krazyorange
06-28-2005, 09:31 AM
They are just in it for the money now. I'm referring to game industry bigwig Electronic Arts and software giant Microsoft. The fun of banging out some code, assigning some sprites, and selling a game for a few bucks is all but gone. Now, it's about selling 1,000,000 copies to make $20 million profit to fund the next piece of trash, about thinking up any way possible to suck hard-earned dollars from average gamers. Electronic Arts has gobbled up dozens of small studios, including and foremost of which is Westwood Studios, the pinnacle of real-time strategy gaming. Founded in Brett Sperry's garage, Westwood grew to be the household name of RTS's and the name to aspire to: "like
Command & Conquer, only with DINOSAURS!!!" or "uses the gameplay of Westwood RTS's, only with lightning-fast 3D!!!" What is it now? EA Pacific, another subsidary with the EA stamp? Publisher, sure, but buying out competition to ship a few more units? That is no less evil than a Russian general driving ten million men into Europe in order to produce more food and in the process crushing thousands of people. These are people's LIVES! Electronic Arts, nontheless, has many good games, hardly any of which actually developed in-house. Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, and the recent Battlefield 2 are shining examples of modern gaming technology. However, what does a massivecorporation such as EA do? Assign workers to think of ways to scam gamers into paying even more than the $50+ for the game. In order to "unlock" weapons and ranks, one must play on a specific user-operated server. The catch: user-operated servers cost hundreds (that's right: HUNDREDS) of dollars to buy! Fantastic, now I get to spend even more money on a game that doesn't do much more than serve as a graphical update to the superior Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing that another EA executive gets to buy another Porsche or BMW and drive it around his Orange County estate? Congratulations, Electronic Arts: YOU SUCK!!
Microsoft has also lowered itself to Electronic Arts level. Microsoft Games Exec: "How to make the Microsoft name even more predominant? I know, buy small companies and brand OUR name on THEIR games! Terrific! Now I can go buy that Porsche 911 for my 15-year old daughter!" Remember Rare, the makers of the phenominal Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, and the risque Conker's Bad Fur Day? Now it's owned by Microsoft. Surprisingly, Bungie, the makers of the Halo series, still operates with some degree of freedom.
What about Valve and the despicable Steam system? Was Half-Life 2 even worth the six-hour install? (Actually, it was.) Blame some Russian kid who hacked in through Microsoft's "famed" Internet Explorer and stole the source code for a five-year project. Four words: What were they thinking?
But does it really matter? Games with the Microsoft and Electronic Arts logo sell more units and make everybody involved richer, right? Well, right and wrong. Most development houses are directly controlled by the publishers. So what if development hit a bump and the game's not done; ship the game anyway! Such tragedies are now commonplace, for example, Juiced; I have never played a game with worse controls. All that was needed was somebody to say: "oh my, this is practically impossibleto play without a gamepad! Oh wait, now I have to go pay another 40 bucks to properly play a game which is already inferior to Need for Speed: Underground 2 and Street Racing Syndicate!" Only the famed developers get complete freedom, such as id Software, the fundamental god of all PC gaming. What if Doom 3 wasn't done: Activision exec: "We need to ship July 13th or else!" id Software exec: "Too bad, it's not done." Activision exec: "My bad, sir."
So in the end, gaming nowadays is more about shipping those few extra units than true fun. 95% of games these days take a tired idea and rehash one aspect, add some new 3D effects, and package it for $50. While the gaming industry is only going up, the unique ideas of the golden age have long since passed.
Command & Conquer, only with DINOSAURS!!!" or "uses the gameplay of Westwood RTS's, only with lightning-fast 3D!!!" What is it now? EA Pacific, another subsidary with the EA stamp? Publisher, sure, but buying out competition to ship a few more units? That is no less evil than a Russian general driving ten million men into Europe in order to produce more food and in the process crushing thousands of people. These are people's LIVES! Electronic Arts, nontheless, has many good games, hardly any of which actually developed in-house. Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, and the recent Battlefield 2 are shining examples of modern gaming technology. However, what does a massivecorporation such as EA do? Assign workers to think of ways to scam gamers into paying even more than the $50+ for the game. In order to "unlock" weapons and ranks, one must play on a specific user-operated server. The catch: user-operated servers cost hundreds (that's right: HUNDREDS) of dollars to buy! Fantastic, now I get to spend even more money on a game that doesn't do much more than serve as a graphical update to the superior Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing that another EA executive gets to buy another Porsche or BMW and drive it around his Orange County estate? Congratulations, Electronic Arts: YOU SUCK!!
Microsoft has also lowered itself to Electronic Arts level. Microsoft Games Exec: "How to make the Microsoft name even more predominant? I know, buy small companies and brand OUR name on THEIR games! Terrific! Now I can go buy that Porsche 911 for my 15-year old daughter!" Remember Rare, the makers of the phenominal Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, and the risque Conker's Bad Fur Day? Now it's owned by Microsoft. Surprisingly, Bungie, the makers of the Halo series, still operates with some degree of freedom.
What about Valve and the despicable Steam system? Was Half-Life 2 even worth the six-hour install? (Actually, it was.) Blame some Russian kid who hacked in through Microsoft's "famed" Internet Explorer and stole the source code for a five-year project. Four words: What were they thinking?
But does it really matter? Games with the Microsoft and Electronic Arts logo sell more units and make everybody involved richer, right? Well, right and wrong. Most development houses are directly controlled by the publishers. So what if development hit a bump and the game's not done; ship the game anyway! Such tragedies are now commonplace, for example, Juiced; I have never played a game with worse controls. All that was needed was somebody to say: "oh my, this is practically impossibleto play without a gamepad! Oh wait, now I have to go pay another 40 bucks to properly play a game which is already inferior to Need for Speed: Underground 2 and Street Racing Syndicate!" Only the famed developers get complete freedom, such as id Software, the fundamental god of all PC gaming. What if Doom 3 wasn't done: Activision exec: "We need to ship July 13th or else!" id Software exec: "Too bad, it's not done." Activision exec: "My bad, sir."
So in the end, gaming nowadays is more about shipping those few extra units than true fun. 95% of games these days take a tired idea and rehash one aspect, add some new 3D effects, and package it for $50. While the gaming industry is only going up, the unique ideas of the golden age have long since passed.