Joke of the Day. EA bashes GOW for lack of innovation
- Thread starter Ben-Nice
- Start date
EA not innovative?
Who is the company that introduced the practice of stripping features out of their franchise game and reintroducing as new features two years later?
Who the company that locked down and monopolized an genre while offering your crappy renditions of what used to be a great game?
Give me two dollars and I'll stop spamming you?
EA is alway innovating in ways of profitting at the expense of their customers.
"Why are people loving it so much? It's like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it, but let's face that graphics are still number one"
Maybe Alan should try playing the game before calling Gears, overated and basically accusing the review industry of unprofessionalism.
Who is the company that introduced the practice of stripping features out of their franchise game and reintroducing as new features two years later?
Who the company that locked down and monopolized an genre while offering your crappy renditions of what used to be a great game?
Give me two dollars and I'll stop spamming you?
EA is alway innovating in ways of profitting at the expense of their customers.
"Why are people loving it so much? It's like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it, but let's face that graphics are still number one"
Maybe Alan should try playing the game before calling Gears, overated and basically accusing the review industry of unprofessionalism.
I might give this opinion more weight if there was a history of uneven amounts of tripe A reviews thrown in EA directions. Gears has generated alot of hype but so has Lair, Heavenly Swords, BioShock, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, MSG4, Halo3 and FF13. If all these games receive triple A scores, then I will abandon my opinion and adopt your stance on this situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I know everybody loves to bash EA, but why does everybody act as though EA is only EA Sports?
Last time I checked, EA actually did produce innovative games. Sims, Command & Conquer, Battlefield, Black & White, MoH, etc..
Yes, they produce a game and then milk it for all its worth with expansion packs and sequels, but if the original products weren't innovative and successful then the sequels wouldn't have been produced.
Last time I checked, EA actually did produce innovative games. Sims, Command & Conquer, Battlefield, Black & White, MoH, etc..
Yes, they produce a game and then milk it for all its worth with expansion packs and sequels, but if the original products weren't innovative and successful then the sequels wouldn't have been produced.
Actually I give more credit to Maxis then EA, since they just distribute the game. Command and Conquer was develop by WestWood and that was 8 years before EA came along. The games you listed were all developed by other companies. None of these games were originally created by an EA studio, while under EA's direction.
Subtlesnake
Regular
Yes, Kill.Switch and PDZ had similar cover systems, but to my knowledge you couldn't automatically jump from cover to cover, or jump over cover. Now if you say that this shouldn't count as innovation because it only represents an incremental improvement, then my response to ask what is innovation and why do games need to be innovative?
Is simply adding a unique feature beneficial if it doesn't add to the gameplay experience, or even detracts from it? It seems people are arguing for innovation on its own merits rather than in terms of the actual gaming experience. That only makes sense if we play games to appreciate abstract differences in mechanics "oh look, the developer added this new facility so it's possible to do this now", rather than to be entertained.
But we do play to be entertained and so innovation is only valuable if it contributes to that entertainment, if it makes the experience fresher and more interesting. So the judge of innovation is, how does it contribute to the entertainment value I derive from a game? Therefore, if conceptually small additions (with Gears, a new control scheme and some new abilities), make the experience feel much fresher, then we should treat them as innovative. In terms of the experience, they are innovative.
Again, people need to stop looking at individual mechanics and appreciate the big picture.
Is simply adding a unique feature beneficial if it doesn't add to the gameplay experience, or even detracts from it? It seems people are arguing for innovation on its own merits rather than in terms of the actual gaming experience. That only makes sense if we play games to appreciate abstract differences in mechanics "oh look, the developer added this new facility so it's possible to do this now", rather than to be entertained.
But we do play to be entertained and so innovation is only valuable if it contributes to that entertainment, if it makes the experience fresher and more interesting. So the judge of innovation is, how does it contribute to the entertainment value I derive from a game? Therefore, if conceptually small additions (with Gears, a new control scheme and some new abilities), make the experience feel much fresher, then we should treat them as innovative. In terms of the experience, they are innovative.
Again, people need to stop looking at individual mechanics and appreciate the big picture.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Gotcha.
So we like them as a publisher but hate them as a developer? Or do we hate them as a publisher too?
So we like them as a publisher but hate them as a developer? Or do we hate them as a publisher too?
Whatever you choose or you can choose not to hate them at all. Plus, "hate" is a strong word. However, It not like they don't have a history of taking good games and turning them into duds. or forcing their own products or the products they publish into the market too early and in buggy states.
cloudscapes
Regular
It's pretty hillarious. Pot. Kettle. Black. 
I "agree" that GoW isn't terribly innovative. It doesn't really offer anything new to the table except its graphics. What's there though is really well executed though! So lack of innovation aside, this black kettle is of pretty high quality!
EA need some sense knocked into them, and not just for the hypocritical remark. I *want* to boycott them, but I'm weak and will only do so after Spore comes out. :S
I "agree" that GoW isn't terribly innovative. It doesn't really offer anything new to the table except its graphics. What's there though is really well executed though! So lack of innovation aside, this black kettle is of pretty high quality!
EA need some sense knocked into them, and not just for the hypocritical remark. I *want* to boycott them, but I'm weak and will only do so after Spore comes out. :S
chroniceyestrain
Newcomer
Considering that he hasn't even played the game, who cares what he says? At least play through the game before making a statement like that.
Now if he truly has a problem with over-hyped critics, why does he only mention GOW? I'm sure he could come up with more examples. Why doesn't he speak out about his own company's games?
Like Quake? What the hell is he talking about?
Now if he truly has a problem with over-hyped critics, why does he only mention GOW? I'm sure he could come up with more examples. Why doesn't he speak out about his own company's games?
scooby_dooby
Legend
When's the last time any EA game got rated above 9 anyways?
In order to complain about high ratings, you have to actually achieve them first!
They could get perfect 10's if you started judging games by the number of bugs included or the inability to patch any of it.
I'm not sure if this has been said before, didn't really read much of the thread (had a thought and wanted to post it before forgetting it). If someone has touched on it already, forgive me.
Taking his words in the context they were seemingly meant to be taken, I'm not sure I can disagree, but this isn't just a problem with Gears (and I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm really enjoying it!). There are a lot of games that are essentially rated (and overrated) before they even get released -- I could have told people the scores Gears would get before anyone played it, based on the hype alone. Not often does that happen, but when it does it's kind of silly. Not to say I'm disappointed that Gears is getting good reviews (personally I'd give it an 8.5-9 -- which is probably one of this years top 5 games, so far, for me).
I don't think the guys point was that Gears lacks innovation -- it's that reviewers seemingly fall for hype as much as consumers do (and if they don't, they often feel obligated to follow it, out of fear of backlash by readers). I don't think his point was necessarily all that off, but I'm not sure Gears was the best example of it at this point -- Oblivion would have been a far better example, if you ask me (looking back on that game, it got majorly overrated -- I enjoyed the game, but some of the design choices made were less than stellar and arguably game breaking in some ways... deserved an 8 maybe 8.5 at best considering them).
Eurogamer posting this is as much self-indulgence as it is actual news. They were obviously trying to point out that they were one of the couple sites that the EA guy thought gave a proper review.
This topic is a perfect example of what I hate about the internet too! -- context of statements are so often ignored that it gets stupid to look for news on the internet at times (especially in the game industry). Sure it's fun to hate EA and take statements in whatever context you want, but it's hard to disagree with what this guy is actually saying.
Taking his words in the context they were seemingly meant to be taken, I'm not sure I can disagree, but this isn't just a problem with Gears (and I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm really enjoying it!). There are a lot of games that are essentially rated (and overrated) before they even get released -- I could have told people the scores Gears would get before anyone played it, based on the hype alone. Not often does that happen, but when it does it's kind of silly. Not to say I'm disappointed that Gears is getting good reviews (personally I'd give it an 8.5-9 -- which is probably one of this years top 5 games, so far, for me).
I don't think the guys point was that Gears lacks innovation -- it's that reviewers seemingly fall for hype as much as consumers do (and if they don't, they often feel obligated to follow it, out of fear of backlash by readers). I don't think his point was necessarily all that off, but I'm not sure Gears was the best example of it at this point -- Oblivion would have been a far better example, if you ask me (looking back on that game, it got majorly overrated -- I enjoyed the game, but some of the design choices made were less than stellar and arguably game breaking in some ways... deserved an 8 maybe 8.5 at best considering them).
Eurogamer posting this is as much self-indulgence as it is actual news. They were obviously trying to point out that they were one of the couple sites that the EA guy thought gave a proper review.
This topic is a perfect example of what I hate about the internet too! -- context of statements are so often ignored that it gets stupid to look for news on the internet at times (especially in the game industry). Sure it's fun to hate EA and take statements in whatever context you want, but it's hard to disagree with what this guy is actually saying.
chroniceyestrain
Newcomer
Doesn't have to be over a 9 to be over-rated.
It does matter yes, when people such as yourself are claiming it to be innovative (ie a new idea) when clearly it is not.
Lets see what you've got to say about games released for the other console when they take idea's from other games and mearly improve on them. I'm sure it will be copy this, copy that, where is the innovation.
You will have to direct me to my post were I claim Gears to be innovative, on the contrary I said that they have taken old features and implemented them really really well, it is evolutionary, not revolutionary...
scooby_dooby
Legend
That wasn't really my point. EA should concentrate on matching the quality that GOW has brought forward, once they can do that, then they can start worrying about 'innovation'
chroniceyestrain said:
Quake was basically the same shooter we'd all been playing since Doom, but with a killer graphics engine. I think that's the point he was making.
I don't think you have to be a producer of 10-rated video games to judge whether or not a particular video game deserves its high rankings. For example, the closest I ever got to making a game was a few Doom levels back in the day, and I'm pretty sure Halo 2 was overrated.
Let's all take a deep breath and remember that corporations are not people. EA does not have opinions. Ubisoft does not have an attitude. Sega does not have a desire. Nintendo does not have an idea.
Let's now take a second deep breath and remember that all he said was, and I summarize,
Does anyone here dispute that claim? The question was not, and was never:FP's paraphrase said:
a. Does EA consistently put out 9.6-worthy material?
b. Is Gears of War a crappy game not worth buying?
c. Do all games need to be innovative to be fun?
So is Gears of War 9.6-worthy or not? The only coupla guys to give a straight answer on that have said no. The rest of you have just been engaging in straw-man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
By the way, here are all the scores that are out. Hmm, looks like quite a few in the low 90's or lower, actually. What do y'all think of those scores?
Last edited by a moderator:
For the most part though EA puts out solid games, and more than that they seem to understand their market very well. Even though i dont agree with some of their tactics and practices i can at least see and appreciate that part of them.
Agreed!!!!
Im not picking on you perticularly but it seems a lot of people are missing the point he was making and ignoring the few posts that are pointing out what he was saying. There is a simple reason why the quality of EA games and his having not played the game, do not make his points any less valid. That is because his opinion was formed on the complaints within the reviews that he has read of the game. As has already been said GoW probably wasn't the best game to use as his example, and the presentation of his thoughts could have also been better. But that doesn't matter either.
His point is that what he read in the reviews of the game didn't match with the score he was seeing at the end.
He has no point. Its up to reviewers to quantify their own opinion with a score and how different qualities are weighted and affect that score. Its up to you and I as readers to determine how relevant those scores are to our own opinion. Over time we then develop a trust or distrust for that reviewer/website/magazine to accurately determine the quality of the game in question.
He basically saying "I've read your literary opinion and disagree with you because I quantitate your opinion different than you do".
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know that it applies to GOW, but how many times have we seen the industry get caught in the frenzy, a big-hype game get scores in mid 90s all over the media, only for everyone to look back 6-12 months later and go: "WTF, how exactly did THIS get 95% rating?"