Video Games Are Too Boring, Says EA

I totally agree. In the old days nearly anybody could pick up a controller and could play and understand what is going on. Now it seems that only true gamers can master these new and deeply involving games. Which are amazing yes but to the casual fan it is to much to pick up and try to learn.

That's really something coming from the head of a company whose biggest franchise is the Madden games, aka "NFL Roster Update Whatever-The-Year-Is." Oh, and the company went for exclusive contracts with ESPN and other sports organizations, so they have no competition and therefore no reason to be innovative. They've got it made.
Come to think of it, does EA actually make anything other than sports games these days? I make a passing effort to keep up with game news but I can't think of any that you really hear about.
*sigh*
If he wants to be innovative, next time they make a Madden game, put the Cowboys on horses and have the shotgun pass involve a twelve-guage. If the Dolphins play a home game, the other team should be wearing scuba gear. The Giants should be a real terror to play against.

I have been a life long video game player and spent some time selling them too. I think that the problem EA and other companies are facing is that everyone wants better graphics and that comes at a price of lower game play. Look back at the origional NES and you will find great games that are about the game play and not the graphics. Bottom line stop improving graphics and concentrate on building a good story line.

Alex, maybe you should check EA's website instead of just making a blanket statement like "All they do is make sports games."

It's true that EA has one divsion dedicated to sports games. This is because there are a lot of sports fans out there who enjoy playing those games and, for some reason, buy the new ones every year.

But aside from these, EA also currently produces The Sims series of games and expansions, the latest editions of Sim City, the Command and Conquer RTS series, The Godfather game, the Medal of Honor FPS series, and the Battlefield series (Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142).

As for the comments made by Mr. Riccitiello, he's absolutely right. Especially with the latest generation of console games, games are not delivering the content that we're paying out for. Most games are at least fifty dollars, some more than that depending on where you live and what game it is. Halo 3, the most anticipated game for the fall, is already being reported as having absolutely no improvements over Halo 2. As a wise man once told me "The latest generation of console games tastes like snake oil."

The computer game market is better, but only to some extent. There are a number of good, enjoyable games out there, but it still comes back to John's comments: You can't just pick up and play most of them. I've played video games pretty much all my life, since I was five. For me, learning a new game is generally pretty easy.

But I introduced a good friend of mine to World of Warcraft and she had never played video games in her life except for (HAHA!) the Sims. It took her three days to learn how to move around the world properly and only after I wrote her some basic instructions that she could print and keep by her keyboard.

I do not agree, most games today are too simple and lack any real depth. I have no problem picking up a game and playing, but after a short amount of time I become bored because there is no real skill or intelligence needed, besides a few computer games. As far as graphics is concerned, if developers spent enough time on a game there is no reason that it can't have a good story line, good game play, and good graphics. I believe the problem is that there are too many games and people will buy them whether they are good or not, so companies don't need to put more effort into the development of their games.

As for the comment about halo 3 having no improvements over halo 2, I played the beta version of halo 3 and it was significantly better than halo 2, and that was just the beta.

Leave it to EA to say that games are boring. They put out more releases that have the same basics with very little upgrade than anyone! They have HAD some of the most innovative games ever released only to abandon not only the game itself completely, but all the loyal and guarenteed FUTURE followers due to their own incompetance! 1 of their most accomplished and underated releases was Motor City Online (they were in a league of their own and have not been matched yet). There are thousands like myself that now boycott EA completely for making us shell out a lot of cash and our passions only to have it ALL ripped away, unless we wanted to play the SIMs for free - FORGET IT - NEVER! Just another consumer rip-off company! BOYCOTT EA - you can't get big companies to listen to the voices, but maybe they would listen to their bank accounts if everyone would quit buying into everything they say and release! EA SUCKS!!!!!

Well, EA has always done a good job in putting out a variety of games. I love fight night rnd 3, the need for speed games are always fun, and other great games. I've been a gamer since I could barely walk, and none can argue that Super Mario, PacMan , and other old school titles weren't great and started the era of video games. But I'm loving the fact that all the games being released look great. Technology has made my gaming experiences and movies more enjoyable. Not only am I enjoying a good game, but amazing graphics. I find nothing boring about great games like Gears of War *non-EA*, and FPSers like Resistance *non-EA* that look amazing and have great gameplay. Yah, some games suck, but some don't, that hasnt changed. I think the average person usually needs some previous gaming experience to pick up a controller and play Gears of War or new game title, but it shouldn't stop a person from playing if they really wanted to. Most non-gamers are quick to give up, maybe thats why they arent gamers. But the solution to that problem has already been addressed, just check out the Nintendo Wii sales. I believe developer companies have spent a little too much time figuring out how to make the best looking game that they failed to figure out how to make an innovative, all type of audience game. Even if they developing for the Wii is out of the picture.. how come titles like Midway's NBA Jam aren't being made. Games like NFL Blitz aren't being created that can be played by anyone. I play the Wii when friends are over because its simple, innovative, and fun. When I'm with the gamer buddies, or solo, I'm playing RFOM, Forza, and Fight Night to name a few. It's late, and I apologize for my grammer / spelling haha. Keep it up EA!

-bowzer oner

I agree with EA completely. Sure there is a place for complex games for intense gamers, but there are a lot of us that don't have 4-12 hours at a time to get into a game. We have a half hour here and an hour there and want to be able to have some fun in that time. We're more interested in good game play than good graphics. We want to be able to pick up how to play a game fast and be entertained. The new generation of games do lack innovation, and playing them is like wading through quicksand. The Wii perfectly addresses these needs, that is why it is so enormously popular. I think the more conventional platforms could return to doing this also, at least for a segment of the games that are produced.

When the kids were younger, we went through a Nintendo system, a super Nintendo, Playstation, and then Xbox - not to mention the countless games that now are collecting dust in a closet somewhere. Games were usually purchased based on the graphics on the packaging. We never knew what we were getting until we "broke the seal" on these games at prices ranging from $20 to $80 at a pop. Some games were a big dissappointment.

Today, we subscribe to online games instead... some sites like RealArcade allow you to try out their games for an hour free to see if you like it enough to make a purchase. Then - a $7.99 price tag is all it costs for a full download. There are hundreds of games under every genre.
Computer crashed once - customer service was awesome in helping reload on new computer.

I am also a big fan of Pogo games. (obviously) It costs about $40 a year for HOURS and HOURS of games and challenges.

We haven't opened a "box" in years !!!

Games have become more difficult to pick up and play....I'm 42,and love RPGs...To me,what made a RPG an enjoyment to play was the story that unfolded as you played the game....So what if the battles was turn-based?....The game was simple,yet enjoying....
However,RPGs for the most part now days are more focused on graphics and gameplay that involves more complicated controls....While the games are indeed more gorgeous graphics wise,they are hard to get into because of the mechanics of the gameplay....
I am aware that change is good sometimes,but it also can be bad for some people...Alot of games looks great (Magna Carta is great on graphics,but lacks in gameplay is one example)....I suppose Im just an old fossil that prefers more games with great story lines and easier play mechanics rather than games with great visuals but more tedious controller pad skills....

it would be great if they gave the player the option of being a 1st person or 3rd person shooter. i like the over the shoulder view. there are too many 1st person shooters out there. i really liked the Desert Storm, Conflict series. a game like Ghost Recon gives you the option. the WW2 genre is great, but wat about now? Call of Duty 4 is about the "now" conflict. just wish it had the over the shoulder view. the hardest games i ever played was "Rainbow 6" series. thats a little much Mr. Clancy. i did like the selection of weapons though. more games that feature air power, armour, and control of it would be great.

re: Kurt: Bottom line stop improving graphics and concentrate on building a good [game].

See: Nintendo Wii & Nintendo DS

I fully agree with Riccitello. The games I've been playing are RPG-types, though I've also delved into first-person shooters and fighting/action type games. From what I've seen, there is very little change between all of their types. RPGs have more storyline, but they've become increasingly harder, or playing with elements that have no real function, of which Square-Enix is very guilty of lately -- the Final Fantasy series is a very notable example of this. Fighting games are almost the same, but far less story and no real design change aside from each franchise title. Tekken does this well enough -- introduce new characters, but nothing that says innovative, with a few exceptions, which were quickly shot down by the players and not implemented in the next title release. First-person shooters, there hasn't been much innovation since Doom had came out in the 90s. For the most part, you run around and shoot things. Pick up weapons and shoot things. Shoot things TO shoot things. Halo, sure it innovated on some level, but it's been stale since the only thing they did was add a few new weapons,levels, and enemies, while giving it a different storyline. For all intents and purposes, people oftentimes pay for the story behind the game.

Some games seem to believe making it fun and challenging means "put as many tasks in front of players so they must SEE the funny story we added." Again, I speak from the perspective of the Final Fantasy series as of late. Finatl Fantasy X-2, in particular, though there are other examples from earlier titles. They make playing the game more a chore than anything. You have to complete the game at 100% to see the "true" storyline. However, unless you're reading a strategy guide, chances are, you wouldn't be able to pull it off, as it calls for completion of EVERY task, visiting of EVERY area at least once a chapter, and the worst sin in my opinion, requirement to do things in order on a microscale. Yes, I do mean nitpickings on the finest detail. In some situations, you must talk to people in a very specific order, not that it means a lot storywise, but it's the rule if you want to see the fully completed ending. Unlike the Kingdom Hearts series, the special ending is part of the story body itself, not just an "extra feature."

Also, once a player finishes a game, or gets completely frustrated with it, oftentimes, it gets sold off to secondary marketing places like GameStop, pawn shops, and other venues. If I like a game, there's very little chance I'll be selling it anytime soon, if at all, because I find the game fun and entertaining. I've mentioned this to a few game store workers, and their response was, "Wow, people that actually KEEP their games? You're a relic." I've seen many guys buy a new game, play it all the way through in a couple of days, then return the game to recoup on the money. "Eh, it was all right," they say, then grab the latest title with the money they got back and off they go to complete it, return, and wash, rinse, repeat.

Fun has been forgotten in my opinion, eschewed for making games complex and harder to somehow promote playability and replay value. It excludes the everyday man, who doesn't want to do all the levels just to get a different CGI, or to have the best time to get something. As one poster stated, the Wii promises to be a lot more fun, largely as it catered itself towards that area as opposed to the X-Box 360 and PS3. In a time where fun is becoming more of an issue, people, particularly the untapped women's market, will gravitate towards whatever promises it. In this, Nintendo will have the advantage over the competition, as family-oriented type games are becoming more specialized on its system. Everyone else will be playing for the lonely geek with little time for anything other than what he does best -- figure things out and solve puzzles. Unfortunately most of us are not geniuses, so that should be accounted for.

On the whole, games are boring because they aren't very fun anymore; more like working while away from work, and that defeats the purpose of entertainment. Without innovation, I will have little reason to pick up the latest title when it comes out. Assuming I'm still gaming when it comes to that.

Hear hear, Adrian!

I'm twenty now, and I've been playing games since I was five or six. And I remember Ye Olde Days.
Allow this old-timer to reminisce.

There was a game for the Sega Genesis.
It was called Mutant League Football.
It was football, but the teams were monsters, you could bribe or attack the ref, and the football field had hazards such as land mines.

The point of this? You used to find a lot more...well, creative games. Developers didn't worry about realism, because the graphics wouldn't allow for it, so they focused on charm and the Fun Factor.

Now, however, people hold 'real' to be equivalent to 'good'. Look at the backlash the Wind Waker suffered for have cartoony cell-shaded graphics. Some people object to turn-based RPG combat because it's not realistic.

A lot of gamers don't want to play a game that's seen as 'kiddy'. And a kiddy game is apparently one below an M rating.

I will say this. Some games manage to have their cool moments that make them fun--like a few of the boss fights in the Metroid Prime games, or allowing the player to kick serious tail in a very eye-catching and fun manner.

I just wish the gamedevs would realize that with the graphics now, they could create some truly fantastic settings and games if they ignored realism and focus on fun. I mean, there's practically a whole genre of WWII first-person shooters, and they all look much the same. Sports games look--and play--alike.
And people buy this games. Oh, yes, they buy them. So games haven't had much innovation because the developers have found formulas that rake in the cash.
Admittedly, you still get some creative stuff--like Rayman Raving Rabbids, or the visor system on the Metroid Prime games, but they're all too rare these days...

And if I keep this up, I swear I'll write an emo poem about how video game developers make me sad these days.

EA don't talk to much, Your servers suck and we are the ones that made you big. Without customers you have nothing.

i agree with ea there are even some older games that you need to be a rocket scientist to play and i do play alot of games and there are very few i actually like and if i like a game but get bored with it i just go to one of my other games till i stop being bored with that one then i go back to it till its fun again

"He charged that game makers roll out sequels to games without adding or improving on the original formula." Yeah and you guys do it by far the most often. cough"madden"cough

I think that the games in general in the last couple years are fine for young guys with quick reaction times and plenty of experience. But the game companies have shut themselves off from a whole set of older gamers that can not keep up. Like women, younger kids, older aging gamers like myself and also a whole set of slightly mentally chalenged people.

I resently tried playing several Playstaion 3 titles of my 19 year old sons and they are for the mostpart all too hard for me. I spent 4 hours of so with each one and only get past parts of the first level with having to re-play sections of the level over and over about 20 plus times to get thru it. That is just not fun. And I am playing on the EASY mode.

I need a supper EASY mode. Plus there are plenty of less capable people out there, younger kids and slightly mentally chalenged people that would love to play some of the games but it is just beyond their skills.

So I would love it if they made a "walk thru" mode, super super easy mode, like 5 levels of easy.

For example, I played the PS3 Uncharted demo for 2 hours and could not get past the camp after you make the leap to the pedistle that you have to drop down. It took me 2 plus hours to get there and try about 15 aattempts to pass it. That just is not fun for me. Then I decided to give it a rest for a while and found that when I quit the demo after playing for 2 plus hours it did not save my place and a restart of it puts me back at the begining. That just killed it for me.

Although I love the walk around and looking and trying to figure out where to go. I do not mind some shooting but hate having to shoot so many guys to get thru a level or partial level. Like it is totally unreal that you could ever think that one person could ever survive such a fight in the first place.

Game companies can still make it challenging for you young guys and have medium, hard and supper hard if you get into that stuff. I just wish they sould make some more easier options so that others can enjoy it as well.

I do not play games much anymore since they are too hard to play for me now that I am 52. I use to love games but many are just too hard to be any fun. Also even the race car games require you to have to customize the heck out of your cars in order to have a chance a being competitive. It is all just too much. That type needs an easy setup option or something.

I have spent 30 years in the computer industry working and like games but these new ones have too much shooting for me. I use to love the first couple Laura Croft games on PC's/ They had just the right amount of shooting and lots of chalenging adventure walks and climbing.

Well that is my two sents worth.

How about giving the rest of us old gamers or non-gamers a chance? The gaming companies could make 4X what they do now. Remember PACMAN? Why was it a success???? Anyone could play it and have fun. We need more of that mentallity assigned to game design nowadays. Still keep the hard mode and insane modes for the true "young" gamers but put in some various levels or EASY mode to let the rest of us still have some fun too.