Originally posted by Ryu
I think it depends. Madden has become known for being nothing but a cookie cutter game over the years -- a package at 50 bucks of nothing but roster updates with the Madden brand name behind it. That difference is becoming much more apparent to the many Madden loving members of this board, many of whom are not happy with this outcome. I think I\'d be happy if a relative unknown acquired it and started to put out something truly original. With EA, we know we\'ll get another Madden. Whether that\'s a good thing or not really depends as, just like you said, some people don\'t want improvements or new features -- but there has to be a reason why the Best Sports Game category on Gamespot contains ESPN NFL 2K5 and not Madden 2K5.
Because Gamespot, like you, me and everyone here, has their own opinion. You\'ll have to forgive me, but the opinions of others on something as subjective as the quality of a game (or movie, album, painting, etc) mean very little compared to my own. I don\'t think Madden is a better game, I don\'t play Madden, I love Sega and know that 2K/ESPN series has been the best sports games on the market by word of mouth (and lets not forget, I\'m a graphics-whore). But what it comes down to is this: not through online petitions, not through accusations, not through forum rants; but with your dollars, when you enter the store - that is the
only productive way to react to this deal. Everyone has a choice. Whether it is between two similar products, or to get/not get the sole offering availible, we all have an option. Ranting how EA is evil, turning this into a bigger event than it is, and trying to orchestrate boycotts (not all specifically apply to you); these are silly wastes of time.
Besides, did you not see the beautiful shot of Blitz: Playmakers over
at IGN? I think Sega/VC/TT can manage a similar unlicensed route with its superior visuals and gameplay, and manage to lose minimal ground against Madden with the loss of the license. /you say people are finally figuring out that Sega is making a better game; why do you assume that everyone will ignore this fact when Sega unleashes whatever football game it decides on?
Two more points I haven\'t heart much of: 1) EA can still farm out the license, can\'t they? They\'ll just be getting extra money. 2) Since we\'re talking so much about innovation, and EA\'s lack of it, can you explain just how innovative a football game could be? I mean, the game itself isn\'t exactly changing. How many untapped ideas are there besides \'gee, lets make it prettier\'?
The point was that with EA, there\'s a VERY high probability that without any real competition, this series can go down the drain even further.[/B]
Well, I think we should give them a chance. They just inked the deal, lets see how the next game goes before we make these kinds of calls, eh? Out of fairness?
Third Age, Return of the King (which is somehow worse compared to Two Towers), and Battle for Middile Earth are all in need of some serious work. These games could have easily been 9.0 or better with just a few changes.[/B]
But instead they are merely 8.somethings, which is horrible, right? Well, Third Age is a bit lower. Ironically, thats the one I enjy most.
But which LotR? There\'s so many that the market is now overflowing with them. RPG, RTS, action -- which do you prefer to Riddick?[/B]
Third Age.
Which one can even match the production values and originality in design compared to Riddick? At the very least, Riddick took some original ideas and incorporated them into the license and created something truly unique while all of the LotR games are just fresh wrapping on old ideas.[/B]
Yes, I won\'t disagree, but you aren\'t going to argue they are
bad games, are you? Personally, I don\'t care for Riddick because of its genre.
That\'s what EA is all about, but you think that\'s great and no one wants originality so no wonder why you don\'t see or care for that.[/B]
Originality is fine. But when I get decent or even great games that are fun coming from EA, I\'m not going to bitch because I\'ve decided to dwell of the possibilities of what could be. If the game is bad (Catwoman, as an easy example) yea, I\'ll get annoyed. When I\'m getting games that are above average (as in, better than 51% of the other games out there), I don\'t see a reason to get worked up.
Capitalism thrives off competition. That\'s what I want. Without competition, companies don\'t bother to change their products or try out new ideas. Why take the risk? If people like you will continue to buy the same stuff every year who thinks that\'s a great idea, why bother coming up with something great?[/B]
EA has competition. Blitz Hitmakers, ESPN NCAA, etc. You\'re acting like there are no other football games, and that is not the case.
Just ask Nintendo how that\'s worked out for them with the GB, GBC, and GBA. Yet you\'re over there in console discussion talking about how Sony is ushering in the wave of the future with the PSP and Nintendo is lacking with the DS? Why when the DS should be the perfect instrument for your mentality.[/B]
If DS was the only game in town, it would suffice and I would yield to Nintendo\'s foot dragging. But as a consumer, I have the choice not to as well.
When I said \'rate,\' I was referring to the sales ratio, not to the price of the games. Like BS said, it was 15:1, now it\'s more like 1.5:1 with ESPN actually outselling Madden on the Xbox last I heard. That\'s very important.[/B]
I know what you meant. And I\'ll even take you word for it, since you both are saying this, that ESPN did that good. I hadn\'t thought it did.
If EA won the bid, they obviously had a lot more to lose then anyone else. Companies don\'t blow a billion dollars unless they\'re desperately trying to gain and dominate mindshare. Ask Microsoft.[/B]
I really wish you\'d stop using the billion dollar figure. And we both know I love MS.
Heh, as if it isn\'t our right to do that? We have every right to be outraged or upset and to bitch and moan on a public message board if we so choose, it\'s not up to you to criticize us for doing that. It\'s not like this would affect you anyways as you\'d probably just download and burn it anyways, right Thugg? Arrrrr me matey, right? [/B]
Yea, but its also my right to call you a bunch of nerds for getting so worked up over it.
I don\'t know what you\'re insinuating there. Are you calling me a pirate? *adjusts halo*
I used Street Fighter II in the strictest sense as in the difference between the original game and its sequal, which is huge. If you want, we can compare Metal Gear Solid to Metal Gear Solid 2 if you wish. With your line of thinking, MGS on Bleem SHOULD have been MGS2. You would find that acceptable somehow. You are really comfortable with that thinking? Typical EA thinking? [/B]
Well... MGS on Bleem certainly would have sucked less... oh Oh OH! *runs*
I\'m perfectly okay not with \'typical EA thinking\' as you characterize it, but with letting the market work things out and \'voting\' with your dollars as opposed to calling companies silly names and giving myself a headache over such things.
