How EA feels about linear games

I think there is some truth there at least for me, fex. in ME series, ME2 is worst for me because its so linear and has almost zero RPG left from 1.

Linear experience is not and should not be confused with single player, but EA seem to have this problem. There is nothing at all wrong with single player games, in fact there should be a lot more of them. EA's problem is that it bolts multiplayer games onto single player games. That in effect means they don't concentrate on either and both seem a bit meh. Add to that microtransactions (where they basically rape your wallet).

The killing of Viscerals canned star wars game, along with the shitstorm that is Battlefront 2 Loot crates, and EA might be heading towards losing it's Star Wars license. Bioware has been very very lucky that it has not fallen victim (yet) to EA's Company merger (Murder) Scheme.

It's only a matter of time.

Oh and Andromeda sucks because..... Mac Walters.

Well, BF2 is very much a linear campaign as well. So is Naughty Dog games, hell they thrive on them and Horizon Zero Dawn. While yes, it's an open world, its a very set path narrative with no choice in it's story. So, the fact that linear games don't work anymore is bs. People still care about them, I just think that Viscereal Star Wars game wasn't any good and they then think that means gamers "don't care." I would take a shorter game over a 60-80 game with annoying filler. Like Origins has.

I realize that Bioware games are not linear the same way for example The Uncharted-series is, but the narrative and structure of the games have become less linear over time. Compare ME2 and ME:A and that is very apparent. This is just speculation, and although neither ME or DA falls into the exact correct category I do think there is something to gain from discussing this. Besides, not like we have that many other things to discuss that isn't just a re-hash of the last 6 months...

How is MEA less linear than ME2? The main story is very very linear in both. The only non linear aspect is side quests and squadmate loyalty missions, in both. ME1 is actually less linear than both because you could decide which main mission planet to visit first. And yet it all ends the same way anyway. So still pretty linear overall.

Open world filler quests do NOT make a game less linear for me. It just gives you meaningless crap to do in between the linear main story.

Yes, open world continues to be popular. It would have been more accurate to proclaim that gamers don't really care about story all that much. They like competing and collecting shit. Don't think that's something new though.

EA is just spouting excuses for their profit maximizing multiplayer approach. They are not wrong about the popularity of online shooters, though. It only makes sense to cater to that then. Doesn't mean there is no market for story heavy single player games anymore if that's what they meant. See the games you listed.

I couldn't care less how many uninspired cash grabs EA released if they didn't kill off all diversity in all their games. Can't they let one or two studios do something different, you know?

Just last year Uncharted 4 sold quite well and got great reviews, it was a linear game.

Executives sound like they are projecting.  Rather, THEY don't want linear games.  Anything they say should be taken with a grain...nay, a BAG of salt.  Watch the sodium though.  This year has proven they have a REALLY poor understanding of their customers...

As far as EA is concerned, they are just focused on their bottom line and that is profits. In all honesty ALL gaming companies are in the business to make money. With EA and over the years in just watching how they function, it seems like more and more with each interview or statement you hear from them just sounds like more suits trying to dictate what a game should be....and that is what is ruining the gaming culture at the moment.





I was fine with ME2 linear path...there's was a few side-missions that you could have performed and along the way maybe you pick up some equipment or weapons that you could use. I was also happy with ME3 campaign....linear, but the story was compelling, driven and focused.....I appreciate Andromeda's take on open world, but the planet hopping and then the uninspired side missions made the overall experience fall flat....



In short, i would take a linear, story focused game over an open world game with boring side quests.....with Anthem it seems EA is focusing on yet another MP first experience and SP experience second. Even Dead Space 3 with it's more action oriented gameplay had side-missions that was incredibly interesting and you was pleasantly rewarded at the end of those side missions...not to mention that those side missions had you walking down tight, narrow dark corridors which was just as compelling as the main story.....they also gave you further insight as to what was happening on the planet and the people that was there before you arrived.



Andromeda's side missions lacked any depth or interesting elements...you did them and then it was over with some xp as the reward.....

I have no idea if the game would have actually succeeded, but an Uncharted style Star Wars game sound like something that has a lot of potential. 

Yup, sometimes it sucks to not be a majority consumer.

If I had to choose between a railroaded game that won't even give you the option to turn left or right and a big open world game full of emptiness and boredom I'll ALWAYS go with the first.