#1 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

In 2013 EA will at least publish three 3rd person shooters. For all we know, there might be even more in the pipeline. Fuse famously has undergone an artstyle change. Deadspace has yet again been repositioned away from survival horror and closer to straight forward action. Army of Two essentially always was, what Dead Space 3 strives to become.

I wouldn't find it odd, to see 3 similar looking games with similar mechanics from different publishers. Why in the hell would one company singlehandedly flood the market with pretty much the same product on its own? Are they trying to tank EA on purpose? I'm wierded out by their decision making lately. As a core gamer, I don't understand how EA often releases multiple core games within a week or two, literally competing with their own products for sales. Like SSX and Mass Effect 3 earlier this year. Or Battlefield Premium and Medal of Honor Warfighter.

Anyways - how stupid is EA to greenlight and produce and publish three games that'll cannibalize each other's sales? And each of these products got somewhat whitewashed and pushed towards the center on purpose, to be less unique and actively grey-in-grey. Do I miss a point here, or is this a uniquely dumb strategy? At a glance - the 3 embed videos below could all be for the same game. Hell - it's the exact same colortone for all three of them.

I love Dead Space, and I'll likely pick up its 3rd iteration - but do I need that many 3rd person shooters in 2013, and do they really all need to look so samey? I mean they've really made an effort to blur the lines here. Similar tone and artstyle. All featuring coop as a main selling point. I don't quite get the idea behind making all their games as deliberately exchangable as possible. In fact, I feel like all core EA games seem to adopt a very samey look. Few colors. Low saturation. High contrast. Lots of grey and brown tones. Extreme post-effect lighting effects, such as sun glares and lens flares. How does that benefit anyone?

Two out of these three products will financially fail, or at least disappoint, regardless of the product's quality. The most likely to fail is FUSE, which is a shame, because its the most interesting and fresh out of the bunch. I don't know why Army of Two exists, but there it is - apparently somebody buys those games - but will they again? I doubt it. Dead Space is a great franchise, and I've no doubt that it'll perform to EA's expectations - so why not focus on that game? Why not push for that completely different look for FUSE, as it originally has set out to be? Why not sit on Army of Two, until Dead Space 3 and FUSE are out of the door?

Oh well - I'll just play The Last of Us, and that'll be it for 3rd person shooters in 2013. Or will it? I guess only time will tell, if EA playing it safe really is as dumb as it looks to me.

#2 Posted by believer258 (11808 posts) -

Simple: I'll get Dead Space and leave the other two in the dust.

As for Fuse's stylistic change, the philosophy at EA seems to be becoming "If we throw enough shit at the wall, maybe something will stick at the Call of Duty level or above". Which is fucking stupid, but that's what it seems like to me. Or, Insomniac decided to change Fuse's look. Normally, I'd balk at the idea that EA made Insomniac change it, but looking at Insomniac's record of silly-looking games, it might be possible that EA said "We want Fuse to look more realistic".

#3 Posted by Hailinel (24421 posts) -

Who actually asked for a third Army of Two game?

#4 Posted by MB (12279 posts) -

I think you severely underestimate the public's appetite for these types of games...and I believe you're making the mistake of believing that EA is targeting you and expecting you to buy all of them. They aren't.

EA knows what they're doing, and for better or worse, just watch as each of these games goes on to sell millions.

Moderator Online
#5 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

I feel like fuse is just going to end up like that syndicate remake :(

#6 Posted by Yummylee (21546 posts) -

I'm banking on Gears of War: Judgment to sate my TPS (and not to mention TPS coop) requirements for a lot of 2013 personally. Man that game looks good, and the notion of fitting in an AI director ala L4D in the campaign sounds like a great idea, especially when paired with the scoring feature of Gears 3's arcade mode.

Online
#7 Posted by adam1808 (1455 posts) -

Is it just me or does EA slap the Frostbite 2 engine on anything it thinks isn't going to sell on its own merits?

#8 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@Yummylee said:

I'm banking on Gears of War: Judgment to sate my TPS (and not to mention TPS coop) requirements for a lot of 2013 personally. Man that game looks good, and the notion of fitting in an AI director ala L4D in the campaign sounds like a great idea, especially when paired with the scoring feature of Gears 3's arcade mode.

Exactly - there's so many other great 3rd person shooters coming in 2013, how is pushing out three of their own a winning strategy? Especially if it's not 3 distinct pitches, but pretty much the same game thrice - at least superficially. Just wierd...

...and seeing Insomniac on the losing side of this situation makes it all the more painful.

#9 Posted by Slither_Maggot (223 posts) -

@Hailinel:-I- did. Sequels are a chance for developers to improve on new and old aspects of games that either they and/or players didn't like in previous installments. The fact that they're releasing a third game at all means the franchise still has legs and there are players/fans out there for wanting another shot at it. I was a fan of both the previous games and granted they're far from perfect I have played games that are a hell of a lot worse. These games are fun in their own way and as long as players show an interest there are companies willing to take the risk of delivering on another product.

#10 Posted by Hailinel (24421 posts) -

@Slither_Maggot said:

@Hailinel:-I- did. Sequels are a chance for developers to improve on new and old aspects of games that either they and/or players didn't like in previous installments. The fact that they're releasing a third game at all means the franchise still has legs and there are players/fans out there for wanting another shot at it. I was a fan of both the previous games and granted they're far from perfect I have played games that are a hell of a lot worse. These games are fun in their own way and as long as players show an interest there are companies willing to take the risk of delivering on another product.

But aren't they already pulling the "gritty reboot" card? That seems excessive.

#11 Posted by Phatmac (5725 posts) -

Crazy to me that people are dismissing Fuse for it's art style. The game looks rad and I trust Insomniac enough for me to be open minded about Fuse. I liked the old art style for sure, but I play games for their gameplay and not for the art. I just wish people weren't as critical to Fuse. Oh well.

#12 Posted by thedj93 (1237 posts) -

in the marketing business we call that "cannibalization"

#13 Posted by pepperzz (160 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

Who actually asked for a third Army of Two game?

I did!