So You Thought EA Was Bad?

[Elliot]

Activision are apparently the most despicable, conniving shits this side of Christ being born. They blatantly lied to and screwed over their top developers who had been making them billions for years, just to save money. They are, in my opinion, scum.

http://www.gameinfor...on-lawsuit.aspx

It's a long read, but worth it.

My favourite quotes:

West: We deprived them of our services by being fired and therefore we owe them money.

Schwartz: Yes, Project Icebreaker. They have these PowerPoint slides in October and November that say, "Here's what we project the Modern Warfare 2 launch quarter bonuses to be for Infinity Ward studios. Here's Jason and Vince's share that we save if they are not there anymore. Here's what we need to do to retain the other guys that might leave if these guys aren't ­there ­anymore."

Schwartz: So George Rose goes into the office of this guy named Thomas Fenady. He's some kind of IT whiz at Activision. He's sitting in his office and has no idea what is going to walk in his office. [Rose says], "Hey, this comes right from the top. I have a project for you from [Activision Blizzard CEO] Bobby Kotick. Jason and Vince - you know those guys? We're really sick of them. We want to get rid of them; we want to fire them. You need to break into their computers and dig up dirt to be used to justify firing them... Look, this comes from Bobby Kotick. If you do this, Bobby will protect you if anything happens. But remember, the number one priority is do not ­get ­caught." [Fenady] testified to this.

Schwartz: It had nothing to do with EA. EA didn't even call these guys up until two months ­after ­that.

[Kirbz]

i never liked activision to be honest.

[Maitre]

Sadly, activision always had a bad rep, especially Bobby kotick (A.K.A Bob shits sticks). But most people seemed to forget about that bad rep after they merged with blizzard which had a huge rep a good dev. Shame that Activision will probably tarnish Blizzard's rep until it's nothing but a distant memory.

[Lady Lilith]

Definitely. Ever read the wikipedia on Bobby Kotick? Pisses me off.

[DanielVT]

Meh...... I like both EA an Activision if but for the games they publish.

[AndroidFox]

Meh...... I like both EA an Activision if but for the games they publish.

You did actually read the article right? I really don't know how you can still support a company like Activison after what they have done here, it's disgusting.

[DanielVT]

You did actually read the article right? I really don't know how you can still support a company like Activison after what they have done here, it's disgusting.

Yes, I did read the article, and while I obviously don't support what Activision did as it is dirty and dishonest, but as I already said, I support them for their games they publish. (Yes, I have been a loyal COD fan from the first entry.) If they did not publish COD, I would most likely dispise them like all the rest of you guys do.

[Andrew52286]

Not to stick up for Activision. But, this is only one side of the store. They were obviously doing something Activsion wasn't happy with or else they wouldn't have been let go.

[Death]

Analvision has been running their franchises into the ground for the past 5 years. It's only a matter of time until Camp or Die shares the same fate as Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero.

[DanielVT]

Not to stick up for Activision. But, this is only one side of the store. They were obviously doing something Activsion wasn't happy with or else they wouldn't have been let go.

Spot on my friend! I could not agree more. Obviously Activision is in the wrong, but we should not write off West and Zampella. I would like Activision to release an article like this before I make an educated assertion/opinion.

Analvision has been running their franchises into the ground for the past 5 years. It's only a matter of time until Camp or Die shares the same fate as Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero.

Honestly, nothing against you personally, but I am SOOOO over everyone saying COD can't last much longer. I have heard that for years, yet year on end the games continue to smash records that were set by its predecessor. Comments like ":COD has to die" is like saying you or I have to die. Um, yeah 1/1 people die, but most live for a very long time. Obviously the COD series has not peaked yet at all with Black Ops 2 pre-orders already out-pacing MW3. I look forward every year to the annual release of COD. COD is different than other video games in its genre. I consider COD as a sport game series. Each year there is a new release, with a few changes, and each year people snatch the game up (I'm looking at you, Madden! ) The only difference is that each COD follows the same formula, but also has fresh storylines, etc. I find it interesting how BF3 did not get this hate. BF3 was as everyone loves to falsely say, " a 60$ map pack". Think about it, it had the same formula as BFBC2, yet since it is not COD it is automatically better??? I loved BF3 as miuch as the rest, but seriously enough already!!! I rest my case.

[Death]

Honestly, nothing against you personally, but I am SOOOO over everyone saying COD can't last much longer. I have heard that for years, yet year on end the games continue to smash records that were set by its predecessor.

Sheeple is your answer. I unfortunately am one of them too, just not as hardcore as other Sheeple. I bought MW3 because my job had a special offer where it was cut to $50 and I really liked MW2 and expected it to be as good if not better... boy was I wrong! I have played all COD games except Modern Warfare 1, but I don't blindly love or hate their games. I've experienced almost all of their COD's and can tell you it's getting worse. They have been using the same engine since what 2007? I've heard of the term "Don't break it if it's not broken", but why not actually try and make something better instead of relying on the same outdated engine? I tried MW3 online and didn't enjoy much. It actually felt downgraded compared to MW2. It takes me an entire clip to kill someone while I die with 3 bullets? Oh and there is also a new form of camping that I've experienced online. Instead of hiding behind a door, the n00bs lay prone on the floor in front of the door waiting for some unlucky guy to step inside. (please don't bullshit me. you've experienced it.) The only thing remotely fun was Capture the Flag.

IMO, MW2 was the last great one. It had a great story that informed me of what was going on even though I didn't play MW1, it had great maps and it was very fluid. The only thing that I hated about the game was the quickscoping and the n00bs that abused this flaw. I was addicted to earning those lovely titles and emblems and I really enjoyed Spec Ops because it was completely different than the Zombies in WAW. Spec Ops had a taste of stealth (well COD's version of stealth ) and some great missions like Overwatch, Estate Takedown, Wardriving etc.. I did like how they tried to make Spec Ops in MW3 a big thing like Zombies, but the missions didn't feel anywhere near as good as the ones in MW2. The story in MW3 kinda feels a little rushed and they tried to make it as action packed as possible and it feels pretty predictable. I highly doubt someone could get a grasp on what was going on in MW3 if the third one was their first experience in the Modern Warfare series. (I don't think story matters in todays FPS games anyways since the majority of FPS gamers probably go straight to the MP right?)

I find it interesting how BF3 did not get this hate. BF3 was as everyone loves to falsely say, " a 60$ map pack". Think about it, it had the same formula as BFBC2, yet since it is not COD it is automatically better???

Battlefield 3 is still a Battlefield game, yes, but DICE made a new Frostbite 2 engine just for Battlefield 3 and made the game even better in many different ways. The gameplay and everything feels a lot more fluid than Bad Company 2 which was also more fluid than Bad Company 1. I'm not talking about framrates or anything like that. I'm just saying how Bad Company 1 felt clunky compared to Bad Company 2 and BF3. There are an assload of weapons and attachments that you can add to your guns that weren't in Bad Company 1 and 2. Bad Company 1 didn't have any attachments besides that underbarrel grenade launcher if you were Assault. Bad Company 2 had the red dot sight, the 4x sight and a few scopes for the Recon class and a little mechanism that could let you spot enemies on the scope. Battlefield 3 upped the ante with attachments for anything that could seriously transform your gun. Lets for example make your L85A2 ideal for close combat when you're rushing the objective. Well then maybe you would like to add a foregrip, a red dot sight and a suppressor? Ok, what if you wanted to get some payback on a sniper that just shot your balls off... with the same gun! Well then you could switch those attachments for a heavy barrel, bi-pod and a PKS-07(7x)! You can literally use your guns for anything. I've seen guys sniping with shotguns. They just used slug rounds and high powered scopes. I'll post the video if you wish. Battlefield is more rewarding and is even more fun with friends. I've had a lot of fun being Kirby's gunner and just obliterating all of the MCOMM defenders with his sweet flying skills. I don't know about you, but I think a 446.61 meter headshot with bulletdrop from across the map is more rewarding than a no-scope 360 headshot from the top of the stairs. So what I'm trying to say is that COD once was enjoyable, but I got sick of it and moved onto something better. A lot of people shit on BF3's story, but I liked it. It wasn't an 80's action movie like every other COD game, but it felt like a real threat that could actually happen today. I also feel that the tank operator being beheaded on camera in BF3 is more terrifying than the little girl blowing up on her first trip to Europe in MW3. If you feel like you still enjoy it, then that's fine.

[DanielVT]

Sheeple is your answer. I unfortunately am one of them too, just not as hardcore as other Sheeple. I bought MW3 because my job had a special offer where it was cut to $50 and I really liked MW2 and expected it to be as good if not better... boy was I wrong! I have played all COD games except Modern Warfare 1, but I don't blindly love or hate their games. I've experienced almost all of their COD's and can tell you it's getting worse. They have been using the same engine since what 2007? I've heard of the term "Don't break it if it's not broken", but why not actually try and make something better instead of relying on the same outdated engine? I tried MW3 online and didn't enjoy much. It actually felt downgraded compared to MW2. It takes me an entire clip to kill someone while I die with 3 bullets? Oh and there is also a new form of camping that I've experienced online. Instead of hiding behind a door, the n00bs lay prone on the floor in front of the door waiting for some unlucky guy to step inside. (please don't bullshit me. you've experienced it.) The only thing remotely fun was Capture the Flag.

IMO, MW2 was the last great one. It had a great story that informed me of what was going on even though I didn't play MW1, it had great maps and it was very fluid. The only thing that I hated about the game was the quickscoping and the n00bs that abused this flaw. I was addicted to earning those lovely titles and emblems and I really enjoyed Spec Ops because it was completely different than the Zombies in WAW. Spec Ops had a taste of stealth (well COD's version of stealth ) and some great missions like Overwatch, Estate Takedown, Wardriving etc.. I did like how they tried to make Spec Ops in MW3 a big thing like Zombies, but the missions didn't feel anywhere near as good as the ones in MW2. The story in MW3 kinda feels a little rushed and they tried to make it as action packed as possible and it feels pretty predictable. I highly doubt someone could get a grasp on what was going on in MW3 if the third one was their first experience in the Modern Warfare series. (I don't think story matters in todays FPS games anyways since the majority of FPS gamers probably go straight to the MP right?)

Battlefield 3 is still a Battlefield game, yes, but DICE made a new Frostbite 2 engine just for Battlefield 3 and made the game even better in many different ways. The gameplay and everything feels a lot more fluid than Bad Company 2 which was also more fluid than Bad Company 1. I'm not talking about framrates or anything like that. I'm just saying how Bad Company 1 felt clunky compared to Bad Company 2 and BF3. There are an assload of weapons and attachments that you can add to your guns that weren't in Bad Company 1 and 2. Bad Company 1 didn't have any attachments besides that underbarrel grenade launcher if you were Assault. Bad Company 2 had the red dot sight, the 4x sight and a few scopes for the Recon class and a little mechanism that could let you spot enemies on the scope. Battlefield 3 upped the ante with attachments for anything that could seriously transform your gun. Lets for example make your L85A2 ideal for close combat when you're rushing the objective. Well then maybe you would like to add a foregrip, a red dot sight and a suppressor? Ok, what if you wanted to get some payback on a sniper that just shot your balls off... with the same gun! Well then you could switch those attachments for a heavy barrel, bi-pod and a PKS-07(7x)! You can literally use your guns for anything. I've seen guys sniping with shotguns. They just used slug rounds and high powered scopes. I'll post the video if you wish. Battlefield is more rewarding and is even more fun with friends. I've had a lot of fun being Kirby's gunner and just obliterating all of the MCOMM defenders with his sweet flying skills. I don't know about you, but I think a 446.61 meter headshot with bulletdrop from across the map is more rewarding than a no-scope 360 headshot from the top of the stairs. So what I'm trying to say is that COD once was enjoyable, but I got sick of it and moved onto something better. A lot of people shit on BF3's story, but I liked it. It wasn't an 80's action movie like every other COD game, but it felt like a real threat that could actually happen today. I also feel that the tank operator being beheaded on camera in BF3 is more terrifying than the little girl blowing up on her first trip to Europe in MW3. If you feel like you still enjoy it, then that's fine.

I can't really disagree with you much. I thought MW3 was one of the better games in the series ( I still think COD2 was arguably the best). In regard to them changing the engine, I do not believe that they will during this generation. I really am fine with that as I love the silky smooth 60 fps. I look forward to the next gen of COD's. As you know, I am a huge fan of COD (and also a fan of BF), but I actually loved COD2, because it felt so real. It did not require jaw-dropping set pieces in every level. I have enjoyed every COD I played, but I wish that the series would tone it down a tad bit. While COD2 was by no means slow paced, it just felt authentic. Also, MW3 did change some things in regard to MP. The Strike Package feature was very fresh and very fun. I also thought how they changed the killstreaks up and let you continue to earn them without dying was sweet. IMO MW3 was the most balanced COD MP ever. Finally, I completely agree with you, BF3's story was very fun and the part where the guy got executed was way more gripping than the little girl. Finally, I preferred BFBC2's MP. I really can't say why, but it was just better. I think it had alot to do with bullet-damage and kick. Anyway, thanks for having this conversation without calling me a noob and raging at me for enjoying COD. It is not like that is all I play. I play a wide-variety of games, and in fact if I play COD mp for too long at a time even I get a bit bored. I feel like I am different than most COD "fanboys" and "noobs" as I have been a fan ever since COD 1 blew me away!