Dragon Age: Inquistion - Can Bioware Survive Another Misstep?

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

DA2 was the start of ominous things for Bioware after EA bought them out. DA2 indeed fell short of sales expectations...

See, and herein lies the problem -- and the skewed perspectives at work, here. First, Dragon Age is by no stretch of the imagination a "flagship" franchise for BioWare: that title would belong to Mass Effect, and the Old Republic. Those franchises admittedly have issues of their own, which is outside the scope of this post so let's set them aside for now. The franchise has been, for lack of a better way to put it, a second-string franchise for the company, and moreover a niche franchise being (nominally) Western, party-based, tactical RPG's.

Dragon Age 2 still sold, if I remember my figures right, over two million copies across all platforms (a million on the 360, 600K on the PS3, and 500K on the PC). Those aren't hall of fame sales, but still very respectable given the franchise's "B-side" status and the fact it was a niche title. It certainly didn't stand up to DA:O, which mind you was a happy accident of word-of-mouth advertising coupled with a holiday 2009 sales upswing, that could very easily be called a sleeper hit.

And, here it comes (which is the issue at hand), the dreaded word: but. DA2 failed to meet expectations...for a BioWare game. It got "poor" reviews...for a BioWare game. It sold "poorly"...for a BioWare game. Stepping outside "the BioWare bubble", it got solid reviews and solid sales, and I suspect had anyone but BioWare made the game it would have had a much warmer reception among gamers.

In the end, BioWare happened to make a mediocre game, and that's their most damning sin here. Compare that to the reputation of Maxis whose latest title quite possibly received less attention among gaming enthusiasts for surprising absolutely no one who had paid attention after Sims 3 and Spore, or Infinity Ward which gets heaped with praise for not being the nickel-and-dime anti-gamer sewer Bobby Kotick would apparently have it be.

 

[EternallyBored]

DA2 was the start of ominous things for Bioware after EA bought them out. DA2 indeed fell short of sales expectations...

See, and herein lies the problem -- and the skewed perspectives at work, here. First, Dragon Age is by no stretch of the imagination a "flagship" franchise for BioWare: that title would belong to Mass Effect, and the Old Republic. Those franchises admittedly have issues of their own, which is outside the scope of this post so let's set them aside for now. The franchise has been, for lack of a better way to put it, a second-string franchise for the company, and moreover a niche franchise being (nominally) Western, party-based, tactical RPG's.

Dragon Age 2 still sold, if I remember my figures right, over two million copies across all platforms (a million on the 360, 600K on the PS3, and 500K on the PC). Those aren't hall of fame sales, but still very respectable given the franchise's "B-side" status and the fact it was a niche title. It certainly didn't stand up to DA:O, which mind you was a happy accident of word-of-mouth advertising coupled with a holiday 2009 sales upswing, that could very easily be called a sleeper hit.

And, here it comes (which is the issue at hand), the dreaded word: but. DA2 failed to meet expectations...for a BioWare game. It got "poor" reviews...for a BioWare game. It sold "poorly"...for a BioWare game. Stepping outside "the BioWare bubble", it got solid reviews and solid sales, and I suspect had anyone but BioWare made the game it would have had a much warmer reception among gamers.

In the end, BioWare happened to make a mediocre game, and that's their most damning sin here. Compare that to the reputation of Maxis whose latest title quite possibly received less attention among gaming enthusiasts for surprising absolutely no one who had paid attention after Sims 3 and Spore, or Infinity Ward which gets heaped with praise for not being the nickel-and-dime anti-gamer sewer Bobby Kotick would apparently have it be.

See here's the problem EA didn't sink over a billion dollars (860 million for Bioware and another 300 million for The Old Republic) to get mediocre. EA spent that cash to get Bioware quality and stick a AAA games budget behind it, so 2 million copies sold isn't going to cut it even for a non flagship title.

You have to remember EA wanted to cash in on Bioware's popularity by bringing multiple studios in under the Bioware name to make a variety of games, the lukewarm DA2 sales and the TOR mediocrity basically put a halt to those plans. EA wanted Bioware to be the equivalent of what Blizzard is to Activision, one super-popular MMO backed up by a couple of really popular core franchises. After DA2 failed to be the next Mass Effect, which took off in popularity with Mass Effect 2, and TOR performed well below expectations, Bioware had to justify the massive amount of money EA spent on them. Which brings us to ME3, despite the ending controversy the game still sold pretty well. EA states that the game met initial sales expectations but the sales tapered off faster than they expected. Overall, ME3 sold about 3.6 million copies, in most places that would be considered a success, and for pre-EA Bioware that would be worthy of celebration, but remember this is EA we are talking about, the same company that said Dead Space 3 needed to sell 5 million copies to justify a sequel.

When EA bought Westwood they were one of the kings of the RTS genre and Command & Conquer was right up there with Starcraft as one of the icons of their genre. The first couple games released after the buyout were pretty good and sold pretty well. Those games were mediocre... For Westwood, and sold poorly... For Westwood, but EA doesn't buy studios to get average, and just think, where is Westwood now?

Like I said, EA has invested too much money for Bioware to be ousted that easily, DA3 won't kill Bioware, but if it does less than expected, well, EA is likely going to start looking at what they can change to make Bioware more "successful". Of course that's the doom and gloom scenario, if DA3 sells really well, then hell, maybe EA will even back off on their deadline restrictions a little, the Sims developers seem to get some slack when they want it, DA2 probably would have sold a lot better if they had more time to polish it and not reuse environments so lazily, probably even could have gotten rid of that lazy spawning enemy wave mechanic.

 

[Greg White]

The Old Republic is the only real bomb Bioware has had recently, owing mostly to the fact that MMO's are just a bad investment unless you really know what you're doing.

ME3 was a great game, even despite people getting mad at the ending.

DA2 was a really good game. Not quite on par with DA:O, but much better than Awakening and still better than most other games on the market.

 

[CloudAtlas]

(...)Also, DA 2 wasnt that bad. At least it wasnt as generic as DA1´s gather-all-the-allies-again-story. Also, I hope they dont go back to the stupid MMORPG-fighting system of DA1 in Inquisition!
People should stop to expect another Baldurs Gate 2 and just have fun playing their games!
(...)

..........If you didn't even finish the first area of Neverwinter Nights, you frankly have no right you condemn it OR disparage Baldur's Gate 2.

Also. DA2 wasn't that* bad*. But it was a veritable turd when compared to his primogenitor DA:O.

Also, what? DA combat being bad? Oh dear. Its people like you who cause the retrograding of nice complex games into streamlined mediocrities like DA2.

DA:O's combat was very similar to the WoW standard of MMO combat, and many people don't like this kind of indirect, static, hotbar and cooldown-based combat. If someone doesn't like it in an MMO, why should he like it in a single player RPG?
Preferences are just different. I claim just as well that people like you are preventing RPGs to get combat systems that are just as good, intense, and polished as they are in shooters.

The possibility of a Mass Effect 4 pretty much cemented my perspective of Bioware. As grey, corporation spawn. ( DAMMIT EA )

I'm pretty sure countless of fans are longing for a chance to return to the Mass Effect universe. Why shouldn't BioWare heed them? Yes, the ME1-3 story is over, but the universe still exist, doesn't it?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Bioware really gets way too much flak lately, the only real disappointment was ME3 ending, and that's about it. So in the grand scheme of things if they continue to create games with engaging stories and characters that's all that matters.

Except if they start doing FPS's, then well............. I really hope they don't.

Given their track record of only ever developing RPGs, that seems unlikely.

 

[BlackJimmy]

Being a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
I'd hardly call DA2 and ME3 "near-ruiness".
The majority of people love Mass Effect 3 up until the ending.
And for a rushed out job, Dragon Age 2 was pretty damn good.
I don't know about SWTOR, I played it as a single player game and enjoyed it. Even got me to to join a guild when I usually prefer to solo the story. IO don't think whatever problem the game had anything to do with how Bioware made the game.

So, yes, I think Bioware can and will survive.

 

[Smeatza]

BioWare are already working on a new Star Wars game (as are DICE & Visceral). So, yes, Bioware will still be around next year.

Wait, do you mean the upcoming expansion to The Old Republic?
Or a whole new game?
Because that's fucking exciting if so.

OT: I'm sure Bioware can survive another misstep. Because even their missteps tend to be economically sound missteps.
My opinion of them won't survive another misstep though.

And because it's slightly related.
Fuck Casey Hudson.

 

[Lictor Face]

The possibility of a Mass Effect 4 pretty much cemented my perspective of Bioware. As grey, corporation spawn. ( DAMMIT EA )

I'm pretty sure countless of fans are longing for a chance to return to the Mass Effect universe. Why shouldn't BioWare heed them? Yes, the ME1-3 story is over, but the universe still exist, doesn't it?

Does it focus on something that is in no way related to Shephard other than maybe a cameo and some background lore? Shephard has trudged through THREE lengthy rpgs. I say we let his character fade off, like how ( though i loathe to invoke DA2 ) DA2 did with Hawke. Let shephard/warden fade into the background lore and get a fresh new character. If Bioware does that, I MAY change my perspective ( Although the chances of that is enormously slim. Like Hollywood, Bioware knows that franchises/sequels are essentially free buyers regardless of how crappy the end product is )

Also, why are you saying turn based tactical combat is based off mmorpg's? Its not. mmorpgs aped it for hell if i know. Turn based tactical combat is THE combat system for multiple party based RPGs.NWN2, Baldur's gate. KOTOR. Jade Empire. DA;O. Mass effect is an FPS so im not counting that.

DA2 had more dynamic combat I admit. But its skills and combat feat/skill progression was soooooo damn streamlined it hurt the entire dynamic of TACTICAL combat ( Which DA:O most certainly advocated ) In DA:O, you can get your tank to taunt, forcefield him to make him immune to damage, cast crushing prison on him to create a spell combo that knowsdown everyone. In DA2, you purchase the biggest abilities/most powerful versions of abilities and run around hammering the cast button. Hell, I didn't even NEED to create a intricate party tactics page. I just got everybody to spam everything on everyone and the healer to just heal.

Also, please please please don't compare RPG combat to FPS combat. Two completely different genres.

 

[Raikas]

1) BW have already announced they plan to stick by various decisions which failed in DA:2 (only one selectable race, voiced protagonist, dialogue wheel etc.)
What people's opinion of those aspects are themselves is irrelevant - the concern is that BW are pigheaded enough to continue walking down a path which they see as "right", and not admit glaring issues displayed in DA:2. Sorry, but any Western RPG based on the D&D world which doesn't allow selectable races is missing a massive point of the game/genre - even if people play as humans the choice is what matters to give a feel of a true fantasy/D&D based RPG where you carve out your own destiny from scratch.

They've actually announced that they're brining back selectable races, so there's something for you.

You think that people's opinions of those aspects are irrelevant, and yet your opinion that those aspects are things that failed is not? Because fair enough if you don't enjoy those elements yourself, but that hardly makes your opinion any more relevant than that of anyone else.

 

[CloudAtlas]

The possibility of a Mass Effect 4 pretty much cemented my perspective of Bioware. As grey, corporation spawn. ( DAMMIT EA )

I'm pretty sure countless of fans are longing for a chance to return to the Mass Effect universe. Why shouldn't BioWare heed them? Yes, the ME1-3 story is over, but the universe still exist, doesn't it?

Does it focus on something that is in no way related to Shephard other than maybe a cameo and some background lore? Shephard has trudged through THREE lengthy rpgs. I say we let his character fade off, like how ( though i loathe to invoke DA2 ) DA2 did with Hawke. Let shephard/warden fade into the background lore and get a fresh new character. If Bioware does that, I MAY change my perspective ( Although the chances of that is enormously slim. Like Hollywood, Bioware knows that franchises/sequels are essentially free buyers regardless of how crappy the end product is )

According to BioWare, a new Mass Effect game is in the works, and it will definitely not feature Shepard.

Also, why are you saying turn based tactical combat is based off mmorpg's? Its not. mmorpgs aped it for hell if i know. Turn based tactical combat is THE combat system for multiple party based RPGs.NWN2, Baldur's gate. KOTOR. Jade Empire. DA;O. Mass effect is an FPS so im not counting that.

MMO's were not the first who did it this way, but they're the most notorious for doing it now. It's not THE system, it's A system, some like it, others, like me, don't.

Also, please please please don't compare RPG combat to FPS combat. Two completely different genres.

No, they're not. The transition is pretty smooth. If I'm shooting with guns in a game I compare it to other games where I'm doing the same. Being an RPG doesn't excuse a game for bad gunplay mechanics. There's no reason why combat in games like Mass Effect shouldn't feel as crisp, intense, and polished as in, say, Battlefield. BioWare obviously tried that, but still wasn't quite there yet in ME3.

 

[Lictor Face]

Also, why are you saying turn based tactical combat is based off mmorpg's? Its not. mmorpgs aped it for hell if i know. Turn based tactical combat is THE combat system for multiple party based RPGs.NWN2, Baldur's gate. KOTOR. Jade Empire. DA;O. Mass effect is an FPS so im not counting that.

MMO's were not the first who did it this way, but they're the most notorious for doing it now. It's not THE system, it's A system, some like it, others, like me, don't.

Also, please please please don't compare RPG combat to FPS combat. Two completely different genres.

No, they're not. The transition is pretty smooth. If I'm shooting with guns in a game I compare it to other games where I'm doing the same. Being an RPG doesn't excuse a game for bad gunplay mechanics. There's no reason why combat in games like Mass Effect shouldn't feel as crisp, intense, and polished as in, say, Battlefield. BioWare obviously tried that, but still wasn't quite there yet in ME3.

Name a multiple companion party system game that has combat which does not use THE system, and was not crap, and I might concede that point. Please no shooters or true turn based combat.

What? You do know how damage and whatnot is calculated in games like NWN2 and DA:O right? Mass effect managed to pull it off simply because they had limited armor/weapon options and three types of shielding and various % ammunition. You don't have things like saving throws and player statistic modifiers.

In fact. This is primarily why nearly no fantasy rpg game that includes statistics and saving throws of a sort can have TRUELY smooth gameplay. I'm not a genius at computing or coding, but I believe the computer requires time to factor in the variables and calculate the results. Look a the system of NWN2, and you'll see why having FPS smooth gameplay would mean cutting away a LOT of the core features of fantasy rpgs.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Can they survive? Just.

There are several worrying things for me with DA:I -

1) BW have already announced they plan to stick by various decisions which failed in DA:2 (only one selectable race, voiced protagonist, dialogue wheel etc.). What people's opinion of those aspects are themselves is irrelevant - the concern is that BW are pigheaded enough to continue walking down a path which they see as "right", and not admit glaring issues displayed in DA:2. Sorry, but any Western RPG based on the D&D world which doesn't allow selectable races is missing a massive point of the game/genre - even if people play as humans the choice is what matters to give a feel of a true fantasy/D&D based RPG where you carve out your own destiny from scratch.

I'm pretty sure the folks at BioWare know very well what went wrong in DA2. But all points you're citing here were not objectively wrong - that's just your personal preference.
A predetermined race allows for a more focused story, better interwoven with the protagonist - a different kind of story. Telling a story through cut scenes but with a silent protagonist, and from a first-person perspective, is nothing but awkward, and a good voice actor can give the protagonist more personality. Dialogue wheel, what does it matter whether dialogue options are organized by a circle or by a list. All those decisions have upsides too.

What you're basically saying here is that doing anything but a very conventional fantasy party RPG is objectively the wrong decision. But that's not an opinion that everyone shares.

 

[Mikeyfell]

They're already dead.

DA2's massive disrespect for Origins,
ME3's massive disrespect for ... everything
SW:TOR not giving KOTOR a proper conclusion
ME3 Citadel making everyone regret they were ever born in the first place...

at this point Bioware exists for masochistic wish fulfillment

 

[dementis]

I don't think I can trust Bioware anymore, I might check some LPs of the game to see what it's like but after Dragon age 2 and Mass Effect 3 I'm just dubious about handing my money over nowadays.

Its nice to know that well over a year after release we can all find creative ways to spark the exact same discussion about how much we hated the ending of Mass Effect 3.

Anyhow, 90% of the time when gamers talk about not buying product X, Y or Z because of reason A, B or C its bull. Sure, a lot of people might stop buying Bioware games (and I'm sure some people already have) but I don't think Bioware is going anywhere. What I do know is that most of the backlash they have been getting has been way overblown, to the point in where its a genuinely disturbing to me. I mean were all entitled to our opinions but the amount of entitlement/anger that some people have in the gaming community (not saying any names or calling out any groups or individuals) is truly sad sometimes. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, just with using it as justification for killing CEOs and assaulting peoples mothers.

At the end of the day, if DA:I is a great game I think people will finally start to get over the whole Bioware hatred bug that has been going around and if it sucks a lot of people are going to say they wont be buying the next Bioware product and will buy it anyways.

I can't say I hate Bioware, I just disappointed in them. I feel like a parent who's kid was getting straight As his entire education then starts coming home with Ds for every subject. I don't hate them for it, I just want them to do better.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Name a multiple companion party system game that has combat which does not use THE system, and was not crap, and I might concede that point. Please no shooters or true turn based combat.

On the top of the head I can't even name a single game that belongs to that category and is not from BioWare. But it's not hard to imagine: Take Mass Effect and replace guns with swords.

What? You do know how damage and whatnot is calculated in games like NWN2 and DA:O right? Mass effect managed to pull it off simply because they had limited armor/weapon options and three types of shielding and various % ammunition. You don't have things like saving throws and player statistic modifiers.

In fact. This is primarily why nearly no fantasy rpg game that includes statistics and saving throws of a sort can have TRUELY smooth gameplay. I'm not a genius at computing or coding, but I believe the computer requires time to factor in the variables and calculate the results. Look a the system of NWN2, and you'll see why having FPS smooth gameplay would mean cutting away a LOT of the core features of fantasy rpgs.

All that is fine, but not every likes combat results being determined by statistics and probabilities based on all kinds of stats. They want to feel in control. They want combat to feel direct, immediate. They want to hit the enemy because they aimed well, not because of some virtual dice throws determined that they did. Obviously you need to tailor a different set of mechanics if you're going for direct combat, but the result is not inherently less of an RPG (whatever "RPG" is supposed to mean in practice...).

 

[Orc Town Grot]

There is a infectious tradition of attributing qualities to Bioware games that simply don't exist. Baldur's Gate 2 was great on the basis of the Dungeons and Dragons rule-set developed by other people, and a PERFECT UI (and awesome portrait art)

That game system UI is so enjoyable to use that we tend to ignore the poverty of the level design, or any other weaknesses in the game. We are having so much fun checking our stats, tweaking our saved spells, and re-organizing inventory, that we don't notice that the game itself is a bit dull, or tedious. Wandering one hundred maps chasing up 100 silly plot points.

All the other big Bioware titles have a large number of imperfections: in world design, in game mechanics, in inventory, level design and so on. Also of course UI, which never retained the BG2 standard of perfection. Neverwinter Nights 1 must be the most boring bloody western RPG ever made. I dare anyone to re-install it and try to play through act 1 without going insane at the glacial pace at which you can onlock the city, and the sheer number of boring-as-hell encounters. It takes a serious waste of real time to level up your character or find any good gear, and its a pain in the arse lugging, selling and organizing loot. NOT FUN! Besides NWN1 DA2 was a MASTERPIECE! Of course it isn't really which is the point. All the Bioware games are imperfect and most of them are surprisingly mediocre when you realize that finally none of them are BG2. And most of their games are so damned similar to each other, that I invite anyone to try a 'Bioware marathon' and not scream bloody murder as you watch the same damned plot-twists and psychological cliches roll out every single time. I think the reason DA2 failed so bad, is that Bioware has been creatively pretty sterile for more than a decade. They are just drifting along, coasting on the laurels of past success and their excessive reliance on strong NPC writing (at which they REALLY ARE GOOD).

But Bioware isn't finished! Of course not! Rather, they have barely even started. The whole industry is still young! The present console generation has imposed a technical limit on game design that hopefully will be raised next year. All the hard criticism of DA2 should have a sufficiently sobering effect on Edmonton pride and professionalism. We have abundant talent, huge numbers of capable technicians, and a growing pool of gaming wisdom, as the whole community gradually ages. Plus hordes of young-guns keen to prove themselves.

I would say failed games are just fertilizing the field. And there is a pretty high chance Dragon Age Inquisition will be the first TRULY good game Bioware makes. In the sense that it may be REPLAYABLE. That it may have a long shelf life. That it will have gameplay strength, exploration, and reasons to return beyond your standard (one shot is enough) Bioware 'storytelling'.

However I certainly won't be buying it on release day. I'll wait a month and see what the consensus is first. The main reason I would be reluctant to buy it is cos it will be an Origin exclusive, and frankly I don't want Origin anywhere near my machine. It would take a bloody good game to change my mind on that one.

 

[CloudAtlas]

But in a RPG humans are the most bland and boring race,that's why people play as orcs,goblins,elves,demons,giants,dwarves and so on.I hate playing as a predetermined race if the previous games had race selection,can you imagine if the Elder Scrolls 6 decided to cut out races and make you play as a nord?People would be livid and rightly so,I'm glad DA:I is allowing players to pick races again because choice is important in RPGs.

No, it is not important for all RPGs, and in fact, even entirely predetermined protagonists are not that uncommon in RPGs either. It's simply a trade-off. And if you're free to choose a race in a game, what you usually end up is that your race doesn't really matter to the story. Skyrim and DA:O were no different in this regard. In Skyrim it didn't matter at all, and in DA:O me being a city elf pretty much stopped mattering as soon as the origin story was over. Not very impressive after all the fuzz about the "origins" in its name.
Sure, if you have to save the world from some demon or whatever, perhaps it really doesn't matter, but if you want to tell a story about racism, for example, it's just easier if you don't have to tell a different version of each story for each playable race. And there are some players out there who'd rather hear such a kind of story than having to save yet another fantasy world yet again from yet another prime evil.