was Ea ever good?

[megadrivesonic]

I look back at gaming in the late 90's and early 2000's and wonder was EA before this a company who released good games? The only one i can think of from then that really stood out was American Mcgee's Alice, If anyone remembers the good EA games please refresh are gaming memories.

[JayTheWiz]

I still think most of their games are OK, but aside from a few series like Mass Effect nothing too standoutish. Also, I REALLY wish they would stop rushing their developers... I understand that they want to make money ASAP, but I think the games would sell BETTER if the developers had time to make the game reach it's maximum potential.

But, yeah, they aren't a company that regularly releases "great" games. The main thing they have on their side (regardless of people who will say otherwise) is Madden. If they released no other game BUT Madden, they would still be a pretty freackin well of company.

[Ragnarokia]

You poor soul, you don't recall the Amiga, and the lovely D-Paint. Back in the day, EA were a good Amiga name.

[Jackho]

Desert.

Strike.

and system shock

[megadrivesonic]

At 10/12/13 06:40 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: You poor soul, you don't recall the Amiga, and the lovely D-Paint. Back in the day, EA were a good Amiga name.

They were behind Deluxe Paint!? who would have thought.

[II2none]

Yep Burnout 3 was the best racing game ever. But now they're just trying to hop on the COD train.

[Natick]

well they did release the only sports game i have ever cared about or enjoyed back when they were young in the sega genesis days...

[Splats]

At 10/12/13 07:48 PM, II2none wrote: Yep Burnout 3 was the best racing game ever. But now they're just trying to hop on the COD train.

Suddenly, I feel sleepy

[FlakJaketPro]

>Battlefield 1942 and it's booster packs
>Battlefield Vietnam
>When they purchased the studio of the Modern Combat mod for 1942 to make Battlefield 2
>BF2's Booster Packs
>Battlefield 2142 and Northern Strike (Which was eventually free)

EA basically shat on the series after that, switching it to your Edgy Modern Combat, taking away enemies such as the MEC and PLA and then replacing them with Russians who just spoke in Russian Accented English. Don't even get me started on the theme.

Command and Conquer which technically is EA's. It started to go downhill at the 3rd game when EA stripped a ton of potential out of the still good Tiberian Sun. Series hit rock bottom at Command and Conquer 4 and Tiberium Alliances and now EA is going to release a F2P game combining all the Universes so they can milk Command and Conquer out of every dollar before discontinuing the series.

[Jin]

At 10/13/13 08:21 AM, FlakJaketPro wrote: >Battlefield 1942 and it's booster packs
>Battlefield Vietnam
>When they purchased the studio of the Modern Combat mod for 1942 to make Battlefield 2
>BF2's Booster Packs
>Battlefield 2142 and Northern Strike (Which was eventually free)

I thought this thread's about games EA developed.

[FlakJaketPro]

At 10/13/13 08:50 AM, Jin wrote: I thought this thread's about games EA developed.

I just figured it was developed and published.

[Freaki-boy92]

don't they own bioware and maxis?
bioware make some awesome games and maxis made the sims which is awesome

[HighWay]

one of my favorite games when i was a kid was made by what was then Electronic Arts.

Hot Wheels Turbo Racing!

[Ragnarokia]

At 10/12/13 07:20 PM, megadrivesonic wrote:

At 10/12/13 06:40 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: You poor soul, you don't recall the Amiga, and the lovely D-Paint. Back in the day, EA were a good Amiga name.

They were behind Deluxe Paint!? who would have thought.

It may be mistaken as another company since they used to have a completely different logo, EA used to have the 3 shapes of the circle, square and triangle, they also didn't tend to abbreviate their name to EA and instead have it Electronic Arts.

[orangebomb]

EA has been (and still are) one of the best publishers/developers today, politics be damned. They have a lot of good developers like Bioware and Dice, which haven't produced many clunkers, if at all, and a lot of people enjoy the various yearly sports games such as Madden and FIFA, so they must know what they're doing. Are they greedy to an extent? Yes they are, but I hardly think that should matter at all, considering EA's track record of good games over a long period of time.

[Auz]

I understand the criticism that they get from the gaming community, but they have published quite a number of good games. Even in recent years.

There's:

System Shock 2
Dragon Age
The Mass Effect series
Mirror's Edge
and quite a few others.

I'm personally not such a big fan of Need for Speed and The Sims, but I believe they're pretty good game series too. Fifa might not be so bad if they didn't release a new game every year with minimal effort in innovation.

[II2none]

At 10/13/13 06:47 PM, Auz wrote: I understand the criticism that they get from the gaming community, but they have published quite a number of good games. Even in recent years.

There's:

The Mass Effect series

aren't they the reason ME3 bombed?

Mirror's Edge

that game was average imo.however I am a fan.

and quite a few others.

But there was more during the 6th generation.
and their dlc practices are shady.

[Nebula]

What, you all forgot this? Seriously?

[Natick]

lol, corporate apologism

[orangebomb]

At 10/14/13 08:25 AM, Natick wrote: lol, corporate apologism

This really has nothing to do with apologizing to a corporation. This is about whether EA is a good publisher/developer, and it's fairly obvious that the answer is yes, because of their track record on games. The problem is that people overmangify their faults, and base their view purely on them, and that's wrong, and you know it.

EA may have their faults, but the track record of games overshadows all of them, and yet, few people seem to care about this.

[Natick]

lol, insecure corporate apologism

[Jin]

Afaik if a game isn't developed by EA, the only way EA affects the games are the corporate decisions that are put on the developers; dead-lines, micro-transactions, cutting content from main game and selling as expansion etc. For games where they've bought the developers over and took over the series, only the changes made to the series matter. Those, and games they've developed themselves - aka all the recycled sports games - are the only things that should be considered when judging the company.

Within that context, EA fucked up badly. And if one can dismiss these mistakes as minute then there's no description better than being corporate apologist, or one who suffers heavily from cognitive dissonance.

[JayTheWiz]

At 10/13/13 08:00 PM, II2none wrote: aren't they the reason ME3 bombed?

ME3 didn't "bomb" as it sold really well and was crictically well recieved.

The problems all stem from the original ending of course (and even with the extended cut, some fans still say it's not good enough) but after hearing what the original plans for the ending was (something to do with the "dark energy" or "dark manner" or whatever it was that was mentioned a few times in ME2; if you're curious, just google ME3 original ending and the first 2 or 3 links will have a few details) I think it was gonna be a letdown no matter what.

All feelings aside though, no, I don't think that ME3's ending failed because of them. Everything about ME3 was test played and showed to other people for approval... EXCEPT the ending. This was likely to avoid potential leaks, but had Casey Hudson showed ANYONE that ending beforehand, it probably would of never seen the light of day.

That said, they were being pressed for time by EA, which did play a part in ME3's downfall, but to say it was all EA's fault is just insane.

[orangebomb]

At 10/14/13 12:54 PM, Jin wrote: Those, and games they've developed themselves - aka all the recycled sports games - are the only things that should be considered when judging the company

Way to dismiss all of the other games that they either published or devleoped. I'll give you that their in studio company is rather shaky at times, but if you're going to judge any game company lile EA, then you have to take in account all of the other developers too, considering that they are in their umbrella as well.

Within that context, EA fucked up badly. And if one can dismiss these mistakes as minute then there's no description better than being corporate apologist, or one who suffers heavily from cognitive dissonance.

I never said that they were perfect, but they have either solved a lot of those problems, or they're not really as big as some people make them out to be. You and Natick sound like those idiot hipsters who hate EA, because they are so big, and aren't making that you and 6 others are complaining about. They don't owe anyone anything, and anyone with half a brain and aren't biased would know that you judge a company on the games they publish/develop, not the silly politics and cheap talk that seems to be dime a dozen in the gaming community, much less here.

[Natick]

scratch that last thing i said

projecting corporate apologism ftw, eh?

[Nor]

Yeah they were ok, they still release good games every now and then. Its just that what I hate and most of the community doesnt like is that they are greedy untrustworthy scumbags

[megadrivesonic]

At 10/14/13 02:08 AM, Nebula wrote: What, you all forgot this? Seriously?

I haven't forgot about it, in fact i mentioned it in the question in fact.

[orangebomb]

At 10/14/13 07:24 PM, Natick wrote: projecting corporate apologism ftw, eh?

Are you going to actually contribute anything to the thread, or are you just keep continuing to make smart-ass comments that are irrelevant to the topic?

[II2none]

At 10/14/13 03:54 PM, JayTheWiz wrote:

At 10/13/13 08:00 PM, II2none wrote: aren't they the reason ME3 bombed?

ME3 didn't "bomb" as it sold really well and was crictically well recieved.

well you knew what I meant my fault for not being specific.

[Natick]

i have contributed to this topic. everything i have said so far is a relevant response. i even listed a game ea made 20 years that i actually give a lot of praise to. i'm just not being a defensive arse about one of the most greedy companies in this country and ragging out anyone who doesn't like being fucked as a consumer for being "hipster idiot" (last time i checked, hipster tends to go against the norm and the norm in this case is that most people who know enough about ea hate ea so if you want to call anyone a hipster, look in the mirror, friend-o).

i could go with the normal and boring arguments against ea such as pointing at all the studios they shut down that were "under-performing" after they ran their intellectual properties into the ground with sequels that had unrealistic and rushed release dates, the mistreatment of their employees in 2004, the sexist and ageist ads for dead space 2, their over-investment on blockbusters without focusing on smaller titles, their misunderstanding of how different markets for different genres work, the poor optimization of their unnecessary download service origin, snide comments justifying day-1 dlc, the simcity drm fiasco, the decline in quality of games because of their insistence on yearly sequels and so on and so forth. i could go in to lengthy detail with all of these arguments with linked sources but i have shit to do and i'm not interested in speaking with someone who i know doesn't want to be convinced or say that he's wrong.

because you are wrong. ea releases good games in the sense that they're run-of-the-mill, ordinary and compatible (if you take out the drm and microtransactions) but aren't ambitious, innovative, or even fun when you keep getting the same damn thing each year but with slight gameplay additions and a fancier coat of paint. if you want to eat wall-paper paste for breakfast, lunch and dinner, then fine by me but don't bullshit me and attempt to get me to forgive the shady and outright idiotic business practices these people engage in just because it's triple-a publishing. as jin said, they may not have the biggest say in the development of a game but as publishers, they have fucked up massively time and time again and have refused to learn from their mistakes. i can't believe anyone would miss the fact that publishing decisions affect how a game turns out.

oh and before i forget, it's kind of cute when you try to convince anyone to forgive ea's faults and excuse them as minor while also going after valve any chance you can. do not reply to this post. i will not read what you have to say. i do not care.