+- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Frictional Games (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: EA innovation: "No more single player!" (/thread-18216.html)
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - Kreekakon - 09-09-2012
(09-09-2012, 03:36 PM)Aldighieri Wrote: EA's bad, but I'm surprised that a lot of people think they are the worst company ever. That isn't even remotely true.It's just bad luck for them that the worst company voting happened shortly after Mass Effect 3's drama.
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - Chap - 09-09-2012
(09-08-2012, 09:34 PM)Gaviao Wrote: you have to admit that EA made alot of cool games like SSX,Mass Effect and Battlefield...Lol and yet this example makes me laugh the hardest since EA only made 1 in the 3 examples you give lol, they published ME and BAttlefield, the developers were BioWare and Dice - Both of which make better games generally than EA xD
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - darkely - 09-09-2012
(09-09-2012, 03:49 PM)Chap1400 Wrote:Yes.(09-08-2012, 09:34 PM)Gaviao Wrote: you have to admit that EA made alot of cool games like SSX,Mass Effect and Battlefield...Lol and yet this example makes me laugh the hardest since EA only made 1 in the 3 examples you give lol, they published ME and BAttlefield, the developers were BioWare and Dice - Both of which make better games generally than EA xD
BEWARE: EA is a publisher not a developer (for the most part). Kind of like how authors sign deals with publishers to print the books.
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - the dark side - 09-09-2012
I am glad EA is doing this pathetic, hatefull, thing.
namely because it has Seriously angered the gaming world, this means more and more people will refuse to buy there games, or will just pirate them like usual, EAs profits and sales fiqures have been rather weak for some time now, in fact, they are, according to blomberg anyway, on the verge of financial difficulty, seeing as they have had, about 3 games in a row FLOP on them, The Run, Nu-Moh 2010, and battlefeild 3 all sold WAY short of there sales targets.
With this decision, perhaps EA will get what is coming to them, they reach an unsustainably low level of sales, get baught out by Activision, and get closed down for good. i Hate Activision, but they are a better company than EA at least.
yes, EA used to Publish some really good games, but i think the games they have published have all, without exception, Stunk like a parisian sewer since 2005 (was Timesplitters 3 from 2004 or 2005? i cant remember, one of the LAST good games they published anyway). the rot started with EA, if you ask me, with "Underground" in 2002.
to me, the best EA Published games all came out before 2005, except for NFS, then its Pre 2002, with Hot Pursuit 2 (2001) being the last one to Deserve the name. although SOME of there franchises, such as Burnout (sucked under Acclaim, Sucked even worse under EA), and Battlefield, as examples, have NEVER been good in my opinion and have stunk from day 1 if you ask me.
they have been greedy, vicious bloodsuckers from day 1 though, when did NOLF 2 (Brilliant game, an absolute masterpiece IMO) come out? 2001 was it? even that had a Spoof on "EA", H.A.R.M's main Rivals in India, "Evil Alliance", were famous for brutal working hours, an all powerfull profit obsessed marketing division, and a tendancy to go to court every 5 seconds over "copyright". just like the "other EA" lol. and that spoof was 11 years ago!
EA has been a "bad business", reaching even an unparrallelled full 10/10 on the "JR Ewing Scale of Evil business management", for a LONG time, its only since 2005 that they have been publishing nothing but bad games though, and now, with there latest decisions like "--Log", always on DRM, Online Pass, Origin (wich installs a spyware on your system dont forget) and on Disk DLC , they are surpassing even there own past records for evil business management, John Ricitello was an extremely nasty, evil man, but at least EA published some great games under him, under Frank Gibeau however, the games haven gotten terrible and the company has got even more evil.. never thaught this Possible, but Gibeau may be even worst than Robert Kotick!
well, if EA get purchased out or collapse, it will be a good thing, it should free up there IP's and developers to go to better Publishers.
i Say Timesplitters and Crytek Uk should go to Devolver Digital (imagine having Timesplitters 4 developed by a combination of Crytek Uk (the former free radical) and Croteam, that would be an awesome game!)
NFS to Codematers (to take it back to its sim-cade with supercars route so codemasters can "take on" Forza Horizon),
Battelfeild and nu-Moh to Activision (so like COD these days that they might as well just become spin offs of that insipid series)
and Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and all EA's other RPG titles off to Bethesda (for all the quality controll issues they have, youve got to admit they still make a corking RPG, plus, wouldnt that be a lovely little Revenge for Bethesoft after what Evil Alliance did to them all those years ago? revenge, is after all, a dish best eaten cold) and so on, wich if you ask me, would be a good thing for gaming, the developers free to make the games THEY want, and long dead franchises such as NFS baught totally back to their roots and given new life, surely thats a good thing yes?
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - CorinthianMerchant - 09-09-2012
(09-08-2012, 09:55 PM)Gaviao Wrote:[video=youtube]http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0[/video](09-08-2012, 09:41 PM)Prelauncher Wrote:it's always good to have a multiplayer mode on a game xD, like on bioshock 1, they made a 9 hour campaign, but after you finish the campaign you have to sell the game,because you have nothing more to do with it...multiplayer will only make the things moar... interesting... but i know your point of vision xD EA alredy did many bad things, like saying that mass effect 3 had alot of endings but when you bought the game and play it to the end, there are only 3 endings, no matter if you are renegade or paragon... and now they will start to put effort on multiplayer games, hahaha,they are dead xD (google translator)(09-08-2012, 09:34 PM)Gaviao Wrote: you have to admit that EA made alot of cool games like SSX,Mass Effect and Battlefield,and i wonder if they work for rockstar games... they would make a game like LA NOIRE.Uhm, I didn't say that studios developing games under EA haven't made any good games...it's just that they'll now be forced to add online features i.e. multiplayer.
And no, EA working for Rockstar? I don't see that happening.
Spore.
I want an expansion.
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - the dark side - 09-09-2012
The idea is, you finish the single player mode, then you Play it again on a HARDER difficulty, you go looking for secrets, you try alternative dialoque choices, you play it Slower to savour all the little storyline nuances, and soak in the art style, you Enjoy the EXPERIENCE of the game world.
im sorry, but, if you think SP should be a one run only tutorial for MP, then perhaps you should stick to Call of Duty.
i will concede that 9 hours is NOT long enough by a long shot in my eyes, as its not really long enough, in my opinion, to fully flesh out the storyline.
But, i stand firm in my beleive that any form of "anti social" online Multiplayer is NOT a good idea. it takes away Budget that could be spent making a bigger and better Single player campaign, and leads to the mainstream idea of the SP campaign being a 2 hour at the most Tutorial for Multiplayer, wich is completely Unnacceptable, MP should be, at best, a nice little bonus, Developed by a seperate "budget" studio for no more than $20,000 (anything more is just a waste of money), taking up no less than 5% of the total disk space, and just put in as a bit of fun, it should not, ever, be the entire reason for a games exsistance.
i have no problem with a single player only game, in fact, i Prefer them, i am Far more likely to buy a single player game than i am to even LOOK at one that has any form of multiplayer functionality, as being single player shows me the Budget has been spent entirely on crafting a great and immersive Storyline, Great, old Fashioned Gameplay, and Healthy campaign lifespan, the 3 most important things to me in any action game.
it means the budget has not been wasted on a Boring "go america go" outdated 80s action movie plot wrapped round a patronisingly Dumb Tutorial for MP, Boring, Broken, Modern Gameplay, and a lifespan of only 2 hours because they want you to play with Moronic American 10 year olds who idea of "fun" is trolling the voice chat while camping out with a barret. that is NOT what i call a good time. a deep, immersive, challenging, old fashioned Sp experience is what i call a good time.
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - Kreekakon - 09-09-2012
(09-09-2012, 08:15 PM)the dark side Wrote: i will concede that 9 hours is NOT long enough by a long shot. 12 hours is the shortest acceptable campaign in my eyes.Many, MANY good games have single players which are under that amount of time, Amnesia included. Game length is not reflective of a game's quality. Just look at the Portal series.
RE: EA innovation: "No more single player!" - the dark side - 09-09-2012
thats true.
okay. i think ill change my post. indeed many great games do come in under 9 hours.
however, on your example of amnesia, well, im not sure on its quallifcations as a "game". you see, and Frictional themselves have said this, the question with Amnesia, great it may be, is, "is it really a game in the traditional meaning of the word game?" or is it more a peice of interactive, Horror themed, art? as it really doesnt actually comply to many traditional gaming tropes, the CLOSEST i can get it to is Point and Click, wich also couldnt really be called games, they were more an Interactive "Experience", and are closer to amnesia due to the idea of them also being to "immerse yourself in the experience," than "playing to win". they are still great, yes , but in a different way to other, more gameplay oriented, genres.
its just, personally, i like a really long game, Granted, i would, naturally, Rather play a game that is Short-ish.. but really well made, like portal, than one that takes forever but is badly made and boring, like the last couple of final fantasy's (man, enix has dropped the ball with that series!) for example, but for me, i do like having a long length, as it allows the plotline and story to be fully explained and fleshed out, probably why i love NOLF, beautifully made, and with a LONG lifespan (a good 15 hours for me at a nice slow canter so i can soak in the experience and little details) for me the ultimate games combine a Massive Lifespan with great gameplay and quality, probably why my 3 fave games of all time are Half Life 1, Deus EX1, and NOLF 1 (with the scaling turned off naturally). as they mix a long lifespan with great gameplay.
i still stand by my guns though, Mulitplayer is a Waste of Budget. the only games that should be multiplayer, IMO, should be games that are expressly designed to be Multiplayer Only, such as Counter Strike or Team Fortress, if a game has a single player mode, then the whole Budget should be spent on the single player mode to ensure a quality campaing, not a two hour, micheal bay inspired, tutorial for "Anti-social" multiplayer, ("social multiplayer" is SPLITSCREEN not online).
to make a short tutorial type Campaign, and focuss on MP as the Reason Detre, is to waste Budget that either could have been spent making a Proper SP campaign, or Actually properly balancing the MP and Preventing the issues of "over powered noob guns/cars/whatever" and "cheating/camping". it Damages BOTH the SP and MP aspects to have both, it should be one or the Other only. Co-op is acceptable however, seeing as that is based on the SP mode, in fact it is SP mode, with more "camaras" instead of AI constructs, wich means budget isnt wasted, in fact, co op is cheaper to make than pure SP as less AI constructs are needed.
but, in my opinion, Competative MP should be in MP exclusive games (wich should be limited, by law, to no more than 10% of ALL games released in a year to prevent gaming from becoming an NT only hobby, and the ultimate in descrimination, as all games will be multiplayer only to save money), and ONLY MP exclusive games to ensure better balancing and more "skill" focussed Maps. SP games should be SP and Perhaps co-op, only, to ensure a Better Campaign Experience.
in fact, to have both, actually Damages your Sales potential. by having SP, you lower the number of Mp focussed buyers, because they know the MP is going to be highly unbalanced, as experience has taught them that is often the case, and having MP will damage interest from SP focussed gamers, as they know the SP will be a Short, Low Budget, Patronising, Tutorial for MP, as again, experience has taught them that, these days, that is almost Universally the case. I for example, immeditaly loose ALL interest in a game if the developers EVER talk about multiplayer, because ill know the game will be biased towards MP, and thus, will have a very short, patronising SP, wich wont be worth my money. i am sure i cannot be the only person who thinks the same!
to have one or the other will lead to stronger sales to their respective markets, not low sales in both due to a failed attempt to snatch sales from a rival market with a badly implemented SP or MP mode that turns of players who are biased towards an individual type of mode. more sales, less budget wasted, higher profits, better gameplay quality, its a win win for both gamers, and publishers to make games either Purely MP or Purely SP, instead of trying to do both.
PS. Post on lifespans has been altered.,