I have to imagine the reason BioWare didn't meet expectations is because EA meddled with the process and gave them requirements that ultimately led to terrible games.
I have to imagine the reason BioWare didn't meet expectations is because EA meddled with the process and gave them requirements that ultimately led to terrible games.
I don't think it's a given that EA caused this, I think very likely it's more that bad management or bad decisions or generally poor execution (or turnover/burnout/etc) ended up creating a bad...
I don't think it's a given that EA caused this, I think very likely it's more that bad management or bad decisions or generally poor execution (or turnover/burnout/etc) ended up creating a bad product that didn't meet sales expectations.
Mass Effect Andromeda wasn't well received, Anthem was more or less DOA (Even though I actually played it a lot and thought it was a very good game), and the latest Dragon Age was also relatively lukewarmly reviewed.
I specifically remember that in the huge ass article about Anthem's development, they didn't have a clear vision+lots of indecision in direction. If I recall correctly, it was one of the higher ups, management types, that actually told them to prioritize the flying, that was something they added late, but it really made the game. It didn't save it, but it'd have been a WAY WORSE game without that, and if they'd made that decision sooner, maybe it'd have been better.
Other studios have simply made better games over the past decade or so, and a lot of the love and goodwill people had for BioWare's games......they lost, because they stopped making good games.
Afaik EA mandated that BioWare use the Frostbite engine for several of its games (Dragon Age / Mass Effect) which caused some issues. They also pushed "live service" options into the games and...
Afaik EA mandated that BioWare use the Frostbite engine for several of its games (Dragon Age / Mass Effect) which caused some issues. They also pushed "live service" options into the games and shipped Anthem early.
I'm sure BioWare isn't without blame here, but EA certainly didn't help.
Yeah it was a mix of things. Some problems were on Bioware, others on EA. For example, I remember from the Anthem article that EA could be surprisingly patient, and that it was the Bioware...
Yeah it was a mix of things. Some problems were on Bioware, others on EA. For example, I remember from the Anthem article that EA could be surprisingly patient, and that it was the Bioware directors who wanted to chase the GaaS goldmine, and it was they who believed in and pushed for "Bioware magic" - the idea that everything would click together at the end (translation: bad planning & crunch).
Another thing to remember is that most people that worked on their best games (ME trilogy, DA Origins, etc) had already left the studio many years ago. The studio nowadays was not the same as the studio we all admired, it just shared the same name
Despite this constantly being bandied as the reason why Beloved Developer put out bad games, it's been shown time and time again that EA actually gives its studios a lot of rope and they end up...
Despite this constantly being bandied as the reason why Beloved Developer put out bad games, it's been shown time and time again that EA actually gives its studios a lot of rope and they end up doing it to themselves. Maxis' scaling down of Spore and online-only approach to SimCity was all on them, Pandemic Studios was given extension after extension and couldn't produce anything in a timely manner after the PS2 era, Bioware chose to go after live service games with Anthem, and more.
The only studio I don't remember hearing brought things down on themselves was Westwood.
But all this is moot since EA is now owned by Saudis and Jared Kushner so none of the usual reasons have to apply. For all we know, they're getting shut down because their games have homosexuality in them. Or because they're Canadian.
I understand the argument, but if you examine the data scores of games almost universally drop a few years after EA acquires a studio. Even if they aren't directly meddling, there has to be a...
I understand the argument, but if you examine the data scores of games almost universally drop a few years after EA acquires a studio. Even if they aren't directly meddling, there has to be a correlation here.
Pre-EA Bioware was regularly ~90 on Metacritic, post-EA they are in the 70-80s range.
They were bought in 2005, years before they put out Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Their first underwhelming big release was Dragon Age 2, in 2011. Mass Effect Andromeda was their first flop of a...
They were bought in 2005, years before they put out Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Their first underwhelming big release was Dragon Age 2, in 2011. Mass Effect Andromeda was their first flop of a release (i.e. their first game which failed to score above 80 on MC) and that was 2017. So that's 12 years after EA's acquisition.
Iiiiiiiii would argue that their first underwhelming big release was Mass Effect 2, which was released in 2010 (and was the first major release developed all or mostly under the auspices of EA)....
Iiiiiiiii would argue that their first underwhelming big release was Mass Effect 2, which was released in 2010 (and was the first major release developed all or mostly under the auspices of EA). It was a critical darling, obviously, and for some reason is beloved by a lot of fans, but, like… the main plot makes no sense, the gameplay is pure "gears of war but worse", there's functionally zero continuity with the previous game, and even the character writing must be admitted to be extremely inconsistent. (For every Mordin Solus, there a The Misspelled-Elusive Dude and wildly-recharacterized Liara.) The signs are there that early, but it took many more years for them to escalate sufficiently (and fan loyalty to be sufficiently eroded) for the games to really start flopping.
Now… the timing, of course, doesn't directly mean that EA was responsible. The reporting definitely makes it sound like Bioware put plenty of effort into their own grave. I find it tough to dismiss, though.
Honestly that's a wild thing for me to read. I think ME2 is by far the best ME game, and the best "modern" Bioware game (e.g, not Baldur's Gate 2 era). But I suppose that's where subjectivity goes...
Honestly that's a wild thing for me to read. I think ME2 is by far the best ME game, and the best "modern" Bioware game (e.g, not Baldur's Gate 2 era).
But I suppose that's where subjectivity goes into play. Nonetheless, IMO if ME2 was their "collapse", they should've done a lot more collapsing.
ME2 is weird, being simultaneously a great game in isolation, a terrible successor to the first game, and a terrible, terrible set up for the final game in the trilogy. For me ME2 killed the...
ME2 is weird, being simultaneously a great game in isolation, a terrible successor to the first game, and a terrible, terrible set up for the final game in the trilogy.
For me ME2 killed the franchise and I had absolutely no interest in ME3; ME2 squandered the world and story that got developed in the first game. And it changed so many of the characters, not the least of which was Shepard.
ME1 ends with a Reaper attack on Citadel Station, the congregation point of every known civilized species. Only Shepard + crew were able to stave off that attack, and in doing so they revealed the Reaper threat to the whole galaxy. ME2 opens with the council calling the Reapers a myth and a daydream. Shepard, too, seems okay with ignoring the threat of the Reapers (Miranda's ass is much more important, obviously, duh. Genetically engineered to be the perfect ass. I wish I was joking).
I played ME2 twice; the first time through I was confused, because I couldn't find any Mass Effect anywhere inside the game. My second time through I turned my brain off and enjoyed the game for what it is: a character focused Firefly wannabe in the ME universe, crossed with being a "heist-like"; the majority of the game is building a team to do a job.
I'm happy I never played ME3, though. From what I hear ME2 really did kill the narrative of the franchise. ME3's story was rushed as hell, since ME2 didn't have any contribution whatsoever to the story. The "3 colors" ending debacle. The ship now has a robo-ass that Joker can't keep his eyes off (In a game that needs to do 2 games worth of narrative, this was a great use of time, right? Right?). Apparently, there's a space ninja OC do-not-steal. And so on.
But I do agree that, independently of the rest of the franchise, ME2 is a very fun stand-alone game. It's got strong character writing (when you ignore conflicts within returning characters) and it's a pretty good romp around the stars. The mechanics of play are way, way better than the first game. "Everyone" liked it for real and valid reasons.
This feels like it's giving too much reverence to ME1. I mean, if you didn't even play ME3, then ME2 is half of the ME series. Saying it "ruins" the Mass Effect series just seems strange - maybe...
This feels like it's giving too much reverence to ME1. I mean, if you didn't even play ME3, then ME2 is half of the ME series. Saying it "ruins" the Mass Effect series just seems strange - maybe ME1 ruined the ME series and ME2 is just course correcting?
It's not like ME1 had a particularly great plot, either. Wow, another scifi plot where the author read 40k. Not to say it was bad, but they clearly wrote themselves into a hole with the reapers (and the concept of the reapers is also somewhat cliche by then anyway), and never figured out how to resolve things, to the very end.
For me, ME2 is the best game in the series by virtue of nailing the gameplay loop, its individual story and how characters got an upgrade (in both dialogue and individual arcs). Liara for example...
For me, ME2 is the best game in the series by virtue of nailing the gameplay loop, its individual story and how characters got an upgrade (in both dialogue and individual arcs). Liara for example went from a cliché naive young scientist that doesn't understand how the world works to a cynical information broker; it was an 180 on her character that oddly felt right, and made her that much more interesting to me than how she was portrayed in ME1.
I take a bit of an issue with two claims: 1. that Shepard ignores the original reaper threat and 2. that it killed the narrative for ME3.
Shepard does not ignore the Reaper threat. There's a DLC about destroying another shortcut for the Reapers, and there's the immediate threat where the Collectors are building a Reaper right in the middle of the galaxy. Since the Reapers are going to take a while to arrive, it's obvious that Shepard would deal with the new immediate threat first.
If you were to argue that ME2 gets sidetracked and should've been about the Reapers arriving, instead of introducing a new threat: fair enough, I can see where you would be coming from (more on that below). But narratively speaking, it's not true that Shepard ignored the original threat.
This one is a bit weirder for me to talk about because in truth, I actually don't know what you mean. I don't know what you liked about ME1 and how you felt how ME2 did those; and since you didn't play ME3, it's harder still to get an idea of what you're referencing.
But speaking for myself, ME3 is the perfect example of a story where the journey was good, but the destination was mishandled. As someone who hated the ending, I think ME3 handled the journey well. Old characters continue their arcs; we get to see them and how they deal with their home planets being destroyed; we finally manage to get the whole galaxy under a single banner; we play as the tip of the spear against the Reapers; it's a losing war and the game doesn't sugarcoat it; etc.
The issue was the ending. I think it was the Metro's writer who said this at the time - but if it wasn't him, then I remember agreeing with this theory at least: he suspected that the writers didn't really know what to do with the reapers ever since the first game. If they did, chances are that they would've planned the narrative path better until the third game - ME2 'sidetracked-ness' comes into mind - and they wouldn't have written themselves into a corner that forced them to write an ending to fit the logistical reality of the development - ME3, IIRC, was rushed.
All of that said, one transparency thing: ME2 was the game that made me like RPGs, and it was my introduction to ME universe. I didn't have the biases that I probably would've had if I played ME1 first. Thus why - to me - ME1 feels like the weakest game of the trilogy, and more experimental - as if the devs were still trying to figure out the characters and universe. It's still a good game that I like to reply every few years though, but to me ME2 is where the trilogy shines
The shift didn't make any sense at all to me, but I respect your opinion. Keep in mind that you only find out the collectors are tied to the reapers at all near the very end of the game. For the...
Liara for example went from a cliché naive young scientist that doesn't understand how the world works to a cynical information broker; it was an 180 on her character that oddly felt right
The shift didn't make any sense at all to me, but I respect your opinion.
and there's the immediate threat where the Collectors are building a Reaper right in the middle of the galaxy.
Keep in mind that you only find out the collectors are tied to the reapers at all near the very end of the game. For the first half (or more), Shepard does seem to be sort of inexplicably focused on a few missing colonists.
Actually, in the first meeting you have with the Illusive Man he says that he suspects that it's someone working for the Reapers. We only find out that they're building a Reaper near the end of...
Keep in mind that you only find out the collectors are tied to the reapers at all near the very end of the game. For the first half (or more), Shepard does seem to be sort of inexplicably focused on a few missing colonists.
Actually, in the first meeting you have with the Illusive Man he says that he suspects that it's someone working for the Reapers. We only find out that they're building a Reaper near the end of the game yes, but the connection was made almost at the beginning
Edit: which is why, if you play as a reluctant partner with the Illusive Man, it's only because of this connection that Shepard is convinced to cooperate
I'm kind of with you on ME2, actually. I loved ME1 and when 2 came out I was thoroughly underwhelmed. It felt like they took all of the criticisms of ME1 and instead of fixing those systems, just...
I'm kind of with you on ME2, actually. I loved ME1 and when 2 came out I was thoroughly underwhelmed. It felt like they took all of the criticisms of ME1 and instead of fixing those systems, just did away with them altogether. They stripped out a lot of what made the game interesting. The writing was still pretty good, and the shooting worked "better" but it was at the expense of a lot of the RPG mechanics.
Eh that can just be correlation. All studios fade eventually. But EA will buy them at their apex, because of course they would. Like, if a new studio formed, and immediately made ass games, EA...
Eh that can just be correlation. All studios fade eventually. But EA will buy them at their apex, because of course they would. Like, if a new studio formed, and immediately made ass games, EA definitely isn't going to acquire them.
All western studios maybe. There's a reason Nintendo is still at the top of its game 40 years in. Turns out studios are made of people and people tend to get better at something the longer they do...
All studios fade eventually.
All western studios maybe. There's a reason Nintendo is still at the top of its game 40 years in. Turns out studios are made of people and people tend to get better at something the longer they do it. And that tends to be how much of Japan's studios work.
A studio like Obsidian (to use a less controversial example)? They don't necessarily become objectively worse, but how many people there who worked on KOTOR 2 are around today? More than you'd think for an American studio, but still not a lot. We don't foster talent here, we rely on brands and have a revolving door underneath trying to keep the show running.
Idk sometimes I think people give the studios a pass just to have an easy villain. They had a lot of bombs. DA 2 was bad. Mass Effect 3 was heavily flawed. MA andromeda was atrocious. DA Veilguard...
Idk sometimes I think people give the studios a pass just to have an easy villain. They had a lot of bombs. DA 2 was bad. Mass Effect 3 was heavily flawed. MA andromeda was atrocious. DA Veilguard was mediocre at best.
The one thing that EA definitely “meddled” with is the choice of engine, since they were encouraged to use the in house frostbite engine over unreal. But everyone complains about all games using unreal, so maybe they have a point.
Easy to have a villain when they act like a villain, yes. This whole thing is a result of leadership jumping ship and selling the studio to the highest bidder. Meanwhile, on the developer side...
Easy to have a villain when they act like a villain, yes. This whole thing is a result of leadership jumping ship and selling the studio to the highest bidder.
Meanwhile, on the developer side rule of cool is in effect. Gamers can be brutal , but they'll also forgive a lot of issues for a game that's overall engaging. Metal Gear Solid 5 is basically unfinished but people still love it to death because of the core experience that's in there.
I can say that without much bioware balance. The only game from them I played was Sonic: Dark Brotherhood. And if you are invested in Sonic, you know that's not a good experience.
So I guess this means the teased Mass Effect sequel is dead. The cynic in me believes this is primarily due to the extremely hard-right views of the new EA ownership (who gained control not even 3...
So I guess this means the teased Mass Effect sequel is dead.
The cynic in me believes this is primarily due to the extremely hard-right views of the new EA ownership (who gained control not even 3 months ago), especially with the history and reputation BioWare has of more inclusive gender and sexual identity in its games.
Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, KOTOR and especially Neverwinter Nights were formative when I was a pre-teen and teenager. It's sad to see this studio go; like an old teaching dying.
Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, KOTOR and especially Neverwinter Nights were formative when I was a pre-teen and teenager. It's sad to see this studio go; like an old teaching dying.
Regardless of EA's part in the studio's downfall, I think the writing was on the wall for BioWare long ago, and it was probably misguided to believe they were going to put out another great game....
Regardless of EA's part in the studio's downfall, I think the writing was on the wall for BioWare long ago, and it was probably misguided to believe they were going to put out another great game.
Even just looking at the roller coaster of quality that is the Dragon Age series, it's clear that they haven't been playing to their strengths for a long time, the priority has been anywhere else. If they'd been able to work on some smaller-scale projects as a way to test new ideas, maybe each release wouldn't have felt so scattershot and unfocused, but at the budgets they were working with this was never going to end well.
It's a shame, because they have put out some excellent games that changed the direction of the industry multiple times. If they weren't capable of doing that again, they could have excelled in specific niches as a way to stay afloat rather than chasing mass appeal. When you shoot for the stars, you don't always realize how massive space is until you're already there.
Since I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, I'll be the one to post it. Here lies EA's graveyard, from point of purchase to death. Batteries Included (Paperclip) 🕆1987-1987 BioWare (Dragon...
Since I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, I'll be the one to post it. Here lies EA's graveyard, from point of purchase to death.
Batteries Included (Paperclip) 🕆1987-1987
BioWare (Dragon Age, Mass Effect) 🕆 2007-2026
Black Box Games (Need for Speed) 🕆 2002-2013
Bullfrog Productions (Dungeon keeper) 🕆 1995-2001
Dreamworks Interactive/Danger close/EA Los Angeles (Medal of Honor) 🕆 2000-2013
Manley & Associates (The Wizard of Oz "snes") 🕆 1996-2002
Mythic Entertainment (Dark Age of Camalot) 🕆 2006-2014
Maxis (The Sims) 🕆1997-2015
NuFX (NBA street)🕆 2004-2007
Origin (Ultima, Wing commander) 🕆 1994-2004
Pandemic (Battlefront, Saboteur) 🕆 2008-2009
Phenomic (Spellforce, battleforge) 🕆 2006-2013
PlayFish (The Sims Social) 🕆 2009-2013
Victory Games (C&C Free to Play)🕆2010-2013
Visceral Games (Dead Space)🕆1998-2017
Virgin interactive (Earthworm jim) 🕆1998-2003
Westwood studios (C&C, dune 2000)🕆 1998-2003
I need a documentary on what drives modders to make content for ancient games. For some reason, people still run servers for Phantasy Star Online -- almost 30 years later! Psychos!
I need a documentary on what drives modders to make content for ancient games. For some reason, people still run servers for Phantasy Star Online -- almost 30 years later! Psychos!
when the saudies bought EA many of us already knew this was going to happen. EA was horrible, but after that went through EA is dead. They only wanted fifa, battlefield and whatever game as a...
when the saudies bought EA many of us already knew this was going to happen. EA was horrible, but after that went through EA is dead. They only wanted fifa, battlefield and whatever game as a service they could get
EA Games -> Everything's Awful BioWare didn't deserve this, and this is why I haven't purchased any triple-A titles in literal years at this point. At least, not outside of Humble Choice bundles....
EA Games -> Everything's Awful
BioWare didn't deserve this, and this is why I haven't purchased any triple-A titles in literal years at this point. At least, not outside of Humble Choice bundles. I just can't support the "big" games industry anymore. The consoles are shit and overpriced, the games are shit and overpriced, the companies are awful and it feels like supporting sweatshops. I'd rather plunk around in my little indie games that are a bit janky but made with heart by people who take care of themselves and their crew.
Here's hoping they at least sell off the IP to more loving studios, I can't see any benefit to them leaving money on the table if they're shuttering the studio anyway (maybe some tax shenanigans?).
Here's hoping they at least sell off the IP to more loving studios, I can't see any benefit to them leaving money on the table if they're shuttering the studio anyway (maybe some tax shenanigans?).
EA is good at turning IP's into zombies. They might just give it to one of their other studios and have them crank out similar games, pretending to be the same but lacking the life that developers...
EA is good at turning IP's into zombies. They might just give it to one of their other studios and have them crank out similar games, pretending to be the same but lacking the life that developers put into them when allowed to be creative.
I can't say that I had too high hopes for the next Mass Effect, let alone anything further in Dragon Age. But BioWare the failing is definitely the fault of EA management more than it is their own...
I can't say that I had too high hopes for the next Mass Effect, let alone anything further in Dragon Age. But BioWare the failing is definitely the fault of EA management more than it is their own hubris (although I will always remember 'Lots of speculation for everyone!' Hudson)
Hopefully the devs find work elsewhere if they're not staying with EA, more fulfilling work ideally. I have to imagine morale was absolutely terrible even before the slew of layoffs last year and now this.
One of my favorite videos, from 14 years ago, predicting this fate in a prescient manner... Kinda Tldr: Ea was doomed to interfere with biowares creative process and, in doing so, to doom bioware...
Obligatory upvote for MrBtongue; I wish he still made videos. I still rewatch his "Shandification of Fallout" video every few years (it got taken down from his main channel, but there are reuploads).
Obligatory upvote for MrBtongue; I wish he still made videos. I still rewatch his "Shandification of Fallout" video every few years (it got taken down from his main channel, but there are reuploads).
Jason Schreier followed up on this, went into more of the details why this decision was made as a new Star Wars Battlefront seemed like a safer bet. Gift Link...
Jason Schreier followed up on this, went into more of the details why this decision was made as a new Star Wars Battlefront seemed like a safer bet.
I have to imagine the reason BioWare didn't meet expectations is because EA meddled with the process and gave them requirements that ultimately led to terrible games.
I don't think it's a given that EA caused this, I think very likely it's more that bad management or bad decisions or generally poor execution (or turnover/burnout/etc) ended up creating a bad product that didn't meet sales expectations.
Mass Effect Andromeda wasn't well received, Anthem was more or less DOA (Even though I actually played it a lot and thought it was a very good game), and the latest Dragon Age was also relatively lukewarmly reviewed.
I specifically remember that in the huge ass article about Anthem's development, they didn't have a clear vision+lots of indecision in direction. If I recall correctly, it was one of the higher ups, management types, that actually told them to prioritize the flying, that was something they added late, but it really made the game. It didn't save it, but it'd have been a WAY WORSE game without that, and if they'd made that decision sooner, maybe it'd have been better.
Other studios have simply made better games over the past decade or so, and a lot of the love and goodwill people had for BioWare's games......they lost, because they stopped making good games.
Afaik EA mandated that BioWare use the Frostbite engine for several of its games (Dragon Age / Mass Effect) which caused some issues. They also pushed "live service" options into the games and shipped Anthem early.
I'm sure BioWare isn't without blame here, but EA certainly didn't help.
Yeah it was a mix of things. Some problems were on Bioware, others on EA. For example, I remember from the Anthem article that EA could be surprisingly patient, and that it was the Bioware directors who wanted to chase the GaaS goldmine, and it was they who believed in and pushed for "Bioware magic" - the idea that everything would click together at the end (translation: bad planning & crunch).
Another thing to remember is that most people that worked on their best games (ME trilogy, DA Origins, etc) had already left the studio many years ago. The studio nowadays was not the same as the studio we all admired, it just shared the same name
Despite this constantly being bandied as the reason why Beloved Developer put out bad games, it's been shown time and time again that EA actually gives its studios a lot of rope and they end up doing it to themselves. Maxis' scaling down of Spore and online-only approach to SimCity was all on them, Pandemic Studios was given extension after extension and couldn't produce anything in a timely manner after the PS2 era, Bioware chose to go after live service games with Anthem, and more.
The only studio I don't remember hearing brought things down on themselves was Westwood.
But all this is moot since EA is now owned by Saudis and Jared Kushner so none of the usual reasons have to apply. For all we know, they're getting shut down because their games have homosexuality in them. Or because they're Canadian.
I understand the argument, but if you examine the data scores of games almost universally drop a few years after EA acquires a studio. Even if they aren't directly meddling, there has to be a correlation here.
Pre-EA Bioware was regularly ~90 on Metacritic, post-EA they are in the 70-80s range.
They were bought in 2005, years before they put out Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Their first underwhelming big release was Dragon Age 2, in 2011. Mass Effect Andromeda was their first flop of a release (i.e. their first game which failed to score above 80 on MC) and that was 2017. So that's 12 years after EA's acquisition.
Iiiiiiiii would argue that their first underwhelming big release was Mass Effect 2, which was released in 2010 (and was the first major release developed all or mostly under the auspices of EA). It was a critical darling, obviously, and for some reason is beloved by a lot of fans, but, like… the main plot makes no sense, the gameplay is pure "gears of war but worse", there's functionally zero continuity with the previous game, and even the character writing must be admitted to be extremely inconsistent. (For every Mordin Solus, there a The Misspelled-Elusive Dude and wildly-recharacterized Liara.) The signs are there that early, but it took many more years for them to escalate sufficiently (and fan loyalty to be sufficiently eroded) for the games to really start flopping.
Now… the timing, of course, doesn't directly mean that EA was responsible. The reporting definitely makes it sound like Bioware put plenty of effort into their own grave. I find it tough to dismiss, though.
Honestly that's a wild thing for me to read. I think ME2 is by far the best ME game, and the best "modern" Bioware game (e.g, not Baldur's Gate 2 era).
But I suppose that's where subjectivity goes into play. Nonetheless, IMO if ME2 was their "collapse", they should've done a lot more collapsing.
ME2 is weird, being simultaneously a great game in isolation, a terrible successor to the first game, and a terrible, terrible set up for the final game in the trilogy.
For me ME2 killed the franchise and I had absolutely no interest in ME3; ME2 squandered the world and story that got developed in the first game. And it changed so many of the characters, not the least of which was Shepard.
ME1 ends with a Reaper attack on Citadel Station, the congregation point of every known civilized species. Only Shepard + crew were able to stave off that attack, and in doing so they revealed the Reaper threat to the whole galaxy. ME2 opens with the council calling the Reapers a myth and a daydream. Shepard, too, seems okay with ignoring the threat of the Reapers (Miranda's ass is much more important, obviously, duh. Genetically engineered to be the perfect ass. I wish I was joking).
I played ME2 twice; the first time through I was confused, because I couldn't find any Mass Effect anywhere inside the game. My second time through I turned my brain off and enjoyed the game for what it is: a character focused Firefly wannabe in the ME universe, crossed with being a "heist-like"; the majority of the game is building a team to do a job.
I'm happy I never played ME3, though. From what I hear ME2 really did kill the narrative of the franchise. ME3's story was rushed as hell, since ME2 didn't have any contribution whatsoever to the story. The "3 colors" ending debacle. The ship now has a robo-ass that Joker can't keep his eyes off (In a game that needs to do 2 games worth of narrative, this was a great use of time, right? Right?). Apparently, there's a space ninja OC do-not-steal. And so on.
But I do agree that, independently of the rest of the franchise, ME2 is a very fun stand-alone game. It's got strong character writing (when you ignore conflicts within returning characters) and it's a pretty good romp around the stars. The mechanics of play are way, way better than the first game. "Everyone" liked it for real and valid reasons.
This feels like it's giving too much reverence to ME1. I mean, if you didn't even play ME3, then ME2 is half of the ME series. Saying it "ruins" the Mass Effect series just seems strange - maybe ME1 ruined the ME series and ME2 is just course correcting?
It's not like ME1 had a particularly great plot, either. Wow, another scifi plot where the author read 40k. Not to say it was bad, but they clearly wrote themselves into a hole with the reapers (and the concept of the reapers is also somewhat cliche by then anyway), and never figured out how to resolve things, to the very end.
For me, ME2 is the best game in the series by virtue of nailing the gameplay loop, its individual story and how characters got an upgrade (in both dialogue and individual arcs). Liara for example went from a cliché naive young scientist that doesn't understand how the world works to a cynical information broker; it was an 180 on her character that oddly felt right, and made her that much more interesting to me than how she was portrayed in ME1.
I take a bit of an issue with two claims: 1. that Shepard ignores the original reaper threat and 2. that it killed the narrative for ME3.
If you were to argue that ME2 gets sidetracked and should've been about the Reapers arriving, instead of introducing a new threat: fair enough, I can see where you would be coming from (more on that below). But narratively speaking, it's not true that Shepard ignored the original threat.
But speaking for myself, ME3 is the perfect example of a story where the journey was good, but the destination was mishandled. As someone who hated the ending, I think ME3 handled the journey well. Old characters continue their arcs; we get to see them and how they deal with their home planets being destroyed; we finally manage to get the whole galaxy under a single banner; we play as the tip of the spear against the Reapers; it's a losing war and the game doesn't sugarcoat it; etc.
The issue was the ending. I think it was the Metro's writer who said this at the time - but if it wasn't him, then I remember agreeing with this theory at least: he suspected that the writers didn't really know what to do with the reapers ever since the first game. If they did, chances are that they would've planned the narrative path better until the third game - ME2 'sidetracked-ness' comes into mind - and they wouldn't have written themselves into a corner that forced them to write an ending to fit the logistical reality of the development - ME3, IIRC, was rushed.
All of that said, one transparency thing: ME2 was the game that made me like RPGs, and it was my introduction to ME universe. I didn't have the biases that I probably would've had if I played ME1 first. Thus why - to me - ME1 feels like the weakest game of the trilogy, and more experimental - as if the devs were still trying to figure out the characters and universe. It's still a good game that I like to reply every few years though, but to me ME2 is where the trilogy shines
The shift didn't make any sense at all to me, but I respect your opinion.
Keep in mind that you only find out the collectors are tied to the reapers at all near the very end of the game. For the first half (or more), Shepard does seem to be sort of inexplicably focused on a few missing colonists.
Actually, in the first meeting you have with the Illusive Man he says that he suspects that it's someone working for the Reapers. We only find out that they're building a Reaper near the end of the game yes, but the connection was made almost at the beginning
Edit: which is why, if you play as a reluctant partner with the Illusive Man, it's only because of this connection that Shepard is convinced to cooperate
Good point, I stand corrected.
I'm kind of with you on ME2, actually. I loved ME1 and when 2 came out I was thoroughly underwhelmed. It felt like they took all of the criticisms of ME1 and instead of fixing those systems, just did away with them altogether. They stripped out a lot of what made the game interesting. The writing was still pretty good, and the shooting worked "better" but it was at the expense of a lot of the RPG mechanics.
This is the objectively correct take.
For a 50-part / tens of thousands of words version of the take, start here.
EA bought Bioware in 2007*
Right, sorry, it was acquire by VG Holding Corp. in 2005, which in turn was bought by EA in 2007.
2007, wasn't it?
Right, sorry, it was acquire by VG Holding Corp. in 2005, which in turn was bought by EA in 2007.
Eh that can just be correlation. All studios fade eventually. But EA will buy them at their apex, because of course they would. Like, if a new studio formed, and immediately made ass games, EA definitely isn't going to acquire them.
All western studios maybe. There's a reason Nintendo is still at the top of its game 40 years in. Turns out studios are made of people and people tend to get better at something the longer they do it. And that tends to be how much of Japan's studios work.
A studio like Obsidian (to use a less controversial example)? They don't necessarily become objectively worse, but how many people there who worked on KOTOR 2 are around today? More than you'd think for an American studio, but still not a lot. We don't foster talent here, we rely on brands and have a revolving door underneath trying to keep the show running.
Art never worked like that.
Their last game, Earth & Beyond, was a flop, so maybe that did them in.
Idk sometimes I think people give the studios a pass just to have an easy villain. They had a lot of bombs. DA 2 was bad. Mass Effect 3 was heavily flawed. MA andromeda was atrocious. DA Veilguard was mediocre at best.
Anthem was the biggest disaster, and per interviews that was on BioWare mainly https://www.ign.com/articles/former-bioware-executive-producer-breaks-down-what-really-happened-to-anthem
The one thing that EA definitely “meddled” with is the choice of engine, since they were encouraged to use the in house frostbite engine over unreal. But everyone complains about all games using unreal, so maybe they have a point.
Easy to have a villain when they act like a villain, yes. This whole thing is a result of leadership jumping ship and selling the studio to the highest bidder.
Meanwhile, on the developer side rule of cool is in effect. Gamers can be brutal , but they'll also forgive a lot of issues for a game that's overall engaging. Metal Gear Solid 5 is basically unfinished but people still love it to death because of the core experience that's in there.
I can say that without much bioware balance. The only game from them I played was Sonic: Dark Brotherhood. And if you are invested in Sonic, you know that's not a good experience.
It’s the EA tradition, after all. Same thing that kills every EA studio.
So I guess this means the teased Mass Effect sequel is dead.
The cynic in me believes this is primarily due to the extremely hard-right views of the new EA ownership (who gained control not even 3 months ago), especially with the history and reputation BioWare has of more inclusive gender and sexual identity in its games.
Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, KOTOR and especially Neverwinter Nights were formative when I was a pre-teen and teenager. It's sad to see this studio go; like an old teaching dying.
Regardless of EA's part in the studio's downfall, I think the writing was on the wall for BioWare long ago, and it was probably misguided to believe they were going to put out another great game.
Even just looking at the roller coaster of quality that is the Dragon Age series, it's clear that they haven't been playing to their strengths for a long time, the priority has been anywhere else. If they'd been able to work on some smaller-scale projects as a way to test new ideas, maybe each release wouldn't have felt so scattershot and unfocused, but at the budgets they were working with this was never going to end well.
It's a shame, because they have put out some excellent games that changed the direction of the industry multiple times. If they weren't capable of doing that again, they could have excelled in specific niches as a way to stay afloat rather than chasing mass appeal. When you shoot for the stars, you don't always realize how massive space is until you're already there.
Since I don't see this elsewhere in the thread, I'll be the one to post it. Here lies EA's graveyard, from point of purchase to death.
I'd say RIP, but the Maxis Zombie is still creating expansions for The Sims 4. Q_Q
I need a documentary on what drives modders to make content for ancient games. For some reason, people still run servers for Phantasy Star Online -- almost 30 years later! Psychos!
when the saudies bought EA many of us already knew this was going to happen. EA was horrible, but after that went through EA is dead. They only wanted fifa, battlefield and whatever game as a service they could get
EA Games -> Everything's Awful
BioWare didn't deserve this, and this is why I haven't purchased any triple-A titles in literal years at this point. At least, not outside of Humble Choice bundles. I just can't support the "big" games industry anymore. The consoles are shit and overpriced, the games are shit and overpriced, the companies are awful and it feels like supporting sweatshops. I'd rather plunk around in my little indie games that are a bit janky but made with heart by people who take care of themselves and their crew.
Here's hoping they at least sell off the IP to more loving studios, I can't see any benefit to them leaving money on the table if they're shuttering the studio anyway (maybe some tax shenanigans?).
EA is good at turning IP's into zombies. They might just give it to one of their other studios and have them crank out similar games, pretending to be the same but lacking the life that developers put into them when allowed to be creative.
I can't say that I had too high hopes for the next Mass Effect, let alone anything further in Dragon Age. But BioWare the failing is definitely the fault of EA management more than it is their own hubris (although I will always remember 'Lots of speculation for everyone!' Hudson)
Hopefully the devs find work elsewhere if they're not staying with EA, more fulfilling work ideally. I have to imagine morale was absolutely terrible even before the slew of layoffs last year and now this.
One of my favorite videos, from 14 years ago, predicting this fate in a prescient manner... Kinda
Tldr: Ea was doomed to interfere with biowares creative process and, in doing so, to doom bioware
It's edifying and amusing at the same time.
Obligatory upvote for MrBtongue; I wish he still made videos. I still rewatch his "Shandification of Fallout" video every few years (it got taken down from his main channel, but there are reuploads).
100%. That shandification vid is how I found him.
The EA which is now partly owned by the Kushner(*) freak? Are we surprised?
*) no idea how you spell that, not worth looking up
Jason Schreier followed up on this, went into more of the details why this decision was made as a new Star Wars Battlefront seemed like a safer bet.
Gift Link
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-10-30/why-electronic-arts-shut-down-bioware-and-cancelled-mass-effect?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTc5MzM2ODg3OCwiZXhwIjoxNzkzOTczNjc4LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJUTlE0ODNLSUpIOTAwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJCMUVBQkI5NjQ2QUM0REZFQTJBRkI4MjI1MzgyQTJFQSJ9.sgmBhq2XJovdJibklbppkKXJ1mWIrjMRyI1a3RV6uJM&leadSource=article-gifting
Accompanied Vlog:
https://youtu.be/Dx0b2Xbnnrc