Actually, no. It wasn't always blue. Basically, life is what made it that way by changing the chemical composition of the air.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think it really depends on what scientific "facts" you believe in the most, like most ppl say its cuz most of the world is covered in water, so the light reflects off it and the atmosphere appears blue... this is the one i believe in the most which is why i say if you stood in the middle of pangaea the sky would look green...
but if you believe in the spectrum theory then i guess mine would sound like rubbish lol but i honestly dont believe that the angle of the sun hitting the ozone and acting like a prism is what causes it
Comment has been collapsed.
...The surface area of Pangaea wouldn't be big enough compared to the surface area of the ocean to make any sort of big effect on the sky colour if you're correct about the reflection. I'm fairly sure that the surface area of land now is about the same as the surface area of land then... And the sky isn't green now in case you hadn't noticed ;P
And I'm pretty sure you're not correct about the reflection, sorry. The sky is blue because of something called Rayleigh Scattering - the scattering of light photons off of gas particles in the atmosphere. It happens, blue photons are scattered at a different angle to red / green / other photons and so the sky appears blue. The ocean appears blue because it reflects the sky, not the other way round.
I'm not trying to change your mind on the matter (i.e. not trying to force you to see that it isn't reflection) but I am saying that I think you've been sold a pack of lies at some point in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
IIRC, the oceans would have been a greenish color from all the iron mixed with the water, and the sky would have been more of an orangey-brown color. Like Venus or Titan (one of Jupiter's moons).
Edit: @humankillerz, whoever told you that they thought the sky is blue because of the oceans should probably not be allowed near anyone with an impressionable mind...
Comment has been collapsed.
Guys, we're talking about EA, not whether the sky is blue.
Comment has been collapsed.
The sky is blue. I thought this thread was about an Engineering Analysis of the sky.
Many say that the sky is blue, however the atmospheric composition determines the color we see in the sky. For example, when the sky is red, it means the frequency of light is at its lowest due to the particles being high in the atmosphere. Thus, the frequency has a longer wavelength and it takes light longer to travel. This makes the sky appear red or orange.
Comment has been collapsed.
For a moment I was concerned, then I read a post that is actually correct.
The sky wasn't always blue, nor was it green or pink or purple or whatever other crazy colours people might come up with. The particles in the atmosphere get hit by light waves. Bigger light waves are more likely to hit particles (duh). Blue light just happens to be at the smaller end of the physical spectrum (well it doesn't just "happen" to be but lets not go into that) and as a result it is more likey to hit a particle and be reflected in a direction other than that in which it was travelling (eg down into your eye). While the earth was somewhat younger than it is now, there was considerably more shit floating round our atmosphere in the form of particles. As a result the blue light waves were reflected considerably faster and anyone standing on the earth (particularly at daytimes when the sun wasn't even close to being directly overhead) would have seen a red(ish) sky. Incidentally this is related to those red clouds you sometimes see at dawn or dusk (because of the angle the light travels through more atmosphere and therefore has a greater chance or hitting a particle (particularly those bigger blue waves).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I was looking at the top 100 games of some website recently and BFBC2 was on it...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and developers within the company still do.
I'll edit in a list of games from them I've loved over the years.
Dead Space series
Freedom Fighters
Mutant League series
Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 (don't like the newer games, but I will forever keep my PS2 copy of this)
Road Rash series (plus Skitchin')
Strike series (Desert, Jungle, Urban)
I could list more, but there is a massive number of internal teams listed on GameFAQs, and I'm not going through each.
Comment has been collapsed.
Im curois to see the list, hopefully its not all battlefield and nothing else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh hell no, can't stand that multiplayer focused drivel.
Comment has been collapsed.
YES! I loved NFS:Hot Pursuit 2. I have that for PS2 as well. I loved that game!
Comment has been collapsed.
Good to see a fellow fan. Just a shame that the other versions of the game weren't as good. The only advantage is some extra police cars, while I'll take the PS2 extras any day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh god, Road Rash and Skitchin'. So many good hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm more like to believe that you decided to hate EA without merit than believe all those games are actually bad, considering those are some of their best titles over the years.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA has made some great games, for whatever reason you didn't mention any great games though.
Let me break this down for you: First off the Dead Space series was the only acceptable one there, Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 is average at best and inferior to NFS Underground, Underground 2 and Most Wanted. Freedom Fighters, all the Mutant League games and the Strike series were utter trash, and admittedly there is one game on your list that may or may not be good (I haven't played it so I wouldn't know): The Road Rash series. So what I said above certainly does apply to at least 5 of those 6 games, and either way there were many better games made by EA that you could have listed here.
Comment has been collapsed.
So mass effect 3 and a battlefield every year is good?
Comment has been collapsed.
what does that even have to do with anything? 1 game and 1 franchise = hurr durr thats how we rate an entire publisher... me 1, 2 were great, dragon age origins was great, mirrors edge was great, crysis 1 was great (2 wasnt too bad either)... ea publishes plenty of enjoyable games in recent years.
Comment has been collapsed.
given that games can take 2 years to make, mentioning games that are at the earliest released about 6 years ago and are still being bought and played today on modern machines, from a company that has been operating for roughly 3 decades, i wouldnt really call them 'old' games... :)
da:o was 4 years ago, crysis 2 was about 2 years ago, i wouldnt call them old games... hell, i wouldnt even call mirrors edge 'old', compare to, say, early nfs games or system shock 2 :D
Comment has been collapsed.
What I meant is that your post feels like it defends TODAYS EA, while you mention old games instead of Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, Medal of Honor and other "great gems"...
Because it doesn't matter what publisher made few years ago. What really matters is what he is doing with great stuff he made those years ago. And seeing how they can only make mobile-game out of Dungeon Keeper or MMO (or whatever it's called) out of Command & Conquer, this isn't good sign.
Comment has been collapsed.
weeelllll, EA hasnt changed that much in the past 6 years, so yeah, i think those games representative of MODERN EA, which is my point :) likewise, the games that are being worked on NOW, wouldnt be apparent until a year or two from now either, so you cant really take a snapshot of games that came out this year or last year, ignore everything from the past, say, 5 years, and say THIS is a fair representation of modern EA either...
Comment has been collapsed.
im not saying you need to pick one or the other, but i AM saying you need to use a slightly wider range to reliably represent their efforts... its not fair to dismiss still-recent games, and only focus on one or two very recent games and say they are representative of the company.
Comment has been collapsed.
You could be right if only one of their last games would be disappointing. But when nearly-everything they've done (I might have missed/forget something from last 2 years) is disappointing in one way or another you can't say "they made good games 5 years ago" without saying "but now their games aren't that good".
Comment has been collapsed.
Crysis 2 was the starting point of the series' downfall. The choice to go console and have a DX9 game on PC for half a year, with console FOV and streamlined controls, a worse story (I guess this can be subjective, but I found it much less interesting and more generic), and broken (but still fun) multiplayer.
Dragon Age Origins wasn't made under EA, it just happened that EA bought Bioware the same year the game was released, so of course they were the ones to publish it and get their logos on it. But the game had already been in development for 8 years before that. Can't give EA much credit, unless it's advertising. They did that a lot for the game, and did it right.
Other than that, I agree, EA doesn't always make bad games. The thing is, people get confused and hate them without knowing why and it seeps into their image in gaming. Their real problem, which is the reason I really dislike EA, is their business practices, which can/will/do affect their games and the industry, especially since they're such a large and influential company. Oh, they also fucked up the latest SimCity.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA has been around since the 80s. Those games aren't old.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mirror's Edge has no sequel, so HA!
And now I'm sad that it doesn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
so Black Ops 2 will officially be considered old as soon as the Ghosts come out? I don't think so, your logic is flawed
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically, Ghost isn't a sequel to BLOPS2, so your logic is flawed.
Comment has been collapsed.
its part of the Call of Duty series franchise, and either way Assassins Creed III to Black Flag, Battlefield 3 to Battlefield 4, Halo 4 to Halo 5, makes no difference they are not always going to be an old game once a sequel hits. Checkmate
Comment has been collapsed.
"its part of the Call of Duty series franchise, and either way Assassins Creed III to Black Flag, Battlefield 3 to Battlefield 4, Halo 4 to Halo 5, makes no difference they are not always going to be an old game once a sequel hits. Checkmate"
Actually, not checkmate. AC3 and AC4 are part of the same universe, same as Halo 4 and 5. You can't really say that the Modern Warfare series intersects with the Black Ops series since there's no proof of that. That's like saying JK Rowling's book "The Casual Vacancy" is a sequel to the Harry Potter series just because it's written by the same author even though the characters and the plot are nothing alike.
BLOPS2 is a sequel to BLOPS1. MW3 is a sequel to MW2. From what I can see, Ghost is a sequel to MW3.
Also I never agreed with PsyKo if it will be considered old or not once a sequel comes out, I merely thought to point out that Ghosts isn't exactly a sequel to BLOPS2.
Comment has been collapsed.
The early Need for Speeds. Well, not the first one. The Command and Conquers they published during that time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cnc was made by Westwood, when EA bough them they tried to turn it into an fps, which failed horribly, so they turned it back into an rts series. Which had a little bit of commercial success, but all the ea made cnc games where shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA publishes some amazing games, they also publish some tosh.
Activision on the other hand... mostly tosh
Comment has been collapsed.
It's so easy to dismiss something when you know almost nothing about it.
You guys complain about how Activision is now, but it wasn't always that way. Activision was the first company to make games for the ATARI VCS besides ATARI. (ATARI would just hire dev's to make their games and then get rid of them, afterward.) Activision not only had excellent quality games, they were innovators in the industry and became one of its most successful companies. It wasn't until later that things fell apart.
A lot like EA....
In the eighties, EA was putting out one great title after another. They were one of the top publishing companies along with Sierra Online and Interplay. It wasn't until the early 90's after Trip left, that EA started to "lose its way."
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand the point of your response. My statement covered the present tense of your comment while also revisiting the glorious history of the company you disparaged. I still stand by my statement that "it wasn't always that way." Are you arguing with me?
Comment has been collapsed.
I was responding to your first sentence in the reply.
"It's so easy to dismiss something when you know almost nothing about it."
I don't know why you think I know nothing about the past of these companies. I'm sure that with your reply, you have been a gamer for many years like me. However, because I hate Activision now does not reflect at all on how I feel about their previous endeavours. And to say otherwise was just idiotic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, I see. So, when you said "Activision, on the other hand...[publishes] mostly tosh," What you really meant to say was "...[publishes] mostly tosh, these days." My first sentence was in response to your apparent oversight of Activision's past history, a misinterpretation on my part. Granted that your "hate" of "Activision, now, does not reflect at on on how [you] feel about their previous endeavors," but I never said otherwise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bard's Tale 1985
Marble Madness 1986
Skate or Die! 1987
Populous 1989
SimCity 1989
Road Rash 1991
SimCity 2000 1993
Syndicate 1993
Alone in the Dark 2 1994
Shaq Fu 1994
Ultima, Wing Commander, FIFA, Madden, Sims, SSX, Tiger Woods, Mirror's Edge, Need for Speed, Command and Conquer, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Dead Space, Shank
etc etc
Comment has been collapsed.
Throw the C&C series in there and you've got yourself a list!
Comment has been collapsed.
all of them, plus: zany golf, neuromancer, powermonger and syndicate
Comment has been collapsed.
If you go by the "good" rating of good games, then sure -- especially if you liked sports titles.
If you go by the "good" rating of being good business, then undoubtedly.
If you go by the "good" rating of being respectul of their customers and developers, then... I can't remember a time when I consider them "good", but the very early days may have been (80s/early 90s). "EA Spouse" was probably their low point though, and that was some time ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA was THE company to work for and work with in the 80's. Trip Hawkins was all about putting his dev's and custormers first. Then he left EA in 1991 to make 3DO.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA no, Electronic Arts on the other hand were great whilst they still called themselves that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Back then their logo was EOA (Bard's Tale, etc). Seems like I mostly lost interest in them around the time they dropped the "O" (late 80s/early 90s). That was also after they lost the team from Bard's Tale, which became Interplay (made Thief of Fate, but couldn't use the Bard's Tale "III" name).
Comment has been collapsed.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s EA was one of the best companies there was.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA has good games, its their semi dictator like sway over their developers that is bad. They seem to go for max profit and less about innovation that is the problem.
If you earn that much money from all the games you don't really care that much about individual series so some dear franchises that are smaller might get gobbled up by the big machine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, Origin used to be a respected name before EA used it for their horrible service.
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember when I still had my PS1, Future Cop from EA was one of my favorite games, both SP and split screen with my friend. But I agree that as years passed the quality of EA games has been dropping rapidly. Don't forget though that EA is just a publisher and owns some great developer companies like Bioware which managed to keep its integrity and released one of the greatest titles of all time - Mass Effect.
Comment has been collapsed.
my problem is they own great developers theyve destroyed, no more westwood, goodbye origin(no the steam competitor the company that they got the name from), and sayonara bullfrog, so many great games and IP's and they churn out fifa and battlfield games and little else it seems still so long as its profitable theyll continue down that path
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that is the main problem in gaming industry today because some games are made with one purpose - to make money. Less and less publishers today look at the final product and more at how much money are they gonna make from it. EA is not the only company doing that, just look at what Activision did with Call of Duty.
Comment has been collapsed.
here's a little list http://www.gog.com/promo/exciting_ea_exclusives_111013
The stupid EAhating bandwagon for kids is so last friday.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought that Bullfrog was self publishing before EA bought them up but it looks like there games were published by EA. Still there are plenty of other examples, the (good)old Ultima games were self published by Origin before they got bought out so were Wing Commander 1-3, The first two Lands of Lore games were published by Virgin Interactive, which EA later bought, and Jade Empires was published by Microsoft Game Studios (xbox) and 2k games (PC), then EA bought Bioware. Sim City 2000 was originally self published by MAXIS. All the other games were published by EA but nearly all the developers were subsequently bought up them.
Comment has been collapsed.
5 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by entitygeorge
18 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by dmunozan
2,151 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by deadmarsh
46 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by herbesdeprovence
57 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AmanoTC
4 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by moronic
7 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by DaveFerret
245 Comments - Last post 36 seconds ago by wigglenose
10 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by RePlayBe
41 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by WaxWorm
26,633 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by Megamind9
2,754 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by pizurk
44 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by Ratz0
204 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CraftlordDark
I look back at gaming in the late 90's and early 2000's and wonder was EA before this a company who released good games? The only one i can think of from then that really stood out was American Mcgee's Alice, If anyone remembers the good EA games please refresh are gaming memories.
Comment has been collapsed.