#buy bioware and their ips

[lafaiette]

Look I wanted to have a good screaming match with Solas, telling him in short, military words where he can shove his redemption (alongside with inquisitors left hand) BUT I respected him, even understood to some extended and I wanted to save him. Seba wanted to make him 'a true villain of the story' no matter what ( that one memory about sacrificing ghost???) but that's a problem I have with most characters in TV - they lack depth the previous parts offered.

I would have had no problems with the game offering the chance to antagonize Solas in a respectful manner, yes! Players in Inquisition could find ways to respect his wisdom, but not like his manners; they could punch him when they believed him to be an insufferable ass; they could become great friends with him and genuinely enjoy his company; they could romance him. That is because he was written like a compelling, multifaceted character, and those are the ones that evoke the largest number of feelings and reactions in people: rage, disgust, interest, adoration, respect.

But in Veilguard he's simply introduced as the villain. Ghilan'nain and Elgar'nan are terrible, yes, worse than him, and Rook and Strife admit this, but they are relics of an old age and they can be dealt it as one would deal with a very bothersome bug that has been suddenly set free. The game implies (without holding back) that Solas is clearly the real problem Rook will have to face at the end.

The corrupted elven gods are just a temporary threat; Solas is the true villain Rook must worry about, because, as everyone reminds them, he is the elven God of Lies and Trickery, so he's definitely planning a way to escape his prison and resume his ritual.

And to convince the players of this, they heap all the sins of the world on his shoulders. Not only the creation of the Veil - with Bellara lamenting the loss of the elves' true selves and culture, entirely blaming Solas and not realizing it was necessary to free the elves from their terrible existence; but also the Titans' severed dreams and the creation of the Blight - with Davrin and especially Harding being outraged by it; Varric's death and Solas' trick on Rook to make him believe he's still alive; his constant sacrifice of people, which was alluded to in Inquisition and Trespasser, but never to these extents and with Solas showing little to no remorse, even when he uses spirits to achieve his goals. Solas, sacrificing spirits without a second thought, when he literally breaks down and leaves Skyhold for a short time to recover from the grief of losing a spirit friend in Inquisition...?

It's clear as day that Weekes wanted to go back to the version of Solas he had written for The Masked Empire, that Fen'Harel who let an entire village get killed and spared only the children, that Fen'Harel who told a noble to kill the king's other daughter to see his beloved at the funeral again. But that was a Fen'Harel that made very little sense with the Solas we find in Inquisition - too cruel, too distant from the empathetic figure who tells a boy to abandon a senseless rebellion and return to his ailing parent.

Now, clearly free from the constraints the original lead writers and creative directors had for the series, Weekes went back to that cruel Fen'Harel persona, but this cannot be reconciled with the Solas we have in Inquisition anymore. And so we are left with a character that existed only in a book, who was changed into a kinder, more sympathetic figure, only to be reduced to a villainous figure once more because... well, because the new players would never be able to engage with him otherwise. How could they, since they never talked with him when he was simply a hedge mage obsessed with spirits and Fade? How could they, when all they ever hear about him is how distant, cold, and stuck in the past he was?

[crusherthedoctor]

8 16 17 25

8. you hope more people will come to appreciate ___ (a ship, a trope, an episode, etc)

The Pontaff era.

No, I'm not saying these games don't have their weakpoints. To claim I ever have would be disingenuous. But really, what makes them different from every other era in Sonic's history? If the Adventure-Black Knight games are free to be vindicated by history in spite of their own non-nitpick drawbacks, including the game that came the closest to actually killing off the franchise, then I don't see what makes these games so much more inexcusable by comparison.

The sensationalist side of the fandom's Pontaff hateboner has always felt performative, as if it's an open secret that it's the cool thing to do. '06 is declared out of bounds because too much time has passed and it's played out, yet they keep harping on a game that will soon be seven years old (Forces), a game that came out over a decade ago (Lost World), and a game that came out over 13 years ago (Colours). Even with Generations, the one that has probably fared the best reception-wise out of the lot, it's not rare to see fans unironically call it a worse anniversary game than '06.

If the Pontaff era of Sonic is not your cup of tea overall, that's fine. It's no different to my lack of enthusiasm for the current Flynn era (Superstars and Dream Team notwithstanding). But no matter how many YouTubers try to convince me with their clickbait thumbnails and their tendency to complain about dragged out jokes while making their own dragged out jokes, I will never buy into this insincere narrative that everything was consistent high times until Colours singlehandedly made the franchise drop off a cliff.

16. a tiny detail in canon that you want more people to appreciate

I can't say Eggman's actual characterization because that's not exactly a tiny affair, so... Omega's portrayal when not written by Flynn/Bioware?

17. the thing in canon that everyone loves and that you also love

S3&K

The franchise's history of excellent music

The franchise's history of exploring themes that, regardless of whether the overall execution is good or bad, tend to have more nuance and thoughtfulness put into them than a lot of other, supposedly more mature IPs' interpretations of said themes

The characters we know conceptually but don't necessarily have similar viewpoints on

ShtH being filed in the comedy genre

Sonic faceplanting

25. a piece of advice for taking care of yourself in fandom spaces

Never let anyone assert control of your own experience. You should always be the one to referee your own corner of community interaction, and although polite disagreement and healthy discourse is well and expected, you shouldn't feel the need to continue diving into discourse by virtue of obligation if it makes you miserable after seeing so many terrible takes based on illegitimate reasoning. Block certain tags if you deem it necessary.

You should also not focus on popularity, and not just because it inevitably comes at the cost of being true to yourself and what makes you satisfied. If you remain honest, and respectful, you'll find your true friends in the community soon enough, which are worth far more than a million faceless acquaintances ever will.

[passionesolja]

So at risk of not sounding like an oldhead, I’ve been a fan of Baldur’s Gate since I was 13-14. Baldur’s Gate is one of those games that I buy on any system I can. I have BG1 and BG2 for iPhone, Computer, switch. Everything I can get it on, I can. Ima be 100 wit y’all, I was in the “DnD game made by Larian” mental frenzy like most mfs was, because end of the day, I think Larian made a great DnD cRPG in THEIR style, but they didn’t make a Baldur’s Gate game.

“Why do you say that?” Because mechanically, gameplay wise, if you’ve never played any other game in the series but BG3, you’re not going to have the proper skills to go back. Game from the 90s or not, I think it’s an issue that Larian made a game so close to Divinity: Original Sin that it makes it difficult for Baldur’s Gate 3 players to go back to play Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2. Because Larian didn’t create the series, BioWare did, they were just given the rights to make the third installments.

I’ve never really tripped over it up until this point because imo, Pathfinder is keeping the Baldur’s Gate/Infinity Engine cRPG torch going. Plus, Larian made a great DnD cRPG but as I’m seeing more and more “Baldur’s Gate 3 is my first cRPG game” types be recommended D:OS 1 and 2, instead of the previous games in a series that introduced them to the genre, I just gotta raise the red flag here.

Fuck the “my fave romance doesn’t have as much focus as Astarion” discourse. This is the real shit that Larian should be dragged for. cRPGs are not sports games or FPS games. The individuality of a cRPG is super important to its existence, whether that be gameplay, setting, story, etc. Game titles and IPs aren’t just flashy names to catch your eye, the names “Pathfinder:”, “Divinity:”, etc. have a lot of baggage and expectations attached to them. When the next Pathfinder or Divinity game comes out, I know what to expect from it because I know the legacy of their respective previous games. cRPGs have their roots in table top games, and if you buy the new DnD 6e rulebook, and it’s Rogue Trader then you’d be like “wait”.

That’s what makes cRPGs so special, is because a new IP in the genre is a new IP in the genre. The most pivotal thing a cRPG has to do is forge its own style. This—imo, in the modern age—is because of all the Infinity Engine games that came out. BG, IWD, PST, are all on the same engine but they’re totally different games.

With the popularity of Baldur’s Gate 3, that ethos is lost on a lot of new players. The game will always be a fantastic DnD cRPG, but it won’t ever be a good Baldur’s Gate game.

[sahonithereadwolf]

I've actually been saying this for years at this point. As a brief background, I'm a game dev who use to do the games journalism thing.

It's hard not to see all the major moves of the industry as an on coming collapse of the triple a when we're seeing the pop of the pandemic bubble in the form of rolling massive layoffs. But this is a movement longtime coming. Basically, there was a shift at about the end of the PS2/Xbox era and into ps3/360 when the media around games shifted from "toy/hobby market/consumer electronic" to "this is the industry making more money than Hollywood" which lead to a lot of outside money and investors from Hollywood to really want a piece of that pie. The industry has long been neighbors but the money started coming from a different source with different expectations. External validation, a chasing of maturity through fidelity and "prestige storytelling", safer more proven gameplay chasing well established markets. Stuff like that. There was a flattening in a definition of games and a start of a consolidation under these big mega studios systems. Really one of the saving graces at this time were the emerging digital marketplaces where people who didn't fit into those systems could skill make games and push for innovation on a mechanical, artistic, and even business level. But the past few years we've been seeing these mass acquirement as these massive AAA system face a brain drain. A combination of worker abuse, burnout, creative frustration. And these giant studios are trying to capitalize off these studio names while loading up with debt to keep this unsustainable system afloat. A lot of these executives don't want some money, but forever money but lack a concept of an economy of attention. Most people have room in their lives, if they are interested in these live service games that they want to chase, for maybe 2 of these in their life. At most. They require too much of your attention. It's not sustainable and you can't have a portfolio of multiple of these.

But there is a special sort of executive hubris that comes from wildly overestimating the perception of their ips and the idea that no, maybe this time, I'll be the roblox/fortnite. They have the golden ticket.

And I get it. I do. 5-6 years for a big game that might not sell vs a constantly updating brand synergy machine with a pleasure button built in is executive saltlick. But boy is that ship not getting out of a harbor especially as the people that DO actually buy into these have a level of sunk cost invested into the ones they already like? So, the eventual collapse will lead into one of these following scenarios, likely all of them at some scale:

-Money gets scared and so less games get made overall (most likely)

-Money decides to just invest in a bunch of smaller studios in the hopes that one of them will become the next bioware or blizzard and pay dividends (some are already doing this)

-A return to a smaller studio and game structure as bigger studios become unsustainable except for a select few (optimistic)

-Indie games, now with structures in place that weren't there in the first video game industry collapse, have a sort of life breathed into them because a frustrating part of human nature is you can't just "quit" art, just quit making art certain ways. However, there will need to be a new way to consume them. No matter what there is gonna be a bodycount.

Unironically I think we might run into another video game crash like back in the day

[goddammitsenpai]

Me: Yknow what, given all of ea/bioware's super scummy actions as of late, especially after anthem tanked, I have very little confidence in their upcoming entries, since it's likely they're gonna be riddled with microtransactions and online only content. While I love their established IPs, I dont think I want to give this gaming company any more of my money until it's clear that they've changed their act.

EA/Bioware: You're gonna buy DA4 and ME4 and the ME trilogy remaster whether you like it or not you stupid asshole

Me: Yes sir yes ma'am

[askagamedev]

What’s your take on Take-Two and Star Theory? Is what they did normal?

As a disclaimer, let me start off by saying that I don’t know any non-public information about this particular situation. I don’t know anyone on the inside of this specific situation. 

First, a quick rundown. For those who are unaware, Take Two bought the Kerbal Space Program IP a while ago and wanted to fund a new Kerbal Space Program sequel. They decided to contract with independent studio Star Theory to develop that game for them in 2017. Late last year (2019), the project was reorganized when the scope was changed. As such, this also required renegotiation of the contract between Star Theory and Take Two. The leadership at Star Theory and Take Two could not reach an agreement (apparently buying Star Theory outright was on the table at one point), so Take Two canceled the contract and offered to hire many of Star Theory’s employees to continue work on a new KSP2 at the T2-owned studio Intercept. About 80% of the Star Theory’s employees took the offered employment and are now working on KSP2, while the remainder stayed on with Star Theory, hoping to find a new project to work on. Unfortunately, Star Theory was unable to secure additional funding and folded just as the global pandemic began its business-crushing rampage.

Some accounts are painting this as a publisher assassinating a studio and its own project in order to poach the studio’s talent. This does not seem super likely to me. I’ve worked at independent studios contracting with large publishers before. Generally speaking, as long as the contracting studio hits its deliverables on schedule and budget, the publisher is happy to get the game that was agreed upon in the contract. According to an article about the situation, the employees didn’t realize anything was amiss, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much - most developers are kept insulated from studio-level financial woes.

The first warning sign here is the renegotiation of project scope. Usually, scope renegotiation is a bad thing - it means that the original project scope and schedule weren’t going to be sufficient and that major changes needed to be made. If there are major delays in a project along with scope changes, that usually means there will be some major shuffling of personnel on the project (including layoffs) because of the change in scope. Stuff that was previously in the contract can get cut. Any devs who were hired to work on the systems and assets that get cut in the renegotiation that can’t be repurposed within the new scope are let go. 

The second warning sign - the offer to buy the studio and the additional offer of employment to the Star Theory developers - suggests the situation was even worse, because it generally means that the publisher considered the need to start the project over from scratch without any of the assets, pipeline, and code built by the contractor if there wasn’t a studio purchase made or enough interest in changing employers. Even if the contract already stipulated that Take Two owned those things, they’re not necessarily useful without the tribal knowledge earned by the original devs to build those systems - like being given a custom machine without any manual or documentation. Take Two risked losing all of the work Star Theory had done so far to offer employment to the Star Theory devs. The offer to buy the studio and/or hire developers here reminds me of what other big publishers have done in recent years - when a project is doomed, the publisher offers work to the devs they know will be affected. EA shuttered Bioware Montreal and most of those devs were pulled into EA Motive, rather than let go. I suspect something similar happened here.

In order for the assassination motive to bear out, the entire nefarious plan to hire up to 30 developers would have required paying for two years of development that had a very real risk of being partially or totally thrown away in addition to all of normal the costs of hiring. That doesn’t seem super likely to me. What seems more likely is that the project’s development wasn’t going so well and the leadership on both sides tried to renegotiate the terms. Unfortunately, they couldn’t reach a new agreement and the contract was going to be canceled. In such a situation, Star Theory was almost certainly going to lay off significant numbers of their work force to stay afloat, so Take Two made the first move by offering to hire them. In the following months, Star Theory was the unable to secure additional funding or work, ran out of [runway], and folded.

Running an independent studio today is really fraught with peril. The independent studio lives from contract to contract, hoping to earn enough on each job to build a little more stability and breathing room to secure the next job. One big mistake can mean the downfall of the entire studio and years of hard work. I suspect that this entire debacle was caused by disagreements between the leadership at Star Theory and Take Two. The situation is unfortunate for sure and I hope that the people affected by Star Theory’s closure recover quickly.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

The FANTa Project is being rebooted. [What is the FANTa project?]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[zahra-hydris]

I actually haven’t given my usual rambly review of mea

and I think it’s because, while I enjoyed it enough, I just don’t... care that much about it? like I have no motivation to replay or make another character (I tried, but then realised that I wasn’t interested in doing all of those boring ass side quests just to smooch peebee and get the copypasted-from-scott’s sex scene) and while I love the characters, I don’t feel like actively delving into the story or lore because

the whole game - story, lore, character development, actual planets - felt so lazy?

like there’s no part of mea that I think was done especially well? 

and I start writing rambly long paragraphs about the lack of engagement with genuinely interesting topics like the ethics of SAM (which the game attempts to give minimal attention to and then completely bypasses with a half-assed answer that, combined with their approach to synthesis in me3 speaks to their particular value system re: the role of science and their inability to critically think about it but that’s another story), the tensions in first contact (that anticlimactic scene.... the fact that you weren’t even the first to meet them... it just felt like a lazy ass way of bypassing the fact that this was an instance of colonialism and they couldn’t think of a way of making it less imperialistic. they completely failed to deconstruct the power fantasy there - despite what some people think - but again, an issue for another time), the politics of the initiative itself and the backing (and the fact that THEY KNEW THE REAPERS WERE COMING AND LEFT EARLY FOR IT and jien garson’s whole fucking MURDER), and the entire prospect of a new galaxy and different worlds (but nope, same homogenous desert planet style + a tiny jungle world and desert world with lakes; is the prospect of a multi-climate world like ours so unlikely?)

and the way the companions, despite being so great in many ways (and don’t get me wrong, I LOVE THEM), really lacked content and development and the romances and friendships were just so limited, with some getting lots of content and others getting scraps (and the choice here wasn’t laziness but often pure homophobia - there’s really no other way to describe the lack of squad mlm romances, the fact that sheryl chee had to fight for vetra’s wlw romance, and the way reyes’ and gil’s romances for m!ryder were treated)

and the broader issues of just a half-baked, boring ass main story that I didn’t care about at all beyond certain things that weren’t given the weight they needed (THE ANGARA???? WHY DIDN’T THIS HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUEST ON AYA???? WHO ARE THE JAARDEN??? HOW DO THE MILKY WAY RACES FEEL HERE???) and a Big Bad who was less compelling to me than the fucking archdemon in dao

but ultimately the whole thing chalks up to laziness. it felt paint-by-numbers: put together the bare minimum for those who love the series and add some attributes that The Kids Love These Days like meaninglessly open worlds, a slick combat system (gotta be honest; I kind of missed the class system and didn’t really engage with the multiple profiles idea at all), and softcore porn scenes for the straight boys (including the most male gaze-y sex scene for peebee/f!ryder) and a romantic one for straight girls (if you romanced jaal).

there was nothing there that felt like they genuinely wanted to make this game. that this was a story they felt was worth telling. this was someone saying ‘we can make money off the ME franchise regardless of what we make’.

and like I said in my reblog of that post before, I feel like this is a perfect example of where bioware’s at right now. da:i has lots of these issues (like the aversion to engaging with the issues it brings up, playing the power fantasy far too straight, and trying to do the Popular Things rather than what they’re good at) but mea combined this with this general apathy towards the series and the very game they were making. 

so I feel angry about everything they did so very wrong (the treatment of lgbt players, the underlying ideology, etc etc) but while normally w/ bioware games this is offset by a desire to re-engage with the world and the characters in it (and start crafting my own version of the story tbh), that isn’t really there this time. 

[kcwriter-blog]

Something I’ve been thinking but you have said better than I ever could. I’ve worked in the corporate world for decades. Trust me when I say EA doesn’t care. You aren’t sending a message to them. If pre-orders aren’t what they expect them to be, they will consider the game a flop. Period. Then they will at least lay even more people off or they will shutter BioWare. You will be putting 100s of people out of work because you are upset about Mary Kirby. She wouldn’t want her friends to experience what she experienced . Also she is proud of her work on Lucanis. Support her work and she will get more.

And EA will send out a press release that says they are doing it because the game did not meet sales goals. Basically, saying it is your fault for not buying the game not theirs for being greedy. Which isn’t true and sucks but that’s the way they think. They will not sell the IP to another company either. It will just be in their vault somewhere.

EA is a triple A gaming company worth billions. But BioWare? It's a subsidiary that is smaller than you think. (EA has about 13k employees, but BW has about 500).

Not pre-ordering or buying on the day of release isn't going to send a message to EA to improve its practices. It's only going to hurt BioWare and their remaining employees. (This isn't aimed at people who can't afford it, or don't like the game(s), or don't like what they've seen so far, or are very skeptical and want to hold off. I'm talking to people who are excited about the game and have the $60 to spare.)

Yes, there are things to criticize about BioWare and EA, I get it, I really do. What happened to Mary Kirby and those like her is awful. Fuck them for that, truly. The merchandise packages that don't include the game, kinda scummy. But if you don't take that as a sign that EA is pushing down, hard, on BioWare, then I don't know what to tell you. Do you think BioWare is somehow immune from EA's scrutiny? BioWare has two big misses in their recent history, after MEA and Anthem, they are on thin ice.

Will the game be buggy on release? Maybe. They do have a history of it. Hell, DAO is still buggy af, but we love it anyway. Will the game be bad? Possibly. There are story elements in each game that still piss me off to this day. It is a gamble, but if you like what you see and are excited, there is no reason not to support the franchise you love. Do you want more Dragon Age games? Do you want more Mass Effect games? If yes, then the best way to get more games is to buy this game.

The only thing that will happen if DATV sales suck, will be for EA to believe that Dragon Age games no longer sell and to nix or hold off on all future projects for it. By waiting for it to be on sale or pirating it, you could very well damn the future of BioWare and the DA franchise. You're not fucking up EA when you choose not to buy DATV, you are screwing BioWare, which is not the same as EA. BioWare can be dissolved, but EA won't. They won't care, EA will happily get rid of something that isn't making them money. EA is not gonna be hurt by DATV doing poorly in sales, they have their sports franchises that will always make them money. It will only hurt BioWare and the remaining developers. Do you like Weekes? Epler? Busche? Support them!

So if you are excited about Dragon Age: The Veilguard and want to see more Dragon Age games, don't let anyone convince you not to buy it, or pre-order it. Don't let anyone make you feel bad for doing so. If you have the money and like what you see, I encourage you to buy it and show support for your favorite franchise.

(Those worried about the SAG-AFTRA strike, don't be, DATV isn't included in the strike. More here.)

[choco-minto]

Controversial opinion: I played the Anthem demo over the weekend and it was actually pretty fun. I was so dead set on hating this game, but after giving it a try, it’s well made and fun to play!

Pros - It’s ridiculously goregous. They put in a TON of effort into the design. It was on par with a DICE game, IMO. - It was like playing Mass Effect multiplayer but with Ironman suits. Your powers detonate combos (or with your teammates) and you build up to fun ultimates that are unique to each javelin (iron man suit). - The tracking system is a bit similar to DA:I...like going towards the points you need to go to - Not only do you just kill enemies, you have puzzle missions with the team you group up with.  - You can customize your javelin! I CAN HAVE MY SHINY PINK AND BLUE IRON MAN - The weapon groups are very similar to Mass Effect’s, so if you have a weapon you liked using in ME, you will most likely find the similar weapon and mod to what you used. - From what I played, you can solo if you want. It is a little difficult but it’s not impossible.

Cons - The matchmaking system was disconnecting a lot but that’s most likely issues with the demo. - I only knew what to do because hubs was playing the whole day before and figured out a lot of the system so he was guiding me through. It would’ve taken a longer time to figure out if he didn’t tell me what needed to be done in each mission. Again, I think this is because it was a demo and there wasn’t a tutorial. - Like Mass Effect Andromeda, I feel the graphics are a bit too detailed for everything...the javelins, the scenery, and the enemies. When things are that detailed, it’s really difficult to find the enemies because all the detail just blends in with everything else. Half the time I found myself shooting at my teammates because I was looking for the spark graphics from weapons. - If you are playing with others, some missions will not advance until all your teammates are together at the mission point. I found myself waiting around at a point that could not advance because a person was off doing his own thing elsewhere. 

I am totally with you guys with not liking the fact that they made a game without romance because that is what made me love bioware games...but honestly, there are a lot of people who played bioware games who didn’t really care about romances (like hubs), who preferred spending more time customizing armor and weapons than play for narrative (like hubs), and spent more time playing ME multiplayer than the single player (like hubs lol) so I can understand this game is appealing to those who do have fun playing PVE with other people. 

If you are someone who had a ton of fun playing Mass Effect MP, you will definitely enjoy Anthem. If you have friends you made off of Mass Effect MP, then you will most likely have loads of fun with them again with this.

I am going to buy Anthem but since I’ve been burnt by ME Andromeda, I’m just going to wait a little bit for a price drop. You’re going to have to earn my loyalty  before I plunk down money for a pre-order to a new IP, bioware. XD

[felassan]

It's really sad to see Bioware fans throw hatred at Anthem just because it isn't what they want. Bioware wanted to try something new and we should all try and support them with this. I do want a new DA or ME but I refuse to shit on Bioware for trying a fresh universe IP.

Anthem isn’t my main cup of tea (gameplay looks fun so far tho) and I really mostly just want DA4. slinging outright hatred at Anthem isn’t constructive tho and for me personally serves no purpose other than being negative - u know, like if you don’t like it? don’t buy? - and I hope the game does well, because things are best for the studio as a whole (and therefore the future of DA and ME) if it does. I do understand the disappointment that their new IP wasn’t a ‘traditional’ BW RPG set in an Anthem-type universe. that would have been pretty rad and that’s the type of game that the core BW fandom come to BW to play (generalizing here but p much). there’s no rule saying they can’t or shouldn’t try something different tho ofc! on the flipside however I don’t think anyone owes BW their support with a new type of game just because they played and enjoyed previous games of theirs in the past. ^^ they are a company after all and people who play the games are customers/consumers. if something is a product people like, they will buy it and might spread good comments/reviews on it. there’s a middle ground between owing a company support and throwing hatred/being toxic imo. just my 0.2 :)

[sky-ham]

I'm not really interested in Anthem, I think I'll buy it on sales or not at all. Same goes with DA4 (Inquisitor should be the protag again but she/he won't be which means no continuity but I won't say how and why I say it, you'll see once you play it). What I wish to see is ME4 with Shep or MEA2 with Ryder (NOT a new protag! There're part of the story to continue ONLY with them and the consequences of their decisions!). Anthem is more like MMO and I don't like MMO.

I generally advise against pre-ordering, especially for new IPs. It helps to read reviews before purchasing a new game, because the final product usually looks different from what they show on the trailers.

My interest is mostly in Frostbite and Bioware’s grasp of using it in games that are not shooters or sports. The engine’s been marketed to be one of the most powerful and hardest to use, capable of rendering gorgeous detail and effects. It might not interest players who are in it for the story, but it’s of substantial interest to students like me, looking to get into game dev. Our teacher once showed us a beautifully rendered and animated patch of grass and the entire class swooned. 

That being said, don’t feel obligated to buy it if it doesn’t interest you. A lot of the ME crowd are vehement against buying it, but that’s because they’re looking for a Mass Effect experience in a game that isn’t Mass Effect. Bioware isn’t obligated to stay and only keep developing their existing franchises.

Going back to ME, I would probably agree with most that say Shepard’s story is done, as much as I want more of it. The endings of ME3 are too large in scope to tie up, because ME3 was developed as the end in mind. ME1 and ME2′s decisions seemed smaller in impact because they have to take into account what follows; in ME3, they could end with vastly different world states and not have to worry about addressing it in a follow-up game. Tying up the ending will alienate fans who made different decisions. Andromeda was a convenient way to avoid addressing what happens in the Milky Way, and still continue the ME universe. If we ever get another ME game, it will likely be MEA2.

[riverrouter]

I’ve seen a lot of people truly upset about the Anthem news. And it’s totally valid for you to be disappointed that Anthem is not the game you expected from Bioware. What’s not ok is to spread hate towards it because of that. Maybe this game is not meant for you. Does that mean you should buy it just to support them? Absolutely not! It is your money and if you decide it’s not the game for you, you’re under no obligation to buy it.

But Bioware is trying to be clear on what this game is so that you can make that decision for yourself. They’re not stringing you along, hiding the fact that there are no romances or AI companions. They’re certainly not trying to alienate you. Bioware is trying something different with Anthem. It is a new IP. It has never been established as anything else. So let it be it’s own thing. And if something comes out about it in the next 9 months that interests you, great! If not, that’s ok too.

[thevindicativevordan]

State of RPGs

Much as I love Superman and comics, one of my other great loves is WRPGs. Last couple of years have been seismic within the RPG industry between the major players of Bethesda, Bioware, and CDPR all stumbling in various ways, Microsoft buying up a bunch of the medium sized developers and also buying Bethesda, and the spread of RPG elements into every genre to the point they've become the norm. Thought I'd take a break from writing up capes for a bit and just offer my thoughts on where some of the major RPG developers stand currently from my point of view.

Still the kings of the genre, despite their failure with Fallout 76. Todd not being heavily involved with that seems to have allowed Bethesda the same excuse of "it was the B-team that fucked up, the A-team won't let us down!" that initially excused Bioware's failures with Mass Effect Andromeda. Further helping their case is that Starfield, their upcoming game, is their first new IP in generations, and it looks exciting! Todd has hyped it up as his dream game, we know part of the reason it's taken so long is they've finally made a major effort to bring their engine up to date, and there has been a shortage of AAA space opera RPGs aside from Mass Effect which increases interest in this.

For the record I was not a Fallout 4 fan. Shooting mechanics were finally tolerable outside of VATS, the level design was a lot more fun to explore without the green filter from F3, and I enjoyed the companion system over the follower system of previous Bethesda games. But the story and voiced protagonist sucked, the quest design was reduced to fetch this and kill that with zero complexity involved, and the settlement building was really boring for me personally. They were clearly trying to incorporate some of the faction mechanics and storytelling from FNV, but Bethesda's writers at their best aren't even on the same planet as peak Obsidian. F4 felt more like a Borderlands game than a proper Fallout game, and what's frustrating is that Far Harbor showed they are in fact capable of doing something closer to a traditional Fallout game. Bethesda always does this, the vanilla game is a stripped bare dumbed down version of the previous game, and then they put out a DLC that shows they DO in fact get what long-standing fans of the franchise like about their games (Shivering Isles, Dragonborn). Why can't they just do that in the main game then?

Getting bought out by Microsoft may not really impact BGS at all. They were the crown jewel of Bethesda, aside from MS giving them the funding they need I think Todd will still have free reign to do whatever he likes. Ideally "whatever Todd likes" means more RPG elements since now with MS owning them, they no longer have to continuously strip out more and more RPG elements in order to widen the appeal of their games. Keeping an eye on Starfield for now, let's hope it kicks off this gen for them with a banger.

What a fall from grace this studio has experienced. Their biggest success in recent years was Dragon Age: Inquisition, a thoroughly mediocre game that got completely outshone by Witcher 3, Bloodborne, and Fallout 4. Bioware was lucky to release it when they did, because if they had waited a year it would have gotten savaged by the press. But it came out in a slow year and was able to acquire a level of success. Lucky for them because the two games prior (DA2 and ME3) and the two games after (MEA and Anthem) have only sunk this studio's reputation deeper into the mud. MEA was a massive flop, their attempt at soft rebooting the franchise crashing and burning like a rocket to Garrus' face. Anthem was an even bigger disaster, their brand new IP meant to be the "Bob Dylan of gaming" instead debuting as a shallow Destiny clone that brought nothing new to the table except the flight mechanics. Bioware had always been known for their stories, but with Anthem it was the gameplay that everyone praised while criticizing everything else from the story, to the loot, to the grinding.

Many higher-ups at Bioware have left the company in recent years, and at this point I think it's fair to say that the only thing this current Bioware has in common with the Bioware of old is the name - even the logo has changed! Their priorities are different, one of the new heads at Bioware I understand was playing DAO and remarked that they no longer have any desire to get as dark as DAO did. Bioware doesn't make mature RPGs anymore, they make Ubisoft tier open world collect-a-thons that double as dating sims for their sex starved fanbase. Hard to feel any real enthusiasm for their upcoming games, they just don't seem interested in making ones that appeal to my taste anymore.

Dragon Age 4 and the Next Mass Effect feel like make it or break it for this studio, but people have been saying that for years, and despite multiple high profile failures, Bioware endures. Their ME remaster seems to have been aimed at reestablishing some goodwill with the public before their next new offering. I'm skeptical of DA4, the only thing that's keeping hope alive for me is that Weekes is taking over as lead writer, and I hope that means Weekes can deliver a good story if nothing else. Trespasser was a major step up over the other DLCs but DA4 seems to have been a game mired in development issues. At one point it was "Anthem with dragons", but then Anthem bombed and EA seemed to have given them more freedom after the success of Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. Guess we'll see what they make of it. NME using Liara to attract attention was intriguing, does this mean they're going to go with a canon ending, likely Destroy given the dead Reaper and no glowing green circuts? We won't find out until after DA4, and I'm even more skeptical of Bioware handling ME than DA, but I'll definitely watch the trailers for it and see if they offer anything of interest.

Were it not for Bioware's most recent games being two massive flops back to back, CDPR would inarguably be the studio that has fallen the hardest. Certainly they're the studio that's experienced the biggest whiplash with regards to their reputation in gaming, from the darlings of the industry and their fanbase after Witcher 3, to likely the most hated and certainly the most mocked after Cyberpunk 2077. Cyberpunk 2077 was supposed to be the game that showed they weren't just "the Witcher studio", instead they smothered their brand new IP in the crib by releasing an utterly broken game. Making matters worse was their deceptive marketing, refusal by the upper brass to listen to their developers which resulted in numerous delays (with the game still not fit to be released by their final delay), and then more lying from the heads about how they totally didn't know their broken game was broken.

More than a single failure of a game, what Cyberpunk 2077 did was utterly destroy the internal and external image CDPR had been cultivating. They liked to portray themselves as "the good guys", punks in an industry full of suits, developers who "left greed to others" as that one infamous tweet put it. Well nobody buys that line anymore, not the fans, not the press, and likely not even the developers themselves given the rumors that post-Cyberpunk internal meeting had developers ask the upper brass if they recognized the irony of their situation. A game meant to examine corporate greed became a high-profile example of the same trends it was meant to criticize. CDPR is going to have to find a new identity for itself now, they'll never be able to have people accept them as different from other major entities like EA or Activision after their recent fiasco. I don't think their situation is hopeless however.

They're supposedly working on the next gen versions of Cyberpunk 2077 and Witcher 3, along with expansions for Cyberpunk 2077. Bioware was able to start rebuilding their reputation with their Mass Effect remaster, I think CDPR can do likewise if their next gen versions and expansions are good. I think their next project should be a Witcher 1 remake for consoles, get the whole Geralt trilogy playable on consoles and remind people why they loved CDPR in the first place. Afterwards get started on Witcher 4, and maybe consider making a new IP. Cyberpunk needs time to recover, people aren't going to forget what happened any time soon, but if CDPR puts out good games again, I think they can return to the franchise in the future.

Don't really have much to say about these guys. They have found their niche since Demon's Souls and have faithfully stuck to that formula ever since. Sometimes they play with the formula a bit, as they did with Bloodborne and Sekiro, but every game they've made since Demon's Souls falls pretty neatly into the "Soulslike" formula. I enjoy the Souls games and am looking forward to Elden Ring. Would be cool to see them really try to make a game that is completely different from the rest of their catalog, maybe an Armored Core reboot, but if they want to stay in their lane then I'm fine with that.

Now here's a studio that I have mixed feelings about. On one hand they've been a studio mainly handicapped by time and money in the past. Known for games with sophisticated writing a cut above their peers, while also being broken and buggy, Obsidian fans have always dreamed about what they could achieve with the proper support. Their successes (Fallout New Vegas, Knights of the Old Republic II, NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer) are legendary within the RPG fanbase as are their failures (Alpha Protocol) plus numerous cancelled games that never saw the light of day such as Stormlands. Said cancelled games ended up really hurting Obsidian, at one point I think they laid off a 1/3 of their workforce, pushing them into trying to rebuild with the Pillars of Eternity franchise.

Pillars was a mixed bag, critically both games reviewed well, and the first sold well too, but the sequel did not sell nearly as much. Personally I enjoyed them both, but neither had writing of the same quality as Obsidian's past gems such as FNV (despite Josh Sawyer serving as game director for both) and looking up the current roster of writers it's shocking how few names from the old days remain at Obsidian still. The Outer Worlds, which hyped itself up as being a spiritual successor to FNV, reviewed well and I think sold well, but it seems to have joined DAI in the "well-received at release but was pretty mediocre in hindsight" category. Personally I question whether Obsidian should keep chasing the ghost of FNV, why not make an RPG in the Bioware party model like how they started out? No one is competing with Bioware in that domain!

I want to believe that MS money and support is going to finally allow Obsidian to achieve their full potential, but I have doubts about the talent left at Obsidian. They're definitely not on the same level writing-wise that they were back when they were putting out broken games. Is it just a question of money and time, or do they need to start recruiting new blood to breathe new life into the studio, or even try to get some of their old guys back? Question is on my mind as I wait to see what Avowed will offer, I'm rooting for them to deliver.

If Obsidian is Bioware's younger brother, InXile is Obsidian's. Obsidian at least was able to put out a few AAA hits, InXile was never able to do that. They had a brief foray into AAA games with Hunted: The Demon's Forge, but I believe that was a flop which nearly killed them. Contenting themselves with mainly trying to recreate the glory days of the isometric era - which to be clear I am a fan of - InXile never put out anything that garnered as much acclaim as what Black Isle and Bioware did, nor did they really build a cult fanbase like Obsidian did. MS buying them up offers them the opportunity to really break into the mainstream, their next RPG is apparently an AAA steampunk game with first person perspective. Being able to go to Obsidian, Bethesda, and Arkane for help potentially means this could be their first big hit. Intrigued to see what they put out now that they're no longer scrapping by.

These guys fucking rule and they're the ones I think are poised to benefit the most from MS buying out Bethesda. Their immersive sims are amazing, can't gush enough about how great Dishonored and Prey were. Sadly the sales weren't there to support their games, and they had to pivot to multiplayer with Deathloop and Redfall, neither of which interest me all that much. Damn was I disappointed when the "vampire game" Arkane was working on turned out to be a L4D clone. Given their last two games were disappointments, I'm not surprised, Bethesda was likely putting pressure on them to deliver games that could sell well. Fingers crossed Spencer lets them return to making immersive sims for Game Pass, I've heard rumors their next game might be Prey 2 and I would love to play that.

Discovered these guys with The Technomancer and I've derived a lot of enjoyment from both that and Greedfall. Greedfall in particular felt like the real sequel to DAO that we never got, and I really hope they make a sequel set in that universe. With Obsidian chasing that FNV high, these guys could compete in Bioware's sandbox as being another dev that offers RPGs focused on the party rather than a single protagonist. What's held them back so far has been their lack of budget, was kind of hoping MS would snatch them up, but Greedfall seems to have been a success and if they get a chance to build on that I think they could really start to become a bigger player in the RPG genre.

[whimsysgeekery]

Unpopular Opinion...

So uh, I’m actually kind of excited for Anthem... Not because I am expecting a Bioware game, but because there aren’t enough duo co-op story games out there. I LOVED playing Borderlands 2 with my husband. We tried to play Divinity Original Sin 2 together, but our RPG play styles are just way too different for that to be fun. AND if the combat is anywhere near as fun as Andromeda, then I’m am so down.

I’m also happy that they are trying their new experimental ideas on a new IP and not using Mass Effect or Dragon Age as a testing ground. The creative process gets stale if you only do the same thing over and over again - studios need the opportunity to try something new without the weight of a behemoth franchise weighing over them.

Only tangentially related... one of my favorite things in the world is listening to a new album from a band I love where they try something new. It doesn’t always work, but when it does, oh my god it’s wonderful.

I am sure the always online fuckery will be an issue at launch - this seems to be the one thing that EA studios can’t seem to grasp. Here’s hoping they abandon that concept (if the engine allows this far along in development...) before launch instead of after launch ala SimCity.

I understand the frustration towards Bioware and EA for not giving you what you specifically want especially after so many years waiting for the next Dragon Age - I have also been waiting. If you don’t want the game, just don’t buy it. The amount of hate going towards this game is just bizarre and emblematic of the dogmatic nature of online gaming culture.

TO BE CLEAR, if you don’t want this game then don’t buy it. But don’t try and bring it down before anyone has even had the chance to play it. At least not just because it’s not what you wanted in a game. Sure, if they suddenly flipped and were using this game to espouse an ideology perpetuates the wrongs of society then CALL IT THE FUCK OUT. But that’s not what I’ve seen on my dash.

I HATE feeling like I need to defend myself for wanting to give a seemingly well-intentioned game a chance. JUST LET PEOPLE ENJOY THINGS THAT AREN’T HARMFUL TO OTHER BEINGS. There’s a difference between something being problematic and something just not being what you enjoy.

[dgcatanisiri]

Lemme be clear:

I have no intention of buying Anthem. It is not a game for me. I don’t care for games that require a constant active internet connection. The things that I love in BioWare games do not appear to be at the forefront of Anthem. And I will not buy a game I have no intention of playing, because I have plenty of other things that need that money.

This does not mean that I want BioWare to crash and burn because of this. They can do their thing without me, and it’s fine. If anything, I hope that Anthem pulls in a good response, if only so that BioWare can turn around and continue the franchises I love, maybe even make new IPs that fall into the single-player RPG category that Anthem does not.

Again, I may not support Anthem, but that doesn’t mean I want BioWare to burn.

[bosmer]

you're right, I'm still a bit skeptical on anthem myself but I don't want it to do badly. I love mass effect and dragon age with all my heart and idk what will happen to them if anthem flops

I can’t imagine Anthem doing anything other than flopping. Absolutely no one seems hyped or even interested, we all just wanna know about DA4. And after reading an article saying they’re still figuring out DA4 it makes me think that we won’t even get to see it because Anthem will flop and EA will shut Bioware down. After the mess that was Mass Effect Andromeda what we really needed to see was an old IP coming back strong and making us have faith in Bioware again. Why would anyone buy a new IP game from a company that has consistently given poorly received games since 2012? Especially an IP that has strayed so far from the basic Bioware game format we expect.