Electronic Arts' Stake In Ubisoft Rises

This should be illegal, it's ridiculous.



The games industry - let's face it - hasn't exactly been diverse for a long time. There are some games that stand out in their own right, but the majority of them don't.

It would be nice if it was possible to single out "guilty" companies and complain about them, but I can't think of much these days that is either unique, or a sequel that is a significant improvement to the last version.

Warioware, Brain Training, Singstar, Guitar Hero, for example, which were highly original when first released, suddenly come out with sequels, which really aren't very different from the originals. I thought creating games was supposed to be thought of as "art?" The only innovation that seems to happen these days is once every 5 years when they release new consoles.

All I can really say is, if you want to keep diversity going: don't buy sequels. But most people seem to be repelled from buying truly original games, and would rather buy a familiar game with better graphics, which is disappointing. If you don't take any risks, you don't make any progress.

EA are the Unicron of the games industry. I really don't see why they can't just be, and continue to be content with their lot. All they seem to want to do is acquire smaller devs with an insane appetite and keep acquiring, til there is no more out there.

Something has to be done, so smaller fish can be given a chance to grow for a few years, try their own ideas freely, without megacorp suits rubbing their hands for a grubby takeover. All they are doing is stiffling creativity, with a big fat noose of corp crap and unimaginative sequelitis.

What will they do, once there's no more fish in the sea? Move on to the fresians I guess...lol.

Ref: Andy Warhol. Apparently mass-produced, "stamped out" items are not just art, but "high art" in the words of Roger Ebert.

Note: I very much like Mr. Warhol's contributions to art, I was just trying to find an appropriate comparison.

Innovation is all well and good, I just don't see it as an "end all, be all"...

Hell, if it wasn't good enough to warrant a sequel, or at least inspire a clone or three, it probably wasn't that good to begin with (unless it was just really poorly marketed), no matter how innovative it was...

realvictory:reproach us all you want for our conformity, killing Nazis is fun! Sure we roll our eyes every time we see YAWWIIFPS but make a really, really good one, and we shut right the hell up and play happily, and thats whats really important.

Not innovation for the sake of innovation, but avoiding the opposite way of thinking - innovation should be the result of a successful game. If it's a good game, why does it need a sequel? If the sequel is better? Then maybe the original wasn't so good in the first place. If a game can't be improved on significantly (i.e. it was a "good game" in the first place, e.g. Trivial Pursuit) then the only reasons to do a straight sequel are because it saves resources and because people will buy it anyway.

They call them "clones," but they're not exact copies, and never will be (or they'd get sued). A game is not exactly the same game as the previous one - if that is exploited well enough you end up with a good game in its own right. If not, it's either a bad game or more of a tribute - which is fair enough if they cite the original source whose idea they used.

But if there were more original games and fewer unoriginal games, people might have more confidence in and play more original games?

I didn't mean that Art implies it's original, what I meant was that games are being made for the wrong reasons, i.e. mostly profit. If they were made like other art, you would see more originality, or at least more courage. Andy Warhol's art was unlike the art of other artists. The mass produced pieces, I think, were grouped together as a single "piece of art" (most of the time). What I mean is, generally, if a piece of art isn't worth producing in its own right, i.e. has "artistic worth," then it either isn't produced, or isn't Art.

But anyway - I'm just whinging about it because I don't like it - I'm not expecting to change it, and if you like things that way, it's up to you. I just see it as paying for the same games over and over again (with slightly better graphics), to play on your "next generation" consoles (which you also paid a lot of money for). There came a point in time where I got bored of shooting Nazis.

In terms of there being a "really good one," bad ones simply shouldn't exist. No, what I mean is, bad ones shouldn't make money, so they should go away - then whoever created them could try something else until they find what they're good at...

You're silly...let's extend your argument to other forms of Art...

Tolkein should have stopped with the Fellowship (or Simarillion(or the Book of Lost Tales even))..

Doctor Who should have been tossed on the ash heap of history as soon as that whole Unearthly Child buisness was dealt with...

Whats up with motion pictiures anyway? If the first frame was any good, why follow it up with all those others...move on to something different already Fellini, you hack...

William Shakespeare should have quit after Richard II...

Wasn't Das Rheingold enough for Wagner?

Why wasn't Cliff Richards stopped after his first album? OK I think I'm serious about this one...I'm not actually, but I've always wanted to mock Cliff Richards ever since watching the Young Ones, and this seems a perfect opportunity...

Galaxian and Galaga? Not Neccessary. Space Invaders. full stop. And none of that Deluxe, thank you very much...

I'll close with a quote from one of our homegrown bards...

What are you talking about? It's not as though it's the same narrative with different characters, it's different narrative with the same characters.



Now who is silly? You can't criticise a movie in terms of pictures, movies is an entirely different art form to pictures. One is static, the other relies on the very fact that frames change.



It depends, but in these cases I don't think the sequels were literal copies, I think it was more that they were influenced by the previous ones (but valuable in their own right). Music, though - now that's an entirely different issue (i.e. "what is music?"). But the problem occurs when people don't seem to know what "games" is. It's a perception of a situation, i.e. a challenge combined with a goal. Not graphics, sound or narrative (these can all stay the same without limiting the gameplay in any way, hence, gameplay needn't be repeated due to these factors).



The solution here is not to remake the same game. The solution is to either play the game again, or for the developer to make a longer game in the first place (but there's no need if the game is good enough as it already is - note: a game is not a story, so playing the same game again shouldn't be a problem, e.g. any board game you can think of).

[oops, posted double - please delete!]

Sorry I just can't seem to leave this alone...its been bugging me...

wth? avoiding the opposite way of thinking? what does that even mean? Do you mean don't just keep shovelling out the same crap becasue it sells? And don't you mean a successful game should result from innovation? and if not, what did you mean?

Its called evolution. In the case of games with a plot-driven story, its additional content, coupled with evolution.

Well, I should hope so.

This is just stupid on so many levels, I could spend paragraphs...to continue in the evolution vein, then I guess we showed Homo Erectus...and breech loading cannon? Pfft...those sucked...

Yeah, I mean whats up with that...the original Genus Edition must not be any good

Dumbasses, how dare they enjoy something so obviously derivative...naw, it depends upon why people bought it...did they buy it because of some slick marketing or because they actually want


Once again not sure what you're saying here...


Bold prediction...I'm not so sure though...as expensive as games are, many people would rather have a sequel of a game they know they like, than some relatively unknown quantity.

Becasue William Shakespeare never worried about paying the bills...And Italian Renaissance artists only prostituited themselves to the nobility, the rich, and the Church becasue they liked it. Face it, Art for pay has actually been the dominant paradigm...what do you call an artist who doesn't get paid? An amateur.

You seem fixated on painting or perhaps High Art...there are far more forms of Art that are much more comprable with many games, especially the plot driven kind.


This probably should have been your first sentence, your arguments would have annoyed me less, they're still wrong, but I probably wouldn't feel compelled to refute them in detail.

Gee thanks.

Fair enough, if you see it that way, its up to you. I see it as de facto paying for additional content and incremental improvements. To get back to the evolutionary model, gradual improvements are easy and relatively secure...radical mutations have a higher risk and higher reward. Just because its relatively easy to refine the AI, add a few features, and tweak the graphics, while incidentally advancing whatever story you happen to be telling at the time, asuming you are telling a story...doesn't mean its not worth doing. And just because something is innovative and novel doesn't mean its any good, or fun to play.

*gasp*
Seriously though...sometimes I get bored of shooting anything. The WWII era does provide a nicely varied, yet balanced weapon set. The big .45 Thompson vs. the MP32...the iconic Mauser vs. the "greatest single battle implement ever devised by man" (until Kalashnikov)...offensive Model 24 "potato mashers" vs. defensive Mk 2 "pineapples".


cosign

nah, screw 'em, more than a few bad games and they need to be banned from the industry...no matter how good your marketing is, or what ruddy liscenced IP you exploit.

There is a place for both kinds of evolution in gaming, survival pressures will sort it all out...

In reference to EA, I think the industry is served more poorly by crappy slapdashed liscenced titles than by sequels. With a sequel at least you know ahead of time what you're getting, and presumably desire it, or you'd buy something else. The recent release of Shadowrun by MS I found particularly disturbing, they used the name, and a few broad outlines, then abandoned most of the core IP in favor of a "Counter-Strike with magic" multiplayer only game. It had almost nothing to do with "Shadowrun"...but it is an interesting (if not to me) mix of Innovation with orthodoxy. (I absolutely detest the 'Counter-Strike" system of buying weapons) But the IP was basically plundered for no discernable reason.

*sigh*
You still come off as pushing innovation for its own sake, and that bit about "it must not have been that good in the first place"...I mean dude...I'm at a loss for words here...you should have just stuck with "I'm just whinging"...that statement is utterly indefensible and if I were an anime character, unforgiveable (they love throwing that word around).

Some games ARE stories, in fact many of the best are.

As to my movie comparison, is comparing a motion picture to a single frame any more ridiculous than comparing a game to a Warhol? one is static, the other is not...

You seem to have a rather specific, narrow, and exclusive idea of what a game is. How can you isolate the gameplay from the content so blithely? It'd be awful hard to convince most people that games are Art if you have to discount the graphics, music, and narrative. I think your prejudices are showing...since innovative games are more likely to be based primarily on gameplay, with less chance of a relavant plot...

Would Katamari Damaci be as nifty without the bizzare plot and music?
Guitar Hero?
Fl0w?
Loco Roco?

i have a definition for a videogame...

It's a software application
that generates a virtual world
which is then visualized on a out-put device
where the 'gamer' interacts with, trough a certain input device
with the object of experciencing a or multiple entertainment value(s) which are subjectively filled in by the 'gamer'

fairly objective no?
All the rest, innovation, story-telling, production values ect. are doctrines who you glue on that definition and you find important for a videogame which offcourse takes us to personal preferences. Would Locoroco be as good a game without the nifty story? Yes it would, story is not inherent for the gamedesign and as such completely irrellevant for the quality of the actual 'game';
But the story does add extra entertainment value...only if you see story as an extra entertainment value, knowing that other people do not see story as an extra entertainment value. Same goes for innovation, slo-mo effects, graphics and all the rest.

My listing of games was an attempt to show real that even the games that are presumably worthwhile under his narrow definition are largely dependent upon content for any pretension they might have to Art. Since you singled out LocoRoco, the plot might not be so important, but the artstyle and music are certainly important to the overall experience. I mean even Katamari Damaci could theoretically do without any of the plot, and just tell you to clump a bunch of stuff together for no stated reason...but...wouldn't it be less? If we, as gamers, are to defend our favorite Art form's status as Art then perhaps encouraging such a deconstructive definition is counterproductive. I think a more holistic approach is warranted and preferable. Take something like WarioWare, without the content its just a bunch of reaction tests. About as compelling as NASCAR racing without the crashes. I submit a base definition of 'videogames' as 'an interactive mixed media art form, whose primary component is of an electronically displayed visual nature, and whose interactivity is typically goal-oriented'. That last phrase or two could use some refinement perhaps, but I was attempting to include more purely sandbox-type games, whose goals may be of a self-defined nature.

No to belittle your definition out of hand, but I do find it lacking. What you have described is, as far as I see it, a base application that could be used to produce a game, but equally could be used to produce a toy.

No I'm going to have to define the difference (as I see it) between a game and a toy.

A game has rules and structure over and above the "physical" rules and structure of the virtual world, a game also has an aim and a conclusion. Scrabble is a game.

A toy has none of those, it encourages emergent "play" without limiting the form that the "play" could take. Lego is a toy. Of course there are rules, but they are the physical rules that determine how the toy performs, not how it can be used.

What you have described is, in programming terms, a super class of a software game and a software toy. It's probably closer to the toy than the game, but that's because a toy has fewer restrictions. Let's call this the world for sake of terminology.

If you add in a set of physical rules that determine how the virtual world works, and some game play devices, you will get a toy. The physical rules may be inherent in your view of a virtual world, but they also may need stating.

Add in game play rules, an objective and a set of end conditions and you have a game.

The main problem we have with video games at the moment is that the developers or publishers are forcing a focus on the presentation of the virtual world and, to a certain extent, the physical rules of the world. This means that the game play rules and the objectives and end points are the same time after time.

Part if this is due to our current obsession with modeling the real world, this gives rise to the huge numbers of WWII FPS games. So now we have a parachuting mechanic added, but the base game is the same, albeit with tweaked "more real" graphics etc. The FPS genre has progressed very little in the "game" side of things since Doom. Sure we have outside locations, dual-wielding and real physics, but we are still running around a level, shooting NPCs and trying to get to the end objective without dieing.

What we need to do is get more developers to concentrate on the "game" or "toy" sides of things instead of the "world" side of things. That's when we get Katamari, Wii Sports and Loco Roco and that's when we get more enjoyable experiences instead of just more realistic graphics.

None of which relates to EA owning more of Ubisoft, except that EA is one of the more accomplished publishers of newer world rules with the same game rules.

Discuss. :-)

I know the definition is a bit short-coming in some views but i wanted to put as much objective factors in it as possible. Maybe it needs the word 'digital' a few times.

But you are right that this definition also describes something where people the construct a game or toy with, but those two have to many changing variables in themselves to really rinse out the objective definition from.

Also the definition is a first step too discuss videogames as an artform. First you get all the clear basic-structure defined leaving you all the other stuff to discuss as an Artform. Which leaves us still with story, level-design, music, presentation, graphics, artstyle and so forth wide open to put an "artstamp" on them. Art-scholars also have to know a lot about the technical frame in which art is constructed in, why should it be different for videogames?

The gaming industry should ask itself, what do we want to do, recreate life, represent life or create new life as said with it's own set of rules and structures. Being stuck in one stream (mostly now to recreate life) never does any good for an artmedium. I think the reason is that gaming is stuck in this rot to mimic the movie-industry, which also is shown by the fetish on production values some sites and reviewers have. I rather have toys though, that's why i love Electroplankton, or the Total War/ Europa Universalis series where you can just set your own goals, albeit still in a enviroment that wants to recreate life, it also gives room to create a new world.

You know what...the GTA-concept is a very good starting point to really create some free-goal game...it's too bad they don't do that. You're always on the other side of the law. How about you could become a cop in GTA...be a hard-ass law & order cop, or a corrupt cop.