EA Sports - Reason for big $$$ loses?

[JonB-School]

I am not sure if you have ever designed anything, but what your employer emphasizes makes a big difference on what you design. It affects when your product is released, what it will do, how it will do it, how well it is tested, how well it is supported, and how well it works among other things.

I have designed stuff. You are coming through loud and clear. I guess I've been lucky in that the start-ups I've worked for were mostly left alone after they were bought out. They were pressured to go in certain directions by the mother company, but the start-up CEO still had a ton of freedom.

DA 2 was mentioned because it was a very bad game, that was nowhere near as good as the original. Beyond that, both Skyrim and The Witcher 2 were released in the same time period in the same genre, and both were FAR superior.

I'd love to hear what qualities that made DA2 a very bad game that the competitors did have.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I'd love to hear what qualities that made DA2 a very bad game that the competitors did have.

Recycled areas over and over, tons of boring trash fights, a plot takes make zero sense and a completely out of place and creepy sexual pandering. Without mentioning the other things... Yeah, that's pretty bad.

 

[Sulaco]

I'd love to hear what qualities that made DA2 a very bad game that the competitors did have.

I don't see why this is so hard for you to grasp.

When you're making a sequel, your biggest "competitor" often times is yourself, and living up to/improving upon your previous game. If NOTHING else, at least not obviously taking steps backward.

When it is widely considered that the (first) entry in the series is leaps and bounds superior to your sequel, you've pretty much failed. Period. If 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 10 people can say, "Yes, the first game is better in almost every way", you have failed to deliver.

 

[MrDuma]

well they could learn a thing or two from Blizz i would say!

 

[Martimus]

I'd love to hear what qualities that made DA2 a very bad game that the competitors did have.

It is pretty simple. The Witcher 2 and Skyrim were engrossing and fun. Dragon Age 2 was not.

I understand you want more detail than that, but that is all I have time for at the moment.

 

[mirandu04]

what is with this obsession to see EA sports bankrupt (although it will never happen)

 

[frozentundra123456]

well they could learn a thing or two from Blizz i would say!

I would have agreed with you until playing the Diablo 3 beta (demo). I was not impressed at all, especially with the graphics. Even on my low end system I was still shocked by how bad the graphics were. I mean, like something out of 2005 bad. Hopefully the real game will scale better to stronger hardware or they will come out with a high texture pack or something.

I also am very disappointed with the always-on-line DRM and the auction house crap.

 

[Chiropteran]

I would have agreed with you until playing the Diablo 3 beta (demo). I was not impressed at all, especially with the graphics. Even on my low end system I was still shocked by how bad the graphics were. I mean, like something out of 2005 bad. Hopefully the real game will scale better to stronger hardware or they will come out with a high texture pack or something.

I also am very disappointed with the always-on-line DRM and the auction house crap.

Blizzard games have never been about cutting edge graphics, and they always do incredibly well despite it.

Graphics really seem like a poor way to judge a game. I mean games were fun to play back in 1990, right? They weren't less fun because the graphics were worse back then. Has something changed in you to make you unable to have fun with a less graphically advanced game?

"Good" graphics often get in the way of gameplay. You can't have big high-res models in anything but a first person view, while first person views really limit your strategic options.

 

[Concillian]

I'd love to hear what qualities that made DA2 a very bad game that the competitors did have.

I bought the DA1 + DA2 + DRM pack in January and played through DA and DA2 recently. DA2 did not have a LOT of features that DA1 did. As an example, a warrior could be an archer in DA1, but could not in DA2. There are LOTS of other examples, but removing customization is not going to make you any friends.

The biggest downfall of DA2 was not including features that were in it's predecessor. A gamer expects a sequel to build upon the experience of the original. If DA2 were released as it's own game, rather than as a "2" game, it would almost certainly have been better received.

Less NPC / player and NPC / NPC interaction and less user influence over NPC behavior wouldn't have been as large an issue if it wasn't being compared to the original Dragon Age. There have been successful games with much less of this kind of interaction. Skyrim has extremely stale NPC / NPC and player / NPC interaction, but it isn't being judged directly against Dragon Age in the way that Dragon Age 2 will obviously be compared to it's direct predecessor.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Blizzard games have never been about cutting edge graphics, and they always do incredibly well despite it.

Graphics really seem like a poor way to judge a game. I mean games were fun to play back in 1990, right? They weren't less fun because the graphics were worse back then. Has something changed in you to make you unable to have fun with a less graphically advanced game?

"Good" graphics often get in the way of gameplay. You can't have big high-res models in anything but a first person view, while first person views really limit your strategic options.

Blizzard games tend to have very good art despite not having cutting edge graphics.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Blizzard games have never been about cutting edge graphics, and they always do incredibly well despite it.

Graphics really seem like a poor way to judge a game. I mean games were fun to play back in 1990, right? They weren't less fun because the graphics were worse back then. Has something changed in you to make you unable to have fun with a less graphically advanced game?

"Good" graphics often get in the way of gameplay. You can't have big high-res models in anything but a first person view, while first person views really limit your strategic options.

I have a low end system, and am not really that into graphics either. But I dont think graphics necessarily get in the way of a good game. Look at Skyrim. I really enjoyed the game even though I could not come close to maxing it out at high resolution. But the graphics in Diablo 3 were just shockingly bad IMO. So bad that they distracted me from the rest of the game. And yes, we did enjoy games back in the old days. But I think it is fair to judge a game on current technology, not what was in use many years ago. "Back in the day" as old timers say, we liked cars with narrow bias ply tires, huge inefficient bodies and engines, poor fit and finish, three on the tree transmissions and no a/c or power options. But would we want to drive one now?? Dont think so. The same with graphics. We have a right to demand something at least on a par with current technology.

Edit: Also, it is not like they did not have time to develop an engine that would scale well to a variety of systems. I dont really know how long the game has been in development, but I know it has been many years.

 

[shurato]

There's a sizable portion of fans still dedicated to updating rosters for NFL 2k5. The sad thing is that, at least in my opinion (and many among us) it STILL plays better than the most recent Madden iterations. It certainly has more features (has madden actually implemented gang tackling yet? 2K has had it since the Dreamcast....), more polished presentation (the halftime shows with Bermann are still pretty impressive and in 2004 was groundbreaking), the play by play is still better (you can't coach that) and the animations are more realistic (for some reason EA seems to think NFL players run around like asimo). To top it off, they shell out HUGE sums of cash to maintain that exclusive rights contract, but only sell 1 (!!!!) game. They very easily could milk the NFL franchise and sell 4 games a year, an over the top NFL Blitz style arcade game, your standard Madden, a front office game (like head coach but not crap) and then a "hard knocks" type story driven game (think like superstar mode but actually meaningful and fleshed out, maybe even some light RPG elements and Bioware-style conversation trees...hell the more I talk about this, the more I want it....the life of a burly thick bearded fullback struggling to eek out a living in the league who's the prankster of the lockroom...).

So true... a monopoly only stifles innovation. The NFL is being seriously obtuse giving EA the only official NFL license. Your right that there could be so many other types of games with the NFL license. hah you should write a letter to the commissioner.