Talk:EA

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion[edit]

This is not relevant or interesting. Delete it. Feel free to try and prove me (us?) wrong by improving the quality of the thing, but I doubt it. Don't remove the deletion tag without at least trying to justify the article's existence here in the talk page. --HK (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue against its deletion now, what with EA continually acquiring IPs that either connect to or are actually part of the shared interests of /tg. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Command & Conquer, Star Wars, Hellgate: London, The Bard's Tale, & Kingdoms of Amalur. Honestly they would have to actually buy a D'n'D license or a GW license to actively increase their relevence at this point. The Greater Meh (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
They screwed up Warhammer Online, which is a sin or grudge that every fa/tg/uy must knew.--TheSpoilerHeretic (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Groggarioth particularly, to the point where I'm more than willing to write up a much more /tg/-relevant article about EA in light of his and TSH's comments - it's only fair, given the aforementioned acquisitions (though I WILL make an effort to avoid delving TOO MUCH into /v/ territory. My question is, if we do this, would it be valid to have other (likely short and to the point) articles on other /tg/-related video game publishers as well? --LGX-000 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
As an additional note on that latter question: if we have Bioware, then why not EA?
I will gladly agree, however, that the article as it stood prior to deletion (and now that it's been "unblanked" suddenly) is unambiguously shit-tier, and I plan to fix that. --LGX-000 (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's stay off that slippery slope. We're already stretching ourselves thin with things of dubious relevance to /tg/ as it is, we don't need any more articles on tertiary subjects. Literally every single one of the IPs (save for Warhammer, and thus far the good Warhammer games, 40k or otherwise, are best considered flukes since GW doesn't care about their quality in the first place) listed by Groggarioth is relevant only in terms of homebrew, and if we let those in we may as well describe everything because if it exists I'm sure someone has homebrewed it. The line must be drawn somewhere. --Newerfag (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Literally the only point I'd argue is that the Dragon Age licensed tabletop RPG is actually quite rad. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is GW does care about the quality, to an extent. They break up there IP into a bunch of little licenses, and they sell them to everyone. The more valuable the license, the more picky they are with who gets it. [1]--Emerald Claw (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay I think I may have made my point poorly. EA have aquired, and then destroyed, the IPs, the series, the franchises that inspire people to start gaming groups. It's not the same for everyone, but I was inspired to get into D'n'D after I played Neverwinter Nights 1 (Bioware), and read The Bard's Tale books and a good chunk of David Gemell's Drenai series sometime in the late 2000's, I couldn't find a group at the time because I was an antisocial little troll, and that's probably not just my experience. Ask around your groups, see how many people have been inspired (might be the wrong word, but hey-ho) to give rolling dice a shot because of something like Ultima, KOTOR, Dragon Age, Fallout 1,2 & NV, The Bard's Tale, or were persauded by someone they knew getting inspired by these things.
These inspirations are important to keeping the game going during bleaker times, getting new blood into the gaming groups, and EA has destroyed either the studios responsible, or the series themselves in their ineptitude, greed, or disconnect from what their customer base wants.
The article shouldn't be a hate piece on EA, that much I'm sure of, but it should be something about these series that EA has destroyed, the things EA has taken away and how they did it, about how much has been lost to the clutching paws of fiscal greed and the base misunderstanding of what a good chunk of EA's customer base actually wants. Because, like it or not, EA is most likely the biggest mainstream AAA publisher of Fantasy RPGs. That, in and of itself, should make EA important to /tg. The Greater Meh (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Secondly, it's a sad day when you say homebrew isn't important/relevent to our interests. We are /tg, our motto is "We get shit done." and we get shit done via homebrews, meatbread, and internet comedy (which mostly just tragedy, but with more fat people and penies) 20:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Pages about the actual homebrews are fine. Pages about the series are questionably so and should only feature information on how they are connected to the homebrews (unless they directly use RPG mechanics and/or licenses, as is the case in Baldur's Gate), and pages about the developer who bought said series are a distraction at best and utterly irrelevant at worst. All your talk about the virtues of homebrews falls flat on its face when everything you make is about the series the homebrews are derived from and not the homebrews themselves; if people wish to learn about their inspirations, we can just link the Wikipedia pages that are relevant instead of trying (and failing) to do everything ourselves. I've noted this before and will gladly note it again: the emphasis on that phrase should be "/tg/ gets shit done". As in, it's 90% stuff that's started and never finished due to lack of interest and attention spans slightly better than that of an average housefly. So I suggest you focus on making/fleshing out the pages pertaining to the homebrews and leave EA behind with /v/ where it belongs. (And just for the record, your personal experience does not justify a page- I could find a dozen people who had never even heard of those games until /tg/ recommended them for every person who was first lured onto /tg/ via those games.)--Newerfag (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
At a second glance and reading all of the commentary following my first reply, Newer's more or less right, really. It's probably for the best that we leave it then, given that it's not relevant enough to warrant its own article, and shoehorning mentions into others would turn into derailing at best and indulging a raging hateboner at worst. --LGX-000 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd interject that if we have Blizzard, we can have this. Tactical Mehren (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And I'd counter by saying we shouldn't have that either. --Newerfag (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well we have both, among other things, so we gotta keep consistency now. Tactical Mehren (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)