Export thread

http://www.destructoid.com/ea-boss-proudly-refuses-to-publish-single-player-games-234402.phtml

They are proud of making mediocre games.

With co-op coming to Dead Space 3 and multiplayer rumored for Dragon Age 3, it seems that the idea of solo-oriented experiences is now dead to EA. As is variety, it seems. The inexorable march towards videogames becoming one indistinguishable mass of grey sludge continues.

Click to expand...

Coop in Dead Space 3 sounds interesting... but it's clearly not the type of immersion I'm expecting for that type of game.

More importantly... I hope that rumor for DA3 is NOT true... cause... gawd.

Let's face it, everyone assumes DA3 to be a lost cause anyway.

I really want EA to burn... to mother. fucking. burn.

BUUURRRRNNNN!!!!!

Dead Space 2 had coop, though I'll admit I've never played it. Still, it doesn't fit too badly.

Coop in Mass Effect 3 made me raise my eyebrows a bit, but in the end it worked too.

Coop in Dragon Age sounds weird though. I haven't played DA2, is the combat as pause-intensive as DA1? Because I can't imagine coop working in DA1's combat.

Admittedly it might be cool to have one guy playing Hawke, and the second player controlling the Warden from DA1, as they work together though. That'd be pretty awesome.

bhamv3 said:

Dead Space 2 had coop, though I'll admit I've never played it. Still, it doesn't fit too badly.

Click to expand...

Dead Space 2 didn't have Co-Op, it had a Humans Vs Necromorph mode thing. No one played it because it was stupid.

As for Dead Space 3 having Co-Op... you CAN do Co-Op in a horror game, but it needs to have a significant amount of action and you need to put in lots of ways to force the team to split up. As much as I hated RE5, it's Co-Op elements were handled pretty well.

AshburnerX said:

Dead Space 2 didn't have Co-Op, it had a Humans Vs Necromorph mode thing. No one played it because it was stupid.

As for Dead Space 3 having Co-Op... you CAN do Co-Op in a horror game, but it needs to have a significant amount of action and you need to put in lots of ways to force the team to split up. As much as I hated RE5, it's Co-Op elements were handled pretty well.

Click to expand...

My mistake, you're right. It was a VS mode and not coop.

How many separate "EA is evil threads" do we need?

ThatNickGuy said:

How many separate "EA is evil threads" do we need?

Click to expand...

One for every sin. So, quite a few.

ThatNickGuy said:

How many separate "EA is evil threads" do we need?

Click to expand...

I'll tell you once I find out.

I think you guys may be taking his comments pretty severely out of context, going by the Kotaku interview on the topic.

He's just saying that games that don't have a plan to add more online content to keep players engaged in the long-term won't get greenlit. That's not even news.

SpecialKO said:

He's just saying that games that don't have a plan to add more online content to keep players engaged in the long-term won't get greenlit. That's not even news.

Click to expand...

Online content is NOT necessary to keep people engaged in the long term. Good games with replayability and/or excellent modding support already do that.

How many people do you figure are still playing ME3 multiplayer?

Azurephoenix said:

Online content is NOT necessary to keep people engaged in the long term.

Click to expand...

No, but it's most assuredly a successful method of doing so. And he's quite clear that he's including DLC in his completely unoriginal grand vision that Gabe Newell has already been talking about for years.

Azurephoenix said:

How many people do you figure are still playing ME3 multiplayer?

Click to expand...

Since they're still making DLC that caters specifically to multiplayer, probably quite a few.

SpecialKO said:

Since they're still making DLC that caters specifically to multiplayer, probably quite a few.

Click to expand...

Obviously this is a very small sample size but out of the twenty or so people I know that bought ME3, not a single one has touched the multiplayer component for quite some time. Hell, I played it HARD for awhile... by my estimation I unlocked about 80% of the content (which by the way I never got any of the 3 damn weapons I WANTED above level 1) but it got boring, stale and extremely uninteresting very quickly.

Sadly this has been the case with a lot of tacked on multiplayer lately. Not to mention EA's propensity towards shutting down servers and then what? You're screwed and can't play the game you paid money for. Fuck all this multiplayer shit at the expense of good core gameplay.

*edited for minor grammar errors*

Azurephoenix said:

Obviously this is a very small sample size but out of the twenty or so people I know that bought ME3, not a single one has touched the multiplayer component for quite some time. Hell, I played it HARD for awhile... by my estimation I unlocked about 80% of the content (which by the way I never got any of the 3 damn weapons I WANTED above level 1) but it got boring, stale and extremely uninteresting very quickly.

Sadly this has been the case with a lot of tacked on multiplayer lately. Not to mention EA's propensity towards shutting down servers and then what? You're screwed and can't play the game you paid money for. Fuck all this multiplayer shit and the expense of good core gameplay.

Click to expand...

Also, origin fucked up for a lot of people and simply stopped working.

Azurephoenix said:

Sadly this has been the case with a lot of tacked on multiplayer lately.

Click to expand...

Which is explicitly what he's talking about avoiding, incidentally.

Not to mention EA's propensity towards shutting down servers and then what? You're screwed and can't play the game you paid money for. Fuck all this multiplayer shit and the expense of good core gameplay.

Click to expand...

At least in the case of ME3, I don't believe that was the case. Now that it's all come out, the ending was always going to be as rushed and slapdash because that's what Casey Hudson wanted. And I haven't seen barely anyone who had problems with the game's core play up until that point. The multiplayer may have been kind of tacked on, but it didn't do so at the expense of of the single-player, and hundreds of thousands (and possibly millions) of players played it.

To the extent you would believe me without substantiated info (can't share it without getting in trouble), all the indicators are towards most players (not just the people who comment on Destructroid and Kotaku articles) actually wanting multiplayer and social layers in their games.

Which means that if EA wants to cater to them instead of you and let Bethesda and Valve (who is also jumping into the online social layer stuff) fill your gaming needs...I say let 'em.

SpecialKO said:

Which means that if EA wants to cater to them instead of you and let Bethesda and Valve (who is also jumping into the online social layer stuff) fill your gaming needs...I say let 'em.

Click to expand...

If EA would stop buying up franchises and studios I enjoyed and then destroying them I would be inclined to agree with you.

Multiplayer is fun on the short term but in the long term it loses its appeal. My favorite games have always been single player games and have finished them multiple times.

ME3 multiplayer was better than expected but in many ways I'll always ask myself, how much did this MP and Kinect take away from developing the game? How much of this took away from the final mission in the game on Earth where all your "assets" would come into play? The ending? The cut corners apparent in the game?

Let's be honest, EA runs its games like a business and clearly don't care about their clients and the only thing keeping them afloat are the excellent IPs they get their hands on with their money. So, I'm not surprised by this announcement and elaboration need not be done... I see where they are coming from and why MP games exist... it's anti-piracy and micro-transactions give them more money.

IMO, they don't fit in my view of what I expect from the gaming industry and are an obvious decease to the livelihood of many companies, particularly those small enough to make good quality games that cater to its fans for years to come... and not simply a roster update with 2 new tweaks year after year for full game value.

Azurephoenix said:

If EA would stop buying up franchises and studios I enjoyed and then destroying them I would be inclined to agree with you.

Click to expand...

I think Valve is more likely to buy a plurality stakeholder's share of EA these days.

Actually, I'd be pretty down with that.

Jay said:

ME3 multiplayer was better than expected but in many ways I'll always ask myself, how much did this MP and Kinect take away from developing the game? How much of this took away from the final mission in the game on Earth where all your "assets" would come into play? The ending? The cut corners apparent in the game?

Click to expand...

Pretty much not at all. We know from past interviews that Kinect support ended up taking a miniscule part of the budget and that Casey Hudson would have shoehorned in his ending no matter what. I believe you actually posted the links in your ME3 thread.

Let's be honest, EA runs its games like a business and clearly don't care about their clients and the only thing keeping them afloat are the excellent IPs they get their hands on with their money. So, I'm not surprised by this announcement and elaboration need not be done... I see where they are coming from and why MP games exist... it's anti-piracy and micro-transactions give them more money.

Click to expand...

And it's what the majority of gamers want. I do focus groups about games all the time, and the moment I even bring up not having multiplayer and online services, everyone around the table gets mad (to be clear, they also get mad about the idea of taking out single-player; even the Battlefield 3 fans). Be upset about that if you want, but it's true. It's not like you're being forced to give money to EA instead of Bethesda or CDProjekt.

IMO, they don't fit in my view of what I expect from the gaming industry and are an obvious decease to the livelihood of many companies

Click to expand...

Fair enough. The loss of Bullfrog and Westwood still sting after many years. That said, Command & Conquer Online looks pretty awesome.

not simply a roster update with 2 new tweaks year after year for full game value.

Click to expand...

I don't get it either, but if sports gamers are satisfied enough to keep buying each one in record numbers, I find it hard to criticize. Just so long as they continue to not do that with games I actually like.

I'm all for there being more multiplayer/coop games out there, but it seems to me those two particular games would not benefit from it.

GasBandit said:

I'm all for there being more multiplayer/coop games out there, but it seems to me those two particular games would not benefit from it.

Click to expand...

I do have to agree that Dead Space co-op is much less appealing from a Dead Space perspective. I liked RE5 a lot, but while RE4 still had some horror/suspense in its action-horror, RE5 was pretty much all action.

I just wonder if Civ VI will be a first person shooter...

It's companies like EA that focus on shitty games they repackage for the next year and buys awesome IPs/Companies and scraps them to make more money.

Meanwhile... games like this get rarer every year.

Those of you who played this game... do you get shivers up your spine when you hear the music? I know I do.

SpecialKO said:

I think you guys may be taking his comments pretty severely out of context, going by the Kotaku interview on the topic.

He's just saying that games that don't have a plan to add more online content to keep players engaged in the long-term won't get greenlit. That's not even news.

Click to expand...

You know how to keep players engaged in the long-term? Make a fucking fantastic game.

DA:O is an EXCELLENT example of this. I've beaten the game several times and will probably do so again (and have a damn good time) at some point in the next year. Each time was a completely different experience. Different character, different strategy, different story, different ending.

Fuck multiplayer. Forcing that shit on me is the quickest way to make sure I WON'T play the game again, because I don't feel like grinding for EMS or whatever.

The funny thing is, Baldur's Gate 2 had online multiplayer. World didn't explode. Just sayin'.

HowDroll said:

You know how to keep players engaged in the long-term? Make a fucking fantastic game.

Click to expand...

Do you guys actually think that BioWare specifically sat down and said, "you know, DAO was awesome, but I think we need to go out of our way to make something decidedly mediocre and unimpressive, which we shall call Dragon Age 2!"?

They took a gamble on what they thought players wanted, and they ended up really wrong, and paid for it by only selling 2M copies of the game.

HowDroll said:

Fuck multiplayer. Forcing that shit on me is the quickest way to make sure I WON'T play the game again, because I don't feel like grinding for EMS or whatever.

Click to expand...

Serious question, when has anyone here ever been forced to play multiplayer for a predominantly single-player game? ME3 didn't do it, and they were actually trying then.

Not even EA Sports games do that, and multiplayer is the only thing people actually play with those games.

SpecialKO said:

They took a gamble on what they thought players wanted, and they ended up really wrong, and paid for it by only selling 2M copies of the game.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they sold a lot but at what cost? I won't even look at let alone buy a Dragon Age 3 game now... the franchise is completely and irrecovably destroyed. I also know I'm not alone in this. Not only that... I won't buy any Bioware products anymore (unless it's a time tested classic) and I'm not buying anymore EA games either. Also... Origin can suck it.

SpecialKO said:

Serious question, when has anyone here ever been forced to play multiplayer for a predominantly single-player game? ME3 didn't do it, and they were actually trying then.

Click to expand...

You're actually partially incorrect with ME3. Even though you don't "have" to play it... I'd like to see you get the required 5000 galaxy readiness points for the "best" ending without it. Of course, we all know the ending is bullshit anyways but their intent was to make you play the multiplayer to get the best ending. (It can be done without multiplayer but I believe you basically have to recover every single war asset in the game including all the hidden shit which is tiresome and stupid to retrieve).

Orcs must Die 2 can get pretty tough solo.

I actually really liked this Forbes article in response to Gibeau's original quote and his not-quite-retraction/explanation of his original quote. It does a very good job of explaining why DLC and multiplayer aren't necessarily good things for gaming; especially from a story telling point of view. Especially as it relates to MMOs. Specifically, there were two quotes from the article that I really liked.

In fact, the more social a game is, the less compelling it tends to be from a storytelling perspective. For example, the MMO genre is known to attract many players, but many of the games are incredibly light on story. It's nearly impossible to be immersed in a world where you're supposed to be the "chosen one" only to have 50 other chosen ones hopping around all around you with names like "dicklord007" jumping around in circles shouting obscenities.

Click to expand...

This one is amazingly spot on. How many people have queued up for an AV match, only to sit near the gates while 30 people do the "train" emote ad nauseum and every rogue in the place spams Fan of Knives until the gate opens. How is that immersive? What about a supposedly epic match between two generals from opposing armies screams out for the need for 30 people to scream "chuggachuggachuggachugga choo choo!" and 15 people to throw knives all round themselves constantly?

Perhaps social and story can be integrated in a way that works. There are a few examples of it starting to, like PS3's Journey or Portal 2's co-op mode, but for as long as the dicklord007's of the gaming community continue to exist, it's a hard path forward.

Click to expand...

Azurephoenix said:

Yeah, they sold a lot but at what cost? I won't even look at let alone buy a Dragon Age 3 game now... the franchise is completely and irrecovably destroyed.

Click to expand...

For you, maybe. For everyone else, we'll see. Seeing as how I don't need to buy the game if it sucks, I'm willing to let them try and convince me.

Not only that... I won't buy any Bioware products anymore (unless it's a time tested classic) and I'm not buying anymore EA games either.

Click to expand...

Whatever, it's your money.

Also... Origin can suck it.

Click to expand...

That, we can definitely agree on.

You're actually partially incorrect with ME3. Even though you don't "have" to play it... I'd like to see you get the required 5000 galaxy readiness points for the "best" ending without it.

Click to expand...

I did it with the free iPhone app that took a whole 3 minutes of my time per day in the launch month. Didn't touch multiplayer till after I beat the game. And with the Extended patch and DLC, supposedly you don't even need that.
EDIT: Incidentally, what client are you using? The reply function does weird things with my fonts when I reply to you.

Gared said:

This one is amazingly spot on. How many people have queued up for an AV match, only to sit near the gates while 30 people do the "train" emote ad nauseum and every rogue in the place spams Fan of Knives until the gate opens. How is that immersive? What about a supposedly epic match between two generals from opposing armies screams out for the need for 30 people to scream "chuggachuggachuggachugga choo choo!" and 15 people to throw knives all round themselves constantly?

Click to expand...

It's a good quote, but it's very much from the perspective of a guy reading extra things into what someone else is saying.

Here's what Gibeau said in the clarification:

Let me clarify," Gibeau began. "What I said was [about not greenlighting] anything that [doesn't have] an online service. You can have a very deep single-player game but it has to have an ongoing content plan for keeping customers engaged beyond what's on the initial disc. I'm not saying deathmatch must come to Mirror's Edge."

"What I'm saying is if you're going do it, do it with an open-world game that's a connected experience where you can actually see other players, you can co-operate, you can compete and it can be social. Everything that we do, we see the telemetry coming in telling us that's the best way to build our business and that's the best way to build these experiences and be differentiated from others. Yeah, I'm not suggesting deathmatch must be in Bejeweled. It's just… You need to have a connected social experience where you're part of a large community"
When I mentioned that a certain sort of player still wants an experience that can't be interrupted through social interaction, he stated that The Sims plays that way. "The new Sim City, you can play single-player," he continued. "Mass Effect 3, you can play single-player. FIFA, Madden…"
"I still passionately believe in single-player games and think we should build them. What I was trying to suggest with my comments was that as we move our company from being a packaged goods, fire-and-forget business to a digital business that has a service component to it. That's business-speak for ‘I want to have a business that's alive and evolves and changes over time

Click to expand...

He's explicitly not talking about adding forced multiplayer to everything. He is talking about using DLC to extend play. He is talking about adding social layers to games, whether that's open-world multiplayer, co-op storymodes, sharing achievements, or whatever the heck else someone could come up with.

They're EA, they will inevitably fuck up something, probably a lot of things, while doing this. But everyone running around worried about the dicklords getting all up in their games is being exceptionally premature. EA has literally made a single game where the dicklords had the power to ruin it for everyone, and even the Forbes author agrees that SWTOR is actually a good example of story and multiplayer mostly working together.

SpecialKO said:

For you, maybe. For everyone else, we'll see. Seeing as how I don't need to buy the game if it sucks, I'm willing to let them try and convince me.

Click to expand...

Well we will have to wait and see... but when the game is released whoever is wrong will be showered with boos!

SpecialKO said:

I did it with the free iPhone app that took a whole 3 minutes of my time per day in the launch month. Didn't touch multiplayer till after I beat the game. And with the Extended patch and DLC, supposedly you don't even need that.

Click to expand...

I shouldn't have to use an external app for a device I may not have to get my galaxy score up. I also shouldn't have to rely on paid DLC or an extended ending that we only got because we bitched so hard about the end sucking (and the extended cut was still pretty much a big middle finger to us because Casey Hudson is the best writer ever).

SpecialKO said:

EDIT: Incidentally, what client are you using? The reply function does weird things with my fonts when I reply to you.

Click to expand...

It's probably my compulsive need to change my font to Arial. I suppose I should probably stop that at some point...

Azurephoenix said:

Well we will have to wait and see... but when the game is released whoever is wrong will be showered with boos!

Click to expand...

Acceptable!

Wait, what if it sucks because it just sucks, not because of multiplayer/social/whatsis? Who gets booed then?

I shouldn't have to use an external app for a device I may not have to get my galaxy score up. I also shouldn't have to rely on paid DLC or an extended ending that we only got because we bitched so hard about the end sucking (and the extended cut was still pretty much a big middle finger to us because Casey Hudson is the best writer ever).

Click to expand...

That's true, but it's still not an example of forced multiplayer. And I blame Casey Hudson more than EA for that one. Since by all accounts, he just did it that way, despite apparently half the writing staff at BioWare and EA themselves asking if he was quite sure.

SpecialKO said:

The funny thing is, Baldur's Gate 2 had online multiplayer. World didn't explode. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Based on the OP and this statement I can now deduce that Baldur's Gate 2 is a mediocre game.

SpecialKO said:

Acceptable!

Wait, what if it sucks because it just sucks, not because of multiplayer/social/whatsis? Who gets booed then?

Click to expand...

Then we can both weep for Bioware and pour one out for them.

SpecialKO said:

Do you guys actually think that BioWare specifically sat down and said, "you know, DAO was awesome, but I think we need to go out of our way to make something decidedly mediocre and unimpressive, which we shall call Dragon Age 2!"?

They took a gamble on what they thought players wanted, and they ended up really wrong, and paid for it by only selling 2M copies of the game.

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

It was a rushed, EA Style, mess. They didn't take a gamble, they crapped out a quick buck sequel to cash in as quickly as possible on the original. Which is why the game director behind the first game quit.

Frank said:

Bullshit.

It was a rushed, EA Style, mess. They didn't take a gamble, they crapped out a quick buck sequel to cash in as quickly as possible on the original. Which is why the game director behind the first game quit.

Click to expand...

They took a huge gamble by trying to fix everything that people complained about in the combat in the first game and tried to make the story tighter because some people also complained about that. Where they went wrong wasn't that it was rushed, it was in listening to all the wrong people when they tried to fix things that didn't really need to be fixed.

SpecialKO said:

Wait, what if it sucks because it just sucks, not because of multiplayer/social/whatsis? Who gets booed then?

Click to expand...

EA, obviously.

SpecialKO said:

Serious question, when has anyone here ever been forced to play multiplayer for a predominantly single-player game?

Click to expand...

A predominantly single-player game? Maybe not. A single player IP where they either drastically changed gameplay or game design with the express purpose to force you into multiplayer? Diablo III, Command and Conquer 4, Red Alert 3, and more. All EA games from franchises of previously independent developers. Not a coincidence. C&C4 is generally considered a huge failure; RA3 is considered a cheesecake factory. D3 - numbers aren't in but I don't know anyone who's still truly active in it...

Diablo 3 is ActiBlizzard, not EA.

Frank said:

Diablo 3 is ActiBlizzard, not EA.

Click to expand...

True. My apologies. I'm drunk at the moment. Drunk typing is bad for you.

For as terrible as the D3 endgame is, and as badly as everyone who wanted to love the game now hates it, it's still a huge commercial success.

Bubble181 said:

A single player IP where they either drastically changed gameplay or game design with the express purpose to force you into multiplayer? Diablo III, Command and Conquer 4, Red Alert 3, and more. All EA games from franchises of previously independent developers. Not a coincidence. C&C4 is generally considered a huge failure; RA3 is considered a cheesecake factory. D3 - numbers aren't in but I don't know anyone who's still truly active in it...

Click to expand...

The pub thing aside, Diablo hasn't been a single player IP since the first one. It just hasn't. That you could play through the entirety of D2 single-player with enormous amounts of effort/over-gearing didn't make it one (and technically, you can do it in D3, though it's even more ludicrously difficult).

I'll give you the C&C games, since I don't know any public info about them (beyond beating RA3 by myself in single-player while finding the whole game annoyingly mundane).