This should be brief:

First, Rare. After they were sold to Microsoft, there has been this sudden explosion of downright hating on them, that I see as nothing but hypocritical. A sampling of the typical gamut of responses to a topic concerning Rare:

1. "We're better off without them, every game after [usually DKC3, GE, BK, or PD] sucked and they took too long to release them."
2. "They can better spend the money they got."
3. "I always thought they were overrated."
4. "Rare is just a bunch of traitors"
5. "A bunch of their employees left, so they aren't as good"

Now, breaking these down:

1. Those games sucked? MANY people would disagree, including myself. Perfect Dark is my 4th favorite game ever, Conker my 7th (or so). And no one seemed to insist this a year ago. What really irks me is that many of the people who think Nintendo is better off also are the ones who are awfully interested in console/game sales figures. Rare games, despite delays or occasionally mixed reviews, nearly all sold VERY well. Donkey Kong 64, for all its shortcomings, was incredibly successfull, the same for Star Fox Adventures.
2. Another annoying misconception. There is nothing being done with the money at this point. In fact, the money has probably been used in offsetting a quarterly loss.
3. Hypocrites. For every one person who honestly always felt this way and said so long before the sales rumor started, there are tens who may or may not of felt this way, but never said so because Rare was on their side.
4. Stupid. Nintendo SOLD Rare. They SOLD them. Rare had little say in the matter
5. This happens to EVERY company. Not a valid point, sorry.
Really though, unless Nintendo goes and uses that money for something substantial, the net result of the whole deal is that the GameCube sees less games, and games that are very popular and have a very strong fan following to boot. To brush it off is absurd.

---

Second, Electrong Arts. This BAFFLES me. Any topic concerning EA will have a multitude of posts that consist of someone rambling on about how EA is 'evil'. Huh? Did I miss something?

I've tried to rationalize this. I think it comes down to two things; the intense dislike of 'hardcore' gamers against all things 'casual', and the resentment of these same 'hardcore' gamers towards American 3rd-party publishers.

The 'hardcore' versus 'casual' thing is retarded. As if gaming wasn't nerdy enough, there are people who would rather it be some sort of exclusive club available only too those l337 enough. Good grief. Just because a game is based off of a movie, or is popular with complete non-gamers doesn't mean you're above it or something. And no, sports games don't suck. That's a whole other article, idiots who say "Why would I play a sport game when I could play it outside?", yuk-yuk!

The American angle is probably more applicable. There is a general perception, (caused mostly by Acclaim, Midway, 3DO, etc.) that all American third-parties suck. They're only concerned with money, despite the fact that every company is, they don't lend enough support, everything is rushed, everything is sloppy. It goes on and on. This seeps into everything. What was once a Maxis game is now 'a crappy casual EA game'. When the new Bond games would be considered to be very good games by any standard, they aren't GoldenEye. Duh! Few games are. That's like expecting every subsequent Chicago Bull to be like MJ. Instead, EA 'ruined the Bond franchise'. Franchise? GoldenEye is one game, not a franchise.

The port argument annoys me. Everyone assumes a port is sloppy, because there are sloppy ports. It must suck to have to port games. A port could be the most solid, well-made thing ever, yet someone will call it sloppy. Poor bastards. In EA's case, I've yet to play one of their next-gen titles and find it to be a sloppy port. The only one I know of in this generation is Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit. And whenever EA reveals the next bunch of titles coming for release, invariably someone will complain that it's "Nothing but sloppy ports". What did you expect? EA does not make console-exclusive games. Why someone should expect them to change this rule for the console that is third in their number one market (America) is beyond me. We (GameCube owners) are lucky that we get nearly every EA release in the form of a port. God-damn lucky. With the lack of third-party support the GCN gets, combined with the popularity of EA, this is a frickin' blessing. To complain that games are always developed on the PS2 is crap too. Once again, they are a business, and the GCN and Xbox have done nothing in way of sales signifying that they should be given priority.

If anything, seeing EA on a game indicates a certain level of quality. EA Games have an uncanny knack for being 'good'. Not great, but not horrible. Most developers/publishers would be lucky to have that level of consistancy. Ultimatly, as I see it, the hatred towards EA comes solely from the fact that they are the most successful publisher out there, which is not a reason.