Comment on After years of holding out hope, 2024 was the year I finally gave up on BioWare
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Once EA came into the picture, things went downhill quick.
Comment on After years of holding out hope, 2024 was the year I finally gave up on BioWare
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Once EA came into the picture, things went downhill quick.
Poopfeast420@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Did they? Mass Effect and Dragon Age began under EA, which a lot of people would argue are pretty good.
Also, what does EA do, that’s so bad? As far as I know, they’re really hands-off, so they don’t really meddle in the development, like what we’ve heard from Bobby Kotick.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 month ago
Before EA, Bioware’s RPGs had some personality and took risks trying new shit. Since Mass Effect, they’ve been especially formulaic, toned down, and sanitized for a larger audience.
EA makes good looking, (usually) well polished games meant to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible, and when you have spent years playing games with a distinct style you can very easily see this shift once EA acquires a studio. Either you’re never going to see those games again, or they will become the most watered-down, generic version of the studio’s greatest IPs.
Poopfeast420@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Like I said, what does EA do exactly in these cases? People from Bioware themselves said that EA doesn’t interfere with them, and they’re making their own choices:
youtu.be/K9Z-nCv7XsI?t=2885
I highly doubt that, since Catalyst came out eight years after the first one. If EA was just chasing the money, why wait so long.
averyminya@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Are you familiar with the US foreign policy proposed by Theodore Roosevelt? “speak softly and carry a big stick”
EA may speak softly, but they carry a big stick. Bioware has clearly catered to EA, intentional or not, and their games have suffered from it.
Mirrors Edge was not a success either, btw.
It took them 5 years to reach their initial projected sales, and that’s after combining every available edition. That’s a commercial failure.
They did still chase it with followup games, btw.
Catalyst was going to be included, as it was shown at E3 in 2013 and 2014. And delay, delay, delay, all the way into 2016. Catalyst was quite literally EA chasing the money, because Mirrors Edge has only really gotten recognition long after its release – in terms of sales, and it’s availability on Steam really helped solidify it’s presence as a cult classic. The game of course was received well, it just didn’t sell (not much marketing and it’s not a game of the era, so to say, it is not an action heavy shooter game). So now after 8 years of letting this IP rot in development hell they said oh we can add some MTX and make another one, hm, let’s make it open world that’s what gamers like these days. It was actually decided in 2015 that it would be open world, since that wasn’t seen in any of the 2014 promotional. So 1 short year, since June 2016 is the games release.
Nah, I enjoyed parts of Catalyst but it’s a shell of its original. Dying Light and Ghostrunner are almost closer spiritual successors in regards to expanding on mechanics. The gameplay was the same but without any actual dynamics (gunplay wasn’t great in ME but it breaks up and gives variety), the writing was predictable and just really not that great, and that leaves new additions… Which you just avoid because it’s an open world and you only have running tools at your disposal. The mechanics of the game are horrible as well, inputs get dropped all the time it’s a huge problem. There’s just so little about the game that’s designed well, which is insane, because the game still accomplishes scratching the itch of Mirrors Edge, just very poorly.
No, what made Mirrors Edge great was the passion. It was a tight knitted and mechanically rewarding. These levels so carefully designed. Catalyst’s paths do not have the same care, they are just rushed together and it shows during the gameplay and how one path flows and the others are just ways you can go. There’s no depth and attention.
The developers freedom to pursue that passion was the very same thing that allowed Bioware to create the games they wanted to make (and like Bad Company 2’s story with DICE before dropping it entirely for multiplayer only).
BF3 may be a fine game, and 4, but you surely understand that they are copy pasted formulas that explicitly are not impassioned. What made Bad Company beloved was its improvements over the previous iteration along with its differentiation from MW2, on top of having a fair single player story. What made Mirrors Edge beloved was its direction and its gameplay. For both of these, these IP’s to EA became no more than how many zeroes they can generate. It’s a pattern with EA, from Mass Effect to Need for Speed to sports games to Battlefield. Once you have a formula you wait for it to be profitable to sell it again.
Mirrors Edge was received well but sold poorly. They tried to profit on some spinoffs, failed, 4 years later sort of began development and turned Catalyst into another open world microtransaction game without any of the heart that made Mirrors Edge work. Battlefield was mediocrely received until it did something better than CoD, then they focused on repeating that over and over, leading to BF3 and 4 and 2042, with the only “unique” Battlefield even available now being Battlefield One. Before Battlefield, it was Medal of Honor.
EA is a plight. I don’t know how you can say it’s not that bad and shift blame to the developers, that their games are their decisions. It’s just unequivocally untrue. Of course Bioware doesn’t have execs breathing down their necks, the execs are selling the game Bioware pitches to them - Mass Effect now with MTX. In that interview they literally even say, “EA wants to buy a company to do something well, if they ruin Bioware then they won’t get money. We make the games we want to make. They give input absolutely but we make our game.” Oh, and he mentions games, Shadow Realms, which never even came out because it was cancelled in 2015. And this is a video from 2013, so it may not have even been 2 years before this video with the timestamp you like is literally proving the point of the person asking the question (Q: Will Bioware be affected by EA’s acquisition; A: No, Bioware makes the games we want to make, EA wants money, EA gives input, Bioware makes the games we want to make) 2 years later, EA: Yeah, you can’t make that.
All that aside, I’m not really sure what the point of the video is supposed to prove… These people don’t even work there anymore if I remember right (head Bioware all jumped ship, no? I may be misremembering)? EA has the big stick. If you devs don’t follow them, you won’t be a dev at EA anymore. The devs at EA are inherently trapped because you cannot expect your game to be made unless it is within the expectations of the publisher, and thus you see the problem. When you pitch to EA, your creative work is already compromised. You think Bioware made the game they wanted to make with Andromeda? Anthem? Psh, Shadow Realms?
EA bought Bioware in 2007/8. EA killed Bioware in under 10 years and is now playing with its corpse. Literally 5 years after the acquisition is this video, the game of which he’s referencing 2 years later is cancelled and 2 more after that Andromeda releases. I really, really think you have mischaracterized EA and their relationship with their studios. EA is very hands off, yes. But they speak softly to you. And they carry a big stick.
You, too, would compromise your passion when working for this studio. It is actually impossible not to, by design.
I lived near EA’s SF studio for many years, that’s really honestly the main reason I even bothered to reply with something this lengthy. I know many former devs part of studios both made with and acquired by EA. It’s insane, they would be a great company to work for in so many ways. But their business practices ruin all of that. The last 20 years of EA being awful are true, just because you can point to BF2BC and say how could they be bad, you can also point to Madden Fifa and SWBF2. EA perfected this practice of seeping out the creatives from the studios long, long before Bioware was bought out.
Midnitte@beehaw.org 1 month ago
At least for Dragon Age (2009) was in development since at least November 2002, 5 years before EA purchased Bioware.
You could also look at DICE, and the absolute shitshow every Battlefield has been since they were purchased by EA.
Poopfeast420@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
That would mean basically no good games for almost 20 years. Even Bad Company 2, BF3 and 4, apparently beloved games in the franchise, are terrible.
Look, I barely play EA games, I just think that they aren’t the sole or even major reason a bunch of their dev teams have turned to shit.
DdCno1@beehaw.org 1 month ago
Nuance is lost. Simplistic narratives are everywhere - and there’s nothing simpler than blaming the big boogeyman for everything. I’m not saying that they haven’t made mistakes and aren’t to blame for a great many things, but not every time and everywhere for everything.
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Destroyed Sim City franchise, made The Sims 4 a DLC hellhole, made Mass Effect 3’s shitty ending, maybe the mishandling of Battlefield 2042 and Battlefield 5?
Other things I could think of is releasing Origin and pulling their games from the Steam store. Other than that, I don’t really follow gaming news enough to list more, nor know enough to determine if everything I already listed are caused by EA.
Poopfeast420@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
I guess if a game is bad, it’s EA’s fault, but if it’s good, it’s all because of the dev.
What about Mass Effect 1 and 2, EA had already bought Bioware at that point. What about other Battlefield games? People always rave about Bad Company 2 or maybe 3 and 4, but how come EA only chose to interfere after 20 years?
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 1 month ago
The interesting thing about BFV was that Dice got spread thin during development of the updates.
Battlefront 2 was not in good shape and started recieving a ton of fixes, and during that time is when BFV development slowed to a crawl.
I’m assuming disney was not happy with the negative press? But I have no real clue
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 1 month ago
So, one thing that’s funny is the one instance that popped into my head was when an EA exec actually recommended a feature that ended up making Anthem better (but also possibly worse?). There’s a famous story of how they were requested to add flying to the game, which added tons and tons of work and a good portion of dev time. But arguably was the best part of anthem. Unfortunately, they were unable to salvage it as we saw.