site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1872 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 23, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anyone interesting in talking about BioWare going kaput? It’s very much a culture war item. I have to think any honest broker would see this is a clear case of go woke/go broke. Andromeda, Anthem, and Veilgard were total disasters. Even if Anthem wasn’t overtly political like the other two, it’s clear that the company started hiring people that were not good at developing video games. It’s really remarkable since market theory should incentivize the exact opposite. But perhaps this closure is the market correcting and other developers will take note.

Separately, I couldn’t help but check in on Jason Schrier’s coverage. He released a YouTube video this week going over the closure. Early in the video he reminds the viewer that EA was recently taken private by Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner. Ah hah! I said to myself, that’s how he will spin this! And sure enough he gives a nuts and bolts overview of the poor sales over the years. And he spends an awful lot of time getting into the nitty gritty on leveraged buyouts and unreasonable meddling publishers.

I’ll remind everyone that when Veilgard came out, Jason posted “Go woke / go to the top of the charts?”. What a hilarious turn of events. The game literally killed the company. It would be funny except for the fact that I think a very large part of the blame for the state of the games industry can be laid at Mr Schriers feet. This guy does nothing but launder the industries perspective as fact and add credibility to the party line.

One thing you will see a lot on Reddit is people blaming publishers and corporate executives for bad releases that are total failures. I’m not one to defend these mercenary executives, but I think the actual rank and file game developers deserve the lions share of the blame. The executives can be blamed insofar as they are the ones making hiring decisions. But the actual developer and artist talent is bad. I’m glad they’re out of a job.

I'm going to agree with some of the posters below that they aren't really a good example of Go woke, Go broke. I don't think Anthem had any elements like that, and I understand Andromeda's weaknesses were all just garden variety bad writing. It's only Veilguard where it became insufferably woke - much more "roll hard left and die".

The actual issue is summed up by the fact that there are only 3 titles to even discuss. In the 7 years between Mass Effect and DA: Inquisition, they released 7 major titles, including an MMO. They managed 3 in the 12 years since then, and all of them flopped. Doesn't need anything more than that.

At least we now have confirmation that Bioware was basically purging people that didn't neatly fit in with thier left-leaning politics.

Found this ai-slop video on the topic that i thought was pretty funny.

CW in the CW thread, please.

This was a studio whose last quality game was Dragon Age 1. It was in 2009. ME2 and 3 had high production values, but were mostly my little pony friendship is magic simulators with non equestrian characters. And their absolute peak was 26 years ago.

There is nothing left to grief for. So I feel the only thing appropriate in this case - indifference. The same thing I will feel when Martin and Rothfuss die with their opuses unfinished.

Take Mass Effect - the combat there was never enjoyable interesting or challenging. So why having so much of it? In a studio of a thousand people not a single soul dared to say - this bland gears of war lite just doesn't work? (It didn't work in gears of war too, but that is different topic).

Veilguard didn't kill the company. The company was already dead. Bloated budgets, bloated games, bloated teams, bloated production. To make bank they had to abandon their RPG roots and try and chase all kinds of audiences. And they failed. There was no spark in any of their games.

So i will install Baldur's gate 2 again, couple of high res mods, pour a glass of whiskey and drink for and age of gaming gone with the wind.

ME2 and 3 had high production values, but were mostly my little pony friendship is magic simulators with non equestrian characters.

Wild take. Mass Effect 3 had its issues, but Mass Effect 2 was outstanding.

ME2 had a main story which railroaded you into working with one of the villain factions, in which characters from the first game continually acted like idiots in order to "justify" you having to work with the space Nazis, and which didn't even give you options to try to work to undermine them from within. It did nothing to advance the overall plot of the series (causing serious problems for ME3), and made serious tonal errors with the main villains (the Reapers are Lovevraftian gods, who see mortals as insects, and yet Harbinger not only notices Shepard but has personal antagonism towards him/her). It also dumbed down the game mechanics so hard that the game wasn't even really an RPG any more, it was just a shooter with a very extensive story and dialogue.

The characters were (mostly) well written (except when they had to get the stupid bug to "force" you into working with Cerberus), and the loyalty missions were (mostly) well executed. But the game was a whole was not outstanding. It had serious problems, was a big step down from the first game, and was the start of Bioware's decline.

Outstanding-ly stupid?

What exactly was outstanding? The stupid story? The destruction of the worldbuilding of part 1? The mediocre gameplay? The totally irrelevant paragon system? The humanoid reaver?

The only quality thing was the writing in the loyalty missions.

The only quality thing was the writing in the loyalty missions.

That's part of the tragedy: the loyalty and recruitment missions outnumber the main plot missions, and are far superior... but unlike the loyalty missions, you can never choose to skip the main plot on a playthrough.

ME2's characters and sidequests were outstanding. The main storyline and Cerberus and the Illusive Man? Not so much.

Hot take: the Infinity Engine games also play like ass.

That doesn't mean they're bad games, but they have the same kind of confusion about timing and positioning and resources which plagued cRPGs well into the 2000s. Plagued ttRPGs, really. Even after 3E D&D staked out its own niche, designers couldn't decide if they wanted combat chess or charop playgrounds. At least Baldur's Gate was early enough to avoid the WoW craze.

There are lots of good reasons to enjoy all those games anyway, but the same can be said for ME1.

I agree that BioWare was a walking husk before Veilguard.

Hard disagree. I think real time with pause was perfect, and flawlessly bridged the gap between rigid turn based where 90% of your turns are going to be "Press X as quick as you can to attack", and stupid bullshit "Directly control a single character while your useless party members do random useless bullshit". I think only Final Fantasy XII had a decent competing solution to the problem where you got to program your party, along with some real time with pause elements. Technically Baldur's Gate let you program your party too, but I think that was an actual whole ass scripting language or some shit. I don't remember too clearly.

There were settings in the menu to pause on many types of events which turned the combat into turn based one effectively. It even had - show dice rolls in the console.

While it's certainly true that Veilguard had some atrocious writing which was just there to advocate for the right politics, I don't think Bioware's fall is as simple as "get woke, go broke". Bioware has been sucking for over a decade at this point. ME3 was a disaster, and so was every game since (with the possible exception of DA:I, which seems to have been pretty positively received). But ME3 was released in 2012, years before there was a general trend of game devs making artistic decisions based on politics rather than what made for a better game. Bioware's games may have suffered from political activism (Veilguard certainly did), but they had already gotten bad at making games even before that.

I think Baldur's Gate 3 might be an exception too? I haven't played it personally, but I hear a lot of good sentiment about it despite it sounding like they actually did put activism in there.

Baldur's Gate 3 is a fantastic turn-based tactical RPG. One's aversion to the game's "activism" depends on how sensitive he is to it.

They didn't make BG3. That was Larian, Bioware made the first two games.

Larian were the ones who made BG3.

Ah, okay!

Why do you think they got bad at making games though? I’m going to guess it’s because the guys who made kotor and ME1 were a bunch of Gen X computer guys who loved early pc games and were incredibly talented. As the commercial success came and they grew exponentially, they hired a bunch of diverse young millennials and women that wanted to instagram their first day at BioWare. Then trump 2016 happened and it became a moral imperative to use their positions to fight the culture war.

This likely comes across as terribly racist and sexist. So be it. I’d love to hear other people theorize why suddenly all these great developers suddenly became bad at making video games.

I also agree it’s not just the politics that make these games suck. In fact it’s not even the primary thing that makes them suck. But I still blame politics since I suspect whatever is making them suck is downstream of politics.

My only other theory is that “video game designer” became a thing that people went to university to learn how to do right around this time. And all of a sudden there was a “right way” to design all these different game elements. And shockingly, this supposed “right way to do it” actually sucks.

Why do you think they got bad at making games though? I’m going to guess it’s because the guys who made kotor and ME1 were a bunch of Gen X computer guys who loved early pc games and were incredibly talented. As the commercial success came and they grew exponentially, they hired a bunch of diverse young millennials and women that wanted to instagram their first day at BioWare. Then trump 2016 happened and it became a moral imperative to use their positions to fight the culture war.

I mean, I remember people saying the writing was on the wall when they brought some community manager on staff (why is it always a community manager?) who thought it would be really fun if there were a button that let you skip all the gameplay and just experience the shipping story. At least I think I'm remembering that approximately right. Was a long ass time ago now.

I think was Jennifer 'hamburger' Hepler, who ironically turned out to be one of the better of the new crop of writers at Bioware, which perhaps isn't saying much. She was never a community manager.

If I recall correctly she left during the development of Inquisition.

I remember people saying the writing was on the wall when they brought some community manager on staff (why is it always a community manager?) who thought it would be really fun if there were a button that let you skip all the gameplay and just experience the shipping story.

I think the perfect compromise for that sort of thing was cheat codes. I'll freely admit that I only made it through Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and BG:ToB via cheat codes. And I'm fine with that! I wanted to see how the games ended, not say that I "beat the game". Did I have the same experience as someone skilled enough to win, though? No.

Accessibility options have become the modern equivalent. I found that several games went from deeply annoying and painful to awesome through switching accessibility settings. Most notably Pacific Drive.

But Kotor and ME1 had terrible gameplay?

My contention is that the veterans, and in particular the competent, non-pushover writers and managers left.

It's kind of similar to Obsidian in that the only thing Bioware really had going for them, which built their reputation, was their writers and they managed to chase those away.

What? Both KOTOR and ME1 are loads of fun to play. I enjoy both of the games from time to time, even though there's nothing new in the story, precisely because they have fun gameplay.

Perhaps "terrible" was too harsh, and I'm not saying that the games are unenjoyable. But there's a distinction between enjoying a game and its actual gameplay mechanics being good.

KOTOR's combat is extremely simplistic, with very little meaningful tactical decision-making or character-build diversity. Compare it to Neverwinter Nights, which came out just a year earlier, was made by the same developer and also used D20 rules. NWN offered vastly more freedom in character building and substantially different playstyles. In KOTOR, most builds end up playing much the same way, and the combat generally requires very little engagement.

A game of course doesn't necessarily need complex numerical systems to have deep gameplay. In a more action oriented game timing, positioning and player execution provide much of the depth. But KOTOR has very little of that kind of direct interaction either. When combat largely plays itself, which was noted by both players and reviewers at the time, the underlying character-building and tactical systems have to provide the complexity, and KOTOR's are extremely shallow. The D20 mechanics end up feeling like window dressing because they determine the outcomes without giving the player meaningful decisions to make.

ME1 has a different problem: its shooting and cover mechanics are clunky and poorly implemented, even compared to contemporary shooters, something reviewers criticized at release and which became even more apparent after its sequels were released.

Obviously, both games can still be very enjoyable because of their other strengths, but that doesn't mean their combat mechanics are particularly good.

No, I'm saying that I think the game mechanics are actually good. I think ME1 is more fun to play, purely in terms of gameplay, than 2 or 3. ME2 isn't even really an RPG any more, it's just a shooter with really extensive dialogue choices. 3 is better, but still has nothing on 1 and how it blended shooting with an RPG. And I love the way KOTOR plays. I think that the way you pause the game to issue commands is fun, I think that the character building is fun and when I go back to the game I look forward to trying out different builds. To me, these games aren't good despite the game mechanics, they are good in part because of the game mechanics.

ME2 isn't even really an RPG any more

True, but neither was ME1; when I went back to play it, it was ME2 except emptier, even less of an ability to re-class (hope you picked Soldier so you can use more than just a pistol), and without the Vanguard charge. I found the other non-gun-related abilities very difficult to determine if they're even doing anything, and most of the others boiled down to "press 4 to remove Marauder's Shields".

Interestingly, I'd argue that the ultimate evolution of Mass Effect's formula is Doom 2016 (Eternal turned that up to 11, but sadly the great sound design from 2016 reverted to... literally just fart noises). In those games, every power you could get in Mass Effect is a gun, and cycling through the powers (and figuring out which to start with) is how you win the fights.

Your tastes are your own, but I think lots of people don’t particularly need or want deep or mastery-based gameplay. Myself included.

If you’re mostly there for the story, gameplay is basically something to keep your hands busy and get the plot pacing right. It should look good and feel good (ME1 doesn’t really pass that test) without being too deep or intimidating.

I don't think gameplay necessarily needs to be deep, difficult or mastery-based to be good. My point is that KOTOR's combat is almost an idle game. Most encounters literally play themselves through auto-attacks, with very little need to use abilities, zero worry about positioning or need to make tactical decisions. And because the character-building systems are so shallow, there isn't much meaningful preparation or strategic decision-making either.

It's almost like a rollercoaster where each seat has a toy steering wheel that gives you the feeling of controlling the ride, even though turning it barely affects anything. The rollercoaster might be a fantastic experience, but that doesn't make it a good driving game. That's kind of how I feel about KOTOR's combat. You have the appearance of participating but barely any actual influence over what's happening.

Would KOTOR really have been a worse game if it had tactical turn-based combat like BG3 or XCOM, more action-oriented combat like Jedi Outcast, or more involved RTWP combat like BG2, where positioning, abilities and character builds (or perhaps more accurately party composition, item and spell choices) actually matter? I don't see why being a story-focused RPG means the combat has to be this simplistic. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

I'd actually argue that most of KOTOR's meaningful gameplay is in the conversations, making decisions, defining your character and their relationships with others. That's where you actually get to make choices that matter. The combat is largely just something you sit through between those parts.

And as you say, some people don't particularly care about that, but I think that just illustrates where the game's strengths actually lie. People enjoy KOTOR because of its story, setting, characters and production values (like the excellent music), not because of its combat. They can stomach the mediocre gameplay or even appreciate it as something that provides pacing between story sequences, but that doesn't make the combat good.

they hired a bunch of diverse young millennials and women that wanted to instagram their first day at BioWare

Less that they hired minorities and women, and more they explicitly discriminated against applicants with wrong politics. As confirmed by Chris Avellone.

Honestly, I don't know. Some of the issues were clearly EA's fault, like rushing DA2 out the door or the troubled development some games had due to being forced to use the Frostbite engine. But EA didn't make them write a terrible ending for ME3 (nor did they force the various dumb writing issues in ME2, for that matter). And the lead writer for ME3 was Casey Hudson, who was also the lead on KOTOR (which was excellent!). So it's bizarre that they messed that game up as badly as they did, and I can't really explain it.

I suspect that your theory is along the right lines for at least part of the cause. I bet that after the EA buyout (and subsequent EA interference), there were a lot of veterans who were unhappy with the changes and left. And they likely got replaced by the kind of millennial devs you mentioned, people who spent their college years steeped in politics and felt that they should bring that to their jobs too. Over time, it seems likely that those younger, more political devs were left running things, and that's why we saw the games devolve into partisanship.

I find it interesting to think about. It’s not just the politics though. Wolverine doesn’t seem to be an overly political game. It’s far more subtle with ugly character art and presenting Wolverine with feminine mannerisms vis a via Jean Gray. The game just obviously stinks and is designed for kindergarteners. Why is it so bad?

There are lots of people who suck at their job though. It almost seems as if they’re deliberately hiring untalented people. Or they’re hiring based on some criteria orthogonal to game development talent. You would think the market would correct this though. But it clearly hasn’t yet.

I fully expect this to continue. God of war lufy is likely going to be the next bomb. Naughty Dog’s Intergallactic is almost certain to bomb. The Last of Us 2 was controversial but sold well, likely because it was a sequel to a competent game. I’m pretty sure there will be Last Jedi effect going on with that one.

People talk about these big budget games being shit because big studios and publishers are risk adverse. That almost seems laughable to me. What could be more risky than continuing the stays quo?

more the second than the first.

Basically, AAA game dev became like film production. Every scene gets blocked, scripted, animated, voice-acted, etc. That takes huge teams with a lot of moving parts and departments, which is slow, costly, and risk averse. It's the difference between the latest big budget Marvel movie and an auteur indie flick.

Unpopular opinion, but Mass Effect 1 was bad actually. The best thing it had going for it was the worldbuilding. The rest of the game was an on-rails shooter with a handful of choice/consequence moments, and otherwise forgettable gameplay. It was a step toward shallow, shorter "RPG" titles, and away from deeper, better written "CRPG" ones.

Unpopular opinion, but Mass Effect 1 was bad actually. The best thing it had going for it was the worldbuilding.

That's like saying "the best part of a cheesecake is the cake, the graham cracker crust is bad". The worldbuilding is what made Mass Effect what it was, and informed all of the good writing. It's when the series moved away from world building and its results that the writing got worse, IMO.

The music was great as well.

Mass Effect 1 is a love-letter to a very particular architectural style common to Canadian government buildings in the 1980s that is now largely disappearing.

(Noveria is literally just Edmonton, and the highway to the danger zone is exactly how the roads look after a snowstorm, just with less Geth.)

Other than that, yeah, ME1 was still leaving the KOTOR school of live-action D&D game design and as a result the gameplay was kind of ass. And you couldn't even romance Garrus. And yeah, they did get better in 2, and way better in 3, but by the time they had figured out how to make a fluid third-person shooter that didn't randomly send you 100 feet into the air the only thing you got to pick was what color explosion you wanted.

(Maybe it says something about me that when I first played ME2 so long ago I was actively disappointed that I couldn't romance the only party members you can't, in fact, romance? Or at least, the two that don't get sexual pleasure from headbutting you. I kind of get why you can't do either one of them since their 'routes' wouldn't be meaningfully distinguishable from the plot and loyalty missions, but like...)

when I first played ME2 so long ago I was actively disappointed that I couldn't romance the only party members you can't, in fact, romance?

I mean, who among us can claim they didn't want Mordin carnally?

It's curious to me that they stumbled so much when EA had their multiplayer push when they already had done multiplayer pretty well in ME3 (even if the integration with the single player was controversial).

when they already had done multiplayer pretty well in ME3 (even if the integration with the single player was controversial)

Looking back, that multiplayer was a lot more fun than it had any right to be.

I hope AI can make improvements here. It has the potential. Although, my favorite games are all indie, ironically because they have more spirit.

I feel like, in an AAA game I can walk through the most beautiful (and expensive) landscape and barely notice. But there's something about the simplicity and imperfection of indie that primes me, so that a simple detail may stand out and evoke some feeling latent and forgotten.

I've been kinda checked out on AAA games for a while now so I kinda couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this scene from Dragon Age Veilguard. I played the first one and man that's a wild difference in tone

That scene, and the game overall, was the culmination of how far BioWare has fallen over the past decade. The studio's death is a major win.

I've got more thoughts on the subject than I can type right now, but I'll throw in there that I've seen reports the leader of Canada's NDP party has suggested nationalizing BioWare.

I’d love to hear your thoughts when you have time.

I also think Canada nationalizing BioWare would be the perfect clown world cherry on top of this cake.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats