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.
- 136
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link