Talk:List of Electronic Arts games

missing

missing ssx games guys 201.241.191.76 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Added. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Great list. But missing https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Tiberian_Sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.4.51 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additions

I started this list and have a huge list of most of EAs games to add. I'll do it letter by letter. I have to hand edit the list which takes time. You're welcome to add any games yourself, but please note that I don't intend on leaving it as incomplete as it is. You're also welcome to disambiguate/fix any links, as the entries may not match the names for games which we have articles. I try to correct them as I add them, but I'll probably miss quite a few. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X-2

Does this have anything to do with EA? I thought it was developed by SquareEnix and published by either them or Sony? Can anyone confirm this. Alexj2002 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it got in there. Consider it removed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Missing some games...

I have a game by Electronic arts called Small Soldiers (Based off of the Movie). I think you should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.186.205 (talk • contribs)

Finding information on this game is problematic. It was small, unrecognized and did poorly in the marketplace. But my company did it, so I can recall the release date. Added. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Table the list?

What does everyone think of putting the games in a list like this:

Game	Year	Platforms
007: Agent Under Fire	2001	GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
007: Everything or Nothing	2004	Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
007: Nightfire	2002	GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
007 Racing	2000	PlayStation
007: The World is Not Enough	2000	Nintendo 64, PlayStation
1503 A.D.: The New World	2002	Windows
2002 FIFA World Cup	2002	GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox
4-D Boxing	1991	DOS, Macintosh
688 Attack Sub	1989	Amiga, DOS, Genesis

Just for each section. I don't think we should combine all the sections, because that would just make it harder to find specific games by letter. Of course, this is not ideal, since sorting by platforms will be problematic. Thoughts? Suggestions? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion has been up for three days already and no one has commented on it. Any feedback at all? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We should sort this section by platform, it would be easier to find the game you're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.188.126 (talk • contribs)

Only if that's the way you're searching for it. I think most people will be searching by name. But I don't even see any way to sort by platform--there are so many. We do have lists that are specific to platforms, but not just for Electronic Arts. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, all the items should be tabled together, to expedite listing by criteria other than alphabetical order. As it is, breaking them up into sections eliminates a listing by any other category, making the date of release and other columns listed in the individual tables useless. It's easy enough to still search alphabetically since the "title" column is going to remain, of course. Or the alphabetical jump menu/TOC could still easily be preserved simply by linking it to the first first title (alphabetically) which utilizes a given letter within the table. 67.121.235.38 (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Snow

Adding iOS?

Should iOS releases be added? 2.97.229.116 (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the operating system that the iPad and iPhone use? Why in the world should they be added here? It isn't a game nor was it developed by Electronic Arts. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say add the iOS if you read it, I said the games on it (by EA) >_> (read before panning it) 2.97.229.116 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:iOS and the use of the key

As I said above before I found my log-in, shouldn't iOS Games be added. Note that I am not saying add iOS, as iOS is quite clearly not an EA thing >_>. Also, why is the key their if 90% of the abbreviations arent used? Kingcjc (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

First, my apologies. I was WRONG and hasty. You clearly said iOS releases and I just didn't read it carefully. So, yes, I definately think iOS releases should be added.

I'm not an expert on this, but does everything that runs on iPhone run on iPad and vice-versa? Should we indicate iOS for all iOS releases or indicate the specific platform? I lean to the latter since it's more specific, but, like I said, I'm not an expert on the platform.

Abbreviations should be used when appropriate, such as when the number of platforms is very long. They can be used anytime, actually, since we have the key, but clearly some editors don't. You can change them anytime if you like.

Thanks for your contributions! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Table the list? again

I want to revive this question since there was so little feedback the last time I brought it up. What does everyone think of putting the games in a list like this:

Game	Year	Platforms
007: Agent Under Fire	2001	GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
007: Everything or Nothing	2004	Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
007: Nightfire	2002	GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
007 Racing	2000	PlayStation
007: The World is Not Enough	2000	Nintendo 64, PlayStation
1503 A.D.: The New World	2002	Windows
2002 FIFA World Cup	2002	GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox
4-D Boxing	1991	DOS, Macintosh
688 Attack Sub	1989	Amiga, DOS, Genesis

Just for each section. I don't think we should combine all the sections, because that would just make it harder to find specific games by letter. Of course, the layout above is not ideal, since sorting by platforms will be problematic. Thoughts? Suggestions?

See List of Strategic Simulations, Inc. games for an example where the entire list is in a table. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at the first section. Take a look here. I used the official abbreviation for each platform, which is set forth at the top, instead of using the whole name of the platform which seems to have taken over. What does everyone think? Good, bad, indifferent? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look much better in the table format!Susan118 ^talk 19:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Entries?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't many of the games on this list created by companies prior to being absorbed into Electronic Arts, and therefore shouldn't be on here? 99.8.175.113 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Vita

How do you add the PlayStation Vita onto the game platform key in this article? Lacon432 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. All the platform abbreviations are listed on this page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Converting to Unified Table

There is very little purpose in having the list separated by letter. We can have the table of contents jump to any row within the table, so I will be converting the table to a single, unified one with the first game of each letter having its ID. This will allow for proper sorting by year. Phailhaus (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have finished converting it to a unified table. After sorting alphabetically the locations of titles beginning with 'the' end up in the T section however. Phailhaus (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the editor responsible for most of the table-fying this list. I like the Unified version. Thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Converting to multiple platform table

As the editor mostly responsible for changing this list from a simple list to a table, and then to a unified table, I once again am making a major change. I'm converting the table from this format:

Name	Year	Platforms	Description
007: Agent Under Fire	2001	GCN, PS2, Xbox	A first-person shooter video game based on the James Bond franchise

To this format:

Name	Year	Platforms	Description
007: Agent Under Fire	2001	Nintendo GameCube	A first-person shooter based on the James Bond franchise
		PlayStation 2
		Xbox

The updated multiple-platform version is more useful (it reliably lets users sort by platform, as well as the other columns) and, frankly, it just looks better. The only downside is that it might be a little harder for novices to edit. It will take forever, but feel free to pitch in and help. Thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Electronic Arts games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522172434/http://www.ea.com/ to http://www.ea.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Electronic Arts games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708112632/http://www.ea.com/world-series-of-poker-ios to http://www.ea.com/world-series-of-poker-ios

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

How should this list look?

I am currently editing this list to verify as many of the listed entries as I can find. I have altered the list to make it focused specifically on the versions of titles of which Electronic Arts was the developer or the publisher, as well as those versions' release dates. This makes for a good start. However, I am also wondering how the list should be formatted and what information it should give besides the titles, the years, the platforms, the descriptions, and the references. I need some advice on what lists like this should look like. As you can see with my recent edits here, I am thinking about adding a Legend box that tells the user whether the title is developed by EA or cancelled, but I am also thinking about whether that can be used to replace the Description column. I need some opinions on this. In the meantime, I will keep searching for more reliable sources for this already lengthy list.

For this to be considered quality, how should this list look, besides the needed citations? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 04:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I think what really needs to be addressed are the colours. I don't see why they are necessary, but especially the cells in green for games but designed and published by Electronic Arts. Citations aren't necessary for games that have articles here either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right. The table does look like a painting, and some of it is also confusing. For example, it does not make sense to have the same-colored slots for the years and the Ref column, especially if they correspond with the platforms with mixed colors. We could at least remove the colors from those columns, as well as the Name and Description columns. It also does not make sense to list years for titles that never even saw their (full) release. In my opinion, we should remove that. And lastly, technically, references are important for lists like this as well. They may not be as needed as articles, but they always make a featured list. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 06:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with everything you've said so far. Is there a simple way that I can remove colours other than by removing colour templates individually from the entries in the source code? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If you mean by using VisualEditor, I briefly checked the VisualEditor structure and clicked on multiple cells, and then went to WP:VE, and unfortunately, the answer is probably no. @Lacon432: may be able to help us on removing those colors. After all, I was the one who introduced the table legend, and it was Lacon432 who filled in most of the rest of the table with almost 230 kilobytes of code. That said, I hate to ping them for this, but I think changes have to be made, and I can help. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to help if need be. I have the time and the will. There was an issue with whether I should have color schemes in the Name and Description columns for consistency purposes, but I'll remove them if requested. I think there's a quick way to do so; let me try it out. I also put the years of which the games that were cancelled had been announced to be cancelled. I thought about if the cancelled games should have their own table, much like the List of Ubisoft games, so I'll leave those there for now until a consensus can be made for that. As for the references, that I would need some help with, especially considering that there are different platform announcements for various games on the list, such as SSX 3.

Update: I edited the color scheme to get rid of the color in the Name and Desciption columns. I also made a cancelled games section and an upcoming games section. Lacon432 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I can help with the sourcing. It is a long list as we all know it. Indeed, it is even requested that this list be split into multiple smaller lists, ideally A-M and N-Z. It will take more than one person to do this, and I have the energy to volunteer.

I think the first thing we all need to focus on is adding citations. As of this post, I just added a to-do list containing my suggestions at the top of this page. Needless to say, I am not telling anyone here what to do. These are merely suggestions, and verification I think we should do first. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 06:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you said above. For now, we should focus on references to add. Maybe we should add descriptions to the video games as well. It's just weird that most of the first half of the list has descriptions and most of the second half of the list doesn't. Lacon432 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing game

This list is missing information about Block'd. The destroying colored blocks game that was in some of the Nokia S40 mobile phones, like the Nokia Cseries and some 2009 Flip phones. PedroLucasDBr (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Source quality

I think we need to stop and take a look at what sources we are using.

Having just returned to this list to edit and verify its contents, I see that more than 100 references have been added to this list since my last edit as of this post, and that I can say is good. However, when I look at the references, with regards to the new sources, I see a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, as well as databases. I see 26 references to MobyGames, which the Video games WikiProject highly recommends against. I also see sources like N4G (also unrecommended) and AppAdvice, which I think is a reader's typical tabloid-esque website with mediocre credentials, as well as a lack of awards and recognitions from third-party reliable sources.

There are also plenty of sources to databases such as on IGN, and I think of it as pitiful when we could instead be using news articles or press releases. I also see plenty of Electronic Arts primary sources. I am actually fine with the sources being primary, but I will caution that for titles that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they will probably need a secondary source instead. In this case, I certainly would not mind for titles like EA Star Wars Battlefront, for obvious reasons, but for titles with red links, I would prefer secondary sources to prove that they exist or have existed.

I am sorry if all of this sounds like my ranting, but the sources do need to be replaced, and there are not nearly one hundred of them, so it is not that hard. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lacon432, can we remove the background colors from the boxes under the Ref column? It makes sense to have such colors for the Platforms boxes, but when I read the list from an average reader's perspective, I find the colors for the Ref boxes unneeded and decorative, and from an editor's viewpoint, editing is slower and more cumbersome, but more importantly, if the colors for the Platforms boxes are various and a single source covers those platforms, I would have to split the Ref box into multiple and cite the same source multiple times. I find it more convenient this way. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 20:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365, I'll remove the colors in the reference boxes. For the actual references, though, you're going to have to find references that aren't MobyGames, because I might be having editing fatigue trying to put in all of these references in that I'm using MobyGames as a first resort. Lacon432 (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split

It has been shown that the list is long and bulky, and there is evidence that it is only going to continue to expand. It may be time to split the article into two. Opinions? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365, what is to be done about the upcoming and cancelled games? Also, should we have some way to mention if EA published a certain game only in Europe or Japan of the USA? I'm trying to replicate the way we edit this page to the way the List of Activision games page should be edited. Lacon432 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Update - I decided to format the page the way it is because a lot of these games were released outside of the United States, and no confusion should be brought on because of it. Lacon432 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Article should definitely be split into A-K (including numbers) and M-Z. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The article should probably be split. BUT I would not split alphabetically. I would suggest Platform: "List of Electronic Arts games for GameCube", "List of Electronic Arts games for PlayStation 2", etc. More work but much more usable. I am not a game player but I would like to know what games are available for a particular platform rather than what platforms support a particular game. User-duck (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A split would be needed, but I wouldn't split it alphabetically or by platform, but by eras (time spans). Otherwise new games would be scattered across two or more lists and that wouldn't be ideal or practical for the average reader.

• List of Electronic Arts games (1983–1999)
• List of Electronic Arts games (2000–2009)
• List of Electronic Arts games (2010–present)

Zarex (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I support splitting by years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought about splitting by years (there are no well defined "eras"), but versions for different platforms are not all released at the same time. What would be done for a game released at the end of 1999 for one platform and start of 2000 for another, list it twice? The "wouldn't be ideal or practical for the average reader" argument is fallacious. The average reader is only interested in games available for the platforms they have. Are they going to buy a platform to play a particular game or are they going to buy a game for a particular platform? Splitting by platform is not ideal for the average contributor/editor and converting the existing article would not be an easy task. I might attempt it for the challenge and if a "consensus" was established. I believe the alphabetical splitting was proposed because splitting the existing article would be an easy task. User-duck (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

By the release on its first platform, surely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I would split by decades starting from 2000 (there were not too many releases in the 1980s and 1990s). If the game was originally released in 1999, I would put the 2000 release in the 1983–1999 list, with a short mention of the new platform release in the 2000 list (E.g. "released originally in 1999 for PlayStation") and link to the 1999 list. I would not put the 1999 platforms again on the 2000 list. As for splitting by platforms, there are too many different types and generations (8-bit computers, consoles, DOS, Windows, Macintosh, Linux, mobile), how many different lists would you make? Splitting into #-L and M-Z, I would have to check two lists so see which games were released in a particular year. Zarex (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"I would have to check two lists", an editor's point of view! Searching by platform will need to check 3 lists (soon 4). Make the note: "released originally in 1999". -- User-duck (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"An editor's point of view" – In fact, I was thinking about it from a casual reader's perspective, who would come and check which games were released for example in 2015. As an editor, I would have no problem editing two alphabetical lists because the practice would be known to the editors. However, I agree that splitting the 445 KB list to anything other than #-L and M-Z would be a monumental task. Zarex (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but I'll put my input here, since I'm trying to clean up the page.

I do not agree with organizing the page by platform. There would be too many platforms for EA's many games, and many of them don't have that many games attached to them, such as Gizmodo. Splitting into #-L and M-Z is fine if preferred. I do favor, though, splitting it into years for the reason that Zarex mentioned: for people interested in checking games in a certain year. I disagree with the notion that games shouldn't be repeated if the page is split because of console releases in different time spans. There are many games in the List of Square video games page that are in the List of Square Enix video games page because of these re-releases. Different console releases of games should be allowed in the same fashion as new releases in that same era. If the consensus becomes that these releases should be separated by era, I'm down with editing it to make it so. This is more so a side activity for me. Lacon432 (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

i recommend splitting the games into categories like developed by EA, published by EA, and games released by EA but not published or developed by EA, and if games are developed and published by EA it would just go into the developed section, this is just my thought, and the reason i say these categories is because when i look up games that are developed by EA i get this page, and you cant really see which games EA developed themselves unless you go through the whole page, and i'm guessing other people search that way also, at least when i look up game companies, what to see what games they actually made instead of what their name is on, then i can look for games made by the same people instead of who published it, because usually the publisher doesn't help make the game they just fund it, its like art, if i want to see what art someone has made i can, but it would suck if they showed all the art they sold even if they didn't make it.ARKNIGHT89 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well this is stupid. This is an excellent example of "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD." Separating the comprehensive list by alpha is fine if readers already know all of the titles and only need to get information referenced by title. But making separate lists by alpha makes all of the other data meaningless as a part of a list. I can compare a title that begins with "C" to a title that begins with "E" but if I want to compare, say, John Madden Football to Touchdown Football, I've got to look on two separate pages. How many sports titles did EA release before 1990? When did EA stop writing for DOS? How many games for Windows did EA release in 2003? With a comprehensive list, I can sort by the parameter of interest and get the answer. Since the full list has been chopped up by alpha, now the answer is found by sorting NINE SEPARATE LISTS. What rocket surgeon thought that was a good idea? Look, this is Wikipedia. It's an electronic medium. Here in the 21st century we can hyperlink to anywhere in a list. You don't need to print things out on paper, and the length of the list doesn't matter. Look at the thousands of other lists on WP and see how they are organized. Heck, look at the list of titles published by Activision or Ubisoft. There are zero other lists on WP that are divided up over multiple pages by alphabetical selection. There are lists of, say, all Roman Catholic Popes by century, and of all Roman Catholic Popes by name, and of all Roman Catholic popes by country, but there aren't any pages of Popes with names beginning with L. There aren't any pages like that, because it isn't useful information. The list should be comprehensive and contiguous. If you feel that it's too hard to find the information you are looking for, then perhaps you need practice with the alphabet. Pcress (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I don't think there was even a consensus on the split; one editor simply decided to do it nevertheless. I've maintained that splitting by time spans would work much better when comparing platforms or searching by year, but that change would require much more work to do as the lists are alphabetical by default. But you don't need nine freaking different lists. 1983–1999, 2000–2009, and 2010–present would be simply enough. Zarex (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This split was made solely to make it easier to add references to the games/collections list. There is a dual purpose to this: to avoid having a page with close to 800-1000 or so references while that consensus was being reached (the formatting of the table was altered by someone else to avoid having an excessive number of bytes on the page), and to be able to add references to confirm that these games exist and were published/developed/distributed by Electronic Arts. There were a few games I came across that should have not been on this list, and the admins on Wikipedia:IRC were not fond with an exhaustive list being on here in the state that it was. Three Wikipedia users (DannyS712, Arthistorian1977, and Pokai) reviewed this change and apparently accepted it, with one of them sending a thank for it.

Also, the phrase "There are zero other lists on WP that are divided up over multiple pages by alphabetical selection." is very much false. List of Capcom games did this exact same thing with seemingly little opposition to it. The same goes for Index of DOS games, Index of Windows games and possibly other lists for console games.

Give me time and it will be changed accordingly. It's actually a lot easier to alter than it's being made to not be right now. A lot easier. The only issue I see from organizing it by date is the implementation of the table of contents. There's no ability to organize it in the way that you wanted, from my experimentation. Each section would have to be equal in range, and you'll ultimately have a section including years that haven't even passed yet.

So calm down and take a deep breath. It only took a heartbeat to change. Lacon432 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)