• EA Exec: "Our games are too hard"
    128 replies, posted
Wow dude, modern games are piss easy as it is. I've been playing Halo 1 a lot recently, and it's real refreshing that it's actually challenging. And that's part of the appeal, to me, of old games in general. They weren't dumbed down to a point where you can beat them in a few hours. [sp]I just hope that Mirror's Edge 2 doesn't get fucked up. I've already lost interest in the rest of their other shit, Battlefield is already a lost cause, just please don't fuck up Mirror's Edge.[/sp]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/diuQfwk.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=MilkBagz;47088162]Wow dude, modern games are piss easy as it is. I've been playing Halo 1 a lot recently, and it's real refreshing that it's actually challenging. And that's part of the appeal, to me, of old games in general. [sp]I just hope that Mirror's Edge 2 doesn't get fucked up. I've already lost interest in the rest of their shit - Battlefield is a lost cause - just please don't fuck up Mirror's Edge.[/sp][/QUOTE] Mirrors Edge 2 every level is running down a path with no obstacles or enemies
Every time i play a legitimately hard game these days, i realize how shit iv become from the constant 10 or so years of my life that games have been casualized. Games these days arent hard at all.
They should try and make casuals play a game from the X series, that should give them some perspective.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;47088039]My rule of thumb for buying games is for every dollar I spent, I expect to put at least 1 hour into it. So if I pay $60 for a game, I won't consider it worth my money until I've put at least 60 hours into it. I personally think this is a very good rule of thumb for me, and has yet to let me down. Some notable examples: FarCry 3: Spent $7.50 (Steam sale), have 60 hours in (meaning it would have been worth full-price for me, though just barely) Xcom Enemy Within: Spent ~$40 (about $9 for Enemy Unknown, and $30 for the expansion), have 164 hours in it. FTL Faster Than Light: Spent $3 (Steam sale :v:), have 165 hours in it. Killing Floor: Spent like $15 on it (I can't even remember), have 245 hours in it.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/stR5jpt.jpgp[/img] Talk about value for money. Heh. I pre-ordered that shit and bought every story DLC. Still play it from time to time, too!
That stuff got me wondering if they hired the same playtesters as Valve when they made HL2.
Stuff like this is why we will never have a God Hand 2.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47088138]the problem is, the western gaming industry keeps killing the mid-sized devs by buying them and forcing them to make crap/running shit to the ground for a quick buck, EA absorbing westwood and killing CnC is an excellent example of that, maybe the advent of digital distribution might prevent similar things from happening again, but still. but yeah, i'd be happy if the "big players" went after mobile and left the more serious devs/publishers take over niches. would also help if the small/mid-size devs stopped making horrible business decisions :v:[/QUOTE] Heh, I'm typing on a phone sitting on a microeconomics textbook... But that's beside the point. Decent developers get bought out, for good reason. They're smart, and have made a set of decisions. Let's say you're a good, but small game studio, you're offered $300 million by EA, Ubisoft, or some other "big evil" to get bought. You know that the chance of your current game, and the next few games you make will that much money is slim, and that by using a big studios resources, you can accomplish much more. It'll also give you the opportunity to retire early, go do you're own personal projects more, or even advance up the ladder of an international company, like EA. You'd probably sell out, because it's literally an offer of time and financial freedom; to do anything you've ever wanted. On the other side of things, small devs often lack financial and decisional foresight, either because they have a less comprehensive education, or are limited in talent. (Eg, Notch was a good visionary, but a rather poor project manager) There are few companies that's been able to grow fast enough to really escape the aqusition ending, and the the most successful ones do end up being some sort of social thing, eg, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, stack exchange, etc
[quote]"The average player probably spends two hours to learn how to play the most basic game."[/quote] Makes me wonder what that average player looks like. 'Cause I could completely understand that line of reasoning if they're trying to make the completely uninitiated play, say, a shooter with WASD, mouse controls and a reload key. I don't think my mom could even control the camera with the mouse until a few hours in.
Businessmen in the videogame industry. Like old people and the internet. Like my father and toolbars.
TO BE FAIR Their NHL game line is extremely hard, frustrating, and I still dont know all the moves in it. Its the only game where I've gotten to the point of RQ'ing because of some extremely good players.
Why do I have a feeling that they are trying to use "our games are too hard" as a means of justifying microtransactions in single player games? It didn't come up but thats the vibe I'm getting.
videogames have become shit do something else with your life
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;47088261]Makes me wonder what that average player looks like. 'Cause I could completely understand that line of reasoning if they're trying to make the completely uninitiated play, say, a shooter with WASD, mouse controls and a reload key. I don't think my mom could even control the camera with the mouse until a few hours in.[/QUOTE] Realize that, since that's the average, half of them take even longer. Gaming going mainstream has replaced "gaming" with "Facebook gaming". :suicide:
How the fuck is it hard to learn how to play a game? What the fuck is their target audience, mentally challenged 5 year olds? 2 hours to learn how to play a basic game? Fucking really? Unless said game is a 4X game like Civ5, I could understand, but that's far form a "basic" game.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47088302]Realize that, since that's the average, half of them take even longer.[/QUOTE] That's not how averages work, you're probably thinking of medians.
Man, it's shit like this that makes me want to be a playtester or QA employee to at least help quality in some way but I've heard very bad things about entering those positions
I like games that are easy to learn because you can just jump right into them but christ at least make them challenging. Doom (with sourceport) is hella easy to learn and play yet it can be hard as balls at times.
EA Games: put no challenge in anything. Doesn't sound as good as "challenge everything".
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;47088039]My rule of thumb for buying games is for every dollar I spent, I expect to put at least 1 hour into it. So if I pay $60 for a game, I won't consider it worth my money until I've put at least 60 hours into it. I personally think this is a very good rule of thumb for me, and has yet to let me down. Some notable examples: FarCry 3: Spent $7.50 (Steam sale), have 60 hours in (meaning it would have been worth full-price for me, though just barely) Xcom Enemy Within: Spent ~$40 (about $9 for Enemy Unknown, and $30 for the expansion), have 164 hours in it. FTL Faster Than Light: Spent $3 (Steam sale :v:), have 165 hours in it. Killing Floor: Spent like $15 on it (I can't even remember), have 245 hours in it.[/QUOTE] I've thought that way for a long time and I thought I was just being greedy. Good to know the method at least works.
"Press X to kill the final boss."
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;47088454]I've thought that way for a long time and I thought I was just being greedy. Good to know the method at least works.[/QUOTE] It mostly works. There are flaws and caveats though. Transistor and Bastion, small games with some replayability, but fantastical stories wouldn't get included in that kind of purchasing mentality. I mostly use the same metric as you two, but when something is just gorgeous and amazing, I'll get it regardless. [editline]6th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47088461]"Press X to kill the final boss."[/QUOTE] what is this, fable 2?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47088497]what is this, fable 2?[/QUOTE] [sp]shadow of mordor[/sp]
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;47088022]One thing I always notice is the latest games are always too fucking easy. Having difficulty sliders from "blink and you're dead" to "you're a godlike bullet sponge" just makes it a joke too[/QUOTE] I find difficulty sliders to be more like, you always take an appropriate amount of damage, never less, but your enemies die too fast shit like saints row shouldn't have health upgrades though, but that game is all about being godlike these days
[QUOTE=J!NX;47088065]I grew up on cheat codes. And then I learned that the harder the game, the better. (Within reason!) If the game is too easy it's boring as fuck. The challenge is the entire point of the game. With no challenge in gaming, there is no point in playing them. (With the exception of more plot oriented games) The excitement comes from having to concur a challange. If everything was handed to you because of how easy it is, then it's boring as shit. There is nothing wrong with dying 4, 7, 25, 1000 times in a game, as long as it feels well paced and doesn't feel artificially difficult. But if you're never dying because you're never challenged then the game is unfairly easy.[/QUOTE] Usually I just go into a game on easy first just being brainless and dumb for an hour or so, learn the quirks, make mistakes and then go all in on Hard and feast on the challenge.
[QUOTE=Angus725;47088156]Imagine taking the guy to an expensive restaurant, or a movie...[/QUOTE] I wonder if he'd sit in a McDonalds for the entire hour after buying something from the dollar menu...
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;47088039]My rule of thumb for buying games is for every dollar I spent, I expect to put at least 1 hour into it.[/QUOTE] So I could've spent $6,300 USD on Garry's Mod and it would've been worth it :suicide:
Portal is a great example of how you can show someone mechanics while it doesn't feel like a tutorial and the game is only about an hour long He doesn't sound like he understands what ea even makes
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47088123]That's ridiculously optimistic and you're just setting yourself up for failure. [b]You're basically restricting yourself to squeezing playtime out of a game to "make it feel worth it"[/b], as only a fraction of games on the market will provide anything close to $1/hour of gameplay. A game should be worth it if you enjoyed it, not based on how much you played it. I paid ~£18 for Transistor, it took me 5 hours to finish it. By your metric it wasn't worth £18, but the game was wonderful and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Don't use play time as an indicator of game quality or whatever, it's stupid. Well, unless the game is like an hour long and cost you $500.[/QUOTE] Except that's not the case at all. I don't force myself to play games to "make them feel worth it." These hours I've put into games have just occurred naturally. Why the hell would I force myself to play games to "make them feel worth it"? If I have to force myself to play the game, then it obviously isn't that worth it. That's just a silly idea. I judge games on their entertainment value. That can be done in many ways - sandbox games like Farcry, Shadow of Mordor, and Fallout 3 just give a world to explore and do whatever you want, allowing for high play times. That is entertaining to me. Other games, like FTL and Killing Floor, have extreme replayability. That is entertaining to me. Does the narrative contribute? Of course it does. I paid $25 for Bioshock Infinite, and got 19 hours in it. Was it worth the $25 to me? Yes, because I really enjoyed the narrative. Would it have been worth $60 to me? Absolutely no way. I can in no way say that BSI would have been worth $60 to me. The issue with narrative is you can't quantify it. Note how I said "rule of thumb," not "Universal Law of the Worthiness of Games." It's a rough indicator. If I pay $60 for a game and could only tolerate to put 4 hours into over a span of 6 months, I can honestly say that the game was not worth the money to me. Likewise, if I paid $5 for a game, and put 16 hours into in one god-damn session (Terraria LAN with friends...), then I can say that the game was easily worth the money several times over. And similarly, I never said this is a metric of quality. Where did you get that from? I was talking about whether or not I regret spending the money on it. Whether or not I found it fun enough for the price I paid. Quality has nothing to do with that. I mean, look at Minecraft. It is far from a "quality" game in any sense of the word, yet I still have a few hundred hours in it. It entertained me immensely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.