# For the good of video games, Anthem needs to fail hard



## Gladius Legis (Jul 3, 2018)

Anthem, the generic shooter/Destiny clone made by the once-great but now-awful Bioware, needs to fail for the good of all video games moving forward. EA's future is hinging entirely on this game's success. EA's blatant anti-consumer practices, its fetish for microtransactions, loot boxes, always-online play even for single player, and many other sins, must end. Fortunately the utter failure of Star Wars: Battlefront II has eroded consumer trust in EA more than ever, and it is on its last leg. It's time for Anthem to fail so we can sweep the other leg, destroy EA for good, and send a message to other AAA gaming publishers, who have slowly but surely adopted all the anti-consumer garbage that EA pioneered, that these practices are unacceptable.


----------



## ccs (Jul 3, 2018)

Send $50 to me via PayPal (gift) & I'll promise not to play the game.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 3, 2018)

ccs said:


> Send $50 to me via PayPal (gift) & I'll promise not to play the game.




Or you could, out of love of the future of video games, just not be part of the problem for free?


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 3, 2018)

You're also not going to play Anthem because it's going to be a boring, generic, copycat piece o' garbage. With 3 million microtransactions and loot boxes. Which is the reason it needs to fail and take down EA and Corrupted Bioware along with it.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 3, 2018)

If you add in, "... and selling a game that isn't complete without pay-for DLC", you sound just like a friend of mine.


----------



## ccs (Jul 3, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Or you could, out of love of the future of video games, just not be part of the problem for free?




You're presuming I have some love for video games....


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 4, 2018)

ccs said:


> You're presuming I have some love for video games....




Then you shouldn't be in this thread to begin with. Go on, get out.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 4, 2018)

Oh dear, the nerd rage...

So what is the OP actually proposing? Doing nothing, I guess. Okay, I'm in!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 4, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Then you shouldn't be in this thread to begin with. Go on, get out.





EN World does not have a notion of thread ownership that supports you telling people where or what they can post.

We understand you may feel strongly about this topic, but that doesn't entitle you to editorial control of the thread.  If you're not prepared for the highly varied responses that discussion in public will yield, this thread is apt to be a massive disappointment for you.


----------



## ccs (Jul 4, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Then you shouldn't be in this thread to begin with. Go on, get out.




Hey, I'm just a mercenary who offered their services to your cause.  

But if this is how you're going to be, then you know what?  Just for you, I'm going to play this game when it comes out.  And I'm going to get 5 friends to play it as well.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jul 4, 2018)

Given that there will be no loot boxes in Anthem I have a feeling the OP doesn’t actually know what they’re talking about.

I won’t be buying it anyways but that’s because Of Boiware

Edit: because it BioWare.
Boiware sounds like a dog clothing line.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 4, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> Given that there will be no loot boxes in Anthem I have a feeling the OP doesn’t actually know what they’re talking about.




Where in my original post did I specifically say Anthem would have loot boxes?


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 5, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> Given that there will be no loot boxes in Anthem I have a feeling the OP doesn’t actually know what they’re talking about.
> 
> I won’t be buying it anyways but that’s because Of Boiware
> 
> ...




I won't be buying it because it isn't my type of game and yeah Boiware does sound like a clothing line *goes and copyright and trademarks boiware*


----------



## Eltab (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Where in my original post did I specifically say Anthem would have loot boxes?




You introduced that complaint in Post #4.  It fits in nicely with your OP and could be edited in with no loss of continuity.

I second the motion above: upon receiving a modest payment from you - whatever you think the initial purchase of a _good_ video game is worth - I also will not play this game.


----------



## Eltab (Jul 5, 2018)

trappedslider said:


> yeah Boiware does sound like a clothing line



… for people who are inspired by Boy George's fashion sense?  (See the old MTV videos)


----------



## cmad1977 (Jul 5, 2018)

Eltab said:


> … for people who are inspired by Boy George's fashion sense?  (See the old MTV videos)




I think that would be part of the line 
Boi George line
Beasty Bois
Bad bois

Etc


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 5, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> I think that would be part of the line
> Boi George line
> Beasty Bois
> Bad bois
> ...




Sk8er boi?


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

You all like EA that much?


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> You all like EA that much?




I don't think i've bought an EA game in awhile.....in fact i uninstalled EA's origin service thingee a few days ago


----------



## Umbran (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> You all like EA that much?




I suspect it is more that they find your vehemence a bit over the top, and are being a tad facetious in response.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Anthem, the generic shooter/Destiny clone made by the once-great but now-awful Bioware,



One bad game done by an entirely different studio but given the same name (by EA) and one game with with a fan overreaction over the ending and they’re now “awful”...
Sure...



Gladius Legis said:


> needs to fail for the good of all video games moving forward. EA's future is hinging entirely on this game's success. EA's blatant anti-consumer practices, its fetish for microtransactions, loot boxes, always-online play even for single player, and many other sins, must end.



1) Bioware =/= EA. If _Anthem_ fails EA will just close BioWare without a thought like they’ve done to a dozen other studios in the past.

2) They haven’t announced _Anthem_ as having loot boxes or microtransactions. It very likely won’t have the former as they’re increasingly unpopular. So the fairlure of one game will have *zero* impact on that. 

3) Always online gameplay isn’t going away because piracy isn’t going away and games are expensive. And the ability to jump into a friend’s game is convenient, as is getting help to beat a hard mission or boss. 
I love the idea of a multiplayer BioWare game.

4) _Anthem_ has probably been in development since 2012 when _Mass Effect 3_ came out and the initial conception likely predated _Destiny_. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Fortunately the utter failure of Star Wars: Battlefront II has eroded consumer trust in EA more than ever, and it is on its last leg. It's time for Anthem to fail so we can sweep the other leg, destroy EA for good, and send a message to other AAA gaming publishers, who have slowly but surely adopted all the anti-consumer garbage that EA pioneered, that these practices are unacceptable.



It will take more than the failure of _Anthem_ to end EA. Much more. EA isn’t going anywhere. They’re too big.

The failure of _Anthem_ _*will*_ likely mean the end of the DragonAge franchise as we know it. And that will make me sad.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

Jester David said:


> One bad game done by an entirely different studio but given the same name (by EA) and one game with with a fan overreaction over the ending and they’re now “awful”...
> Sure...




If you're referring to Mass Effect 3's ending, it deserved every bit of abuse it got.  Every. Single. Bit.

Also Dragon Age II was a bad game and Inquisition was only slightly better than mediocre (and everything it did was surpassed by a million miles a few months later by The Witcher 3).



> 1) Bioware =/= EA. If _Anthem_ fails EA will just close BioWare without a thought like they’ve done to a dozen other studios in the past.




Sure. I wouldn't exactly mind that at this point. But EA's PR is at an all-time low. It's going to hurt, too.



> 2) They haven’t announced _Anthem_ as having loot boxes or microtransactions. It very likely won’t have the former as they’re increasingly unpopular. So the fairlure of one game will have *zero* impact on that.




Apparently loot boxes are out, but EA will find other means to stick it to gamers. They always do.



> 3) Always online gameplay isn’t going away because piracy isn’t going away and games are expensive.




It's only really an affliction in EA's and Activision's titles. Even other AAA titles at least can be played offline if you're single-player only.



> It will take more than the failure of _Anthem_ to end EA. Much more. EA isn’t going anywhere. They’re too big.




And more than that has already happened. Star Wars: Battlefront II was an epic failure. Command and Conquer being some half-baked mobile game has made even more gamers upset at EA. And the controversy with Battlefield 5, whether one thinks that controversy is merited or not, has done even more damage.

Don't be too sure that EA can afford Anthem to fail and stay afloat. It's on very shaky ground due to a number of factors, controversies and incidents.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> It's only really an affliction in EA's and Activision's titles.
> 
> .




Beth would like you to come visit West Virginia in Fallout 76,as for EA going kaput...The annual releases of Madden say doubt it....


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 5, 2018)

Anthem wasn't really on my radar to be honest. Nothing I've seen of it appeals to me. Had I been interested in it though, the fact that EA is behind it would not factor into my purchase decision. The inclusion of loot boxes and similar slimy business practices, would immediately deter me from buying it though. But since none have been announced for Anthem so far, the OP seems to be jumping the gun a little.

The OP seems to be on some strange crusade against EA. But sticking it to Bioware is doing nothing to help that cause. Bioware has made some incredible games over the years (some of which are among my favorites), so I don't see why trying to get a lot of talented people at that studio to lose their jobs is useful, or deserving.

Dragonage 2 was a bit disappointing, but probably due to a rushed release schedule. That stuff happens in game development, especially when working on big triple-A titles. Mass Effect 2 on the other hand was amazing. Lots of people tend to forget that up to the ending, Mass Effect 3 is also pretty good, as is Dragon Age 3. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be wary for consumer exploitation, such as with Star Wars Battlefront 1&2 recently. But I think it is more useful to just not buy games containing this sort of of exploitation.

The OP sounds a bit fanatical in his crusade against EA, so I can see why a lot of people have been posting snarky responses in this thread.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> If you're referring to Mass Effect 3's ending, it deserved every bit of abuse it got.  Every. Single. Bit.



It was a whiny overreaction by a small segment of the online community. 

The Reaper's motive was so-so but worked thematically with the franchise. And that only existed because _fans_ spoiled the original ending. Blame them, not EA. 
The rest, with the cinematics, is necessary given the number of variables. They couldn't have a hundred small cutscenes. 

The original ending was problematic not for what it contained, but what was absent: a brief rundown on what happens next as a result of your actions. And they fixed that with the free DLC where they had a voice over explain what happened as the result of your actions. Once they did that, I was completely satisfied with the ending.



Gladius Legis said:


> Also Dragon Age II was a bad game



No it wasn't. It was fine. 

The problem was fan expectations. People went in Expecting _DragonAge: Origins II_ and the same thing as the prior games. Which it wasn't.  
When you play it knowing it's something entirely different—a game set in the same world but about very different things—it plays just fine. (EA is to blame for that. It was originally going to be _DragonAge: Legacy_ or something, but EA made them add the "II" instead.)



Gladius Legis said:


> and Inquisition was only slightly better than mediocre (and everything it did was surpassed by a million miles a few months later by The Witcher 3).



A better game coming out later doesn't make something bad. 

(And by your complaints of _Anthem_, shouldn't we call _The Witcher 3_ a good _DAI_ clone?)

Plus, it's not like BioWare's past games were somehow magically perfect. Their animation and combat have always been problematic. Their first big game (_Baldur's Gate_) is almost unplayable by modern standards, where you spend 30 hours and only get to level 4 or 5... _Mass Effect_ is dragged down by its horrible inventory management, repetitive maps, and limited number of opponents. 



Gladius Legis said:


> It's only really an affliction in EA's and Activision's titles. Even other AAA titles at least can be played offline if you're single-player only.
> Sure. If you artificially cut out the huge wave of multiplayer-only games that are massively popular.
> And if you ignore stuff like _Destiny_, _Diablo 3_, _Monster Hunter World_,  the upcoming _Fallout_ game, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## jonesy (Jul 5, 2018)

Honestly this is the first time I've paid any attention to Anthem. Went and checked some game footage because of this thread. Kinda seems like a mix of Halo, Tribes and Warframe. I don't quite understand why it has Diablo-style damage indicators that block the players view of the enemies. The ingame "story" gives me Gears of War vibes, and not in any good way.



Gladius Legis said:


> Also Dragon Age II was a bad game and Inquisition was only slightly better than mediocre (and everything it did was surpassed by a million miles a few months later by The Witcher 3).



Dragon Age II was bad? No.

Dissappointing? Perhaps to some. Different in game mechanics as compared to Origins? Yes. Different in style? Absolutely. Incomplete, rushed, and buggy on release? Sure (but then again, so many games these days are that on release). Bad? Still no.

Origins was a power fantasy. You not only save the world, you can save pretty much everything you come across.

The story in Dragon Age II was the complete opposite of that. It's the story of a refugee trying to find a place in a world that doesn't want him/her. It's the story of how things don't always work out no matter how powerful you yourself might be. A thematic opposite to the first. But that just makes it different. It's still a good game. DAII is easily in the top-10 RPG's of 2011 (granted, on that list it probably was on last place).

Inquisition was also different in its themes. It's a very mismatched trilogy. But the games individually were all good games. And comparing anything in the RPG genre to The Witcher 3 is stupid. It's the best there is. Of course everything else looks bad by comparison.

The thing about "loot boxes" is that they are not inherently a bad thing. It's all in how they are used. Eve Online has loot boxes everywhere and I've never seen anyone there complain about them. You can even buy them, and still people don't care. But that's because in Eve everything (except certain blueprints, which you can't even buy on open market anymore) can be found in-game in free play these days. Money just makes things progress faster. You don't want to pay, don't. Just go do wormholes and come back with trillions of in-game currency. I'm using Eve as an example here, because that's the way I think it should be done. Where Battlefront 2 the second was the worst way.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Anthem wasn't really on my radar to be honest. Nothing I've seen of it appeals to me.




I love the _DragonAge_ series and _Mass Effect_, but get precious little video game time these days due to fatherhood. What free time I do have tends to be focused on playing with multiplayer a friend, often an MMORPG or online survival game.
So being able to combine a BioWare RPG and its characters and story with online gameplay I can duo with a friend sounds amazeballs.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It was a whiny overreaction by a small segment of the online community.
> 
> The Reaper's motive was so-so but worked thematically with the franchise. And that only existed because _fans_ spoiled the original ending. Blame them, not EA.
> The rest, with the cinematics, is necessary given the number of variables. They couldn't have a hundred small cutscenes.
> ...




It wasn't a "small segment." It was the vast majority of Mass Effect fans. The choices you made for 3 games simply did not matter in any way because you destroyed it all, no matter your color choice. Talk to people offline and you'll get the same near-universal condemnation.

The cinematics thing is a lame excuse for lazy storytelling. And the free DLC was a band-aid on an aorta wound.



> The problem was fan expectations. People went in Expecting _DragonAge: Origins II_ and the same thing as the prior games. Which it wasn't.
> When you play it knowing it's something entirely different—a game set in the same world but about very different things—it plays just fine. (EA is to blame for that. It was originally going to be _DragonAge: Legacy_ or something, but EA made them add the "II" instead.)




The themes of DA2's story were not my problem with it. My problems with it were the overly simplified combat, character progression and leveling, and bare-bones dialogue trees.



> And if you ignore stuff like _Destiny_, _Diablo 3_, _Monster Hunter World_,  the upcoming _Fallout_ game, etc.
> 
> It sure seems like most players are okay with online-only games because they all seem to sell pretty darn well, and people are pretty much online 24-7 anyway.




Those are multiplayer games. EA has made online mandatory even for _single-player_ games (see the SimCity debacle, for example).



> And while _Battlefront_ was not well received, the latest _Sims_ game is doing well and _FIFA_ continues to be a goldmine.
> Oh... and while _Battlefront II_ did not sell as well as expected, it still sold millions of copies and likely turned a profit.




Enough gamers got suckered into buying Battlefront II to be a million seller. Unfortunately, EA got their money. However, now EA has the bad PR from Battlefront II that will impact later sales.

It's usually not the crappy game itself that tanks sales figures, but the game after that does. (See Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Unity debacle, and how it was Syndicate a year later that bit the dust sales-wise for it.)



> If _Anthem_ craters, it won't even _TOUCH _EA.
> Period.
> _Anthem_ could not sell a single copy and EA would still make $500 million dollars in pure profit.



On the other hand, if Anthem fails, and Battlefield 5 fails, and whatever other microtransaction-riddled projects fail ...



> But if _Anthem_ doesn't sell well because a bunch of people have an unreasonable grudge against EA for lootboxes, EA will just close BioWare, putting 800 people out of a job, prematurely ending the _Dragon Age_ franchise, and probably also meaning other studios owned by EA will be given less latitude to make original content and we get _more_  sequels in place of new content.




Or it might *gasp* force EA to re-evaluate their current money-grubbing course, see that what they're doing for the last decade has put millions of gamers on the verge of revolt, and either get better or die.

BioWare probably is toast, though. And as I said, in its current form, it won't break my heart.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> It wasn't a "small segment." It was the vast majority of Mass Effect fans.



No it wasn't. It was a small minority of unhappy trolls who were vocal online. 

-edit-
Case and point, sales for _Mass Effect 3 _were in the 6 million range. Compared to the 4 million for _Mass Effect 2_. 
So a full third of the audience had made ZERO choices from the previous games. And since Mass Effect 1 only sold three million copies, that's half the audience that didn't have all the choices of all three games matter. 

The hard truth is... most people were casual and likely happily enjoyed the game and moved on. They had no strong feelings one way or another. 
Don't mistake the protests of a unhappy minority for consensus.



Gladius Legis said:


> The choices you made for 3 games simply did not matter in any way because you destroyed it all, no matter your color choice. Talk to people offline and you'll get the same near-universal condemnation.



The entire third game was the end. It was dealing with the consequences of the prior game. 



Gladius Legis said:


> EA has made online mandatory even for _single-player_ games (see the SimCity debacle, for example).



Wasn't that from six years ago? 
Again, a small number of people whine but most people shrugged and went "I'm online all the time anyway. What's the big deal?" And the game sold a couple million copies and was a huge success. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Enough gamers got suckered into buying Battlefront II to be a million seller. Unfortunately, EA got their money. However, now EA has the bad PR from Battlefront II that will impact later sales.
> 
> It's usually not the crappy game itself that tanks sales figures, but the game after that does. (See Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Unity debacle, and how it was Syndicate a year later that bit the dust sales-wise for it.)



Or.... it could be your views do not reflect those of the majority.



Gladius Legis said:


> On the other hand, if Anthem fails, and Battlefield 5 fails, and whatever other microtransaction-riddled projects fail ...



And if a meteorite hits their corporate office. Or the CEO is accused of statutory rape of livestock. 
_Battlefield 5_ is shaping up to be a predictable hit. But even if it and _Anthem_ fail Madden and FIFA will keep the company in the black. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Or it might *gasp* force EA to re-evaluate their current money-grubbing course, see that what they're doing for the last decade has put millions of gamers on the verge of revolt, and either get better or die.



Omigod.... you mean a corporation acting like a *gasp* business. A publicly traded company trying to make money, like they are required to do by law to satisfy their shareholders. 

So long as what they're doing makes money, EA will keep doing it. If microtransactions and lootboxes didn't work, they wouldn't do them. They're not a charity. They're not doing this for art or love. They're a business.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

Jester David said:


> No it wasn't. It was a small minoirty of unhappy trolls who were vocal online.



Guarantee you you're wrong. Absolutely no one in real life who I know played ME3 had anything kind to say about the ending. And they're not the type who troll forums.



> The entire third game was the end. It was dealing with the consequences of the prior game.



And then blew it all up in the end regardless, making it, again, not matter.




> Again, a small number of people whine but most people shrugged and went "I'm online all the time anyway. What's the big deal?" And the game sold a couple million copies and was a huge success.



Again, not a small number of people. And it was so "successful" that the much older SimCity 4 (!) instantly shot up the Steam best-seller charts in response to the utter debacle of the most recent SimCity.

It was also so "successful" that gamers flocked to Cities: Skylines in DROVES when it released. C:S is still releasing new content and getting millions of new players, and meanwhile the latest SimCity is dead in the water. So "successful."



> Or.... it could be your views do not reflect those of the majority.



You haven't proven that it's not the majority.



> _Battlefield 5_ is shaping up to be a predictable hit. But even if it and _Anthem_ fail Madden and FIFA will keep the company in the black.



Dumb as I think the Battlefield 5 controversy is, it WILL have a pretty sharp impact.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

https://www.destructoid.com/mass-effect-2-player-choice-statistics-are-surprising-188362.phtml
https://kotaku.com/5992092/two-thirds-of-you-played-mass-effect-3-as-a-paragon-mostly-as-soldiers

From statistics, only half the people who played ME2 finished and only half imported a save.
That went down for ME3, where only 40% imported a save from ME2. 

That means 60% of players DID NOT play ME3 worrying about choices from previous games mattering.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

Yes, because that's the ONLY reason ever one would not import a save from the previous game. :/


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Guarantee you you're wrong. Absolutely no one in real life who I know played ME3 had anything kind to say about the ending. And they're not the type who troll forums.



Nope.

https://www.destructoid.com/mass-effect-2-player-choice-statistics-are-surprising-188362.phtml
https://kotaku.com/5992092/two-thirds-of-you-played-mass-effect-3-as-a-paragon-mostly-as-soldiers

From statistics, only half the people who played ME2 finished and only half imported a save.
That went down for ME3, where only 40% imported a save from ME2. 

That means 60% of players DID NOT play ME3 worrying about choices from previous games mattering.

So right away were're looking at the protests being some percentage of 40%. Less than 40%.
Small. Vocal. Minority.



Gladius Legis said:


> And then blew it all up in the end regardless, making it, again, not matter.



Choices like curing the genophage and other elements were always going to be optional and have no effect on the main plot. The game didn't expect you to get to "100% completion" before letting you finish. There were always going to be choices that had no impact on the final story. 
That doesn't mean they didn't matter...



Gladius Legis said:


> Again, not a small number of people. And it was so "successful" that the much older SimCity 4 (!) instantly shot up the Steam best-seller charts in response to the utter debacle of the most recent SimCity.



And that couldn't be because that's the ONLY SimCity game on Steam and you can't buy the other SimCity games on Steam.



Gladius Legis said:


> It was also so "successful" that gamers flocked to Cities: Skylines in DROVES when it released. C:S is still releasing new content and getting millions of new players, and meanwhile the latest SimCity is dead in the water. So "successful."



Which also came out two years after SimCity. You think that might be a factor?
Oh... it's also on Steam, which is a much bigger platform than Origin, and would be subject to a lot of Steam sales. 
But it still ended up selling fewer copies than SimCity.



Gladius Legis said:


> You haven't proven that it's not the majority.



I just did.



Gladius Legis said:


> Dumb as I think the Battlefield 5 controversy is, it WILL have a pretty sharp impact.



The women soldiers one? 
Yeah... pretty sure a lot of people will buy the game BECAUSE of that controversy. So... yes.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Nope.
> 
> https://www.destructoid.com/mass-effect-2-player-choice-statistics-are-surprising-188362.phtml
> https://kotaku.com/5992092/two-thirds-of-you-played-mass-effect-3-as-a-paragon-mostly-as-soldiers
> ...



That doesn't prove your point in any way. You're acting like that's the only reason ever one would have for not importing a save. Incredibly disingenuous.




> Choices like curing the genophage and other elements were always going to be optional and have no effect on the main plot. The game didn't expect you to get to "100% completion" before letting you finish. There were always going to be choices that had no impact on the final story.
> That doesn't mean they didn't matter...



Actually, yeah, that's exactly what it means. It means everything you did, connected by the world-building that had gone on in the series, was instantly vaporized, with no choice in the matter regardless of the color you chose at the end. And that's all it was, a color choice.




> And that couldn't be because that's the ONLY SimCity game on Steam and you can't buy the other SimCity games on Steam.



Why would it be? People disenchanted with SC 2013 just wanted a functional city simulator without the always-online garbage and microtransactions. So they logged onto Steam to get it. Simple explanation that you discarded because it didn't fit your pro-EA narrative.

The fact SimCity 4's Steam sales only spiked AFTER the SC2013 debacle only furthers the point.



> But it still ended up selling fewer copies than SimCity.




NOPE.

SimCity: 2 million https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-24-simcity-sold-over-2-million-copies

Cities: Skylines: 5 million http://www.vgchartz.com/article/272904/cities-skylines-tops-5-million-units-sold-on-pc/


----------



## Jester David (Jul 5, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> That doesn't prove your point in any way. You're acting like that's the only reason ever one would have for not importing a save. Incredibly disingenuous.



It's not disingenuous. It just contradicts your argument. 

Again:
* Two million more copies sold than ME2 and three million more than ME1
* 60% did not have the import achievement. Not chose not to import for a game, but did not have it on their account. 
* Half the players of ME2 did not finish the game. 

The majority of players of ME3 were casual players who did not import and had none of the choices they had made in previous games—for the minority that even played said games—had any impact on the story. 
And of the 40% who did import, and presumably did finish the game, not every one was unhappy with the ending. Even if the majority of those fans *did* hate the ending, that's still something like 21-30% of the audience. A small fraction.

I've talked to a few ME3 players. Most were just fine with the ending. Others were more cranky that the original motivation for the Reapers was changed, but that would have mostly just changed the dialogue choices on the Citadel and not impacted the cut scenes. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Actually, yeah, that's exactly what it means. It means everything you did, connected by the world-building that had gone on in the series, was instantly vaporized, with no choice in the matter regardless of the color you chose at the end.



Which would be terrible as not everyone wants to do all the side quests and get to 100% to unlock the ending.

And the DLC fixed that very nicely with the montage of the consequences of all your choices. Because that's all that was needed. 



Gladius Legis said:


> And that's all it was, a color choice.



Watch again. There's a BUNCH of small, subtle  changes dependant on your readiness rating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqGLDXbG90Y
The "nothing but colour" was a reactionary argument made by fans who hadn't actually seen any of the other endings. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Why would it be? People disenchanted with SC 2013 just wanted a functional city simulator without the always-online garbage and microtransactions. So they logged onto Steam to get it. Simple explanation that you discarded because it didn't fit your pro-EA narrative.



The problem with SimCity wasn't that it was always on. It was connectivity problems with the server, which occurred at launch and were then solved. Had the server worked at launch and not disconnected people NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED. Because it was 2013 and people didn't even go offline to use the washroom. 



Gladius Legis said:


> NOPE.
> 
> SimCity: 2 million https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-24-simcity-sold-over-2-million-copies
> 
> Cities: Skylines: 5 million http://www.vgchartz.com/article/272904/cities-skylines-tops-5-million-units-sold-on-pc/



So... you're quoting the sales numbers of SimCity from four months after its release and comparing them to sakes from City: Skylines from three years after its release. 

You don't maybe think that SimCity could have moved a few copies in the intervening five years?


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 5, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It's not disingenuous. It just contradicts your argument.
> 
> Again:
> * Two million more copies sold than ME2 and three million more than ME1
> ...



* Those links you cited didn't include the percentage of people who _finished ME3_, and thus would've even got to see the ending in the first place.
* Those few millions who played ME3 as their first ME game are kind of irrelevant as far as their opinions on its ending are concerned, if any number of them even finished it at all. It's like watching Return of the Jedi and suddenly having an opinion on Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.



> I've talked to a few ME3 players. Most were just fine with the ending. Others were more cranky that the original motivation for the Reapers was changed, but that would have mostly just changed the dialogue choices on the Citadel and not impacted the cut scenes.



Your anecdotal evidence vs. mine. Every single ME3 player who finished all 3 games that I've talked to hate the ending.




> Which would be terrible as not everyone wants to do all the side quests and get to 100% to unlock the ending.



And if those quests weren't finished, then the ending you get could ignore it fine. But if they were finished, they needed to be recognized. The original ending failed to do that.



> And the DLC fixed that very nicely with the montage of the consequences of all your choices. Because that's all that was needed.



It was an improvement, but it still didn't erase the intense dissatisfaction from having all 3 colors = kill and destroy everything.



> The "nothing but colour" was a reactionary argument made by fans who hadn't actually seen any of the other endings.



No, it wasn't. It was confirmed to be nothing but color when players who got this ending or that ending came together and discussed it and found out they were all the same stupid thing.



> The problem with SimCity wasn't that it was always on. It was connectivity problems with the server, which occurred at launch and were then solved. Had the server worked at launch and not disconnected people NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED. Because it was 2013 and people didn't even go offline to use the washroom.



People wouldn't have cared? Really? So why is the PS4 kicking the Xbone's butt this console generation, then? Always-online was a MAJOR turn-off to would-be Xbone buyers.

Contrary to what you believe, many gamers still play single-player games offline. To not even have the OPTION of an offline mode ON A SINGLE-PLAYER GAME was stupid on EA's part. And then a few months later you had a few intrepid gamers debunk EA's lie that the game needed to be online by design.



> You don't maybe think that SimCity could have moved a few copies in the intervening five years?



Considering the vast majority of a game's sales do take place in the first few months, especially one from a AAA company (which EA is and Paradox isn't), no, I don't think so.


----------



## Janx (Jul 6, 2018)

Well, my wife loves the smurf out of BioWare and plays the stuffing out of all the Dragon Age and Mass Effect games.  All of them.

She probably won't touch Anthem if it is online only, as she prefers single player.

So. 

Maybe watch your tongue and speak with some consideration that other people like things you do not.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jul 6, 2018)

Why the hell is everyone talking about the ending of that awesome co-op multiplayer horde game Mass Effect 3?  That game didn't have an ending.  The closest it got to an end was soloing platinum tier Reapers with a Carnifex, man.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 6, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> It wasn't a "small segment." It was the vast majority of Mass Effect fans.



You are definitely mistaken there, unless your definition of 'Mass Effect fan' happens to be 'everyone who disliked Mass Effect 3'.


Gladius Legis said:


> Those are multiplayer games. EA has made online mandatory even for _single-player_ games (see the SimCity debacle, for example).



You mean like Blizzard? How dare those EA dudes follow Blizzard's example!


Gladius Legis said:


> On the other hand, if Anthem fails, and Battlefield 5 fails, and whatever other microtransaction-riddled projects fail ...



Whether you like it or not, micro-transactions are here to stay. They help ensure that the video game company makes a profit, allowing them to produce more games in the future. It's literally a small price to pay 


Gladius Legis said:


> Guarantee you you're wrong. Absolutely no one in real life who I know played ME3 had anything kind to say about the ending. And they're not the type who troll forums.



Wow, a personal anecdote serving as proof - I'm impressed!
Or, I would be, if I weren't able to counter that with a personal anecdote myself: A buddy of mine who is a big Mass Effect fan (who even managed to convince me to buy the game myself) felt that ME3 wasn't as strong as the previous two, but still definitely worth playing.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Jul 6, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> You are definitely mistaken there, unless your definition of 'Mass Effect fan' happens to be 'everyone who disliked Mass Effect 3'.



Nope. I am right.




> You mean like Blizzard? How dare those EA dudes follow Blizzard's example!



Did you miss the SINGLE-PLAYER part in your feeble attempt to be condescending? Of course you did.




> Whether you like it or not, micro-transactions are here to stay. They help ensure that the video game company makes a profit, allowing them to produce more games in the future. It's literally a small price to pay



You seem proud to be part of the problem with AAA video gaming today.




> Wow, a personal anecdote serving as proof - I'm impressed!
> Or, I would be, if I weren't able to counter that with a personal anecdote myself: A buddy of mine who is a big Mass Effect fan (who even managed to convince me to buy the game myself) felt that ME3 wasn't as strong as the previous two, but still definitely worth playing.



And he is wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2018)

Folks,

This discussion is getting heated.  Please back it down a couple of notches.

.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 6, 2018)

Why not just lock it...I mean we all get it EA bad evil juju....


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jul 6, 2018)

I don't know Anthem from Pac-Man, but _Fail Hard_ sounds like a great name for a comedic first-person shooter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2018)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> ..._Fail Hard_ sounds like a great name for a comedic first-person shooter.




I can almost see a John McClane-type action hero trying to take down a skyscraper full of terrorists...Wyle E. Coyote style.  Each failure getting depicted in full cartoonish glory.

For instance, the classic crashing through the window scene?  Miss the right window, get splatted, then slide to the ground, and become a human accordion.


----------



## Eltab (Jul 8, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can almost see a John McClane-type action hero trying to take down a skyscraper full of terrorists.



New movie _Skyscraper_ coming to theaters soon, looks like The Rock is going to save his in-film family (who are atop _The Towering Inferno_) while the city police and fire departments try to get him to go stand back behind the barricades.
No Wile E. Coyote angle in this one, though.  Maybe the next Classic Movie Clone to hit theaters...


----------



## Eltab (Jul 8, 2018)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I don't know Anthem from Pac-Man, but _Fail Hard_ sounds like a great name for a comedic first-person shooter.




Can we design one of the "targets" to look an awful lot like the guy who wrote the first-person-shooter set in a school?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2018)

Eltab said:


> New movie _Skyscraper_ coming to theaters soon, looks like The Rock is going to save his in-film family (who are atop _The Towering Inferno_) while the city police and fire departments try to get him to go stand back behind the barricades.
> No Wile E. Coyote angle in this one, though.  Maybe the next Classic Movie Clone to hit theaters...




Yeah, I saw the ad for that earlier today.

Hey, I wonder if there’s a plane crash involved?  Or a capsized cruise ship?


----------



## Jester David (Jul 8, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can almost see a John McClane-type action hero trying to take down a skyscraper full of terrorists...Wyle E. Coyote style.  Each failure getting depicted in full cartoonish glory.
> 
> For instance, the classic crashing through the window scene?  Miss the right window, get splatted, then slide to the ground, and become a human accordion.




That could be a fun game. No reloading and autosaving. Not no matter how bad you mess up, you don't die and reload, but something painful (or cartroony) happens and you continue to see how bad the final product looks like. Where it's not about success, but how far you make it and the ride. 
Like _FTL_ but a first person shooter.


----------



## Eltab (Jul 9, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hey, I wonder if there’s a plane crash involved?  Or a capsized cruise ship?



I can't imagine Wile E Coyote successfully flying - let alone landing - an airplane.  
In the event of a capsized (but not _yet_ sinking) ship, he would probably let the water in to the critical compartment of air...


----------



## pogre (Jul 9, 2018)

I don't know anything about this game, but judging by how addicted my buddies are to Madden I cannot imagine one tanked game killing the company. I mean I got buddies that regularly drop a couple hundred bucks on a weekend on Madden. I don't get it, but they don't get my hobbies either!


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 9, 2018)

Gladius Legis said:


> Nope. I am right.



No, you aren't. (This is starting to remind me of kindergarten...)


Gladius Legis said:


> Did you miss the SINGLE-PLAYER part in your feeble attempt to be condescending? Of course you did.



And of course you missed that all Blizzard games that were released in the last decade require you to be online, regardless whether you're playing solo or not.


Gladius Legis said:


> You seem proud to be part of the problem with AAA video gaming today.



I'm just being realistic. I dislike micro-transactions as much as you do.


Gladius Legis said:


> And he is wrong.



You cannot be wrong in liking or disliking something. It's simply a matter of taste and personal preferences.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> No, you aren't. (This is starting to remind me of kindergarten...)




It may be time to disengage.  Don't get into this:


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 10, 2018)

Umbran said:


> It may be time to disengage.  Don't get into this:



The cartoon that saved my sanity.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2018)

See, from my perspective, Bioware hasn't really done anything to lose my good will. 

Mass Effect is my favorite game franchise, after Civilization, of course. For %95-97 of its length, ME# is the best game in the series. Most refined mechanics, best character moments - thanks, obviously to two prior games worth of build-up.  

Dragon Age 2 is a well-written written RPG with great characters, making it a pretty great game despite the criminal reuse of assets (thanks to its too-short dev cycle). 

As for Anthem, part of me is sad to see Bioware trying something new -- or not-so-new, as it sure looks like a Destiny clone. I'd prefer if they'd to stick to their strengths. Bioware makes terrific Bioware-style RPGs;  charming, frequently violent dating-and-friendship simulators full of wonderful character moments where you also obligatorily save the world/galaxy (because of course you do this is a high-budget video game). 

Games where the best combat loot is more dialogue & cut scenes with your space/castle friends. I kinda wonder why EA didn't pressure Bioware to make a single-player RPG where all the best dialogue and relationship advances are hidden in loot boxes? 

But... whatever. Time marches on. Bioware's making a persistent-world shooter. I like their work, so I'm in. Besides, I have to admit Destiny is fun, even when played filthy casual almost entirely solo-style like I did.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 16, 2018)

While I don't share his fervor, I will admit that I partially agree with Gladius's original point.

EA has long been known for "slash and burn" practices when purchasing game studios and IP.  I believe that business model is generally a Bad Thing.  It's bad for devoted fans, who get increasingly inconsistent products.  It's bad for innovative creators that have to see their content degrade as it's pulled out of their hands.  And it's really bad for people in the gaming industry, as it leads to extremely high stress work environments where people have no feeling of job security whatsoever.

However, EA has had a number of failures with this model in the last few years.  The SimCity and SW Battlegrounds debacles that people have noted here are some of the most visible examples.  Also, my understanding is that their number of acquisitions is generally down, with a focus on fewer high-value targets.  Combining these things, it is likely that their slash-and-burn model is losing steam at the corporate level.  It's possible that failing to meet target ROI numbers for Anthem would be the tipping point that gets them to halt this practice (or at least slow it down further).

The unfortunate part where I disagree with the OP is that I don't think that this will end EA's trend towards micro-transactions.  If anything, it will solidify it.  EA's profit has been steadily increasing over the last few years, with micro-transactions (and other "bonus content") accounting for a huge percent of that money.  If EA ends their slash-and-burn program, its simply because their corporate level wants to focus on "gaming as a subscription service" rather than "growth though acquisition".


----------



## Gladius Legis (Feb 23, 2019)

So, yes, necroed this thread to gloat over the fact that Anthem is indeed confirmed to be mediocre or worse. 

Metacritic: 60 on critics' reviews. And 4.0/10 on user score.

You're welcome, all.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 23, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> So, yes, necroed this thread to gloat over the fact that Anthem is indeed confirmed to be mediocre or worse.
> 
> Metacritic: 60 on critics' reviews. And 4.0/10 on user score.
> 
> You're welcome, all.




Please.... as if Metacritic user scores mean _*ANYTHING*_ in instances like this.

307 negative reviews and I'd bet dollars to donuts that 95% of those are by people like you who did not play the game and have no interest in the game and are entirely motivated by the delusion that if they attack _Anthem _it will cause EA to rethink it's behaviour. The _hilariously_ false idea that EA will suddenly change how it operates because they have to close another studio. 
Or because the game isn't exactly what _they _want and that automatically makes it a bad game. The standard wrongbadfun B.S. we don't need.

Seriously. There are over 200 reviews of 2 or lower, and all posted in LESS than 48-hours of release. Yeah... they didn't actually play the game. They're not actually reviewing the game, they're reviewing the idea of the game. 

The hate over _Anthem_ is ridiculous. I'd never seen anyone say anything remotely positive about _Destiny 2_. Every news article was about how it was failing or not as good as the first or hemorrhaging players. And then _Anthem_'s release neared and everyone suddenly started tripping over themselves to praise _Destiny 2_ and talk about how we didn't need another game like it on the market. Because apparently there's no room for more than one "loot shooter" game. 
Meanwhile, _Apex Legends_ dropped and despite there being a half-dozen other online team battlefield games, everyone jumped on that bandwagon. 

Stuff like this isn't bringing down EA. It's bringing down Metacritic. It's making reviews aggregates less useful and reliable a platform. It isn't helping anyone. 
Plus, EA cares about sales, not Metacritic. 
So, realistically, how is _Anthem_ doing? Well, it's #14 and #16 in Amazon's XBox chart and #4 and #14 on the PS4 chart (with #1 in both not being a real game), and the #1 on the PC game chart. 
Meanwhile, on Twitch, 22k viewers are watching people Stream the game, making it currently the #16 game. _Anthem_ is doing fine. It's doing very, very well. 

Also... the aforementioned _Apex Legends_ is also an EA game. It's currently the #3 game on Twitch. And that's also published by EA and is 110% about the Loot Crates. So even in the highly unlikely situation where _Anthem_ nosedives in popularity and sales in the next week, and EA burns BioWare to the ground, EA is still going to walkout of Q1 2019 with bags and bags of money. And the lesson they'd take away is PvP shooters rather than PvE and _more_ Loot Crates (as _Anthem_ didn't have any). 

If we do lose BioWare because of so-called "fans" like you who don't really care about the games and just care about some petty vendetta against a publisher, it won't hurt EA. It will mean the loss of hundreds of jobs here in my hometown and the end of the DragonAge franchise before the forthcoming DA4 can drop.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Feb 24, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Seriously. There are over 200 reviews of 2 or lower, and all posted in LESS than 48-hours of release. Yeah... they didn't actually play the game. They're not actually reviewing the game, they're reviewing the idea of the game.



a) The game had early access. So many of those gamers already played the game well before the "official" release date.

b) Funny how in your rant you never mentioned ONCE the professional critics who are also dealing Anthem bad or mixed reviews. Or the scores of leading YouTube reviewers giving Anthem bad reviews. You're clearly coming into this with some bias to ignore those.



> So, realistically, how is _Anthem_ doing? Well, it's #14 and #16 in Amazon's XBox chart and #4 and #14 on the PS4 chart (with #1 in both not being a real game), and the #1 on the PC game chart.
> Meanwhile, on Twitch, 22k viewers are watching people Stream the game, making it currently the #16 game. _Anthem_ is doing fine. It's doing very, very well.



So, the mid-teens on a new AAA release = "doing very, very well"?

Clearly your definition of the phrase differs from mine.



> If we do lose BioWare because of so-called "fans" like you who don't really care about the games and just care about some petty vendetta against a publisher, it won't hurt EA. It will mean the loss of hundreds of jobs here in my hometown and the end of the DragonAge franchise before the forthcoming DA4 can drop.



Yes, it's a shame what EA has done to BioWare. Best pull the plug while BioWare's name has any dignity left.

As for Dragon Age, the series with only one good game, ever, that being the first one? Meh, I'm not exactly heartbroken over that possibility.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 24, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> a) The game had early access. So many of those gamers already played the game well before the "official" release date.



Oh my gosh! You mean a public stress test beta of an online game might have been shaky?! 
Oh my word. I must clutch my pearls for now I have the vapors. 



Gladius Legis said:


> b) Funny how in your rant you never mentioned ONCE the professional critics who are also dealing Anthem bad or mixed reviews.



It's a 60 on Metacritic. It's overwhelmingly "mixed" but far, far from the terrible you are claiming. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Or the scores of leading YouTube reviewers giving Anthem bad reviews. You're clearly coming into this with some bias to ignore those.



Funny how in your rant you never ONCE mention the scores of YouTube reviewers giving _Anthem_ good reviews. You're clearing coming into this with some bias to ignore those. 



Gladius Legis said:


> So, the mid-teens on a new AAA release = "doing very, very well"?
> 
> Clearly your definition of the phrase differs from mine.



It's #11 right now. It's position will wax and wane during days. 
But the Top 5 tend to be a fairly firm lock of Overwatch and Fortnight. With PUB and Black Ops. Anthem was never going to crack that. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Yes, it's a shame what EA has done to BioWare. Best pull the plug while BioWare's name has any dignity left.
> 
> As for Dragon Age, the series with only one good game, ever, that being the first one? Meh, I'm not exactly heartbroken over that possibility.



So because _*YOU*_ don't like _Anthem_, _Dragon Age_, and studio anymore 800 people have to lose their jobs, likely having to relocate themselves and their families to new cities to find work in their chosen career, and everyone who is attached to the game has to lose something they enjoy.

Get.
Over. 
Yourself. 

No one is making you play the game. It doesn't impact you life one iota if you hate it. There are lots of other games on the market, both new and classic. More games than any one person could ever play. I'm willing to bet you have a half-dozen excellent games in your Steam queue that you haven't even bothered installing let alone 100%ing. 
If you don't like _Anthem_ then don't play it. 
Find something you do like and leave it alone for the people who do. Move on with your life and stop dwelling on the one game you hate. Grow the  up.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 24, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> As for Dragon Age, the series with only one good game, ever, that being the first one? Meh, I'm not exactly heartbroken over that possibility.



My take is Dragon Age has two good games and one great one. In the great one you can watch your frenemy blow up the Pope, steal the Qu’ran, then flee across the ocean with your pirate ex-girlfriend and demonologist current girlfriend. Really, the game has it all, except enough location assets.

I’m going to hold off on Anthem for now. It sounds like it’s in rough shape, with some quality-of-life issues that really need sorting. But the reviews I read/watched mainly agree there’s the core of a good game there. Given how invested BioWare is in the project, I have some hope they’ll set it right.

Though why they didn’t just push the release date is beyond me. They already missed the 2018 holiday season.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 24, 2019)

The OP's attitude is a bit of a trigger for me...
In part because it's so spectacularly unoriginal. 

The hate for _Anthem_ is an amazing example of the Internet Hivemind. Groupthink intersecting with a self-fulfilling prophecy. 
Everyone was hating on _Anthem_ from the announcement trailer. And in the weeks before the open demo/ public beta stress test. And, unsurprisingly, during the stress test. And now, shocker of shockers, at release. It was "cool" to hate _Anthem_ because it was "cool" to hate EA and to want to see BioWare fail.

Why? 
Several reasons. 

First is the elephant in the room. The small overly vocal minority that didn't like the ending of _Mass Effect 3_. Despite only 42% of players actually having finished the game. 58% of gamers never saw that ending except in YouTube videos. Even if three-quarters of the people who beat the game hated the ending (and it was probably less than that), that's still only 30% of the people who bought the game. But it was probably far less. 
Vocal minority. 

Then there's _Andromeda_. Despite being BioWare in name only. It wasn't good, so people came down hard on the studio. 

There's also the GamerGate factor BioWare has strong female characters and a high percentage of queer characters. And rejects the idea that all female characters in the game need to be there as sexual objects of affection for male players. There's a lot of hate aimed at BioWare for that. Because hating that's what incels do. 

It suddenly because cool to hate BioWare and want to see it fall. Because people like that. They like to watch things crumble. People fail. As someone once said:


> The one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying. In spite of everything you've done for them, eventually, they will hate you.



Because BioWare was so popular, so beloved, people want to see it fall now. 


The response to _Anthem_ is just a whole bunch of unoriginal followers tripping over themselves to repeat what they heard online and echo someone else's opinion. 

I bought the game mostly as a reaction to the sheep-like response to the game. To make-up my own mind. 
I'm only a couple hours into _Anthem_ and so far it's okay. Not a masterpiece, but it's fun. I'm enjoying it. It's a solid B-. A 65% at worst. It's enough fun that I want to keep playing.

But the worst part is that it's so self defeating. Stupidly self defeating.
So much hate is aimed at EA and the big AAA studios for only doing sequels, forced multiplayer, PvP and no story, and loot boxes. But _Anthem_ is new IP, has largely optional multiplayer, is PvE only with a decent story, and there's no loot boxes. Heck, there's barely any microtransactions, and you it's cosmetic vs P2W and you can grind to get it with in-game currency. Meanwhile, the P2W loot box heavy PvP _Apex Legends_ doesn't get a blip from the same haters despite being everything they hate, less original, and in a more crowded game genre.

If _Anthem_ fails... what the holy eff kinds of games do you think they're going to make?!?


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 24, 2019)

Jester David said:


> The OP's attitude is a bit of a trigger for me...
> In part because it's so spectacularly unoriginal.
> 
> The hate for _Anthem_ is an amazing example of the Internet Hivemind. Groupthink intersecting with a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> ...




It's kewl to hate on EA because they are cancer and bad for the gaming business. They tend to buy smaller developers and kill them and their franchises. 

 Note EA used to be my favorite developer/publisher. This is back in the 16 bit days with Centurion, General Chaos, Desert and Jungle Strike, Fifa (the first one).

 Same thing with Bioware before the EA buyout. ME4 or even C&C4 are prime examples of them butchering franchises. Didn't care what content they but in their games as long as the game was good. EA share price is down AAA title really needs to crack top 5 or top 10 for a bit. 


 Might be kewl to hate EA chuck in Activision as well. Even Bethesda has crapped the bed with Fallout 76.


----------



## ccs (Feb 24, 2019)

Well Gladius, this is your last chance to pay me not to buy this game...


----------



## Mookus (Feb 24, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> So, yes, necroed this thread to gloat over the fact that Anthem is indeed confirmed to be mediocre or worse.
> 
> You're welcome, all.




I admittedly only skimmed a chunk of the middle of this conversation, but where between here and the OP did the goalposts change from "Anthem should fail because it is a tool of the devil" to "Anthem should fail because it's a mediocre game"?

Speaking only for myself, it's a bit buggy (shocker, a new release with obvious bugs?! But that's another discussion entirely) but quite a bit of fun (though I did just finish re-reading "Starship Troopers," so it's possible I'm just digging power armor these days). It's a nice change of pace from traditional multiplayer TDM/DM (still using CoD:BO for this) and battle royale (yep, Apex Legends). I was using the "Zombies" mode of CoD to scratch that cooperative PvE itch, but there's a lot to be said for giant robots fighting monsters.

Non-cosmetic paid-for loot is, indeed, an awful thing in my view... so I don't pay for loot. If that puts me at too much of a disadvantage while playing a game (subjective of course), then I move on to a different one.

Atm, my only Anthem gripe is that I haven't really put all that many hours in, but I've already hit two quests that were borked to the point of being undoable.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 24, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's kewl to hate on EA because they are cancer and bad for the gaming business. They tend to buy smaller developers and kill them and their franchises.



Yeah. They're bad. I don't think anyone _likes_ EA. Liking EA isn't on the table. 

But if someone hates EA shouldn't the hope be "man, I hope BioWare manages to strike a deal to buy itself out" or "I hope some key management changes and they go more hands-off on studios" rather than "I hope _Anthem_ does poorly so EA can close that studio as well"?

And, again, if someone was saying "I'm not buying _Anthem_ because I refuse to support EA or any of its games" then that's a stand I can respect. But that's not the stance being presented. 



Zardnaar said:


> Same thing with Bioware before the EA buyout. ME4 or even C&C4 are prime examples of them butchering franchises. Didn't care what content they but in their games as long as the game was good.



_ME:A_ was an entirely different studio, bought and then renamed "BioWare East" because it was going to work on a BW related IP. It wasn't *really* BioWare. 

_Command & Conquer_ is in a sad little place. There isn't really a studio that makes those games anymore, so EA is foisting it on untested small studios they're setting up or buying. Having them start with a small mobile game makes sense: quickly money while cutting the development team's teeth and getting everyone settled in. And you end up with a bunch of art assets and a base game to start building upon. 



Zardnaar said:


> EA share price is down AAA title really needs to crack top 5 or top 10 for a bit.



Kinda. Their stock has dropped pretty hard in the last eight or nine months (since late July 2018), but just started creeping back up (turning around in February). But even at its lowest, stock was still higher than it was in pretty much all of 2015 and 2016 (pretty much any time before August 2016 really). 
But they still have a looooong way to go before the company starts going into freefall mode.

As far as "cracking the top 10" goes, _Apex Legends_ is still doing amazing on Twitch. And as a Free 2 Play but Pay 2 Win game driven by loot boxes, it's probably making money hand over fist. They also have _FIFA 19_ going strong. Because having a rookie studio jump right into a AAA game doesn't end well. (Look at _Mass Effect: Andromeda_.)

Speaking of _ME:A_, that was released March 21st, 2017. And the company's stocks jumped pretty high following that. They had some big growth in April and May despite _Andromeda_ becoming a punchline. And _Anthem_ is nowhere near as bad as that: it should have very little impact on EA's stock. 



Zardnaar said:


> Might be kewl to hate EA chuck in Activision as well.



Sure. Not a fan of Actavision either. Happy Bungie got out. 
But, again, this thread isn't really about hoping EA fails (or changes its ways). It's about salivating at the thought of _Anthem_ failing so the OP can spring out and cry "I told you so!" with a herd of other sheep who are masturbating furiously over the thought of watching BioWare close. 



Zardnaar said:


> Even Bethesda has crapped the bed with Fallout 76.



Eh... Every studio does a so-so game eventually. Especially large that tend to split into two or three teams so they can work on multiple different games. _Fallout 76_ was likely foisted onto a newer project team to give them some practice before they moved onto _Fallout 5_ or the next _Elder Scrolls_ team, or a brand new project altogether.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 25, 2019)

I want all games to be good, and I hope games that are good (-or that I consider to be good) are rewarded with good sales.

Bioware has a history of amazing games, so I have no bias against them. I really enjoyed many of their products. Baldursgate 1 and 2, Dragon Age 1 and 3,  Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 were all great games (except for Mass Effect 3's ending, and I didn't play Mass Effect Andromeda, because it got terrible reviews). 

Bioware seems to excel especially in regards to story-driven singleplayer games. But Anthem does not resemble any of those games in any way, shape or form. What I saw of Anthem did not excite me. Plus I feel the dark shadow of '_live-services_', '_cosmetics_', '_lootboxes_', '_grind_' and '_EA_' hanging all over this. Plus the artstyle seems very generic, and resembles Destiny 1, which also looked generic.

Then after watching some reviews, I became even less interested. I heard criticism that seemed all too familiar: '_grind_', '_no endgame_', '_poor reward system_', '_long loading times_', '_repetitive and boring quest design_', '_recycled enemies_'... These are exactly the things that make me not want to play anything labeled a 'live service'.

I want Anthem to be good, as I wish all games are. But I don't want to wait several years of patches for it. It is either a good game right out of the box, or I don't buy it (I'm looking at you Fall Out 76). And any game that locks most of their interesting content behind a paywall with the excuse that '_it's just cosmetic_' can sod right off.


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 25, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> I want Anthem to be good, as I wish all games are. But I don't want to wait several years of patches for it. It is either a good game right out of the box, or I don't buy it (I'm looking at you Fall Out 76).




What was the last game you bought that didn't require polishing? I picked up FO76 pre ordered and despite it's starting issues, it's gotten loads better and the road map for the year ahead looks awesome https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/article/7Lw6jVvhjzSNzuUMmKZgwn/fallout-76-100-days-roadmap-for-2019

EDIT: Hell, FO4 still HAS problems that haven't and more than likely won't be fixed

EDIT II: 







Jester David said:


> _Command & Conquer_ is in a sad little place. There isn't really a studio that makes those games anymore, so EA is foisting it on untested small studios they're setting up or buying. Having them start with a small mobile game makes sense: quickly money while cutting the development team's teeth and getting everyone settled in. And you end up with a bunch of art assets and a base game to start building upon.
> .




C&C is coming back https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/14/18095301/command-conquer-remastered-red-alert-ea-petroglyph


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 25, 2019)

If anyone wants to actually track how Anthem is doing, I think the best tool to use is this page: https://www.ea.com/games/anthem/acts

If it gets expanded, in means Anthem is doing well.  If it shrinks, it means Anthem is failing.  If it stays roughly the same, it means two more years of arguing about whether Anthem is succeeding or failing.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 25, 2019)

Is anyone here playing Anthem now? Of course since I posted on Saturday that I'd hold off, I'm tempted to download it tonight after work. Bioware apparently still has a hold over me, despite their making a Destiny clone with Anthem and trying to graft open-world onto their time-tested formula with DA:I and ME:A.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 26, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> What was the last game you bought that didn't require polishing? I picked up FO76 pre ordered and despite it's starting issues, it's gotten loads better and the road map for the year ahead looks awesome https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/article/7Lw6jVvhjzSNzuUMmKZgwn/fallout-76-100-days-roadmap-for-2019




The last two games I bought were the Resident Evil 2 remake and Spyro the Dragon Reignited, both which were great games right out of the box. Before that, I bought Dead Cells, Bloodstained Curse of the Moon, Mother Russia Bleeds and Axiom Verge. A bunch of Indy games which were all great, and content complete. Fall Out 4 also was a great game upon release. Buggy perhaps, as all Bethesda products are, but fun. 

There wasn't any content missing in any of these games. When a publisher releases a game that is supposed to be a live service, it should have all the content in it upon launch, just like any game. There should be enough missions, quests and variety to keep me playing for at least 8 hours. It shouldn't be released as an incomplete product, where the main gameplay is broken, ai is non-existent, and most of the content that they advertised with has mysteriously vanished... only to probably reappear behind a paywall in a month or so.

When I started playing the original Guild Wars, it was a fantastic game right from the start. There were plenty of missions, quests, items and even endgame content, though sparse. They then added more and more to it over time, but it didn't need those additions to be a fun game. No game releases entirely without bugs, but that is not what I'm talking about here. We need to stop accepting incomplete products, and we need to stop accepting games that are taken apart, only to resell the missing pieces to us at a later date. It is pure consumer exploitation.

When game publishers first started throwing the term "live service" around, it had a positive meaning. It meant that they would keep updating the game with new content, and thus prolong its lifespan. But the meaning has changed, and it should now serve as a warning for an incomplete game, full of grind, daily/weekly/monthly challenges (I seriously hate those), missing rewards and paywall-locked content. Because that's what it means now.



Deset Gled said:


> If anyone wants to actually track how Anthem is doing, I think the best tool to use is this page: https://www.ea.com/games/anthem/acts
> 
> If it gets expanded, in means Anthem is doing well.  If it shrinks, it means Anthem is failing.  If it stays roughly the same, it means two more years of arguing about whether Anthem is succeeding or failing.





*No, here is your accurate tracker for how Anthem is doing:* Anthem is selling worse than Mass Effect Andromeda, which was a commercial success. But despite Mass Effect Andromeda being a commercial success, it didn't make enough money (or not as much as EA wanted) and EA still killed off the studio that made it: Bioware Montreal. They closed a studio down for it. So what do you think they are going to do to a studio that made a game that sells even worse? I'm calling it now, EA will shut down Bioware completely over this. It is done. EA doesn't have any sentimental attachment to Bioware like we gamers seem to have. They are a Tarrasque; devouring and destroying everything in its path in a desire for more dollars. They don't care how good the artists and writers are at Bioware, or how good Dragon Age and Mass Effect were. They will close them down if Anthem isn't the critical success that they want it to be during its first month.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 26, 2019)

I am often surprised by how often and to what severity those of us who purchase video games allow ourselves to be abused by the industry.  Games should be complete upon release.  It's one thing if minor patches are needed or there are plans for updates in the future but the product I just spent $60 on should be a complete and playable game.  Some games are deliberately designed to be grindy until you spend cash for micro transactions to make that problem go away.  A problem that was deliberately introduced into the game in order to incentivize monetary purchases.  

Stop pre-ordering games and stop purchasing loot boxes or spending money on micro transactions just for a little while.  Maybe one or two months.  See how the big game companies react to that.

Edit:  And the ending to Mass Effect 3 was terrible.  I mean really, really terrible.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 26, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> *No, here is your accurate tracker for how Anthem is doing:* Anthem is selling worse than Mass Effect Andromeda, which was a commercial success. But despite Mass Effect Andromeda being a commercial success, it didn't make enough money (or not as much as EA wanted) and EA still killed off the studio that made it: Bioware Montreal.




Copies sold is an important metric.  However, it's not the only one.  Here is an article about 15 different metrics game companies like EA use: https://gameanalytics.com/blog/metrics-all-game-developers-should-know.html  Here's another article about metrics that less relevant to Anthem, but has a great bit at the beginning about different type of loyalty, and how loyalty is not the same as happiness: https://medium.com/@devtodev/25-key-metrics-that-track-user-loyalty-in-games-db8414c7a6ac

The link I shared in my previous post doesn't measure any of these, but it shows EA's response.  It's the aggregate of all the metrics EA is looking at.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 27, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> Copies sold is an important metric.  However, it's not the only one.




True, but I consider it a pretty bad sign for Bioware. EA is notorious for closing studios that underperform. Anthem was received with mixed reactions, rather than the tidalwave of praise that they were hoping for. It's no Fall Out 76 level of disaster, but I've heard people say that Fall Out 76 actually has more content than Anthem. So, that doesn't sound good.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 27, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Edit:  And the ending to Mass Effect 3 was terrible.  I mean really, really terrible.



And how would you have improved it?


----------



## Jester David (Feb 27, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> *No, here is your accurate tracker for how Anthem is doing:* Anthem is selling worse than Mass Effect Andromeda, which was a commercial success.



It's selling worse than Andromeda... in the UK and only counting physical copies. And, again, this is an example of a self fulfilling prophecy: people were complaining about how terrible Anthem would be from the first trailer (see this thread as an example) and them, surprise surprise, the game came out to poor reviews and low sales. I doubt any game could have combated the negative buzz and desire to see it fail as Anthem received.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 27, 2019)

Jester David said:


> It's selling worse than Andromeda... in the UK and only counting physical copies. And, again, this is an example of a self fulfilling prophecy: people were complaining about how terrible Anthem would be from the first trailer (see this thread as an example) and them, surprise surprise, the game came out to poor reviews and low sales. I doubt any game could have combated the negative buzz and desire to see it fail as Anthem received.




 These companies have to stop pissing off the fanbases its that simple. Wonder if Episode IX can be tanked. The companies involved won't change until they start losing money and/or making good product. There was a time (2002-2010) where Bioware basically did not make a bad game and they can't do that now. Same thing with 4E they made something fans didn't want. 

Do you gamble your core fans for new ones? Might work but what happens if you lose the and fail to get new ones?

 I only give EA around $24 a year via EA access on the Xboxone. That basically gives you delayed access to everything EA makes. At that price its not to bad. I'm not boycotting Anthem as I would not have bought it regardless (I don't play Destiny either).

 Personally I would love it if EA went bankrupt, their assets would be sold off and other studios could get their hand on IPs EA is either sitting on or has messed up. I keep most of my old game here we have KoToR, DA, ME 1,2,3. Some of them I have bought multiple times including the DLC on multiple consoles (KoToR Xbox+ PC, ME 1,2,3, Xbox 360+One).

 Go back a bit further and I still have Megadrive/Genesis cartridges of EA games. 

 There is no passion in the games anymore its just corporate schlock designed for idiots with bullet points research has indicated gamers want (and they don't it seems).


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 27, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> These companies have to stop pissing off the fanbases its that simple. ... The companies involved won't change until they start losing money and/or making good product.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




With fans like you, why would EA ever change?  You pay them money every year, buy some of their games multiple times, and talk up their product on the internet (free publicity and long term brand recognition).  

You might want to read my earlier link about the difference between loyalty and happiness.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 27, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> These companies have to stop pissing off the fanbases its that simple. Wonder if Episode IX can be tanked. The companies involved won't change until they start losing money and/or making good product.



Which is a pretty big oversimplification.

After all, what pisses off the fanbase? Well, women and minorities seems to piss off a pretty vocal group. But excluding women and PoC hasn't exactly made gaming a great place.
Meanwhile, just producing fan-service and the same games again and again will piss off the fans who will quickly complaint that they already bought that game. 
However, making very different games will also piss off the fanbase, who will complain that they're not getting games like ones they already bought. 

In general, gamers want games that are new but not too new, familiar and yet try new things, that look beautiful but don't require them buying new computer hardware, that are large and worth the cost of a new game but not so long that they can't quickly finish it and move onto their next game, and that polished and free of bugs but that don't require updates or patches.

Really, video game fans (like comic and RPG fans) tend to be a bunch of entitled whiners who complain every time a company doesn't read their mind.



Zardnaar said:


> There was a time (2002-2010) where Bioware basically did not make a bad game and they can't do that now. Same thing with 4E they made something fans didn't want.



You're picking a very, very specific time. Which seems deliberate to exclude the game released right before that was merely okay, like _Neverwinter Nights_. And it tends to forget the side games, like _Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood_ and even _Jade Empire_. 

Or something like the first _Mass Effect_, which a lot of people liked but had a HELL of a lot of problems. Really, if it were released now, people would complain just as much about ME1 as they are about _Anthem_ if not more.
I can almost picture it now:
"It's a shooter, not an RPG! BioWare should stick to what they know story based RPGs." 
"It's barely even a shooter, as the aiming includes some BS RPG aspects borking your accuracy."
"The cover-shooter gameplay makes it an unoriginal ripoff of _Gears of War_."
"The characters are boring and mostly walking encyclopedia/ codex entries."
"Companion characters are useless and spend most of their time dying."
"The planet missions are garbage and the driving controls are horrible!"
"The side quests are repetitive and add nothing to the story, with the rachni one clearly being cheap way to reuse an enemy model."
"Too many of the side quests reused the exact same map."
"The morality system is binary and simplistic"
"The lock picking minigame is stupid and unrelated to picking locks. It feels tacked on."
"Where the eff was the tutorial? You're pretty much dumped into the game without explanation."
"The inventory system is horrible and a chore."
"The elevators are slow. Clearly hidden loading screens. Why are load times such an issue, BioWare?"


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 27, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> With fans like you, why would EA ever change?  You pay them money every year, buy some of their games multiple times, and talk up their product on the internet (free publicity and long term brand recognition).
> 
> You might want to read my earlier link about the difference between loyalty and happiness.




 I bought the old Bioware games multiple times before EA acquired them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 27, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Which is a pretty big oversimplification.
> 
> After all, what pisses off the fanbase? Well, women and minorities seems to piss off a pretty vocal group. But excluding women and PoC hasn't exactly made gaming a great place.
> Meanwhile, just producing fan-service and the same games again and again will piss off the fans who will quickly complaint that they already bought that game.
> ...




 And thats why Mass Effect 2 and 3 are regarded as better games mechanically, ME 3 story not so much. And also why ME2 is generally regarded as the best one as well.

 I think for some franchises you do have to cater to the fans to some extent, they are your customers.

 Think Knights of the Old Republic, generally regarded as the best Star Wars game of all time, one of the best RPGs of all time, great story etc. Doesn't hold up so well now graphics wise but its still fun to bust out on occasion, I rebought it on steam so I don't have to dig my old Xbox out in order to play it. 

 My wife she was into Dragon age, I loved ME 1,2, and 3.

 EA can't make a good game anymore it seems, Bioware can't make a good RPG anymore. I mean why is Bioware making shooters when they are good at RPGs? Obviously they are chasing the money but that is not gonna help out if the game sucks and sod all buy it. Fallout 76 is another example its rubbish, so is ME: Andromeda and I basically got it for free (well via EA access).

 Battlefield 1 is OK, along with the other Battlefields, single player Star Wars battlefront II was OK/entertaining if short, and I also played ME 1,2,3 recently. Thing is I got all of that on EA access and its roughly what I value EA now- $24 a year. Once upon a time I paid $90 (in 1994 IIRC) for Jungle Strike a single EA game. EA made a few more dollars off me with ME DLC, but overall I think I have paid them maybe $70 or so over the last 2-3 years. If they made decent stuff that number would be a lot more hell I spent $300 last year on D&D. I would not pay full price for a Battlefront game, all of them + Mass Effect+ the other games (Titanfall 2, Unravel) at $24 is good value even if the great games are the old ones.

 Why would I get nickel and dimed on loot boxes when I can pay for quality games (alot of Paradox Interactive stuff), or I can subscribe to bulk games on Xbox live gold, Xbox gamepass, and EA access for around $120 a year for 200 odd games?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And thats why Mass Effect 2 and 3 are regarded as better games mechanically, ME 3 story not so much. And also why ME2 is generally regarded as the best one as well.
> 
> I think for some franchises you do have to cater to the fans to some extent, they are your customers.
> 
> ...



I do wish you'd stop using "generally regarded" as a stand in for "my opinion."


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 27, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I do wish you'd stop using "generally regarded" as a stand in for "my opinion."




 I was using things like reviews, forums, youtube videos etc. Its like Empire Strikes back is generally regarded as the best SW movie, sure not everyone will agree hence the word generally.

Metacritic
ME 91%
ME 2 94%
ME 3 89%

 Basically
ME2
ME
ME3
ME: Andromeda

 Is how most people would likely rank the ME series. Some people really like ME 3 (and I think its good as well).

 I also do not mind buying DLC either as long as its good, for example Fallout 4 was the pack in game for my Xbox One along with 2 Tomb Raiders and Fallout III, but I bought Far Harbor DLC and loved it, Nuka World was also kinda fun but story was weaker than Far Harbour.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 27, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I bought the old Bioware games multiple times before EA acquired them.




By your own list, that is patently false.  Bioware was acquired by EA in 2007.  Every copy of ME2 and ME3, as well as anything you have ever bought for Xbox One, is all after the EA acquisition.

And you're still paying them a $24/year subscription.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 27, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> By your own list, that is patently false.  Bioware was acquired by EA in 2007.  Every copy of ME2 and ME3, as well as anything you have ever bought for Xbox One, is all after the EA acquisition.
> 
> And you're still paying them a $24/year subscription.




 Didn't realise it was that long ago thought it was around 2010 or so. 

 $24 is a great price for the EA games, if I get multiple 7/10 or 8/10 titles for that price and can run my Mass Effect its a decent value deal for me. I would not buy a new AAA+ EA game at full price. And I would not care if EA went bankrupt, they are offering product at a price I don't mind paying and $24 is a lot cheaper than lot boxes and/or companies that spam DLC. $24 is basically a steak meal with a beer, I don't even notice it. Hell I spent more than that on curry night two days ago.

 Generally if I am disleased with a company I won't boycott it as such but my spending on that company will drop drastically. WoTC after Pathfinder came out and they dropped the ball with 4E and SWSE going out of print, I no longer buy Activision games (used to be a CoD2/MW fan).

 Bethesda dropped the ball with Fallout 76, I'm not buying it but I am not boycotting them either. I am in the market for more Fallout 4 DLC that is of good quality or Fallout 5. I'll go see episode IX, but if its not that good I'll see it once, episode VII I watched 4 times. Some things I am just not in the market for full stop (rap, super hero movies, romantic comedies).


----------



## MGibster (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> And how would you have improved it?




I'd probably work on some endings that didn't ignore all that the player had accomplished in the first three games.  Player options were to destroy all synthetic life, merge synthetic & organic life, or upload their personality into a Reaper and take control.  I don't know about everyone's play through of the games but none of these were tenable choices for me.  

I worked very hard to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians.  There's no reason to destroy all synthetic life.  

I respected the various species and it wasn't my place to force them to merge as if I was some sort of dictator.  

Upload my personality to a Reaper?  When it's been established that they're a corrupting influence on everything they touch?  That sounds like a horrible idea.  That's a hard no.  

ME3 remains the only one in the series I haven't replayed.  The ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I abandoned the franchise and knew I wasn't interested in ME: Andromeda as soon as I hear it announced.  I don't think of myself as a whiny entitled fan but that ending was truly, truly awful.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I'd probably work on some endings that didn't ignore all that the player had accomplished in the first three games.



It did have to stand alone, since something like 60% of people didn't copy a save. 
And it's not like the ending could reflect every choice: there's a finite amount of cutscenes they could animate. Each full motion video would have taken weeks of work.

Plus, the game was defined by two paths. Two choices. Renegade and Paragon. It made sense that the final moment would do the same. Adding a third middle path was almost excessive. 



MGibster said:


> Player options were to destroy all synthetic life, merge synthetic & organic life, or upload their personality into a Reaper and take control. I don't know about everyone's play through of the games but none of these were tenable choices for me.
> 
> I worked very hard to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians. There's no reason to destroy all synthetic life.
> 
> ...



I didn't mind that; I didn't want a mega-happy ending where there was no consequence or hard choice. Because if there was such an easy option, why would anyone take another option? If you could just send out a signal that turned off the Reapers, that'd feel anticlimactic. 

There needed to be a sacrifice: sacrifice yourself, sacrifice the Geth, or sacrifice people's identities. 



MGibster said:


> ME3 remains the only one in the series I haven't replayed. The ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I abandoned the franchise and knew I wasn't interested in ME: Andromeda as soon as I hear it announced. I don't think of myself as a whiny entitled fan but that ending was truly, truly awful.



I was a little disappointed at first, as there was no follow-up showing the result of my actions. But they fixed that with a patch, with the epilogue showing what happened after and the results of your choices during the game. I liked that, seeing the positive and negative consequences of what I did. 
It was all I needed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> It did have to stand alone, since something like 60% of people didn't copy a save.
> And it's not like the ending could reflect every choice: there's a finite amount of cutscenes they could animate. Each full motion video would have taken weeks of work.
> 
> Plus, the game was defined by two paths. Two choices. Renegade and Paragon. It made sense that the final moment would do the same. Adding a third middle path was almost excessive.
> ...




Destroying the reapers should have been an option. Didn't need to be the only end leaving them to purge everything also could have been included. 

 Other games have mutiple endings that are different. EA is one of the biggest game corporations I'm sure they can pay for some decent endings.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Destroying the reapers should have been an option. Didn't need to be the only end leaving them to purge everything also could have been included.  Other games have mutiple endings that are different. EA is one of the biggest game corporations I'm sure they can pay for some decent endings.



Destroying the reapers WAS one of the endings. That was the renegade option, which is literally called the "destroy" ending. And there were three basic ending (destruction, control, synthesis), each of which also had several sub-endings (perfect, good, bad) depending on the player's readiness rating. Which is possible twice as many endings than pretty much any other video game I've played in the last few years. I'd have loved some alternate endings to, say _Arkham Knight_.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Destroying the reapers WAS one of the endings. That was the renegade option, which is literally called the "destroy" ending. And there were three basic ending (destruction, control, synthesis), each of which also had several sub-endings (perfect, good, bad) depending on the player's readiness rating. Which is possible twice as many endings than pretty much any other video game I've played in the last few years. I'd have loved some alternate endings to, say _Arkham Knight_.




Wasn't that one of the added endings? Even with the free dlc the ends were very similar. It was better would not call it great. Still overall good game, still looked good late 2017 when I played through them again although ME1 was rough.

ME2 still the best


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2019)

Well, I think Mass Effect overall story always lost severely in quality in ME2. The whole "Harvesting to make a Reaper" thing was already not the best idea. Turning the "We harvest to preserve all the life we kill so we don't have to kill life" thing in ME3 is more or less just a consequence of a bad idea started in ME2. ME2 however did make great work with the characters and the squad.

ME3 ending probably actualy didn't need 3 (or 4) choices at the end. It just needed to respect the choices we made before and not fail to acknowledge them (Hey, Starbrat, you know I brokered a peace between the Quarian and Geth, so stop blabbering about how that is impossible. We don't need forced Synthesis for that, and we don't need to mind-control anyone or murder them either!)
it's not like ME1 had different endings where in one, Saren lives or Sovereign gets convinced that maybe murdering organics isn't such a great idea. 

What happens to Anderson
- You're really awesome: he survives the conflict with the IM and joins you on the way to the Control Chamber and stays alive for the final decision.
- You manage: He dies in the control chamber before you have to make the final decision.
- You screw up: You have the choice. Sacrifice yourself for Anderson, or lose him. 
- You royally screw up: IM reaches the Control Chamber. 

What happens to the Illusive Man
- You're really awesome: You convince the IM to stop. You can get him to kill himself, or get him to overcome the indoctrination and join you for the Control Chamber.
- You manage: You and Anderson kill the IM before he can do more harm.
- You screw up: He activates the Crucible, sending a Control Signal to the Reapers. It doesn't work, because he's indoctrinated and the Crucible as not really designed for this purpose. But with his dying words, Shepard can get through the indoctrination, and the IM activates the Crucible again. But it wasn't really designed for a second activation, and it blows up, destroying Earth. The IM kills himself because he realizes his attempt of advanding humanity just ruined it.
- You royally screw up: The Illusive Man activates the Control Signal, but it doesn't work. He dies as the Reapers blow up the Crucible and win this cycle. 50,000 years later, Liara's Beacon acttivates and warns of the return of the Reapers.

Final Decision
Activating the Crucible will require a lot of excess energy be channeled somwhere, and the persons in the Control Chamber have the choice. The energy can simply be channeled into the Citadel, or down the Citadel Beam, or a combination. The Crucible itself is mostly protected from the fallout, but the Citadel isn't, and the radiation will also affect the fleets around you, potentially destroying it. 
Whoever actually activates the Crucible however is screwed, he'll die. but he gets to make the final decision. 
- Kill everyone aboard the Citadel and huge parts of the fleets as the energy is radiated into open space. The Citadel will likely be completely destroyed. => TIM's Choice, except for his case things turn worse.
- Kill everyone in a 2,000 Kilometer Radius around London and probably lead to a "nuclear winter" on Earth. The Citadel can be repaired afterwards. => Andersons Default Choice
- Kill everyone in the Control Chamber, everyone in a 500 Kilometer Radius around London, and everyone in the Citadel, as you split the energy up. There is a possiblity the Citadel can be repaired afterwards. 

If anyone is with you, you can choose which of you actually go to the shelter and who sacrifices himself. 

Final Results:
Depending only on your EMS
- You're really awesome: The losses on Earth/Citadel/Fleet are not as bad as feared. 
- You manage: The losses are as expected, the Mass Relays are damaged but salvagable.
- You screw up: The losses are worse than expected, as some Reapers survive and wreak havoc for a while. But they are beaten in the end.
- You royally screw up: Reapers are gone, but so are the Mass Relays and the system they are in. 50,000 years later, Liara's Beacon activates and tell the story of how the Reapers were beaten at the cost of everyone.

Additionally. If the Citadel somehow can be salvaged, it will help the survivors of Earth. Losing the Fleets when Reapers survive will lead to more devastation. Losing the Citadel entirely could make reestablishing the Council Authority harder, as no one can agree where the new seat should be. Unless Earth is devestated, then people agree it should be there, in honor of humanity's sacrifice. The outlook for the future could vary depending on the other chices - Genophage Cured but no Wrex, noo Citadel leads to a weak Council Authority (or perhaps none), and to new Krogan rebellion, which a strong remaining fleet cna contain, a weak fleet won't. Genophage Cured with Wrex culd lead to Wrex offering Krogan help to restore Earth. Stuff like that.


----------



## cbwjm (Feb 28, 2019)

I've literally only just heard about Anthem today. It sounds pretty cool, the only reason I'm not getting It is that I have too many other games or other media to get through.


----------



## Imaculata (Feb 28, 2019)

Mass Effect 3's ending needed to bring it all full circle. Mass Effect 2's suicide mission was a perfect template for this. Everything you've worked towards during the game, gets a pay off at the end. But obviously ME3 needed to do a lot more, which isn't easy because of the issue with saves. The switching of engines between the various games just made continuity a huge problem. A lot of people who played ME2 never played ME1, or were unable to port their saves. ME3 needed to be an epic conclusion that paid off all the big storylines that the previous two games had set up. That was not an impossible task. Just merely paying lipservice to some of the choices would have made the ending a lot better. But instead we got one ending in three different colors. So, lets get that out of the way for a moment, we didn't get 3 different endings. We got 3 near identical endings that had different colors. This was the reason fans were so mad, along with the conclusion of the story being lazily written. ME3 is still a great game, but the ending was a dire disappointment.

Now, I don't mind that Bioware is working on something other than another RPG. Are they condemned to make only RPG's till the end of time? I don't think so, they can make what ever they want... but is Anthem what they truly wanted to make? I fear (and I suspect many others fear this too) that EA is pressuring lots of talented studios to make them live-service cash cows. That is my perception of it anyway. Given enough freedom, I think Bioware could make an amazing multiplayer looter-shooter that delivers the same kind of amazing storytelling that we know from their previous titles... but I don't think they have that freedom any more.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> It did have to stand alone, since something like 60% of people didn't copy a save.




I got the Geth and the Quarians to make peace in the third game.  I got everyone to set aside their differences so we could go after the Reapers in the third game.  The ending to ME3 didn't even reflect the choices I made in ME3.  



> Plus, the game was defined by two paths. Two choices. Renegade and Paragon. It made sense that the final moment would do the same. Adding a third middle path was almost excessive.




My renegade Shepherd would have rejected all three choices because they were all terrible.  




> I didn't mind that; I didn't want a mega-happy ending where there was no consequence or hard choice. Because if there was such an easy option, why would anyone take another option? If you could just send out a signal that turned off the Reapers, that'd feel anticlimactic.




When they revised the ending I picked the one where the Reapers eventually wiped us all out.  It was the preferable ending to the others.  



> There needed to be a sacrifice: sacrifice yourself, sacrifice the Geth, or sacrifice people's identities.




From a narrative point of view a Pyrrhic victory is not satisfactory.  But if you liked it, that's cool.  But the criticisms of ME3s ending are well founded in my opinion.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Wasn't that one of the added endings? Even with the free dlc the ends were very similar. It was better would not call it great. Still overall good game, still looked good late 2017 when I played through them again although ME1 was rough.
> 
> ME2 still the best



Nope. Free DLC just added the “pass” ending, the end montage, and the scene of the Normandy picking up a crew member.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

MGibster said:


> From a narrative point of view a Pyrrhic victory is not satisfactory.



Disagree. 
If there wasn’t a high cost to stop a million year cycle of extensions it would have felt too easy. We didn’t need a shallow Hollywood ending where they turn the Reapers off and everyone has a party.



MGibster said:


> But if you liked it, that's cool.  But the criticisms of ME3s ending are well founded in my opinion.



Which comes access as “I didn’t like it, therefore it’s terrible”. 

You’re allowed to just not like something. 
You don’t have to convince other people it’s bad or prove tha it’s secretly terrible. You can just say you didn’t like it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Disagree.
> If there wasn’t a high cost to stop a million year cycle of extensions it would have felt too easy. We didn’t need a shallow Hollywood ending where they turn the Reapers off and everyone has a party.



Control and Synthesis don't really require any sacrifices, however.
The Destroy sacrifice isn't even that big if you already eradicated the Geth. And even if you didn't -  them, it are just some machines.
The only good part of that sacrifice is that it involved Shepard. Except that is the one that you can actually undo (and only in the Destroy Ending).

The real sacrifice should have been Humanity. Worst Case (aka Suicide Mission where everyone, including Shepard, dies), all of it, best case, significant parts of Earth. There is even a good story reason for it, the super-weapon is in Earth Orbit, and probably the highest concentration of Reaper forces as well. And in any but the worst case ending, humanity can still make it, just severely diminished and struggling - but with the respect of all the Citadel species who know what humanity sacrificed to save all of them. And regardless of whether you take the original endings or this alternate new ending - Earth is bound to be pretty fracked after what happened in ME3. So the restoration of Earth or rebuilding humanity would be a legitimate story in any sequel. But the Green, Blue and Red endings are so different that any attempt to make a successor involving all 3 is bound to fail.


----------



## carolpegram (Feb 28, 2019)

> Copies sold is an important metric.  However, it's not the only one.  Here is an article about 15 different metrics game companies like EA use: https://uk.edubirdie.com/  Here's another article about metrics that less relevant to Anthem, but has a great bit at the beginning about different type of loyalty, and how loyalty is not the same as happiness: https://medium.com/@devtodev/25-key-metrics-that-track-user-loyalty-in-games-db8414c7a6ac
> 
> The link I shared in my previous post doesn't measure any of these, but it shows EA's response.  It's the aggregate of all the metrics EA is looking at.




Thanks for these articles. I loved the first one. It gives pretty interesting insights on game metrics and how companies measure them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 28, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Control and Synthesis don't really require any sacrifices, however.
> The Destroy sacrifice isn't even that big if you already eradicated the Geth. And even if you didn't -  them, it are just some machines.
> The only good part of that sacrifice is that it involved Shepard. Except that is the one that you can actually undo (and only in the Destroy Ending).
> 
> The real sacrifice should have been Humanity. Worst Case (aka Suicide Mission where everyone, including Shepard, dies), all of it, best case, significant parts of Earth. There is even a good story reason for it, the super-weapon is in Earth Orbit, and probably the highest concentration of Reaper forces as well. And in any but the worst case ending, humanity can still make it, just severely diminished and struggling - but with the respect of all the Citadel species who know what humanity sacrificed to save all of them. And regardless of whether you take the original endings or this alternate new ending - Earth is bound to be pretty fracked after what happened in ME3. So the restoration of Earth or rebuilding humanity would be a legitimate story in any sequel. But the Green, Blue and Red endings are so different that any attempt to make a successor involving all 3 is bound to fail.




Its why you make one of them canon if you have a direct sequel. KoToR for example the light side ending is the canon one.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Its why you make one of them canon if you have a direct sequel. KoToR for example the light side ending is the canon one.



If you think the reaction to ME3 was bad... try telling fans that one ending was the “right” one BioWare would have had death threats...


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> If you think the reaction to ME3 was bad... try telling fans that one ending was the “right” one BioWare would have had death threats...




Only if you do a direct sequal. ME4 time jump side steps it but that wasn't ME4s main problem. I tried it for 20 mins or so and gave up.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 1, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Which comes access as “I didn’t like it, therefore it’s terrible”.




It's a little unfair for you to quote one sentence like that.  I have given you some reasons why I thought the end to ME3 was terrible.  My entire participation in this thread cannot be summed up as "I didn't like it, therefore it's terrible."  



> You’re allowed to just not like something.
> You don’t have to convince other people it’s bad or prove tha it’s secretly terrible. You can just say you didn’t like it.




This is a message board.  If I just say, "I didn't like it," there's not a whole lot of messaging to be had.  Oddly enough in one of my first posts in this thread I just said that the ending was terrible with no commentary.  I was invited to further expand upon those thoughts by saying what I'd do to improve the ending.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 1, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Only if you do a direct sequal.



Yes... "direct sequel" was literally what you said in the post I was replying too...


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 1, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Fallout 76 is another example its rubbish




Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the news.....It's gotten a hell of a lot better over the past few patches and the road map that they put out last week....https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/article/7Lw6jVvhjzSNzuUMmKZgwn/fallout-76-100-days-roadmap-for-2019

I just hit level 100 last night on my first and main character, I may go back to the character I was doing the diary but I'm focused on my main for now. I honestly tend to lose myself in playing FO76, I'll start playing and sytop paying attention to the time. I even reuped my xbox live sub to play it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 1, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the news.....It's gotten a hell of a lot better over the past few patches and the road map that they put out last week....https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/article/7Lw6jVvhjzSNzuUMmKZgwn/fallout-76-100-days-roadmap-for-2019
> 
> I just hit level 100 last night on my first and main character, I may go back to the character I was doing the diary but I'm focused on my main for now. I honestly tend to lose myself in playing FO76, I'll start playing and sytop paying attention to the time. I even reuped my xbox live sub to play it.




If I don't like something on release I am not going to wait around long enough to care about it later. I don't really want Fallout as an MMORPG in the 1st place. 

 So I'll sit it out until Fallout 5 or in the unlikely event they release more DLC for FO4. I quite like survival mode in FO4.

 Even if that stuff is any good how much will it cost? Why support a company that releases a half assed game and then charges you money to fix it later down the line? Fallout 4 was decent enough out of the box, Far Harbour was brilliant, Nuka World story was weaker but the crazy OP weapons kinda helped. Even the mechanist DLC was fine for its price.
 I basically just wanted a refinement and better story than what Fallout IV offered. Something like Far Harbour story and NPCs, overhauled settlement and crafting system, less buggy game, and several viable builds for you to figure out. You know the things Fallout IV was not great on (it kinda nailed the exploration and combat pillars).


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 1, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If I don't like something on release I am not going to wait around long enough to care about it later. I don't really want Fallout as an MMORPG in the 1st place.
> 
> So I'll sit it out until Fallout 5 or in the unlikely event they release more DLC for FO4. I quite like survival mode in FO4.
> 
> ...




yeah that just told me you never paid attention and you were turned off when it was reveal that it wasn't what you wanted...since all of the upcoming stuff is Free and from my limited upstanding of FO4's survival mode (which every time I try to play on, the game crashes even with no mods..but it works wonders on any other mode) you still have to stay feed and hydrated and your weapons and armor need to be repaired every so often (I think thats from 3 and NV).  And with a server cap of 24,it's hardly a MMORPG....24 is about the same size as a lobby on Halo's big team battle play list.

The only micro-transactions are the atomic shop which just cosmetic and the atoms can all be earned in game by doing basically anything.

At this point you're coming across as one those FONV fans on reddit who decry it for the fact that it isn't a new NV nor made by Obsidian.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 3, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> The only micro-transactions are the atomic shop which just cosmetic and the atoms can all be earned in game by doing basically anything.




Every time I hear this defense, I groan. 

There is no such thing as 'just cosmetics'. Many RPG's are all about these cosmetics; they are about tweaking your character and making him/her look nice. That makes cosmetics part of the core game content for many RPG's. They are the reward at the end of the road. So to then rip those rewards from the game and lock them behind a pay wall is atrocious. 

And you may make the point that they can be bought with whatever ingame currency the game runs with; Atoms, gems, diamonds, gold, goldbars (honestly, I've seen so many variations of this by now, it baffles me people still defend this predatory tactic), and that these currencies can be earned by simply playing the game. But these games are always designed in such a way to make earning the currency through gameplay a complete grind, in order to give the player incentive to buy the currency for real money instead.




There was a huge fuss about this with Red Dead 2 not so long ago, with items that required ludicrous amounts of currency to buy, to the point where it would take decades for a player to buy the item through just playing the game. It blatantly put the predatory tactic on full display for anyone to see. Heck, we had the same thing with Star Wars Battlefront 2's Darthvader debacle, and EA's silly defense of it. Remember this? 

https://kotaku.com/players-are-trying-to-calculate-how-long-it-takes-to-un-1820373111

This happened not that long ago, have you forgotten already?

_"It's just cosmetics!"_ Pffft, don't make me laugh. You are being exploited! Remember when games were not about exploitation, not so long ago? Where you'd play through Soul Blade's entire Edge Master Mode, or try and get an S-rank on Resident Evil, just to unlock special weapons and alternate costumes? You know, games that rewarded you for achieving something, instead of trying to bait you into spending real money at every turn?


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 3, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Every time I hear this defense, I groan.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'just cosmetics'. Many RPG's are all about these cosmetics; they are about tweaking your character and making him/her look nice. That makes cosmetics part of the core game content for many RPG's. They are the reward at the end of the road. So to then rip those rewards from the game and lock them behind a pay wall is atrocious.
> 
> ...



They are just cosmetics though. Compare it to games where you can actually spend money to gain a mechanical advantage. It's why there was such an outcry over battle front 2, those loot boxes were providing an actual in game benefit. Cosmetics though, really don't matter. You can play the game without having any of them and it won't affect gameplay at all.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 3, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> They are just cosmetics though. Compare it to games where you can actually spend money to gain a mechanical advantage. It's why there was such an outcry over battle front 2, those loot boxes were providing an actual in game benefit. Cosmetics though, really don't matter. You can play the game without having any of them and it won't affect gameplay at all.




But they DO matter. They ARE the gameplay, especially in an RPG. RPG's are to many people all about making your character look nice. This is also the case for multiplayer games, where your character's appearance is a crucial part of how you present yourself as a player to other players. It is your avatar. It is the core gameplay, and gamedevelopers know how important they are to us, which is why they ask money for it.

A mechanical advantage is clearly worse, but that doesn't make it much better. They are both part of the same problem. If cosmetics weren't important, then why do so many RPG's have elaborate character creators? Clearly we care a great deal about how we look in a game. So much so, that some of us are willing to pay real money for some virtual clothes. 

The biggest issue however, is that these cosmetics used to be part of the core reward system of the game. This is one of the main criticisms of Anthem right now, that it has a disappointing reward system where all weapons look the same. That is a HUGE issue for a looter-shooter, because being rewarded with cool looking weapons is what is supposed to keep people playing. But when developers decide to put these cosmetics behind a pay wall, something has now been removed from the core content, and this negatively effects the gameplay. 

This also was a huge problem in Guild Wars 2, because players started to notice just how many of the cool items were now in the store, rather than as a dungeon reward. So why are we running dungeons at all then? They are not that much fun to run, and there are only poor rewards at the end. All the cool stuff is in the store, so why would we keep playing if the game feels like all sense of reward has been sucked from its reward system?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> But they DO matter. They ARE the gameplay, especially in an RPG. RPG's are to many people all about making your character look nice. This is also the case for multiplayer games, where your character's appearance is a crucial part of how you present yourself as a player to other players. It is your avatar. It is the core gameplay, and gamedevelopers know how important they are to us, which is why they ask money for it.
> 
> A mechanical advantage is clearly worse, but that doesn't make it much better. They are both part of the same problem. If cosmetics weren't important, then why do so many RPG's have elaborate character creators? Clearly we care a great deal about how we look in a game. So much so, that some of us are willing to pay real money for some virtual clothes.
> 
> ...




This some cool stuff needs to be free. 

 Game costs are spiraling so devs need to make money somehow. Quality dlc is one way.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 3, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> Every time I hear this defense, I groan.
> 
> There is no such thing as 'just cosmetics'.




I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to Fallout 76 either... Rather than offer a Season Pass, Bethesda will be funding the development of Fallout 76 DLC with the sale of micro-transactions.

https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/article/2a4GTCpUPyEsGCGYWyM6Q2/welcome-to-the-atomic-shop

https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/31/18049482/fallout-76-atoms-currency-real-money-atomic-shop

TBH fallout 76 isn't a traditional RPG,and the atom shop is the way they are funding the upcoming stuff...just like 343 is using the req system to fund Halo 5's new stuff. https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/news/halo-5-guardians-req-system-introduction

Here's what the atom shop is funding 

https://bethesda.net/en/article/1vt...ild-appalachia-preview-brewing-and-distilling

and then full road map for the year : https://bethesda.net/en/article/7Lw6jVvhjzSNzuUMmKZgwn/fallout-76-100-days-roadmap-for-2019

Now an argument could be made that the original intent was for beth$eda to sell perk packs given that they are RNG and used to get new perks or level up perks for your character but they changed course due to the fallout (no pun intended) from the recent court cases in Europe and battlefront 2.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 3, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to Fallout 76 either... Rather than offer a Season Pass, Bethesda will be funding the development of Fallout 76 DLC with the sale of micro-transactions.
> 
> https://fallout.bethesda.net/en/article/2a4GTCpUPyEsGCGYWyM6Q2/welcome-to-the-atomic-shop
> 
> ...




It's still Fallout 76 and its an online RPG so not really what the franchise is about. Fundamental problem right there. Put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 3, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's still Fallout 76 and its an online RPG so not really what the franchise is about. Fundamental problem right there. Put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig.




And here I thought it was about exploring a PA environment silly me...

You would totally fit in at https://reddit.com/r/fallout with that comment btw


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 4, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> And here I thought it was about exploring a PA environment silly me...
> 
> You would totally fit in at https://reddit.com/r/fallout with that comment btw




Proud to be a neo grognard/reactionary.

 Evolution not revolution. A fixed FO4 evolved would be what I would be after. Something with a better story, overhauled settlement building, rebalanced SPECIAL perks, a new map.

 PA= power armor? I barely ended up using it even with a power armor build.

 I avoided The Old Republic for the same reason. I was in the market for KoToR 3, not KotoR the MMORPG.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Proud to be a neo grognard/reactionary.
> 
> Evolution not revolution. A fixed FO4 evolved would be what I would be after. Something with a better story, overhauled settlement building, rebalanced SPECIAL perks, a new map.
> 
> ...




Post-apoc


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 4, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Post-apoc




Ah I don't play MMORPG, not because they are bad but the addiction thing. Wife got addicted to WOW, I may have over did it on World of Tanks. So if an RPG  franchise goes down the online road I'm not gonna play it.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Ah I don't play MMORPG, not because they are bad but the addiction thing. Wife got addicted to WOW, I may have over did it on World of Tanks. So if an RPG  franchise goes down the online road I'm not gonna play it.




Now that's 100% understandable


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 4, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Now that's 100% understandable




 Yep as I said single player RPGs only, I don't mind graphics as long as they are not outright bad. Hell I still play 16 bit RPGs on occasion such as Phantasy Star or Shining Force. 

 My 9 YO niece is kinda hooked on Minecraft. Told my sister (who is totally not a gamer) that open world type games are not a great idea for kids IMHO. Then had to explain what open world is using Fallout as an example. 

 I can break her Minecraft addiction with the PS4, Star Wars or wrestle Uncle Z but she ended up in a boston crab and cried. Keep telling her I am the worst uncle ever but I'm her favorite apaprently (my brother is also not a gamer, mum won't buy her a PS4 or Xbox though Uncle Z lets her play though).

 I'll distract her with Star Wars Lego TFA,  Star Wars Battlefirld II and some Star Wars comics. Worlds worst uncle.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Yep as I said single player RPGs only, I don't mind graphics as long as they are not outright bad. Hell I still play 16 bit RPGs on occasion such as Phantasy Star or Shining Force.
> 
> My 9 YO niece is kinda hooked on Minecraft. Told my sister (who is totally not a gamer) that open world type games are not a great idea for kids IMHO.




My two autistic nephews both under the age of 10 love minecraft and I think the Lego star wars games,well any of the Lego games they own.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 5, 2019)

There's multiple reddit threads and youtube videos right now saying that Anthem is bricking consoles playing it. Even Xbox One X's and PS4 Pro's.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 5, 2019)

jonesy said:


> There's multiple reddit threads and youtube videos right now saying that Anthem is bricking consoles playing it. Even Xbox One X's and PS4 Pro's.




Another quality EA product. Fallout 4 froze today on my Xbox One to be fair. Yay for buggy crap.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

jonesy said:


> There's multiple reddit threads and youtube videos right now saying that Anthem is bricking consoles playing it. Even Xbox One X's and PS4 Pro's.



Best as I can tell, no game has ever bricked a console, so this has the hallmarks of a hoax.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Best as I can tell, no game has ever bricked a console, so this has the hallmarks of a hoax.




That is factually not true. There's been a few videogames in videogame history that were a notorious liability, and one even that contained a virus.

Besides, it is a known fact that a PS4 doesn't like improper restarts. I've experienced a couple myself, and it can sometimes take quite a while to get the thing to restore its system integrity. If a Playstation 4 (this also goes for PS3 btw) runs out of memory, or encounters a serious error, it will hard crash (The Ghostbusters videogame on the PS3 for example, struggles with certain scenes in the library section, and can hard crash. Same with Red Dead Redemption on the PS3.). This wasn't an issue with earlier consoles, because they didn't require the sort of manual shut down procedure that a pc requires. But a hard crash on the PS4 without the proper shutdown, can hit the console hard.

When I played Red Dead Redemption online with friends on the PS3, we did a little quest where you have to escort a minecart. We failed to complete it, when dozens of bandits spawned. So we backtracked to the mine to try it again, when we heard an odd and loud banging sound. Throughout the mine we kept hearing this deafening BANGBANGBANGBANG, and we had no idea what it was. As we arrived in the room where the minecart was the first time, we now found the entire interior of the mine filled to the ceiling with minecarts, all with physics. Instant crash. Took us a while to get the PS3 running again. It wasn't a simple matter of just rebooting it. So I can see how a console like the PS4, which is even more strict with proper shutdown procedures, could be bricked by a severe crash.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

Imaculata said:


> That is factually not true. There's been a few videogames in videogame history that were a notorious liability, and one even that contained a virus.
> 
> Besides, it is a known fact that a PS4 doesn't like improper restarts. I've experienced a couple myself, and it can sometimes take quite a while to get the thing to restore its system integrity. If a Playstation 4 (this also goes for PS3 btw) runs out of memory, or encounters a serious error, it will hard crash (The Ghostbusters videogame on the PS3 for example, struggles with certain scenes in the library section, and can hard crash. Same with Red Dead Redemption on the PS3.). This wasn't an issue with earlier consoles, because they didn't require the sort of manual shut down procedure that a pc requires. But a hard crash on the PS4 without the proper shutdown, can hit the console hard.
> 
> When I played Red Dead Redemption online with friends on the PS3, we did a little quest where you have to escort a minecart. We failed to complete it, when dozens of bandits spawned. So we backtracked to the mine to try it again, when we heard an odd and loud banging sound. Throughout the mine we kept hearing this deafening BANGBANGBANGBANG, and we had no idea what it was. As we arrived in the room where the minecart was the first time, we now found the entire interior of the mine filled to the ceiling with minecarts, all with physics. Instant crash. Took us a while to get the PS3 running again. It wasn't a simple matter of just rebooting it. So I can see how a console like the PS4, which is even more strict with proper shutdown procedures, could be bricked by a severe crash.



Right, bunch of examples of non-brick crashes, a virus (are we saying Anthem has a virus?) and the result is that you're primed to believe that a game can brick (bricking means turned into a paperweight) a modern system?


----------



## jonesy (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Best as I can tell, no game has ever bricked a console, so this has the hallmarks of a hoax.




Here's EA's own thread on the issue:
https://answers.ea.com/t5/Technical-Issues/PS4-Crashing-Info-Gathering/td-p/7625236
There are some there saying that their hard drive has been corrupted, and a lot of people reporting different kinds of crashes. 

An example: 







> Crash info: full console brick, corrupted hard drive. Console turns on but fails and says it can't read the hard drive.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

jonesy said:


> Here's EA's own thread on the issue:
> https://answers.ea.com/t5/Technical-Issues/PS4-Crashing-Info-Gathering/td-p/7625236
> There are some there saying that their hard drive has been corrupted, and a lot of people reporting different kinds of crashes.
> 
> An example:



Skimmed a few of those pages, didn't see the brick report, mostly hard crashing only.

Which is bad, but not console destroying.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Skimmed a few of those pages, didn't see the brick report, mostly hard crashing only.
> 
> Which is bad, but not console destroying.



You're joking, right? You "skimmed" a few pages from what is now 77 pages long (when it was only 71 when I posted about it), and you took that as evidence that I made it up? I'm sure if you'd found the post I quoted you would have assumed he or she made it up as well, right? Good grief.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

jonesy said:


> You're joking, right? You "skimmed" a few pages from what is now 77 pages long (when it was only 71 when I posted about it), and you took that as evidence that I made it up? I'm sure if you'd found the post I quoted you would have assumed he or she made it up as well, right? Good grief.



Who said you made it up?  I didn't.  Climb down, man!

My point is that the reports of bricking have the hallmark of being a hoax.  A report in the trouble thread diesn't dispel this, and a marginally smart hoaxer would add that touch.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> My point is that the reports of bricking have the hallmark of being a hoax.  A report in the trouble thread diesn't dispel this, and a marginally smart hoaxer would add that touch.



And just so you instantly took the stance that anyone there claiming their console being bricked must be part of a hoax. Pray tell, what is a "hallmark of a hoax" here?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

jonesy said:


> And just so you instantly took the stance that anyone there claiming their console being bricked must be part of a hoax. Pray tell, what is a "hallmark of a hoax" here?



A drastic event that fits with the theme of the thread?  You really think that there isn't a part of gamer culture that both wants Anthem to fail and would perpetrate a hoax to encourage that outcome?

I'm not discounting the possibility, but it seems a bit convenient that a major studio would rekease a game that breaks consoles and so neatly fits anti-studio themes.  Need more than a trouble ticket and a reddit thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

Also, you really should take this less personally.  I'm not attacking you.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Need more than a trouble ticket and a reddit thread.



I've read through the first 70 pages on the EA thread. Posts #104, #165, #263, #324, #466, #614, #638 and #696 claim broken consoles. Also possibly #347, #544, and #598. Hard syntax. There's also posts on every other page about hard drive data loss.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, bunch of examples of non-brick crashes, a virus (are we saying Anthem has a virus?) and the result is that you're primed to believe that a game can brick (bricking means turned into a paperweight) a modern system?




First of all, I said they were almost bricked. It took several reboots to get them working again. If that can happen, a permanent brick doesn't seem that impossible. Also keep in mind that most consumers would not know that you can reboot a PS3 or PS4 in safemode, or how to do it. After some crashes, rebooting your Playstation in safemode is required to get it working again. If you don't know this, it might as well be bricked.

Besides, modern systems are more prone to bricking than old systems, so I don't get what you're getting at.

I've developed games for PS3 and Xbox360 professionally. I think I have a pretty good idea if those devices can be bricked by software. They are pretty sensitive. The company I worked at got pretty close to the limits of the PS3 dev kits several times. They do not like running out of memory, I can tell you that. Sometimes they would refuse to boot back up again, unless restarted in safe mode and having the file integrity restored.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2019)

_Almost_ bricking sounds a bit like _almost_ pregnant...
Bricking is when the device simply doesn't function anymore and can serve no other purpose as a brick could, basically. If you can still restart it manually (even if it requires something exotic like restarting in safe mode), it's not bricking, not even "almost". Unless you say that only a Sony certified technician could do it, because it involves special devices or something like that.

I could see using the term "almost bricking" if it involved causing a physical defect that could potentially brick it - like physically damaging the hard drive or memory, but it happens that the OS can work around the defect _this_ time.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 7, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> _Almost_ bricking sounds a bit like _almost_ pregnant...
> Bricking is when the device simply doesn't function anymore and can serve no other purpose as a brick could, basically. If you can still restart it manually (even if it requires something exotic like restarting in safe mode), it's not bricking, not even "almost". Unless you say that only a Sony certified technician could do it, because it involves special devices or something like that.
> 
> I could see using the term "almost bricking" if it involved causing a physical defect that could potentially brick it - like physically damaging the hard drive or memory, but it happens that the OS can work around the defect _this_ time.




If the file integrity needs to be restored to get it working again, then you are relying entirely on this process working perfectly 100% of the time. I wouldn't bet on that. If the crash is bad enough to damage file integrity on the system, and it takes SEVERAL safe mode reboots to get it working again, then you'd better cross your fingers and hope that it still works afterwards.

I wasn't sure if my PS3 would reboot at all after crashing on the New York library stage in Ghostbusters the Videogame. All those books with physics put a serious strain on my console, and it is one of the early generation ones; the fat PS3. The screen went to black in an instant, the sound locked up, and even after several restarts in safe mode, it refused to boot. Fortunately I was persistent, and it eventually started working again. But if that can happen, a permanent bricked state does not seem unlikely to me.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 7, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Bricking is when the device simply doesn't function anymore and can serve no other purpose as a brick could, ...




... to the owner.

If un-borking the box requires a step that the owner is either unable or unwilling to do, it is functionally bricked even if it is not bricked to your standards.  If the recovery phase requires downloading a fix to a USB drive, there are going to be people without a computer who can't do it.  The the fix includes a warning message that says "This process may cause data loss to other games", there are going to be people who (rightfully so) refuse to run it.  Is that "almost bricked"?  Is that a Shrodinger's Brick?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2019)

My ps4 got the glitch where it doesn't recognise the controllers which basically wrecks it. 360 got red ring.

 Sega Genesis 25 years old still going fine. Go figure.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 8, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> My ps4 got the glitch where it doesn't recognise the controllers which basically wrecks it. 360 got red ring.
> 
> Sega Genesis 25 years old still going fine. Go figure.



Dear God, Anthem is on a rampage!


----------



## Derren (Mar 9, 2019)

A loot shooter in which the strongest gun is the 1st level starter equipment because the way level scaling works.

I think it is safe to say that Anthem won't be a hit.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 11, 2019)

Derren said:


> A loot shooter in which the strongest gun is the 1st level starter equipment because the way level scaling works.
> I think it is safe to say that Anthem won't be a hit.




I've been following the news around Anthem for the last few weeks now, because I'm fascinated by trainwrecks I guess. Seems Bioware accidentally made the loot system rewarding, but they were quick to patch it out again... and then they did the same thing again.

Players have been giving the developers a lot of (angry) feedback over this, telling Bioware that a looter-shooter needs good loot, because that's the point of the game. But I think those players are mistaken regarding where Bioware's priorities lie. I don't think a rewarding loot system is their main focus. I think their first goal is to make sure the players can't gather ingame currency too easily, so they are encouraged to spend real money on ingame purchases. Of course, I don't agree that this should be their first priority, because nothing kills a game (that is about gathering loot) faster than poor rewards... but welcome to live services!


----------



## jonesy (Mar 11, 2019)

Bioware is saying that they've found no evidence of actual permanent bricking. There has been quite a lot of hard drive data losses, which is still really bad and unacceptable (especially when the game is affecting save data other than its own). But, no actual consoles permanently broken, which is something, I suppose.


----------



## Derren (Mar 13, 2019)

Bioware patched that the starting weapons are not the most powerful weapons anymore.


And introduced a bug that causes you in many cases to be more powerful without support items than with them because empty slots are not counted as 0 for calculating your item level but ignored. That means equipping support items often lowers your average item level which affects your damage output more that the support items.


----------

