Extensive Analysis by Noah Gervais

I absolutely agree with that sentiment. But my question is: can they? As in, will EA let them? Not trying to be another EA basher but I assume they have certain requirements for what's in a game released under their label, like when then said they would never green-light another game that didn't have a multiplayer component. So I wonder how much "open world" or "focus on combat" or whatever is actually what Bioware wants or what they're forced to include.

I think people need to accept the fact that Bioware of days past is gone.  People want to give Bioware a pass on everything and blame EA, but a changing of the guard has occurred at Bioware and it's not the same company anymore.  

I never really liked this sentiment. Not that you mean to imply it, but this kind of thing makes it seem like there's no hope for the new guard. As if BioWare's gone and there's no one who could possibly pick up the torch. As someone with many up and coming game dev friends, I'm not a huge fan of this vote of no confidence (again, not that I think you implied it). 

Honestly, I'm more inclined to believe that it's the old guard, now upper management, steering the ship wrong. A game's core design happens almost exclusively with a very small team of design leads, and that's basically what the rest of the team have to follow for the rest of development. Hell, there was a video where one of the concept artists said essentially "we wanted to make the Khet more alien-looking, but another part of the team said there wouldn't be enough of a human connection." Something tells me this is probably the same person who's been pushing the same "human" angle for Mass Effect since ME2.

Noah was right that Andromeda had to be deliberately made this bland. The premise practically writes itself. And while I don't wish to downplay the effort that went into this game–game development is tough business no matter what–I can't help but think some of the current creative leads just don't get what made their own franchise work. I think totally new blood might've done better (though there's no guarantee), because at this point I think someone who grew up with Mass Effect might better understand what made it so appealing. Of course, I bet that's just me projecting.

All of this, especially the bolded, is exactly how I feel about it.  Well said!

Amazing stuff in this thread, btw. I thought it was going to go to hell there for a while.  I am still reading through it all...

Amazing critique! Noah is great as ever! Thanks for sharing!

The entirety of Homefront was bad, and yeah I've played it within the last month....still a horrible game, with an equally stupid revised history to make the plot work.

It was $5 on STEAM, so I figured why not...but good lord was it horrible.

Again I am struck by the diversity of opinion. I personally enjoy all the current Bioware games and don't long for the good old Bioware days. I enjoyed the ME series but never considered myself a diehard fan. Perhaps that is why I am getting such a kick out of MEA. I am having a ton of fun playing it and enjoy just about everything in the game.

I do consider myself a diehard DA fan, and although neither DA2 or DA:I had the same impact on me as DA:O I have totally and thoroughly enjoyed Inquisition.

I guess we all look for different things in games and for me there are a few masterpieces, a few great games, and a number of good solid fun games. MEA falls in the good solid fun category for me. There is much to criticize in the world of gaming and Bioware games are no exception. But there is also lots to praise in gaming today, including Bioware IMO .

I watched the recent Smudboy video and, like all of them there's always some points I agree with but man, his thinking is so overly rigid and at times disingenuous. He analysed what fans said in BioWare PR's "what does Mass Effect mean to you" segment. He starts to dissect what they say based on what Mass Effect should "objectively" mean, but it's almost as if he doesn't catch that most interpret the question as "what did it mean to me personally" so the responses are the typical "It's like virtual friendships!" and "I love inclusivity in games" etc. It's as if Smud can't let go of trivial details because he insists they all mean the world or something.

But I'd still advise people to watch his videos, especially his Bookends of Destruction analysis of ME3 and analysis of DA2. His more recent work ranges from mean-spirited to well-thought.

Trying out new combat mechanics. New UI. These things are "new" but they aren't risks that count.

The risks that count are story, characters, CONCEPTS.

god. Where the fuck is the imagination.

If EA is involved it is probably at a high level.  "We think multiplayer will appeal to larger group of players, and it will generate income from micro transactions", "Based of the public success of open world games recently, the game should be open world."

Obviously they would control the release schedule as well.

However, I highly doubt they would acquire what is basically the RPG arm of the company and then micromanage them when it comes to things like the story, characters, level design, UI, quest design, etc.  EA could had given them an extra year, and though the game would be more polished, it would still be the same at its core. 

So as I , it's a little bit of hyperbole. Humor me .


I think some of the evidence suggests otherwise. For Dragon Age II you may be right, the time they had to develop the game necessitated where the story took place, but what we got was still the rise to power. WE also had them almost make the Exalted March DLC, but they re-worked a lot of it into the opening of Dragon Age: Inquisition, which suggests that it was a main part of the Hawke storyline. There were also hints that Hawke would have carried over into Inquisition, versus being a background character, but that plan changed for that game.

As for Mass Effect 3...I am just going to point to the ending and note they didn't change it, they just added onto it to make it clearer for people, more specific in what the consequences of their choice means. The "Dark Energy" ending was never fully drafted, and the leaked script had a lot of deficiencies to it, but was also not concrete either (utilizing Javik in a support role in game vs a main role in the leak script, for example, the use of the Virmire survivor, Cerberus, etc.) 

Even if it was made on the fly, they still stuck with it ultimately.

I think it is really cynical to play that game with these companies. I am not the biggest fan of CD Projekt Red but I don't want them to be hated ten years from you. I enjoyed Fallout 4 but Bethesda doesn't deserve half the flack they get for it. It is kind of sad that this is the cycle we see ourselves in, a constant stream of this sort of jaded take on the expectations they can no longer deliver. It then colors the perception of what risks they do take, and basically dismisses a lot of things that are valuable in the long run.
I don't know about that. On the one hand I disagree with some of the points in the video, in particular on the Angara as "noble savages" (which they purposefully worked hard to make sure that didn't come across) and the Kett as being one-dimensional...but the game does it no favors by making the Kett one-dimensional as enemies. We see glimpses of culture but nothing concrete. We see the theocracy at play but it's barely a presence.

I get they are trying to hold back information to give them dynamism in the future, but the Kett needed to be more than a simple evil...they needed a lot of that complexity now. To make them gene-stealing conquerors in the same way as the Reapers were gene-stealing cosmic beings is opening it up to similar comparisons right off the bat, but the fact of the matter is the Kett have no bite to them. They held too much back and while I like where they are going with them, I don't know if they will ever turn into more than just a simple evil, unlike the Geth.

The Remnant have the same problem, there is too much mystery and not enough resolution. The video likens them to the Protheans as being a sort of forerunner to the civilizations, but we learn so little about them and their creators, about their society, abilities, the mystery goes cold. I think the ultimate problem is BioWare held back too many cards: they played it very conservatively with what information we get, trying to thread the needle and world build just like Dragon Age.

I guess that can be a risk in of itself, but BioWare played it all safe by not really showing us much of anything new. The changes to combat, not much of a risk as they were going there already. Removing the morality system perhaps, but that would then be the only real gamble here made and it didn't seem to work. 

Plus the derivativeness of the characters and the little easter eggs of fan service...they didn't help much.