And we were trying to build a game that really pushed gameplay to the next level,

it continued to look like a style of gaming, a much more linear game

Translation: It didn't have nearly enough opportunities for Microtransactions and loot boxes.

yonder wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 08:16:

Wesp5 wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 06:29:
So no one wants a linear single-player game anymore? Does anyone have numbers on how well the Doom and Wolfenstein remakes did? Because they were classical linear single-player shooters!

Might wanna check the definition of classical. Most of the original 3D shooters weren't remotely linear, you can think CoD and consoler shooters for linearity becoming the standard.

I think you can thank Half Life.

Beamer wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 07:54:

Wesp5 wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 06:29:
So no one wants a linear single-player game anymore? Does anyone have numbers on how well the Doom and Wolfenstein remakes did? Because they were classical linear single-player shooters!

I feel like I'm regularly arguing with people here that claim linear games are awful. Where are they now? As soon as EA agrees with them suddenly they see the light?

Well, I wouldn't be one of them, I happen to like Linear games. I dont mind them at all. I like both open worlds and linear. as long as the story is good and the game plays well. I'm all in. makes no difference.

EA is just so full of shit, you cant believe anything they say anymore.

Sepharo wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 20:51:
What fools.

Whether it's Witcher Star Wars, Mass Effect Star Wars, Dead Space Star Wars... we don't give a fuck. People just want a AAA single-player Star Wars (C)RPG. Come the fuck on.

that license is pretty much open to any genre. Electronic arts has been doing a lame job at fructifying this license. I am surprised there is not more reaction from Lucisney. I mean they would make so much more money with a Destiny-like. The guys in charge clearly have no clue.

Sepharo wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 21:52:

CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 21:09:

Sepharo wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 20:51:
What fools.

Whether it's Witcher Star Wars, Mass Effect Star Wars, Dead Space Star Wars... we don't give a fuck. People just want a AAA single-player Star Wars (C)RPG. Come the fuck on.

Err... the Visceral game was gonna be Uncharted Star Wars or Tomb Raider Star Wars (but even shallower probably) and not a (C)RPG.

Oh I might be confusing this with the SW bounty hunter game that was talked about years ago.

Yeah I think you're thinking of Star Wars 1313. It was sort of an action adventure title with some quasi open world elements. Looked like an interesting concept but I can't remember if it really made it into proper production or not.

yonder wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 08:16:

Wesp5 wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 06:29:
So no one wants a linear single-player game anymore? Does anyone have numbers on how well the Doom and Wolfenstein remakes did? Because they were classical linear single-player shooters!

Might wanna check the definition of classical. Most of the original 3D shooters weren't remotely linear, you can think CoD and consoler shooters for linearity becoming the standard.

My thoughts exactly. those COD are pretty much more linear than the old games. I guess that means Visceral was doing a dark forces like game. Not too bad compared to the Battlefront crap. For sure one can't get linear with only one level :p

NewMaxx wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 21:28:
I'll be honest and say I'm very bored of that system of games and although I know it's had its recent successes (Breath of the Wild - which I have arriving tomorrow) to suggest there's no market for a "linear" Star Wars game is downright ridiculous.

As soon as an EA representative opens the mouth in an official function, he or she is lying. Yesterday, EA said that they had to implement lootboxes with cosmetic DLC because of "canon" reasons. In Battlefront 1 you could just buy cosmetic DLC in the shop without this gambling system. So, Battlefront 1 was NOT canon?

EA is just talking shit after shit. THeY are the main reason for global warming for the ridiculous amount of methane they are producing.

Wesp5 wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 06:29:
So no one wants a linear single-player game anymore? Does anyone have numbers on how well the Doom and Wolfenstein remakes did? Because they were classical linear single-player shooters!

Might wanna check the definition of classical. Most of the original 3D shooters weren't remotely linear, you can think CoD and consoler shooters for linearity becoming the standard.

Wesp5 wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 06:29:
So no one wants a linear single-player game anymore? Does anyone have numbers on how well the Doom and Wolfenstein remakes did? Because they were classical linear single-player shooters!

I feel like I'm regularly arguing with people here that claim linear games are awful. Where are they now? As soon as EA agrees with them suddenly they see the light?

So no one wants a linear single-player game anymore? Does anyone have numbers on how well the Doom and Wolfenstein remakes did? Because they were classical linear single-player shooters!

DangerDog wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 04:45:

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 22:54:
I'm just not going to believe that the cancelled one, was the good one. Just assume it was like the rest or worse.

From what I've read it sounded like there was a huge brain drain at Visceral after EA forced them to make the Battlefield Hardline cops vs robbers game, they didn't want to make it and it destroyed moral.

They ended up pouring too much time into making trailers and tech demos and couldn't get animation systems to work the way they wanted. It didn't sound like there was much sharing of code between Battlefront and the game Viscreal was working on.

DICE raised the bar for graphics extremely high with their photographic modeling in their latest games. If you aren't capable of adapting to the way assets need to be generated you might really struggle to keep your job.

I think Visceral bit off more than they could chew.

Frostbite is a bitch to work with, it's not like UE that is built from the ground-up to be user-friendly. Lots of EA studios had a hard time adapting.

Plus with the secretive nature of the code, they aren't letting enough people really come to grips with it. There's no way to "train" yourself to be good at working with it unless you already are working on a game that's using it.

So yeah, a bitch to work with, but without question the best engine on the market (ie. best looking vs best performance), nothing else comes close, and if they do it's only on one of these 2 areas.

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 22:54:
I'm just not going to believe that the cancelled one, was the good one. Just assume it was like the rest or worse.

From what I've read it sounded like there was a huge brain drain at Visceral after EA forced them to make the Battlefield Hardline cops vs robbers game, they didn't want to make it and it destroyed moral.

They ended up pouring too much time into making trailers and tech demos and couldn't get animation systems to work the way they wanted. It didn't sound like there was much sharing of code between Battlefront and the game Viscreal was working on.

DICE raised the bar for graphics extremely high with their photographic modeling in their latest games. If you aren't capable of adapting to the way assets need to be generated you might really struggle to keep your job.

I think Visceral bit off more than they could chew.

EA should stop talking. They keep creating their own PR nightmare. Side question. Do you think they'll boast about their top Reddit achievement at the next quarterly meeting?

Sepharo wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 20:51:
What fools.

Whether it's Witcher Star Wars, Mass Effect Star Wars, Dead Space Star Wars... we don't give a fuck. People just want a AAA single-player Star Wars (C)RPG. Come the fuck on.

With microtransactions for cosmetic and vanity add-ons, it would work. If people want to buy polka dot rainbow striped lightsabre skins for $20, let them! That how you make a buck off people by giving them what they want without breaking the core game for greedy reasons. The sad fact is EA filled to the brim with brilliant people, but they do not collectively understand the basic needs of their customers. There's no conclusion other than EA is run by greedy blind idiots. I am not including the lower and middle tiered employees; just the upper management.

I have to say between EA and Star Citizen this has been the most popcornist week yet.

ItBurn wrote on Nov 30, 2017, 03:14:
The first part of his argument about not having enough people is kinda dumb. It's their own studio, EA decided to use 80. The rest might be true, but there's no way in hell we'd ever know coming from these people.

Exactly. If they didn't have enough people they could always hire more. Clearly they underfunded the studio.

The first part of his argument about not having enough people is kinda dumb. It's their own studio, EA decided to use 80. The rest might be true, but there's no way in hell we'd ever know coming from these people.

Translation: There's no way to monetize the tomfoolery out of this game. Personally, I want a linear Star Wars game running on the Frostbite engine. Besides most games aren't 100% linear. They have the main quest/mission, but there are side quests. That's 2012 and 2017. It's not that EA is clueless, it just the gall of them to them we are gullible not to see through their greed is simultaneously shocking and not shocking.

In other words it wasn't multiplayer / co-op and couldn't be exploited as easily for microtransactions. Given how badly EA messed up with Battlefront 2 it's clear that EA's market research isn't worth a damn.

Linear roller-coaster fits Star Wars more than most IPs, honestly. People would have ate up a 10 hour game of that sort with pretty graphics and a Chewie cameo or whatever.

I wish they just let the exact same team that did Dead Space 2 do whatever they wanted, but hey... life isn't fair.

Yup, nobody likes them linear games no more.

I mean, Uncharted doesn't make any money, right?