EA CEO calls video games 'boring,' complicated

[Robstersfive 0]

If EA didn't take over market so much there would be more companys fighting for newer games and still look after there gamers who follow them, lets face it EA so big now they don't care if drop smaller fan following such as simcity all about appealing to the masses now. the day of true gaming over in my view

[JFman00 1]

I sympathize with EA, kinda, I really do. They HAVE to make a profit, and PC games by many are considered either too complicated or too juvenille to play. Time-based strategy/wargames (which I love) and D&D RPGs are examples of genre's that can be extrordinarily difficult and time-consuming. So what can we seriously expect them to do? So many independent developers have either fallen by the wayside or taken over by EA/Vivendi SA. So many open-source projects don't have the manpower to deliver products that can compete.

A lot of us seem to have the "if EA builds it (SC5), they will come," but sim games, especially in the US, seem to be in a stagnant position. Just from my experience in the chat here in ST, Americans are underrepresented relative to game sales, and I have to wonder how much of the fanbase is in the 18-35 white male demographic that the media/entertainment complex is focused on. While its incredibly frustrating that EA has this view, the more I think about it, the less real choice they have.

[iamihop11 19]

I find SC4 much more fun than some of the older arcade-like games that were "easy to pick up." Not everyone does, obviously, so the solution is to do what games like guitar hero do. They have a game format that is "innovative" in that you actually get to hold a "guitar." The beginning levels are really easy and not very involved, but the song sounds the same. But most importantly, even the best of the best are challenged by the hardest songs on expert, with a full range in between. Because of this, a gamer can put in 30 minutes or 300 hours, and still find a suitable level, and get a sense of accomplishment and fun.

Perhaps Tilted Mill (who I'm sure had the same discussions we're having before they went down the "societies" path) will keep that in mind, and so even if they dumb down the games, they may leave the option of getting really involved and being challenged. I hope.

[iamihop11 19]

I admit it: I hadn't read the article before I posted that, but I didn't reference it directly. Anyway, I just read the article, and I was surprised to see that it mentioned guitar hero. I guess he shares my view of it, then. Perhaps that's a good sign.

[north country dude 207]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Woulfe Boring - Maybe, depends on how you play the game.

Complicated - Well, the only thing I found overly complex about SC4 is the budget menus, far too much data to take in all at once.

I don't think going back to square 1 and then stripping it down even more is the answer.

quote>

He wasn't specifically talking about SC4 or SCS, SCS would simply be part of a new general trend for EA. Read the article.quote>

I did read the article. I also read the related articles listed underneath. The overall point was that they needed to be more original about their game designs and to make them less complicated so that they can attract the 'casual' consumer.

Let's think about that for a second. The casual consumer. The article points out that the "casual" consumer generally doesn't finish a "40-hour game" and that the electronic games are becoming harder and harder to play.

Hmmm,...a 40 hour game? What is that? Games like Masters of Orion[1, 2, and 3], all of the Civilisation series, any building game like the Railroad Tycoon series, and many others take well over 40 hours to play. In fact, you could actually say that there is no time limit for those kinds of games due to their re-playability and complexity. Those kinds of games are definitely not for the "casual consumer".

Yet, the re-playability of those games tends to keep them on the shelves. The long life of the SC4 and Rush Hour games brings more and more people to Simtropolis.

But I'm guessing that by "new and innovative" and "attracting the casual consumer", the direction for increased sales would be games that are flashy and new, while being easier to play, and can be finished in under 2 hours. I thought Fischer-Price already had the major market share there.

Keep in mind that the "casual consumer" doesn't have a very long attention span, nor is the "casual consumer" very bright (especially if educated in today's school systems, where spelling, grammar, and the ability to add and subtract are no longer important subjects), so having a game get too complicated, or take to long to get anywhere, will definitely bore the "casual consumer".

So, I would have to say that Mr. Riccitiello is doing the right thing by moving in this direction. Financially speaking, it may very well keep EA in business until he can retire with a nice fat pension. After all, EA is a business who's only goal is to make money, and the "casual consumer" is always looking for something "shiny" to buy.

[Robstersfive 0]

sadly also more of the causral people own a computer now and buy games for there kids as the new toy, gone are the days of the 90s where computer gaming was an adult entertainment , even girls into computer games now  so games going to get worse and worse

I hate EA anyway because all they care about is the mass market least some companys out there like valve care about there fan base these games im going to continue to play.

with any luck EA will start to suffer and i think they will as well in time once all fans of franchises are ruined are gone just left with there causral gamers who soon get boerd.

good customer service there EA

[ElvishPresley 0]

@robstersfive: Negative. I have more fun at the DMV than on the phone with EA customer service

[Robstersfive 0]

Originally posted by: ElvishPresley @robstersfive: Negative. I have more fun at the DMV than on the phone with EA customer servicequote>

 

I was being sarcastic! lol ea customer service probably sucks as it is they never patch up old games

[ninjasquirrel 0]

I think there is room for both. Some franchises can easily last decades without changing their formula. This is an analogue to the same thing in TV Shows (Simpsons and Seinfeld, for example). If the formula is good, there's no reason (and absolutely nothing wrong with) not to put out more content within that formula. This applies particularly to EA's sports games. The actual sports are the same every year, with different players and stats, and people have been following them obsessively for ages. Why should the games be any different?

There are other games which would stand better on their own (much like the first Matrix film). Some very good designs do not lend themselves well to repetition. Shadow of the Colossus, for example. Brilliant game. A masterpiece, even. A sequel under the same mechanics would be a terrible idea, though. The game was jsut long enough to exploit its strong points to the furthest possible. And then it ended.

[Robstersfive 0]

Spores sounds like a one off game that shouldn't have a sequel. However simcity was said to have worked its way into a corner because game forumla became more complex and less fun as time went on. 

EA wouldn't change simcity forumla for no reason look at there other games as you said...EA sports games remain the same, C&C went back to old forulma...Need 4 Speed has same style arcade racing, sims is same to...however simcity needed to reinvent itself! Simcity 4 didn't do as well we all like to think. 

It bought nothing new to the series it was just a simcity 3000 with more stuff. I personally found 4 less fun than simcity 3000 and it had number of bugs on release and got slated for beng more differcult that previous games and 3000 was complicated enuff for some people.

New simcity fully moddable as well something we not seen in a simcity game before I am now very excited about the new game and wish we start discussing ideas for mods because we can even change game rules!

[Pixelrage 34]

He's the chief executive? Did his uncle place him in that position, or something?

[flame1396 9]

Wow... no wonder they dumbed down simcity.

They give us more and more reasons to dislike it

[rctshack 182]

Iagree that games can be both too complicated and others too simple, but Sim City 4 could have been DRAMATICALLY improved, and in return, it would have been easier to use. The fact that it was unfinished means it made no sence in some parts and people were confused and didn't want to continue playing, and yes us hardcore fans had mods to correct these problems, but the casual gamer didn't have know of mods. See the funny conundrum that pops up here is the easier a game gets... the wider the prospective audience is... but only to an extent. If it's too simple no one wants a game that lasts too minutes, yet if it's complicated only a small minority of us want it.

THE ANSWER would be making a game that starts off simple. In Sim city it would be having premade regions where neighbors are already building up by themselves and your city is already making a little bit of money. The trnasportation and utilities are already set up, but to expand the city, you will need to familierize yourself with all the different tools. Obviously a tutorial could help people out, but the more advanced part would be regions with nothing there, and no help. Complicated games are NOT BAD... as long as there is a way of learning how to do all of it, AND the game makes sense (like people actually wanting to use the highways). EA doesn't seem to grasp that they are at fault here, they are blaming fans for wanting "more" in a game and they are trying to counteract that by saying... WAIT NO, you all want less in a game, because it's easier to win. But with Sim city there is no winning... it's about creating a city. And making it easier will just lower the realistic aspects and make it almost pointless.

TRUTHFULLY... take away the societal energies from this new game... what does it have? Is it a realistic city? Does it grow? This new game seems to not be easier because I STILL don't truely understand it. What is even the point? They have gone away from city building and traveled into society building, which to me seems more difficult, but not in a fun way, in a frustrating way.

Sim City could have gone beyong Sim city 4 with leaps and bounds if they had tried, and it would have been in their hands to make a game that could be quite complex and deep, yet start out easily and by fun for all, but they took the cheap way out and made a completely different game that seems to only have one purpose... mixing energies to make communist/clown societies (and yes I will add more different societies to that discription ONCE TM or EA show us ANYTHING else).

[michaelsjewel 0]

one of the reasons i believe that they don't feel they can really..... make simcity better is because well....this site keeps on making it better with all of us contributing with new mods and lots... i mean, look @ the nam! - without it - road networks aren't as great..... It would be hard for EA to pull off something even better in a way..... and keep us amazed - it would be long in the making - but considering they only spent what - 1.5 years on this one - and they take what - 5-10 years in between releases....doesn't seem so bad.

i will still buy simcity societies....but will always probably end up playing simcity 4 - i just love making cities that are HUGE..lol

i think they should release a simcity 5 after this - .....to keep the franchise going and yet still appeal to some of the classical gamers.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I actually consider myself a bit of casual gamer. EA is in business to make money. That is what any company does when it goes in business, be it the organic foods store on the corner or the movie theater at the mall. Definitely EA is right in that they need to innovate to stay at the head of the market, because yes there are lots and lots of interesting things out there upon which people can spend their hard earned dollars. Cool cell phones, mp3 players, Wiis, movies, travel, cars, satellite tv, high speed internet, amazing technology and exciting times await our attention, and with limited time and more and more available, there is definite pressure on EA to try to stay at the head of the curve. Good for them for realizing it, and hopefully it will result in more interesting projects.

Making games more accessible for those who may hold down a 40-hour-a-week full time job does not necessarily mean that games are all going to turn into 3D Pong. Of course, sound bites in a newspaper article may not translate into results, and as such, judgment should be withheld until games start being released under this new "policy," if one feels so inclined to call this.

That being said, I still have not really warmed up to SCS. The fact that it is fully customizable makes it a bit more attractive, but my gut tells me that this probably will not be the game I was hoping for. SC4 still has a lot to offer me (the casual gamer). Part of the reason I keep lurking around here is to dl new files and mods. Eventually I'll even get up the guts to post my first CJ. Maybe you guys can help me out...

[Robstersfive 0]

Hello Folks

Recently I have been replaying simcity 2000 out of interest because in pc gamer it was said they don't make them like they used to with sc2000 screenshots. I think sadly going back it does prove simcity 3000 and definatly sc4 has started to work way into a corner and not really do anything new with it. Love all games in series and can't fault them but I think sc2000 was most fun to go back and replay

I think they done right thing and to move project to a fresh team to see what they can do because they said if this f*** up they get maxis back make sc5, From what i seen i think scs going to do well with everyone there still much of game in development inc disaters.

I don't mind plopable but should have contruction animation for each building would make it more realstic then that be my only comment if going to get rid of zones

[1dera3 29]

They could start by paying their engineers over there in Asia, if they want their games to be not so "boring". Or actually giving a rat's butt about the friggin consumer.

[John-SJ 13]

But see, that's just it.  SC:S is aimed squarely at the consumer, or, the largest segment of the consumer population anyway.  As dedicated and as vocal as the folks here at Simtropolis are, they don't represent a vrey large segment of the gaming community.  I believe Robertsfive is right, they did the right thing by developing SC:S.

And an interesting point, even SC fans who have seen SC:S seem to be excited about the game, so its not as if the community was totally ignored.

[Robstersfive 0]

The other thing also which has been mentioned before is the brand name simcity will become of less vaule and well known if they don't bring something out now, when you look back at the mess simcity 3000 was in during development they ended up having to play it safe and just pretty much do a remake of sc2000, sc4 was same and did sc3000 with more stuff. 

With maxis busy working on spores it is the perfect time to get a fresh team and new ideas and direction, if it was called sc5 it would have said more that simcity definatly was out of maxis hand but this seems very much an experimental game and to keep simcity franchise going...

this game will prob only do so so and maxis will come back and make the true simcity 5 later once spores is over, and hopefully sims 3 gets put on someone else and not maxis.

By then prob be fan base from sc4 and scs and making more of a bigger sale with a huge sequel

[John-SJ 13]

Just a side note, but to the best on my knowledge The Sims 2 is being handled by a special (newly created) division of EA.  I do not believe Maxis resources are being used for The Sims 2 any longer.  It would make sense for this new division to do TS3 as well.

[sendarrow 3]

Obviously, Mr. Riccitiello doesn't play SimCity. That's all I have to say.

[bishorange 0]

My first post :-) As in real life, putting effort into something is far more rewarding in the long run. EA are kidding themselves (only themselves) if they think a game like Sim City could ever be attractive to the casual / kiddie gamer. It is EA's lack of fiscal imagination and rigid business model at fault if they cannot make a decent amount of money from a franchise such as this, where thousands if not millions of players are still building their cities four years after SC4's release. Complicated games are enduring, look at Civ. Learn how to make a few more dollars/pounds/euros/yen ad naseum from us with these games rather than trying to reduce them to their lowest common denominator. Don't blame the customer and don't blame the innovators. It is you and your company's monolithic business model that is at fault. It is you Mr Riccitiello, your managers and your marketing team that are letting the franchise down.

[joexcooldude 1]

I think the problem at heart here is that EA is simply too big for its own good. I dont mean this in a "omg they ruened simcity!111!!" way, but they cannot have one single business model due to the differing nature of their businesses. EA Sports and EA Games (simulations) cant ever have the same marketing strategy, as they appeal to different audiences. EA Sports, for example, is more about playability and surplus features (such as the type the CEO alludes to) that appeals to casual buyers. However, if you approached the simulation division in that manner, it would be run into the ground. EA Games is by the niche definition is for more serious players. Within the simulation sector, it should have been lined up as The Sims as the lower level in strategy and SimCity as the franchise that players move up to as they mature. This approach, however, leaves maturing players with nowhere to go and thus they will leave EA altogether. PC games are not known for their simplicity, as they shouldnt be. PC gamers, due to the complexity of the machines that they utilize, are generally of a higher age or higher experience. The Sims was the bottom of difficulty levels in the industry. It seems that the CEO is making a great misunderstanding with the nature of the game system; he alludes to the Wii taking in younger audiences and that he wants to capitalize on it. This is not possible with the PC division, as the Wii is within the video game system division, which has always been geared to casual buyers. The fact that the Wii came with a motion sensor controller and was equipped for all ages is not going to mean that a similar strategy for PCs will result in an increase in sales: many of the buyers and users of the Wii find computers in general too complicated (try explaining a new computer to a grandmother). Of course, this problem isnt solely with EA; many American industries seem to be doing another grand misinterpretation. For an example, just look at the American automotive industry. They continually aim to create a hit or new marker, while leaving their bread and butter vehicles to waste. These vehicles, of course, is where the long term money lies: the Japanese realize this and thus have taken massive percentages of the market to themselves. EA seems to be following the same strategy: they are constantly attempting to find the next "big thing", while they let the bread and butter consumers which keep the company thriving be left in the dark. As we see with plant closures and the possibility of losing a couple of the Big Three, this strategy only carries fatal consequences.

[Crissa 1]

I think it's ironic that the CEO of the one company that never publishes games with new mechanics or playstyles or genres is saying that games are boring, have repetition, and need to be dumbed down.

It's totally not slander to complain about execs who tell us they want to be more creative than we have been...

...Because they're totally slandering us and ignoring the rest of the world when they do so.

And that's probably the most inflammatory thing I'll say on the subject.

-Crissa

[JanYpe 17]

I think it's ironic that the CEO of the one company that never publishes games with new mechanics or playstyles or genres is saying that games are boring, have repetition, and need to be dumbed down.quote>

This is about a new chief who wants to change the old way the company works. There is nothing ironic about it.

It's totally not slander to complain about execs who tell us they want to be more creative than we have been...

...Because they're totally slandering us and ignoring the rest of the world when they do so. quote>

What are you even talking about?

[ninjasquirrel 0]

Well, it's not really ironic, since his point is that EA needs to change its way of doing things.

[Robstersfive 0]

maybe he meant was ironic EA are saying games are boring when all they make is boring games lol? dunno its complicated 

anyway more i see of simcity societies the more im confident its going to be fun, as much as i loved simcity  4 the whole region thing makes game very prolonged and boring after a while it is very much same thing over and over, lay down a zone sort out problems make tower blocks grow and get region population as high as possible.

the new one seems like going to be fun because can have a unique kinda city...i be keen to make a haunted zombie city that kinda thing i think that will make the new one very fun to play not get boring quickly like sc4 

i would say simcity at the moment more of a causral game i can only play on and off over time not all the time because it gets to boring.

[purpledaddy 6]

Again, I read comment as being future tense and stating that he wanted to break the trend of recycling sequels by encourage newer games to be innovative. I think the debate as such is how they do that w/out losing the appeal of original or the challenges that keep the already established hardcore fans involved.

[spoty101 0]

I wonder, how are games to hard nowadays? Most have a difficulty setting, and for me when a game is to easy it bores me, and when it bores me I dont play it, so If games start getting to easy I just wont buy any of them, simple as that, I am mostly a Fisrt Person Shooter fan and I like Urban Warfare that forces you to use strategy and tactics, which is fun to me because it challenging, and for Sim City Societies, it looks so ridiculous and dummed down i'm not even going to bother downloading the demo or even looking at it in the shelf, not even if it was 5 bucks. I know that he is not talking about that directly and I know that its hard for some people *cough*pansies*cough* but the reality is that games arent hard they are plain too easy, I have to play games on hard just to have any fun. Well thats just my opinion and hope It doesnt start any flaming.

[purpledaddy 6]

That illustrates my point quite well. How do makers keep a game tough enough to engage hardcore fans w/ pre-established ideas and still keep it fresh enough to attract new fans. Based on I'm what reading, verrrry carefully!