Anthem: Bioware's next Mass Effect-like IP

[Baconeggcheese]

To be fair, I won't judge the story so far. It's just the first installment and it can only get better. Judging the story now would be the same as deeming Warframe's story lame before Natah/Second Dream (the story about you killing Vor/Krill/Alad V is not the best ever). It can only go better from now on, and I'm looking forward to that.

Uuuh, its basically like the first season of a show... you can judge it. Its also not guaranteed to get better, its Bioware so hopefully they can pull some stuff off. I was at least entertained by it, the characters are really where its at. Just going around talking to everyone is a game in and of itself. The overarching story didn't really set the foundation as well as it could have.

Why is it that we have to accept shit products in games because someone, many years ago also released a shit product?

Well, because there are no good story options in the genre. Anthems easily got the best one I've experienced thus far out of all 4 of them, and that's not saying much.

This isn't the genre you play for great storytelling unfortunately.

There's a low cost of entry to come back rather than a game like Destiny 2, so you're probably going to see people come back and check it out in the future.

Think this is a huge thing for the game, there is no cost of entry when coming back as long as they stick to their "no paid DLC" stance for future content. Where with Destiny you have to pick up the next bit of DLC to get back into it, with this game as long as you bought the game, you're done. You just load it up and play.

[SirCowdog]

Well, because there are no good story options in the genre. Anthems easily got the best one I've experienced thus far out of all 4 of them, and that's not saying much.

This isn't the genre you play for great storytelling unfortunately.

.

I'd actually like to disagree on a minor point.

Anthem tells its story by immersing the player in a lot of background and environmental lore by getting the story told from the perspective of many different viewpoints instead of just from the perspective of the protagonist(your character). If all you do is just the main progression missions, you'll get a fairly straightforward story about a hero fighting against a power-hungry badguy. But if you take the time to do all the side missions, and track down the lore pickups for the codex along the way, you get a LOT of supporting information.

A game that I believe does this better than Anthem is The Division 1. It had a similarly weak story if all you did was stick to the main missions, but a MASSIVE pile of supporting story if you took the time to track down all the cellphone recordings and lost Agent wristbands.

Both of these games are telling the story of an entire community reacting to and dealing with a fundamental change to their world. The story in both games is not delivered very well, but neither is it what I would describe as weak. It's just diffused. And I can completely understand why a lot of people wouldn't like that, or even recognize it, especially if all they focus on is their character.

[Vineri]

Poor, poor BioWare. Things aren't working out for this EA-controlled studio, lacking any of the originals from the true BioWare.

Meanwhile Apex surges onward.

Two things can happen. (1) EA keeps their hands off Apex, and the world continues to see F2P style games are profitable .. or (2) EA tries to get their hands dirty and attempts to inflate it's already unimaginable revenue (until it trends downward).

To me, Anthem is a good example of why games as a service is a failure. Mind you, it used to be good, but when bean-counters get involved to maximize profit, it turns to shit.

Much like RTS games used to be really good, until some dirtbag found a way to make it unenjoyable for those just looking to have fun (add forced multiplayer, P2W, P2LookGood, P2EasyMode, etc.).

F2P Games are a better proposition. Try it out, if you like it, keep playing. Grind, or pay .. your choice, but in the end, if you want to walk away, you can, with the only losses being what you were willing to spend (if any).

F2P games also have a disproportionately large number of players, which in turn leads others (casual up to whales) to spend some money. [A long-term populated game is a fun game - and worth buying into.]

If the game sucks, if it's broken, or the content stops being interesting, people just uninstall it - and you can't really complain about a game you never paid for, right? Maybe critique .. but not on the same level as a bought game... ahem! .. like Anthem.

[rhorle]

To me, Anthem is a good example of why games as a service is a failure. Mind you, it used to be good, but when bean-counters get involved to maximize profit, it turns to shit.

So is Guild Wars a failure? Anthem is a Buy to Play game not a free to play game. Any of the failures with Anthem are not because it is a game as a service. The weird thing is that a lot of the issues look like standard stuff Bioware struggles with in all of their games. They don't seem to learn much or even improve. Free to play games are also games as a service. They find ways to hook you on the service so you give money and design the game to encourage money to be spent.

Free to play games are also "bought" because most people spend money of some form or another. Even if Anthem was Free to Play and had a monetized system like Apex it wouldn't be doing that great. Yes you would get some more players. But the same flaws would exist. And you would have the same problems. I likely would be playing if it was f2p as I've held off on Anthem even though it sounds like exactly what I'd like because of Bioware's track record and some of the stuff discussed here. I'd much rather wait for a sale (even if premiere is cheaper for a few months)

[Vineri]

So is Guild Wars a failure? Anthem is a Buy to Play game not a free to play game. Any of the failures with Anthem are not because it is a game as a service. The weird thing is that a lot of the issues look like standard stuff Bioware struggles with in all of their games. They don't seem to learn much or even improve. Free to play games are also games as a service. They find ways to hook you on the service so you give money and design the game to encourage money to be spent.

Free to play games are also "bought" because most people spend money of some form or another. Even if Anthem was Free to Play and had a monetized system like Apex it wouldn't be doing that great. Yes you would get some more players. But the same flaws would exist. And you would have the same problems. I likely would be playing if it was f2p as I've held off on Anthem even though it sounds like exactly what I'd like because of Bioware's track record and some of the stuff discussed here. I'd much rather wait for a sale (even if premiere is cheaper for a few months)

I bought and played GW2 for about a week. It was boring and lackluster. The jump puzzles were a big selling point, but I found them generally laughable, and frankly, annoying. It had regular events you could pop into, but I felt it was just a defibrillator, pumping a dying game into life. Such a lonely experience was GW2. So many people all around you, yet you are always alone.

I found Single player RPG's have a much better experience.

But ArenaNet gave it a good go, and they had alot of content to accompany the story. The trading post (ie WoW's AH) was a big plus to spend time with.

In the end, the games we're discussing are mostly single player games shoehorned into long-term games. All this talk is making WoW look good again! .. but I think single player oriented multiplayer games should stay single-player.

[Illusions]

Unlikely, considering it is developed by CPR.

Never say never, considering they already have stories coming out that CDPR isn't the best of places to work at etc. Every gaming company has done great games, and every gaming company will have a bad flop.

[Baconeggcheese]

Anthem tells its story by immersing the player in a lot of background and environmental lore by getting the story told from the perspective of many different viewpoints instead of just from the perspective of the protagonist(your character). If all you do is just the main progression missions, you'll get a fairly straightforward story about a hero fighting against a power-hungry badguy. But if you take the time to do all the side missions, and track down the lore pickups for the codex along the way, you get a LOT of supporting information.

I guess the issue is when these convos happen when people are saying "story" they mean "main campaign" and not all the little convos and world building.

hence me saying things like "I love the characters but the story is weak", because those individual convos are great but often have nothing to do with the main campaign.

[kaelleria]

I guess the issue is when these convos happen when people are saying "story" they mean "main campaign" and not all the little convos and world building.

hence me saying things like "I love the characters but the story is weak", because those individual convos are great but often have nothing to do with the main campaign.

I think the story ended right as it started to get really interesting... It definitely had ups and downs.

[Baconeggcheese]

I think the story ended right as it started to get really interesting... It definitely had ups and downs.

Which I guess the general concept for that is ok, because there's gonna be more coming.

But its just that it felt like it tried to wrap up the current arc, but did it in a way that felt rushed.

[kaelleria]

Which I guess the general concept for that is ok, because there's gonna be more coming.

But its just that it felt like it tried to wrap up the current arc, but did it in a way that felt rushed.

Yeah definitely... It's one of the reasons the Agent Missions seemed like more complete stories.

[Coldkil]

To me, Anthem is a good example of why games as a service is a failure. Mind you, it used to be good, but when bean-counters get involved to maximize profit, it turns to shit.

I both agree and don't. Anthem (like lots of AAA games so far) is not a "game as a service". It's literally "incomplete game that's going to release the full content a normal AAA game should have over time to monetize it as DLCs".

That's why it fails. Everyone is saying the same stuff: "plays really well but there's nothing to do". I heard this countless times when Destiny 2 released and many others.

That's why people are angry. It's not like it's a shitty game - it's a good but incomplete game for full price and no reason whatsoever other than raking more money.

There's a reason why when those game go "GOTY edition all included" after a couple of years they become worth it. Because they're simply complete games as they should have been released.

[Ophenia]

"to monetize it as DLCs".

Monetizing free DLCs, part 1

[Schmilblick]

Monetizing free DLCs, part 1

They said "Story" DLCs will be free, so they might make people pay for "content" DLCs.

[Ophenia]

They said "Story" DLCs will be free, so they might make people pay for "content" DLCs.

Then I'm lacking the future-vision some people in this thread seem to have.

[Kuntantee]

Never say never, considering they already have stories coming out that CDPR isn't the best of places to work at etc. Every gaming company has done great games, and every gaming company will have a bad flop.

What stories? Can you link them?

[Gaidax]

Monetizing free DLCs, part 1

What "free DLC"? You mean bloody baseline content that should have been part of launch?

Here let us toss them unfinished game for full AAA price and spin us completing it over time as a free dlc.

The first free DLC Anthem will have, if it happens, will be in the next year, because anything they add until then should have been in at launch.

[Coldkil]

Monetizing free DLCs, part 1

Yeah, this part wasn't specifically targeted at Anthem. I know of their business model and i think it's the most fair i've seen around coupled with PoE. The ganme actually interests me.

But it also has been proven to be one of the usual games that gets rushed for resons beyond my comprehension; if it manages to stay alive another couple of years, then it will surely become something really worth playing. Otherwise, it will get axed half way through and i won't miss a thing.

Cynical for sure but it's the only defense we players have left.

[Ophenia]

But it also has been proven to be one of the usual games that gets rushed for resons beyond my comprehension; if it manages to stay alive another couple of years, then it will surely become something really worth playing. Otherwise, it will get axed half way through and i won't miss a thing.

Delaying it by another year would have effectively killed it, while it is a really enjoyable game right now if you're into this type of game (I think I have put on Ignore all those "there is nothing to do beside hunting for better stuff" guys ; breaking news, that's what this type of games is about).

In terms of content, there is nothing bad in releasing it as it is right now, and implementing story content later on on a regular basis. Heck, 200% of the games are doing that in the gaming industry but it's only problematic when EA/Bioware does. The only ones not performing story/content updates are either very specific solo games (for sure you won't have story updates for FIFA or Forza) or dead games.

For sure some of the bugs are not acceptable, but they seem responsive enough on the fixes. But in terms of bugginess, I've had the same experience as with GTA V somehow.

[Dhrizzle]

I both agree and don't. Anthem (like lots of AAA games so far) is not a "game as a service". It's literally "incomplete game that's going to release the full content a normal AAA game should have over time to monetize it as DLCs".

That's why it fails. Everyone is saying the same stuff: "plays really well but there's nothing to do". I heard this countless times when Destiny 2 released and many others.

That's why people are angry. It's not like it's a shitty game - it's a good but incomplete game for full price and no reason whatsoever other than raking more money.

There's a reason why when those game go "GOTY edition all included" after a couple of years they become worth it. Because they're simply complete games as they should have been released.

For all you think it's incomplete, the campaign (including side-quests) kept me going for more than 30 hours and the main story arc reached a definite resolution, just leaving a loose end and introducing new issues for when the next bit of story comes along. I'm somewhere around 60 hours played now and I've just about got one Javelin fully Masterworked. Even if I leave it now the game was definitely worth the box price or cost of a month Origin premium.

[Coldkil]

In terms of content, there is nothing bad in releasing it as it is right now, and implementing story content later on on a regular basis. Heck, 200% of the games are doing that in the gaming industry but it's only problematic when EA/Bioware does.

To me it's exactly the opposite. I find it completely useless to release an unfinished game due to hype management and other marketing related stuff which have zero to do with gameplay and actually manage to give the product a bad reputation. Look at D3 for example, or Destiny 2 - both plagued by a very bad release that did so much PR damage that the first got axed just after RoS release with a second expansion on work, and the second got basically sold off by Activision because it was clear it wasn't going to recover.

I want my games shipping in a finished state. I don't care it takes more to release them (until it's some level of Star Citizen scam), this kind of stuff requires time and patience to realize. Lots of shortcomings are from the simple lack of time and release date constraints made by someone who's above dvelopers and has all the power.


The actual names don't mean shit. As you said, "200% of the games are doing that", and that's exactly why the industry is in crisis right now.