It’s similar to what I’ve been doing the past year. I’ve become a Swift iOS developer writing some neat little apps for my company. And while I could have figured out each and every little thing on my own, I haven’t had to because the Swift language is very popular and there are a ton of sites and tutorials and Q&As about most everything.

BioWare’s Frostbite teams on Andromeda and Anthem? Sounds like they had to hope that the people busy working on the latest FIFA game would someday have time to stop making their game(s) and help BioWare make their games. So, sure, Frostbite can support good multiplayer games, but how much harder is it to develop one than it would otherwise be?

It should probably be noted that this kind of trouble isn’t unique to BioWare. Think of Bungie and Destiny. Custom game engine and tools used by nobody else? Check. Large delays and development troubles? Check. What Bungie had that it sounds like the Andromeda and Anthem teams didn’t was leadership that was able to at least somewhat salvage something from a very rough dev process. Now, Destiny is, oddly enough, the game to beat in this space. And Anthem... might survive it’s first year...

Another good example of good leadership saving the day was Tomb Raider (2013). That team was floundering for a while as told in the excellent Tomb Raider - The Final Hours documentary. For a while that game was in crisis too, but then one of the team leaders came back from an extended medical leave and helped right the ship. The game went on to be a modern classic and kicked off a a new trilogy.

For Anthem, it sounds like a custom, not well supported engine + poor leadership almost killed the game. BioWare might not cancel it like they did Mass Effect: Andromeda, but it won’t be worth giving a serious look for another year or so...

Was talking about this with some folks this morning. Here was my non-exhaustive first impressions:

- *Frostbite* - It sounds like EA demanding all their studios use Frostbite has now killed at least two major properties. The section on how unsuited Frostbite was to Anthem is an even worse indictment than how horribly unsuited it was for Mass Effect: Andromeda. Essentially: Very Unsuited multiplied by the demands that it be online multiplayer, which Frostbite doesn’t do.

Huh? I played a lot of Battlefield, so I'm confused by this.

I’ll admit to being even more disappointed in Anthem after reading that article, as the original pitch for the game sounds so much more interesting. More of a survival style game, going out on missions and having to deal with weather and just survive as long as possible. Sounds way more fun than how that game ended up.

Helldivers was (and still is) exactly this. You grab a few friends, each specialize for whatever role they want, then you drop into a procedurally-generated map against one of three factions to complete a mission. It was tough, but you were only limited by the gear you chose to go in with, and the skill and coordination of your team:

A third/first-person version of that would have been insanely fun.

DE is trying to make something like that with Railjack this year. Here's hoping that's successful.

I’ll admit to being even more disappointed in Anthem after reading that article, as the original pitch for the game sounds so much more interesting. More of a survival style game, going out on missions and having to deal with weather and just survive as long as possible. Sounds way more fun than how that game ended up.

I have a personal stake in wanting to know as well, because I have argued as such for Destiny. I've imagined a game designed with no PvE matchmaking, where to have fun you grab your friends and play a mission / level / raid / whatever. So the failure of this idea is interesting, whether creative or business.

But it feels like we’re the minority there, and it seems silly to question why developers are making those styles of games.

I’ll admit to being even more disappointed in Anthem after reading that article, as the original pitch for the game sounds so much more interesting. More of a survival style game, going out on missions and having to deal with weather and just survive as long as possible. Sounds way more fun than how that game ended up.

I.e., you can rotate resources more efficiently when you have 12 goalposts through a year than when all 12-worth need to be done at the first post.

You clearly haven’t paid attention to the reception of The Division 2. It’s arguably the only online looter shooter to have been super well-received from the very beginning, with intelligent loot and world design that doesn’t feel lacking. I won’t make any judgment of that as I haven’t played it, but the consensus is pretty clear.

Thank you for bringing this up. I'll certainly read up on it because I am curious.

You can argue that those systems are bad all day long, but the entire rest of the world apparently disagrees with you. You’re literally the only person to be confused about why a company that wants to make money would choose to chase Destiny’s success and the design ethos of that sort of game.

Destiny is a bad game (outside of PvP). But it's held together with some great parts - parts Bungie alone can create. Things like the feel of guns and movement. The success of Destiny is despite the type of game it is.

No other company even has a chance when you are starting from the rotten foundation that is a 'loot shooter'. It sounds as if their initial idea was pretty solid. You grab friends, play a level, go back, gear up, and do another one. I want to know more about why THAT concept didn't work or why they didn't make that game. The one that sounds awesome. Knowing why THAT didn't work would be extremely interesting and helpful.

I've spoken to several current and former BioWare employees since my article went live today, including some I hadn't interviewed earlier. General consensus has been sadness and disappointment at BioWare's statement, which read as disheartening to those who hoped for change.

— Jason Schreier (@jasonschreier) April 3, 2019

So… do you just give up at that point? Halo was more of a Dylan than anything. Did Bungie stop? Nope. They Dylaned online multiplayer with Halo 2.

There is nothing wrong with aiming to make something that will be remembered in time, even if you've done it before.

I state no wrong nor ill in ambition, simply how perplexed I was at the phrase. The difference is the lack of the word "again". This whole story that Schreier posted is about a studio blinded to choosing any direction, so I couldn't help but wonder... did they not realize what they already made? Why did they throw out the baby with the bath water, when they had already achieved that goal. Did no one learn anything?

...I just don't get it, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Most of this... well. Pretty much same old, unfortunately. Yet the thing that has me scratching my head the most is...

At the beginning, they called it Dylan. In late 2012 and 2013, while finishing up the Mass Effect trilogy, BioWare director Casey Hudson and a small team of longtime Mass Effect developers started work on a project that they hoped would be the Bob Dylan of video games, meaning something that would be referenced by video game fans for years to come.

I don't understand this. They already had their "Bob Dylan of video games" -they had just FINISHED it. It was called Mass Effect. You bring up Tali or Garrus or Wrex or Mordin... whatever... you'll get actual feelings and discussions - even today!

Case and point...

*Ahem*

...

So… do you just give up at that point? Halo was more of a Dylan than anything. Did Bungie stop? Nope. They Dylaned online multiplayer with Halo 2.

There is nothing wrong with aiming to make something that will be remembered in time, even if you've done it before.