By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MrWayne said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I mean, I agree with you. Technically, there is almost always some blame on the publishers end, especially if they own the studio in question. I also think stuff like the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle was probably mostly EA's fault (I doubt they didn't ask for extended developer time). But, at this point there's so much tying back to Bioware, that I just think they're an incompetent studio. EA is partially to blame, sure, but a majority of it falls on Bioware. And I think if we're being honest, that's not really how people distribute the blame, even though it's the most honest way to do so. 

At this point Bioware is nothing more than a label, most of the creative figureheads who were responsible for the old Bioware games left the company and some of the games you listed were even made by teams who were never part of Bioware befor EA bought them. It's hard to criticize something that doesn't even exist anymore.

What the games developed by "Bioware" in the last 10 years show is that EA don't really care about brand sustainability. They put the label Bioware on new studios who are unrelated to the original one and neglect quality control.


While I can appreciate what you are trying to say with your comment, it is basically blaming EA for wanting to expand one of their acquisitions. Which .... is what every publisher does when they acquire a new studio. And most successful studios that run for an extended period of time see huge shifts in their employees anyways, with massive amounts of new workers who eventually become creative leads. Successful studios can often be categorized into generations even, with a lot of the new workers becoming the main driving forces behind studios. You're kind of seeing this now with Naughty Dog for example, where people who had worked for the company are now becoming the heads of the company.

Your basically saying that all of that is inherently bad, when it isn't, in fact it's pretty normal in the gaming industry. Saying that a studio should have been kept close to it's original staff for the sake of identity is misguided really, it's normal for studios to have huge shifts in focus and game development. A bigger problem is most likely who was hired at Bioware and how the studio was managed, and while some of that is probably on EA a lot of it isn't (Bioware employees and ex Bioware employees have reiterated time and time again how much control they have over their own studios). 

In addition, Mass Effect Andromeda was given 5 years of development time and a massive budget. Dragon Age Inquisition was considered "good". Dragon Age II was a creative decision by Bioware that didn't pay off. And If I had to guess, Anthem was probably an idea proposed by Bioware themselves, with the express purpose of cashing in on Destiny-like games as to appease EA, due to the fact that their games weren't making their owner a lot of money. Which isn't a fault of EA but rather Bioware, because the types of games they make rely way more on the quality of the game in order to make a profit, and their past games failed, so this was probably their way of getting back on good terms. Having some pressure from your publisher is a real and understandable consequence of consistently fucking up. The only thing that I think can be traced back to EA in terms of quality control is probably ME3 and maybe the MMO Star Wars game, but those are funnily enough some of the oldest examples of Bioware fucking up. Unless you are implying that EA should have just outright cancelled Andromeda before release, or restarted development. Both of which are so unrealistic and would take them out of so much money that it isn't even funny.