There isn't much orginality anymore especially the big companies. EA made many original games especially pre Playstation and in the old PC days.

EA needs to grow to keep the stock price going therefore they will keep buying companies.

But that doesn't really concern me if the people don't like to work with EA they will leave and found new dev teams. Happens many times before e.g. Lionhead or Infinity Ward.

I was a big fan of Battle For Middle Earth, but that's obviously not quite original (movie property, and based off the CnC Generals Engine). Still, both BFME1 & BFME2 were pretty unique for RTS games, and very good for games based off of books/movies.

Aren't they currently developing Army of Two?

yes they do

I loved the preview for that game in EGM. And I don't even like shooter/FPS games on consoles. The concept is just neat.

Army of Two does look pretty cool, but I wouldn't say it is very original. Co-op shooters are the new "in" thing thanks to Gears of War. Army of Two will probably just be a quick cash-in on this new fad.

From what I've read, the co-op in Army of Two is so entwined with the gameplay that if your character stops to take a whizz, the other character holds his dick for him.

Creating new IPs can be risky ventures. Smaller companies (like EA was 15 years ago) can afford to take those risks. Bigger companies (like EA now) cannot, so they have to rely on familiarity and things that are not too risky.

I actually think that's BS. They have a ton of money from their hit franchises that they can use to take some risks with some new stuff. If the small companies new game bombs, they go under. If EA's does their profits just shrink a bit, and they can make it right back with another derivative, licensed quick cash in game.

They just don't care about being innovative, they just care about maximizing profits, and as such they attract game designers of the same vein.

Edit: Plus, that logic ignores that you can innovate with in Franchises, rather than crapping out yearly games that offer pretty much nothing new, or making nearly every licencesed game either an action beat em up or a GTA clone.

Nintendo is a prime example of doing this as their series tend to offer a lot new and come out much less often.

How could they be "in" due to a game that came out two weeks ago?

FWIW, the first console co-op FPS I ever played was Halo or Halo 2. Unreal on the PC had co-op (in 1998) and I'm sure other games had it as well.

Thankfully, this is now less of a risk as you can now sell your small games to Xbox 360 users, PS3 users and, if you've got a solid track record, make the game for the PSP or the NDS.

Perfect Dark on the N64 had co-op as well.

I wouldn't really go this way, because then what exactly is original? Most every game is derivative of something else. I mean there was nothing like Katamari before that game came out, but most games seem to just improve on an earlier concept. Guitar Hero is very fun, mainly because of the controller, but it is still a beatmani game. Beyong Good and Evil was awesome, but it was very zelda like. Remember the zillion platform games in the SNES and Genesis games?

Now of course I think Guitar Hero and Beyong Good and Evil were original games. My point is, I wouldn't say originality can be determined just through the premise. Rise of Nations could be seen as just another RTS if that was the case, but they took something tried and true and improved upon it in great ways. Same for something like Viewtiful Joe, which someone could say it "just another platformer".

Yeah I know other games have had co-op since the '90s. The Tom Clancy Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games have always had co-op too.

Gears of War is the first "huge killer app system seller" game to make co-op really popular IMO. Halo had co-op only in multiplayer. The entire game of Gears (single or multiplayer) is based on co-op.

If Army of Two came out a year or two down the line, then I wouldn't have thought anything about it, but with the game coming out right on the heels of Gears, it just seems like a "me too" game.

The problem is it's tough to copy a game that just came out when games are in development for a year or more, and they wouldn't have known the co-op part of Gears is so big.

Plus, from what i've read (having not played Gears yet) it seems like the co-op is a lot more integral to Army of Two than gears as it is purely a two person co-op game, while Gears is more of a traditional FPS (emphasis on cover aside) and you just have a squad with you at most times (like Halo) rather than 1 partner etc.

Agreed, that's what made me so interested. The game is really about 2 guys. In single-player mode the other player will be AI controlled.

BTW In the last EGM rumor mill, after taking a potshot at EA for making too many licensed games, they point out that a new Road Rash and a new Desert Strike are rumored to be in production at EA - EA original franchises.

Oh, I would love a new Strike game. I hope they keep an overhead perspective (as in Nuclear Strike) rather than going first- or third-person. I imagine they'll let you play it from behind or inside the chopper if you want to, but I hope they keep overhead as an option.

A new Road Rash would be nice as well.

Here's a bump for you pixy

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061201-8339.html

Actually, that I would chalk up to EA getting lazy with their franchised games, not a lack of originality. So many people have complained (and rightly so) about the crap EA is pulling on the 360 that it is starting to tarnish their image.

Taken from that link:

An EA representative says "Across the portfolio, EA always strives to drive innovation and quality into its titles."



I would hate to see how much more crappy some of their crappy games would have turned out if they were not striving for quality.

I'm addicted to NHL '07 for the 360. I love it. I've never been able to get into Sega's games.