Jason Schreier of Kotaku discusses Anthem's development in new article, revealing workplace issues

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

It does contrast starkly compared to Cyberpunk 2077.

Anthem really doesn't. Remember when CP2077 was announced? May 2012. The first trailer was released in January 2013 and then it went dark until summer 2018. That's a pre-production phase of 6 years and according to the wiki article the actual pre-production phase started when development shifted from TW3: Blood & Wine (May 2016), which would be 4 years after the game announced. If anything, the similarities between CP2077 and Anthem's development so far are really striking, in that both were announced really early and then went dark for years only to show up without almost any development done. On top of that both games involve the developers trying a kind of game they've never done before.

The CP2077 show gave us 40mins of actual gameplay. The Anthem 2017 trailer was a fiction.

Honestly, if you believe that pre-alpha footage of CP2077 was actual gameplay indicative of the final product and not a heavily scripted semi-interactive trailer, I've got a dozen bridges to sell you. Everything about it screamed "doctored trailer", from the way that individual cybernetics were given custom install animations to the waaaay too well animated conversations complete with ridiculous amounts of PC interaction with the gameworld. The CP2077 "gameplay" was just as doctored as Anthem's 2017 trailer, make no mistake about it.

Right now, the only difference in CP2077 and Anthem is that CDPR can sustain itself on its revenue's from GoG and isn't beholden to a producer. Had CP2077 been under any other major publisher it would have come out as a trainwreck long ago or been cancelled silently. Bioware's "bad luck" was that EA eventually stopped funneling money into a disaster of mismanagement.

Contrast with Anthem where the game wasn't even locked down in the last few months, was forced to ship before the end of the fiscal year and released....well, in its "unfinished" state to put it politely, it's very telling what kind of corporate culture these games exist under. One is a labour of love, made for gamers and held to the highest standard. The other is made for EA executives, without coherence or even attention, let alone love.

Did you read the article? It basically says that it was Patrik Soderlund of EA that whipped Bioware into shape by being blunt about how atrocious Anthem's internal demo was and demanding a better proof of concept. Bioware's problem was partially EA's creation (the use of Frostbite), but the mismanagement of the project is on Bioware's management, not EA. Besides, we don't know how CP will turn out at this point, but considering how long it has been in development, chances are it'll be similar to Anthem. It is seeming increasingly plausible that CDPR simply doesn't know how to do a CP game and are flailing in the dark just as much as Bioware did with Anthem.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Anthem really doesn't. Remember when CP2077 was announced? May 2012. The first trailer was released in January 2013 and then it went dark until summer 2018. That's a pre-production phase of 6 years and according to the wiki article the actual pre-production phase started when development shifted from TW3: Blood & Wine (May 2016), which would be 4 years after the game announced. If anything, the similarities between CP2077 and Anthem's development so far are really striking, in that both were announced really early and then went dark for years only to show up without almost any development done. On top of that both games involve the developers trying a kind of game they've never done before.

That trailer in 2012 was just a teaser and announcement that a game would be coming. Those 6 years you mention weren't only "pre-production" but "production". While there was undoubtedly pre-production in that time, the game has been in full development for most of that time. Anthem was in pre-production seemingly up until the E3 trailer. CP2077 was already "playable from start to finish" when they showed it off.

Anthem was "dark" because there was nothing to show of it. By that article, it didn't even have a name or direction until that trailer. CP2077 was dark because they were making it and didn't want to share news until there was news worth sharing. Anthem didn't get made until those last 18 months or so based on that article.

Honestly, if you believe that pre-alpha footage of CP2077 was actual gameplay indicative of the final product and not a heavily scripted semi-interactive trailer, I've got a dozen bridges to sell you. Everything about it screamed "doctored trailer", from the way that individual cybernetics were given custom install animations to the waaaay too well animated conversations complete with ridiculous amounts of PC interaction with the gameworld. The CP2077 "gameplay" was just as doctored as Anthem's 2017 trailer, make no mistake about it.

I don't doubt that it what we saw will not be exactly what we'll get, particularly since the game is still being finished. There's no question of things looking different or being altered to make sense with story, etc. But here's the thing: you can fake 2 minutes. You can even fake 5 minutes. But you cannot fake 40 minutes. Unless that mission gets cut for some reason, I will say with confidence and conviction, that it will be in the finished game in approximately the state we saw it. We will meet DeShawn, we'll have the option of contacting the corp lady or not, we'll be tasked with stealing the spider and the rest of the world will react to the approach we chose. The weapons and implants we saw will be in the game, tho obviously numbers will change. Even if not that mission, it's absolutely indicative of the world, the role playing options, the characters and factions, combat, etc.

We saw them change V to a high level character mid-mission to demo other abilities. I'm aware it's not 100% accurate, but it is absolutely indicative of what gameplay will be on offer. Contrast with Anthem 17, the article described many features shown not being in the finished game at all. Skills promised in an interview were cut. Flying was in and out multiple times, the story kept changing leaving nonsense dialogue.

It basically says that it was Patrik Soderlund of EA that whipped Bioware into shape by being blunt about how atrocious Anthem's internal demo was and demanding a better proof of concept. Bioware's problem was partially EA's creation (the use of Frostbite), but the mismanagement of the project is on Bioware's management, not EA. Besides, we don't know how CP will turn out at this point, but considering how long it has been in development, chances are it'll be similar to Anthem. It is seeming increasingly plausible that CDPR simply doesn't know how to do a CP game and are flailing in the dark just as much as Bioware did with Anthem.

I am comparing the two stories because of how they contrast. Soderlund is a main part of the reason for my comment. CP2077 is being made for gamers. An offline, story driven, single player, reactive RPG with no microtransactions. Anthem, made for executives who demand "player engagement", monetisation strategies, game as service model, design by committee (and even then, badly). It wasn't made to be a good game, it was made to be an "engaging", live service. CP2077 will release When it's Ready. Anthem released when the EA fiscal year demanded it. That's the difference. That's the contrast.

The article specifically writes:

At one point, for example, the leadership team realized that there was no place in the game to show off your gear, which was a problem for a game in which the long-term monetization was all based on cosmetics.
.....
So the team brought on EA?s Motive studio in Montreal to build the Launch Bay, a last-minute addition to the game where you could hang out and show off your gear to strangers.

They literally added in a last minute feature because of the "long-term monetisation strategy". I mean holy crap, how much more obvious could it be who this game was made for? The launch bay exists for executives, not for gamers.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I googled around a bit and couldn't find anything. Do you have a link? Thanks.

Looking outside of 4chan and KiA might help you with that

Comparison shots: https://imgur.com/gYNJXBn
Model pic: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000zKyVEzYwqIU/s/650/650/XC-CM-LosAngelesPremiereOf-24Hours-020.jpg
Character pics: https://imgur.com/a/qy3cV

This took <5 min of googling.

You know Google keeps track of your search history and the results vary based upon that, right? They prioritize the results that their algorithm says you probably want to see. And there are a lot of links, so your results and mine could be quite different. And I only spent a couple of minutes, scrolling through a couple of pages. Also, I think I've been to 4chan like once. KiA a few times. Definitely not sites that I hang out on.

Anyway, didn't they do a big patch like a couple of months after launch that made some of the faces look better? Because I remember her being significantly uglier at launch, with bulgier eyes and fish lips. And all of the pics you posted have the same flat, mouth closed expression. Maybe it's when she shows emotion and opens her mouth that she goes all frog-faced.

Of course, I'm sure there's bias on both sides. Those trying to make her look ugly show the ugliest shots possible of her, and those you linked are probably showing her at her absolute best. Oh well, yay polarization and echo chambers. :-/

Frostbite is just a fucking prick to work with unless the characters are pre-designed. Take DragonAge 3: Cassandra, Josephine, Lilliana, Cullen, Dorian, Scout Harding to name but a few are all very handsomely designed characters; Cassandra herself is indeed stunning. But the presets you have available to you? Fucking dumpster fires with a few okay looking ones in there.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

That trailer in 2012 was just a teaser and announcement that a game would be coming. Those 6 years you mention weren't only "pre-production" but "production". While there was undoubtedly pre-production in that time, the game has been in full development for most of that time. Anthem was in pre-production seemingly up until the E3 trailer. CP2077 was already "playable from start to finish" when they showed it off.

CDPR themselves [https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-06-10-cd-projekt-red-unveils-cyberpunk-2077-at-e3-2018] said that pre-production in earnest began after Blood & Wine was finished. So no, CP was not in full production until at least some time late 2016. Besides, had it been that'd have been even worse, since it would have meant that CDPR would have done actual production for close to six years without anything to show for it except a pre-alpha. The reason CDPR hasn't shown CP off is because there has been nothing to show off. That mirrors Anthem exactly.

I don't doubt that it what we saw will not be exactly what we'll get, particularly since the game is still being finished. There's no question of things looking different or being altered to make sense with story, etc. But here's the thing: you can fake 2 minutes. You can even fake 5 minutes. But you cannot fake 40 minutes.

Sure you can. As long as you have a sort-of finished mission, a handful of basic assets in place (models, sounds etc.) and the time to script that vertical slice to seem more reactive then it really is, you can do some really long trailers that look a lot more like actual gameplay. I mean, the writing is on the wall with the watermark saying "not reflective of final product." and the narrator announcing over and over again that what you're seeing might not be what you'll play eventually. The whole gameplay segment is carefully crafted to show you what CDPR wants CP to look and feel like, but it is still extremely rigidly crafted. The narrator says that "you can choose to negotiate, sneak in, hack their system or shoot your way through" but all we're seeing is the shooty part. Similarly, he says we can drive around the city or walk around the plaza, but the gameplay we are seeing is the most direct route. This is all smoke and mirrors. If the game really was playable start to finish in any sort of completed state and some of it had the kind of polish the "pre-alpha gameplay" had, then either CDPR has a wildly divergent definition of pre-alpha (by comparison, I was in the Division 2 technical alpha and it still missed things like animations, textures and sounds) or they have some absurdly long development times. Since both of those are unlikely (the latter because no other CDPR game has been in active development for 7 years), it is safe to surmise that CDPR pulled a really good PR-stunt, with what is an insanely ambitious teaser.

Unless that mission gets cut for some reason, I will say with confidence and conviction, that it will be in the finished game in approximately the state we saw it. We will meet DeShawn, we'll have the option of contacting the corp lady or not, we'll be tasked with stealing the spider and the rest of the world will react to the approach we chose. The weapons and implants we saw will be in the game, tho obviously numbers will change. Even if not that mission, it's absolutely indicative of the world, the role playing options, the characters and factions, combat, etc.

Sure. I don't dispute that. What I dispute is that you could take the build from the gameplayer trailer and do anything else meaningfully but follow the very linear path shown. The trailer offers the illusion that you could choose other mods or not meet corporate lady or sneak in or hack your way in, but it shows none of those systems. That's most likely because the "gameplay trailer" is a linear sequence that's heavily scripted. That's beside the obvious over-elaboration on some parts, like the cybernetics getting custom install sequences or the PCs animations during ambient dialogue, which only further reinforces the idea that the gameplay trailer is polished to a degree that the final game is very, very unlikely to be. I mean, that's on top of the constant "Not indicative of final product" that keeps cropping up, as if CDPR themselves knew that they were selling an ordinary egg with a coat of gold paint on it.

We saw them change V to a high level character mid-mission to demo other abilities. I'm aware it's not 100% accurate, but it is absolutely indicative of what gameplay will be on offer. Contrast with Anthem 17, the article described many features shown not being in the finished game at all. Skills promised in an interview were cut. Flying was in and out multiple times, the story kept changing leaving nonsense dialogue.

Except this comparison is pointless, because we haven't gotten any actual gameplay from CP yet. Until we know what was and wasn't cut between "gameplay trailer" and actual release, we can only compare our own vision of how CP will be on release to Anthem.

I am comparing the two stories because of how they contrast. Soderlund is a main part of the reason for my comment. CP2077 is being made for gamers. An offline, story driven, single player, reactive RPG with no microtransactions. Anthem, made for executives who demand "player engagement", monetisation strategies, game as service model, design by committee (and even then, badly). It wasn't made to be a good game, it was made to be an "engaging", live service. CP2077 will release When it's Ready. Anthem released when the EA fiscal year demanded it. That's the difference. That's the contrast.

So you didn't read the article thoroughly then? Because if you did, you'd realize that it, very early on, specifies that it was Bioware who wanted to do an online, multiplayer shooter of some kind. Sure, EA probably mandated a monetisation model of some sort, but it was Bioware who made the design calls. This is made explicit in the article.

And once again, it is impossible to compare CDPR making their pet project with near unlimited funds due to having their own game store to funnel money from to Bioware who has a publisher who actually demands results. Both of these models have their pros and cons and there are certainly examples of games that were given free reigns to be "true to the vision the gamers wanted" and ended up tanking like a ton of bricks. Daikatana and Duke Nuke'em Forever being two of the chief examples of this. Incidentally also games that were stuck in prolonged development before being released to mediocre reviews.

I am not saying that CP will be bad (I really hope it is not), but that we should temper our expectations. CDPR have basically only released four games. One of those was a troubled rough gem, two were legitimately great RPGs and one is a troubled CCG which has the worst balancing team of any CCG in recent memory. So when CDPR decides to go ultra-big in a completely new genre with tons of new gameplay features and then goes radio silent during 6 years of pre-production only to show us the biggest illusion ever in the PR-history of gaming once they start talking, we should probably be slightly worried.

They literally added in a last minute feature because of the "long-term monetisation strategy". I mean holy crap, how much more obvious could it be who this game was made for? The launch bay exists for executives, not for gamers.

Just stop here for a minute and think about it. If you get a wide range of customization options in a multiplayer game (and Anthem, for all its' faults, has really extensive customization) only to find out that you can't show it off, how disappointed do you think you'd be?
In this case, we don't even have to imagine, as one of the most frequent complaints from the closed beta, apart from all the bugs and connection issues, was that there was no place for the group to just hang out, show off gear and do inventory management together. This was before the launch bay was announced. So arguably Anthem players wanted it as much as "executives" apparently did. Nevermind that the leadership in the quote you mined are the management of Bioware and not EA.

 

[Kerg3927]

Frostbite is just a fucking prick to work with unless the characters are pre-designed. Take DragonAge 3: Cassandra, Josephine, Lilliana, Cullen, Dorian, Scout Harding to name but a few are all very handsomely designed characters; Cassandra herself is indeed stunning. But the presets you have available to you? Fucking dumpster fires with a few okay looking ones in there.

Even those characters had issues. I couldn't stand the way Cassandra and Leliana stood and walked slightly bent over like they had back problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5aNpWFulzg&t=0m10s

 

[Kerg3927]

The thing is that that has nothing to do with them 'intentionally' making her ugly, as evidence by the fact that they made the attempt to fix it, and everything to do with them being unable to get the engine to work right because Frostbite is a dumpsterfire to work with for anything that isn't Battlefield. It's not an engine meant for lots of close up face shots and long periods of dialogue and talking.

Maybe. I'm sure that's a big part of it. But I still think there was some intentional (hetero) desexualization going on as compared to prior games. For example, apparently in one of the patches they added lipstick to Sara [https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/Patch-1-06...Sara-Ryder-lipstick.../6054332], which means that originally someone decided to not give her lipstick. Cora and Peebee (dumbest name ever) are pretty manly looking and unattractive, and I think those are the only two female human-like squadmates that aren't your sister. Maybe the Frostbite default for women is square jaw man-face and they just didn't or couldn't get it to make anyone (hetero) attractive, but it's hard to not think that there were probably some political shenanigans going on there, considering it's Bioware.

Anyway, I paid $60 for the game and didn't get past the prologue. The dialogue writing was pretty cringeworthy, and logically I figured the prologue probably had their best material, because that's where you usually want to draw the player into the story, so I thought that it probably wasn't going to get any better as the game went on. And I just couldn't get over all of the derp faces... it was immersion breaking.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

The thing is that that has nothing to do with them 'intentionally' making her ugly, as evidence by the fact that they made the attempt to fix it, and everything to do with them being unable to get the engine to work right because Frostbite is a dumpsterfire to work with for anything that isn't Battlefield. It's not an engine meant for lots of close up face shots and long periods of dialogue and talking.

Maybe. I'm sure that's a big part of it. But I still think there was some intentional (hetero) desexualization going on as compared to prior games. For example, apparently in one of the patches they added lipstick to Sara [https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/Patch-1-06...Sara-Ryder-lipstick.../6054332], which means that originally someone decided to not give her lipstick. Cora and Peebee (dumbest name ever) are pretty manly looking and unattractive, and I think those are the only two female human-like squadmates that aren't your sister. Maybe the Frostbite default for women is square jaw man-face and they just didn't or couldn't get it to make anyone (hetero) attractive, but it's hard to not think that there were probably some political shenanigans going on there, considering it's Bioware.

Anyway, I paid $60 for the game and didn't get past the prologue. The dialogue writing was pretty cringeworthy, and logically I figured the prologue probably had their best material, because that's where you usually want to draw the player into the story, so I thought that it probably wasn't going to get any better as the game went on. And I just couldn't get over all of the derp faces... it was immersion breaking.

Sara?s a street urchin, I don?t see her spending dosh that would better cover arrows, food or jars of bees on cosmetics. Now, if they?d kept lippy away from Vivienne then that would be absurd; she?s a high ranking woman of the Orlais court and you don?t get past the doorman without six layers of makeup and a mask.

 

[FakeSympathy]

I'd like to add Bioware's response to the Kotaku article;
http://blog.bioware.com/2019/04/02/anthem-game-development/

This response apparently went up about minutes after the original article was uploaded. For those of you who are lazy to read it, it basically boils down to "The article is untrue, because there is nothing wrong with our environment and we take feedback seriously."

Okay Bioware/EA, two things;
1. If you guys really did care about the employees, what was up with the recent job cuts?
2. You guys claim to avoid "crunch" time, so why was pre-production (few years) longer than the actual production (around 1.5 years)?
3. And if you guys do take feedbacks seriously from the players, WHY ISN'T THE GAME FIXED ALREADY?

I am gonna give up on Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchise now. I don't think Bioware will be around to see it or future games in either franchise will suck

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I'm not shocked in the least and it sounds pretty par for the course with EAs treatment of their "pet" studios. Mass Effect 2 was when I realised Bioware was declining. It was so painfully average and by the books, like someone had stripped the joy out of it.