EA ****s up again, announces BF4

well, you can't be disappointed in video games on the whole in one thread and then in another get all pissy with people on this forum who enjoy independent gaming over looking forward to the next dead space title or those that are more looking forward to the next amnesia title over spec ops the line or whatever. there is a clear mark in quality over what is independently designed and what isn't. being disappointed in one collection of games because of their publisher is no reason to tar the whole sector with a bad brush, that would be like being frustrated with avenues of music that are purely generated off of the back of things like the x factor or britains/americas got talent. it's so minor and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
 
I wasn't actually saying that battlefield should approach the same guerrilla-style marketing strategy, only specifically challenging knut's point about what successful marketing 'has to be'. It certainly doesn't have to be what he described to be successful.


He said nothing about what successful marketing has to be, just what it is, in general - and for titles like this, always. I guess responding to what his point actually was wouldn't let you display any ludicrous elitism or jerk off about that gun porn game and the zombie mod though, so hf!
 
He said nothing about what successful marketing has to be, just what it is, in general - and for titles like this, always. I guess responding to what his point actually was wouldn't let you display any ludicrous elitism or jerk off about that gun porn game and the zombie mod though, so hf!
Jesus christ, shut up.
 
Hey willie, you're gonna love this:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ea-research-said-dead-space-1-2-were-too-scary/099920
EA research said Dead Space 1&2 were too scary

Wow, really? Dead Space 1 and 2 gave me jumps, but most of it wasn't scary enough to stick with me the way Amnesia, Penumbra, Condemned, and F.E.A.R. have. If anything the first two were good at creating tense situations where you had multiple enemies running towards you and you had to find a way to slow down or kill all of them before they got to you. All of that tension arose from the fact that it was just you against them, no-one to save your ass in a sticky situation. I fear co-op is gonna get rid of all of that tension.
 
Hey willie, you're gonna love this:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ea-research-said-dead-space-1-2-were-too-scary/099920
EA research said Dead Space 1&2 were too scary
God damnit, will people stop making such stupid accusations. This will be the second time in just this thread that I have to defend EA. You guys are killing me here.

If you read the article, it said that people enjoy the experience more when they're playing with someone else. How about we post the actual quote thats relevant rather than an out-of-context quote accompanying a misleading (or rather, outright false) headline?

“We were hearing feedback that they love the thriller game, but it was pretty scary, and the obvious next step was that they wanted to play with someone. So we introduced co-op into the game.

“The horror of Dead Space is still all there. It’s still true to its roots and no less scary, but people felt far more comfortable playing it with someone else than they did doing it on their own.

They said that people loved the game, but would would rather play it co-op. Now stop hating EA for all this stupid shit, and start hating them for the plethora of legitimate reasons available.
 
I shouldn't have to remind you to read between the lines in corporate press releases.

"We received feedback to understand how we can take the game out to even more consumers."

"We’re looking for that to reach out to consumers that perhaps were not open to Dead Space 1 and 2."

They aren't trying to make a better game, they're trying to capitalise on as many sales as possible. End of story. Everything else is PR.
 
Don't make a better game, make your current game better god damn ****nig fji9dju 4t EA
 
I found this funny

Battlefield developer DICE has explained why it chose not to offer mod tools for last year's Battlefield 3. Speaking during a GDC Europe session this week attended by Gamasultra, DICE general manager Karl Magnus Troedsson said the studio was fearful of the potential implications.
Magnus Troedsson explained that DICE is aware that offering mod tools can help extend the life of a game like Battlefield 3. However, the company decided against it because it was "afraid of all the things that can come with releasing the code," including hacking exploits.
The developer also cited Battlefield 3 being a multiplatform release as a reason it chose not to make public mod tools. Magnus Troedsson said if DICE were to release mod tools, it would want to let console players in, too, and the studio was not prepared to do this.
"If we do mod support, we want to do it really, really well," he said. "We are not ready to do this yet."

First we're too dumb for mod tools, too much middleware, etc. Now its "we have to be fair to console players" and "we're afraid of hacks"

This is the exact reason why I didn't bother purchasing Premium. EA/DICE afraid of the fans making the proper BF sequel, and getting rid of the cawadooty gunwank and derp gameplay mechanics, blue tint, etc.

It's the most hilarious thing DICE has said since they promised BF3 would have a competitive esport focus. Ha!
 
Back
Top