ITT franchises EA destroyed with a single game

...

Mass Effect was never good

This is when the franchise started to rot.

3 is bad, but Andromeda is confirmation that there's no hope.

1 holds up.

fuck you the first one was great.

i've never seen any defend it, haven't really seen anyone bash it either. it just seemed to be one of those forgotten games

If you didn't think Battlefield was dead when EA sliced and diced 3 into DLC, then the rehash that was 4 should have made it clear.

I guess that the modern Call of Duty games are quality games then.

It was well dead before Premium son
Battlefield 3 was one of the reasons 2011 was so fucking bad.

Does this thread include games that were just published by EA? Because Crysis 2 wasn't just the destruction of a franchise, but also of a company. Then again Crytek did this to themselves the utter retards.

Theres another reason
now if only Red Orchestra 2 had been published by EA

Generals

The multiplayer was pretty good though
Just needed the fucking loadouts removed and weapon placement on the maps.
Crysis Wara shits all over it though

EA destroyed Tony Hawk games with Skate. Tony Hawk games deserved it though for getting lazy and worse. Too bad EA is so retarded they shut down Blackbox. Skate 4 never. Another good Tony Hawk game never. THUG Pro for life.

...

Tony Hawk was Activisions you fucking idiot

no it wasn't, reddit.

ftfy op

Lemme spell it out for you

Aye, my bad

Mistakes happen

EA a shit, but it's not their fault Activision fucked up their OWN franchise.

in what way? all I see is a franchise that used to be really good and one that was never good

publishers can call shots for developers and theyve been killing games in the womb for a long time.

this isnt supposed to be an example. its just something ea fucked up

The scariest part of the andromeda is that bioware always recovers from failures. Remember DA2.

was dragon age 2 known for bad animation and voice acting?

It was graphically worse than DA:O and had repetitive same dungeons you needed to complete over and over again. It was a terrible game. The only reason i ever completed it was lesbian romance with Merrill. And then murdered the faggot elf who kept disliking my actions.

Worst part they removed race selection and stripped down combat system.

i guess what i should have asked was if reviewers and such were harsh with the game during its time. because as far as i know they are with andromeda.
i dont really remember it being bashed or ea disowning it, though im not one to pay too much attention to news outlets. but andromeda has made a laughing stock of itself. nobody is ignoring the poorly done cinematic aspect.

heck, i vaguely remember dragon age 2 getting a bit of praise for its combat because origins was generally considered hard in that regard.

They erased more and more from combat to the point when in inquisition mage can only cast fire,shock,ice and support buffs, and that's it.
Dragon Age 2 was praised by paid reviewers, and dropped hard in ratings by users by the time.
Generally they made the melee combat faster, but not did anything better with it.

You've never played that game. I bet you don't have a Tier-1 beard, faggot.

It started with BF3.

Did you like the UE Cowadadoody singleplayer garbage or the Frosbite BC2 lite multiplayer garbage?

Either way you have shit taste, now go back to your fucking Xbawk

Generals was amazing fuck any nigga who disagrees

God damn that fucking game

I did and it fucking sucked a million dicks. Get some fucking taste.

Generals was a good game, but the C&C name was slapped on it only because of name recognition (by EA of course). These situations/issues with games like C&C generals should be made clear, just because something is a really good game doesn't mean that it deserves the name of his predecessors.

It wasn't terrible but it was extremely forgettable in every sense of the word. Why do you think it's never brought up, ever?

Does a C&C game need to be a direct clone of C&C with different units though? Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn are basically just the same game functionally speaking – you grab your ore, manage your power, get your silos, and so on and so forth. They even share the same units. It wasn't until RA2 and TS that they diversified the games from each other. Generals branched out further in units and strategies, but I feel it's still a worthy C&C game.

i guess its more in line with red alert due to its somewhat cartoony take on war. especially in zero hours general challenge. thinking about that, it makes more sense that red alert 3 in turn borrowed from generals.

Red Alert 3 was basically Generals trying to be Red Alert 2, which is why it was so great that Generals was its own thing.

Giving every single unit special abilities, making everything SO WACKY HAHA, and reducing every faction to just generic stereotypes as well as giving them lame gameplay sucks tbh. Red Alert and Generals were better because the stereotypes were either unintentional, or subtle and not forced.

Generals is great because it went off to be it's own thing. Red Alert 2 is great because it branched into its own thing from TD and TS.

Red Alert 3 is not great, because it's trying too hard to be Generals and RA2, which are their own things entirely.

I hope that's not The Avatar asking that.

MoH 2010 was far from perfect but I thought it was ok. I know some people said that it was propaganda but the entire franchise is like that, to be honest. I wasn't a fan of the multiplayer.
I didn't play Doorfighter or its multiplayer mode.

i think by giving every unit a special ability it actually does its own thing and felt like a natural progression. cnc 3 already experimented with giving units abilities and ra3 came right after.
would you say that command and conquer is lousy because its trying too hard to be dune?

...

I don't get why people complain about this. The game gives you the option to ask this stuff, if you do you sound like a retard but it's your own fault for asking retarded questions.
It's like doing a low int run on fallout and complaining that the mc is stupid,

Didn't they give you similarly stupid options in the older ones as well?
I vaguely remember that going around and asking for the names of some of your companions in the black gate made them comment on how you are going senile or something along those lines.

Now this is where I disagree, the thing with RA3 giving every unit abilities is not because of experimentation, it's because EA was trying to copy Starcraft for their market. In fact it was too obvious with them doing away with the C&C formula of gathering resources with a harvester and instead just copied the Starcraft one.

I'm not saying every unit should not have abilities, the GI's in Red Alert 2 and the Nod tanks in TS and a few others having abilities was nice and interesting, but those abilities made sense and not EVERY fucking unit should have abilities. There were a lot of units in RA3 which should have been more simple then they were. This is a case of where less is more.

Braindead

Spoony mems

i get where youre coming from, its more of a warcraft thing though, with the gold mines.
they already did the resource harvesting from a structure rather than 'on the field around a spawner' thing with generals, and it was kind of jarring at first because its not what i expected going into a cnc game. but i grew to appreciate the differences in the factions resource harvesting.
americas copters were fast, reminiscent of emperor: battle for dunes harvester that came with a carryall and so they didnt necessarily have to expand to collect resources outside of their base and they doubled as troop transports, chinese were generic dedicated harvesters and the harvesters for gla were also the factions builders.

as for copying starcraft, well, i think the only thing ea tried to "copy" was to sell an rts as esports, which they actually tried with cnc3 at first but that didnt go so well, and i think they gave up that idea with ra3. thats like saying any games that want to sell like hotcakes are copying games that were a booming success.
instead they leaned more on the co-op campaign and uh hollywood actors for some stupid reason. youre damn right they wanted brood wars audience, who doesnt? but they went about making an entirely different game.

The first ME was an interesting foundation for something better to come along and improve on but it ultimately came out as fairly forgettable. Forgettable isn't the same as bad though.

Yes it is, especially when its shilled and hyper at its peak.

still mad

No, I think the multiplayer for MoH 2010 was made by another company, they didn't use the Frostbite engine until MoH Warfighter.

No, forgettable is just there and maybe worth playing if you've got nothing else more enjoyable around. Bad is actively unfun to the point it isn't even worth filling up time.
The marketing has no effect on its actual quality.

They even recycled BC2 animations, holy fuck, are you blind?
Did you also think MW3 was a whole new game too?

It does, if something doesn't live up to all its cocksucking, its pretty bad, and thats exactly what ME is.
A pathetic shilled to hell TPS pretending to be an RPG, just like most 7th Gen AAA fecal matter.

That doesn't change how good the actual game is user.
You seem to be calling it bad rather than forgettable. If you want to do that then fine but don't argue that forgettable =/= bad.
Well I'm not going to disagree with you on that point.

But you said:
>destroyed with a single game
ME3 dealt pretty big damage before Andromeda, a lot of ME fans hated it, more than C&C fans hated RA3. More people lost hope for ME while some believed that EA would deliver good C&C4 game. Andromeda wasn't a single deadly shot, it killed nearly dead IP.
Also, come on, faggots, post Thi4f already, what are you waiting for.

The biggest problem of Generals is that it has no connections to C&C universe itself. With RA Westwood at least tried to make it connected to Tiberium universe, it was supposed to be a prequel to original C&C. When I saw Kane I instantly realized that yeah, that was C&C game. There was that C&C feeling too in both RA games, exception was RA3.
Generals is C&C game the same way Dune is C&C game. And fun fact, when I played it for the first time, I didn't know that Generals had C&C name in it. Generals doesn't even have typical C&C cinematic videos. Instead it has real-time cutscenes.

A game can be forgettable and bad

Well yes, I meant forgettable in the sense of being deeply average though. ME1, taking away the massive hype, is just a bland third person shooter with RPG elements and an interesting but underexplored universe + plot hooks.

But it wasn't that great

No, Westwood was making Generals quitoe some time before EA closed them after Renegade's failure. Development wasn't all that affected by the closure.

Although it was specifically their Pacific branch that was making the game, which wasn't even a part of Westwood before the acquisition by EA. This branch was responsible for RA2 and YR, so it's not like they were nobodies. When Westwood was officially dissolved EA merged the studio with the LA Westwood branch to form EALA. It was the LA branch that was hit the hardest by the closure, as it ended up cancelling Tiberian Incursion/Twilight, with its assets and concepts being re-purposed later on for Tiberium Wars.

Dragon age 2 was made in like a year though, and on a shoestring budget (for a supposed AAA game, anyway). ME:A was what, 5 years and 40-50 million or something?

...

Thanks for the laughs, Bioware

all I wanted was to be an antihero who makes Rome Tevinter Great Again under ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ The Maker

No, shit as shooter, shit as rpg.
Always shit and no amount of >muh potential will change it.

came here to post this

I'm still mad at Hecker for fucking the game up.
forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/8555.page

DA2 got shilled hard with high reviews which gave an illusion it was a good game. Andromeda didn't get that luxury so ME is most likely dead for now.

any news of the ME:A sales? people say it didn't sell, but I haven't seen any numbers

Mass Effect was always casual garbage.

that would actually be fucking cool

It's risky and you've got to dedicate nearly all your resources to it, but if it works they're entirely frozen building wise, and you can just wear them down.

Still hurts

The multiplayer was good.

But that misses the point entirely.

It would have been better to split the multiplayer off into its own dedicated game …with all the kiking transactions they wanted.

Nailed it

Spore actually wasn't even EA's fault

I've actually heard a lot of good things about BF4's post launch support, and how how broken it was at launch actually forced DICE to care

whoops, forgot the link

designer-notes.com/?p=654

Fuck you, it was fun.

Mass Effect was dead long before Andromeda got released.

They recreated the Halo formula, like Gears of Shit did, for zero fucking reason. Remove the aliums entirely, and you could make infinite games.

…they made a good game…just wreck somebody else…and then killed their own franchise?!

Do they even care about profit?! Or is it just a most glorious slat mining operation?!

I actually enjoyed 3 and I thought survivor mode was very fun as you having to actually think about what kind of weapons you need to build that will be useful in a variety of situations puts the impetus on you not fuck it up and be a dumbass.

I do hate the ending though, as it seems shit is irrevocably fucked and I can't see much room for a DS4.

...

...