EA chief and games

[micky1up]

he reports that "games are boring us to death" this was misreported it should read EA games are boring us to death:lol:

[darius359au]

he reports that "games are boring us to death" this was misreported it should read EA games are boring us to death:lol:

:yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

:roll:

[Heibges]

In all fairness, EA makes a lot of good games.

But the way they do business (basically their production cycle) they seem to make very few great games.

The worst part is that other companies try to operate like EA, even ones that have no where near the economy of scale, and really get themselves in trouble.

[P_Funk]

I'll point out that anyone that has played NHL07 on the Xbox 360 will know that EA isn't totally lost. My god thats the best hockey game I've ever played. And 08 is gonna make every Canadian gamer daft and speechless in awe.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/802/802033p1.html

[Heibges]

And MVP 2005 is still the best baseball game ever.

I'm still playing Madden 2006 on PS2, along with NCAA 2006 for my Notre Dame draft class, and think it's top notch.

I think Madden 2007 suffered for being on so many platforms.

[P_Funk]

I really liked Madden for a long long time, but it never really sold me on believability. It was like everything would go perfectly and believably and then suddenly some unbelievable thing would happen... a few times that would make me say "that never happens in the NFL".

Playing against buddies online was good but playing the computer is the most frustrating thing in the world. Its like in the last minute or last possession of any half the computer goes into God Mode and my defense melts like butter. Zone defense turns into the Maginot Line and man to man is like Charlie Chaplain chasing the Road Runner. And its not like I suck at play calling. I know what a 46 Bear is and I actually understand what a Half Back off Tackle is. It just stopped working.

It was just too frustrating for me. Thats why I like NHL games. Fewer players and the only things that sucks ist he goalie sometimes puts the puck in on himself.

[Heibges]

The thing about Madden is you really have to mess with the Sliders to get it the way you like it.

I can never run at all unless I increase my Run Blocking.

I also generally also increase my Pass Blocking.

I did notice a real increase in the number of "wierd stuff" that happens in Madden 2006 compared with earlier versions. Like the guy fumbling the kickoff twice in a row.

[Camaero]

I dislike EA. They release some good games for sure but they always rush the devs so much that the only thing that comes out is a good game instead of a ground breaking amazing achievement. That is why there are rarely any very good games anymore. :cry:

[micky1up]

this thread is lost how can anyone like laing baseball or hockey :damn:

[EAF274 Johan]

Strategy games, which often cost between £25 and £30, take up to 40 hours to finish, and would only ever be finished by a few players, were singled out for particular criticism.
What they really mean to say is: we want people to play out a game in 4 hours and then spend their money on the next game. From a salesman's point of view this makes sense, but for the consumer this is total rubbish.

I happen to like games that take a long time to finish: Civilisation, Total War series and simulations. In fact it is games that I can play out quickly that I find boring.

[HunterICX]

Too easy = Boring
Too Hard = Anoying

its hard for games to find the Right Level of dificulty.
it just has to be in between.

In case of RTS games, if you get stuck on a Mission/Map for too long without having a clue what to do....then its like ''screw this''
if you rumble map after map and easily defeat the game. its ''is that it?''

it has to be , that when you continue further in the game, you come to a point where its so intense. that if you win its like ''Pfewwww...that was GREAT!''
and when you lose that you want to revenge your loss.

This is what I like about Rome total war. you conquer provinces really quik in the begin as the Romans are superior..but then when the other tecnology advances as well...they are comming to strike back on your weakpoints...then you have completly re construct the frontline and move the big armies you have to hold the enemy advancing. the battles are mostly about you win or you lose where the fighting is almost even untill when everything is worn out...you get the upper hand of the battle or you lose it.

that are great games.

in terms of FPS.
I like games like Ghost Recon (the old ones) and Rainbow six.
those are one of the best FPS games with a good mission line.

in Ghost recon I liked the idea about when you toggled from character to character and take the sniper...when you have enemy contact..you wait till the support guy takes his place..and you make the first kill which is a high threat..and the support guy next to you gives a good distracting fire barrage on the enemy location.

the game is not only about bringin chaos ontop of the enemy by shooting the hell out of them , but also very tactical challenging.

[Dowly]

EA makes quite good games all in all. But take Ubisoft for example, Rainbow Six Vegas was released not so long ago and now they have already released Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, which reminds alot of R6:Vegas. Btw, if you want a team based tactical shooter, for the love of god, dont get GRAW 2!!! The team AI is worst I've seen in a looooooooooong time. The AI team members are completely useless, all they can do is point out where the enemy is by running wildly to the open area and getting shot. Come on!!! They are supposed to be kickass Ghost Recon guys!!

[HunterICX]

@Dowly: the older AI from the first Ghost recon games where better :up:
they wherent smart..but they wherent stupid neither they didnt do much unless you told him so

[Dowly]

@Dowly: the older AI from the first Ghost recon games where better :up:
they wherent smart..but they wherent stupid neither they didnt do much unless you told him so

Yes, I've played R6 series from the very first game to hit PC. But, regarding the GRAW 2's AI, I really mean it, it just doesnt suck, it really is just dumber than rock!

[HunterICX]

@Dowly: the older AI from the first Ghost recon games where better :up:
they wherent smart..but they wherent stupid neither they didnt do much unless you told him so

Yes, I've played R6 series from the very first game to hit PC. But, regarding the GRAW 2's AI, I really mean it, it just doesnt suck, it really is just dumber than rock!

In your case dowly(looking at your avatar), if you look into the mirror you wont see the difference between the dumb rocks and yourself :rotfl: J/k mate

but indeed in modern games , the AI is getting more suicidal like they have been programmed by Ex-suicidal bombers.

[Dowly]

No, no, no! Take a modern game with average suicidal AI. Ok, now think of it as 100x dumber, there you have GRAW 2's team AI.

[HunterICX]

No, no, no! Take a modern game with average suicidal AI. Ok, now think of it as 100x dumber, there you have GRAW 2's team AI.

short for Heavily retarded AI's
thats the game I skip then , (lol, like it would run on my system anyway)

[Dowly]

I really hope they fix it on a patch, as it just sucks. And yes, your PC would blow up and die to the installer. :p

[Heibges]

The AI in SOCOM III and Combined Assault on the PS2 was very realistic I thought. I swear they must take those missions right out of a training manual.

Move to point A, conduct an attack.

Move to point B, conduct an ambush.

Move to point C, conduct a recon.

Move to point D, rescue a non combatant.

The gameplay is a little slow for some, but you can make it through most missions "run and gun" if you want.

The way you order your men is very realistic also.

And the online play is really good.

[P_Funk]

The thing thats funny is that the better looking the battlefield the stupider the AI... hmmm its almost as if they're pushing the game on superficial points only and not giving a flying fick about the real guts of it.

[Heibges]

It may just be a matter of resources. Graphics just take a lot longer to create than previously. If you have the same 30 man team making a game, each generation of hardware makes the same game more graphics intensive.

The first game that had 1000 bugs in it was SEGA's NFL 2k in 1999. Now it is not uncommon for games to have over 10,000 bugs during the development cycle.

[Heibges]

UPDATE: Bye Bye MS, hello EA!

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2007/tc20070717_630819.htm?