In response to this Kokatu article (2019) everyone’s been talking about. Also including references to the Dragon Age Inquisition chapter in Blood, Sweat and Pixels (2017). I’d recommend reading both before beginning.
A hot take: I was more surprised by the response to the Kokatu article than any of the content in it. The picture it paints isn’t exactly flattering, but it’s not new information either. It largely mirrors the interviews given by Bioware devs in Blood, Sweat and Pixels years earlier - which also highlights the crunch present in most game development by the way - and it’s disheartening knowing little has changed in that time. But who is actually at fault here? While it feels good to want to blame the publisher or the developer, it seems it’s more a vicious cycle kind of situation, resulting in burned out frustrated devs and unruly games on release.
Problem One: Frostbite. Though DAI was well received on launch, its rocky development was well documented: fighting with the Frostbite engine the whole way. This problem has clearly persisted through the development of MEA and Anthem, and is likely a compounding issue for any other problem in a development cycle. I think it’s fair to blame Frostbite issues mainly on EA, but with a considerable side eye at Bioware’s management. Frostbite sucking at RPGs is definitely on EA for mandating its use, and providing poor support for its implementation. I question the management from Bioware and the need to remake many of these systems again for scratch for each game, though this could be a limitation of the engine being difficult to innovate within or being wholly unsuitable for the tasks it’s trying to achieve. Kokatu, to its credit, acknowledges this.
It is impossible to develop games without a strong technical structure beneath them, and with three games reportedly being completely nonfunctional even months before release means something absolutely must be done about this. Again, the biggest concern is the apparent inflexibility of this software, which limits creativity, wastes time and resources, and helps to compound the second major issue here, which is...
Problem Two: Direction. If all three games had major technological difficulties during production that basically ground things to a halt and curbed expectations, why did one go on to win game of the year, compared to the critical response to the others? Unlike MEA or Anthem, DAI was not a new IP or effective reboot, so this problem was largely sidestepped. MEA and Anthem however had very interrupted leadership through their development cycles, which lies pretty squarely on Bioware’s shoulders, though EA doesn’t get off free either. This is that vicious cycle thing: while a lack of concept focus, or frequent changes compound technical issues, technical issues can also force changes in direction, where leadership is forced to bow to what is possible. This is very dangerous in situations like Anthem and MEA, where part of the brief is to be ‘different’ and ‘original’ - you can’t be either of these things if your management (or anyone) doesn’t know the technical limitations or possibilities for their game engine.
While crunch is a widespread problem in the games industry, and the arts sector in general, this vicious cycle of direction and technical limitation is clearly causing consistent and extended delays. Crunch development is a widespread industry problem, but the need for it here seems largely of their own creation. As a result, hoping that the studio closes does not fix this issue: there is crunch everywhere. Advocating for unions for devs will help hold companies accountable and maybe force a shift in culture that helps address root causes rather than simply putting a bandaid over gaping wounds. Crunch is not inevitable, and no other industry would accept that fighting with their equipment on a daily basis was the normal way of doing business.
