Ea

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

In all fairness, I think the best thing that could happen to our industry would be for EA to somehow disappear off the face of the planet.

And I’m being serious…….

[Anonymous]

Shouldnt this thread be entitled ‘Yet another generic EA bashing thread’?

Whether or not you have some fantastic impression about what ‘good’ games are, the truth remains that EA are offering the public what they want, and hence they are getting the sales. Yes, they are asking people to work a million and one hours, and yes, anyone capable of developing game code could get twice as much for half the hours somewhere else, but they choose not to. Yes, some elitist/purist gamers who want innovation and gameplay might not be attracted to their products, but the truth is the vast majority of people who are targetted by EA dont give a damn about those things. And EA have realised this. Why cant we?

Dave

[Anonymous]

And EA have realised this. Why cant we?[/quote:f6d6f2a0f2]
??
We have Dave. Doesn’t mean we have to be happy about it.

[Anonymous]

Look at the likes of Sony’s Eyetoy or Singstar – thats really giving the people what they want without killing the dev staff to get the products out.

Yes it is another EA thread – thats why I want a sticky so we dont keep our comments in one place.

Some more:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2005-01-26&res=l

[Anonymous]

Just because EA are making money by selling to the mass market doesn’t mean we have to stop disliking them. Just because we dislike them doesn’t mean we don’t realise that they are doing what they do well.

We do realise that.

But I still have no respect for them, the main reason being the way they apparently treat their employees, and the way they see buying out competition as the best and quickest way to gain marketshare.

The “grunts” in EA I respect, the people who make the big decisions I don’t respect. Simple as that. I’m not disputing that they make money or are successful.

Edit: Kyoto…..that Penny Arcade strip sums up my feelings exactly! :D

[Anonymous]

EA are a huge international company, and they play by the rules that guide huge international companies, and unless you accept the way they make their decisions, your never going to get to the point to make those decisions yourself.

EA have done many a good thing aswell. And, despite some views, have released a huge number of very good games. And, what they never seem to get credit for, they have been instrumental in bringing games to the masses, and without that, none of us would have a raelistic opportunity to be involved in the industry.

So rather then just bashing them for what you think they should be like (out of business), why not analyse and build on what they have done well?

[Anonymous]

Dave, how many people think, “Oh, aren’t Microsoft great. They are a huge company and have so much money. They buy out small companies that do something good, so they can make more money from it. Wow, what a great company!”
No, everyone says, “Microsoft…bah! Hate them money grabbing b******s!”

In video games, EA are on that level. Why should we treat them any different??

No one likes the favourite, you always root for the under-dog.

I know what EA are and have done. I don’t agree that they have made “a huge number of very good games”. They have released a few and then they have driven the franchise into the ground with release after release of expansions for them. And yet because of their aggressive marketing, EA are what gets advertised while smaller companies don’t have the revenue to go public like them and thus suffer.
I’ve been to their offices, I know some of their employees and I don’t like what they stand for. Whenever I mention jobs the guys I know ask for details.
I don’t bash for what I think they should be, I bash for what they are.

[Anonymous]

I really need a good rant today, thanks for this Ivan :)
Keep it coming

[Anonymous]

EA have made good games? Yes.
EA have brought gaming to the mass market? I dispute that.

By mass market are you referring to the growth in the games industry, growing sales, adults playing more games etc?

That has nothing to do with EA in my view, thats to do with people who played games as kids when it was all beginning(ie: NES days) growing up and continuing to play games, and then their kids playing games.

I don’t see how EA have been so influential in games becoming mass market, it was a natural step in my opinion. Young gamers growing up, having more money to buy games with and also passing the baton onto their kids, so to speak.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Nooptical

To be honest, there is no question here, EA have brought gaming to the massmarket, maybe not as much here, but in the states where you have Madden NFL and Ice Hockey/Baseball/Basketball and soccer EA have publishing rights for all of them and develop most of them also.

Wheter or not EA are healthy for the more ‘gamer’ side of the gaming industry is undecided. They simply and effectivly amass and prduce the most ‘pick up and play’ games of any of the other companies put together.

If EA dissapered from the market, as such I imagine the state of the indusrty would plummit. With so many franchises singled out as EA, loosing the Name would mean loosing the people and ofcourse interest in the games indusrty. Even the most uneducated games enthuasiast will buy an EA game on sight, most noticably Fifa, imagine if Fifa had a new developer or publisher, lets say Konami. Johnny EA enthuasiast comes in and spots Fifa, “hmmmm Konami, what the hell are they? Oh look theres Pro Evo 5 from EA!, excellent”

You know its true.

[Anonymous]

Even the most uneducated games enthuasiast will buy an EA game on sight[/quote:3ee8418270]
Don’t you mean only the uneduated here ?? Its parents and kids that buy the likes of HP and Bond expecting a good game. I’d never buy them, being educated, knowing they’re going to be crap.

And I don’t think Fifa needs EA’s endorsement anymore. Fifa is a brand on its only, and its a great example of a franchise that EA have let slip. They’ve tried to pull it back now, but i think the moajorit of educated gamers prefer Pro Evo today.

Uneducated games + mass marketed good = sales for EA.

Who knows what would happen if the hypothetical situation of EA disappearring happened. You really think people would just stop buying games?? That ludicrous, its become part of society now. They’d just buy different games.

Yes, they sell millions and millions of copies. So what ?? In my opinion they have still dropped their game standard and because they, the biggest company have done it, its seen as acceptable by the public and so its becoming common-place.

Their greed has grown…you know THATS true.

[Anonymous]

EA have brought gaming to the massmarket, maybe not as much here, but in the states where you have Madden NFL and Ice Hockey/Baseball/Basketball and soccer EA have publishing rights for all of them and develop most of them also.[/quote:3294918859]

So are you saying that NO other company could have bought the licenses and creatde these franchises in the absence of EA?

If EA dissapered from the market, as such I imagine the state of the indusrty would plummit. With so many franchises singled out as EA, loosing the Name would mean loosing the people and of course interest in the games indusrty[/quote:3294918859]

Wouldn’t happen in my opinion. A kid doesn’t buy Fifa because its made by EA, its because it Fifa 2005.
A kid doesn’t buy Harry Potter because of EA, its because its Harry Potter.
A kid doesn’t buy Need for Speed: Underground because its EA, its because its Need for Speed: Underground.

You get my point…. ;)

The only people who might really consider the developer of a game when they buy are knowlegable gamers, who know about developers track records.
Mass market consumers don’t go by developers or publishers, they go by brands and franchises they know. And to be honest just because EA bought licenses to these brands doesn’t mean that if it wasn’t for them there would be no mass market for games. Someone else would have done it instead.
And maybe that someone else would be just as inconsiderate to their employees as EA, or maybe they wouldn’t be, we will never know.

My point is, games becoming mass market would have happened anyway.

in Kim Jong il voice:
It was inevitable

[Anonymous]

Just because EA are making money by selling to the mass market doesn’t mean we have to stop disliking them.[/quote:95500f475d]
Part of the reason that people here do dislike EA is because they are selling to the mass market. They invest their budget in licencing and IP, not in pure development. This does trade creativity and innovation for brand awareness, there’s no doubt. But that’s what the mass market wants. Screw gameplay, screw originality and screw innovation, the mass market wants to play Manchester United and win stuff with famous players.

As game developers, it is our job to create a positive end user experience for those that buy the game, not satisfy our own whims as to what a good game is. We have to analyse what the public want and give it to them.

the people who make the big decisions I don’t respect[/quote:95500f475d]
Those people are high calibre businessmen doing exactly what high calibre businessmen do in market dominant positions. They make money and squeeze out as much of the opposition as possible. Whether you like it or not, thats the way life, not just EA, works.

Dave, how many people think, “Oh, aren’t Microsoft great. They are a huge company and have so much money. They buy out small companies that do something good so they can make more money from it. Wow, what a great company!”[/quote:95500f475d]
The shareholders. And they are the only people that count.

That has nothing to do with EA in my view, thats to do with people who played games as kids when it was all beginning(ie: NES days) growing up and continuing to play games, and then their kids playing games.[/quote:95500f475d]
So once a generation has passed, there is no need for marketing? How quicky do you think Coke would lose its share of the market if they stopped advertising and sponsoring things? EA get their products on the TV, and that is critical in developing and maintaining a consumer desire for your products.

I’d never buy them, being educated, knowing they’re going to be crap.[/quote:95500f475d]
That sounds like something a Trinity student would say.

Who knows what would happen if the hypothetical situation of EA disappearring happened. [/quote:95500f475d]
Another company, maybe Ubisoft (just to spite Damien) would quickly take their place as the monolithic evil faceless nasty game producing entity.

Dave

[Anonymous]

So are you saying that NO other company could have bought the licenses and creatde these franchises in the absence of EA?
[/quote:2be3b82431]

I am indeed, if you have an alternative company with the financial resources and indeed the man power then let me know :P

As for EA not needing to be on a box anymore? I bet you, if it were removed there would be a decrease in sales on behalf of the brand in which EA endorses. You wouldn’t belive the amount of people I know who will buy a game on the sole belief that just because “EA” is on the box that the game is good… then again the same can be said of me and Treasure.

[Anonymous]

That sounds like something a Trinity student would say[/quote:09b5d88b4b]
No, its just a fact. The only EA games I have got in the past 5 years ( and they were gifts ) are MOH ( thought it was was poor ) NHL 2002, ( enjoyed for a while ), and have played NHL 2005 ( very poor compared to 2002. All the others I read reviews for and they’ve been slated.

Another company, maybe Ubisoft (just to spite Damien) would quickly take their place as the monolithic evil faceless nasty game producing entity[/quote:09b5d88b4b]
Ah, but thats a hypothetical situation that would never happen :)

We all need someone to dislike and EA are just the easy targets in video games :)

[Anonymous]

Those people are high calibre businessmen doing exactly what high calibre businessmen do in market dominant positions. They make money and squeeze out as much of the opposition as possible. Whether you like it or not, thats the way life, not just EA, works.[/quote:57e3aac96e]

That doesn’t mean we should stop not liking EA, or stop voicing our opinions on them. Just because they are doing what any other corporation does doesn’t mean we should just accept it.

I have no problem with EA making money, or being “mass market”, doesn’t bother me at all really, once there are other smaller(and bigger), talented developers out there. What I don’t like is how they consider their employees to be nothing but a resource to be bled dry and then discarded. Its not like EA have a lack of finances to reward their employees for the hard work they do.
The sooner the employees band together and create a union the better, even if EA don’t allow unions. What are they going to do? Sack all their employees? I don’t think so. If only the grunts would form a union then they would have some degree of power over the fatcats at the top. The only way to get their attention is to lighten their wallets.

EA are the w*nkers of this industry, everyone knows it. But that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it.

[Anonymous]

No, everyone says, “Microsoft…bah! Hate them money grabbing b******s!”[/quote:7d24586053]

As omen has touched on, this debate is almost exactly analogous to what people say about Microsoft.

There are a large number of parallels between EA and MS business strategies. Both companies frequently make decisions for financial reasons first, and ‘it’s the right way to do things’ second.

Both are frequently accused of growing their businesses by clever aquisitions, copying and marketing rivals’ innovations, and dubious business practices. Rather than producing the flat out ‘better game’ (from a playability perspective) or ‘better operating system’ from a technical perspective.

The specifics are, of course, debatable, but pretty much all those things people on this forum guys criticise EA about, a Linux user might accuse Microsoft of.

What I don’t like is how they consider their employees to be nothing but a resource to be bled dry and then discarded.[/quote:7d24586053]

If you read about how MS works it’s staff you’ll find many parallels.

So…
You might want to think twice about referring to people that buy EA games as being “uneducated”, considering you are all (as gamers) almost certainly running Windows.

It does something you need it to do, and in the end of the day, as an end user, you don’t care much about how the product was produced, and you don’t really care about business practices or staffing issues behind it.

This is much the same as the way an end user, who wants to play the latest NFL game, buys it from EA.

You just want to play games on your computer.
They just want to see their favourite team.

So, perhaps think twice before referring to gamers who buy EA as uneducated, you uneducated windows users.
:-)

Don’t you mean only the uneduated here ?? Its parents and kids that buy the likes of HP and Bond expecting a good game. I’d never buy them, being educated, knowing they’re going to be crap.[/quote:7d24586053]

Just for the record, I’m more making a point about the EA debate than expressing a position on Windows etc. I amn’t actually an angry linux user :-)

[Anonymous]

If you read about how MS works it’s staff you’ll find many parallels.[/quote:19c1b19c12]
Really?
Anyone I’ve heard of working for MS has said its really good and they treat you really well.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure that MS has won quite a lot of “Best Places to Work” awards over the years.
Microsoft Ireland anyway.

I have been to their offices and they seem like very nice enviroments to work in(with games and stuff to play also). Plus they pay well.

I’m pretty sure MS don’t expect their employees to work hours(working in the night, 7 days a week) which any normal doctor and/or psychologist would tell you is very unhealthy and not even pay them for it.

[Anonymous]

Nooptical, you are aware that unrewarded crunch time is not unique to EA, right? That it is, in fact, endemic in the games industry? EA isn’t even the worst offender apparently…

Imagine being scheduled for work for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for a whole year… in advance. Now that’s just evil, and it’s not an EA story – it’s not even a publisher story…

[Anonymous]

EA isn’t even the worst offender apparently[/quote:69ce0a774e] They’ve just had the most public quotes :)

Although they do seem to be pretty nice about time off at the end of projects.
EA’s office is really sweet too, the one in Chertsey has a bar, a games room, a games library, a pop-corn machine, a lake with swans, bloody nice place.

[Anonymous]

Really?
Anyone I’ve heard of working for MS has said its really good and they treat you really well.[/quote:c82c8870dd]
etc

To clarify, I’m not saying microsoft and EA have treat their staff the same. Afaik though, it’s not unusual for certain microsoft teams to work large amounts of overtime, and long hours, for protracted periods of time.

I can’t find a source for that, I suspect I came across it in some project management books I’ve read – i’ll dig sources up if I can.
Perhaps I was mistaken :)

It does seem like microsoft staff are overall happier than EA staff, certainly from recent coverage of the EA issue.

I have been to their offices and they seem like very nice enviroments to work in(with games and stuff to play also). Plus they pay well.[/quote:c82c8870dd]

I was under the impression EA’s pay was ok too, no? (if you don’t divide it by the hours worked, anyway… well, MS employees work long hours too).

And another thing, and don’t kill me here, but aren’t *some* of EA’s staff are happy enough with the hours?
Ok – not the death march figures like “12 hours a day, 6 days a week for a whole year”, but there’s a certain aspect to the games industry where young (stupid) developers are perfectly happy to be exploited.

Not saying that this is good, but just saying that some EA employees would say they were happy to do it, much like MS employees.

Anyone I’ve heard of working for MS has said its really good and they treat you really well.[/quote:c82c8870dd]

See:
http://snipurl.com/cfnp
for a quite positive experience of work in EA (again I’m not saying EA is a good place to work for – I’m just trying to balance the arguement a little).

Swings and roundabouts.
Anyway, my main point wasn’t about whether EA exploit their work force, it was that the end users dont care, just the same as end users dont care anywhere, and we can’t call them uneducated as a result, without taking a look at our own behaviour.
I could have perhaps built a better case on Nike runners or something.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty sure that MS has won quite a lot of “Best Places to Work” awards over the years.[/quote:b4885781d4]

I wouldn’t trust too much that kind of recognition… In 2003, EA was elected “9th best company to work for”. They shout it loudly on http://www.eaukstudio.com/ea.asp, in “Is EA for me” section.

[Anonymous]

I was under the impression EA’s pay was ok too, no?[/quote:dbc612bc0c]
I’m on about one or 2K less than people who had the exact same qualifications working in EA. However, EA is in London, therefore my cost of living is a lot cheaper and I think I’m probably better off. In saying that, I know someone got a job with another company in Newcastle and they were paying just over half what i’m on.

See:
http://snipurl.com/cfnp
for a quite positive experience of work in EA [/quote:dbc612bc0c]
I didn’t read it, just scanned it and it just looked like an academic report to me. An academic isn’t going to say anything bad about a company that gave them their time. Plus, I didn’t actually see anywhere it saying anything about it being a good place to work but I did see constant references to “must be dedicated”, “hard work is required” but again, I only scanned it.

[Anonymous]

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20050131/howie_01.shtml

[Anonymous]

Plenty of potential to read between the lines in the academic report too though.

Dave

[Anonymous]

Nooptical, you are aware that unrewarded crunch time is not unique to EA, right? That it is, in fact, endemic in the games industry? EA isn’t even the worst offender apparently…[/quote:5440c91a3d]

Of course, I’ve done the crunch whilst working for Codemasters. And I didn’t mind doing it, seeing as the management at Codemasters seemed to at least have some genuine concern for the well being of their employees during this time. It would appear from reading about EA that they couldn’t give a toss about their employees, they work the crunch and if they end up losing employees due to stress, bad health etc then they seem to think, bah, who cares we can get someone else.

Also, I’m under the impression that EA employees seem to work crunch time far more than other games developers due to the fact that they churn out game after game all year, so once you ship one project you are put on another, which, chances are is at the crunch stage. And this goes on and on.

[Anonymous]

you should read the academic report posted above by feral as it gives a very good insight into how EA works….

Personally I can understand where they are coming from a lot more clearly having read it, as (having worked for both Microsoft & Intel) I can tell you that this is pretty much a standard attitude of American corporations – and by that I mean the ‘ruthless meritocracy’. They expect a lot of hard work and reward you very well as a result. It’s all too easy to see how this could bleed into an expectation of crunchtime

[Anonymous]

Would you say then that its more an american thing than an ea thing with the horror crunch time stories that go anbout?
Are non-US companies less demanding come crunch time to work for then ?

[Anonymous]

no, crunch time is definitely a games-industry wide phenomenon… but the attitude of expecting you to work really hard but be well rewarded for it come review time is an American work ethic thing, I suspect

For example, during yearly reviews in Intel every manager and employee gets graded on their performance for the year, and the results plotted on a curve. Top 5% get promoted; next 10% get extra pay & stock; majority 70% get an index-linked pay increase (and possibly stock depending on division and company performance); next 10% get a gentle admonishment, index-linked pay increase (but no stock bonus) and pointers to do better; last 5% get a performance warning…. get two of these in a row and you’re out…

Like the man said – ruthless meritocracy. It rewards those who work and perform well, and trims off deadwood without mercy. And like EA, both Microsoft and Intel are brutally honest places to work. Not the places to be for shrinking violets…

You also have to bear in mind, that American corporations treat their staff very well in terms of bonuses, all that benfit-in-kind stuff, training and personal development, etc. Plus, they offer a lot of stability and predictable career paths – not things to be taken lightly in a what’s a very volatile industry

[Anonymous]

Maybe I’m just biased against the corporate culture(I used to work for Intel also).

Maybe I also don’t like seeing games development being turned into a factory production line process. It should be a creative , evolving process.
I have no problem putting in the extra effort for a project that I feel I am a real part of, something that I really want to be a success. But NFL Madden 2024 isn’t my idea of such a project.

Its not companies like EA that are the backbone of this industry, its the likes of Valve, Bungie, Lionhead(and Bullfrog before them) and Nintendo etc. These companies all want to create. Nintendo is a perfect example of a massive corporation that still manages to nuture the creative. I just wonder if a poll were carried out on EA employees asking if they would leave EA and work for Nintendo if they had the opportunity, what would the response be?

To cut to the chase.
Would I have a problem working long hours on NFL 2006? Yes
Would I have a problem working long hours on Zelda? Nope
So for me a company like EA needs to rewards its workers for the long hours, because, frankly how they can expect their employees to work for passion when the company that employs them seems to show no passion for its industry boggles my mind.

Edit: If EA pay very well, then I take back my point about working for passion alone. Its just I got the impression from that EA Spouse thing that the pay certainly wasn’t up the what they expected the employees to do.

[Anonymous]

no, crunch time is definitely a games-industry wide phenomenon… [/quote:11a0409b4d]
Oh yeah, that I know.

Certainly an interesting way of running things.

However the one point I have am not totally sure about with EA is that job stability doesn’t seem to be the same as you would expect with someone like Microsoft. Just look at this weeks news, EALA laid off 60 people. I’ve heard a story of EA buying a company and for a licence. In the provisor of sale was that everyone in the company should be safe in their jobs for a year. Exactly one year later, everyone was laid off.
On the whole they provide stability, but then again, I guess its the same no matter what the company, in games your job never seems to be totally safe.

One of my biggest reasons for not wanting to work for EA at the moment is like nooptical said, its banging out the same game year after year. Just look at Core and Tomb Raider…year after year of looking at the same thing and you stop caring about it and its going to slide. To prevent that happening you’re going to constantly need fresh employees wanting to make an impression. If new people are working on it, where do the others go, suddenly you have too much staff and need to trim and your productivity is low because you’ve been working on HP for 6 years….bye bye….

Not saying thats how it is, but its a worrying possible scenario surely

[Anonymous]

And another thing…
How does a company like ea rate performance. From what seems to be written and from what I’ve heard from employees, a big factor is time your bum is on a seat. So if you’ve got employee A constantly working 9am til 1am and getting work done and then you’ve got employee B, working from 9am til say about 9pm. Employee B is a more competent worker and in the less time is doing a hell of a lot more work. Employee A is going to get a bigger pat on the back because he spent more time at his desk. This isn’t a just a silly story, its something that i know happens.

[Anonymous]

I guess its that Employee B is always around if ‘something’ goes wrong.

I prefer to work in the evenings so my productivity probably goes up over the course of the day…

Then theres the whole team morale thing…if you hang around for the silly hours you get to know people better…’them and us’ groups form.

I’m sure some companies value employee capability and results more than time spend on seats. Not many though.

I should be working now…ciao.

[Anonymous]

I suppose it comes down to one simple question:

What do you value more, your quality of life or the quality of your games?
A happy medium seems to be something EA and other large corps can’t manage…..therefore:

I choose life.

[Anonymous]

I guess its that Employee B is always around if ‘something’ goes wrong[/quote:f21ec2ba72] But why would they be, they’ve done their work. Left everything checked in and working. Why should you need to work even later on the off-chance that someone else is incompetent ??

[Anonymous]

Exactly, if thats the way to do things why don’t we all just sleep in our offices in case something comes up…….

[Anonymous]

measuring an employees contribution or prroductivity is a hard one, I’ll give you that… but anyone who measures productivity by number of hours a bum was on a seat deserves a slap, particularly as the linger a programmer’s bum is on a seat the lower his productivity goes as his bug count rises – and I find it hard to believe that EA would use this as a metric

Reading through the PDF on EA, it’s clear they innovate in technology and production processes apparently but not in game play. different strokes for different and all that…

(If that’s true though – that they innovate in production processes – why is there a seeming need for the massive overtime all the time???)

[Anonymous]

Maybe they are over-innovating their processes if you get my meaning. They are constantly changing and innovating their production processes, so therefore they are in a constant state of flux. This leads to ineffeciency because they aren’t giving their employees time to adapt and become adept at utilising the innovations and changes.

Just my own theory….

[Anonymous]

I think one major problem is that they have is too much management.
They have several producers on a project and each one wants a say, then they have people above them who want a say in the game and they they have people above them etc… They have lots of levels all wanting to feel justified they did something with a game. This leads to less stability on the schedules as an extra feature is suddenly required by management and more deadlines as more people need to see it. When you’re working to a deadline you’re constantly putting in bodge fixes so a feature “works” in the current build. Once the deadline is gone, the “fix” can be removed and work on the proper fix can be done.

Probably….

[Anonymous]

New article on Gamasutra:

Making Great Games In 40 Hours Per Week

One of those nine [postmortems] described the practice of their employees working 24 hours straight, sleeping six hours on site, and then working another 24 hours as “fostering a hardcore work ethic.” The remaining 16 Postmortems made no mention of overtime. Given what we know of the game industry, I think it’s highly likely that a fair portion of these projects entailed some form of crunch time.[/quote:8bad24bb87]

[Anonymous]

I recently heard that EA actually have a cure for cancer that only costs 10p but they will not release it.

Thats how bad they are.

(aka *Bump*…i’m so sorry)

[Anonymous]

Its still in development – they are working on a version that cures it for a year, but then you have to buy the next version or it comes back on you…

Dave

[Anonymous]

:D gufffaw!

[Anonymous]

Its still in development – they are working on a version that cures it for a year, but then you have to buy the next version or it comes back on you…

Dave [/quote:4d1ae67ffb]

LOL I can’t wait for Cure for Cancer 2006!!

[Anonymous]

First we brought you NFL 2006, then we brought you NHL 2006…..now we bring you NHS 2006, where you can cure all major diseases*, whilst listening to our kick ass soundtrack! Utilise the new “trick” button so you can add some flair to your curing, or recognise your own doctor in the game as we used advanced new technology to capture doctors faces and put them in our game for incredibly realistic immersion.
This is THE game of 2005, even if the name does say 2006!

*not all major diseases covered in NHS 2006, new diseases will be added to NHS 2007 and subsequent releases. EA does not guarantee full recovery from illnesses. All doctors faces are copyright EA 2005 to infinity. All doctors in game must wear balaclavas when in public from game release onward.

[Anonymous]

cynics, the lot o’ ya!

[Anonymous]

First we brought you NFL 2006, then we brought you NHL 2006…..now we bring you NHS 2006, where you can cure all major diseases*, [/quote:57b66a9577]

This made alot of us chuckle in the office :)

[Anonymous]

Ah satire that lost art! Now this is the way to effectively criticise!

Ye are on a roll! Keep it coming….

[Author]

Posts