issues, but ME1 wasn't much of a RPG to begin with in terms of stats and customization. So the 'loss' of those few RPG elements in ME2 wasn't a big deal for me. The rest was better in ME2... flawed, yes. But still better than the first game.

Nah, they've had 15 years to destroy the gaming business, and they've failed despite already peaking twice.

Draech:
I miss none of it. Yes they removed your ability to throw away 100 weapons for the one with with the best number on it, but gave you mechanically solid gunfights with weapons that actually felt like more than "this one does more dmg than this one".

*chuckles*
Yes, I suppose Whack-A-Mole is mechanically solid.

Atmos Duality:

Draech:
I miss none of it. Yes they removed your ability to throw away 100 weapons for the one with with the best number on it, but gave you mechanically solid gunfights with weapons that actually felt like more than "this one does more dmg than this one".

*chuckles*
Yes, I suppose Whack-A-Mole is mechanically solid.

Absurd suggestion.

Especially when compared to what was there in the last game. I cant even begin to imagine what you mean by calling it whack-a-mole.

Draech:
Absurd suggestion.

Especially when compared to what was there in the last game. I cant even begin to imagine what you mean by calling it whack-a-mole.

A tad defensive are we?
Truly I do live in Contraria, where even a simple joke is given contempt.

Atmos Duality:

Draech:
Absurd suggestion.

Especially when compared to what was there in the last game. I cant even begin to imagine what you mean by calling it whack-a-mole.

A tad defensive are we?
Truly I do live in Contraria, where even a simple joke is given contempt.

Subject matter leaves me on edge.
When people will declare developers soulless husks then what does that imply their feeling of those who enjoy their product.

What you say in jest others say in full conviction, and tone of voice does not something that can be truly applied to a written word.

Draech:

Subject matter leaves me on edge.
When people will declare developers soulless husks then what does that imply their feeling of those who enjoy their product.

What you say in jest others say in full conviction, and tone of voice does not something that can be truly applied to a written word.

Guess I can't blame you there; this forum is far too uptight and reactionary now anyway.
I had to get away from these forums just because of the negative element.

That said, I never found Mass Effect's combat to be terribly deep or difficult even with all the options available.
I tore through ME1 and ME2's Insanity difficulties using simple pattern-matching abilities/ammo and range-checking weapons.

Though I will admit I did not give ME3 more than a once-over, on account of only renting it with my friend.
But what I did play of it didn't blow me away for depth either.
*shrugs*

Atmos Duality:

Draech:

Subject matter leaves me on edge.
When people will declare developers soulless husks then what does that imply their feeling of those who enjoy their product.

What you say in jest others say in full conviction, and tone of voice does not something that can be truly applied to a written word.

Guess I can't blame you there; this forum is far too uptight and reactionary now anyway.
I had to get away from these forums just because of the negative element.

That said, I never found Mass Effect's combat to be terribly deep or difficult even with all the options available.
I tore through ME1 and ME2's Insanity difficulties using simple pattern-matching abilities/ammo and range-checking weapons.

Though I will admit I did not give ME3 more than a once-over, on account of only renting it with my friend.
But what I did play of it didn't blow me away for depth either.
*shrugs*

A fair statement considering I didn't really suggest depth, but simply that the mechanics were at least solid in versions after ME1. Something as simple as having 2 assault rifles feel different goes a long way. Especially with ME1's lack of ammo making gunfights ever boring stalemates because there was no insentive of moving out of your cover until your enemy was dead. True Depth only came in ME3 where different skill combos and special enemies variety would would dictate the efficiency of your weapons. Thou that ofc came at a price in other areas.

4RM3D:

My question is two-fold:
- Do you believe EA is harming the gaming business?

Quite a bit. And not only for the reasons you mentioned but others too. The best hypothesis for this is that they are publicly traded and therefore their bottom line is more important than anything else.

4RM3D:

- Do you still buy games from EA?

No. But that doesn't mean I don't play them. I'll buy used, play DLC at a friend's house, or accept them as gifts but I've not let a dime spent go towards EA anymore. It sucks because in some cases I want to play more of the content (such as Mass Effect 3 DLC) but I can't.

Draech:

A fair statement considering I didn't really suggest depth, but simply that the mechanics were at least solid in versions after ME1. Something as simple as having 2 assault rifles feel different goes a long way. Especially with ME1's lack of ammo making gunfights ever boring stalemates because there was no insentive of moving out of your cover until your enemy was dead. True Depth only came in ME3 where different skill combos and special enemies variety would would dictate the efficiency of your weapons. Thou that ofc came at a price in other areas.

The gun stats in ME1 were mostly a charade, something I ironically became further aware of in ME2 (because most of the upgrades to the models in ME2 were just as shallow).

I think I actually stopped and upgraded my weapons a total of three times for the entirety of ME1, just on account of how long combat eventually became.

Tangentially, about ME1, I did notice that there were significant differences between the Xbox version and PC version.

HUGE gameplay balance changes: Shotguns were gamebreaking in the 360 version; I remember my friend showing me his shotgun that had sniper-like precision and enormous damage, but none of the heat drawbacks of actual sniper rifles. Those were changed entirely in the PC version, and later snipers were given better heat ratios than before.

Bioware was at least aware of some mechanical problems at the time, as my PC version, patched, has smoother nuanced combat (mindless gun-running aside)...though still far too easy IMO.

I dont think EA is ruining games just that they are a bunch of dumbasses who no longer deserve any customers

Atmos Duality:

Draech:

A fair statement considering I didn't really suggest depth, but simply that the mechanics were at least solid in versions after ME1. Something as simple as having 2 assault rifles feel different goes a long way. Especially with ME1's lack of ammo making gunfights ever boring stalemates because there was no insentive of moving out of your cover until your enemy was dead. True Depth only came in ME3 where different skill combos and special enemies variety would would dictate the efficiency of your weapons. Thou that ofc came at a price in other areas.

The gun stats in ME1 were mostly a charade, something I ironically became further aware of in ME2 (because most of the upgrades to the models in ME2 were just as shallow).

I think I actually stopped and upgraded my weapons a total of three times for the entirety of ME1, just on account of how long combat eventually became.

Tangentially, about ME1, I did notice that there were significant differences between the Xbox version and PC version.

HUGE gameplay balance changes: Shotguns were gamebreaking in the 360 version; I remember my friend showing me his shotgun that had sniper-like precision and enormous damage, but none of the heat drawbacks of actual sniper rifles. Those were changed entirely in the PC version, and later snipers were given better heat ratios than before.

Bioware was at least aware of some mechanical problems at the time, as my PC version, patched, has smoother nuanced combat (mindless gun-running aside)...though still far too easy IMO.

When I said difference in guns I meant between models. An example would be the The Avenger (your starter assault rifle) VS the Revenant (choice to get on the collector ship). The first feels light and frail. It feels like it was a gun made by a toy company mostly. It has decent precision and dencet firepower, but not very satisfying in general. The Revenant on the other hard is loud and wild. A magazine size and fire rate so big and fast it encourages just holding the fire button regardless of its massive bullet spread. The sound is makes sounds like a piece of machinery running so fast it is ripping itself apart.

That is at the core of the changes of the satisfying gunplay for me. The static upgrades in gun dmg and ammo capacity is more ham handed implementations of RPG elements to shooter genre. As you demonstrated completely arbitrary.

Considering how much hate EA gets, I'm surprised you guys aren't begging Activision and Ubisoft to buy them out.

Draech:

There is one funny thing I couldn't help but notice by your first chart and that is how DA:O's sales over the first 10 weeks kinda goes up and down where DA:2 is above DA:O the first, but follows an almost logarithmic graph. I think it gives us insight into how new franchisees are received compared to established franchises.

If you look at the chart you'll see decent first, second and third week sales for DA:O, followed by an increase from week 5 to 8, overall between week 3 and 8 it is a pretty stable sales figure. This suggests that the people who held off on DA:O and waited for friends/forum goers/game reviewers to give their opinion on it found that word of mouth was generally favorable and went ahead with their purchases. This is especially noticeable in week 7 and 8 sales, which even surpass week 2 sales.

DA2 on the other hand has a strong week 1 figure, representing all the pre-orders and people buying on release. After that it is a quick decline. This is probably because the people who held off and waited for word of mouth opinions got mostly negative reviews told to them and they in turn decided to not purchase the game.

Your theory could be correct if we had similar figures for other game franchises, but since this is an isolated graph we can't make any sweeping generalizations like that. Meanwhile, my theory has the strength that it takes into account the actual reception both games got and seems to be the generally accepted explanation for the tanking sales numbers of DA2. The game just wasn't very good and thus people didn't go out to buy it (meanwhile ME2 managed to garner a lot of sales after the release week thanks to positive word of mouth opinions).

Whatever DA2 and all its' failings was caused by EA-meddling is another topic. I personally don't think EA has much to do with it, but rather the general decline of quality from Bioware.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked