LucasArts vs. EA

[JediMasterChief]

I just wanted to see, whether the majority of people here like LucasArts more of EA more.

I personally like LucasArts more (not only because I'm an Indy and Star Wars fan), but also because they have recently become very pro-Xbox, especially with their large number of Xbox E3 titles. They have also released several excellent games for Xbox, many of which were FIRST released for Xbox.

Unlike EA, which ports most of their games to Xbox or released their Xbox versions much later. Or even worse, EA cancels Xbox games (Battlefield 1942) and has never released an Xbox exclusive game. I do like a few of the EA games, but still...IMO LucasArts is much better than EA.

[FuNkY mOnK]

I think EA has an agreement with Sony for a few years why else would a top developer company seize to use the potential of xbox. Next round will be a whole new game.

[JR Alberda]

I hope for their sake that they dont have a deal and are just stupid because when that deal is up they would have to make exbox exclusive games for a year to make up for their crap right now. I am to the point of hating EA, there is only 1 EA game I will buy and that is TWO TOWERS. EA SUCKS.

[BCan]

Whilst XBOX Live exists, and MS retains control of what games are supported via that network, expect EA to aviod the XBOX.

They will go wherever they will have control of removing the previous years games to force owners to update. Sony has no structure like Live, so they went to them for that reason. EA earns so much by doing so little with their games from year to year.
They try to circumvent the long development period of other games, by always having a new one on the shelf every year, only recently have competitors done the same to compete against them.

IF they can strike up a deal with Gamespy, and use Gamespy Tunnel for their XBOX online play, then we might see EA do some decent games on the XBOX. That is also dependant upon the end of the agreement with Sony that I assume they have..


As for Lucasarts, they like their parent company Lucasfilms, are always wanting to make their product look the best. So, they will jump onto the platform that allows them to give the best graphical experience to the gamer.

[bluefire712]

Even though I am mad too at EA for the lack of Xbox Live support, I don't like LucasArts games. I dislike Knights of the Old Republic. I don't know why, guess it's just not my cup of tea. EA's coming out with SSX 3 and if you look at the screenshots it looks like they're paying attention to Xbox this year. The Xbox ones look the best, PS2 in a close second, and Gamecube in a far third. It seems odd, but look for yourself. I have SSX Tricky for Xbox now and am anticipating the sequel. I won't buy nearly as many EA games now, but I am pretty sure I'll be picking up SSX 3 and a few other games as long as they keep coming to the might, green Xbox.

The thing that ticks me off too is that Madden/NCAA 2004 Roster bug (look in sports forum) and it's only found in the Xbox version. I might just have to read the reviews and forums to make sure SSX 3 isn't flawed too. If I owned a LucasArts game I liked, then I'd vote for them, but I don't. So it's going to EA.

[MerimacHamwich]

As much as I hate EA I must say they have produced and made more games that I like and remember than Lucas Arts has.

For instance: Battlefield 1942 and the infamous Fifa series.

[BCan]

bluefire,

if you say the Xbox screenshots are barely any better than those from the PS2, then isn't that really saying they aren't really trying to optimise it for the XBOX???

[bluefire712]

Originally posted by BCan
bluefire,

if you say the Xbox screenshots are barely any better than those from the PS2, then isn't that really saying they aren't really trying to optimise it for the XBOX???

Don't get me wrong, I think the Xbox is by far the most powerful console and could probably do more than the Xbox screenshots would make you believe, but I do think the Xbox screenshots look noticeably better, so they are making an effort to improve their Xbox game selections. Plus, EA has learned every trick in the book to make PS2 games look the best they possibly can, so any improvement for my Xbox is A-okay with me.

[MerimacHamwich]

But the best looking PS2 games are only average looking Xbox games. Average, might I add becuase of the direct ports from PS2. If they actually improved the graphics for the Xbox to what they should be, the average Xbox game would look twice as god as the best looking PS2 game.

[bluefire712]

Originally posted by MerimacHamwich
But the best looking PS2 games are only average looking Xbox games. Average, might I add becuase of the direct ports from PS2. If they actually improved the graphics for the Xbox to what they should be, the average Xbox game would look twice as god as the best looking PS2 game.

Although everyone with an Xbox has heard this a million times, I thought a refresher would be in order "Graphics aren't everything." SSX 3 looks like an amazin title for me, definitely not for everyone. It's such a fun, relaxing title that has some mild competition to make it interesting. If you wanted a game that was a hyper-simulation, on Xbox Live, and took full advantage of the Xbox capabilities I'd be getting Amped 2. I won't. I'll be getting SSX 3.

EA simply hasn't taken advantage or know how to take advantage of all the graphic capabilities like exclusive developers such as Bungie, etc. I don't really think the PS2 screens of the game look that bad. Xbox definitely look better though. How do you expect EA to improve when you people keep shunning them when they try?

P.S. I hate EA too, it's just some of you take it to an extreme. When you reall y think about it there are a lot of bad games out there (exclusive or not) that look worse and play worse (and without Xbox Live) than EA's but I don't hear people constantly bickering about them. Get the game if you like it and want it. If not, you just don't have to bash the developer with every release they make because some people think it's still fun like me.

[MerimacHamwich]

Amped 2 is not and will not be a hyper-realistic simulation. It is a moderatley realistic snowboard game.

EA, the biggest developer in the world doesn't have the programmers who know how to take advantage of hardware hey? I kinda really doubt that. I think the truth is they rush a product out of the door with as little development time as possible in order to gain the biggest profit they can.

[bluefire712]

Originally posted by MerimacHamwich
Amped 2 is not and will not be a hyper-realistic simulation. It is a moderatley realistic snowboard game.

EA, the biggest developer in the world doesn't have the programmers who know how to take advantage of hardware hey? I kinda really doubt that. I think the truth is they rush a product out of the door with as little development time as possible in order to gain the biggest profit they can.

When I said Amped 2 was a hyer-realistic I meant in comparison to the SSX franchise. I've never played anything but the demo so I wouldn't know. I don't snowboard anyhow, I ski.

That's such a lie. Electronic Arts puts tons of effort and money into most, if not all, their games. They have 3D motion detection room that allows atheletes to perform real moves and to be tracked into the game. If you saw the Madden 2004 True Life special on MTV, you saw all the great music they had in the game and to what extent they go to try to make as realistic they can within reason. Electronic Arts, for the most part, has just been porting games so I don't think the programmers have really been properly "antiquated" with the hardware. All EA's games are startling to look significantly better on the Xbox than the PS2/GC, so it's definitely a step in the right direction.

With as little development time as possible? Give me a break. How do you make games like Battlefield 1942, SimCity 4, Medal of Honor, Command and Conquer series, and Lord of the Rings overnight? Granted the only game I like of the ones I listed is SimCity and BF1942, but a lot of my friends like them and I can understand why. EA does seem to rush some games, but I think if I had to have LucasArts or EA. It'd be EA. I at least own some EA titles and plan to buy some in the future. I don't see whats so wrong about that.

[MerimacHamwich]

Dice = Developer of Battle Field 1942, EA produced it and made Dice rush it. Look at what Dice was able to do with the graphics in Rallisport then tell me that Battlefield look good.

Sim City = Developers Maxis, EA = producers.

Medal of Honor: Allied Assault = developed by 2015, produced by EA.

Command and Congquer = Developed by Redwood Studios, produced by EA.

Lord of the Rings The Two Towers= Developed by Stormfront Studios in conjunction with EA stiduios, produced by EA. I didn't really like this game anyhow. Graphics were good for PS2 mediocre for XBox. Gameplay was Hack and slash, pretty boring.

Anyhow, you see the trend of games poeple think EA developed? The "good" ones are only produced by EA and developed by a different company. Most likely the developers are rushed and don't get to put all they wanted into the game as well, such is most likely the case when one looks at what a company like Dice can do.

Nonetheless, if you had read my first post,I said I prefer EA as well. Simply becuase they produced or were involved in some way with more games that I like.

[bluefire712]

Originally posted by MerimacHamwich

Anyhow, you see the trend of games poeple think EA developed? The "good" ones are only produced by EA and developed by a different company. Most likely the developers are rushed and don't get to put all they wanted into the game as well, such is most likely the case when one looks at what a company like Dice can do.

Still, EA publishes them therefore they have the ultimate say in what goes in the game and what doesn't and makes a strict guideline. EA also supplies the almighty dollar. So without EA, most of those games wouldn't have been published or would have been worse. the deserve the some of the credit for those games.

Originally posted by MerimacHamwich

Nonetheless, if you had read my first post,I said I prefer EA as well. Simply becuase they produced or were involved in some way with more games that I like.

When exactly did I say anything to the contrary?

[MerimacHamwich]

The comments you made implied that I did not like EA and thought Lucas Arts was better.

Anyhow, publishers aren't really there to say what goes into a game. What happens is that a developer has an idea for a game. If they do not have enough money to publish it themselves then they present thier game idea to publishers, if a publisher likes the idea, they will fund the project. The only way a publisher has any say in what goes on is if they use a sort of blackmail and refuse to fund the project anymore if the developer does something they don't like. If the publisher wants a game to come out at a certain time, then they will say the funding will stop for the developers at that given time. Which also comes back to my previous statement about EA rushing games out the door to make as much profit as they can.

Take a look at a developer like Lionhead studios. They had an amazing idea in Black & White, they needed funding so they went to EA. Ea funded the project but rushed its release. Peter Molynuex was very disapointed in the final product. You tell this from many interviews. He felt that his ideas did not have enough time to be implemented into the game, they were close to acheiving what he wanted but couldn't go all the way becuase EA wanted the game to be released. Basically they say "It's good enough, we are cutting funding, the game is going to be released."

[Peepers]

I probably would have said that I hate them both, until I played the masterpiece that is KOTOR. That cancels out all their previous black marks.

[MerimacHamwich]

It should be entered here that Knights of the Old Republic was not developed by Lucas Arts. It was infact developed by Bioware.

[JediMasterChief]

That's right, KotOR was developed by BioWare and not LucasArts. The same goes for JKII and Emperor's Tomb, etc.

However, then give me a game that EA has developed itself? Not many, right?

This thread is mainly about LucasArts and EA in a sense of game publisher, and not game developer.

[Shadow20002]

I don't hate or like both of them. They are just some developers and publishers not really i'm looking for.

[Ninja Scroll]

What kinda question is dis? I could see if it was Sega Vs. EA, but LucasArts! Pfffstt.

They suck just as much as EA! LucasArts has never had anything to talk about up till now with KOTOR, da only decent Star Wars game in videogame history!
EA is just a joke. An overhyped, every year rehashing series milking egomaniacs who are so caught up in there own hype they refuse to support XBL cause they cant run there own titles as MS does all da work, and handles da serves, ect.

Im glad, cause dats more sales for Sega's ESPN series of sports titles which alot of peeps will buy just cause it's on XBL!