Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Demophobe]

A couple of posts lately have me shaking my head...

Why would anyone a) buy a game made by EA outside of the sports genre and b) expect a good gaming experience from a cash-cow, movie tie-in game?

I tell you folks, there are better games out there!

Blizzard, Microsoft, Id, Valve, Gathering of Developers, Crytech, ION storm....some names to look for when gaming.

I mean....we all look for certain things when we buy something. A trusted car company, computer parts, clothes, food....but with games, we just pick one up as if they were all cut from the same cloth.

Well, they aren't and I am a snob.

Read some reviews folks! Lord of the Rings was mediocre at best, and the reviews passed it off as just another money-grab by EA. Of course, not all have a super-computer to run the latest, but even Half-life 2 (which every gamer should own) runs on my wife's GeForce 3 64MB (3 year-old card) at 1024x768 fluidly.

Companies and engines are of great concern here. How can anyone expect a memorable or even fun experience playing a gmae from a company that has their priorities totally in the wrong order? Money first, gamers second. That's EA to a "T", among many other developers. It's like buying fashion from Wal-mart. Cheap? Yes. Functional? Yes. That's where it ends.

No point here besides wanting people to have a good time if and when they game. Do some homework before buying a game....trust me, it will pay off when you get home.

Ok....rant off.

[Hank Scorpio]

[Gord]

[Demophobe]

Right....good point! I enjoyed a couple of games on that list. I guess I didn't realize that EA was partially responsible for some of those games, albeit in a distributor's role. I think there must be a distinction between games they produce as devs and games they simply distribute.

From their site:

"Electronic Arts (EA) is the world's leading independent developer and publisher of interactive entertainment software for personal computers and advanced entertainment systems..."

In my ignorance, I wasn't clear, but clearly on the right track. As devs, they are terrible. As distributors, they have their hand in enough jars, they do have some winners. I did say "made"...

Ok....my point is perhaps blunt. I do however, stand by my assertion that movie tie-ins are just cash-cows, and are never memorable games. For afficionados, they are a novelty item, but that's about it.

Just for fun, I got a copy of the "Hulk" game, seeing as the movie was a hoot (and wonderfully directed by Ang Lee), I thought perhaps the game would be fun. It wasn't. Spider-man? The same. Harry Potter? The same.

If you are going to game, why do it with poor quality games? Lacking gameplay, non-intuitive functionality, generic coding and visually boring engines; hallmarks of too many games.

I guess it means a lot to some people to be Frotto for a while, or the Hulk, or Spiderman. This is why I am at fault; a snob of sorts. I think that the characters graphic representation should be second or fifth place. The gameplay, AI, engine, level design, re-playability...all of this is much more important than who my character looks like.

Heck, I would play as a tutu-sporting, crackhead ballerina if the the aforementioned qualities were all present in quality. It's only a game at heart, so why have the very things that make a game good be absent? Superficialities rule the day.

I say these things only bacause I am a snob. If people really enjoy these games, then all the power to them. Who am I to trash another's fun? I guess I just threw this up to try and make some folks think about things when they drop some of their hard-earned money on a title for the title.

[Hank Scorpio]

[Hank Scorpio]

[Bulsajo]

[Hank Scorpio]

[dogbert]

I suppose you're talking about PC games, but I like what EA has done with Burnout 3. Everything or Nothing is also a good game.

[FUBAR]

Even the sports games have gotten a little shoddy. Madden 2005 is pretty much a carbon copy of the 2004 version, save a few add-ons to the Franchise mode and the roster updates. Sega Sports tried to capture some of the market by selling the 2005 version of their game for $29.95. Not sure if it helped them regain some of their market though.

For Non-sports games, I thought Medal of Honor was a pretty good game, though Rising Son seemed to be lacking alot.

[itaewonguy]

yeah I just started playing need for speed2 underground
and I was thinking it was gonna be a sic game..
well its ok.. its just too boring!!
I mean they should have made it like GTA more action getting out of the cars, and getting new cars etc...
man when are these game developers gonna make some real interactive games!!

[Demophobe]

[mack the knife]

Half-life2 hasn't exactly been getting stellar reviews. Like Halo2, many reviews I've read say it falls short of its predecessor (at best). Doom3 has been poo-pood a goodly amount as well. Basic problems linking all three games: repetition and a storyline that simply peters out/disappoints. Sure, the graphics are McWonderful in all three games, but you can only look at the pretty screen for so long before you need to DO SOMETHING INTERESTING.

Now, Fable for Xbox, there's a FUN game!!

BTW: I loved Halo2 the first few times I played it through to the end simply because I enjoy the storyline. The graphics and gameplay were solid, but frankly I'm already bored with the single player campaign. I still go back and play the original Halo SPC once in a while because it still sh*ts all over most games.

[Bulsajo]

[Demophobe]