Mike Wang Has Left EA Canada and the NBA Live Development Team

[Pared]

I still can't believe people are begging for "competition" and already writing EA off totally. How is that for irony?

To say some overreact to things like this is an understatement.

And since when did "different direction" mean the game was going to suck? EA went in a different direction when they killed off Triple Play. A large group loved MVP Baseball, the result of that.

You guys are doing the same, exact thing you did when Mike left and articles were published about him by EA. You're buying into this marketing garbage when all that matters is the actual game that you end up playing.

It really saddens me as a gamer and a member of this forum. OS gets touted as THE place to be for sports gamers, and apparently that doesn't mean you can see beyond the marketing glitz.

[ehh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

I still can't believe people are begging for "competition" and already writing EA off totally. How is that for irony? To say some overreact to things like this is an understatement. And since when did "different direction" mean the game was going to suck? EA went in a different direction when they killed off Triple Play. A large group loved MVP Baseball, the result of that. You guys are doing the same, exact thing you did when Mike left and articles were published about him by EA. You're buying into this marketing garbage when all that matters is the actual game that you end up playing. It really saddens me as a gamer and a member of this forum. OS gets touted as THE place to be for sports gamers, and apparently that doesn't mean you can see beyond the marketing glitz.

I don't see how this situation falls into "marketing glitz". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that...

A) Live has sucked for the better part of a decade
B) Live 10 was far and away the best version in years and the first to draw many 2Kers
C) Regardless of Wang's role in all of this, Live "changing direction" after finally giving sim gamers a game they could enjoy does not look good. Live 11 could certainly be a good game, but Live 10 was finally the first step in the right direction in the eyes of many gamers and take deviate from that course so quickly does not sound very appetizing.

Also, Triple Play was a horrible game, not a game on the rise like Live. This would have been like EA changing direction after MVP '04, not Triple Play.


You don't need marketing, press releases or employees changing companies to figure any of that out.

[DJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

I still can't believe people are begging for "competition" and already writing EA off totally. How is that for irony? To say some overreact to things like this is an understatement. And since when did "different direction" mean the game was going to suck? EA went in a different direction when they killed off Triple Play. A large group loved MVP Baseball, the result of that. You guys are doing the same, exact thing you did when Mike left and articles were published about him by EA. You're buying into this marketing garbage when all that matters is the actual game that you end up playing. It really saddens me as a gamer and a member of this forum. OS gets touted as THE place to be for sports gamers, and apparently that doesn't mean you can see beyond the marketing glitz.

I'm sure there will be people that are taking a "wait and see" approach with NBA Live. But, you have to admit, it doesn't look good when Marcus and Wang, two pretty vital pieces to what made Live 10 so good, are no longer on the project.

I think what people are really upset with is EA's company stance. A lot of SIM gamers don't feel that EA Sports really "gets" them. As Sporty said, it's almost like they have this idea that they have to tear down their house every year and build a new one, when there isn't a lot wrong with the current foundation.

I understand wanting to develop a gameplay concept that will entice buyers, both new and long-time, to buy the game. But at what cost? Look at Madden and NCAA Football. When both moved over to the 360/PS3, everyone assumed that things would continue in line with what we saw the previous generation. That obviously didn't happen. EA, instead of focusing its efforts on making the gameplay tight, got caught up in things that, while important, don't trump gameplay, like graphics. The result? A lot of average or below-average performances from two top-flight games in their library. After a few years of sub-standard games, some people stopped buying football games this year and as a result, sales were down even though Madden 10 and NCAA 10 (debatable) were improved and played a decent game of football.

We see the same thing going with Live. The first few Live's on the 360/PS3 were terrible. No two ways around that. Live 09 showed improvement and Live 10 wound up being a really good game. The controls, spacing and half-court game are top-notch and the crowd atmosphere is also really well done. When you look at it, Live had finally developed a solid foundation and all Live 11 needed to do was build upon that.

But, EA, at least from what Wang is telling us, doesn't want to build on that foundation. They want to tear things down -- again -- and start over in a new direction. Now who knows, that new direction may be great. It may be terribly bad. We'll have to wait until information, videos, demos are released before we truly start forming an opinion.

I also think EA's lack of post-release support for the NCAA Basketball series leaves people with a lot of questions about NBA Live's future. When a game has a serious issues (freezing) and there's no response from the company, that leaves people with a bitter taste in their mouth, and rightfully so. I didn't buy the game and the freezing issue is why. If EA can't spend its resources to look into a serious problem then you have to question just how much effort is going into NBA Live when we've already seen a couple of the top programmers/designers leave.

So, to say this is all "marketing garbage" is a little exaggerated, imo. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I truly hope Live continues on and produces a solid game. It's just my faith in EA as a whole has been rattled based on what they have done the past couple of years.

[Pared]

Live '08 and '09 were more similar to '10 than anyone is giving credit for.

Live '10 was a more fleshed out game. How? Take Live '09, add a bunch of 2k-like functions, and "2kers(?)" were "drawn." In record number, apparently.

There was so much more in Live '10 that had nothing to do with this move. Player art, Dynamic Season, throwbacks.... all things that people enjoyed the "upgrade" of.

But the stepping to the edge saying you're gonna jump reactions going on are very pre-mature.

[ehh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

There was so much more in Live '10 that had nothing to do with this move. Player art, Dynamic Season, throwbacks.... all things that people enjoyed the "upgrade" of.

Those things helped but just go back and look through all the impression threads especially after Patch 2. Many people praise the controls, R-stick dribbling, layup solutions, OBC and playbooks as major game play improvements. Those set the game apart from Live 09 significantly. While yes, the "engine" or however people want to word it is similar to 09 (of course it is though) there were enough changes that made the user experience drastically better from 09 to 10.

What "2K-like" functions were added to Live 10? I don't see that at all, the difference between the two games is what drew people to Live. People played Live 10 this year because it did so many things well that 2K10 did poorly. If people wanted "2K-like" functions they would have just stayed with 2K10.

[Pared]

No, they wouldn't have stayed with 2k10. The main gripe was player control, was it not? "I can't control my player in 2k that's why I like Live," is the slogan of choice.

Mike brought sizeups, layup control, shooting the ball off the glass, manual box outs, off ball control, off ball animations, etc. About the only unique thing was freestyle passing, which was phenomenal. People were then clamoring for EA to rip off 2k's post game next year since Live didn't have one. And that's just one example. If you've spent enough time in both forums you'd know that as it's pretty obvious. Plays were very similar to '09. I don't know how you can say you've played these games and not see that. They fleshed them out, which is to be expected in a new title the following year.

The genre doesn't need the two games being mirrors of each other. NCAA was doing the same exact thing when going head to head with CHoops. And playing Live this year you can see exactly how much more it was becoming just like 2k's product.

They need to find their own identity and relate to the NBA in their own way. To think they can't bring anyone new on board and possibly do that (much like 2k did slowly with their series) is silly.

[eDotd]

Quote: Originally Posted by Admiral50

One of the biggest gaming companies responding to a sulking ex-employee, (who has lost almost all respect from me since saying what he said publicly)

What did he say that made you lose respect?

[ehh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pared

No, they wouldn't have stayed with 2k10. The main gripe was player control, was it not? "I can't control my player in 2k that's why I like Live," is the slogan of choice.

That was the biggest one for sure, along with the issue of spacing, defense and running plays.

Quote:

Mike brought sizeups, layup control, shooting the ball off the glass, manual box outs, off ball control, off ball animations, etc. About the only unique thing was freestyle passing, which was phenomenal. People were then clamoring for EA to rip off 2k's post game next year since Live didn't have one. And that's just one example. If you've spent enough time in both forums you'd know that as it's pretty obvious.

I guess this is what you're considering "2K-like functions". To me they are just functions that make the game more life-like and more true to real-life basketball. These things belong to the game of basketball, not 2K simply because they did it first in a video game. The ideas are similar but the execution was different in Live compared to 2K. All of those new areas are better in Live than in 2K, obviously because most of those are a couple years old in 2K and feel dated. And who cares about what people are clamoring for? EA won't copy 2K's post game but I'm sure they will try to come up with their own method of giving the user more control in the post.

Quote:

Plays were very similar to '09. I don't know how you can say you've played these games and not see that. They fleshed them out, which is to be expected in a new title the following year.

The execution was similar but I was referring to the addition of real plays. To someone like me that was a very cool addition though I know a majority of gamers do not care about playbooks.

Quote:

The genre doesn't need the two games being mirrors of each other. NCAA was doing the same exact thing when going head to head with CHoops. And playing Live this year you can see exactly how much more it was becoming just like 2k's product. They need to find their own identity and relate to the NBA in their own way. To think they can't bring anyone new on board and possibly do that (much like 2k did slowly with their series) is silly.

I don't agree with this, simply because Live is adding more user control does not mean it's becoming more like 2K's product. That's the natural progression of any sports game, it just so happens that Live was lagging far behind 2K for many years and are now catching up. It's not like Live is biting 2K's controls and how you execute various things (thank god too). Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, I dunno.

What do you propose EA does to create their own identity? Never add OBC just because 2K had it first? Same with layups, never add more in-depth user control in Live because 2K had the shotstick first? I'm not being an ***, just I'm curious as to what your ideas are.