I remember seeing the original post on Kotaku a few weeks back, and its kind of cool to see. Basically, in an EA presentation they posted a compilation of review scores based off Metacritic by each publisher. Next-Gen has composed a more detailed look over the last couple years using Game Rankings. Kind of cool to see, although the results aren't too surprising.

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option...1&limitstart=0



This graph is kind of cool to see too, as you see the number of titles put out in 2007.



Which by Next-Gen's analysis, makes looking Vivendi/Activision and EA's attempt to land Take Two interesting.

I guess God of War, Ratchet and Clank, and Jak and Daxter really covered up those horrible 989 Studios/Sony Sport games.

Edit: Oh, that's mostly current stuff anyhow, Gamerankings for older games isn't so up to date.

Dont forget 2 excellent Syphon Filter games on PSP

I was hoping this would be a graph of averages for various game review magazines and websites. Then you could see who is really biased.

Who cares who publishes the games? I care about who develops them. That's like caring about what studios put out a movie vs. what director/writer/etc.

A lot of people apparently, considering how much hate people have for EA here. That and publishers, like studios, often have a lot of pull when it comes to games and developers under their wing. Just like FOX can force certain people to be cast or directors to make cuts to their films, EA can push for a a quicker release on a game that needs more development time.

FUCKING THANK YOU.

The Bus = Quality

Funny.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=514243

Oh, burn. You need to try a little (a lot) harder.

EA has such a wonderful track record with developers:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237560
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=245991

Try a lot harder for what? I'm just pointing out that it certainly seems like you (and most everyone else) care about the publisher contrary to what you you agreed with The Bus on. Weren't you the one that also started the "Name an original EA franchise" thread a couple years back too?

Don't those links just back up the idea that the publisher (EA specifically in this case) matters?

I don't even care about EA and enjoy a lot of their games so I'm not trying to bash them. Maybe i'm missing something here

There's a vast difference between EA actually publishing another studio's game (which I don't think they do, so it's a probably moot point) versus EA buying up development studios and destroying them and their franchises from the inside out. If EA simply offered to publish Bioware's games, there'd probably be few problems with it. EA buying Bioware is a completely different scenario.

I think all the big publishers, particularly in the US, follow or are trying to follow the studio model where they own or have purchased independent developers. Activision owns Neversoft and Infinity Ward, Take Two has Irrational and Rockstar, Vivendi with Sierra and Blizzard (now merged, but still). Ubisoft and Midway have their own studios. Sure there are lots of independent studios that might be entirely under the finger of their publishers, but even then it would be naive to say the publishers don't have some sort of pull on getting games out, especially when they're often responsible for a lot of funding and marketing of said games.

Considering the large number of high profile developers and games that are coming from a studio owned by a major publisher, i think it's pretty relevant.

I still think Black Box (skate) and Maxis (sims/spore) still make good games.

You guys also need to remember the original teams for the companies that got bought out probably move on to another company or form new companies for themselves.