The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I've noticed recently that most adverts by EA feature very little in game action compared to most other game adverts. Loads of fancy graphics etc
So is it a clever ploy to make games seem better than they are so people buy them?
Or is it the way that game adverts should be?
What you think?
So is it a clever ploy to make games seem better than they are so people buy them?
Or is it the way that game adverts should be?
What you think?
Pliskin wrote:
> Most EA games are brilliant anyway.
You couldn't be farer from the truth. The only decent EA games are tarnished by EA's need to turn nearly every one of their popular titles into never ending franchise that constantly leach off popularity.
> Most EA games are brilliant anyway.
You couldn't be farer from the truth. The only decent EA games are tarnished by EA's need to turn nearly every one of their popular titles into never ending franchise that constantly leach off popularity.
In game shots will let you have a very rough idea what you are getting. If they show something that looks better than ingame graphics then they may sell more with that. More money is good. That's what it comes down to at the end of the day. Any way to get more money without having to sacrifice more money is good. Money is indeed what makes the world go around.
Yeah, I mean, the obvious example is that crappy little Harry Potter game that was out a while ago.
The advert was basically a big digital effects video, and scribed at the bottom for the whole advert was "Footage may not be included in game", or something to that effect.
However, a lot of their games do rock anyway, but I never actually see adverts for their good games (Generals, Tiger Woods etc), and there are very few airings of the FIFA 2004 advert - which shows basically no ingame footage.
And game ad's should at least have some game footage, so you know what you're buying. But a lot of gamers have PC's anyway, and normally check reviews/screenshots etc online anyway.
But for those who don't, it isn't fair, as they go into buying the game blindly.
The advert was basically a big digital effects video, and scribed at the bottom for the whole advert was "Footage may not be included in game", or something to that effect.
However, a lot of their games do rock anyway, but I never actually see adverts for their good games (Generals, Tiger Woods etc), and there are very few airings of the FIFA 2004 advert - which shows basically no ingame footage.
And game ad's should at least have some game footage, so you know what you're buying. But a lot of gamers have PC's anyway, and normally check reviews/screenshots etc online anyway.
But for those who don't, it isn't fair, as they go into buying the game blindly.
I think they dont show you much of the game so you have to go and buy it and check it out and not judge it by its appearance or someone else's opinion.
Most EA games are brilliant anyway.
Most EA games are brilliant anyway.
I've noticed recently that most adverts by EA feature very little in game action compared to most other game adverts. Loads of fancy graphics etc
So is it a clever ploy to make games seem better than they are so people buy them?
Or is it the way that game adverts should be?
What you think?
So is it a clever ploy to make games seem better than they are so people buy them?
Or is it the way that game adverts should be?
What you think?