AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
The first iteration was a Spy Thriller / Heist game set in Tevinter.
Second iteration was GaaS.
Third is, ostensibly, "a single player story focused" game. Hopefully they went back to that first idea cause that sounded kinda cool.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
+3
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2021
I honestly thought that first iteration of the game was also multiplayer. Or maybe it was just at the point where Bioware were jamming multiplayer into everything anyway. I didn't think that game was single player, or maybe I just failed to pay attention as I still hadn't played Inquisition by that point.
I guess I'm pretty skeptical that EA didn't interfere extensively with both DA:I and Anthem in response to the boatloads of cash ME3:MP made them via lootboxes GaaS. The utterly terrible loot system in DA:I's multiplayer alone leads me to think EA very much wanted to get people to spend hundreds on top of the price of the game.
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Y'know, I was thinking it had a multiplayer compontent too.
But it wasn't GaaS to start with. Them changing it to GaaS is what caused a number of Bioware veterans (including the then Creative Director) to leave the company in protest.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Y'know, I was thinking it had a multiplayer compontent too.
But it wasn't GaaS to start with. Them changing it to GaaS is what caused a number of Bioware veterans (including the then Creative Director) to leave the company in protest.
That makes much more sense than what I'm remembering.
I guess I'm pretty skeptical that EA didn't interfere extensively with both DA:I and Anthem in response to the boatloads of cash ME3:MP made them via lootboxes GaaS. The utterly terrible loot system in DA:I's multiplayer alone leads me to think EA very much wanted to get people to spend hundreds on top of the price of the game.
I didn't actually realize Inquisition had multiplayer - primarily because there were no trophies/achievements tied to it. Nothing in the game even remotely cares or points you to it, unlike the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 where you couldn't easily get the maximum war assets unless you played Multiplayer.
DA:I's multiplayer was actually quite a bit of fun gameplay-wise.
However it was heavy into lootboxes if you wanted to progress and it had netcode issues that never got resolved and made certain bosses nearly impossible on higher difficulties so the playerbase evaporated pretty quickly.
I think the main problem with DA:I muti was the stilted progression. Unlike ME3 where you had multiple levels of things and consumables you could use, once you got good gear pieces there wasn't any loot to keep going for. The only progression past that was prestiging for defenses, which was annoying and only really necessary for making the highest difficulty less rippy. Still had a ton of fun with it though. All the extra characters with unique mechanics were cool, and you could do some silly things and still be effective. My caltrops archer wrecked face, it was disgusting.
+3
Options
DeadfallI don't think you realize just how rich he is.In fact, I should put on a monocle.Registered Userregular
Me and my gaming buds got way into the DAI multi. I got lucky fairly early on and found a sword that healed on damage. Which turned the Reaver into an unstoppable killing machine.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2021
As I recall, the netcode was also terrible. But yes, to actually play it was super fun
Like I’m legit curious why people would give BioWare the benefit of the doubt on this.
5 years was enough time to wrangle frostbite into a viable engine, write a compelling plot and create an enjoyable gameplay loop and yet anthem came out just… bad.
Da4 is being reworked for like the second time.
ME4 is just baffling since the third game basically precluded the possibility of sequels with it’s ending.
What exactly am I missing?
Anthem was a GaaS game so I don't personally put it into the same consideration at all.
I have greatly enjoyed every DA and ME game so no reason to count those out until given a reason.
As others have pointed out: both da and me were riddled with micro transactions in their multiplayer segments so I’m not going to cut them any slack for anthem.
And beyond that, there is the problem with how despite having a veritable eternity to work on this anthem it came out looking like a budget title despite being from what is supposed to be a AAA studio.
As such I can’t see why anyone has faith in them due to how nothing has really changed with how they operate as far as I can tell.
With that having been said: no one would be happier then me to be proven wrong.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i feel like DAI in its final form with all content, patches and possibly a minor mod or two to get rid of stupid stuff like war table if that turns you off is very much a creditable bioware effort, and I have less mixed feelings about it than da2
i bounced off it when it came out due to hitting a progression destroying bug and i replayed it last year and it was very much enjoyable, and i remember it more fondly than any of the mass effects now
Honestly, as much as EA sucks, I don't think EA broke BioWare. Everything we heard about Anthem and ME:A's development suggests that BioWare's corporate culture has always been fundamentally fucked, and it just finally caught up with them.
While I agree, but don't underestimate passive power. Just because EA hasn't directly screwed with Bioware, doesn't mean hints or back channel crap hasn't gone on around bonuses, preferences, etc. If I remember the article, EA didn't mandate that Bioware use Frostbite, but they did mention that the fee's for using Unreal Engine would be Bioware's responsibility. And it's EA that sets the sales targets for these things, which can make or break a game. ME:A by all accounts did fine, but EA put such a large sales target on it before it even came out, that by that metric it 'tanked'.
Honestly, as much as EA sucks, I don't think EA broke BioWare. Everything we heard about Anthem and ME:A's development suggests that BioWare's corporate culture has always been fundamentally fucked, and it just finally caught up with them.
While I agree, but don't underestimate passive power. Just because EA hasn't directly screwed with Bioware, doesn't mean hints or back channel crap hasn't gone on around bonuses, preferences, etc. If I remember the article, EA didn't mandate that Bioware use Frostbite, but they did mention that the fee's for using Unreal Engine would be Bioware's responsibility. And it's EA that sets the sales targets for these things, which can make or break a game. ME:A by all accounts did fine, but EA put such a large sales target on it before it even came out, that by that metric it 'tanked'.
It didn't do fine enough to not get all its DLC cancelled.
Honestly, as much as EA sucks, I don't think EA broke BioWare. Everything we heard about Anthem and ME:A's development suggests that BioWare's corporate culture has always been fundamentally fucked, and it just finally caught up with them.
While I agree, but don't underestimate passive power. Just because EA hasn't directly screwed with Bioware, doesn't mean hints or back channel crap hasn't gone on around bonuses, preferences, etc. If I remember the article, EA didn't mandate that Bioware use Frostbite, but they did mention that the fee's for using Unreal Engine would be Bioware's responsibility. And it's EA that sets the sales targets for these things, which can make or break a game. ME:A by all accounts did fine, but EA put such a large sales target on it before it even came out, that by that metric it 'tanked'.
It didn't do fine enough to not get all its DLC cancelled.
It always comes down to what is the definition of fine? Did it make a profit? According to what I found, yes. Did it make the kind of profit EA exec's said it was going to make to investors a year before it released? Nope, didn't come close to that.
It all depends on leadership and in that I don't have much hope. The first iteration sounded exactly what I wanted from DA4. However that was canned and a live service game was rebooted instead. Now that one was also canned, but it doesn't give me much confidence that leadership has learned that they should focus on making a good game vs filling out checkboxes to present to EA leadership.
Wasn't the first iteration of DA4 the GaaS game? I remember that the first thing I heard about DA4 was that it was some kind of weird multiplayer heist game.
Here's some info around the first iteration:
“We were working towards something very cool, a hugely reactive game, smaller in scope than Dragon Age: Inquisition but much larger in player choice, followers, reactivity, and depth,” one source told Schreier. “I’m sad that game will never get made.” According to Schreier's article, the cancelled Dragon Age 4 would cast players as spies in the Tevinter Imperium, "a wizard-ruled country on the north end of Dragon Age’s main continent, Thedas." The game's focus would be on creating player choice and the consequences of those choices, with a reactive world that changed based on what players did. It would also focus less on fetch quests and be more contained overall than its predecessor.
Then along came the deeply troubled Mass Effect: Andromeda, and BioWare had to pull the Dragon Age 4 team to help with that. Then the deeply troubled Anthem once again put the brakes on Dragon Age work. Then, finally, in no small part due to the fact that Joplin didn't have any kind of multiplayer focus and didn't fit the "games-as-service" model, it was canned. Most everyone was moved over to Anthem.
Honestly, as much as EA sucks, I don't think EA broke BioWare. Everything we heard about Anthem and ME:A's development suggests that BioWare's corporate culture has always been fundamentally fucked, and it just finally caught up with them.
While I agree, but don't underestimate passive power. Just because EA hasn't directly screwed with Bioware, doesn't mean hints or back channel crap hasn't gone on around bonuses, preferences, etc. If I remember the article, EA didn't mandate that Bioware use Frostbite, but they did mention that the fee's for using Unreal Engine would be Bioware's responsibility. And it's EA that sets the sales targets for these things, which can make or break a game. ME:A by all accounts did fine, but EA put such a large sales target on it before it even came out, that by that metric it 'tanked'.
It didn't do fine enough to not get all its DLC cancelled.
It always comes down to what is the definition of fine? Did it make a profit? According to what I found, yes. Did it make the kind of profit EA exec's said it was going to make to investors a year before it released? Nope, didn't come close to that.
Thing is, we really, really don't know how fine it did. EA said it made a bunch of revenue the quarter it released, but of course it did -- as we've advanced in generations, the cost of making games has skyrocketed, and it's very possible for games to sell more in later generations yet make less money. And of course they had to mention the game in its financial report -- as they've circled the wagons around making fewer, bigger games, they have to highlight that they're bringing in revenue in their quarterly report if they're the only game coming out that quarter. EA also highlighted Anthem's revenue the quarter it came out. Plus they never actually said how much it sold total.
Plus, if it did fine, why would EA throw away an easy opportunity to make even more money?
As always, pointing out a game didn't sell well isn't saying a game sucks.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Like I’m legit curious why people would give BioWare the benefit of the doubt on this.
5 years was enough time to wrangle frostbite into a viable engine, write a compelling plot and create an enjoyable gameplay loop and yet anthem came out just… bad.
Da4 is being reworked for like the second time.
ME4 is just baffling since the third game basically precluded the possibility of sequels with it’s ending.
What exactly am I missing?
Anthem was a GaaS game so I don't personally put it into the same consideration at all.
I have greatly enjoyed every DA and ME game so no reason to count those out until given a reason.
As others have pointed out: both da and me were riddled with micro transactions in their multiplayer segments so I’m not going to cut them any slack for anthem.
And beyond that, there is the problem with how despite having a veritable eternity to work on this anthem it came out looking like a budget title despite being from what is supposed to be a AAA studio.
As such I can’t see why anyone has faith in them due to how nothing has really changed with how they operate as far as I can tell.
With that having been said: no one would be happier then me to be proven wrong.
Sure I'm just saying that I'm not going to base my thoughts on games I am interested based ona kind of game that I would never be interested in. No matter how much time a game like Anthem had it wouldn't be a kind of game I'd enjoy. You can't make a GaaS title that doesn't feel like a GaaS title. It's too deep in the DNA. It's just a different kind of experience that is unrelated to the experiences I am looking for.
Like if they made a an RTS it wouldn't matter how good or bad it was, I'm just not interested in those. And thus wouldn't change my thoughts on the next time they make a game I am interested in.
My biggest concern is of course whether they try to make the kind of game I am interested in. But if they do I will be excited for it.
The point I’m trying to make by pointing out anthem is that the shitty decision making that led to that game being what it was isn’t some weird one off fluke but rather part of the dna of the company at this point and ignoring it is only going to lead to disappointment.
+8
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
I am honestly through trying to attempt armchair analysis about BioWare's development processes because I've participated in that for the last 3-4 years and all it boils down to are the same talking points
Along with a smattering on the side about some variation on agreement how BioWare is a shadow of what it used to be, or how it's only BioWare in name etc. etc. Or maybe some debate about which one of their last few games were or were not financially successful
Not to police the thread or anything, to be clear, yall do yall. I'm just here waiting for news on the actual game content itself so we aren't starved anymore of Dragon Age content since 2014 or whenever the hell that was
Honestly, as much as EA sucks, I don't think EA broke BioWare. Everything we heard about Anthem and ME:A's development suggests that BioWare's corporate culture has always been fundamentally fucked, and it just finally caught up with them.
While I agree, but don't underestimate passive power. Just because EA hasn't directly screwed with Bioware, doesn't mean hints or back channel crap hasn't gone on around bonuses, preferences, etc. If I remember the article, EA didn't mandate that Bioware use Frostbite, but they did mention that the fee's for using Unreal Engine would be Bioware's responsibility. And it's EA that sets the sales targets for these things, which can make or break a game. ME:A by all accounts did fine, but EA put such a large sales target on it before it even came out, that by that metric it 'tanked'.
It didn't do fine enough to not get all its DLC cancelled.
It always comes down to what is the definition of fine? Did it make a profit? According to what I found, yes. Did it make the kind of profit EA exec's said it was going to make to investors a year before it released? Nope, didn't come close to that.
Well, I like to compare it to a controversial game like Dragon Age 2. DA2 sold well enough, despite all controversy that it got two at least two big DLCs (one with Felicia Day!) on top of it. So while it had a shit storm around it, they were still willing to put in the work to make DLC etc. So if Andromeda did poorly enough based on budget and similar, remembering that marketing is often the big black hole of money that isn't inherently visible in initial development costs, then it's likely canning the DLC indicated it did substantially poorer than anticipated. Also this is during the time Anthem is presumably being a gigantic black hole of money and needs to be done, because I think by 2017/2018 they are about to reboot it again to try to get it into a shippable state.
So a multitude of factors probably doomed Andromeda.
Also that initial DA4 is exactly what I would have wanted. A game that was smaller in scale, but that really allowed you to feel like you had some interesting and complex choices to make. Dump the fetch quests, who cares about those anyway. Make really good initial quests like Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts any day.
The point I’m trying to make by pointing out anthem is that the shitty decision making that led to that game being what it was isn’t some weird one off fluke but rather part of the dna of the company at this point and ignoring it is only going to lead to disappointment.
Again sure, and that's all well and good to take that approach. But fun and enjoyable games can still come from a company making questionable decisions. If the company just makes a single player focused experience then odds are it will be a fun time that I will be happy with. If they don't then I just wouldn't play and none of this matters any way.
*If* it was a single player focused experience based on the established lore it would be very unlikely to be such a terrible experience that I wouldn't have enough fun with it to be happy.
The absolute worst case scenario is they somehow fuck up so bad the game is actually trash. Which is always possible! Would that be sad? Sure! Will it have any significant impact on my life in any meaningful way? Nope.
Being positive and looking forward to things is WAYYY more enjoyable to me. So until I see something that shows me otherwise, I look forward to see what they do with it. It's very rare that a AAA dev is making a single player game in a well known franchise that is less than a 3/5.
DemonStacey on
+1
Options
ThegreatcowLord of All BaconsWashington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered Userregular
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
The Inquisition talk had me goofing around in there with a bunch of mods installed, which I'd never done before, and man do those go a long way towards improving the game.
In particular, I found one which gives the Inquisitor access to all 3 specializations instead of just one and wewlad does that make building your PC feel a lot more like the earlier games.
+2
Options
ThegreatcowLord of All BaconsWashington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered Userregular
And Dragon Age 4 loses another Creative Lead. I'm not sure what Lyrium reserves that team has left, but good lordy. That's three Creative Heads gone from this project. I'm...not hopeful.
Dragon Age 4 loses yet another top lead. Creative director Matt Goldman left BioWare last fall and previous executive producer Mark Darrah left at the end of 2020
Hi friends. I wanted to pass on the news that I am leaving BioWare. The next Dragon Age is in great hands. Looking forward to cheering on the team and playing as a fan. Please follow my friends on the latest and greatest moving forward. Much love #DragonAge #Anthem family.
BioWare as we knew it has been dead for quite some time as evidenced by how the quality of their games dropped like a rock Over the past several years and this revolving door of creative leads over the course of 5 years has done nothing to instill confidence.
Sitting back and thinking about how there was a lot of talk about how they learned from the messy development of Mass Effect Andromeda, a game that was in development for a very long time but the final game we got was only in development for a like a year and a half of that.
I mean, it's not impossible that the next Dragon Age will manage to survive all this, everything will come together, the stars will align, etc. and the game will be good.
But holy shit, losing this many creative leads along the way just doesn't happen. My hopes aren't high.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+3
Options
ThegreatcowLord of All BaconsWashington State - It's Wet up here innit? Registered Userregular
*dusts off thread*
Well it's not much, but we have an official title for the next Dragonage!
Dragon Age: Dreadwolf
Looks like they're going deep into Solas' relationship with the world on this one, but not much else has been revealed looks like:
I wonder if the game has gone through any serious overhaul behind the scenes as people leave and new people in charge start making decisions.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Seeing the thread reminds me that I still haven't played through Dragon Age Origins like I was planning to. Petered out so hard from a couple of the more "Forever" style dungeons in the game. One day when I have time and maybe closer to Dragon Age 4 coming out, I shall go and play through the rest of it. I don't even remember what I was doing!
Posts
Second iteration was GaaS.
Third is, ostensibly, "a single player story focused" game. Hopefully they went back to that first idea cause that sounded kinda cool.
But it wasn't GaaS to start with. Them changing it to GaaS is what caused a number of Bioware veterans (including the then Creative Director) to leave the company in protest.
That makes much more sense than what I'm remembering.
I didn't actually realize Inquisition had multiplayer - primarily because there were no trophies/achievements tied to it. Nothing in the game even remotely cares or points you to it, unlike the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 where you couldn't easily get the maximum war assets unless you played Multiplayer.
However it was heavy into lootboxes if you wanted to progress and it had netcode issues that never got resolved and made certain bosses nearly impossible on higher difficulties so the playerbase evaporated pretty quickly.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
As others have pointed out: both da and me were riddled with micro transactions in their multiplayer segments so I’m not going to cut them any slack for anthem.
And beyond that, there is the problem with how despite having a veritable eternity to work on this anthem it came out looking like a budget title despite being from what is supposed to be a AAA studio.
As such I can’t see why anyone has faith in them due to how nothing has really changed with how they operate as far as I can tell.
With that having been said: no one would be happier then me to be proven wrong.
i bounced off it when it came out due to hitting a progression destroying bug and i replayed it last year and it was very much enjoyable, and i remember it more fondly than any of the mass effects now
While I agree, but don't underestimate passive power. Just because EA hasn't directly screwed with Bioware, doesn't mean hints or back channel crap hasn't gone on around bonuses, preferences, etc. If I remember the article, EA didn't mandate that Bioware use Frostbite, but they did mention that the fee's for using Unreal Engine would be Bioware's responsibility. And it's EA that sets the sales targets for these things, which can make or break a game. ME:A by all accounts did fine, but EA put such a large sales target on it before it even came out, that by that metric it 'tanked'.
It didn't do fine enough to not get all its DLC cancelled.
It always comes down to what is the definition of fine? Did it make a profit? According to what I found, yes. Did it make the kind of profit EA exec's said it was going to make to investors a year before it released? Nope, didn't come close to that.
Here's some info around the first iteration:
Thing is, we really, really don't know how fine it did. EA said it made a bunch of revenue the quarter it released, but of course it did -- as we've advanced in generations, the cost of making games has skyrocketed, and it's very possible for games to sell more in later generations yet make less money. And of course they had to mention the game in its financial report -- as they've circled the wagons around making fewer, bigger games, they have to highlight that they're bringing in revenue in their quarterly report if they're the only game coming out that quarter. EA also highlighted Anthem's revenue the quarter it came out. Plus they never actually said how much it sold total.
Plus, if it did fine, why would EA throw away an easy opportunity to make even more money?
As always, pointing out a game didn't sell well isn't saying a game sucks.
Sure I'm just saying that I'm not going to base my thoughts on games I am interested based ona kind of game that I would never be interested in. No matter how much time a game like Anthem had it wouldn't be a kind of game I'd enjoy. You can't make a GaaS title that doesn't feel like a GaaS title. It's too deep in the DNA. It's just a different kind of experience that is unrelated to the experiences I am looking for.
Like if they made a an RTS it wouldn't matter how good or bad it was, I'm just not interested in those. And thus wouldn't change my thoughts on the next time they make a game I am interested in.
My biggest concern is of course whether they try to make the kind of game I am interested in. But if they do I will be excited for it.
Along with a smattering on the side about some variation on agreement how BioWare is a shadow of what it used to be, or how it's only BioWare in name etc. etc. Or maybe some debate about which one of their last few games were or were not financially successful
Not to police the thread or anything, to be clear, yall do yall. I'm just here waiting for news on the actual game content itself so we aren't starved anymore of Dragon Age content since 2014 or whenever the hell that was
That robot chanty voice still gives me goosebumps
Well, I like to compare it to a controversial game like Dragon Age 2. DA2 sold well enough, despite all controversy that it got two at least two big DLCs (one with Felicia Day!) on top of it. So while it had a shit storm around it, they were still willing to put in the work to make DLC etc. So if Andromeda did poorly enough based on budget and similar, remembering that marketing is often the big black hole of money that isn't inherently visible in initial development costs, then it's likely canning the DLC indicated it did substantially poorer than anticipated. Also this is during the time Anthem is presumably being a gigantic black hole of money and needs to be done, because I think by 2017/2018 they are about to reboot it again to try to get it into a shippable state.
So a multitude of factors probably doomed Andromeda.
Also that initial DA4 is exactly what I would have wanted. A game that was smaller in scale, but that really allowed you to feel like you had some interesting and complex choices to make. Dump the fetch quests, who cares about those anyway. Make really good initial quests like Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts any day.
Again sure, and that's all well and good to take that approach. But fun and enjoyable games can still come from a company making questionable decisions. If the company just makes a single player focused experience then odds are it will be a fun time that I will be happy with. If they don't then I just wouldn't play and none of this matters any way.
*If* it was a single player focused experience based on the established lore it would be very unlikely to be such a terrible experience that I wouldn't have enough fun with it to be happy.
The absolute worst case scenario is they somehow fuck up so bad the game is actually trash. Which is always possible! Would that be sad? Sure! Will it have any significant impact on my life in any meaningful way? Nope.
Being positive and looking forward to things is WAYYY more enjoyable to me. So until I see something that shows me otherwise, I look forward to see what they do with it. It's very rare that a AAA dev is making a single player game in a well known franchise that is less than a 3/5.
It's why I still have this video bookmarked after all this time:
Wud yoo laek to lern aboot meatz? Look here!
In particular, I found one which gives the Inquisitor access to all 3 specializations instead of just one and wewlad does that make building your PC feel a lot more like the earlier games.
Retweeting this tweet:
Wud yoo laek to lern aboot meatz? Look here!
Those hands:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But holy shit, losing this many creative leads along the way just doesn't happen. My hopes aren't high.
Well it's not much, but we have an official title for the next Dragonage!
Dragon Age: Dreadwolf
Looks like they're going deep into Solas' relationship with the world on this one, but not much else has been revealed looks like:
https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-dreadwolf-title-logo-revealed
Wud yoo laek to lern aboot meatz? Look here!
Are we still in Tevinter this time? It's been so long and there's been so much upheaval.