KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Back in October, EA officially closed down Visceral Games and announced that it would be ‘pivoting' and handing over the studio's Star Wars game to a new team in order to ‘broaden' it. Since then, EA's CFO has shed some additional light on why this happened, claiming that the game was too linear for modern tastes.
Speaking at the Credit Suisse Technology, Media and Telecom conference (via gamesindustry.biz), EA CFO, Blake Jorgensen claimed that the publisher wanted to push gameplay “to the next level”, adding that Visceral's game felt dated due to its linearity.
“Visceral was down to about 80 people, which is sub-scale in our business. And the game they were making was actually being supported by a team in Vancouver and a team in Montreal because of that sub-scale nature. We were trying to build a game that really pushed gameplay to the next level, and as we kept reviewing the game, it continued to look like a style of gaming, a much more linear game, that people don't like as much today as they did five years ago or 10 years ago.”
It seems that EA didn't want to create a linear game that players may only go through once and then move on. With that in mind, it seems odd that EA made a big deal about bringing Amy Hennig on board several years ago. Hennig is famous for directing the original Uncharted trilogy, which are some of the most loved linear adventure games of recent years. Beyond that, Visceral Studios made a big name for itself with Dead Space, which was also a somewhat linear experience that told an excellent story.
Jorgensen ended his comments on Visceral by saying: “I'm a believer in sunk costs. You've got to cut the bridge when you realize you can't really make a lot of money on something, so that's the decision we made.”
KitGuru Says: As we've heard, there were plenty of other issues going on behind the scenes at Visceral, so the studio's focus on linear game design wasn't the only reason for its closure. However, it is sad to hear that EA just doesn't see linear story-focused games as being a worthy investment these days.
So EA doesn’t want linear games, can’t make open world games anymore, and makes it fps games the same as a Vegas Casino. Yup, CEOs definitely know what they’re doing….
“We were trying to build a game that really pushed gameplay to the next level”
Clearly shown with Battlefront by making another run-and-gun shooter with essentially the same mechanics of Halo, a 16 year old game. Or Need For Speed: Burnout Revenge…
Has this muppet never heard of Uncharted, Last Of Us, Horizon Zero Dawn, Mario Odyssey, Cuphead, Nioh, Wolfenstein, Doom, etc, etc.
What he really means is that those types of games take more time, care and effort than a quick cash-in sandbox-as-a-service game full of microtransactions and gambling mechanics.
well i guess it is hard to shoehorn microtransactions into linear games…
Don’t make it fucking open world.. DONT DO IT… NO!… NO!!!!!
Most of us have always hated those games that basically put you on a single path form start to finish which as you put it linear in nature. I myself like a game that has a vast story line and will allow you to choose several different paths to get to the end of the game. Even though I do like games like Battle field or COD they put you on a set path and of you venture out of the area even a little you will be warned to go back. If that is one of the things that make games somewhat linear then yes I hate having to stay on the beaten path so to speak.
Lots of story and ways to play the game so you can go and explore the area is a good thing for sure. Good replay value is also a good thing.
I am thinking EA just wants to find ways to add things like micro transactions and loot boxes so they can rake in the cash from all of that crap.
Horizon, Mario, Cuphead and Nioh are more open experiences which Is what I think Jorgensen is getting at, something that’s a more open experience that’s full of exploration. But saying that, Uncharted and the Last of Us had secret collectibles that would require you to explore the small area you’re in and Doom cracked that up to 11 letting you play tiny sections of maps from Doom 1 and 2 and unlocking them for full play 🙂
There’s no excuse here, it was just a move so they can make changes that will squeeze more money out of players like you said. “What!? A Linear experience that tells a story? You can’t lock that behind lootbox’s, we’re shutting you down!”
I only ever see complaints about open world games nowadays and everyone loves a great experience whether it’s a linear game or not. It’s just more proof that AAA devs have no idea how to make games anymore and only know how to make money
They just wanted more ways to make money.
I don’t know who “Most of us” is supposed to be. The gaming community at large would disagree as the vast majority of the beloved memorable games are pretty linear.
The correct read on “too linear” here is indeed not that it was going to be on-rails or such, but that a singleplayer game can’t be monetized to a pulp as much as games-as-a-service. They only want to pass GaaS, and we’re tired of their shitty farts 🙂