I think a lot of Visceral devs left a while ago to form Sledgehammer Games? Or was it just the two studio heads?
I mean, they're stuck making CoD games now, but CoD WW2 looks to be the best one in years and they're pouring their Dead Space expertise into the zombies mode.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I would love a linear, story-based Star Wars adventure game.
I bet the chucklefuck focus test group that EA used complained that it wasn't open-world... RIP in peace Visceral
Yeah. I would have really loved to get a AAA single player focused game, especially a sci-fi RPG, and I worry about how different that the focus group feedback will change this product. The direction of games has been shifting away from the things I like and how I like to play for some time... so eh.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Jim Sterling sums EA murdering Visceral Games up quite nicely, I think:
"Fucking wanking shits."
And
"EA is the serial killer of the video game industry. It's like Dexter, except Dexter had a code of honor. EA just has code which it focus tests and forces devs to re-write, before killing them. Like a serial killer."
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2017
As much as it sucks I don't know, studios close left and right in this industry and I don't know if its a EA thing as much as the general culture.
Heh, I just finished playing through DS3 this past weekend (been in backlog pile for like 3 years) and I've been working my way through this thread from the beginning reading everyone's thoughts from way back when. I was curious why the thread suddenly jumped to the top of my bookmarks list.
I really liked the franchise, and I'm sad to see it and Visceral be over.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Visceral was doomed the moment some asshole EA bigwig thought that all it takes to get a mega-hit horror franchise was to throw a shit-ton of money at the project. There was no way Visceral was ever going to make EA happy no matter how good they made anything.
The only surprise here is that Visceral got to make so much Dead Space stuff instead of getting canned after the first game didn't sell however many several millions of copies EA wanted.
Well, between EA effectively killing and murdering the Mass Effect franchise, and now this, they are squarely back in my #1 most loathed company spot. Way to go you guys. You're number 1!
+5
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
As much of a, uh, not fan of EA that I am I do have to say, "Meh" to this news. I mean have you seen Visceral's library? Not exactly stellar. Dead Space being the only real standout in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, EA is the Devil, but I am pretty sure any company would have shuttered Visceral at this point.
The real complaint you can level at EA is not letting Visceral do their thing and effectively doing all in their power to sink the ship.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I mean, we can't see inside to know how much corporate meddling there was on their titles.
But from the outside, Dead Space 1 and 2 feel fairly meddle-free. Those are easily the two "purest" games in their catalog.
Dante's Inferno was a fun game. Having played it, it felt rushed to me, and it felt like EA had a hand in pushing it out the door to get a few sales. The earliest rings of hell were the most interesting and best developed, and by the time you got to the inner rings and the finale, it felt very rushed and underdeveloped. So I'd say that Dante was probably 50% Visceral at best. That's being generous. I still liked it, but it feels like a game with vast untapped potential.
Dead Space 3 has "EA Corporate Bullshit" written all over it, and it is prime example of what corporate meddling does to wonderful things.
Battlefield Hardline was very obviously shoved on them as an unwanted project that EA corporately mandated be made because they need a new Battlefield every year to keep up with Call of Duty, so instead of letting studios do what they do best, they just parcel out side projects so to try to keep up with the CoD machine.
Honestly, I don't see much more from Respawn Entertainment either. Mark my words, it will not be long before the brains and talent abandon that studio and Respawn starts receiving hand-me-down projects as well. To be quite honest, after the whole Infinity Ward / Activision debacle that happened, I was shocked that they were so quick to jump in bed with the actual devil from hell. But that's a bit off topic.
I like Dead Space 2 but that game was not meddle free. Tacked on MP, more action focused and a talking protagonist were a huge departure from Dead Space 1.
Talking protagonist was awesome though? Also Issac had a voice in the first game, if you read the mission briefings in game he had a similar cynical outlook on things that continued into the second game.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I like Dead Space 2 but that game was not meddle free. Tacked on MP, more action focused and a talking protagonist were a huge departure from Dead Space 1.
Eh. I agree about the MP component, but not the other two. Sometimes sequels make huge departures because that's what the creators want to do instead of the same thing over again. Alien -> Aliens, Star Control -> Star Control II. I think having Isaac talk in DSII was far better choice than trying to make a second silent protagonist game. The first time in any game someone says something like "Strong, silent type, eh?" to a silent protagonist I just want to burn it all down.
EDIT: Granted, Alien was Scott and Aliens was Cameron, but I wouldn't characterize it as corporate meddling.
I mean, we can't see inside to know how much corporate meddling there was on their titles.
But from the outside, Dead Space 1 and 2 feel fairly meddle-free. Those are easily the two "purest" games in their catalog.
Dante's Inferno was a fun game. Having played it, it felt rushed to me, and it felt like EA had a hand in pushing it out the door to get a few sales. The earliest rings of hell were the most interesting and best developed, and by the time you got to the inner rings and the finale, it felt very rushed and underdeveloped. So I'd say that Dante was probably 50% Visceral at best. That's being generous. I still liked it, but it feels like a game with vast untapped potential.
Dead Space 3 has "EA Corporate Bullshit" written all over it, and it is prime example of what corporate meddling does to wonderful things.
Battlefield Hardline was very obviously shoved on them as an unwanted project that EA corporately mandated be made because they need a new Battlefield every year to keep up with Call of Duty, so instead of letting studios do what they do best, they just parcel out side projects so to try to keep up with the CoD machine.
Honestly, I don't see much more from Respawn Entertainment either. Mark my words, it will not be long before the brains and talent abandon that studio and Respawn starts receiving hand-me-down projects as well. To be quite honest, after the whole Infinity Ward / Activision debacle that happened, I was shocked that they were so quick to jump in bed with the actual devil from hell. But that's a bit off topic.
I take it you didn't track any previews and/or interviews about Hardline. Far from being an "unwanted project," Hardline was born from Visceral (well, technically, equal parts Visceral and DICE).
From their PC Gamer interview (September 2015, Issue 256, page 48):
They (Visceral Games VP Steve Papoutsis and DICE VP/CEO Magnus Trogdon) discussed "how it would be cool if there were a cops and criminals version of Battlefield," says Papoutsis. "And he was like, 'That would be totally awesome; we've talked about that in the past.' And we thought it would be cool for Visceral to try to do that."
That was it: a new Battlefield game conceived in casual conversation. Development wasn't so spontaneous. Visceral first learned the ropes of Battlefield development by creating the End Game DLC for Battlefield 3. During that time, Hardline was being designed(...)
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I would love a linear, story-based Star Wars adventure game.
I bet the chucklefuck focus test group that EA used complained that it wasn't open-world... RIP in peace Visceral
That, plus loot boxes/microtransactions. The end of the quote, where it references a shifting marketplace, makes me think that they were frustrated that the game's design potentially didn't contain a secondary monetization system like so many of their other titles. They like to charge for cheap/easy DLC (an extra level here, some extra weapons there). If the game didn't lend itself to a season pass or loot box system, I could see them souring on it.
Talking protagonist was awesome though? Also Issac had a voice in the first game, if you read the mission briefings in game he had a similar cynical outlook on things that continued into the second game.
I didn't say it was bad. But it definitely was different from DS1.
Talking protagonist was awesome though? Also Issac had a voice in the first game, if you read the mission briefings in game he had a similar cynical outlook on things that continued into the second game.
I didn't say it was bad. But it definitely was different from DS1.
It's almost as if the first game had a huge glaring flaw and they fixed it in the sequel.
Dead Space was during that time in the mid-aughts that EA was actually making good stuff. Mirrors Edge, Battlefield 3, Bad Company 1&2, Mass Effect, Burnout, Rock Band...
This news and the disappointing Mirrors Edge sequel really means that era is over and gone. Not to mention the bad taste from Battlefront "1" and Andromeda... they are slipping back to Activision status of dickery. Oh, and they buried Titanfall 2 in favor of Battlefield "1".
Ugh. The original Dead Space is one of my favorite games of all time, very few games have ever scared me and been fun to play. Silent Hill is scary as hell but plays like ass. Resident Evil has the opposite problem. Everything from the lore, to the sound design, down to weaponry and puzzles, felt very carefuly made.
Dunno what EA is thinking. After Battlefront I'm skeptical of their ability to deliver a good Star Wars game. I would have bought a Dead Space 4 in half a heartbeat, this other game not so much.
+7
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited October 2017
Yeah. From what I read it seems like EA was annoyed they couldn't turn the new SW into a "game as service" or whatever.
I swear the game industry always feels like a bunch of folks all chasing the same trend at times.
Dragkonias on
+2
Options
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
Dang, I kinda wish the Industry Thread was still around. If you thought EA shitting down Visceral was the most WTF news you were going to hear this week well... Activision has filed, and had approved, a patent for a matchmaking system that encourages microtransaction purchases. They claim it was submitted back in 2015 by a R&D firm outside their company and it has not been implemented in any games yet.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I didnt particularly enjoy playing Dead Space, but I did enjoy the design and asthetics, so its one of those games its more enjoyable to watch others play. But the numbers dont lie, it's easier to crank out Call Of Duty: Asshole Edition every year and they're guaranteed sellers because there's apparently an online shooter shaped hole in the heart of every Internet psychopath out there. And EA has always made it extremely clear that they do not give a single shit about games, what they want is are easily exploitable brands.
*Drinks directly from whisky bottle while reading this thread*
Hey, theres hope. System Shock 3 is actually happening.
Has anyone been following the progress of Prey ?
That's touting itself as a spiritual successor to SS, but I don't want to see too many videos as I don't want to spoil too much if I decide to get it in May.
Leaked emails suggested that the studio didn't want to make it, the publisher made them make it, and they swallowed the bitter pill telling themselves it was SS3. Speaking of publisher fuckery, I wanted the original Human Head Prey 2, it looked really interesting and fun.
Talking protagonist was awesome though? Also Issac had a voice in the first game, if you read the mission briefings in game he had a similar cynical outlook on things that continued into the second game.
I didn't say it was bad. But it definitely was different from DS1.
It's almost as if the first game had a huge glaring flaw and they fixed it in the sequel.
Dead Space was during that time in the mid-aughts that EA was actually making good stuff. Mirrors Edge, Battlefield 3, Bad Company 1&2, Mass Effect, Burnout, Rock Band...
This news and the disappointing Mirrors Edge sequel really means that era is over and gone. Not to mention the bad taste from Battlefront "1" and Andromeda... they are slipping back to Activision status of dickery. Oh, and they buried Titanfall 2 in favor of Battlefield "1".
Ugh. The original Dead Space is one of my favorite games of all time, very few games have ever scared me and been fun to play. Silent Hill is scary as hell but plays like ass. Resident Evil has the opposite problem. Everything from the lore, to the sound design, down to weaponry and puzzles, felt very carefuly made.
Dunno what EA is thinking. After Battlefront I'm skeptical of their ability to deliver a good Star Wars game. I would have bought a Dead Space 4 in half a heartbeat, this other game not so much.
If i was a pessimist... (And I'm not, but that can't last)...I might come up with a vast theory that EA is trying to make the game industry as generic and easy to produce as possible so they can half-ass themselves a bunch of money every year by making minimal changes to the previous years game and slapping a higher number on it. So whenever an original idea, or a high effort, high quality product comes out, they set out to crush the competition by buying it and running it into the ground.
This is what I was afraid was going to happen to Blizzard when they got bought by Activision. Luckily in that case it seems that Blizzard was smart enough to hold enough of the reins to keep from going into that pit. Other companies that were big enough to fend off EA, unfortunately have discovered they do better not making new games at all (Valve).
*Drinks directly from whisky bottle while reading this thread*
Hey, theres hope. System Shock 3 is actually happening.
Has anyone been following the progress of Prey ?
That's touting itself as a spiritual successor to SS, but I don't want to see too many videos as I don't want to spoil too much if I decide to get it in May.
Leaked emails suggested that the studio didn't want to make it, the publisher made them make it, and they swallowed the bitter pill telling themselves it was SS3. Speaking of publisher fuckery, I wanted the original Human Head Prey 2, it looked really interesting and fun.
Prey is actually a pretty good System Shock equivilent in a lot of ways. But it did not hold my interest and I LOVE the SS series...why? I'm not really sure to be honest...but I thought it had some flaws in the gameplay, movement and combat kinda felt like I was moving through molasses and it drug down the fun factor. I keep telling myself I will go back and finish it, but i keep getting distracted by other new games.
I forgot about the Burnout series and Criterion. What happened to that one? They forced Criterion to make one of the more recent current gen NFS games, and then that studio went completely silent/dark. Are they still around? Do we know what they're working on? Or did they get quietly murdered by EA too?
Well its true. I played it at a friends house or something, and it just clicked in a lot of ways. It was more forgiving and felt more like a game then any racer ive played. I loved that you could crash into other cars and not instantly burst into flame.
Talking protagonist was awesome though? Also Issac had a voice in the first game, if you read the mission briefings in game he had a similar cynical outlook on things that continued into the second game.
I didn't say it was bad. But it definitely was different from DS1.
It's almost as if the first game had a huge glaring flaw and they fixed it in the sequel.
Nah, silent protagonist is best protagonist
Disagree, disagree so hard for a game that's about a single player narrative. Like dead space was about telling a story, having issac not be vocal in the first game hurt the narrative. You're telling me this dude is seeing all this crazy shit and he's quiet? Yeah no.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Paradise was just a different game. It was fine, but it also did not feel like "Burnout." Not like Burnout 2, 3, or Revenge.
I will say, back on topic with the whole Visceral games thing, the thing that hurts the most for me about the Dead Space loss is simply that I love the setting. Sci-Fi is my first love, and the original Alien is one of my favorite movies. I love the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped on a spaceship, with literally nowhere to run, with monsters hunting you. Dead Space 1, while mechanically inferior to DS2, was my favorite in series. DS2 delivered a much better gameplay experience, but the bigger environments and overall change in location made the game less scary to me.
I like Dead Space better than Resident Evil, just because I love Sci-Fi so much.
Side note - I really wish Fantasy wasn't quite so popular these days. Don't get me wrong. I love Fantasy games too. And Fantasy movies. But Sci-Fi is my first love, that other than the dearly departed Mass Effect universe, there isn't much else in terms of top tier Sci-Fi.
Posts
I mean, they're stuck making CoD games now, but CoD WW2 looks to be the best one in years and they're pouring their Dead Space expertise into the zombies mode.
Yeah. I would have really loved to get a AAA single player focused game, especially a sci-fi RPG, and I worry about how different that the focus group feedback will change this product. The direction of games has been shifting away from the things I like and how I like to play for some time... so eh.
"Fucking wanking shits."
And
"EA is the serial killer of the video game industry. It's like Dexter, except Dexter had a code of honor. EA just has code which it focus tests and forces devs to re-write, before killing them. Like a serial killer."
Hell most don't make it pass their first title.
What a waste of talent. Fucking hell.
I really liked the franchise, and I'm sad to see it and Visceral be over.
Make us whole, EA.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
The only surprise here is that Visceral got to make so much Dead Space stuff instead of getting canned after the first game didn't sell however many several millions of copies EA wanted.
Don't get me wrong, EA is the Devil, but I am pretty sure any company would have shuttered Visceral at this point.
The real complaint you can level at EA is not letting Visceral do their thing and effectively doing all in their power to sink the ship.
But from the outside, Dead Space 1 and 2 feel fairly meddle-free. Those are easily the two "purest" games in their catalog.
Dante's Inferno was a fun game. Having played it, it felt rushed to me, and it felt like EA had a hand in pushing it out the door to get a few sales. The earliest rings of hell were the most interesting and best developed, and by the time you got to the inner rings and the finale, it felt very rushed and underdeveloped. So I'd say that Dante was probably 50% Visceral at best. That's being generous. I still liked it, but it feels like a game with vast untapped potential.
Dead Space 3 has "EA Corporate Bullshit" written all over it, and it is prime example of what corporate meddling does to wonderful things.
Battlefield Hardline was very obviously shoved on them as an unwanted project that EA corporately mandated be made because they need a new Battlefield every year to keep up with Call of Duty, so instead of letting studios do what they do best, they just parcel out side projects so to try to keep up with the CoD machine.
Honestly, I don't see much more from Respawn Entertainment either. Mark my words, it will not be long before the brains and talent abandon that studio and Respawn starts receiving hand-me-down projects as well. To be quite honest, after the whole Infinity Ward / Activision debacle that happened, I was shocked that they were so quick to jump in bed with the actual devil from hell. But that's a bit off topic.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Eh. I agree about the MP component, but not the other two. Sometimes sequels make huge departures because that's what the creators want to do instead of the same thing over again. Alien -> Aliens, Star Control -> Star Control II. I think having Isaac talk in DSII was far better choice than trying to make a second silent protagonist game. The first time in any game someone says something like "Strong, silent type, eh?" to a silent protagonist I just want to burn it all down.
EDIT: Granted, Alien was Scott and Aliens was Cameron, but I wouldn't characterize it as corporate meddling.
I take it you didn't track any previews and/or interviews about Hardline. Far from being an "unwanted project," Hardline was born from Visceral (well, technically, equal parts Visceral and DICE).
From their PC Gamer interview (September 2015, Issue 256, page 48):
That, plus loot boxes/microtransactions. The end of the quote, where it references a shifting marketplace, makes me think that they were frustrated that the game's design potentially didn't contain a secondary monetization system like so many of their other titles. They like to charge for cheap/easy DLC (an extra level here, some extra weapons there). If the game didn't lend itself to a season pass or loot box system, I could see them souring on it.
I didn't say it was bad. But it definitely was different from DS1.
It's almost as if the first game had a huge glaring flaw and they fixed it in the sequel.
This news and the disappointing Mirrors Edge sequel really means that era is over and gone. Not to mention the bad taste from Battlefront "1" and Andromeda... they are slipping back to Activision status of dickery. Oh, and they buried Titanfall 2 in favor of Battlefield "1".
Ugh. The original Dead Space is one of my favorite games of all time, very few games have ever scared me and been fun to play. Silent Hill is scary as hell but plays like ass. Resident Evil has the opposite problem. Everything from the lore, to the sound design, down to weaponry and puzzles, felt very carefuly made.
Dunno what EA is thinking. After Battlefront I'm skeptical of their ability to deliver a good Star Wars game. I would have bought a Dead Space 4 in half a heartbeat, this other game not so much.
I swear the game industry always feels like a bunch of folks all chasing the same trend at times.
*Comes back to thread half a year later... Heroins up whisky*
Leaked emails suggested that the studio didn't want to make it, the publisher made them make it, and they swallowed the bitter pill telling themselves it was SS3. Speaking of publisher fuckery, I wanted the original Human Head Prey 2, it looked really interesting and fun.
Nah, silent protagonist is best protagonist
If i was a pessimist... (And I'm not, but that can't last)...I might come up with a vast theory that EA is trying to make the game industry as generic and easy to produce as possible so they can half-ass themselves a bunch of money every year by making minimal changes to the previous years game and slapping a higher number on it. So whenever an original idea, or a high effort, high quality product comes out, they set out to crush the competition by buying it and running it into the ground.
This is what I was afraid was going to happen to Blizzard when they got bought by Activision. Luckily in that case it seems that Blizzard was smart enough to hold enough of the reins to keep from going into that pit. Other companies that were big enough to fend off EA, unfortunately have discovered they do better not making new games at all (Valve).
Prey is actually a pretty good System Shock equivilent in a lot of ways. But it did not hold my interest and I LOVE the SS series...why? I'm not really sure to be honest...but I thought it had some flaws in the gameplay, movement and combat kinda felt like I was moving through molasses and it drug down the fun factor. I keep telling myself I will go back and finish it, but i keep getting distracted by other new games.
It's basically System Shock 3, but also with a Nerf gun.
If this isn't back-of-the-box quote material I don't know what is.
Disagree, disagree so hard for a game that's about a single player narrative. Like dead space was about telling a story, having issac not be vocal in the first game hurt the narrative. You're telling me this dude is seeing all this crazy shit and he's quiet? Yeah no.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I will say, back on topic with the whole Visceral games thing, the thing that hurts the most for me about the Dead Space loss is simply that I love the setting. Sci-Fi is my first love, and the original Alien is one of my favorite movies. I love the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped on a spaceship, with literally nowhere to run, with monsters hunting you. Dead Space 1, while mechanically inferior to DS2, was my favorite in series. DS2 delivered a much better gameplay experience, but the bigger environments and overall change in location made the game less scary to me.
I like Dead Space better than Resident Evil, just because I love Sci-Fi so much.
Side note - I really wish Fantasy wasn't quite so popular these days. Don't get me wrong. I love Fantasy games too. And Fantasy movies. But Sci-Fi is my first love, that other than the dearly departed Mass Effect universe, there isn't much else in terms of top tier Sci-Fi.