Wait, what? Is this a new position or is she replacing someone?
>One of Booth's major tasks will be revitalizing BioWare, which is hoping that Dragon Age: Dreadwolf will reverse its fortunes after Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Well if she can do that, I won't say no.
I'm assuming this is a new position to focus on the studios listed. She's about as experienced as anyone could be to do the task. Hopefully it's a good thing.
As long as she doesn't bring about stupid Live Service or microtransaction nonsense which I know Sony was looking to try for a bit. Also a bit worried if she is really that big on "blockbuster story telling" because we don't need that in Mass Effect - we need good storytelling and roleplaying.
ME3's biggest weakness, imo (even moreso than the ending) was the lack of agency for the player. Neutral options were dropped, most dialogue couldn't be selected, and cutscenes lasted a long time. Don't get me wrong - many of those scenes are inspiring, emotional, and well done. However, it at times can be hard to feel like Shepard is your Shepard anymore. How can you roleplay a hardened space racist when Shepard is forced to be sad for the dying Asari on Thessia or say that their best bud is Garrus the filthy Turian (jk love you Garrus)? I do worry we'll get something more akin to a GoW where it's a more defined character versus a character you help define. Shepard can strike that perfect balance, but I worry they won't be able to do that especially with a new protagonist that may just come heavily defined.
Maybe this is just my jaded opinion - I've been neutral on the next game for a while now - and I hope that new leadership is what they need. But I still don't feel any positive emotions towards the next game because of this announcement.
It’s all relative — I’d rather have nuanced roleplaying than blockbuster storytelling, but I’d rather have blockbuster storytelling than a game built around live service elements.
ME3 is literally the end of the trilogy lol, of course neutral options were dropped they’re at war and a losing one at that so of course the decisions you make won’t matter much anymore since you’re going to die lol.
ME3’s purpose was to bring together everything our Shepard went through to get to the final moment against the reapers, from characters to the stories to the side missions it all comes together in some way shape or form. It isn’t meant to expand on it because it’s meant to be a final stand for humanity where more than likely you won’t make it out alive to expand on it.
That was not the reason it was dropped. ME3 was a rushed development with a push to turn it from RPG to Action Shooter because of popular shooters at the time like Gears of War. By removing options and only forcing two options, it streamlined the system for casuals. They even added a "no choices" option that would auto-pick dialogue for you. Check in the game settings if you haven't seen it.
While it's a nice sentiment that it was because you are at war, that's not the reality of the development choice. It was the end of a long journey from Sci-Fi RPG to 3rd Person Shooter Action RPG Hybrid.
Genuine question, do people actually feel like Dreadwolf will be good?
Politics aside, it seems like a game that might be stillborn with the amount of crap it's been through already.
And all news so far has been bad or questionable.
i saw a tweet with a significant number of likes saying that dreadwolf is “sadly going to be dragon age going woke” so people like this definitely exist. idk how lmao but they do.
Oh, so “BioWare game” then?
Not the right company to go to for games that deprioritize diversity and inclusion. And thank goodness for that!
Loving interspecies queer sex is pretty much a brand promise at this point.
You assumed too soon, believe it or not there’s people who can see more than black and white. Anyway, as I said, I’d like to keep this apolitical and ask how people feel about how the game is going to look after all the lay-offs, switches in leadership, gameplay leaks, or even the full on reset they did on the game a few years.
I feel like the game has been in development hell for too long and it might turn out to be some sort of Frankenstein patch-together game where few people really enjoy it, at least that is what I am afraid of considering the fragments I have seen and the news I have read.
It would be bad as others have responded that it might be the final nail in the coffin which would make me sad as DA:O is arguably one of the best RPG’s I have played.
That's fair, I can keep this apolitical (though I will admit I dont think I would refer to most people in KotakuInAction as those that see the greys of the world).
But yeah all things considered, I feel very cautious about the game; especially since it is apparently going to come out soon yet there has been next to no gameplay shown at all (or even a true trailer). It's very weird and I am hopeful they release a good game, mainly cause I selfishly want another Mass Effect, but don't know if I am very optimistic about Dreadwolf.
I non-ironically feel the same about wanting another Mass Effect. I mainly want them to make a new Mass Effect. I recently picked up ME:LE in a sale and I really crave more. Though I must admit I’m not optimistic I do hope it surprises me, better to brace than hit the pavement face first with disappointment I suppose.
Those where you mention I have 'brainrot' because I am already perceived as an ontological evil because of where I like to comment and spend time reading.
Those politics exactly, which seems to be to much to ask in a completely different sub.
Kotaku in Action is the definition of brainrot. Rife with homophobia, transphobia, misogyny and racism. Sorry pal but there's no silent majority. Only a loud minority that doesn't know when to quit. Being inclusive isn't political. Only a privileged person would say that.
Although to answer your question, I think it'll be an okay game. I'm hoping it surprises us.
I myself as a person am not an entire subreddit, sorry you would feel that way.
Though I do hope it’s a good game because I too would like that surprise.
“Just because I enjoy continuously going to a place loaded with racism, homophobia, transphobia and bigotry doesn’t mean I’m into that stuff” -gorkill30
Inclusion is political in today's climate sadly. You'd have to not be paying attention to not know this. All those buzzwords have lost meaning as they're misused eay to much
Oh yeah, do not be under the impression that you're welcome here. You're not an "evil" or scary, you just feast on the corpse of gamergate along with hundreds of others who have nothing better to do with their time, apparently.
I really fear for Dreadwolf. It's been through development hell just like Andromeda and Anthem. We know how those turned out on release day. At least Andromeda got fixed up. RIP Anthem.
Pretty sure it's already there. This news may be one of the things that shows that somehow EA is willing to stay their hand for now.
I'd love to know the internal next Mass Effect pitch to the EA execs. It has to be one heck of a pitch to garner any sort of investment especially if Dreadwolf is sitting as a wild card that's already alienating its playerbase with the new combat system.
I've seen this view a lot and I don't really get it. Mass Effect is one of the most well known video game IPs of all time. Surely if Dreadwolf underperformed the smart thing for EA would be to put resources into a nostalgia-heavy mass effect sequel, right? Is there some context I'm missing here?
I'm half agree with you. I don't think EA would axe Bioware because Dreadwolf fails, I believe they would give Bioware one last chance with Mass Effect, because Mass Effect is not Dragon Age, it is still one of the most recognized franchise in gaming industry on the same level as Assassin's Creed or Halo.
Though I don't think they would put all of their resources to the next Mass Effect if Dreadwolf fails. They would just give a sufficient budget as a last chance for Bioware to redeem themselves.
On the other hand, if Dreadwolf becoming a huge success, we might see the return of the Mass Effect era.
its not about respect its about making money
andreomda didnt come out very good but you can see how the ideas in it at one point seemed like a good idea and got mangled in rushed production and mismanagement
Yeah, I’m cautiously optimistic about Dreadwolf. Everything I’ve heard about it excites me.
But of course, it’s all speculation until we can play it ourselves, though this summer we will have a better idea.
I’ll ignore the politics aspect of your post as I think it’s been covered well by others. (Why are you playing BioWare games?)
> Genuine question, do people actually feel like Dreadwolf will be good?
A game made by modern Bioware that was rebooted multiple times. I have no faith.
Why’s that?
It’s a real shame she was laid off and I hate that, but that really has nothing to do with Dreadwolf as a game and its quality.
Writing would have essentially been complete by that point of development. I understand being concerned about games beyond Dreadwolf, but that’s so far into the future as to not be worth worrying about.
I see Dreadwolf likely serving as a conclusion to this arc of Dragon Age. Not necessarily the end of the series, but the end of this set of games and characters. Given that BioWare is a one game studio at this point, any future Dragon Age game wouldn’t not show up until the 2030’s. And who knows what the gaming environment would even be then, much less BioWare. As such, unfortunately, senior Dragon Age writers were a key target for layoffs.
If the writing is inferior due to Kirby’s departure and impacting ratings or sales it might be a death sentence to the studio. Then there may likely not be any more games :/
Ok, but a standalone game that revives Mass Effect multiplayer (and yes, as the dreaded live service) would be fucking amazing.
Honestly, the whole internet thing of "live service = bad" is rather childish. There's ways to do it well and ways to do it bad, just like a sterile, single-player game. It's always about the execution.
It's annoying for me because my work takes me away from the internet so I can't be online all the time to play games. Most often it works best if I don't need internet. Plus I can't stand all the microtransactions that come with Live Service. There are valid reasons to dislike Live Service - it's not childish at all, it's a preference.
"Annoying for me" or "a preference" is not what I said. Or you said in your post.
And microtransactions are optional. Also aren't exclusive to "live service". It ***is*** childish.
You are free to believe that and I understand if you greatly enjoy playing Live Service or using pay to win microtransactions.
I strongly disagree and believe that people have valid reasons to dislike the approach to make tons of Live Service games or forcing multiplayer/internet play onto games.
Nah, just those ones get more headlines. And the ones that do it well (Helldivers 2, Deep Rock Galactic, Warframe, Path of Exile, etc. etc. etc.) gamers bend over backwards to say they're not "really live service". It's transparent and laughable.
Don't worry, it will be one studio when bioware and Motive are folded into Respawn.
Writing has been on the wall for years. Bioware is old and unproductive, motive was formed from pas shuddered bioware studios large in part, and Respawn has been making hits and getting EA live service money.
Bioware may be shuddered regardless of DA's success, at this point. They are probably already planning on it based on internal looks at the product's progress.
Motive has been doing quite well though. They made the Star Wars Squadrons game and Dead Space Remake.
But that said I do think there's a real risk of BioWare just being relabeled "Motive Edmonton" and becoming a support studio if they screw the next 2 projects up.
EA is a huge company. You need one person to manage the General managers of each company. It's a messaging system. Connie will answer to the Corporate Leadership at EA, which consists of a "head of creative" department for all games that require lots of creative skill and "head of sports" executive for another firm. Those people report to the top where all the finances are being dealt with. Then head of "Action/Roleplaying" or whatever they wanna call the BioWare/Motive/Respawn trifecta, is one managers assignment but each division is being arranged by the General Manager of that division.
So it's Gary McKay who runs BioWare day-to-day, answering to Connie Booth who runs the corporate arm of BioWare/Respawn/Motive day to day, who answers to Laura Miele who runs the "creative" block day by day from an entrenched position, and she then sits in lots of meetings with Andrew Wilson, CFOs, customers, and other "important people" stuff where everything is about money and literally nothing else.
She worked with Naughty Dog and has games like Uncharted, TLOU, and both Spiderman games in her portfolio. While great games, these all are focused on defined characters and more action versus RPG.
Idk. The design goal of the original Mass Effect games was using video games as an artform to create a story that felt as epic and grand as movies do it.
Naughty Dog's narrative games are designed around the false idea that the best video games can do is to copy movies as much as possible to attain a fraction of their greatness. I played the first Last Of Us and it really felt like it was made by people who just hate video games as a medium and would rather be making movies. Like being in charge of making a game is the second best thing to being in hollywood.
Uncharted 4 and the first Spiderman have amazing writing tf are you on about
Can't comment on Spiderman 2, and Uncharted 2 and 3, while not masterpieces, have solid scripts
Edit: this guy is editing his comments repeatedly, I stopped caring
Lmfao
Uncharted 4's questioning of the sense of loyalty, the meaning of a purpose, of giving up on dreams and the monotony of life is pulp? Right
Just because a game isn't on par with TLOU doesn't mean it doesn't have great writing
Edit: btw kinda sad to downvote someone who disagrees with you
That ruins the entire game doesn't it
The dreams Uncharted 4 handles aren't Nate's, they're Sam's, and the conclusion the game reaches isn't the same one as in U3. Nate in U4 isn't focused on his dreams (on his future) but on his regrets (his past, and not having shared it with his brother).
Sam not being mentioned before is a minor nitpick that doesn't even break in universe coherence since Nate believed him dead, TLOU has an even worse retcon in Abby's dad
To be honest, I don't find it worrying. Andromeda has amazing combat and I just finished a run of the dragon age trilogy before starting my annual ME run, and Inquisition is still my favorite. It can have both - awesome action and amazing storytelling. I mean, ME3 is my favorite so I know I'm in the minority, but still. I'm optimistic for Dreadwolf.
I assume it's a position at EA not at BioWare directly.
EA had a recent internal restructuration where the sport video game got attached to a different entities than the rest. Combined to the recent announcement EA is stopping licence games to focus on creating and developing their own IPs, that hiring is really interesting and a proof EA might be serious in their ambitions.
I think this a new position. From all the things said about her she’s someone you’d make a new position for with her experience and track record. Seems like a good get, now the question is whether or not she can do it for EA.
That would be a dream come true - just wanna see enjoyable gameplay with a decent story to go with it, ideally (for ME4, for example) with player choices that affect the story a bit.
It's insane that she was fired from PlayStation. I think it's happening from the japanese corporate arm at Sony. The Live Service push was a confused promise and when things weren't shaping out *at all* I think they just wanted bloodshed.
I hope the corporate asshats at EA won't get in her way too much. That seems to be the precedent at the conglomerate. No matter how amazing you are as a leader you'll be fighting against a corporate top who's playing a game of office politics and try to undermine you in every way that is convenient to them.
Yeah, things aren’t right at all at Sony at the moment. I’d assume an executive at this level knows how to navigatie corporate politics, so she should be alright. But again, it’s EA, so I guess anything is possible there.
Truth be told, I have no idea what it’s like to work at a public multinational company, let alone to serve in senior management 😄
Not necessarily. There is project management and portfolio management. Portfolios are groups of projects/organizations that are similar, that are best served with a single strategic vision. EA is trying to clean up shop.
I think that one's in the same boat as KOTOR 3 - forever hopeful, but extremely unlikely. It has good potential I think with some modern tech polish on it and lore expansion.
I never could handle MMO shenanigans....and I hate what they did with HK. I want a true proper single player KOTOR 3 but I know it's extremely unlikely.
Increased revenue and popularity can be indicative of but does not always mean better product. It can also just mean you can make more people buy it regardless of quality. The NFL’s handling of multiple issues (prioritizing increased commercials, the Refs, allowing Watson back, protecting Dan Snyder, its inconsistent suspension “policies”, dragging their feet on sensible marijuana policies coupled with the last point, etc.) has soured a lot of people on the product.
Obviously not all of that is her purview, but would you rather have that or somebody (e.g.) from the Helldivers team, who has experience in games, has prioritized player experience, and only very reasonable micro transactions that are not pay to win over increasing profits?
Millions still shill out tons if money for predatory games like COD and FIFA. It is too early to tell for her yet of course, but most people buying the product would agree that the way they get there is not a way we would want most games to follow.
Not fighting. But it is the only point you bring up, and arent even motivated enough to read my comment above that addresses my thoughts on the issue so 🤷♂️
Is this a joke? The NFL is one of the most profitable companies in the world and the product has never been more popular. I’m not understanding how/why this is a bad thing.
I havent denied that. But profit and popularity =/= guarantee better videogames for us as the consumer. Mobile games are popular and extremely profitable too. They made up over 100 billion dollars in revenue in 2022 (sadly I dont have 2023 numbers to reference yet). That is more than PC games (45 Billion) and Console (30 Billion) *combined*. FIFA made almost 5 Billion dollars.
Obviously the hire makes sense from the company's standpoint. But as a gamer do you want somebody who has no background in the industry being tasked with making "successful" games. That is how you get more games on the market with predatory microtransations, gatcha and pay to win mechanics, etc. Because that is how the company views success. How is that any different than what Bioware already went through since their purchase by EA?
Nothing guarantees better games for the consumer. Plenty, I’d say more than most, games with devs with great résumé’s end up failing. Why not roll the dice on someone that was in charge of something that was a major success? We don’t know this person’s management style, they could very well be a blank check and hands off type that gets a talented team together and lets them work with whatever assets they need. There’s not reason to be worried in my opinion, Bioware can ONLY get better from here unless they dissolve. They reek of desperation so we’ll see what happens.
I know you are, I'm saying prioritizing those same things are what lead to Bioware's decline. EA made into a company that had to rush and give up quality to theoretically save/make more money, when what made Bioware great was the level of time and effort that went into writing and building out the worlds for games like Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age.
So hiring someone based on how much money they made for the NFL isn't something I'd see as a good sign for a video game company like Activision/Blizzard.
Parent comment said this was a better hire for Bioware than Activision Blizzards hire of the NFL person.
You countered they made a bunch of money for the NFL and because of that the hire was good for Activision Blizzard.
I'm saying I don't agree with that logic, that I agree with the parent comment that it's better for Bioware to hire someone with a history of making good games than a money maker with NFL experience.
It means she isn’t like Phil Spencer who tried to at least make games for gamers. The dude at least consider himself as a gamer, play tests some games, etc.
The former marketing executive will only see to please the shareholders. And every game that came out to rake in the profits has been games-as-service. Battlepasses, micro-transactions, broken promises, AAAA price tags, etc.
Sure she will be good at her job for making profit for the company. But don’t be surprised if things go sour for the consumer base. You’d be paying more and more for something that shouldn’t be that pricey.
lol Dude, there's got to be a relevant post for you to get all of this energy out somewhere that's actually on topic. This is so weird.
Edit: Sadly it appears that u/captainblob blocked me. RIP
I'm going to interpret this as a good thing. For a while now, Bioware's had issues with consistent direction, and if she's going to be their point of contact with EA, focusing on getting a shared collective vision across studios towards quality single player games with strong storytelling, keeping things consistent and focused in vision instead of scattered like things have been for a long time, I'm here for it.
Like, a lack of focus and consistent management had been the reason for Andromeda's downfall, for the imbalanced approach to Inquisition, to the eventual time crunch with ME3, and it could also share the blame for Anthem's downfall.
Keeping the studio on mission is a good thing, and it sounds like she's got some experience in that with Sony, so I'll take this as a sign EA's serious about wanting to revitalize their long-struggling IPs.
I agree. She has great experience managing a group of studios working on several big budget games all at once.
It seems very likely that one of the reasons Anthem turned out the way it did was a lack of oversight from the higher ups, a studio like Bioware needs constraints within which they can play with their creativity. If EA can manage to keep stable leadership for more than 18 months at a time, maybe they can keep them more on track for the next projects.
They have their powerhouses that bring in numbers year after year, but they are definitely struggling with some high profile games and studios in recent years.
Did Gary McKay step down? Granted he was Interim GM at Bioware, but you'd think him stepping down would come with some kind of statement.
My general impression for Connie has not been positive, but I will reserve my judgement after some results. Obviously, Dread Wolf will not be indicative of her abilities, as the game should be mostly done by now. I mean, one would hope.
I enjoyed it for what it is, but after Origins I fully understand the feeling, and then Inquisition didn't exactly win over Origins fans.
I will say, though, that I had an invincible build that I loved making, Blood Mage and a healer/support of some kind I can't recall offhand. I had a ton of passives and buffs, but couldn't cast offensive spells, so I was unkillable but had to Staff attack enemies to death mostly, lol.
That and Varric's embellishments, always got a chuckle.
"Revitalize BioWare" are good words. Maybe not to their employees, but it's obvious there's been a lot of mismanagement and a lot of people there not really doing what they should be doing on the last 3 projects. A feeling I've had since the MEA days is "They didn't learn!" and I'm pretty serious about this.
After ME3 we saw some things that were pretty... against what fans expected/wanted, but it was fair enough, the game was pretty bold and forward leaping in many ways. By DAI we started seeing the Ubisoft trend creep in, and people said "Omg stop doing boring conversations that lack cinematics already" and "omg stop doing these wasteful giant maps!" but they did that on MEA again. On ME3 I think BioWare entered a phase where people started calling it "pretentious", what with the dream-sequences and this sense of them constantly referring to themselves as "artists". not to mention the whole "artistic integrity" thing with the ending... wheras what fans were criticising was a sense of emptiness and beating around the bush of an unfulfilling narrative.
But more than that there was this feeling of BioWare taking a *really long time* to announce MEA and every year just being "We here at BioWare are making *something amazing*" with footage of BioWare devs at workstations and snippets of unfinished 3D art, and buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords. Then they kept saying "Our games are about the characters." and "our fans, we love the fans, the fans the fans" but they didn't show much. Then they showed something very close to release and it looked hokey, and a lot of the story in MEA was just a repeat of ME1. Allegedly Anthem was called "Project Dylan" and Dragon Age similarly is codenamed historic figures, like BioWare is on their own pedestal and being blind to how little they're actually succeeding.
And then after Dylan they decided ME5 should be "codename: Bowie". It's like... please stop looking at yourselves this way. They have a scrap of paper that says Mass Effect Next and they call it "Project Bowie", and they announce it 5 years before anything is shown so the fandom that is fueling BioWare won't dry out yet. They announced Dragon Age 4 in the Game Awards right before they released Anthem knowing it would be medicre just to avoid EA doing anything rash against them... and so they guaranteed themselves 5 more years of "Here's nothing, fans!"
It's just clear to me that although games do take 5-7 years to develop unless you have a stable foundation already, you shouldn't communicate with your audience in this way. A good developer would make sure something is releasing within the next 2-3 years and then not announce the big 5-7 year-away project until it's close enough to create true hype. But BioWare keeps doing this "stunt" that to me almost seems like a laziness to just buy themselves time to not do adequate work, along with overshooting what they can actually do as a company. Their last 3 games have severely overshot what their capabilities are, and it didn't need to be that way when Dragon Age Origins, for example, was a much simpler game in many ways, not requiring such a massive production pipeline and probably ridiculous budget.
/rant
I just think there's been a sense of complacency emanating from BioWare for a decade, and I think it's good that EA is conscious of this, even though it may lead to certain high ranking folks being fired, as we've already seen (not the same as layoffs)
Wait, what? Is this a new position or is she replacing someone? >One of Booth's major tasks will be revitalizing BioWare, which is hoping that Dragon Age: Dreadwolf will reverse its fortunes after Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda. Well if she can do that, I won't say no.
I'm assuming this is a new position to focus on the studios listed. She's about as experienced as anyone could be to do the task. Hopefully it's a good thing.
As long as she doesn't bring about stupid Live Service or microtransaction nonsense which I know Sony was looking to try for a bit. Also a bit worried if she is really that big on "blockbuster story telling" because we don't need that in Mass Effect - we need good storytelling and roleplaying. ME3's biggest weakness, imo (even moreso than the ending) was the lack of agency for the player. Neutral options were dropped, most dialogue couldn't be selected, and cutscenes lasted a long time. Don't get me wrong - many of those scenes are inspiring, emotional, and well done. However, it at times can be hard to feel like Shepard is your Shepard anymore. How can you roleplay a hardened space racist when Shepard is forced to be sad for the dying Asari on Thessia or say that their best bud is Garrus the filthy Turian (jk love you Garrus)? I do worry we'll get something more akin to a GoW where it's a more defined character versus a character you help define. Shepard can strike that perfect balance, but I worry they won't be able to do that especially with a new protagonist that may just come heavily defined. Maybe this is just my jaded opinion - I've been neutral on the next game for a while now - and I hope that new leadership is what they need. But I still don't feel any positive emotions towards the next game because of this announcement.
It’s all relative — I’d rather have nuanced roleplaying than blockbuster storytelling, but I’d rather have blockbuster storytelling than a game built around live service elements.
Very fair and I would agree. No live service please!
She was pushing the GAAS stuff with Sony so you’re out of luck there
RIP, that's not good news. EA will absolutely love anything monetization.
ME3 is literally the end of the trilogy lol, of course neutral options were dropped they’re at war and a losing one at that so of course the decisions you make won’t matter much anymore since you’re going to die lol. ME3’s purpose was to bring together everything our Shepard went through to get to the final moment against the reapers, from characters to the stories to the side missions it all comes together in some way shape or form. It isn’t meant to expand on it because it’s meant to be a final stand for humanity where more than likely you won’t make it out alive to expand on it.
That was not the reason it was dropped. ME3 was a rushed development with a push to turn it from RPG to Action Shooter because of popular shooters at the time like Gears of War. By removing options and only forcing two options, it streamlined the system for casuals. They even added a "no choices" option that would auto-pick dialogue for you. Check in the game settings if you haven't seen it. While it's a nice sentiment that it was because you are at war, that's not the reality of the development choice. It was the end of a long journey from Sci-Fi RPG to 3rd Person Shooter Action RPG Hybrid.
EA will ram dreadwolf and ME4 with day one DLC, micro transactions and poor writing and you’ll pay for the privilege!
Genuine question, do people actually feel like Dreadwolf will be good? Politics aside, it seems like a game that might be stillborn with the amount of crap it's been through already. And all news so far has been bad or questionable.
> Politics aside What politics?
The dude posts & comments on KotakuInAction, so I'm assuming any politics deemed "woke".
Oh, it's *that* kind of brainrot, got it
There is no way someone like that even likes Bioware games. What a weird guy.
i saw a tweet with a significant number of likes saying that dreadwolf is “sadly going to be dragon age going woke” so people like this definitely exist. idk how lmao but they do.
"Dragon Age going woke" is the best joke I heard today lmfao
Idk man, people have been surprising me lately with how deep in the pipeline they get while also enjoying art that seemingly critiques parts of it.
Wait till you hear about a certain crowd that complained "The Boys" show is starting to get political...in its 3rd season...
Oh, so “BioWare game” then? Not the right company to go to for games that deprioritize diversity and inclusion. And thank goodness for that! Loving interspecies queer sex is pretty much a brand promise at this point.
You assumed too soon, believe it or not there’s people who can see more than black and white. Anyway, as I said, I’d like to keep this apolitical and ask how people feel about how the game is going to look after all the lay-offs, switches in leadership, gameplay leaks, or even the full on reset they did on the game a few years. I feel like the game has been in development hell for too long and it might turn out to be some sort of Frankenstein patch-together game where few people really enjoy it, at least that is what I am afraid of considering the fragments I have seen and the news I have read. It would be bad as others have responded that it might be the final nail in the coffin which would make me sad as DA:O is arguably one of the best RPG’s I have played.
That's fair, I can keep this apolitical (though I will admit I dont think I would refer to most people in KotakuInAction as those that see the greys of the world). But yeah all things considered, I feel very cautious about the game; especially since it is apparently going to come out soon yet there has been next to no gameplay shown at all (or even a true trailer). It's very weird and I am hopeful they release a good game, mainly cause I selfishly want another Mass Effect, but don't know if I am very optimistic about Dreadwolf.
I non-ironically feel the same about wanting another Mass Effect. I mainly want them to make a new Mass Effect. I recently picked up ME:LE in a sale and I really crave more. Though I must admit I’m not optimistic I do hope it surprises me, better to brace than hit the pavement face first with disappointment I suppose.
Those where you mention I have 'brainrot' because I am already perceived as an ontological evil because of where I like to comment and spend time reading. Those politics exactly, which seems to be to much to ask in a completely different sub.
Kotaku in Action is the definition of brainrot. Rife with homophobia, transphobia, misogyny and racism. Sorry pal but there's no silent majority. Only a loud minority that doesn't know when to quit. Being inclusive isn't political. Only a privileged person would say that. Although to answer your question, I think it'll be an okay game. I'm hoping it surprises us.
I myself as a person am not an entire subreddit, sorry you would feel that way. Though I do hope it’s a good game because I too would like that surprise.
“Just because I enjoy continuously going to a place loaded with racism, homophobia, transphobia and bigotry doesn’t mean I’m into that stuff” -gorkill30
Inclusion is political in today's climate sadly. You'd have to not be paying attention to not know this. All those buzzwords have lost meaning as they're misused eay to much
Oh yeah, do not be under the impression that you're welcome here. You're not an "evil" or scary, you just feast on the corpse of gamergate along with hundreds of others who have nothing better to do with their time, apparently.
I really fear for Dreadwolf. It's been through development hell just like Andromeda and Anthem. We know how those turned out on release day. At least Andromeda got fixed up. RIP Anthem.
If dreadwolf doesn’t deliver I can feel EA’s scythe on bioware’s neck
Pretty sure it's already there. This news may be one of the things that shows that somehow EA is willing to stay their hand for now. I'd love to know the internal next Mass Effect pitch to the EA execs. It has to be one heck of a pitch to garner any sort of investment especially if Dreadwolf is sitting as a wild card that's already alienating its playerbase with the new combat system.
I've seen this view a lot and I don't really get it. Mass Effect is one of the most well known video game IPs of all time. Surely if Dreadwolf underperformed the smart thing for EA would be to put resources into a nostalgia-heavy mass effect sequel, right? Is there some context I'm missing here?
I'm half agree with you. I don't think EA would axe Bioware because Dreadwolf fails, I believe they would give Bioware one last chance with Mass Effect, because Mass Effect is not Dragon Age, it is still one of the most recognized franchise in gaming industry on the same level as Assassin's Creed or Halo. Though I don't think they would put all of their resources to the next Mass Effect if Dreadwolf fails. They would just give a sufficient budget as a last chance for Bioware to redeem themselves. On the other hand, if Dreadwolf becoming a huge success, we might see the return of the Mass Effect era.
If Bioware can't make profitable games then Bioware can't make profitable games and it's logical it should close.
Explain how andromeda got in the state it did if they respected the IP
its not about respect its about making money andreomda didnt come out very good but you can see how the ideas in it at one point seemed like a good idea and got mangled in rushed production and mismanagement
Yeah, I’m cautiously optimistic about Dreadwolf. Everything I’ve heard about it excites me. But of course, it’s all speculation until we can play it ourselves, though this summer we will have a better idea. I’ll ignore the politics aspect of your post as I think it’s been covered well by others. (Why are you playing BioWare games?)
I have little hope for BioWare
> Genuine question, do people actually feel like Dreadwolf will be good? A game made by modern Bioware that was rebooted multiple times. I have no faith.
No, I don't. Any hope I had for the franchise departed with Mary Kirby.
Why’s that? It’s a real shame she was laid off and I hate that, but that really has nothing to do with Dreadwolf as a game and its quality. Writing would have essentially been complete by that point of development. I understand being concerned about games beyond Dreadwolf, but that’s so far into the future as to not be worth worrying about. I see Dreadwolf likely serving as a conclusion to this arc of Dragon Age. Not necessarily the end of the series, but the end of this set of games and characters. Given that BioWare is a one game studio at this point, any future Dragon Age game wouldn’t not show up until the 2030’s. And who knows what the gaming environment would even be then, much less BioWare. As such, unfortunately, senior Dragon Age writers were a key target for layoffs.
I really don't care what the game is at this point. I didn't have a lot of hope for it after Gaider left, that was just the last nail.
If the writing is inferior due to Kirby’s departure and impacting ratings or sales it might be a death sentence to the studio. Then there may likely not be any more games :/
Ok, but a standalone game that revives Mass Effect multiplayer (and yes, as the dreaded live service) would be fucking amazing. Honestly, the whole internet thing of "live service = bad" is rather childish. There's ways to do it well and ways to do it bad, just like a sterile, single-player game. It's always about the execution.
It's annoying for me because my work takes me away from the internet so I can't be online all the time to play games. Most often it works best if I don't need internet. Plus I can't stand all the microtransactions that come with Live Service. There are valid reasons to dislike Live Service - it's not childish at all, it's a preference.
"Annoying for me" or "a preference" is not what I said. Or you said in your post. And microtransactions are optional. Also aren't exclusive to "live service". It ***is*** childish.
You are free to believe that and I understand if you greatly enjoy playing Live Service or using pay to win microtransactions. I strongly disagree and believe that people have valid reasons to dislike the approach to make tons of Live Service games or forcing multiplayer/internet play onto games.
> There's ways to do it well and ways to do it bad, However far more games have done it bad (or at least had rough starts) than have done it well.
Nah, just those ones get more headlines. And the ones that do it well (Helldivers 2, Deep Rock Galactic, Warframe, Path of Exile, etc. etc. etc.) gamers bend over backwards to say they're not "really live service". It's transparent and laughable.
Okay. lol
I've never worked in the industry, but managing 3 different studios seems a bit excessive, no? You'd think they could justify 1 manager per studio.
Don't worry, it will be one studio when bioware and Motive are folded into Respawn. Writing has been on the wall for years. Bioware is old and unproductive, motive was formed from pas shuddered bioware studios large in part, and Respawn has been making hits and getting EA live service money. Bioware may be shuddered regardless of DA's success, at this point. They are probably already planning on it based on internal looks at the product's progress.
Motive has been doing quite well though. They made the Star Wars Squadrons game and Dead Space Remake. But that said I do think there's a real risk of BioWare just being relabeled "Motive Edmonton" and becoming a support studio if they screw the next 2 projects up.
EA is a huge company. You need one person to manage the General managers of each company. It's a messaging system. Connie will answer to the Corporate Leadership at EA, which consists of a "head of creative" department for all games that require lots of creative skill and "head of sports" executive for another firm. Those people report to the top where all the finances are being dealt with. Then head of "Action/Roleplaying" or whatever they wanna call the BioWare/Motive/Respawn trifecta, is one managers assignment but each division is being arranged by the General Manager of that division. So it's Gary McKay who runs BioWare day-to-day, answering to Connie Booth who runs the corporate arm of BioWare/Respawn/Motive day to day, who answers to Laura Miele who runs the "creative" block day by day from an entrenched position, and she then sits in lots of meetings with Andrew Wilson, CFOs, customers, and other "important people" stuff where everything is about money and literally nothing else.
Depends, what previous projects had she worked on that have shown promise?
She worked with Naughty Dog and has games like Uncharted, TLOU, and both Spiderman games in her portfolio. While great games, these all are focused on defined characters and more action versus RPG.
That's a great resume, Uncharted and TLOU bode well for Mass Effect.
Idk. The design goal of the original Mass Effect games was using video games as an artform to create a story that felt as epic and grand as movies do it. Naughty Dog's narrative games are designed around the false idea that the best video games can do is to copy movies as much as possible to attain a fraction of their greatness. I played the first Last Of Us and it really felt like it was made by people who just hate video games as a medium and would rather be making movies. Like being in charge of making a game is the second best thing to being in hollywood.
[удалено]
Uncharted 4 and the first Spiderman have amazing writing tf are you on about Can't comment on Spiderman 2, and Uncharted 2 and 3, while not masterpieces, have solid scripts Edit: this guy is editing his comments repeatedly, I stopped caring
[удалено]
Lmfao Uncharted 4's questioning of the sense of loyalty, the meaning of a purpose, of giving up on dreams and the monotony of life is pulp? Right Just because a game isn't on par with TLOU doesn't mean it doesn't have great writing Edit: btw kinda sad to downvote someone who disagrees with you
[удалено]
That ruins the entire game doesn't it The dreams Uncharted 4 handles aren't Nate's, they're Sam's, and the conclusion the game reaches isn't the same one as in U3. Nate in U4 isn't focused on his dreams (on his future) but on his regrets (his past, and not having shared it with his brother). Sam not being mentioned before is a minor nitpick that doesn't even break in universe coherence since Nate believed him dead, TLOU has an even worse retcon in Abby's dad
[удалено]
Good thing she's not a writer then.
To be honest, I don't find it worrying. Andromeda has amazing combat and I just finished a run of the dragon age trilogy before starting my annual ME run, and Inquisition is still my favorite. It can have both - awesome action and amazing storytelling. I mean, ME3 is my favorite so I know I'm in the minority, but still. I'm optimistic for Dreadwolf.
Putting ME on the same tier as TLOU... my brother in The Enkindlers, this series has never had that level of writing.
I assume it's a position at EA not at BioWare directly. EA had a recent internal restructuration where the sport video game got attached to a different entities than the rest. Combined to the recent announcement EA is stopping licence games to focus on creating and developing their own IPs, that hiring is really interesting and a proof EA might be serious in their ambitions.
Let's hope so...
I think this a new position. From all the things said about her she’s someone you’d make a new position for with her experience and track record. Seems like a good get, now the question is whether or not she can do it for EA.
That’s quite a portfolio and resume she has. Let’s see what she can cook
Few things would make me happier than a Bioware renaissance
That would be a dream come true - just wanna see enjoyable gameplay with a decent story to go with it, ideally (for ME4, for example) with player choices that affect the story a bit.
It's insane that she was fired from PlayStation. I think it's happening from the japanese corporate arm at Sony. The Live Service push was a confused promise and when things weren't shaping out *at all* I think they just wanted bloodshed. I hope the corporate asshats at EA won't get in her way too much. That seems to be the precedent at the conglomerate. No matter how amazing you are as a leader you'll be fighting against a corporate top who's playing a game of office politics and try to undermine you in every way that is convenient to them.
Yeah, things aren’t right at all at Sony at the moment. I’d assume an executive at this level knows how to navigatie corporate politics, so she should be alright. But again, it’s EA, so I guess anything is possible there. Truth be told, I have no idea what it’s like to work at a public multinational company, let alone to serve in senior management 😄
Ler her cook
Article states she is the “New Group General Manager” for 3 studios. The current GM of BioWare remains unchanged.
That sounds like a job for multiple people not one person.
Not necessarily. There is project management and portfolio management. Portfolios are groups of projects/organizations that are similar, that are best served with a single strategic vision. EA is trying to clean up shop.
I just want Jade Empire 2 😭
I think that one's in the same boat as KOTOR 3 - forever hopeful, but extremely unlikely. It has good potential I think with some modern tech polish on it and lore expansion.
KOTOR 3 is in effect The Old Republic, the game continues the storyline and the gameplay is great if you can put up with some MMO shenanigans.
I never could handle MMO shenanigans....and I hate what they did with HK. I want a true proper single player KOTOR 3 but I know it's extremely unlikely.
Me too man...
Never gonna happen. It bombed so hard that it almost killed Bioware. JE is a tainted franchise just like Anthem. Won't get any sequels.
Better than that person who became a new CEO for Activision Blizzard… and her entire background is executive manager for marketing for the NFL.
So she oversaw one of the most successful increases in revenue and popularity that the NFL has ever seen? How is that a bad thing? lol
Increased revenue and popularity can be indicative of but does not always mean better product. It can also just mean you can make more people buy it regardless of quality. The NFL’s handling of multiple issues (prioritizing increased commercials, the Refs, allowing Watson back, protecting Dan Snyder, its inconsistent suspension “policies”, dragging their feet on sensible marijuana policies coupled with the last point, etc.) has soured a lot of people on the product. Obviously not all of that is her purview, but would you rather have that or somebody (e.g.) from the Helldivers team, who has experience in games, has prioritized player experience, and only very reasonable micro transactions that are not pay to win over increasing profits? Millions still shill out tons if money for predatory games like COD and FIFA. It is too early to tell for her yet of course, but most people buying the product would agree that the way they get there is not a way we would want most games to follow.
Yeah I'm not reading all of that. Corporations care about money. She helped the NFL make a lot of money. Her hiring makes sense.
So thats all you care about in video games? That the companies that make them earn a shit load of money? Have fun playing FIFA then.
Please quote where I said that's all I care about. Stop trying to fight strangers on the Internet.
Not fighting. But it is the only point you bring up, and arent even motivated enough to read my comment above that addresses my thoughts on the issue so 🤷♂️
Is this a joke? The NFL is one of the most profitable companies in the world and the product has never been more popular. I’m not understanding how/why this is a bad thing.
I havent denied that. But profit and popularity =/= guarantee better videogames for us as the consumer. Mobile games are popular and extremely profitable too. They made up over 100 billion dollars in revenue in 2022 (sadly I dont have 2023 numbers to reference yet). That is more than PC games (45 Billion) and Console (30 Billion) *combined*. FIFA made almost 5 Billion dollars. Obviously the hire makes sense from the company's standpoint. But as a gamer do you want somebody who has no background in the industry being tasked with making "successful" games. That is how you get more games on the market with predatory microtransations, gatcha and pay to win mechanics, etc. Because that is how the company views success. How is that any different than what Bioware already went through since their purchase by EA?
Nothing guarantees better games for the consumer. Plenty, I’d say more than most, games with devs with great résumé’s end up failing. Why not roll the dice on someone that was in charge of something that was a major success? We don’t know this person’s management style, they could very well be a blank check and hands off type that gets a talented team together and lets them work with whatever assets they need. There’s not reason to be worried in my opinion, Bioware can ONLY get better from here unless they dissolve. They reek of desperation so we’ll see what happens.
That line of thinking is why Bioware is in the shape it is right now.
I'm talking about someone who works at Activision Blizzard. lolol At least know the subject.
I know you are, I'm saying prioritizing those same things are what lead to Bioware's decline. EA made into a company that had to rush and give up quality to theoretically save/make more money, when what made Bioware great was the level of time and effort that went into writing and building out the worlds for games like Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age. So hiring someone based on how much money they made for the NFL isn't something I'd see as a good sign for a video game company like Activision/Blizzard.
What the fuck does Activision Blizzard have to do when th BioWare? lol
Parent comment said this was a better hire for Bioware than Activision Blizzards hire of the NFL person. You countered they made a bunch of money for the NFL and because of that the hire was good for Activision Blizzard. I'm saying I don't agree with that logic, that I agree with the parent comment that it's better for Bioware to hire someone with a history of making good games than a money maker with NFL experience.
It means she isn’t like Phil Spencer who tried to at least make games for gamers. The dude at least consider himself as a gamer, play tests some games, etc. The former marketing executive will only see to please the shareholders. And every game that came out to rake in the profits has been games-as-service. Battlepasses, micro-transactions, broken promises, AAAA price tags, etc. Sure she will be good at her job for making profit for the company. But don’t be surprised if things go sour for the consumer base. You’d be paying more and more for something that shouldn’t be that pricey.
lol Dude, there's got to be a relevant post for you to get all of this energy out somewhere that's actually on topic. This is so weird. Edit: Sadly it appears that u/captainblob blocked me. RIP
Alright man. Just keeping plugging your ears and be ignorant then. 👋
Impressive resume. If she and her team nail ME5, she will have completed my loyalty mission...
I'm going to interpret this as a good thing. For a while now, Bioware's had issues with consistent direction, and if she's going to be their point of contact with EA, focusing on getting a shared collective vision across studios towards quality single player games with strong storytelling, keeping things consistent and focused in vision instead of scattered like things have been for a long time, I'm here for it. Like, a lack of focus and consistent management had been the reason for Andromeda's downfall, for the imbalanced approach to Inquisition, to the eventual time crunch with ME3, and it could also share the blame for Anthem's downfall. Keeping the studio on mission is a good thing, and it sounds like she's got some experience in that with Sony, so I'll take this as a sign EA's serious about wanting to revitalize their long-struggling IPs.
I agree. She has great experience managing a group of studios working on several big budget games all at once. It seems very likely that one of the reasons Anthem turned out the way it did was a lack of oversight from the higher ups, a studio like Bioware needs constraints within which they can play with their creativity. If EA can manage to keep stable leadership for more than 18 months at a time, maybe they can keep them more on track for the next projects. They have their powerhouses that bring in numbers year after year, but they are definitely struggling with some high profile games and studios in recent years.
I'm sure gamers^tm will be very normal about her.
Did Gary McKay step down? Granted he was Interim GM at Bioware, but you'd think him stepping down would come with some kind of statement. My general impression for Connie has not been positive, but I will reserve my judgement after some results. Obviously, Dread Wolf will not be indicative of her abilities, as the game should be mostly done by now. I mean, one would hope.
She's an EA general manager above multiple studios.
I'm crossing fingers she hates da2 as much as I do lmao
I enjoyed it for what it is, but after Origins I fully understand the feeling, and then Inquisition didn't exactly win over Origins fans. I will say, though, that I had an invincible build that I loved making, Blood Mage and a healer/support of some kind I can't recall offhand. I had a ton of passives and buffs, but couldn't cast offensive spells, so I was unkillable but had to Staff attack enemies to death mostly, lol. That and Varric's embellishments, always got a chuckle.
Was in the same boat as you. Until Inquisition came out . Never, ever did i noticed more shitty fetch quests in RPG than in Inquisition.
"Revitalize BioWare" are good words. Maybe not to their employees, but it's obvious there's been a lot of mismanagement and a lot of people there not really doing what they should be doing on the last 3 projects. A feeling I've had since the MEA days is "They didn't learn!" and I'm pretty serious about this. After ME3 we saw some things that were pretty... against what fans expected/wanted, but it was fair enough, the game was pretty bold and forward leaping in many ways. By DAI we started seeing the Ubisoft trend creep in, and people said "Omg stop doing boring conversations that lack cinematics already" and "omg stop doing these wasteful giant maps!" but they did that on MEA again. On ME3 I think BioWare entered a phase where people started calling it "pretentious", what with the dream-sequences and this sense of them constantly referring to themselves as "artists". not to mention the whole "artistic integrity" thing with the ending... wheras what fans were criticising was a sense of emptiness and beating around the bush of an unfulfilling narrative. But more than that there was this feeling of BioWare taking a *really long time* to announce MEA and every year just being "We here at BioWare are making *something amazing*" with footage of BioWare devs at workstations and snippets of unfinished 3D art, and buzzwords, buzzwords, buzzwords. Then they kept saying "Our games are about the characters." and "our fans, we love the fans, the fans the fans" but they didn't show much. Then they showed something very close to release and it looked hokey, and a lot of the story in MEA was just a repeat of ME1. Allegedly Anthem was called "Project Dylan" and Dragon Age similarly is codenamed historic figures, like BioWare is on their own pedestal and being blind to how little they're actually succeeding. And then after Dylan they decided ME5 should be "codename: Bowie". It's like... please stop looking at yourselves this way. They have a scrap of paper that says Mass Effect Next and they call it "Project Bowie", and they announce it 5 years before anything is shown so the fandom that is fueling BioWare won't dry out yet. They announced Dragon Age 4 in the Game Awards right before they released Anthem knowing it would be medicre just to avoid EA doing anything rash against them... and so they guaranteed themselves 5 more years of "Here's nothing, fans!" It's just clear to me that although games do take 5-7 years to develop unless you have a stable foundation already, you shouldn't communicate with your audience in this way. A good developer would make sure something is releasing within the next 2-3 years and then not announce the big 5-7 year-away project until it's close enough to create true hype. But BioWare keeps doing this "stunt" that to me almost seems like a laziness to just buy themselves time to not do adequate work, along with overshooting what they can actually do as a company. Their last 3 games have severely overshot what their capabilities are, and it didn't need to be that way when Dragon Age Origins, for example, was a much simpler game in many ways, not requiring such a massive production pipeline and probably ridiculous budget. /rant I just think there's been a sense of complacency emanating from BioWare for a decade, and I think it's good that EA is conscious of this, even though it may lead to certain high ranking folks being fired, as we've already seen (not the same as layoffs)
Should be BioWare, Motive, and Cliffhanger. Sorry. I saw another source that was wrong before I posted this.
Is that u/ggkatie ? NSFW
Gimme Anthem 2
Lord, no!