#ea critical

[lathbora-virann]

Do you love the disparity of the EA CEO's pay?

I'm sorry for doing this, but also I'm not. Andrew Wilson is the one who should be sorry.

[source]

[flowersforthemachines]

reading Blumbger's article on the development on DAVG with literal tears in my eyes. they had to remake the game from multi- to single-player in a year and a half.

also, another insane example of the mass effect favouritism:

we are reaching a level of bias not even just towards the game, but the development team. granting budget for requests of one team, but not the other. what if I started killing people.

[anneapocalypse]

For the record I feel like saying "Dreadwolf is going to suck because they laid off Mary Kirby" is like... really dramatically missing the point of what's going on here.

The next game has been in alpha for nearly a year now. Kirby's work on the game as a writer was probably mostly finished. Which does not make this better. If anything, it makes it worse.

The layoffs aren't terrible news because a game we're looking forward to might be worse because of them. They're terrible news because people who have devoted years of blood, sweat, and tears to making the game good (including the person who wrote one of the two characters on which they've been hanging the entire marketing campaign for said game thus far) have been axed now that the company has decided it can probably get by without them.

The quality of the game when it finally comes out is irrelevant here. If it's amazing, it won't make this any better, and if it's awful, it won't make it any worse. What matters is the people whose labor made it exist at all are profoundly undervalued, the industry as a whole is broken and frankly abusive, and I wish everyone in it some good labor organizing.

[dirthenera]

Ok I need to get this out with the news about devs being fired dropping.

There will be spoilers for Veilguard here so proceed with caution.

EA fucked the game, and the more I think about it, the more angry I am with them.

It all starts with one choice- the devs wanted the veil to come down in that opening, and EA told them no. Told them they couldn’t bring the veil down at all.

It was never going to be a player choice- it couldn’t, it would create two entirely different worlds leading forward, so it would have to be something outside player control, and they were told no.

The veil coming down was outside forces and the veil staying up was Rook’s choice. And had to be Rook’s choice.

Because of that, our Rook could never see the veil coming down as a worthwhile option. Which means we could never engage with it as a reality. We could never ask what that would look like, or question the morality of the veil, either practically, or as a thought experiment. No companions will bring up what it might be like in any positive way or even just as an “I wonder.”

We only get to see veil =bad so Rook must be right.

They cut Solas’ elven followers because having even *one* npc on his side for noble reasons would make us question too much, and we were not allowed to have an opinion other than veil =good, because the devs were hamstringed by it.

No companions ever discuss what it could be like without the veil, and they *should*. Can you imagine Emmrich and Bellara debating it? Emmrich absolutely fascinated by how it would impact spirits and they wouldn’t need to possess anyone or anything, Bellara leery after seeing so much wild magic in Arlathan but wondering if uninterrupted etheric flows would create more stable magic over time. Taash surprising the party by being way more cool with it than expected due to their Rivaini upbringing, and more open to that than necromancy.

Lucanis and Harding being firmly against it to the point it causes some friction in the team, Davrin just staying out of it because he doesn’t get it and doesn’t want to. Harding has a moment of questioning at a weak point after reminiscing about Cole, and wonders how many like him there could be if the veil did come down.

Neve feeling extremely mixed about it, between it possibly allowing a reshuffle of power in Tevinter, removing the ability for mages to make deals with demons, but also upset at the potential raw chaos.

But we never even get to look at that. Because there was no option there. Even if each character landed on veil=good, we never even got to have the discussion, because we couldn’t do anything with it.

And we can see how that spirals out and created a much less morally complex game than we’ve previously gotten. Rook is the good guy because they said so, Solas is the bad guy who, despite being beyond willing to talk to anyone who will listen to him, refuses to expand on what the veil coming down looks like. Because he can’t. Because then we might agree with him.

We’re only allowed Varric’s point of view, which makes sense for the beginning, but there was never an option to expand it. There is one single dialogue option where we can tell Solas “whoops didn’t know that.” But that’s the beginning and end of that train of thought.

They even set us up as this FANTASTIC foil to Solas, having meddled in a ritual we didn’t understand and unleashing multiple blights and elven gods, essentially destroying the south, blighting most of the north, partially destroying a city, and a countless death toll. But taking actual responsibility with that isn’t allowed- because we may sympathize too much with Solas. Because we clearly did the right thing because the veil is still up. It’s not even addressed in the regret prison! Solas tells you thousands would still have died if he took down the veil, but thousands did die as a direct result of Rook meddling. And nowhere can you acknowledge that.

[jack-of-blades]

It’s still crazy to me that BioWare was not planning on letting people know before release that none of the previous games’ options mattered and that the only reason they brought it up is because they were doing damage control after a beta tester (accidentally?) leaked the 3 options - 2 of which and the most variations of the other don’t impact much more beyond a codex entry

Like they weren’t gonna let us know that they wiped the core of what made dragon age dragon age until the last possible second….

[omegastation]

Mass Effect Andromeda Actor Blames EA for Game's Quality, Says It Was 'Forced Out the Door Too Early' and Became 'Punching Bag of the Week F

One of the lead actors behind BioWare's Mass Effect Andromeda has spoken out about the game's disappointing critical and commercial response

Just saw this and it makes me so sad.

Because of this part:

"On top of that, it was released to a VERY toxic atmosphere online and elsewhere in the gaming space," Taylorson continued. "It quickly became punching bag of the week for online chuds for views and clicks. Their love of hate sealed the deal.

but mostly that one:

"It hurt most because I knew that was it — Ryder wouldn't be coming back," Taylorson said. "I, and others, thought we'd have a good decade of playing with these characters in these spaces. And just like that — gone."

It kinda hits me hard to read about Ryder not coming back because some part of me hopes they do come back :(

In the full article he also says "There is something to be said for a 7/10 that comes to you in a time of need." and I feel that as I am playing MEA again.

And I don't think he's exaggerating about the hate. it was quite toxic at times. But I think there was a tipping point, when they did a final update, and this was it. It was over, with no DLC.

Anyway he did a wonderful job voicing Ryder.

[insufferablewarden]

I want to talk about this take from my main blog because I want to double down on it.

I truly think that Veilguard is a bad Dragon Age game.

I don’t mean to sound like a bitch, but I really hate that people feel like this is a good Dragon Age game. I hate that people use the excuse that Dragon Age reinvents itself every game in its defense. I hate that people think that this is what a Dragon Age game is. And I’ve been hearing that this is “still a Dragon Age game” even from some critical reviews.

My rebuttal, if I was being flippant, is that the vibe is simply off. It doesn’t feel right.

If I have to put my disappointment and anger into words, I would say:

No, the heart of the games has never changed. The idea that your worldview is shaped by your past and that you can be a hero or a villain depending on who tells the story has never changed. Navigating complex and sometimes race/class-based politics has never changed. The ability for you to earn approval and disapproval based on personality-defining dialogue choices and/or meaningful choices hadn’t changed. Being able to go up and talk to characters (companions most of all) to learn about who they are and how Thedas has shaped them has never changed. Companions not solely based on tropes and nebulous ideas of what makes a cute relationship used to exist. Lore reveals were handled with care and sprinkled throughout the game rather than thrown at you one after the other. Gameplay never used to insult your intelligence by handing you an explanation to everything within seconds of being presented with a problem. This series of roleplaying games used to let you roleplay even if it was just respecting what tone you wanted to use.

Or, something like that.

When people tell me that this is a good Dragon Age game, it feels like they’re comparing this legacy of games to one of those Marvel movies or remakes that doesn’t need to exist, but does because it has a built in audience and will make them money. It feels devoid of what made the old games special to me. I know that the other games aren’t perfect. Not even in all of the respects I mentioned earlier, but I felt like BioWare gave a shit? Even Dragon Age: II with all of its flaws has this beautiful cast of characters and (narratively) fleshed out city and Dragon Age: Inquisition with all of its fetch quests had some of the most complex characters, interesting quest mechanics, and this highly ambitious (if flawed) setting design. This game is so half-baked that I barely understand what it’s about or who it’s really for.

In fact, after I finished the game, it took me a few days to get over feeling negatively about the entire series. I was terrified that Veilguard had ruined this series that I’d loved for half my life for me. I felt stupid. I hate that I care so much when I’m not certain that they do. Or, being more charitable, I’m not certain that BioWare is capable of making a product with care under EA.

I don’t know. Maybe this is a Dragon Age game, but if it is, I’m not sure I want another one.

[contessaxchaos]

How Veilguard Handled Themes and Lost its Audience

This is tagged Veilguard-critical. I didn't set out to be critical (ie disparaging) of Veilguard, I set out to be critical (ie analytical) of one crucial aspect of its writing.

I reblogged a post by @meat-louse where I supported their premise ("this warped sense of history veilguard has") by pointing out how Veilguard can actually work to feel more integrated into the Thedas that we know from DAO, DA2, and DAI. Their conclusion is that:

"dragon age’s depictions of social issues were never spot-on, but at their best they encouraged the player to engage with those issues and ultimately seek to change society for the better. veilguard has no interest in changing society."

Here's my observations:

The issue is they want a game that’s simple and streamlined in its messaging. They want it focused on themes like regret and acceptance and teamwork and friendship. They hammered hard those themes, which, while it’s good practice to have strong themes, they overdid it to the point that we’re shouting “I GET IT!!!” They worked on those themes to the exclusion of nuance. To the exclusion of complexity.

Three games have trained us to look at the world and its problems, and look CLOSER because you’re not being told the whole truth. In fact there is no single truth. For every Anders, there’s a Cullen. You have the fearsome Arishok but you also have Sten, and for every hundred Sten who uphold their culture and beliefs unwavering, there’s an Iron Bull who knowingly subjects himself to reeducation in order to continue functioning in his society. And not far from him is an Adaar who is free from the Qun but faces the consequences of banishment and ostracization from their own culture and people. The game doesn’t say which side is right or wrong, you have to experience it for yourself to be able to have an opinion on the matter. My opinions on the Chantry were different when I played a Trevelyan versus as a Lavellan. Cousland has a different experience from a Tabris. That’s the point: your roleplaying changes depending on who you choose to be at the start of the game. The experience changes. The game is not interested in selling you a “correct” moral standpoint; it instead presents you a moral dilemma that unfolds through your questing, but it doesn’t give you an answer. It values a jerk Inquisitor, a stupid Warden, and a bloodthirsty Hawke as much as it values all the sarcastic, diplomatic, and traditionally heroic versions of our player characters.

But in Veilguard…

But in VG, all moral questions have already been resolved for you, either by signposting it, by not allowing you to interrogate these questions as Rook, or by completely ignoring it (no slaves, no tranquils, no alienages, no Circles, no cursed werewolves, no cults). They hyperfocused on their themes that they sacrificed nuance and complexity.

That’s why your companions and Rook only have low-impact conflict. Nothing will drive away your companions because they hold no strong convictions that clash with others. They serve the Themes. We can easily contrast this with companions from the other games: Vivienne gives you a closer look at the value of having Circles and the Chantry. Morrigan counsels expediency over do-gooding. Cassandra is has served all her life on the side of the "oppressors", but she questions the Seekers without letting it break her faith in the Maker. They have convictions. They were built from the ground up to be characters with their own agenda. They weren't built from the ground up to be your support system.

Which is what Veilguard appears to have done with their companions for the most part. I say the most part because there are three people with very clear themes, and Rook doesn't clash with them because their themes were designed to be very personal. The three are Emmrich (im/mortality and legacy); Bellara (something something preservation of the past, although I'm not sure what the point is because preserving the past at the cost of the present is not really very...cogent? Cultural/historical preservation is not exclusive to having a present and a future); and Taash (cultural and gender identity).

Talking to Taash made me reflect on my understanding of what it means to have a body you don’t agree with, perhaps even more than Krem did because with Taash, you can ask them. They will tell you. And that’s because Taash serves the Theme of Identity, both cultural and gender. BUT it’s also overdone to the point where those who don’t understand how it is to be trans feel like they’re being talked down to for not understanding.

What would have worked better is if they sparked the players’ curiosity and genuine interest in trans identity, and then allowed the players to engage with it as deeply or as shallow as they like. Instead everyone gets The Lecture as if we’re all uneducated on the matter. As if there are no allies among us. As if there are no shallow allies among us who are swayed by virtue-signalling. The Theme has swallowed what should be an invitation to talk and be curious and be enlightened.

Regret and sunk cost and redemption are also strong themes in the game. And you know they spent a long time and a lot of effort on that because the Team does a Talk Session after every piece of regret they uncover. Again: they’re made to serve the Theme to the exclusion of nuance and complexity. Yes, they raise good points, asked good questions, engaged with what we all saw. But I will argue that it’s US—the players—who should be having THAT conversation with ourselves or amongst ourselves. The companions should be there to give their point of view as a Mourn Watch, as a Grey Warden, as HARDING. But no—we don’t get that opportunity to absorb the regrets, to interrogate it ourselves based on what we know about Solas in DAI, or just to scratch our heads and say “okay but but but the game is always saying that history is not equal to the Truth and there’s always more to the story, so who can I ask / what other codices can I possibly find to shed more light about this?” Like…nada. You don’t make insights; the game already feeds you all the CORRECT insights so that you don’t ever have to be wrong about the Theme, because the Theme is Redemption or the Cost of Regret.

You don't need to engage your brain anymore because the game has already curated that for you. It has solved for you an equation that the past games would normally leave for you to solve through another playthrough. In DAO, if you only ever play Cousland, you will not grow your understanding of the plight of elves in alienages, or the injustice of the Dwarven caste system. You understand them intellectually because you are a person existing in a society that has poverty and injustice, but it doesn't hit the same until you play in the shoes of a Tabris or a Brosca.

Many of the writers who built Veilguard have been there in the construction of the other Dragon Age games. They were there when Veilguard was still Joplin. What we all wanted, they also clearly wanted to include in the game. They know it's not their role to dictate what players should believe by the end of the game, or to make the team generally harmonious and supportive of Rook. But their views and their skills were not valued.

Anyone who can write can write complexity.

Not everyone who writes can write nuance. That shit takes experience and skill. Writing is not just putting words on paper. This is especially true for massive collaborative writing projects such as videogames.

The writers failed because they were failed by the studio, first.