EA boss proudly refuses to publish single-player games
157 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Neo222;37562294]So, you don't want to take cover behind objects....which basically anyone should do, and you don't want to play with a trusted friend? Co-Op doesn't make the game any less scary. There are still jump-scares, players will panic when on low health, and I am pretty sure there will be those 'Oh Shit' moments when both players are swarmed by hundreds of enemies. Single-player will be as it is, but playing it on co-op...they will have to up the challenge to keep players on their toes.[/QUOTE]
Jump scares isn't horror.
Neither is being swarmed by hundreds of monsters that you have to shoot; that's action.
Low health isn't all there is to creating tension.
Darkness and risk of monster encounters isn't enough to create atmosphere and suspense.
Co-op is tons of fun, but it doesn't belong in the horror survival genre. How can a game possibly be scary when you've got the support of a companion, who not only reduces your vulnerability by providing an extra set of watchful eyes and blazing gun barrels but also helps turning the entire game into comedy?
[QUOTE=Neo222;37562294]So, you don't want to take cover behind objects....which basically anyone should do, and you don't want to play with a trusted friend? Co-Op doesn't make the game any less scary. There are still jump-scares, players will panic when on low health, and I am pretty sure there will be those 'Oh Shit' moments when both players are swarmed by hundreds of enemies. Single-player will be as it is, but playing it on co-op...they will have to up the challenge to keep players on their toes.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the hilarity of watching your dear friend getting his limbs torn off by a baby or something. That's another added bit of enjoyment.
[editline]6th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37562303]This makes me feel bad for buying over $100 in Sims games yesterday...[/QUOTE]
Why, are you just not going to enjoy the games you just purchased? Because if this article actually makes you dislike playing a game you would otherwise enjoy, I feel bad for you.
I like how everyone manages to read into this that there's not any single player gameplay, if only people read the first line of the article :)
[QUOTE=Cureless;37560953]How can a company be so disregardful of it's fan base, blatantly soulless, money hungry and awful as EA is. Bit still have success?
I can even grasp the finest thread of that form of 'logic'.[/QUOTE]
Certainly not because there are still people out there who enjoy their products, no that can't be it.
Don't act like your opinion is the only one in the world. Some people still buy their products because they enjoy them. People who buy their sports games, for instance.
[editline]6th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Greenen72;37562542]I like how everyone manages to read into this that there's not any single player gameplay, if only people read the first line of the article :)[/QUOTE]
But reading the article means they can't as easily make blind assumptions, and that's not fun.
I miss the EA that actually churned out fairly decent games, this new EA as of late is just as bad if not worse than activision. :(
If you were to read the article carefully, he doesn't mean he wants a Multiplayer mode in every game, he just wants online/social features. Like leader boards and that.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;37562542]I like how everyone manages to read into this that there's not any single player gameplay, if only people read the first line of the article :)[/QUOTE]
Creating multiplayer for a singleplayer game often means skimping quality on either or both. If you have a set of gameplay elements that you've developed for working in a singleplayer environment, why should development assets be spent tacking on a multiplayer, and vice versa?
[QUOTE=orcywoo6;37562562]I miss the EA that actually churned out fairly decent games, this new EA as of late is just as bad if not worse than activision. :([/QUOTE]
What exactly is the point in time that this occurred, in your opinion? From what I understand, Dante's Inferno, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Army of Two, Mass Effect and plenty of others came out fairly recently (within the past few years) and were generally liked.
And yes I understand that EA acts as a publisher, but my point still stands.
[editline]6th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37562582]Creating multiplayer for a singleplayer game means skimping quality on either or both.[/QUOTE]
Is this always the case? If a team goes in expecting to work on both single- and multi-player, does the quality suffer in every single instance?
You guys are fucking stupid.
He doesn't want all games to have 16 v 16 deathmatch gamemodes, he wants singleplayer games to at least have some sort of online component, like leaderboards or community additions.
[QUOTE=Tigster;37562587]
Is this always the case? If a team goes in expecting to work on both single- and multi-player, does the quality suffer in every single instance?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, it's just the most likely outcome when you're splitting your development resources across two different game modes. As I edited into my previous post; if you have a gameplay concept that you've found to work in a singleplayer environment it's just a waste of development assets to tack on a multiplayer mode, except in the rare cases where the gameplay mechanics are be genuinely interesting in both a single- and multiplayer game mode.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37562620]Absolutely not, it's just the most likely outcome. As I edited into my previous post; if you have a gameplay concept that you've found to work in a singleplayer environment it's just a waste of development assets to tack on a multiplayer mode, except in the rare cases where the gameplay mechanics are be genuinely interesting in both a single- and multiplayer game mode.[/QUOTE]
Okay, and now that we know that EA will not green-light a project if it doesn't have a component beyond SP (Which doesn't even mean it's actual multiplayer), then the devs know right from the start that they need to plan accordingly. But as has been stated multiple times in the thread, this doesn't mean a multiplayer component. The Sims has social features, and still manages to be a single player game.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent was single player only as a HORROR game, and look how much money it gained.
It was fucking good, too. Make good games, make good money. Price your games fairly, still make good profit.
Fuck multiplayer in some games.
[QUOTE=Tigster;37562637]Okay, and now that we know that EA will not green-light a project if it doesn't have a component beyond SP (Which doesn't even mean it's actual multiplayer), then the devs know right from the start that they need to plan accordingly. But as has been stated multiple times in the thread, this doesn't mean a multiplayer component. The Sims has social features, and still manages to be a single player game.[/QUOTE]
Personally though I don't think community-centric features like online leaderboards, achievements or item swapping seriously improves the singleplayer experience. Like I mentioned in a similar fashion earlier; it doesn't add game value, it's just something for the publishers to write on the game box. It's an unnecessary development expenditure that only serves to eat money out of the budget and give players a small chuckle when they see "You've unlocked the achievement 'Fagballs'!" on your game profile.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37562682]and give players a small chuckle when they see "You've unlocked the achievement 'Fagballs'!" on your game profile.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck are you on about
[QUOTE=Greenen72;37562695]what the fuck are you on about[/QUOTE]
Singleplayer games do not need online community features such as achievements or leaderboards.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37562682]Personally though I don't think community-centric features like online leaderboards, achievements or item swapping seriously improves the singleplayer experience. Like I mentioned in a similar fashion earlier; it doesn't add game value, it's just something for the publishers to write on the game box. It's an unnecessary development expenditure that only serves to eat money out of the budget and give players a small chuckle when they see "You've unlocked the achievement 'Fagballs'!" on your game profile.[/QUOTE]
Now you've completely transitioned into pushing your opinion as if everyone agrees with it.
[QUOTE=Tigster;37562729]Now you've completely transitioned into pushing your opinion as if everyone agrees with it.[/QUOTE]
I know, that's why I decided to begin the sentence with "Personally I think...". I know full and well I've moved from the realm of criticizing EA's statement to expressing my own opinions on community-oriented game features.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37562722]Singleplayer games do not need online community features such as achievements or leaderboards.[/QUOTE]
uhh if all the achievements were named "fagballs" i would agree with you, but achievements being awesome doesn't have anything to do with it being multiplayer or singleplayer
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;37562743]I know, that's why I decided to begin the sentence with "Personally I think...". I know full and well I've moved from the realm of criticizing EA's statement to expressing my own opinions on community-oriented game features.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between expressing opinions and touting them like everyone is on board with them. Some people like community features. In fact, I'd say plenty do, considering their continued existence and expansions.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;37562746]uhh if all the achievements were named "fagballs" i would agree with you, but achievements being awesome doesn't have anything to do with it being multiplayer or singleplayer[/QUOTE]
No need to take it so literally, I was just attempting to sarcastically poke fun of the tendency among achievements to have witty or decidedly humorous names (such as "choppy chop chop" - M&B Warband) whilst expressing my opinion of their pointless nature.
[editline]6th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tigster;37562771]There's a difference between expressing opinions and touting them like everyone is on board with them. Some people like community features. In fact, I'd say plenty do, considering their continued existence and expansions.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what part of my writing makes you think that I believe everybody agrees with me.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37560443]i would say a vast majority of people probably won't find Dwarf Fortress engaging[/QUOTE]
[img_thumb]http://www.netlore.ru/upload/files/52227/large_looks.png[/img_thumb]
How can you not find this MASTERPIECE OF GAME DESIGN engaging?
[quote]The inexorable march towards videogames becoming one indistinguishable mass of grey sludge continues.[/quote]
[img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080[/img]
And thusly does the writer of this article prove himself to be at least as stupid as EA's CEO.
game journalism is terrible. many game company executives are terrible.
sigh
[QUOTE=Strongbad;37562906][img_thumb]http://www.netlore.ru/upload/files/52227/large_looks.png[/img_thumb]
How can you not find this MASTERPIECE OF GAME DESIGN engaging? [/QUOTE]
I find it scary that I see this not as ASCII letters prancing around, but a fort with a path and bridge and oh god
[QUOTE=orcywoo6;37562562]I miss the EA that actually churned out fairly decent games, this new EA as of late is just as bad if not worse than activision. :([/QUOTE]
Activision had a rather short era where it kept on closing stuff and had a very questionable marketing scheme, but they really calmed down since then. The abusive marketing shit is limited to call of duty and at least they sometimes crap out some mildly decent minor games that are not CoD or part of an exploited franchise.
EA on the other hand just keeps on digging its own grave until it reaches the core of the earth, at which point it will probably just take a piss on it before staying there until it burns.
Battlefield - Nothing changes.
Burnout - Nothing changes.
Command & Conquer - Nothing changes.
Crysis - Nothing changes.
Dead Space - Nothing changes
Dragon Age - This does not need multiplayer.
FIFA - Nothing changes.
Fight Night - Nothing changes.
Harry Potter - Nobody cares.
Madden NFL - Nothing changes.
Mass Effect - Nothing changes.
Medal of Honor - Nothing changes.
NBA Live - Nothing changes.
NCAA Football - Nothing changes.
Need for Speed - Nothing changes.
NHL - Nothing changes.
Rock Band - Nothing changes.
SimCity - Nothing Changes
The Sims - Not sure how they'd implement multiplayer.
Skate - Nothing changes.
SSX - Nothing changes.
The only things this can really hurt is Bioware, and people are so quick to forget that Neverwinter Nights had a pretty okay Multi.
Some things don't need a multiplayer, and if your game is well-made it doesn't need multiplayer to keep people interested beyond the first playthrough.
I wouldn't be suprised if all these decisions were made at gunpoint.
All the decisions I've heard from EA made a negative impact on the consumer. Has there been any good things about EA that have been reported?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;37561041]You guys like playing with friends? Well then we'll ONLY make games that let you play with your friends!!!
Isn't it awesome guys??!!!
They do shit like this and then when asked why people hate them, they can only come up with "it's cool to hate EA".[/QUOTE]
Actually I still can't play with my friends because modern games refuse to include split-screen multiplayer in a world where big TVs are the norm. But I guess publishers want you to have everyone purchase the game instead of a bunch of people playing on one game. Reminds me of the Rooster Teeth videos where they're playing private games on Xbox Live while sitting next to each other in the same room.
[QUOTE=Maxjes;37563568]*list*
The only things this can really hurt is Bioware, and people are so quick to forget that Neverwinter Nights had a pretty okay Multi.[/QUOTE]
Lemme fix that list for you. There's a ton of stuff that can go wrong.
Battlefield - Business model similar to TF2, no dedicated server listing, matchmaking only
Burnout - Limited to shitty cars, better cars available through micro-transactions
Command & Conquer - No single-player whatsoever, multiplayer is play4free with micro-transactions
Crysis - No more single-player, multiplayer is a bf3 rip-off
Dead Space - Mandatory drop-in coop that you have to use if you want to unlock everything, half of the game missing and unlockable through DLC
Dragon Age - Poor man's dark souls multiplayer mode ripoff
FIFA - Competing against AI doesn't do anything and only competing against other players makes you progress
Fight Night - Similar to FIFA
Harry Potter - Well I give you that no one gives a shit
Madden NFL - Similar to FIFA
Mass Effect - No more single player and/or drop-in coop
Medal of Honor - Similar to Crysis or BF3
NBA Live - Similar to FIFA
NCAA Football - Similar to FIFA
Need for Speed - Similar to Burnout, but with DLC customization
NHL - Similar to FIFA
Rock Band - Songs are unlocked through online competition
SimCity - DLC buildings, limited building space that can be improved through DLC, online social network that automatically downloads other players' cities and forces them to connect to your city and/or farmville style URL patronage
The Sims - People can drop a sim in your city, buildings from other players are randomly added to your town
Skate - Drop-in coop/multiplayer system based on TDU with seamless transition from SP to MP
SSX - Similar to Skate
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.