Ea

[Xanatos]

It's kinda baffling EA's the worst company in USA second year around next to Bank of America and Exxon Mobil, it frightens me that mediocre video games are considered far worse than massive environment destruction among so many gamers, bit disturbing if you ask me, but that's for another discussion. Honestly, I don't understand all the hate towards EA. Sure, they made some poor decisions in recent years, though people seem to forget just how many great games they released in these last few years alone (Bad Company 2, Crysis, Dead Space 1&2, Dragon Age: Origins, FIFA 12, Mass Effect 1&2, Mirrors Edge, Shift 1&2...).

Reasons behind some of this hate often make no sense whatsoever, like microtransactions for instance. It's completely optional, it doesn't affect your gameplay, you can unlock everything just fine by normal playthrough, so why the uproar? While a solid game SimCity's release was a ****ing disgrace, while there were several indentical if not worse releases ("cough"Blizzard"cough", "cough"Valve"cough") funny enough only EA offered it's biggest titles at that time as a form of apology, "pitchforks and torches" were there nevertheless. I'm not trying to defend EA, well, perhaps I am, I ****ing hate their DLC policy though, DLC in general, it just seems to me gamers have certain tag on them which in my humble opinion they don't quite deserve.

[Dodie16]

Sites like 4chan and Reddit have droves of people who vote in this kind of thing, so the results are pretty skewed. People who have real problems with companies like BoA and Exxon probably don't have the kind of time to vote in the polls like internet trolls do.

I haven't played a game from EA in I don't even know how long. Not because of some boycott, but because I lack the expendable funds ^^;

[Mystyrion]

I don't know how I feel about EA. They have given me good games, but isn't it really annoying that the finale of those games turn to complete shit?

[Odin1199]

The higher companies rise, the more they think about the money and the less soul they put into projects. Mass Effect sucked hard in the end, left so many people enraged. Microtransactions, crappy dlc's, all show how EA has become corrupted. Some people are entitled to defend it, because they liked their previous games, but that doesn't matter anymore. Enough people hate it and that matters more. You can't just piss on public opinion. Hey, if EA was good, people wouldn't hate it as much, right? I hate how games have become bad in general and it's not only EA who's doing it. Not saying all games have turned to shit but, good games are alot more rare.

[Xanatos]

Mass Effect sucked hard in the end, left so many people enraged. Microtransactions, crappy dlc's, all show how EA has become corrupted.

Micro transactions, completely optional, doesn't affect your gameplay whatsoever as you can unlock everything just by playing the damn game... ergo bad and evil. I don't get it. Mass Effect 3 had a pretty shabby conclusion, so did Borderlands, Shenmue 2, Assassins Creed 3, Halo 2, Half-Life 2... now guess which company actually patched it's ending.

I hate how games have become bad in general and it's not only EA who's doing it. Not saying all games have turned to shit but, good games are alot more rare.

Strange, for someone who likes to go to game forums and read people whine I noticed you yourself whine a lot.

[Odin1199]

I go to agree with the right whiners and disagree with the wrong ones. Anyhow, yeah, EA must've patched ME's ending. Hooray, EA! Doesn't really matter, they still messed up and it means they're still douches, except now they're tricky douches because they're going with the public. Doesn't mean anything. Whatever. I don't really hate EA anyways, but still I don't get why you're keen on defending it. What makes EA so great for you? What games were that awesome from EA?

[Kurt Zisa]

I'm honestly indifferent to the whole thing. For the longest time I thought EA just made sports games, you learn something new every day. Surely the amount of people who have complained about Sims 3, and um... their other games would have contributed a lot to the end result.

And as for the age old argument that new games suck: Don't play them, just as It's not required for you to play all of EA's supposed shitfest or any other things like that. I think as gamers we tend to judge every newer titles too harshly, it's either pure gold or complete shit and I'm not to sure how to keep my argument going here as I haven't bought a new game since they stopped making ps2 ones.

[Xanatos]

I go to agree with the right whiners and disagree with the wrong ones.

Do tell, those who whine about microtransactions even though they're completely optional and don't affect your gameplay are the right ones or the wrong ones?

Anyhow, yeah, EA must've patched ME's ending. Hooray, EA! Doesn't really matter, they still messed up and it means they're still douches, except now they're tricky douches because they're going with the public.

Out of all companies out there who made shity ending, including my all time favorite, Valve, EA improves it's ending and they're douches for doing that. I swear kids today, you are evil if you don't listen to players you are apparently evil if you do. Makes no sense whatsoever if you ask me, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Whatever. I don't really hate EA anyways, but still I don't get why you're keen on defending it. What makes EA so great for you? What games were that awesome from EA?

I don't defend the company itself per se so much as I don't understand some of the reasons behind all the pitch and forkses and as usual you don't seem to be backing your reasons as well. As for what makes EA great for me, who said they were great, far from it in fact, some of their games are great though...

American McGee's Alice
Battlefield (1942, Vietnam, 2, Bad Company 2)
Burnout 3: Takedown
Command & Conquer (Red Alert, Red Alert 2, Generals, Tiberium Wars)
Crysis
Dark Age of Camelot
Dead Space
Dead Space 2
Dragon: Age Origins (my all time favorite)
Dungeon Keeper
FIFA 12
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Medal of Honor: Underground
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Mirrors Edge
NFS III: Hot Pursuit
NFS UnderGround 2
Shift
Shift 2: Unleashed
System Shock 2
The Sims 2
Ultima Online

I'll name more if you want.

[Odin1199]

From what I've read, the ending still sucks big time, even with extended cut. You make choices throughout the 3 games, but regardless of those choices, you still get the same 3 final options in the game. That's sloppy and lazy. Also synthesis one and the destruction one don't make much sense anyways. You're basically stuck with one option, the Shepard option. Nothing about the origin of Reapers either. And the whole underlying idea that organics and humanity is always evil and corruptable, bound for destruction and inability to evolve fully is what also pisses me off. How do you know EA? Are evil and corrupteable people less smart than pure and idealistic ones? Not necessarily. Are you gods, creators or prophets? What if humans will change in the future? Why not make an option that makes organics look less inferior and douchy? That would be a cool extra ending to see.

[Xanatos]

I don't like the ending myself, it doesn't change the fact that they have indeed improved upon it. Several major plot holes have been fixed, and one additional ending has been added, by far my favorite one out of the bunch. Considering how many ships it took to tackle down Sovereign alone it was highly likely Reapers would win, Liaras message at the end was a nice touch as well. As for the Reapers origin, one word, Leviathan. During and prior the events of Mass Effect organic life has proven it's ignorance and destructive nature time after time, from Leviathan and Prothean oppression to Rachni, Turian and Geth wars, you can see this phenomena in real life, millenias have passed and nothing has literaly changed thus Reapers decision is logical to say the least.

That's it, nothing on microtransactions, nothing on games I mentioned... ok.

[Odin1199]

So what happened in that extra ending? I didn't do any research on it. Still, despite some truth about how humanity has been corrupt from the beginning, there's no sense of hope for it in the story. EA just says: it'll always be corrupt and bad and fail and that's that. It will be because we say so. Now eat it up or gtfo. I agree to an extend, but I don't think people are all like that. Test of time doesn't mean much. It's the people at the top who get to call the shots and are corrupt. There's always good and bad people, it's just bad people use all the means they can get a hold of power and that's why they usually prevail and dominate. That doesn't mean jack, but EA says everyone is corrupt and evil and they don't want to see any other alternatives.

Also, even if all humans were like that, that still means jack, because evil is still as capable of evolving as good is. Here's where the other hole appears, evolution can't progress in corruption. BS, yes it can. You can be an evil genius and progress all you want. There're just too many things I disagree with in that story and EA failed hard in the core story elements from the start.

[loaf]

Green explosions.

[Xanatos]

So what happened in that extra ending?

You have option to retort after which Reapers "crush" organic life and manage to complete another cycle. At the very end you see Liaras message buried deep into ground of a unknown planet as a warning to future organic life.

I didn't do any research on it. Still, despite some truth about how humanity has been corrupt from the beginning, there's no sense of hope for it in the story. EA just says: it'll always be corrupt and bad and fail and that's that. It will be because we say so. Now eat it up or gtfo. I agree to an extend, but I don't think people are all like that. Test of time doesn't mean much. It's the people at the top who get to call the shots and are corrupt. There's always good and bad people, it's just bad people use all the means they can get a hold of power and that's why they usually prevail and dominate. That doesn't mean jack, but EA says everyone is corrupt and evil and they don't want to see any other alternatives.

Also, even if all humans were like that, that still means jack, because evil is still as capable of evolving as good is. Here's where the other hole appears, evolution can't progress in corruption. BS, yes it can. You can be an evil genius and progress all you want. There're just too many things I disagree with in that story and EA failed hard in the core story elements from the start.

Organic life has shown it's destructive nature with each cycle and there may have been near infinite cycles since Reapers were created, during Mass Effect and 50 000 years of human evolution nothing has literaly changed and you expect Reapers who have been established as cold and calculative machines to say "perhaps we should give them another 10 000 years, maybe all organic life will turn into saints or something", imagine Harbinger say "but guys, not all organic life is evil". My biggest hint that you haven't actually played Mass Effect is that you think this has something to do with humans rather than organic life in general creating machines that will destory all organic life as we know it (Quarians kinda doing it), which funny enough Leviathans partialy did with Star Child and Reapers, and EA is somehow to blame because you don't quite get the story and why Reapers do what they do, you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.

[Zargabaath]

This is why people hate EA so much.

[Xanatos]

Most likely. Strangest thing though, I thought Bioware founders would slash EA on their departure, yet they had nothing but nicest things to say.

[loaf]

I'm mad at EA because they released video games.

To add to my post I was kinda making fun of people who get mad at EA.

[Odin1199]

Thing that upsets me about ME is how EA made a game, where you know you and all organics are pretty much screwed from the start and are willingly playing, knowing they'll get screwed by the Reapers sooner or later with pretty much no chance for salvation. Even in the optional ending, the Reapers crush almost everyone... Say goodbye to all those nice friends you met and all those planets you cared for. You have play to die or transform yourself and others into some sort of green mutants to save yourselves. Wow, how dramatic and cool. I hate you EA. For making me sacrifice so much in a game. I know they didn't make all bad games. I love all of their Need for Speed games. I bought stuff using microtransactions for Most Wanted on my Note 2. I did enjoy Battlefield Vietnam and Command and Conquer alot as well. But what they did with ME series was a **** move, imo. I'm pissed at them nonetheless. Don't hate them fully but still have a good degree of grudge for having to sacrifice everything you grow attached to in a game. It's just not orthodox and cool in my book.

[Xanatos]

I'm certain you didn't actually play Mass Effect and you're pretty much trolling me now. Out of four endings in only one is organic life annihilated, the bonus one, in destroy ending you actually destroy Reapers, in control ending you gain control over Reapers and in synthesis ending however unlikely you have perfect mixture of machines and organic life... how is any of this bad for organic life when in two out of four endings you preserve organic life in its purest. You hate EA and blame them for something so simple yet you clearly didn't understand, like at all...

[Odin1199]

That's not what I've read from people talking about the endings. Oh well, I guess I just read the bad reviews more and got my conclusions from them. I guess you win this time. EA is not as bad as I thought. Now on to defending it with you. Maybe you should also defend Halo and CoD, now that you've gotten your groove on.

[Pete]

To be fair, there's nothing wrong with Halo and CoD. Yes, it's largely the same thing over and over again, with rehashed graphics, but the system works and people like it. They're largely going with the old idiom of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Sure there are minor issues with them that arise and get sorted out in the next one, but honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to play it. Just stick with obscure jrpgs that nobodys ever heard of and never get any sort of press.

As for EA, they're good at certain things, and then there are things that they never should even think of doing, not once, not ever. Battlefield 3, on one hand was an incredibly pretty game, with a relatively easy to use interface, but a horrific multiplayer setup. I still, to this day have no idea how or why I still can't get a match going with my friend on the same team, on the 360.

I also absolutely hate that they want you to sign up for EA shit and to register your game before you play. That pisses me off. I have the game, bought it legally with my hard earned dollars, just like my 360. **** off, I don't want to sign up for your crap.

I also don't know who to bitch at for Dragon Age 2. Was it Bioware simply rushing a game to meet the demand from their previous releases of great awesomeness? Were they pressured by EA to pull a one trick pony move and simply release a game so they could have major titles released in consecutive years since Mass Effect came out?

Did EA rush Bioware in the Mass Effect 3 endings? I mean, I loved the game and didn't have the biggest issue with the endings... once the extended versions were released. At the same time, I've viewed them all via youtube, and can happily say that they ultimately didn't affect my end decision from before the dlc. It was a nice fan service to release the endings. Did they have to? No. Can you squarely place the blame on EA? I don't know.

Long story short, as my lappy is gonna die in a few minutes, I don't think that EA is necessarily horrible. I do think that on one hand, they do have some real powerhouses of developers under their umbrella, which is a good thing in terms of giving them the means to making phenomenal games, and giving them a real budget to do proper promotions. However, they need to realize that the game and the experience of playing and completing a game, while leaving the gamer totally satisfied should be the main goal. Hell, even if it means playing a dlc to experience more of the world (a la Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 1 and 2). However, they shouldn't be rushing the developers to make the game just to sell it and profit. Surely, that's the point of any company, but the real goal should be to produce the best product possible, and then market the hell out of it. Hell, if it's that good to begin with, the game will market itself, just like the first Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

[Odin1199]

No, there's lots wrong with Halo and even more with CoD. Linear as they can possibly get in game arcade places, short campaigns, reusing same graphics, that spells pure greed, laziness and complete lack of creativity.

[Pete]

Halo and CoD are linear, but I don't know how you'd do a war based shooter without forcing you to go and follow a story. You can't make CoD into Fallout. They're linear because they're meant to be I mean, I'm sure they could add some larger options for exploration, but at the same time, you're supposed to be a soldier following orders. You go and do the job you're told to do. Straying from that in a military situation would slam you with tons of military judicial charges like going AWOL and dereliction of duty and whatnot.

As for the campaigns being short, I can't fault you on that.

You also have a point on the graphics. I'm not sure how updating graphics would screw with multiplayer framerates and supporting things like that. I honestly don't know.

I would say you're right with a lack of creativity, and that would be my biggest pet peeve, but so many games do the same exact thing.

Nintendo is notorious for that with Mario and Zelda, especially with the rehashing of old games with a minor tweak. Links Awakening, now in color! They're the same game, or same style (with the exception of Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker). Granted, I'll say that these games are very well made and are incredible productions. This is coming from someone who loves the games.

Soul Calibur is the same thing over and over. Add a few more characters and there ya go. Hell, I think that franchise has less replay value.

The Metroid games were the same thing with the exception of enemies and power ups.

[Xanatos]

First of all Halo does not have a short campaign, secondly both Halo and COD are multiplayer oriented games, you can easily clock 100 hours into each multiplayer and still have as much as fun as the first time you bought them.

FPS games have always been and always will be linear, as strange as it may sound linearity is ideal for these games (Here's hoping you aren't mixing linearity with monotonous again).

No one really cares about graphics, or so they say, but when it comes to COD graphics suddenly become important. Activision has been improving it's engine with each COD, differences are far from drastic, but they are there nevertheless. Something Bethesda, Blizzard, Konami, id, Ubisoft, and many other have been doing as well.

[Odin1199]

FPS games shouldn't be that linear. That's your opinion I don't agree with. And I wasn't talking about Halo being linear, btw. Lastly, the part where noone cares about the graphics is also your opinion. People care about graphics alot. Alot of people don't like stuff recycled again and again for n'th amount of times.

Yeah, Nintendo recycles content and even graphics to a point, but it doesn't make games linear like arcade games to a point of frantically playing them at one pace for a couple of hours and then ending the campaign. That's why people enjoy the content they offer alot more.

[Xanatos]

And I wasn't talking about Halo being linear, btw.

Now Halo's not linear yet two, three posts up your exact words were and I quote "Linear as they can possibly get", sounds familiar.

Lastly, the part where noone cares about the graphics is also your opinion. People care about graphics alot. Alot of people don't like stuff recycled again and again for n'th amount of times.

Never said people don't care about graphics (because "or so they say" part makes awful lot of difference in a sentence), rather people claim they don't really care about graphics (look every thread about graphics ever) but when COD apears graphics suddenly become important. Because COD 4 Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 3 are graphically on the same level... not.

Yeah, Nintendo recycles content and even graphics to a point,

To a point? Don't make me laugh they are the kings of recycling. Nintendo has been recycling same characters, story (wait, what story), setting for each game, hell even entire games (thus you have dozen of exact same Mario titles each console) for three decades now and they don't look like they're stopping at it.

but it doesn't make games linear like arcade games to a point of frantically playing them at one pace for a couple of hours and then ending the campaign. That's why people enjoy the content they offer alot more.

2D Mario games are as linear as it gets, as are Kirby and Metroid, you literaly walk down one path, although looking down at your posts I don't think you know what word "linear" means, honest to god I think you're mixing it with "monotonous" and "repetetive" again, oh silly Odin, how you make me laugh.

[loaf]

Halo is turning into CoD.

Halo 4 = Call of Halo

[Odin1199]

Yeah, selective reading and generalizing are your thing Xanatos. Never said all of Marios and ALL of Nintendo games weren't linear. Why are you so keen on proving me wrong? It seems you just want to defend your opinion and try to twist my words however you like, well it's not gonna work buddy.

loaf~

What a shame. Linear is the lazy way out.

[Xanatos]

Your exact words were and I quote...

Yeah, Nintendo recycles content and even graphics to a point, but it doesn't make games linear...

...you yourself said Nintendo recycles, but doesn't make games linear (general statement right there) and I'm somehow twisting your words here. When you called Halo linear then tried to prove otherwise even though your original post is still there for everyone to read was I twisting your words there as well or what?

[loaf]

I didn't say linear. I really think Odin doesn't know what linear truly means.

Did you not play Halo 4? Everything about that game has Call of Duty influence.

From Halo 2 to Halo: Reach noone would stay after a match, everyone would leave the party and re queue...not anymore in Halo 4.

Halo 2 - Reach you always start a new game....not in Halo 4 since Call of Duty had the whole join a game in progress with the way it does MatchMaking Halo 4 added it.

Halo Reach stated it will have loadouts. It didn't...Halo 4 it does and they act just like Custom Loadouts in Call of Duty. Killstreaks were added in Call of Duty...Halo 4 has them now. You want that nice gun? go unlock it just like the latest Call of Duties.

They made it so you don't have to hold any button to pick up the flag or bomb but FPS's have had that feature for a long time.

[Odin1199]

By linear I don't only mean with corridor like levels, but also plain, monotonous and repetitive. Yeah, Mario had linear level design, but offered varying degree of difficulty, obstacles and challenges. CoD is plain repetitiveness and linearity in all it's forms. That's what I usually mean when I say linear. Linear in design, challenge, repetitiveness, and so on. I guess I confused you guys abit then. My bad.