The Steady Decline of BioWare- USGamer

[Chromie]

I'm a day late but reading this just makes me miss the BioWare I grew up with. Baldur's Gate, Kotor, and Jade Empire were fantastic games. I played Swtor at launch and have even tried playing it again over the past month. Why EA won't greenlifht a Kotor 3 is beyond me, it's been 7 years (?) since Okd arepublic launched. Anthem isn't my kind of game at all, I hate Dragon Age 2 and Inquisition and really tried to give Andromeda a chance. I wonder what BioWare will do next because it's been a long time since they really had a hit that like Mass Effect 2, that really had people talking.

There's more here here for those interested.

Once regarded as one of the very best RPG studios in the business, BioWare's games have drawn more and more criticism over the years. Star Wars: The Old Republic had problems with its endgame; Mass Effect 3 had problems with its ending; Dragon Age: Inquisition had problems with being shallow, and Mass Effect: Andromeda... well... Mass Effect: Andromeda just had problems. Even Mass Effect 2, still regarded by many as Peak BioWare, drew its share of grumbles from old-school RPG fans for emphasizing action over depth.

Click to shrink...

When EA purchased BioWare in October 2007, Mass Effect was only a month away from release. Its more RPG-focused systems aside, Mass Effect was notable for being BioWare's first foray into the mainstream action space. It was praised for its storytelling, memorable cast, and setpieces, but criticized for its shooting, which still relied on stats-driven number crunching. BioWare drew two lessons from this experience. One, production values were paramount. Two, hardcore RPG elements were a poor fit for a triple-A blockbuster. These lessons would shape BioWare's output for the next decade.

Click to shrink...

And yes, it's true, BioWare certainly hasn't been helped by EA, which has made plenty of missteps of its own. The need to shoehorn seemingly every game into the Frostbite engine has proven a bane for FIFA and BioWare alike, as have the demands to build extensive multiplayer modes. BioWare has reportedly tried to get permission to make a new Knights of the Old Republic, only to be stubbornly rejected.

Click to shrink...

 

[CloseTalker]

It's tough to think of Bioware as an entity when it's really just a business made up of hundreds of people, and when lots of those people move on and are replaced, the overall DNA of Bioware changes. Jade Empire and KOTOR came out over 15 years ago, it's logical to assume the vast majority of people who made those games don't work there anymore. It's very, very difficult for any dev to maintain its core identity in the face of regular turnover, and when it happens it's usually due to incredibly strong leadership.

 

[Chivalry]

It's tough to think of Bioware as an entity when it's really just a business made up of hundreds of people, and when lots of those people move on and are replaced, the overall DNA of Bioware changes. It's very, very difficult for any dev to maintain its core identity in the face of regular turnover, and when it happens it's usually due to incredibly strong leadership.

Click to shrink...

Yep. It's Maxis all over again.

 

[Jessie]

It's tough to think of Bioware as an entity when it's really just a business made up of hundreds of people, and when lots of those people move on and are replaced, the overall DNA of Bioware changes. Jade Empire and KOTOR came out over 15 years ago, it's logical to assume the vast majority of people who made those games don't work there anymore. It's very, very difficult for any dev to maintain its core identity in the face of regular turnover, and when it happens it's usually due to incredibly strong leadership.

Click to shrink...

 

[Chromie]

It's tough to think of Bioware as an entity when it's really just a business made up of hundreds of people, and when lots of those people move on and are replaced, the overall DNA of Bioware changes. Jade Empire and KOTOR came out over 15 years ago, it's logical to assume the vast majority of people who made those games don't work there anymore. It's very, very difficult for any dev to maintain its core identity in the face of regular turnover, and when it happens it's usually due to incredibly strong leadership.

Click to shrink...

True but then there are studios like Obsidian that have been around for a long time and have managed to maintain their identity. I guess the test will see is how they change under Microsoft.

 

[CloseTalker]

True but then there are studios like Obsidian that have been around for a long time and have managed to maintain their identity. I guess the test will see is how they change under Microsoft.

Click to shrink...

Yup! Like I mentioned, it's not impossible, it's just a herculean task that requires strong leadership and a very focused vision. Obsidian has generally stayed within their wheelhouse, innovating within that genre but still playing to their strengths. Bioware clearly wasn't afforded the same luxury, whether that be their choice or a directive from EA. But looking in hindsight, it's not mind blowing to see that Bioware of all devs fumbled the release of a multiplayer loot shooter. What aspects of their lineage would make people think they'd be good at that?

It's also a domino effect, and Bioware taking on new projects is probably what caused at least some of the turnover that ended up hurting them in the long run. People want to work at Bioware to make the next KOTOR, the next Jade Empire, not necessarily the next Destiny. So when they're forced to shift gears, some people will leave, which will cause quality to suffer, etc. I obviously don't have stats as proof, but I'd reckon to think Obsidian has much less turnover than Bioware, because the people there get to make the games they're passionate about.

 

[BossAttack]

I take issue with a lot of this article as it seems intent on proving the author's point, which is really just their personal feeling, ie "BioWare doesn't make games I personally want."

For example:

That BioWare was stretched thin by the demands of triple-A was all the more apparent in Dragon Age: Inquisition. Sensitive to the expectations that came with a blockbuster release, BioWare sought to cram it with fetch quests to ensure that it was padded out as much as possible. Its combat attempted to split the difference between hardcore and casual with a rough compromise between realtime action and the party-based mechanics of old. It even had a multiplayer mode.

Click to shrink...

This is just an odd statement. DA:I was a critical success winning GOTY, it's also the most financially successful game, in terms of sales, in BioWare's history. So, the idea that BioWare began to decline after their most successful and critically lauded title is a bit weird. Now, is there plenty to complain about DA:I? Yes. But, those are nitpicks from "hardcore" RPG fans, myself included, they did not seem to hurt the reception of the game to the larger audience.

Continuing on we get this unfair comparison to The Witcher 3:

A few months later, The Witcher 3 was released to near-universal acclaim. The Witcher 3 was just the sort of game people expected from BioWare: a story-driven action RPG with outstanding graphics, a deep story, and plenty of romance. It was a far more focused experience than Dragon Age: Inquisition, which found itself the victim of a sprawling scope and thinly-realized gameplay systems. The Witcher 3 felt richly realized in ways that BioWare's games hadn't felt in years.

Click to shrink...

I take issue with so many parts of this statement. First, is the idea that TW3 received universal acclaim while DA:I did not. Again, that is simply factually untrue. Both games won GOTY of their respective years, both received critical praise. Second, is the idea that TW3 is the game people expected from BioWare or was "richly realized" in a way BioWare games hadn't been. Listen, I LOVE TW3. In fact, it's my GOTG. But, TW3 is nothing like old BioWare titles besides being a RPG. TW3 is a single character-action RPG with a incredibly defined protagonist. It's actual RPG systems are extremely bare bones, even compared to Mass Effect 2 or DA:I. There is no party combat, you play as Geralt and only control Geralt (with the exception of brief Ciri segments). And, the player does not get to create their own character, they play as Geralt, a defined protagonist from a previous set of games and books. You can shape your Geralt a bit depending on your choices, but only so much. You can't make a Evil Geralt, that's not his character nor can you make a racist Geralt; again that's not his character.

TW3 is a completely different game than your typical party-based BioWare RPG with extremely slim RPG systems. Again, I love TW3 but it's going for something entirely different. Right now, BioWare is the only developer (at least for a time) making AAA RPGs with party combat. Hell, even FFXV shipped without the ability to control your party members. And, Andromeda didn't have it either. One can hope that DA4 brings party combat back.

Then we end with this kicker:

The kicker is that hardcore RPGs are in vogue right now. Witcher 3 is the best game of the generation. Divinity Original Sin 2 has proven that there's still an audience for hardcore isometric RPGs. Even Assassin's Creed is an RPG now.

Click to shrink...

First of all, I don't know how RPGs are "in vogue" right now. TW3 is the only AAA RPG released since Mass Effect: Andromeda and DA: I before it. Assassin's Creed is NOT an RPG. It may have some light-RPG elements, but it's not an RPG. And, Divinity is a low-budget, hardcore, isometric RPG. It has an audience, but a limited audience at that. EA is not looking to have BioWare create an incredibly niche game in an already small market. Hell, just look at Obsidian's financial failures with PoE2 and Tyranny, both a return to classic isometric RPGs that failed to sell well because the incredibly small market was over-saturated.

When it comes to AAA RPGs, you've only got two companies in the West, BioWare and CDPR. And, in the East you've got Square-Enix. That's it. You don't have a lot of companies looking to enter the space. They cost a lot of money.

 

[Deleted member 13645]

I take issue with a lot of this article as it seems intent on proving the author's point, which is really just their personal feeling, ie "BioWare doesn't make games I personally want."

For example:



This is just an odd statement. DA:I was a critical success winning GOTY, it's also the most financially successful game, in terms of sales, in BioWare's history. So, the idea that BioWare began to decline after their most successful and critically lauded title is a bit weird. Now, is there plenty to complain about DA:I? Yes. But, those are nitpicks from "hardcore" RPG fans, myself included, they did not seem to hurt the reception of the game to the larger audience.

Click to shrink...

I also think people holding Andromeda against BioWare also doesn't make much sense. That was a new studio, not the main BioWare team. Like, yes, it was a BioWare game, but it was made by a completely different and new Bioware studio, same way that Dark Souls II was made by From's B-team and not the main Dark Souls/Bloodborne team.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

DA:I was a critical success winning GOTY, it's also the most financially successful game, in terms of sales, in BioWare's history.

Click to shrink...

DA:I's reputation seems to have suffered quite a bit in the intervening years. I recall it was fairly well received at the time but since then it seems like all you ever read here and elsewhere is people complaining about it, so unless you played it at the time you might assume it was garbage. As a result I'm not surprised that some people's memories have failed in that regard.

 

[MysticGon]

Because games are so expensive and take such a long time to make there isn't any room for failure. I hate that. If the game is a buggy, technical mess then blame the company for not doing enough QA.

 

[Dphex]

Assassins Creed Odyssey is more BioWare than BioWare these days....which says alot about the state of BioWare.

 

[Latpri]

DA:I's reputation seems to have suffered quite a bit in the intervening years. I recall it was fairly well received at the time but since then it seems like all you ever read here and elsewhere is people complaining about it, so unless you played it at the time you might assume it was garbage. As a result I'm not surprised that some people's memories have failed in that regard.

Click to shrink...

2014 was just a bad year in general for games too. Nothing exciting really came out that year, what was DA:I's competition, Shadow of Mordor? Like, nothing from Japan outside of Bayo 2 which didnt get a lot of exposure being a Wii U game. Its not surprising that the best at the time wouldnt be remembered fondly even if it was a critical darling and won awards.

 

[cowbanana]

Bioware is really just a name. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Not the way it used to anyway.

 

[dodo]

This is just an odd statement. DA:I was a critical success winning GOTY, it's also the most financially successful game, in terms of sales, in BioWare's history. So, the idea that BioWare began to decline after their most successful and critically lauded title is a bit weird. Now, is there plenty to complain about DA:I? Yes. But, those are nitpicks from "hardcore" RPG fans, myself included, they did not seem to hurt the reception of the game to the larger audience.

Continuing on we get this unfair comparison to The Witcher 3:



I take issue with so many parts of this statement. First, is the idea that TW3 received universal acclaim while DA:I did not. Again, that is simply factually untrue. Both games won GOTY of their respective years, both received critical praise. Second, is the idea that TW3 is the game people expected from BioWare or was "richly realized" in a way BioWare games hadn't been. Listen, I LOVE TW3. In fact, it's my GOTG. But, TW3 is nothing like old BioWare titles besides being a RPG. TW3 is a single character-action RPG with a incredibly defined protagonist. It's actual RPG systems are extremely bare bones, even compared to Mass Effect 2 or DA:I. There is no party combat, you play as Geralt and only control Geralt (with the exception of brief Ciri segments). And, the player does not get to create their own character, they play as Geralt, a defined protagonist from a previous set of games and books. You can shape your Geralt a bit depending on your choices, but only so much. You can't make a Evil Geralt, that's not his character nor can you make a racist Geralt; again that's not his character.

TW3 is a completely different game than your typical party-based BioWare RPG with extremely slim RPG systems. Again, I love TW3 but it's going for something entirely different. Right now, BioWare is the only developer (at least for a time) making AAA RPGs with party combat. Hell, even FFXV shipped without the ability to control your party members. And, Andromeda didn't have it either. One can hope that DA4 brings party combat back.

Click to shrink...

TW3 is nothing like old Bioware games really, but it builds on what a mass audience likes about modern Bioware. Sure, it doesn't have a party, but it has ton of characters to talk to, choices that matter, oodles of hours of gameplay, and a cinematic presentation. It's not hard to see why it's often brought up in conversations about modern Bioware games, even if it's not quite the same mechanically.

 

[BossAttack]

TW3 is nothing like old Bioware games really, but it builds on what a mass audience likes about modern Bioware. Sure, it doesn't have a party, but it has ton of characters to talk to, choices that matter, oodles of hours of gameplay, and a cinematic presentation. It's not hard to see why it's often brought up in conversations about modern Bioware games, even if it's not quite the same mechanically.

Click to shrink...

Yet, you'll hear hardcore fans talk about how Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 was the start of the decline of BioWare because they "streamlined" the RPG systems. Yet, both games have more "RPG depth" than TW3. In other words, "hardcore fans" don't know what they want.

 

[dodo]

Yet, you'll hear hardcore fans talk about how Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 was the start of the decline of BioWare because they "streamlined" the RPG systems. Yet, both games have more "RPG depth" than TW3. In other words, "hardcore fans" don't know what they want.

Click to shrink...

I think it's two separate conversations. hardline infinity engine bioware fans have the same issues with TW3 that they do with ME2; look at any TW3 thread and you'll see plenty of folks complaining about how thin TW3's combat is, for example.

"TW3 is not as in-depth as a classic bioware" and "TW3 is far better at being a modern bioware game than modern bioware games" aren't mutually exclusive statements

 

[darkwing]

it is a decline alright, from the Metacritic of 97 from Mass Effect 2 , to the 56 of Anthem

 

[SageShinigami]

I take issue with a lot of this article as it seems intent on proving the author's point, which is really just their personal feeling, ie "BioWare doesn't make games I personally want."

For example:



This is just an odd statement. DA:I was a critical success winning GOTY, it's also the most financially successful game, in terms of sales, in BioWare's history. So, the idea that BioWare began to decline after their most successful and critically lauded title is a bit weird. Now, is there plenty to complain about DA:I? Yes. But, those are nitpicks from "hardcore" RPG fans, myself included, they did not seem to hurt the reception of the game to the larger audience.

Continuing on we get this unfair comparison to The Witcher 3:



I take issue with so many parts of this statement. First, is the idea that TW3 received universal acclaim while DA:I did not. Again, that is simply factually untrue. Both games won GOTY of their respective years, both received critical praise. Second, is the idea that TW3 is the game people expected from BioWare or was "richly realized" in a way BioWare games hadn't been. Listen, I LOVE TW3. In fact, it's my GOTG. But, TW3 is nothing like old BioWare titles besides being a RPG. TW3 is a single character-action RPG with a incredibly defined protagonist. It's actual RPG systems are extremely bare bones, even compared to Mass Effect 2 or DA:I. There is no party combat, you play as Geralt and only control Geralt (with the exception of brief Ciri segments). And, the player does not get to create their own character, they play as Geralt, a defined protagonist from a previous set of games and books. You can shape your Geralt a bit depending on your choices, but only so much. You can't make a Evil Geralt, that's not his character nor can you make a racist Geralt; again that's not his character.

TW3 is a completely different game than your typical party-based BioWare RPG with extremely slim RPG systems. Again, I love TW3 but it's going for something entirely different. Right now, BioWare is the only developer (at least for a time) making AAA RPGs with party combat. Hell, even FFXV shipped without the ability to control your party members. And, Andromeda didn't have it either. One can hope that DA4 brings party combat back.

Then we end with this kicker:



First of all, I don't know how RPGs are "in vogue" right now. TW3 is the only AAA RPG released since Mass Effect: Andromeda and DA: I before it. Assassin's Creed is NOT an RPG. It may have some light-RPG elements, but it's not an RPG. And, Divinity is a low-budget, hardcore, isometric RPG. It has an audience, but a limited audience at that. EA is not looking to have BioWare create an incredibly niche game in an already small market. Hell, just look at Obsidian's financial failures with PoE2 and Tyranny, both a return to classic isometric RPGs that failed to sell well because the incredibly small market was over-saturated.

When it comes to AAA RPGs, you've only got two companies in the West, BioWare and CDPR. And, in the East you've got Square-Enix. That's it. You don't have a lot of companies looking to enter the space. They cost a lot of money.

Click to shrink...

I agree with 99 percent of this. I don't agree that Origins or Odyssey aren't RPGs, though. But I DO think RPGs while constantly "doing well" aren't any more in vogue than they ever were. At best on the AAA level, you get one a year? 2014 had DA:I, 2015 had TW3, 2016 had Final Fantasy XV, 2017 AC: Origins, and 2018 AC: Odyssey. That's not really in vogue, and there's really only a handful of studios making the attempt, as you say.

 

[Knight in Shining Armani]

Assassins Creed Odyssey is more BioWare than BioWare these days....which says alot about the state of BioWare.

Click to shrink...

That...is so true and so sad.

 

[BerserkGamer95]

I guess develops doesn't feel more passion anymore or is it management issue love to know what its is. It's same people who worked on mass effect 2.

 

[Ladioss]

Because games are so expensive and take such a long time to make there isn't any room for failure. I hate that. If the game is a buggy, technical mess then blame the company for not doing enough QA.

Click to shrink...

QA is not the universal cure against adverse software architectural constraints, dubious management, budget and the need to release before the end of the fiscal year.

 

[Ultimadrago]

Was the decline that "Steady" though? Seemed like a nosedive from where I stood.

 

[Asbsand]

It just goes to show you how much these avenues chase the clicks; BioWare's "decline" isn't something new, but oh of course, Anthem is new so let's drum up the same old story again and present it like it's scandalous.

 

[Glio]

I do not know how The Witcher 3 can be considered a more "hardcore" rpg than Inquisition

 

[Hailinel]

I do not know how The Witcher 3 can be considered a more "hardcore" rpg than Inquisition

Click to shrink...

It's not that The Witcher 3 is a more hardcore RPG, really. It's that it's better at doing things modern Bioware RPGs focus on than actual Bioware RPGs.

 

[Cliff Steele]

BioWare died the day the doctors left. They felt it, the Studio was on a course set to fail. I'm still puzzled why Casey Hudson returned.

Too bad as the Bioware of old was my favorite studio back then.

 

[BerserkGamer95]

BioWare died the day the doctors left. They felt it, the Studio was on a course set to fail. I'm still puzzled why Casey Hudson returned.

Too bad as the Bioware of old was my favorite studio back then.

Click to shrink...

Casey Hudson should stay at microsoft and created his own studio.

 

[Ralemont]

It's not that The Witcher 3 is a more hardcore RPG, really. It's that it's better at doing things modern Bioware RPGs focus on than actual Bioware RPGs.

Click to shrink...

Not as much as the case as people think. One of the central tenets of BioWare games is the blank slate protagonist, and for fans of BioWare games that is a really big deal. Big enough that it is almost a category of RPG unto itself. For obvious reasons that aren't a knock against Geralt at all, this isn't the case in Witcher. Totally different PC paradigms.

Witcher 3 does morality and decisions well, but dare I say it doesn't actually do them in remotely the same fashion as BioWare has ever done with the POSSIBLE exception of BG2? Witcher 3 focuses on grey morality and unintended consequences, whereas BioWare skews more heavily towards old-school D&D extremes and the good/evil binary. I realize it's popular these days for people to want everything to be grey, but there's something to be said for the ability to be truly good or evil in older BioWare games. You simply won't see choices like you get at the end of Knights of the Old Republic or Jade Empire. There's an excitement to the idea that you can command a party member to kill another.

Witcher 3 has good dialogues with side characters, but it's also not a squad-based RPG, and that matters when considering the cast. The Witcher 3, for how well it does characters, is also a supremely lonely RPG. It fits Geralt well, but it produces a different effect than Shepard having Garrus and Tali by his side since the beginning, just as an example.

To me, Witcher 3 is far closer to something like Fallout: New Vegas than KOTOR or Mass Effect.

 

[Nashira]

Bioware is beholden to EA who is beholden to shareholders/investors and the expectations of quarterly profits. Therefore they make market-trend games.

Then you also have the problem of insane crunch and shitty work conditions, along with gamers hating their "SJW" politics and an emotionally invested fanbase who is difficult to please when you're making games that try to sell as much as possible.

 

[Crossing Eden]

TW3 is the only AAA RPG released since Mass Effect: Andromeda and DA: I before it. Assassin's Creed is NOT an RPG. It may have some light-RPG elements, but it's not an RPG.

Click to shrink...

You were on the mark until this part. AC is absolutely an RPG at this stage as every aspect of it is very heavily determined by very specific parameters that the player sets to maximize damage output for different playstyles on top of the light choose your own adventure aspects/multiple endings/story paths. And there have been multiple AAA rpgs since DA:I was released. FFXV, FO4, DS3, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Horizon. etc.

 

[GarthLordOfTheSith]

The reason why KOTOR 3 hasn't been greenlit is pretty simple, IMO. EA has no interest in that style game anymore. They don't want a purely single player game with a heavy story focus. They just don't. At least not ones they'd have to spend a fortune on.

They want something that can be turned around quick while leveraging popular IP, and I think EA will probably double down on that after Anthems rocky launch. EA is more likely to sell microtransactions garbage in an online multiplayer title than a single player story based title.

 

[Crossing Eden]

The reason why KOTOR 3 hasn't been greenlit is pretty simple, IMO. EA has no interest in that style game anymore. They don't want a purely single player game with a heavy story focus. They just don't. At least not ones they'd have to spend a fortune on.

They want something that can be turned around quick while leveraging popular IP, and I think EA will probably double down on that after Anthems rocky launch. EA is more likely to sell microtransactions garbage in an online multiplayer title than a single player story based title.

Click to shrink...

It depends on the studio. Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem were both in development for half a decade.

 

[GarthLordOfTheSith]

It depends on the studio. Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem were both in development for half a decade.

Click to shrink...

I think the issue with that is both games kinda failed. Just a little bit anyway. But at least Anthem is an online game where they can focus on player retention.

 

[Deleted member 47654]

I saw this thread, i had to post this


This... Perfection, will never come back.

 

[Nashira]

I love Kat Bailey's writing, but she's absolutely wrong with this statement:

But looking back, the success of Mass Effect feels more and more like a poisoned chalice. It propelled BioWare to undreamed of success, but it also robbed it of its soul.

Click to shrink...

1. ME1 didn't sell that much as a AAA game
2. Bioware has always talked about achieving GTA numbers even before the EA acquisition. Remember the interview with the docs about GTA San Andreas as an RPG and how Bioware could emulate that to achieve similar sale numbers?
3. It wasn't ME1 who propelled Bioware to cash in on the AAA shootbang genre. It was a combination of the aspirations by Bioware's management and EA's demand for "go big or go home" that they always demand from their studios.

 

[Deleted member 13101]

People criticized KOTOR for using "new" D&D rules way back when. The voluminous amount of weapons/inventory in Mass Effect was criticized for having single-digit ratings point differences (something seemingly replicated at the launch of Anthem). They criticized Dragon Age Origins because some of the Origins were "less thrilling" than other ones. On BSN people wished for Mike Laidlaw to get cancer, after the release of Dragon Age II.

The only thing that seems really steady over the years is the criticism of Bioware.

Now, this article does have some decent observations on Bioware over the past decade. And even notes that at one time "hardcore RPG elements were a poor fit for a triple-A blockbuster", yet they're everywhere today in triple-A blockbusters that rely on shooting mechanics. So clearly development houses have worked through these and made them viable over the years, while even BioWare chose to streamline in some areas.

But beyond the sensationalist "obituaries will be written..." tag line, this paragraph is perhaps the most questionable:

"But looking back, the success of Mass Effect feels more and more like a poisoned chalice. It propelled BioWare to undreamed of success, but it also robbed it of its soul. It's hard to imagine it ever returning to the heights of Baldur's Gate 2, when BioWare was an independent PC developer catering to a limited but ferociously loyal audience. Anthem is the natural endpoint of a process that began more than a decade ago, when BioWare decided its traditional approach was incompatible with large-scale success."

Sure, I don't think anyone thought that there would be another Baldur's Gate 2 after the "spiritual successor" Dragon Age Origins was released. Given, that train had sailed. But, Anthem was the natural endpoint of something that began over 10 years ago, as if everyone could have seen it coming? You saw them robbed of their souls, at the time, by Mass Effect - the start of the trilogy that everyone keeps clamoring for a remaster? This is from an Editor in Chief, even. And it's disappointing.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

Mass Effect 2 is my favorite video game ever made. There's just something about Bioware games that no other RPG's scratch the same itch for me.

It's tough to deal with Bioware having two major misfires in a row. It's been 5 years since their last game that's generally regarded as good, and it's not like Inquisition is universally loved.

I just want another great Mass Effect game, and I hope I don't have to wait a decade for it. My hopes are with Dragon Age 4 now.

 

[scottbeowulf]

The problem is that the majority of game buyers don't want what many on this board would call a "Bioware game". The videogame landscape has changed and gamer's interests have evolved. If Bioware made the perfect game for this board, it wouldn't sell the kinda numbers they and EA expect. So now they have to make what they think gamers now want... and they just aren't that good at it. Not really sure what the solution is when what your company used to be lauded for isn't really wanted anymore. They need to carve out their own path all over again and that's incredibly difficult.

 

[ZugZug123]

That might not be a popular take in Era but I do like DA:I and hope to see DA4 in a few years. And no, TW3 does not scratch my Bioware itch, I cannot be anyone other than Geralt in those games and he does not have a team with him most of the time. I like my Bioware companions.

 

[CloseTalker]

The problem is that the majority of game buyers don't want what many on this board would call a "Bioware game". The videogame landscape has changed and gamer's interests have evolved. If Bioware made the perfect game for this board, it wouldn't sell the kinda numbers they and EA expect. So now they have to make what they think gamers now want... and they just aren't that good at it. Not really sure what the solution is when what your company used to be lauded for isn't really wanted anymore. They need to carve out their own path all over again and that's incredibly difficult.

Click to shrink...

The success of games like Divinity Original Sin shows that there is absolutely an audience for RPGs that demand more of the player. You just need to commit to your idea, and execute well.

 

[Sagroth]

I know this hurts you to hear, but EA assuming direct control of BioWare was the harbinger of their destruction. But these attacks on them are pointless. Soon enough will come the day when they are no longer relevant.

Spoiler

Don't hate on my harbinger quote jokes. Embrace perfection.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

Like others I really don't see what The Witcher 3 has to do with BioWare. Totally different style of RPG.

 

[scottbeowulf]

The success of games like Divinity Original Sin shows that there is absolutely an audience for RPGs that demand more of the player. You just need to commit to your idea, and execute well.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying there aren't people out there wanting these games. But something like a Divinity isn't gonna do the kinda numbers Bioware/EA expect.

 

[rras1994]

The success of games like Divinity Original Sin shows that there is absolutely an audience for RPGs that demand more of the player. You just need to commit to your idea, and execute well.

Click to shrink...

That's seen as the best of the genre of that kind of game and it sold how well? A couple of million I think? While looking at Pillars of Eternity 2 which is seen as a decent game but didn't sell enough to even break even. You can't say a genre is sucessful when the only real way your game can make a profit is if it's the best of the best.

 

[Prine]

KOTOR, ME, ME2 & ME3, masterpieces.

This gen happens, then DA:I, Andromeda, Anthem. All shite games with embarrassing stories.

Bloody EA.

 

[Hailinel]

But beyond the sensationalist "obituaries will be written..." tag line, this paragraph is perhaps the most questionable:

"But looking back, the success of Mass Effect feels more and more like a poisoned chalice. It propelled BioWare to undreamed of success, but it also robbed it of its soul. It's hard to imagine it ever returning to the heights of Baldur's Gate 2, when BioWare was an independent PC developer catering to a limited but ferociously loyal audience. Anthem is the natural endpoint of a process that began more than a decade ago, when BioWare decided its traditional approach was incompatible with large-scale success."

Sure, I don't think anyone thought that there would be another Baldur's Gate 2 after the "spiritual successor" Dragon Age Origins was released. Given, that train had sailed. But, Anthem was the natural endpoint of something that began over 10 years ago, as if everyone could have seen it coming? You saw them robbed of their souls, at the time, by Mass Effect - the start of the trilogy that everyone keeps clamoring for a remaster? This is from an Editor in Chief, even. And it's disappointing.

Click to shrink...

I think you're misinterpreting. The argument is not "We saw this coming back when ME1 released." It's "looking back, there's a path that led Bioware from ME1 to Anthem that's telling in retrospect."

 

[Phantom88]

The problem is that the majority of game buyers don't want what many on this board would call a "Bioware game". The videogame landscape has changed and gamer's interests have evolved. If Bioware made the perfect game for this board, it wouldn't sell the kinda numbers they and EA expect.

Click to shrink...

This "board's" idea of a bioware game is Mass Effect 2 probably. A casual, mainstream action game. You're not talking about people who wish Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights.

 

[ClarkusDarkus]

DA2/ME3 started the decline of Bioware, Both turned towards more action based gameplay, With ME3 offering a full action mode of all things. The less said about Andromeda/Anthem the better as their both trash of the utmost and have none of the charm KOTOR had or OG ME.

 

[scottbeowulf]

I know this hurts you to hear, but EA assuming direct control of BioWare was the harbinger of their destruction. But these attacks on them are pointless. Soon enough will come the day when they are no longer relevant.

Spoiler

Don't hate on my harbinger quote jokes. Embrace perfection.

Click to shrink...

 

[Frozenprince]

It really does feel like more and more people kinda just want the company to go under and all these people to lose their jobs.