inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 23, 2019 22:29:03 GMT
Unlike Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook they are free to do things about it on their own forums. It is the community manager's job. If they choose not to put in the effort required, I'm not interested in their sob story. No other company has this problem. I don't think anyone has been to the offical Bethesda Forums before, or in many ages. What other company is under more magnified scrutiny for sheer incompatence and lousy business practices at the moment? Fallout 76 releasing as probably the most broken AAA game of all time, and now Elder Scrolls Blades being a shitty, greed fueled P2W mobile game? And yet, they actually moderate their forums, things remain civil. Do Bethesda developers post there? No, not really. But the Community Guys do. They don't let the fans control the narrative on their own forum. Bioware never cared about moderating BSN, never. The ONE guy they did have who actually moderated (Stanley Woo I think it was?) was an arrogant asshole who antagonisted users constantly. Hey now, Chris Priestly was perfect capable of being an ass as well
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 21:24:43 GMT
A world to save true, but not by actually fighting or participating on the front anymore. That's made pretty clear. I think those two lines are accomplishing different things, one telling us that the Inquisitor is done as a PC, and the other telling us that they will still be around because it'd be weird if they weren't. BioWare wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and while its an inelegant solution, it does wrap up the Inquisitor's active participation neatly. Well, they can't be 'around' and not have an active role of some sort in active plot of stopping Solas/saving the world, regardless what people think of their participation on the battlefield - something that is hardly ruled out, given that we have epilogue scenes where Inquisitor participates in activities requiring fighting and/or acrobatics (one of Sera's epilogue cards) AND we know that Iron Bull was always going to be a warrior and at some point that warrior was supposed to lack about the same amount of left hand as Inquisitor doesn't have. You know - the Inquisitor: a person that has easy access to money and some of the most brilliant minds in Thedas. If there's one person that is able to find themselves a nifty replacement for a missing appendage, it's one of the richest and most influential people in Southern Thedas. I mean you can take an ending slide and unused character design or you can take the Inquisitor's own words....
I'd love it if the Inquisitor returned as protagonist, but they aren't going to, and that's fine. BioWare has changed protagonists around before to tell different kinds of stories and I'm on board with that kind of shift.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 21:12:33 GMT
What a stupid rule. Screw telling a good story, no we got to have a new person each time. That was a HORRIBLE decision. Originally Hawke was supposed to carry the series through but the character wasn't well received so Hawke was abandoned. good riddance tbh
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 21:11:22 GMT
Actions speak louder than words.
Its one thing to talk about other protagonists or mention original character concepts that didn't make the cut, but what are we left with at the end of the day? An Inquisitor who tells us "my adventuring days are behind me" after getting their arm disintegrated.
Yep, Inquisitor's actions in the very last scene we ever saw from DA for now (or the fact that Inquisition moves to Tevinter in new comic, as it was declared in post-epilogue scene) definitely speaks louder than the fact that they don't have a limb anymore. Also - why do you remember "my adventuring day may be (sic!) over", but don't remember " Now, if you excuse me, I have a world to save. Again". Literally the whole speech was a veiled declaration of future action that you don't really have to read in too hard to get. Never mind the whole "we will stop Solas" declaration in post-Trespasser scene or Dragon Age Keep's overtly saying that it's Inquisitor that be at the helm of all the stopping. A world to save true, but not by actually fighting or participating on the front anymore. That's made pretty clear. I think those two lines are accomplishing different things, one telling us that the Inquisitor is done as a PC, and the other telling us that they will still be around because it'd be weird if they weren't. BioWare wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and while its an inelegant solution, it does wrap up the Inquisitor's active participation neatly.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 21:00:25 GMT
after they exit stage left sans a limb
Seems to me they knew there wasn't a reason to not have the Inquisitor as the lead again and decided to get around that by lopping off an arm. Its an easy way to keep the Inquisitor around but also let us get a new protagonist.
Yep, it's not like multiple DA devs weren't enthusing about Furiosa from Mad Max or conceptualized Iron Bull having no hand until the plans were cut due to technical difficulties... or, you know, the lead writer stating on his twitter that having no hand is no reason to get rid of someone from the narrative. There are multiple reasons why they'd want to remove the limb, with none of them related to crippling them enough to remove them from the plot/battlefield, especially after going through so much problem of establishing Inquisitor as someone who is essential to the future Solas-related plot. Actions speak louder than words.
Its one thing to talk about other protagonists or mention original character concepts that didn't make the cut, but what are we left with at the end of the day? An Inquisitor who tells us "my adventuring days are behind me" after getting their arm disintegrated.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 20:54:47 GMT
Well I think that gets to the difference between the Inquisitor as an individual and the Inquisition as an institution. No, it doesn't. The Inquisitors personally involve themselves. Depending on what you chose, you can even be very open about it by saying "I'm off to save the world again." Note I. Not we. I. And presumably they will continue to be involved in the effort to defeat Solas, but not from the front lines. The Inquisitor is pretty clear about their days at the front being done. I honestly don't see why a story where we play an agent of the Inquisition fighting against Solas is inconsistent with the Inquisitor continuing to fight Solas. Sure we aren't controlling them anymore and that's a bit of a bummer. I like the Inquisitor best of the DA protags, but their role as the primary driver of action is done.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 20:50:45 GMT
Depends on what you think the Inquisitor's story IS though. The central conflict of DA:I isn't stopping Solas, its bringing order to the chaos of Southern Thedas, and that goal is accomplished. Our pledge was to close the Breach and stop those responsible. Solas is responsible for everything about the Breach. Further, at the end of Trespasser the Inquisition is now on a quest to deal with Solas no matter what was chosen. So under no circumstance is their story finished. Well I think that gets to the difference between the Inquisitor as an individual and the Inquisition as an institution.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 20:44:28 GMT
A good story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, it doesn't NEED to recycle protagonists. And the current story are only at the middle and lacking an end, so thank you for proving my point. Depends on what you think the Inquisitor's story IS though. The central conflict of DA:I isn't stopping Solas, its bringing order to the chaos of Southern Thedas, and that goal is accomplished.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 20:43:16 GMT
I mean they can say that they won't get rid of a character in such a way all they want, but that's exactly what they did to the Inquisitor Only they didn't. They've made Inky a central character in the endeavor to stop Solas, which is what the whole Trespasser ending was about. Even recently John Epler has stated that Inquisitor HAD TO survive (and all the recent comic books operate under the assumption that Inquisition is there and there was no change in leadership). So whatever role Inkys are going to play in the future, they do appear they are going to be there and likely involved into something very important. after they exit stage left sans a limb
Seems to me they knew there wasn't a reason to not have the Inquisitor as the lead again and decided to get around that by lopping off an arm. Its an easy way to keep the Inquisitor around but also let us get a new protagonist.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 20:37:53 GMT
Really? I think Trespasser was pretty effective in disarming the Inquisitor for the rest of the franchise. The Lead Writer has already dismissed the idea of getting rid of a character by crippling them. I mean they can say that they won't get rid of a character in such a way all they want, but that's exactly what they did to the Inquisitor
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 9, 2019 20:11:56 GMT
Then as I've said before, they could not have failed any harder and they are every bit the overrated hacks the haters say they are. Also makes that DLC the worst they've ever made since it completely ruins the protagonist and game. Reading between the lines Joplin sounded like a new protagonist which is what I want. who knows now. It read a bit that way to me too, which is a big reason why I'm glad to hear they scrapped Joplin. I mean we've had a different protagonist each DA title, I don't think they ever entertained the idea of continuing with the Inquisitor
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 5, 2019 17:43:09 GMT
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 3, 2019 3:54:30 GMT
I agree on all of that. But I suspect the studio is suffering heavily from morale and its up to the senior team to regain that trust now for the future. The question we should all be asking is can Hudson, Darrah and company do that? Their statement today, despite the massive tone-deafness of it, more or less hinted at that fact being part of their own humbling. It just needs a bit of a push, which I hope the expose can provide at this point. If not...the failure is on the studio heads for failing to learn. It's also why I fear that people will just attack Bioware and EA and leave it at that while ignoring or underreporting the questionable things that other game companies do. I'm hoping this article could spark a discussion about the industry at large but sadly it's just going to be aimed at Bioware for now. I think that's partly because right now the reaction is to the stress and fatigue and terrible morale as a symptom of terrible management. There will always be some level of stress and crunch in any complicated field with deadlines, that isn't unique to BioWare, but BioWare's issues with management seem to be continuing for release after release and that does set them apart.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Apr 3, 2019 3:38:21 GMT
Fuck Memes. They are the boil of the internet.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 18:48:18 GMT
Specifically, I'm talking about the limitations on skills accessible at any given point in time. DAI was stripped of the ability to change gear during combat (in spite of toting it around in inventory) and programmable tactics. MEA resorted to this weird classless profiling thing where you could change abilities anytime, but still have only 3 available for immediate use. Was any of that BioWare's choice, or were they simply trying to make the best of what they could do with Frostbite? Did BioWare really want to remove magical healing from DAI, or was that a compromise they made due to limitations imposed by Frostbite? Since just about every FPS ever has magical healing, it's unclear how Frostbite could possibly cause a problem in that area. From dev comments, I got the impression that the devs weren't too fond of systems which required the player to pause the action in order to manage one character effectively. (Arguably this represents the influence of MP, although this has been a long-term trend with Bio games.) And IIRC they hadn't liked the D&D 3.0 "golf bag" approach too much either. It was never quite clear why warriors lost access to ranged weapons, though. Something something class roles was all the explanation we ever got. I mean on the laundry list of design decisions I took issue with in DA:I, restricting ranged attacks to mages and rogues wasn't something I took a lot of issue with.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 18:32:56 GMT
Idiots for what? Comparing a game with broken mechanics, terrible technical performance, and a lack of content to a game with broken mechanics, terrible technical performance, and a lack of content? That, and the boycott thing. That's really childish to me. The problem is this: the comparison doesn't hold water unless you throw it into generic terms like you did above here. Its really easy to do that....and it's really easy to sell a narrative on that. Feed that controversy. So yeah, people are really idiotic to compare a bunch of games which "failed" if you want to call it that, for having similar issues when they are far from the same. Given the publicity that Anthem's failings have garnered, I think its an entirely understandable and appropriate comparison to make. Though we are not lacking in comparisons to games like Destiny 1/2 and the Division as well which are far closer in genre.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 18:24:36 GMT
Go on the Anthem subreddit and tell me the reaction you see there isn't similar to the hooplah over FO76 and NMS. (the calls for boycott remind me of For Honor, but you said you have no experience with that game so....)
Whether you think the comparison is appropriate is really beyond the point, hell even gaming news sites are starting to compare the backlashes.
They are all idiots. What do you want me to say? Idiots for what? Comparing a game with broken mechanics, terrible technical performance, and a lack of content to a game with broken mechanics, terrible technical performance, and a lack of content?
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 18:22:05 GMT
Please point to me where I said the issues in the game were on par The fact that it reminds you of it is the problem, it shouldn't because it's a different scenario between them all. Hence the problem of feeding the controversy that I mentioned...they all blend together into an amorphous blanket statement that satisfies a ton of people almost blindly. I hate that personally since its antithetical to any discussion. Go on the Anthem subreddit and tell me the reaction you see there isn't similar to the hooplah over FO76 and NMS. (the calls for boycott remind me of For Honor, but you said you have no experience with that game so....)
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 18:08:27 GMT
You've enjoyed the games? Good on you.
That doesn't change the fact that BW's last two offerings have been met with tepid reception at best critically. Commercially ME:A may have turned a profit but it wasn't deemed viable enough for longer term DLC. Anthem meanwhile is in the midst of playerbase drama that reminds me more of FO76, NMS, and For Honor. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out, but the game is clearly not in a good place for a lot of very vocal and visible fans.
Trust me when I say the issues with Fallout 76 are much worse compared to the problems in Anthem. That game is still broken on consoles in ways Anthem wasn't, and I mean game breaking bug broken. The comparison is easy to make because of proximity of release and a lot of folks love their Yellow Journalism that way so it's low hanging fruit. plus i'm just going to go on record and say the reaction to No Man's Sky was overblown too. I never played For Honor so I have no opinion on it, but I certainly can say that folks love feeding the conflict machine now a days in the gaming world. Please point to me where I said the issues in the game were on par
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 18:07:51 GMT
reminds me more of FO76, NMS I own both FO76 and NMS and I wouldn't put Anthem a million miles within the category of awful that is FO76 and NMS (not even 'new' NMS). I didn't say the situations were exactly the same, I said the player base reactions were similar
but sure, try and twist my words
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 12, 2019 17:51:57 GMT
At what point do some people to understand that something is inherently wrong at Bioware? To my mind, that statement is flawed. I've enjoyed all of BioWare's games, including MEA and Anthem. They sure need to get out of the habit of launching unready, but the games are good. You've enjoyed the games? Good on you.
That doesn't change the fact that BW's last two offerings have been met with tepid reception at best critically. Commercially ME:A may have turned a profit but it wasn't deemed viable enough for longer term DLC. Anthem meanwhile is in the midst of playerbase drama that reminds me more of FO76, NMS, and For Honor. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out, but the game is clearly not in a good place for a lot of very vocal and visible fans.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 11, 2019 22:36:57 GMT
I mean if it ME: A underperformed, they would’ve said so. The fact that they were pleased with ME: A means the opposite. Funny how this "LITTLE" detail is always ignored when people like to make claims that a Bioware game failed. If they don't talk about it means it failed but if they do talk about it then it also means it failed... There seems to be a total binary where a game either succeeds or fails, that's not the case. Sometimes companies will take the effort to salvage an underwhelming release, Battlefield 4, Rainbow 6 Siege, For Honor, for example. Some game will be runaway successes, TW3, GTA 5, DA:I. Some games will do well but the company will not decide to support it for long, ME:A, TW: Thrones of Britannia, and of course some will just flop, Lawbreakers comes to mind.
We can look at BioWare's history and see that they launch SP heavy titles with continuing support in the form of DLC, that was their MO for games from ME1 up until DA:I. ME:A did not follow suit, and while it might not have been the flop it is commonly characterized to be, there were numerous plot threads that were clearly hinted at being DLC, the Quarian Ark for example. So while ME:A might not have been a total flop, it clearly didn't inspire confidence in continuing support like BioWare's previous games.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 11, 2019 19:59:38 GMT
What gaas features do you think are positive for the player? By having more of the game 'in the cloud' you can fix, change and add stuff more quickly and more flexibly. Rather than a fixed game that ships pending fixed pieces of DLC, more of the game can be added over time. Enjoyable as Dragon Age games have been in the past, they don't evolve. I don't expect DA4 to be as full-on co-op as Anthem is, but to ignore the benefits of Anthem would be a huge mis-step and I think it's clear that some Anthem-like mechanics will be baked into the design. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the traditional SP game set up.
Meanwhile Anthem can't even get loot, in a looter shooter, to an acceptable state for the community.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 11, 2019 19:08:39 GMT
I played DAI at launch and loved it. Aside from the sandbox, I really don't understand why people are critical of that game. Oh it's my favourite DA game, I just think the ending was disappointing. Honestly, Trespasser is my favorite part of the game, it was the best example of breaking from the open world hub areas like we had in the base game. Admittedly the Descent was a step away, but Trespasser was a full on "linear" experience ala DA:O and DA2 and that's what I'd like more of going forwards. Plus the realization of a couple of important decisions in game.
|
|
inherit
98
0
Feb 18, 2020 17:11:03 GMT
3,042
Steelcan
2,078
August 2016
steelcan
|
Post by Steelcan on Mar 11, 2019 17:06:48 GMT
I voted that they have one more shot, but that seems to have been a common refrain, BW had one more shot after ME3, then they had one more shot after ME:A, and now they have one more shot after Anthem.
I fear that BioWare will not be taken out back behind the shed but rather that they will be made irrelevant. You don't need to look far to see games and series that have collapses under the weight of chasing trends, and I feel that BioWare is more likely to join those ranks than to be dismantled entirely.
|
|