The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A case of SEVERE contradiction, but I'm hoping that people will generally agree with my point. Only days ago I spoke about my new opinion of the gaming world, and how I would endeavour not to criticise games and their developers/publishers so frequently. In the whole, I intend to stick to this, but in the last week's hectic Christmas shopping, I've been infuriated by one publisher in particular.
Most of the time, games are received differently by different people. The chances are, most games released on any console with have both strong admirers and those who completely dislike the game. I think most of us are willing to accept a shameful game once in a while. It's almost forgivable, something that we can forget about. Of course there will be those who are disappointed by the undelivered promises, and some of us will have wasted as much as £50 and have a right to be angry. But, as already mentioned, once in a while one bad game is forgivable. For the most part, this doesn't mean we're against buying another game by the respective developer/publisher again.
That's where the irony of this comes in.
Even though with each and every incarnation of EA's Fifa titles the change became less and less noticeable, I still went out and bought the game once a year. How many football games where released by EA around the time of the World Cup? From the months leading up to the event to around a year afterwards, EA must have released 4 separate football titles, each costing around £30 each, each with a few new bells and whistles to impress us (not). It was blatantly obvious that their only concern was the money consumers would pay for their games, and the profits it would make them. They could have spent time and money on one title making it as damn good as possible, but instead opted for four EXTREMELY average titles in hope of securing four times the money. Yet, still each year EA remained one of the top games publishers and still we went out buying their games by the bucket load.
Looking back, I'm not sure why I felt compelled to buy various Fifa games knowing full well that aside from updated stats and a few new replay features, nothing much would have been added in the 6 months or so it took for development. However, the reason the Fifa games did so well, is people wanted the updated stats. Within 6 months, a lot had changed in the world of football, clubs had changed strips, players transferred, managers sacked and re-hired elsewhere. I guess the fact is, EA released updates constantly, and most people went and bought one of their games every year or so (rather than each and every one.) It's almost excusable, because they're not necessarily claiming an ENTIRELY new concept or take on the game. The fact is, unlike other games companies EA didn't continuously bombard us with AWFUL games not worthy of £30 and keep on doing so all the while they were bought. The games were not awful enough to appear in bargain bins the following week for just £10. It didn't happen, and probably never will with their titles. They were never considered an awful publisher, and I for one never really thought about deliberately avoiding their future releases.
However, how can ANYONE forgive their approach to gaming in the last year or so? They may well be a publisher and not primarily developers, but as those funding the project and those responsible for the release of the game, they should be HEAVILY involved in the whole development process. How can this possibly have happened with the sheer number of EA games that have appeared on the shelves in the last 12-18 months? To name but a few, Fifa 2001/2, SSX, SSX Tricky, Rugby, Madden NFL 2002, NHL 2001/2, NBA Live 2002, F1 2001, NBA Street, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001. That does NOT consider other projects away from sport that EA may have been involved with, nor does it even begin to consider the WHOLE collection of sporting titles released by them. What I have to question is, how involved WERE EA in the respective projects? Surely they cannot have truly devoted a full 100% of their resources to each title. Many publishers will only release a few games in any one-year, but EA have released at LEAST 12 sporting titles alone since the PS2's launch. 12!?
Some of the games mentioned were of course well received, SSX most notably as it is widely regarded as one of the PS2's finest. And having played NBA Street for some time, I also consider this a worthwhile investment, just as to the die-hard rugby fans that haven't really had a console rugby game up until now, EA's Rugby title is a godsend. BUT, aside from the one or two exceptions, EA's release line-up has been VERY poor.
Fifa 2001 was considered a cheap cash in as EA rushed to get a football title out on the PS2 as soon as possible. Then, this year appears Fifa 2002, another distinctly average effort that really doesn't even ATTEMPT to make use of the PS2's capabilities.
How can their lax attitude towards game development be justified? My own personal reason for feeling anger towards EA is the fact that I've wasted TOO much time tracking down their games, spending £40 on them, and then taking them right back to the shop the following day! In the past two weeks I've had three different EA games and every single one of them has gone back to the shop just as promptly as I returned home with them. Let me explain my current situation.
My dad is a massive Golf fan, and the PGA Tour games that were available on the Mega-Drive (going back some eh?) were perfect for him. They were decent enough games, absolutely adored by golfing fans. When I begun thinking about a possible Christmas present for my dad, a golf game was obviously top of the list, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001 was the only golf game that I'd seen available for the PS2. Good name on the license, amazing hardware with which to develop the game, and a somewhat trusted past. So, I went out and bought the game having tracked down a copy (extremely hard to find anywhere in the area). I returned home and decided to have a short play to see whether it was worth the money. Obviously if it was poor I wanted to get my money back so I could buy a worthwhile gift for my dad. The outcome? The game was awful. The graphics were (and this term has been used a little too much recently, but is DEFINATELY warranted here) PS1 quality. Things were indeed smooth and rounded, but the detail was appalling. To be honest the sheer awfulness of the graphics (considering the PS2's potential) was enough to make me want to return the game alone. However, the physics (the golf-balls seem to suddenly stop [rolls very briefly before stopping perfectly]) and lack of imagination were also major deterrents. And, how many playable characters? 5!? Okay so that shouldn't really be a problem, but what about playing a major championship? Just five competitors, and only one of them ever heard of before! I wanted a list of 20 or so (like Actua Golf 3) and got just 5!
I felt the game was barely worth £10 let alone £39.99. I also felt confident that not even my dad would find it of any interest, and so promptly returned it for a refund. I then went on to buy F1 2001, return it due to the poor quality of the game, exchange it for Fifa 2002, return it due to the poor quality of the game, and finally end up buying a CD Collection set instead.
One poor game is acceptable, but three (that's obviously not including any of the other releases which I've yet to play) is absolutely disgraceful. Anyone who believes EA really do aim to produce the very best sports games have been sadly mislead, like myself. If they ARE looking to publish the BEST sports games anywhere, then why release so many games so quickly, with so little effort? Of course the actual development teams are as much to blame, but as a publisher EA should be demanding the very best from their games.
The only other alternative? Drop their prices to the £10-£15 price range, which I MAY, repeat MAY, consider investing in.
I'm sure many people have ranted about EA, and their relentless releases of football games in various guises before, but this instance proved to me beyond any doubt that unless there's some SERIOUS re-consideration on their point, EA are destined to a future of DESERVED criticism. I'll have to be heavily convinced of a change before parting with my money for an EA sports title again.
EA. Extremely Average.
Most of the time, games are received differently by different people. The chances are, most games released on any console with have both strong admirers and those who completely dislike the game. I think most of us are willing to accept a shameful game once in a while. It's almost forgivable, something that we can forget about. Of course there will be those who are disappointed by the undelivered promises, and some of us will have wasted as much as £50 and have a right to be angry. But, as already mentioned, once in a while one bad game is forgivable. For the most part, this doesn't mean we're against buying another game by the respective developer/publisher again.
That's where the irony of this comes in.
Even though with each and every incarnation of EA's Fifa titles the change became less and less noticeable, I still went out and bought the game once a year. How many football games where released by EA around the time of the World Cup? From the months leading up to the event to around a year afterwards, EA must have released 4 separate football titles, each costing around £30 each, each with a few new bells and whistles to impress us (not). It was blatantly obvious that their only concern was the money consumers would pay for their games, and the profits it would make them. They could have spent time and money on one title making it as damn good as possible, but instead opted for four EXTREMELY average titles in hope of securing four times the money. Yet, still each year EA remained one of the top games publishers and still we went out buying their games by the bucket load.
Looking back, I'm not sure why I felt compelled to buy various Fifa games knowing full well that aside from updated stats and a few new replay features, nothing much would have been added in the 6 months or so it took for development. However, the reason the Fifa games did so well, is people wanted the updated stats. Within 6 months, a lot had changed in the world of football, clubs had changed strips, players transferred, managers sacked and re-hired elsewhere. I guess the fact is, EA released updates constantly, and most people went and bought one of their games every year or so (rather than each and every one.) It's almost excusable, because they're not necessarily claiming an ENTIRELY new concept or take on the game. The fact is, unlike other games companies EA didn't continuously bombard us with AWFUL games not worthy of £30 and keep on doing so all the while they were bought. The games were not awful enough to appear in bargain bins the following week for just £10. It didn't happen, and probably never will with their titles. They were never considered an awful publisher, and I for one never really thought about deliberately avoiding their future releases.
However, how can ANYONE forgive their approach to gaming in the last year or so? They may well be a publisher and not primarily developers, but as those funding the project and those responsible for the release of the game, they should be HEAVILY involved in the whole development process. How can this possibly have happened with the sheer number of EA games that have appeared on the shelves in the last 12-18 months? To name but a few, Fifa 2001/2, SSX, SSX Tricky, Rugby, Madden NFL 2002, NHL 2001/2, NBA Live 2002, F1 2001, NBA Street, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001. That does NOT consider other projects away from sport that EA may have been involved with, nor does it even begin to consider the WHOLE collection of sporting titles released by them. What I have to question is, how involved WERE EA in the respective projects? Surely they cannot have truly devoted a full 100% of their resources to each title. Many publishers will only release a few games in any one-year, but EA have released at LEAST 12 sporting titles alone since the PS2's launch. 12!?
Some of the games mentioned were of course well received, SSX most notably as it is widely regarded as one of the PS2's finest. And having played NBA Street for some time, I also consider this a worthwhile investment, just as to the die-hard rugby fans that haven't really had a console rugby game up until now, EA's Rugby title is a godsend. BUT, aside from the one or two exceptions, EA's release line-up has been VERY poor.
Fifa 2001 was considered a cheap cash in as EA rushed to get a football title out on the PS2 as soon as possible. Then, this year appears Fifa 2002, another distinctly average effort that really doesn't even ATTEMPT to make use of the PS2's capabilities.
How can their lax attitude towards game development be justified? My own personal reason for feeling anger towards EA is the fact that I've wasted TOO much time tracking down their games, spending £40 on them, and then taking them right back to the shop the following day! In the past two weeks I've had three different EA games and every single one of them has gone back to the shop just as promptly as I returned home with them. Let me explain my current situation.
My dad is a massive Golf fan, and the PGA Tour games that were available on the Mega-Drive (going back some eh?) were perfect for him. They were decent enough games, absolutely adored by golfing fans. When I begun thinking about a possible Christmas present for my dad, a golf game was obviously top of the list, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001 was the only golf game that I'd seen available for the PS2. Good name on the license, amazing hardware with which to develop the game, and a somewhat trusted past. So, I went out and bought the game having tracked down a copy (extremely hard to find anywhere in the area). I returned home and decided to have a short play to see whether it was worth the money. Obviously if it was poor I wanted to get my money back so I could buy a worthwhile gift for my dad. The outcome? The game was awful. The graphics were (and this term has been used a little too much recently, but is DEFINATELY warranted here) PS1 quality. Things were indeed smooth and rounded, but the detail was appalling. To be honest the sheer awfulness of the graphics (considering the PS2's potential) was enough to make me want to return the game alone. However, the physics (the golf-balls seem to suddenly stop [rolls very briefly before stopping perfectly]) and lack of imagination were also major deterrents. And, how many playable characters? 5!? Okay so that shouldn't really be a problem, but what about playing a major championship? Just five competitors, and only one of them ever heard of before! I wanted a list of 20 or so (like Actua Golf 3) and got just 5!
I felt the game was barely worth £10 let alone £39.99. I also felt confident that not even my dad would find it of any interest, and so promptly returned it for a refund. I then went on to buy F1 2001, return it due to the poor quality of the game, exchange it for Fifa 2002, return it due to the poor quality of the game, and finally end up buying a CD Collection set instead.
One poor game is acceptable, but three (that's obviously not including any of the other releases which I've yet to play) is absolutely disgraceful. Anyone who believes EA really do aim to produce the very best sports games have been sadly mislead, like myself. If they ARE looking to publish the BEST sports games anywhere, then why release so many games so quickly, with so little effort? Of course the actual development teams are as much to blame, but as a publisher EA should be demanding the very best from their games.
The only other alternative? Drop their prices to the £10-£15 price range, which I MAY, repeat MAY, consider investing in.
I'm sure many people have ranted about EA, and their relentless releases of football games in various guises before, but this instance proved to me beyond any doubt that unless there's some SERIOUS re-consideration on their point, EA are destined to a future of DESERVED criticism. I'll have to be heavily convinced of a change before parting with my money for an EA sports title again.
EA. Extremely Average.
I think it is. Out of the three major games (Pro Evo, Fifa, TIF) Fifa is definately the one i'd rank bottom.
TIF is great, but in a different way to Pro Evo. It has that Arcade-like feel to it.
TIF is great, but in a different way to Pro Evo. It has that Arcade-like feel to it.
Question: Is This Is Football 2002 better than FIFA 2002??
ADH wrote:
> That's true, but my point was that I went out and bought three completely seperate EA
> games and all of them turned out to be very much lacking. Definately NOT worth
> the £40 I was charged.
Well, remember that a lot of what makes a 'good' game is down to personal opinion. I've no interest in golf, so never look at golf games - but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. However from what you describe, it did sound poor.
I don't own the F1 game, but I have played a friend's copy, and it seemed pretty good to me. The main reason I haven't bought it is that I'm not very interested in F1 any more - but the game was fun.
With FIFA, I always felt that the problems stemmed from having the wrong team working on the project. As much as I like Canadians, they know as much abuot football as the Yanks, and I think that showed in the games. FIFA2002 was created largely by a British team, and while it still doesn't compare to Pro Evo, the gameplay has definitely been improved upon.
Contrast this with EA's Madden series, which has had two *excellent* outings on PS2 - so much so, in fact, that I learnt the rules of the sport just to play the games. It really is impressive - as have been the EA NHL games. The main difference is that the teams working on these titles were Amercian's who clearly know the intricacies and tactical elemts of these sports far better.
Pro Evo on the other hand is created by a Japanese team, and while Japan aren't necesasrily a major footballing power, they *are* fanatical about the sport, and therefore know it inside and out.
> Surely we should be aiming to improve, not consistently churning out games
> with little, if any, improvement.
Again I agree. But as long as they can sell millions of copies of re-hashed games just by making a few minor changes here and there, they'll keep doing it.
If people actually stopped buying the FIFA products for one or two versions, they would be forced to re-think the game and make drastic improvements. I don't see that happening, though, because I don't think we'll ever convince the 'purists' to leave it alone for long enough!
> That's true, but my point was that I went out and bought three completely seperate EA
> games and all of them turned out to be very much lacking. Definately NOT worth
> the £40 I was charged.
Well, remember that a lot of what makes a 'good' game is down to personal opinion. I've no interest in golf, so never look at golf games - but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. However from what you describe, it did sound poor.
I don't own the F1 game, but I have played a friend's copy, and it seemed pretty good to me. The main reason I haven't bought it is that I'm not very interested in F1 any more - but the game was fun.
With FIFA, I always felt that the problems stemmed from having the wrong team working on the project. As much as I like Canadians, they know as much abuot football as the Yanks, and I think that showed in the games. FIFA2002 was created largely by a British team, and while it still doesn't compare to Pro Evo, the gameplay has definitely been improved upon.
Contrast this with EA's Madden series, which has had two *excellent* outings on PS2 - so much so, in fact, that I learnt the rules of the sport just to play the games. It really is impressive - as have been the EA NHL games. The main difference is that the teams working on these titles were Amercian's who clearly know the intricacies and tactical elemts of these sports far better.
Pro Evo on the other hand is created by a Japanese team, and while Japan aren't necesasrily a major footballing power, they *are* fanatical about the sport, and therefore know it inside and out.
> Surely we should be aiming to improve, not consistently churning out games
> with little, if any, improvement.
Again I agree. But as long as they can sell millions of copies of re-hashed games just by making a few minor changes here and there, they'll keep doing it.
If people actually stopped buying the FIFA products for one or two versions, they would be forced to re-think the game and make drastic improvements. I don't see that happening, though, because I don't think we'll ever convince the 'purists' to leave it alone for long enough!
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Well, I sort of agree.
But the constant releases from EA are for the sports
> 'purists' who really do want roster updates and a few new features here and
> there. If they want to buy them, that's up to them - no-one's holding a gun to
> their heads and saying "you will buy this new version".
That's true, but my point was that I went out and bought three completely seperate EA games and all of them turned out to be very much lacking. Definately NOT worth the £40 I was charged.
Surely there's something wrong if they're releasing this many games and a good number of them turn out to be WELL below par? Surely we should be aiming to improve, not consistently churning out games with little, if any, improvement.
> Well, I sort of agree.
But the constant releases from EA are for the sports
> 'purists' who really do want roster updates and a few new features here and
> there. If they want to buy them, that's up to them - no-one's holding a gun to
> their heads and saying "you will buy this new version".
That's true, but my point was that I went out and bought three completely seperate EA games and all of them turned out to be very much lacking. Definately NOT worth the £40 I was charged.
Surely there's something wrong if they're releasing this many games and a good number of them turn out to be WELL below par? Surely we should be aiming to improve, not consistently churning out games with little, if any, improvement.
Well, I sort of agree.
But the constant releases from EA are for the sports 'purists' who really do want roster updates and a few new features here and there. If they want to buy them, that's up to them - no-one's holding a gun to their heads and saying "you will buy this new version".
And judging by the sales figures, particularly for the FIFA games, people do actually want these updates.
Personally, I've always enjoyed the FIFA games, having bought about 4 of them. However I stopped at FIFA2000, because as good as the games are, they're just too easy to score in. A friend of mine could score *every* time, simply by using the 'spin' move to pirouette through the opposing team and banging in a shot.
My biggest problem with FIFA now is not the constant updates, but the more 'arcadey' feel to the game. Having played Pro Evo recently, it's a much more accurate simulation of the game. But again, it's another title that is constantly appearing with a few tweaks and changes.
I wish both EA and Konami would swallow their pride and work together on a football game. EA's FIFA presentation wrapped around Konami's Pro Evo game engine would be one awesome game.
But the constant releases from EA are for the sports 'purists' who really do want roster updates and a few new features here and there. If they want to buy them, that's up to them - no-one's holding a gun to their heads and saying "you will buy this new version".
And judging by the sales figures, particularly for the FIFA games, people do actually want these updates.
Personally, I've always enjoyed the FIFA games, having bought about 4 of them. However I stopped at FIFA2000, because as good as the games are, they're just too easy to score in. A friend of mine could score *every* time, simply by using the 'spin' move to pirouette through the opposing team and banging in a shot.
My biggest problem with FIFA now is not the constant updates, but the more 'arcadey' feel to the game. Having played Pro Evo recently, it's a much more accurate simulation of the game. But again, it's another title that is constantly appearing with a few tweaks and changes.
I wish both EA and Konami would swallow their pride and work together on a football game. EA's FIFA presentation wrapped around Konami's Pro Evo game engine would be one awesome game.
A case of SEVERE contradiction, but I'm hoping that people will generally agree with my point. Only days ago I spoke about my new opinion of the gaming world, and how I would endeavour not to criticise games and their developers/publishers so frequently. In the whole, I intend to stick to this, but in the last week's hectic Christmas shopping, I've been infuriated by one publisher in particular.
Most of the time, games are received differently by different people. The chances are, most games released on any console with have both strong admirers and those who completely dislike the game. I think most of us are willing to accept a shameful game once in a while. It's almost forgivable, something that we can forget about. Of course there will be those who are disappointed by the undelivered promises, and some of us will have wasted as much as £50 and have a right to be angry. But, as already mentioned, once in a while one bad game is forgivable. For the most part, this doesn't mean we're against buying another game by the respective developer/publisher again.
That's where the irony of this comes in.
Even though with each and every incarnation of EA's Fifa titles the change became less and less noticeable, I still went out and bought the game once a year. How many football games where released by EA around the time of the World Cup? From the months leading up to the event to around a year afterwards, EA must have released 4 separate football titles, each costing around £30 each, each with a few new bells and whistles to impress us (not). It was blatantly obvious that their only concern was the money consumers would pay for their games, and the profits it would make them. They could have spent time and money on one title making it as damn good as possible, but instead opted for four EXTREMELY average titles in hope of securing four times the money. Yet, still each year EA remained one of the top games publishers and still we went out buying their games by the bucket load.
Looking back, I'm not sure why I felt compelled to buy various Fifa games knowing full well that aside from updated stats and a few new replay features, nothing much would have been added in the 6 months or so it took for development. However, the reason the Fifa games did so well, is people wanted the updated stats. Within 6 months, a lot had changed in the world of football, clubs had changed strips, players transferred, managers sacked and re-hired elsewhere. I guess the fact is, EA released updates constantly, and most people went and bought one of their games every year or so (rather than each and every one.) It's almost excusable, because they're not necessarily claiming an ENTIRELY new concept or take on the game. The fact is, unlike other games companies EA didn't continuously bombard us with AWFUL games not worthy of £30 and keep on doing so all the while they were bought. The games were not awful enough to appear in bargain bins the following week for just £10. It didn't happen, and probably never will with their titles. They were never considered an awful publisher, and I for one never really thought about deliberately avoiding their future releases.
However, how can ANYONE forgive their approach to gaming in the last year or so? They may well be a publisher and not primarily developers, but as those funding the project and those responsible for the release of the game, they should be HEAVILY involved in the whole development process. How can this possibly have happened with the sheer number of EA games that have appeared on the shelves in the last 12-18 months? To name but a few, Fifa 2001/2, SSX, SSX Tricky, Rugby, Madden NFL 2002, NHL 2001/2, NBA Live 2002, F1 2001, NBA Street, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001. That does NOT consider other projects away from sport that EA may have been involved with, nor does it even begin to consider the WHOLE collection of sporting titles released by them. What I have to question is, how involved WERE EA in the respective projects? Surely they cannot have truly devoted a full 100% of their resources to each title. Many publishers will only release a few games in any one-year, but EA have released at LEAST 12 sporting titles alone since the PS2's launch. 12!?
Some of the games mentioned were of course well received, SSX most notably as it is widely regarded as one of the PS2's finest. And having played NBA Street for some time, I also consider this a worthwhile investment, just as to the die-hard rugby fans that haven't really had a console rugby game up until now, EA's Rugby title is a godsend. BUT, aside from the one or two exceptions, EA's release line-up has been VERY poor.
Fifa 2001 was considered a cheap cash in as EA rushed to get a football title out on the PS2 as soon as possible. Then, this year appears Fifa 2002, another distinctly average effort that really doesn't even ATTEMPT to make use of the PS2's capabilities.
How can their lax attitude towards game development be justified? My own personal reason for feeling anger towards EA is the fact that I've wasted TOO much time tracking down their games, spending £40 on them, and then taking them right back to the shop the following day! In the past two weeks I've had three different EA games and every single one of them has gone back to the shop just as promptly as I returned home with them. Let me explain my current situation.
My dad is a massive Golf fan, and the PGA Tour games that were available on the Mega-Drive (going back some eh?) were perfect for him. They were decent enough games, absolutely adored by golfing fans. When I begun thinking about a possible Christmas present for my dad, a golf game was obviously top of the list, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001 was the only golf game that I'd seen available for the PS2. Good name on the license, amazing hardware with which to develop the game, and a somewhat trusted past. So, I went out and bought the game having tracked down a copy (extremely hard to find anywhere in the area). I returned home and decided to have a short play to see whether it was worth the money. Obviously if it was poor I wanted to get my money back so I could buy a worthwhile gift for my dad. The outcome? The game was awful. The graphics were (and this term has been used a little too much recently, but is DEFINATELY warranted here) PS1 quality. Things were indeed smooth and rounded, but the detail was appalling. To be honest the sheer awfulness of the graphics (considering the PS2's potential) was enough to make me want to return the game alone. However, the physics (the golf-balls seem to suddenly stop [rolls very briefly before stopping perfectly]) and lack of imagination were also major deterrents. And, how many playable characters? 5!? Okay so that shouldn't really be a problem, but what about playing a major championship? Just five competitors, and only one of them ever heard of before! I wanted a list of 20 or so (like Actua Golf 3) and got just 5!
I felt the game was barely worth £10 let alone £39.99. I also felt confident that not even my dad would find it of any interest, and so promptly returned it for a refund. I then went on to buy F1 2001, return it due to the poor quality of the game, exchange it for Fifa 2002, return it due to the poor quality of the game, and finally end up buying a CD Collection set instead.
One poor game is acceptable, but three (that's obviously not including any of the other releases which I've yet to play) is absolutely disgraceful. Anyone who believes EA really do aim to produce the very best sports games have been sadly mislead, like myself. If they ARE looking to publish the BEST sports games anywhere, then why release so many games so quickly, with so little effort? Of course the actual development teams are as much to blame, but as a publisher EA should be demanding the very best from their games.
The only other alternative? Drop their prices to the £10-£15 price range, which I MAY, repeat MAY, consider investing in.
I'm sure many people have ranted about EA, and their relentless releases of football games in various guises before, but this instance proved to me beyond any doubt that unless there's some SERIOUS re-consideration on their point, EA are destined to a future of DESERVED criticism. I'll have to be heavily convinced of a change before parting with my money for an EA sports title again.
EA. Extremely Average.
Most of the time, games are received differently by different people. The chances are, most games released on any console with have both strong admirers and those who completely dislike the game. I think most of us are willing to accept a shameful game once in a while. It's almost forgivable, something that we can forget about. Of course there will be those who are disappointed by the undelivered promises, and some of us will have wasted as much as £50 and have a right to be angry. But, as already mentioned, once in a while one bad game is forgivable. For the most part, this doesn't mean we're against buying another game by the respective developer/publisher again.
That's where the irony of this comes in.
Even though with each and every incarnation of EA's Fifa titles the change became less and less noticeable, I still went out and bought the game once a year. How many football games where released by EA around the time of the World Cup? From the months leading up to the event to around a year afterwards, EA must have released 4 separate football titles, each costing around £30 each, each with a few new bells and whistles to impress us (not). It was blatantly obvious that their only concern was the money consumers would pay for their games, and the profits it would make them. They could have spent time and money on one title making it as damn good as possible, but instead opted for four EXTREMELY average titles in hope of securing four times the money. Yet, still each year EA remained one of the top games publishers and still we went out buying their games by the bucket load.
Looking back, I'm not sure why I felt compelled to buy various Fifa games knowing full well that aside from updated stats and a few new replay features, nothing much would have been added in the 6 months or so it took for development. However, the reason the Fifa games did so well, is people wanted the updated stats. Within 6 months, a lot had changed in the world of football, clubs had changed strips, players transferred, managers sacked and re-hired elsewhere. I guess the fact is, EA released updates constantly, and most people went and bought one of their games every year or so (rather than each and every one.) It's almost excusable, because they're not necessarily claiming an ENTIRELY new concept or take on the game. The fact is, unlike other games companies EA didn't continuously bombard us with AWFUL games not worthy of £30 and keep on doing so all the while they were bought. The games were not awful enough to appear in bargain bins the following week for just £10. It didn't happen, and probably never will with their titles. They were never considered an awful publisher, and I for one never really thought about deliberately avoiding their future releases.
However, how can ANYONE forgive their approach to gaming in the last year or so? They may well be a publisher and not primarily developers, but as those funding the project and those responsible for the release of the game, they should be HEAVILY involved in the whole development process. How can this possibly have happened with the sheer number of EA games that have appeared on the shelves in the last 12-18 months? To name but a few, Fifa 2001/2, SSX, SSX Tricky, Rugby, Madden NFL 2002, NHL 2001/2, NBA Live 2002, F1 2001, NBA Street, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001. That does NOT consider other projects away from sport that EA may have been involved with, nor does it even begin to consider the WHOLE collection of sporting titles released by them. What I have to question is, how involved WERE EA in the respective projects? Surely they cannot have truly devoted a full 100% of their resources to each title. Many publishers will only release a few games in any one-year, but EA have released at LEAST 12 sporting titles alone since the PS2's launch. 12!?
Some of the games mentioned were of course well received, SSX most notably as it is widely regarded as one of the PS2's finest. And having played NBA Street for some time, I also consider this a worthwhile investment, just as to the die-hard rugby fans that haven't really had a console rugby game up until now, EA's Rugby title is a godsend. BUT, aside from the one or two exceptions, EA's release line-up has been VERY poor.
Fifa 2001 was considered a cheap cash in as EA rushed to get a football title out on the PS2 as soon as possible. Then, this year appears Fifa 2002, another distinctly average effort that really doesn't even ATTEMPT to make use of the PS2's capabilities.
How can their lax attitude towards game development be justified? My own personal reason for feeling anger towards EA is the fact that I've wasted TOO much time tracking down their games, spending £40 on them, and then taking them right back to the shop the following day! In the past two weeks I've had three different EA games and every single one of them has gone back to the shop just as promptly as I returned home with them. Let me explain my current situation.
My dad is a massive Golf fan, and the PGA Tour games that were available on the Mega-Drive (going back some eh?) were perfect for him. They were decent enough games, absolutely adored by golfing fans. When I begun thinking about a possible Christmas present for my dad, a golf game was obviously top of the list, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2001 was the only golf game that I'd seen available for the PS2. Good name on the license, amazing hardware with which to develop the game, and a somewhat trusted past. So, I went out and bought the game having tracked down a copy (extremely hard to find anywhere in the area). I returned home and decided to have a short play to see whether it was worth the money. Obviously if it was poor I wanted to get my money back so I could buy a worthwhile gift for my dad. The outcome? The game was awful. The graphics were (and this term has been used a little too much recently, but is DEFINATELY warranted here) PS1 quality. Things were indeed smooth and rounded, but the detail was appalling. To be honest the sheer awfulness of the graphics (considering the PS2's potential) was enough to make me want to return the game alone. However, the physics (the golf-balls seem to suddenly stop [rolls very briefly before stopping perfectly]) and lack of imagination were also major deterrents. And, how many playable characters? 5!? Okay so that shouldn't really be a problem, but what about playing a major championship? Just five competitors, and only one of them ever heard of before! I wanted a list of 20 or so (like Actua Golf 3) and got just 5!
I felt the game was barely worth £10 let alone £39.99. I also felt confident that not even my dad would find it of any interest, and so promptly returned it for a refund. I then went on to buy F1 2001, return it due to the poor quality of the game, exchange it for Fifa 2002, return it due to the poor quality of the game, and finally end up buying a CD Collection set instead.
One poor game is acceptable, but three (that's obviously not including any of the other releases which I've yet to play) is absolutely disgraceful. Anyone who believes EA really do aim to produce the very best sports games have been sadly mislead, like myself. If they ARE looking to publish the BEST sports games anywhere, then why release so many games so quickly, with so little effort? Of course the actual development teams are as much to blame, but as a publisher EA should be demanding the very best from their games.
The only other alternative? Drop their prices to the £10-£15 price range, which I MAY, repeat MAY, consider investing in.
I'm sure many people have ranted about EA, and their relentless releases of football games in various guises before, but this instance proved to me beyond any doubt that unless there's some SERIOUS re-consideration on their point, EA are destined to a future of DESERVED criticism. I'll have to be heavily convinced of a change before parting with my money for an EA sports title again.
EA. Extremely Average.