Reg Wright
Club Supporter
I agree with the critics that gameplay is a key component of the game. However, I do not believe 2003 had that poor gameplay - i quite enjoyed it.
However, I don't think its fair to criticize what others want in a game. If they want to plead the Estonian first division, so be it. If they want well-rendered teeth, so be it. If they want mudstains and weather, so be it. If Raul's ring gets them worked up, all the better. I think these small details - from arenas, to player detail to chants, to accurate jerseys, to good commentary are the sum of the parts that makes a good game.
What sets FIFA apart from its competitors is depth, license and marketing savvy. People here argue endlessly about gameplay, but I would suspect the average player is very concerned about the number of teams, kits, and so on. If I were EA, I'd milk the license and depth of teams for all it were worth - it just makes good business sense. If i'm to believe what is said here, these other games (WE7/peS is it?) are the be-all end-all of football. Fine for them. But I would ask why I can't buy these games and further, why I've never heard of them, and why those companies have not invested the energy in depth, licensing, etc. EA is not stupid. It is a marketing juggernaut, and I'd reckon - like it or not - that they are more intuitive about what video game players want then the bulk of here. Remember: we are only the rabid minority. I enjoy countless EA games like MADDEN, nhl ad NBA, but never frequent fanboys sites like these. I wonder what we represent as a sliver on the pie chart?
Anyway, this year the commentary will be more inuitive, we will get some South American teams at long last, there will be more ways to score goals, the heading bug will be a thing of the past, the creation centre will certainly have to be better ... seems to me like good reason to reserve our cynicism until we see it. Personally, I'd donate a testicle to science before I'd miss picking it up in October. Then in January I'll by the Euro 2004 version and if they made a World Youth Cup I'd buy that too.
However, I don't think its fair to criticize what others want in a game. If they want to plead the Estonian first division, so be it. If they want well-rendered teeth, so be it. If they want mudstains and weather, so be it. If Raul's ring gets them worked up, all the better. I think these small details - from arenas, to player detail to chants, to accurate jerseys, to good commentary are the sum of the parts that makes a good game.
What sets FIFA apart from its competitors is depth, license and marketing savvy. People here argue endlessly about gameplay, but I would suspect the average player is very concerned about the number of teams, kits, and so on. If I were EA, I'd milk the license and depth of teams for all it were worth - it just makes good business sense. If i'm to believe what is said here, these other games (WE7/peS is it?) are the be-all end-all of football. Fine for them. But I would ask why I can't buy these games and further, why I've never heard of them, and why those companies have not invested the energy in depth, licensing, etc. EA is not stupid. It is a marketing juggernaut, and I'd reckon - like it or not - that they are more intuitive about what video game players want then the bulk of here. Remember: we are only the rabid minority. I enjoy countless EA games like MADDEN, nhl ad NBA, but never frequent fanboys sites like these. I wonder what we represent as a sliver on the pie chart?
Anyway, this year the commentary will be more inuitive, we will get some South American teams at long last, there will be more ways to score goals, the heading bug will be a thing of the past, the creation centre will certainly have to be better ... seems to me like good reason to reserve our cynicism until we see it. Personally, I'd donate a testicle to science before I'd miss picking it up in October. Then in January I'll by the Euro 2004 version and if they made a World Youth Cup I'd buy that too.
