The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For many, many years, EA has been one of the most influential developers of sport games, and has always been around that area of the games industry. The company goes as for back as the Mega Drive and further. Everyone knows them for there Fifa series and other games such as NBA, NHL, F1 and more. They have also had a go at other genres but have really stuck to sport games. But are EA known for another reputation, creating arcade games?
Lots of developers now are turning to realism to sell there games, always trying to make them more real so they become more appealing, for example the new Top Gun, a new flight simulator, GT3, MGS 2, all these and more are created to act and play more realistic, not forgetting Pro Evo. But it seems that EA have settled on the idea that people will always like arcade games more, and they have stuck with this.
The most obvious example is the Fifa series, this, however much it hurts me to say, is the most popular football game there is. Itís the classic arcade game, easy to pick up and play, fun with your mates and plenty to offer when playing on your own. This game has always sold millions of copies, and it does so every time an update is released, no matter that often there is very little changed. This is an obvious indicator to EA that the public like arcade games and they are very willing to buy them, so they release a new one every year.
This idea though, that the public like arcade games has been taken off the pitch, and taken to many other genres. Every year EA releases many arcade games. Another genre that has taken this is the NHL series, this plays much like Fifa, very easy to play and pick up, even if at first it is hard to score, its also immensely fun. But again it relies upon arcade gaming to sell again, and that it does. But this arcade idea does not just stop there, all the NBA games are like this too, though I have not played many, or owned many these too have been fun. There are many examples on PS1, too many to name, but EA too have taken this to PS2.
In the first few games to be released on PS2, there was the usual Fifa 2001, containing the usual game play and very good graphics, also there was the magnificent SSX. This was finally one of those games from EA that I loved, the last being Fifa 96 on the Mega Drive. Every thing about it was excellent, top graphics that really showed what the PS2 was capable of, and game play to die for, and was predominately a arcade game. This game sold loads and was one of the first to hit the top of the charts. Previous snowboarding games had been poor, but EA got on the mark with this one, and will again with the coming sequel.
Another well know game is Rumble Racing. Strangely this game was based on SSX only with cars, it offered fast pace racing with huge powered cars that were capable of huge speeds, also these cars were able to perform stunts which added a whole new edge to the game. Again, this heavily relied upon and arcade style of play, and was excellent.
All EAís games seem to do well in the charts which show that they are doing something right, but what? With the majority of developers turning to realism, EA are sticking with arcade and this may be why they are doing well. Yes, lots of people are buying the new ěrealismî games, but they also want there dose of arcade gaming, and with few other companies offering this apart from Actvision, Acclaim and a few others, EA have little competition within the market so there games are bound to do well.
What do you, the public prefer though, Realism, or Arcade? And if the new gamers prefer realism, what are EA going to do?
Thanks, Pro Evo.
Lots of developers now are turning to realism to sell there games, always trying to make them more real so they become more appealing, for example the new Top Gun, a new flight simulator, GT3, MGS 2, all these and more are created to act and play more realistic, not forgetting Pro Evo. But it seems that EA have settled on the idea that people will always like arcade games more, and they have stuck with this.
The most obvious example is the Fifa series, this, however much it hurts me to say, is the most popular football game there is. Itís the classic arcade game, easy to pick up and play, fun with your mates and plenty to offer when playing on your own. This game has always sold millions of copies, and it does so every time an update is released, no matter that often there is very little changed. This is an obvious indicator to EA that the public like arcade games and they are very willing to buy them, so they release a new one every year.
This idea though, that the public like arcade games has been taken off the pitch, and taken to many other genres. Every year EA releases many arcade games. Another genre that has taken this is the NHL series, this plays much like Fifa, very easy to play and pick up, even if at first it is hard to score, its also immensely fun. But again it relies upon arcade gaming to sell again, and that it does. But this arcade idea does not just stop there, all the NBA games are like this too, though I have not played many, or owned many these too have been fun. There are many examples on PS1, too many to name, but EA too have taken this to PS2.
In the first few games to be released on PS2, there was the usual Fifa 2001, containing the usual game play and very good graphics, also there was the magnificent SSX. This was finally one of those games from EA that I loved, the last being Fifa 96 on the Mega Drive. Every thing about it was excellent, top graphics that really showed what the PS2 was capable of, and game play to die for, and was predominately a arcade game. This game sold loads and was one of the first to hit the top of the charts. Previous snowboarding games had been poor, but EA got on the mark with this one, and will again with the coming sequel.
Another well know game is Rumble Racing. Strangely this game was based on SSX only with cars, it offered fast pace racing with huge powered cars that were capable of huge speeds, also these cars were able to perform stunts which added a whole new edge to the game. Again, this heavily relied upon and arcade style of play, and was excellent.
All EAís games seem to do well in the charts which show that they are doing something right, but what? With the majority of developers turning to realism, EA are sticking with arcade and this may be why they are doing well. Yes, lots of people are buying the new ěrealismî games, but they also want there dose of arcade gaming, and with few other companies offering this apart from Actvision, Acclaim and a few others, EA have little competition within the market so there games are bound to do well.
What do you, the public prefer though, Realism, or Arcade? And if the new gamers prefer realism, what are EA going to do?
Thanks, Pro Evo.
Page:
I never used to have much repsect for EA until SSX came out, they used to spoon out too many updates with little improvements which people bought thinking they were totally new games, i think ea should stick to arcade games because thats what they are best at, look at SSX tircky/fifa 2002 the future is looking bright for EA sports and Ea Big, another great totaly was NBA street, it looks like EA are getting an even better name for themselves with these new titles and with games like Agent under fire, it will be a great time for EA this xmas.
Good post :-)
Good post :-)
Great post Pro Evo.
For me the more real a game is the better. I better "realism" over "arcade" anyday. But still "arcade" sounds fun and sometimes thats what I, as a gamer, need.
I've always bought Fifa as a game to play with my mates when I need a laugh, but when alone and serious, games like Resi CV and MGS come into play.
Dont get me wrong, Pro Evo is a great game and I intend to get both Fifa 2002 and Pro Evo Soccer when they're released.
EA are doing well with their arcade style games and I hope they continue. But one day, "realism" will get so realistic they'll be fun.
Great post.
For me the more real a game is the better. I better "realism" over "arcade" anyday. But still "arcade" sounds fun and sometimes thats what I, as a gamer, need.
I've always bought Fifa as a game to play with my mates when I need a laugh, but when alone and serious, games like Resi CV and MGS come into play.
Dont get me wrong, Pro Evo is a great game and I intend to get both Fifa 2002 and Pro Evo Soccer when they're released.
EA are doing well with their arcade style games and I hope they continue. But one day, "realism" will get so realistic they'll be fun.
Great post.
For many, many years, EA has been one of the most influential developers of sport games, and has always been around that area of the games industry. The company goes as for back as the Mega Drive and further. Everyone knows them for there Fifa series and other games such as NBA, NHL, F1 and more. They have also had a go at other genres but have really stuck to sport games. But are EA known for another reputation, creating arcade games?
Lots of developers now are turning to realism to sell there games, always trying to make them more real so they become more appealing, for example the new Top Gun, a new flight simulator, GT3, MGS 2, all these and more are created to act and play more realistic, not forgetting Pro Evo. But it seems that EA have settled on the idea that people will always like arcade games more, and they have stuck with this.
The most obvious example is the Fifa series, this, however much it hurts me to say, is the most popular football game there is. Itís the classic arcade game, easy to pick up and play, fun with your mates and plenty to offer when playing on your own. This game has always sold millions of copies, and it does so every time an update is released, no matter that often there is very little changed. This is an obvious indicator to EA that the public like arcade games and they are very willing to buy them, so they release a new one every year.
This idea though, that the public like arcade games has been taken off the pitch, and taken to many other genres. Every year EA releases many arcade games. Another genre that has taken this is the NHL series, this plays much like Fifa, very easy to play and pick up, even if at first it is hard to score, its also immensely fun. But again it relies upon arcade gaming to sell again, and that it does. But this arcade idea does not just stop there, all the NBA games are like this too, though I have not played many, or owned many these too have been fun. There are many examples on PS1, too many to name, but EA too have taken this to PS2.
In the first few games to be released on PS2, there was the usual Fifa 2001, containing the usual game play and very good graphics, also there was the magnificent SSX. This was finally one of those games from EA that I loved, the last being Fifa 96 on the Mega Drive. Every thing about it was excellent, top graphics that really showed what the PS2 was capable of, and game play to die for, and was predominately a arcade game. This game sold loads and was one of the first to hit the top of the charts. Previous snowboarding games had been poor, but EA got on the mark with this one, and will again with the coming sequel.
Another well know game is Rumble Racing. Strangely this game was based on SSX only with cars, it offered fast pace racing with huge powered cars that were capable of huge speeds, also these cars were able to perform stunts which added a whole new edge to the game. Again, this heavily relied upon and arcade style of play, and was excellent.
All EAís games seem to do well in the charts which show that they are doing something right, but what? With the majority of developers turning to realism, EA are sticking with arcade and this may be why they are doing well. Yes, lots of people are buying the new ěrealismî games, but they also want there dose of arcade gaming, and with few other companies offering this apart from Actvision, Acclaim and a few others, EA have little competition within the market so there games are bound to do well.
What do you, the public prefer though, Realism, or Arcade? And if the new gamers prefer realism, what are EA going to do?
Thanks, Pro Evo.
Lots of developers now are turning to realism to sell there games, always trying to make them more real so they become more appealing, for example the new Top Gun, a new flight simulator, GT3, MGS 2, all these and more are created to act and play more realistic, not forgetting Pro Evo. But it seems that EA have settled on the idea that people will always like arcade games more, and they have stuck with this.
The most obvious example is the Fifa series, this, however much it hurts me to say, is the most popular football game there is. Itís the classic arcade game, easy to pick up and play, fun with your mates and plenty to offer when playing on your own. This game has always sold millions of copies, and it does so every time an update is released, no matter that often there is very little changed. This is an obvious indicator to EA that the public like arcade games and they are very willing to buy them, so they release a new one every year.
This idea though, that the public like arcade games has been taken off the pitch, and taken to many other genres. Every year EA releases many arcade games. Another genre that has taken this is the NHL series, this plays much like Fifa, very easy to play and pick up, even if at first it is hard to score, its also immensely fun. But again it relies upon arcade gaming to sell again, and that it does. But this arcade idea does not just stop there, all the NBA games are like this too, though I have not played many, or owned many these too have been fun. There are many examples on PS1, too many to name, but EA too have taken this to PS2.
In the first few games to be released on PS2, there was the usual Fifa 2001, containing the usual game play and very good graphics, also there was the magnificent SSX. This was finally one of those games from EA that I loved, the last being Fifa 96 on the Mega Drive. Every thing about it was excellent, top graphics that really showed what the PS2 was capable of, and game play to die for, and was predominately a arcade game. This game sold loads and was one of the first to hit the top of the charts. Previous snowboarding games had been poor, but EA got on the mark with this one, and will again with the coming sequel.
Another well know game is Rumble Racing. Strangely this game was based on SSX only with cars, it offered fast pace racing with huge powered cars that were capable of huge speeds, also these cars were able to perform stunts which added a whole new edge to the game. Again, this heavily relied upon and arcade style of play, and was excellent.
All EAís games seem to do well in the charts which show that they are doing something right, but what? With the majority of developers turning to realism, EA are sticking with arcade and this may be why they are doing well. Yes, lots of people are buying the new ěrealismî games, but they also want there dose of arcade gaming, and with few other companies offering this apart from Actvision, Acclaim and a few others, EA have little competition within the market so there games are bound to do well.
What do you, the public prefer though, Realism, or Arcade? And if the new gamers prefer realism, what are EA going to do?
Thanks, Pro Evo.
Page: