Mythic Entertainment Drops the B-Word
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally I think people are being a little unjustly cruel to Bioware. I actually liked the explained-more-thoroughly Mass Effect 3 endings, and I love how they're still supporting ME3's multiplayer with free updates. Yeah they've had a setback, but I think they've done a lot to win back customers. They've certainly done a lot more than the $10 Map Pack/$60 Roster Update EA they've been hanging around with.Fappy said:
I think people haven't really been paying much attention here.
Mythic Entertainment is itself a massive skunk. The big success of Mythic entertainment was "Dark Age Of Camelot", it went on to liscenced MMO development under EA and produced "Warhammer Age Of Reckoning" which itself crashed hard, incidently for a lot of the same reasons ToR failed. Mythic was combined into Bioware to help the developement of "The Old Republic" specifically, a move reported by EA Louse as having been done by executives because Bioware was so far behind on game design, and the only thing they had to be really proud of was the sound design... which is actually shockingly accurate on a lot of levels since the best aspects of the game were probably the voice acting and cut scenes.
According to Wikipedia Mythic merged into Bioware in 2009, which means it spent a couple of years in the dev process, and really I've kind of suspected that by shoehorning them in it kind of torpedoed the development of ToR.
Interestingly, you might notice that Mythic doesn't seem to be being assigned to an MMO project. While not being "killed" they seem to be being banished to "app space" as opposed to even developing AAA level titles. Apps and mobile games being a big business because they require comparitively little committment of resources, which to me looks like Mythic is kind of in the doghouse right now.
Also the guy who was overseeing EA's MMO business, and calling the shots, was apparently kicked out as well.
To a trained eye it seems like EA actually isn't blaming Bioware, it's nailed the manager, and it's going after some of the studios that he folded into Bioware. Bioware is still getting a chance to develop AAA games meaning EA is giving them many millions of dollars. From a financial perspective even with nasty fan reaction, DA2 and ME3 both moved a ton of copies and ME3 still seems to have a fairly thriving multiplayer community that is spending money. That success means Bioware still has a chance to redeem themselves within their market of choice.
I'd imagine Bioware's big arguement right now (internally) is that they produce good games when they can focus on one thing and use their own team. Arguably it was that team that made things valuable. A number of people (like me) have noticed that Bioware was basically juggling multiple projects, with a primary focus on the MMO, and pretty much everything wound up getting mangled in some way and not coming close to the promises made. How much blame is on Bioware, and how much is on other companies that were crammed into their projects and a matter of lack of focus is going to be highly debatable.
Don't take this as a defense of Bioware, they have a LOT of work to do in order to regain trust from me. I do however think that EA is giving them the benefit of the doubt, and actually backing off to give them some space. An opinion simply formed on Bioware continueing with fairly big projects, while companies that are "distancing themselves" from Bioware seem to be going into projects that are a heck of a lot cheaper and less pretigious than big budget AAA game development.
It's remotely possible, though unlikely, that EA has actually learned a lesson here.
Mythic Entertainment is itself a massive skunk. The big success of Mythic entertainment was "Dark Age Of Camelot", it went on to liscenced MMO development under EA and produced "Warhammer Age Of Reckoning" which itself crashed hard, incidently for a lot of the same reasons ToR failed. Mythic was combined into Bioware to help the developement of "The Old Republic" specifically, a move reported by EA Louse as having been done by executives because Bioware was so far behind on game design, and the only thing they had to be really proud of was the sound design... which is actually shockingly accurate on a lot of levels since the best aspects of the game were probably the voice acting and cut scenes.
According to Wikipedia Mythic merged into Bioware in 2009, which means it spent a couple of years in the dev process, and really I've kind of suspected that by shoehorning them in it kind of torpedoed the development of ToR.
Interestingly, you might notice that Mythic doesn't seem to be being assigned to an MMO project. While not being "killed" they seem to be being banished to "app space" as opposed to even developing AAA level titles. Apps and mobile games being a big business because they require comparitively little committment of resources, which to me looks like Mythic is kind of in the doghouse right now.
Also the guy who was overseeing EA's MMO business, and calling the shots, was apparently kicked out as well.
To a trained eye it seems like EA actually isn't blaming Bioware, it's nailed the manager, and it's going after some of the studios that he folded into Bioware. Bioware is still getting a chance to develop AAA games meaning EA is giving them many millions of dollars. From a financial perspective even with nasty fan reaction, DA2 and ME3 both moved a ton of copies and ME3 still seems to have a fairly thriving multiplayer community that is spending money. That success means Bioware still has a chance to redeem themselves within their market of choice.
I'd imagine Bioware's big arguement right now (internally) is that they produce good games when they can focus on one thing and use their own team. Arguably it was that team that made things valuable. A number of people (like me) have noticed that Bioware was basically juggling multiple projects, with a primary focus on the MMO, and pretty much everything wound up getting mangled in some way and not coming close to the promises made. How much blame is on Bioware, and how much is on other companies that were crammed into their projects and a matter of lack of focus is going to be highly debatable.
Don't take this as a defense of Bioware, they have a LOT of work to do in order to regain trust from me. I do however think that EA is giving them the benefit of the doubt, and actually backing off to give them some space. An opinion simply formed on Bioware continueing with fairly big projects, while companies that are "distancing themselves" from Bioware seem to be going into projects that are a heck of a lot cheaper and less pretigious than big budget AAA game development.
It's remotely possible, though unlikely, that EA has actually learned a lesson here.
Too little too late IMO and we'll never get back the Bioware of old as long as the Thumb of EA is overhead.Fappy said:
I expect a story about a game with the word 'bastard' or '*****' in it! I am disappointed Escapist!
Also, how did this become an EA thread? What are these comments? I guess I'll have to add this to my examples of 'even mentioning the word EA sends people into a mad mindless rage'.
Also, how did this become an EA thread? What are these comments? I guess I'll have to add this to my examples of 'even mentioning the word EA sends people into a mad mindless rage'.
Yaaaaaay. "Bioware Mythic" was a stupidly unwieldy name. I like Bioware, and I like Mythic, but I want them to stay apart from one another thank you very much.
Bioware still exists (in a manner of speaking) its just that EA realises that slapping the brand on everything isn't going to work out now that that Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk have retired as well as the whole TOR not being a WOW killer, ME3 leaving a bad taste in the mouth of many people...Vault101 said:
Don't worry, there is still BioWare Edmonton, BioWare Austin, BioWare Victory, BioWare Montreal, BioWare Ireland, and BioWare San Francisco still.
Which?Altorin said:
The dilution of the brand name?
The string of (ok lets be nice here) average games that they have released recently?
Or the large numbers of high level Old Guard leaving for greener pastures?
They must be trying to use some form of tactical genius. To bad Creed works for the Imperium and not Chaos.
Not sure how well this tactic shall work. "Re-re-branding themselves with a name change". Maybe it'll work, but I don't play their games. So w/e I guess.
Not sure how well this tactic shall work. "Re-re-branding themselves with a name change". Maybe it'll work, but I don't play their games. So w/e I guess.
Anybody else remember the jubilation when "BioWare bought their first company!" No? Didn't think so.
I would now like to point out that this is the company that wants to turn Ultima IV into a multiplayer Action RPG.
What these necessarily have to do with EABioWareMythic Entertainment Systems Media Incorporated? I was thinking about pointing out that they oughta maybe focus on actually making good games, but I haven't played their three biggest properties, so they might actually have been okay.
I would now like to point out that this is the company that wants to turn Ultima IV into a multiplayer Action RPG.
What these necessarily have to do with EABioWareMythic Entertainment Systems Media Incorporated? I was thinking about pointing out that they oughta maybe focus on actually making good games, but I haven't played their three biggest properties, so they might actually have been okay.
I just went into a detailed analysis of this.Vault101 said:
Bioware still exists as Bioware. Bioware still designs AAA level games for EA.
Mythic was an MMO company that got picked up by EA to develop "Warhammer Age Of Recknoning" due to their chops from "Dark Age Of Camelot", it dropped the ball heavily. They were shoehorned into Bioware to help develop TOR due to their expertise, a point brought up along with some nasty supposition by "EA Louse" once upon a time in his famous letter.
Mythic has been busted down from AAA game development or MMOs which was their specialty to developing mobile games, which incidently also take less of an investment of cash from their owner/publisher.
The general sentiments here seem to be that EA is abandoning Bioware and trying to seperate as much as they can from it because of it's failures. Truthfully even Bioware's failures have probably made more money than most company's successes at this point. What's more a lot of issues can be placed at the feet of companies like Mythic who were "the experts" of these generes as well as putting too much on Bioware's table at one time.
If Bioware was a huge failure, EA would have just dissolved them or done something to punish them or make them less of an investment at the least, knocking them down to projects that take little in the way of resources.
Love them or hate them (they need to regain a lot of trust from me), the bottom line is Bioware still operates like it ever did, and has a lot of EA money and big development coming their way for the moment at least. The companies like Mythic that are being made independant again... well, they pretty much just got kicked into the kiddie pool.
At least for the next 15 minutes it seems Bioware is still EA's golden boy, a lot is going to depend on what happens with "Dragon Age 3". If that tanks as bad as I fear given what they are saying (must play as human, more like 2 than "Origins", etc...) I suspect it will be the death of Bioware, at least as a big developer, I imagine they will either be dissolved or kicked down to lesser projects. I wish them luck, but to be honest I'm not likely to give them an initial sale for "Dragon Age 3", and wait and see what it turns out like before investing money in it. If a lot of people think like me, they might get tanked when EA doesn't get the release day sales it wants.
Well the thing to understand is that it's not just bad feelings from ME3 but also what happened with DA2 itself. That's TWO games that got some rather strong response from fans who bought the game. It doesn't effect the bottom line of those titles since the people who complained already paid the money, but it does raise the question as to whether the people who are angry will continue to support products. ToR's fate also contributes because it simply wasn't what was promised.Vault101 said:
One thing you'll notice is that I, and a lot of people, haven't exactly been saying "I'm not going to buy these games". Rather the thing is that I'm going to assume they are dogs until proven otherwise. I'm going to wait until the games are out, initial hype has faded, and then see what kind of lasting impression the games have left. I'm going to ignore the initial fanboys raving about "OMG, it's perfect, I'm glad I bought it" and probably take the haters with a grain of salt, but take them a LOT more seriously than those saying good things simply because of the previous games in the series and they deserve suspician.
The thing is that if people are simply wary and take a conservative response it's going to tank the all important "initial sales" that make or break games. What's more this is a situation where if the game has major flaws, I'm just not going to buy it. To earn my trust back they pretty much have to prove they can release an awesomely high quality product that meets my expectations, before I give them any money. I'm not going to take any more risks on them.
Part of the point of waiting is that ME3 was a good game up until the ending which ruined not only the game, but the series. Dragon Age 2's ending and the sequence leading up to it was pretty much garbage as well when you get down to it. Basically this is one of those cases where the spoilers are going to sell the game, I'm just not going to get invested in something that ends with a major let down.
See, EA had an unprecedented chance to win my support (and that of a lot of people). Most people wouldn't have cared enough about a game series that took a dump on them like ME3 did to bother to demand an ending change on that level. Had EA backed down and did what they should have done, I'd have a lot more respect for them and the committment to quality games and good writing. Instead they released this whole "clarification" thing which doesn't alter the fundemental problems with the ME3 finale. In doing what they did, they showed they care more about their ego than the fans, and simply cannot admit to having made a mistake. As a result when it comes to EA/Bioware products I have to make sure they get it right the first time, because I sure as heck can't expect them to realize when they F@kced up and fix it.
ME4's sales depend on a lot of factors. There are still plenty of bio-drones who stood behind the whole "Starchild" thing and the "ending clarification" pack, enough to make it a moderate success. Really, their best hope with it is to ensure that the beginning set up for ME4 more or less undoes a lot of the specifics of the ME3 ending. I'd imagine from their perspective it would be "meh, look it isn't that bad, and we planned it this way, you just misunderstood, don't you all feel silly" as a face saving gesture, and then people might forgive it as long as the biodrones didn't make themselves insufferable and understood what was behind it. Mass Effect might survive as a moderatly successful franchise, but I doubt it will be the continuous blockbuster it might have been with what they did with 3.
Dragon Age 3 is largely dependant on whether or not Bioware finally "gets it". The first game which met with cricial acclaim and avoided the division of the second one was a spiriual successor to "Baldur's Gate".. a series of games people still play today even with archaic tech. This was a new version with modern technology. It succeded because it wasn't some kind of half arsed action RPG despite what some complainers said. It also succeeded because of the options for the hero and how certain aspects of the story could play out differantly in the details due to choice of race, origin, etc. It also created a number of characters that people liked and cared about, as well as leaving key plot points at a cliffhanger.
For DA3 to succeed they pretty much need to make it more like the first one, include race, gender, and origin choices, and perhaps most importantly start tying up key plot points. What's going on with Morrigan and her child (based around choices in DA:O) is for example one of the biggest things they need to work out in DA3. If they simply change locations, have an entirely new story with an occasional face/voice actor from the previous games showing up to say "hi", that's not going to do it, and not resolve anything from the first two games, there is no real point to it as a sequel. DA2 ended with all kinds of questions that also needed to be answered, but you'll notice people talk less about them because as a story it failed to get many people's attention. Hawke was a one note dork you couldn't determine much about who may or may not have done anything you had him do (for all we know he died from Aids after swimming in the pool at the inn, and our dwarf friend is a giant troll), and to say almost everyone who figured into the ending was a complete moron would be an understatement, but that's still no reason to just let things just kind of stop without any resolution for our "hero".
At any rate given the whole "the hero will be human exclusively" thing combined with few reassuring details on gameplay, the story, or anything else, I don't have high hopes for DA3 to be honest. Truthfully I half expect their big innovations will be to let you change the hero's color palette, and remove all stats and equipment from the game, the guys in platemail jumping off roofs like Ninjas, will now be actual Ninjas but with french accents, and those giant Spiders and stuff that didn't appear until you triggered them will now themselves leap down with backflips to make them more ninja-like. Oh yes and our new hero will be known as "Player 1", his sidekick "Player 2" will only appear if you use the new multiplayer mode.
Well that or they will decide all of that is too creative and go further back in their playbook to pull out something they already used and pass it off as new. The elderly sage giving you all of your quests will turn out to secretly have been Logoth Zanta the entire time... (award yourself a million nerd points if you get that one).
huh...yeah that..I guessTherumancer said:
all I know is even though I am probably one of the more obsessed Mass Effect fans and Bioware apologists.....I just don't know how I'd feel about trying ME4
I don't want to care again and get punched in the face with great big "FUCK YOU FOR CARING DUMBASS!" like ME3 did to all of us (but tbh I probably would more out of curiosity than anything (where do they go from there?)
but that (and what you said) brings about the question of weather or not the creator is the absolute authority on a work...I think somtimes that shouldn't be the case..much like (in an article) saying geroge lucas didnt actually understand WHY people liked star wars
the ending of ME3 didn't understand WHY people liked Mass Effect (hint: its NOT for its similarities to 2001 space odesey)
I'd also say that defending the ending seems to be a minority opinion..that even the most hardcore of fans still defend the series [i/]in spite of[/i] the ending