Anthem - PrEAying it Doesn't Suck

[Anteros]

Of course it's "limited data," it's only been a week and some change since release. One more reason I roll my eyes at the dogpile.



While I wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram if that happened, I don't think it's particularly realistic either. All Bungie and Activision had was a very limited publishing arrangement for a single game - their relationship is nothing like the one between EA and Bioware, which is essentially whole ownership. Anthem flaming out is unlikely to change that; it's just as if not more likely to mean EA will do what it does to other studios that it has pushed out of their comfort zone, like Westwood, Visceral, Maxis, and Bullfrog.

If Bioware shutting down means that its employees go to other publishers and actually start making decent products again then I'm all for it. It's not like I'm particularly attached to any of their stuff ever since they killed the Mass Effect universe in cold blood.

[Brother Oni]

Of course it's "limited data," it's only been a week and some change since release. One more reason I roll my eyes at the dogpile.

Limited in the sense that we only have physical sales numbers only (ie no digital sales, pre-orders, etc), rather than limited in the sense of 'it's only 1 week's worth of data'.

You can absolutely compare like with like with Anthem sales at the end of week 1 to ME:A sales at end of week 1 to ME3 sales at the end of week 1. Since 30-50% of the total sales of a game are expected to happen in the first week, you can see why the first week sales numbers are important.

Anthem shifted 40,000 physical units in the UK during the first week; some estimations place that as between 30-50% of the total actual sales due to the shift to digital media but even adjusting the numbers up, it's not looking good. Using these values, Anthem has sold half the numbers of ME:A during its first week, so even with adjustment for digital shift at best Anthem outselling ME:A by ~20%; that's not overly impressive.

For reference, ME:A was originally predicted to sell 3 million copies worldwide in its first week, with a total 6 - 9 million copies in total. In reality, over 2 years after its release in Jun 15, it had only shifted over 2 million units by Sep 17. Meanwhile Destiny made 175,000 physical sales in the UK in its first week.

While there's the possibility that Anthem might rally like Destiny, I'm dubious that EA will give Bioware the time and opportunity to do so.

[Psyren]

Limited in the sense that we only have physical sales numbers only (ie no digital sales, pre-orders, etc), rather than limited in the sense of 'it's only 1 week's worth of data'.

You can absolutely compare like with like with Anthem sales at the end of week 1 to ME:A sales at end of week 1 to ME3 sales at the end of week 1.

But you really can't, not cleanly anyway. The landscape has continued to shift towards digital since Andromeda, both in the PC and console space. And on top of that, a big part of Anthem's model is subscriptions to Premier rather than even digital purchases, an option Andromeda didn't even have at the time.

Draw whatever conclusions you want, I can't stop you, but time will tell.

[factotum]

For all we know, Anthem crashing and burning may result in a separation of Bioware and EA, much like Bungie and Activision, resulting in Bioware regaining creative control over its IPs again.

I think this is maybe being a little over-optimistic. We've seen from experience that the only way studios and EA part company is when the latter shoots the former in the head and buries them in a mass grave.

[Yora]

The question is whether they finish Dragon Age 4 or not. Probably yes, but that will be the last game.

[Anteros]

Do we really need more Dragon Age games anyway? It's not like the plot has gone anywhere interesting, and the universe is basically just generic fantasy universe #73.

I like most of the Dragon Age games, but even if they don't make another one, someone else will be along shortly to make generic fantasy with cliche characters ripped right off a tvtropes page. The void will not go unfilled.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not sure I understand your question - trying to kill everything efficiently and working together aren't mutually exclusive. After all, if everyone is alive, that maximizes the party's damage, and every enemy one of your party members kills is one less you have to worry about.

If what you're looking for are teamwork incentives in the gameplay, here are some examples:

1) The combo system - some abilities set up combos (prime) and others activate them (detonate) for big damage bonuses. If you've played Mass Effect 2 or 3 (or Andromeda) it should be pretty intuitive. You can do this solo, but the system works better in groups because the more people you have, the more combos you can prime and detonate, especially in a more coordinated group that's consciously rotating cooldowns.

2) The revive system - in respawn restricted areas, you depend on your teammates to get you up from a downed state, which then encourages players to do the same for each other. As I noted above, this is a bit overly restrictive at present (where you can't do anything while down except wait or alt-F4) but they are changing it on Tuesday to be a 30s wait before you can respawn if nobody comes to get you.

3) Support abilities - every Javelin has a "support slot" which carries an ability geared at helping your party. For example, the Ranger can put down a shield dome or a damage-boosting zone, while the Colossus can taunt enemies to focus on it or reinforce ally shields. You're not required to coordinate to make use of these, but their effects tend to be highly visible (even in Anthem's generally chaotic battles) so taking advantage of one that your ally has activated is pretty easy.

I guess I'm asking whether there are means to coordinate with your team, or if it's a blur of chaos and lasers.

D3, for instance, had the Monk, who could create a bunker for allies using Sanctuary and blind enemies, effectively making it so that allies can safely dish out high levels of damage. Other classes, like the Demon Hunter, could care less about what their team is like and will only focus on killing things as fast as possible.

Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was similar. Mostly it was hectic combat with the occasional revive. You might have to plan around bosses with insta-kill features, but you didn't really care too much about what your team was actually doing.

I do like the sound of what Anthem provides, though, especially the combos. It seems like it'd be frequent enough to constantly reward players for thinking harder and working together.

[Psyren]

I guess I'm asking whether there are means to coordinate with your team, or if it's a blur of chaos and lasers.

D3, for instance, had the Monk, who could create a bunker for allies using Sanctuary and blind enemies, effectively making it so that allies can safely dish out high levels of damage. Other classes, like the Demon Hunter, could care less about what their team is like and will only focus on killing things as fast as possible.

Okay - then what you're after is the "support" slot on each javelin as stated above. The issue though is that there currently aren't any masterwork or legendary support items, so their impact on higher difficulties tends to be negligible. Several of them are expected to get a buff on Tuesday however.

Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was similar. Mostly it was hectic combat with the occasional revive. You might have to plan around bosses with insta-kill features, but you didn't really care too much about what your team was actually doing.

I'm not sure ME's instakill mobs would work as well in Anthem honestly. For one thing it would punish melee builds heavily, and there's a whole javelin type built around those.

I wouldn't mind if mobs could execute again though.

I do like the sound of what Anthem provides, though, especially the combos. It seems like it'd be frequent enough to constantly reward players for thinking harder and working together.

It does, but it's also not really required, no more than it was in ME3. Less even, since you have a whole third dimension to escape in, so there's no need to control chokes and the like.

[Man_Over_Game]

So if I understood most of what you've described, supporting is something that each individual can do on a minor scale, but it's less of a priority than focusing on the scariest thing in the room.

It's an action game first, not a cooperative one. It has cooperative elements, but they are not quite as important as just fighting well. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; my wife loves to be selfish in video games, and I love to support the team. I'm just trying to get a good idea of what it's like and see if there's reason enough to get it in the future.


Thanks a bunch for your help, btw!

[NeoVid]

Grouping is the default. One of the many things about Anthem that makes me feel like I'm playing a revamped Warframe is that the game automatically puts you in a group of 4 doing the same mission as you whenever it possibly can. Comboing abilities also turned out to be the most effective thing in combat, and that works much better with a group of players all bringing different powers.

Now, what I came here to post: Critically important statistics about loot drops. If you haven't ever found a Legendary item, this appears to be why. Short version is that if you want the best chances at Legendaries, go into Freeplay dungeons without any objectives and kill all the elites.

Edit: Turns out that item drop rates being satisfyingly high was a bug, fixed now.

[Giggling Ghast]

In case you're one of those people wondering what the hell went wrong with Anthem, Kotaku published an investigative piece this morning exploring exactly that:

https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anth...ong-1833731964

And here is Bioware's response, published what seems like seconds after the Kotaku article went out:

http://blog.bioware.com/2019/04/02/a...e-development/

[Psyren]

And here is Bioware's response, published what seems like seconds after the Kotaku article went out:

Kotaku sent them a summary of what would be in the article before it went to print, so the timing isn't really a factor.

Anyway, the way I see it, there are two outcomes:

1) EA/Bioware hang in there, continue to polish Anthem, and it ends up being a worthwhile IP.
2) Anthem fails, and as the article notes, they definitively get the message about culture and game design. (Personally my hope is that they got the message regardless, but the failure of their latest opus would certainly drive it home.)

I consider either of those to be wins; and while I would prefer the former, if they give up on Anthem the way they gave up on Andromeda then I'd basically be done with them as a company at that point no matter what they learned. At least I might have another port of call in the form of the studios some of the departed greats like Flynn and Laidlaw end up at.

[Arutema]

There's also the distinct possiblity of EA going full Sith Lord and sacking everyone at Bioware. That's EA's traditional response to studios that deliver a single flop, after all.

[Zevox]

In case you're one of those people wondering what the hell went wrong with Anthem, Kotaku published an investigative piece this morning exploring exactly that:

https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anth...ong-1833731964

And here is Bioware's response, published what seems like seconds after the Kotaku article went out:

http://blog.bioware.com/2019/04/02/a...e-development/

Wow. All that mess sure makes it sound like there's really not a ton left of the Bioware that made all the games I actually like from them (basically everything up through ME3). People leaving due to stress, programmers getting moved to FIFA of all things, leadership just ignoring concerns about problems. And there's the mention of EA having decided that all of their games need to be a "service," and their dislike of linear games because they're easier for people to beat once and then decide to trade in to Gamestop.

Sounds like I should stop holding out hope that Dragon Age or Mass Effect will return to being what I once loved someday. Whatever Bioware is now, and whatever they'll make of DA4, it sounds like those glory days are behind them and not coming back. Pity.

[Giggling Ghast]

Weird as it may sound, I was completely hopeless prior to the publication of Schreier’s article, but I now feel much better. I knew something was terribly wrong at BioWare, but my arguments were dismissed outright (“How dare you speak ill of the great BioWare!”) and I felt that history was doomed to repeat itself. Now I know what the problem is, and so do others. I feel vindication and a flicker of hope that the ship’s course can be righted.

It is still very likely that there will never be another DAO, let alone another DAI. It may also be that Dragon Age 4 is a disaster that results in BioWare being shuttered by Electronic Arts.

But there is also the possibility that this Kotaku article might prompt some kind of introspection on BioWare’s part. Maybe they’ll realize that the current approach of heavy crunch/lack of clear direction isn’t working, that it’s produced two duds and a third one will kill them. Maybe some higher-up at EA will hear the message that Frostbite is “full of razors” and allow DA4 to be produced with a better engine, or give more technical support to BioWare.

I can only guess at what will come of today, Probably nothing, but you never know.

[ngilop]

So.. anthem was supposed to be more firefall and less warframe at the start. Or at least not so much of a loot shooter.

Dang could have been a great game.


I still have fun. I can say that the 'tank' javelin IS NOT the tank javelin. My just epic Ranger is more survivable than my master and leendary Colossus is by a noticable amount.

The fact i can just run into everything with my big donkey sheild and one **** most everything is as much a joke to me as melee everything to death was in destiny. My gun should do so much more. But, let me trample that elite frost brute and kill him real fast.

[The_Jackal]

Borderlands had no real endgame though; once you beat the story there was nothing to really do but play it again on a higher difficulty with bigger numbers. Even Diablo 2 had more to go on than that.

Not to mention of course that both games had plenty of hacking and duping due to their offline statuses.

The only thing Diablo 2 added to mediate the infinite repetition of the single-player game was a few specific encounters, like Uber Diablo. Other than that, it was higher difficulty, bigger numbers, and elemental immunities which could make your entire character worthless. In terms of 'endgame', they really were very similar: Bigger numbers, repeat content.

What makes or breaks your game in that framework is how varied and entertaining your content is. There's nothing particularly wrong with repetition, so long as there's enough variety and engagement in your gameplay loop to keep you playing. Whatever your opinion of BL or BL2, it can't be denied there's a lot of content to choose from. I'm also of the opinion that variety in playstyles and itemizations is also important, because it's more axes of variety for the player to choose from. In other words, Diablo 2 thrived, I feel, not only because there were lots of maps with a wide variety of enemies to choose from, but 7 heroes with a wide assortment of builds to choose from, and a broad array of entertaining itemization choices to support those builds.

[Psyren]

The only thing Diablo 2 added to mediate the infinite repetition of the single-player game was a few specific encounters, like Uber Diablo. Other than that, it was higher difficulty, bigger numbers, and elemental immunities which could make your entire character worthless. In terms of 'endgame', they really were very similar: Bigger numbers, repeat content.

What makes or breaks your game in that framework is how varied and entertaining your content is. There's nothing particularly wrong with repetition, so long as there's enough variety and engagement in your gameplay loop to keep you playing. Whatever your opinion of BL or BL2, it can't be denied there's a lot of content to choose from. I'm also of the opinion that variety in playstyles and itemizations is also important, because it's more axes of variety for the player to choose from. In other words, Diablo 2 thrived, I feel, not only because there were lots of maps with a wide variety of enemies to choose from, but 7 heroes with a wide assortment of builds to choose from, and a broad array of entertaining itemization choices to support those builds.

Diablo 2 thrived because it had very little competition during its heyday. The utter lack of variety in Baal runs, Cow runs and Countess runs wasn't an issue because, after all, what other perpetual experience were we going to play? It was one of the first live services ever made that wasn't a MUSH.

I still have fun. I can say that the 'tank' javelin IS NOT the tank javelin. My just epic Ranger is more survivable than my master and leendary Colossus is by a noticable amount.

Yeah, this definitely disappointed me. If they're going to make a javelin that can't dodge, it needs to be a lot tougher. There are masterwork affixes that help with that, but my Ranger has always been tougher.

[The_Jackal]

Diablo 2 thrived because it had very little competition during its heyday. The utter lack of variety in Baal runs, Cow runs and Countess runs wasn't an issue because, after all, what other perpetual experience were we going to play? It was one of the first live services ever made that wasn't a MUSH.

Totally legit. The game industry is always moving, and if you're going to overtake the leader in a particular genre, you need to move faster than them. That said, I still assert that there is a wider array of options than just 'other games' against which you entertainment hour must compete. I was in my 20's when Diablo 2 dropped, so it wasn't as if I didn't have other fun things I could do with my time. My point is, a good game is compelling in a vacuum. So when these newer looter-shooter sandbox-y 'game as a service' titles drop and there's way too little content and too much repetition, it doesn't matter how polished and pretty the puddle is, it won't compete with a pond, or a lake, or an ocean.

Consider that World of Warcraft was far from the most technologically impressive game even when it launched, and yet it managed to take the gaming world by storm merely by virtue of excellent art direction and a large, diverse store of fun content. Destiny 2's launch was blighted by a threadbare endgame, so was No Man's Sky, Sea of Thieves, Hellgate: London, the list goes on and on. How many times must developers and publishers be taught the same lesson? You need quality, quantity, and variety, and you'll get immediate and enthusiastic feedback. A three legged stool with one leg missing falls over, every single time.

[Psyren]

Definitely agreed that it's a lesson that needs to be internalized. Content is king.

With that said, 3 of your examples did recover from their rough starts and turn the headlines around, and they are going strong with dedicated (albeit smaller) audiences.

As for me, I was in my late teens. Sure, there were other things to do, but Diablo 2 represented a laundry list of firsts. It was the first game where I argued about builds on forums, the first game that I would repeatedly restart to try different ones, the first game where just hanging out in/trolling General chat was as much fun as playing the game itself. It was also before the era of wikis and datamining, so all kinds of rumors and secrets abounded.

That mystique is impossible to recapture. And that's fine.

[factotum]

Diablo 2 thrived because it had very little competition during its heyday. The utter lack of variety in Baal runs, Cow runs and Countess runs wasn't an issue because, after all, what other perpetual experience were we going to play?

You didn't do Mephisto or Baal runs in D2 for the gameplay variety, you did it for the *loot* variety. Isn't that one of the main complaints about Anthem, that there just aren't enough loot drops?

[Giggling Ghast]

A three legged stool with one leg missing falls over, every single time.

As Yahtzee said not long ago in his Fallout 76 review:

In the long run, the only eternal guarantor of success is a quality product well-made, ideally with tits on the front.

[Psyren]

You didn't do Mephisto or Baal runs in D2 for the gameplay variety, you did it for the *loot* variety.

It's possible to have both nowadays, is my point.

[Aotrs Commander]

Given the aforementioned report on Bioware (which I haven't had chance to read first-hand), I am even more terrified of what EA is going to do with the supposed remasters of C&C and RA due out in some point.

And, if by some miracle, EA doesn't manage to frack it up, it works, isn't full of bugs and microtransactions and loot-boxes and Lichemaster knows what else (and that's a BIIIIG if), could I in good consciouse give money to a company like EA given its appalling treatment of both its own staff and customers?

(I mean, it's been really easy to vote with my pocket since ME3 since EA has released absolutely nothing I am even remotely interested in.)

Think at the moment it's lose-lose.

[warty goblin]

Given the aforementioned report on Bioware (which I haven't had chance to read first-hand), I am even more terrified of what EA is going to do with the supposed remasters of C&C and RA due out in some point.

Having read the article, it seems pretty clear that the substantial majority of Anthem's problems are down to astonishingly poor project management and leadership on the part of BioWare. The only thing EA seems to have done that was actually harmful to the game's development was require using Frostbite, and not providing as much support as was probably really required. Otherwise it basically reads like they gave BioWare four years to clown around, at which point Patrick Söderlund played their extant demo, which apparently involved running around a flat farm and shooting aliens, and said it was unacceptable. A couple months later, he liked a different demo, after they put flying back in. This sounds less like executive meddling ruining the game, and more like executive oversight actually forcing them to make a game at all.

Pretty much everything else sounded like it was down to BioWare not being able to pour piss out of a boot, because they had a bunch of indecisive meetings about whether or not to read the instructions written on the heel. Also Destiny had poured piss out of a boot, and nobody was allowed to talk about Destiny.

It actually sounds like Anthem was more of a development garbage fire than Andromeda. They had a clear vision for Andromeda, spent a lot of time trying to pull off meshing procedural generation and story, and couldn't do it. That failure forced the very rapid assembly of what we got out of the pieces they had. One gets the distinct sense that nobody really ever had much of an idea what the hell Anthem was supposed to actually be, so instead of spending years failing to do something ambitious, they spent years failing to figure what they were doing at all.

[factotum]

could I in good consciouse give money to a company like EA given its appalling treatment of both its own staff and customers?

If you don't want to give money to games companies that overwork their employees, you'd best stop playing games. Remember when Rockstar were proud of having had people doing hundred hour weeks to finish RDR2? This sort of thing is endemic within the game industry, unfortunately.

[Anteros]

If you don't want to give money to games companies that overwork their employees, you'd best stop playing games. Remember when Rockstar were proud of having had people doing hundred hour weeks to finish RDR2? This sort of thing is endemic within the game industry, unfortunately.

Rockstar is hardly better than EA these days anyway. Supposedly that was just their lead writers who did it "voluntarily". Of course, typically when a company asks you to do "voluntary" overtime what they actually mean is "do this or commit career suicide."

Then again, a little overtime towards the end of a big project is hardly unheard of in the corporate world. You can hardly not support any business that does it. Even non profit hospitals have things like residents pulling 36 hour shifts.

[Aotrs Commander]

If you don't want to give money to games companies that overwork their employees, you'd best stop playing games. Remember when Rockstar were proud of having had people doing hundred hour weeks to finish RDR2? This sort of thing is endemic within the game industry, unfortunately.

It's endemic to the "triple AAAAAAAA" games industry. And yes I do, am I just as disgusted by it. Fortunately, that was a very easy non-decision to make, because Rockstar have never made any games I be dstantly interested in playing in te first place. Ditto for the almost all of the worst offenders. (I mean, it's not like they don't make it incredibly easy for me, of course, because to stop playing those games, I'd have had to have ever started.)

(The only exception being Ubisoft, in that I spent about £15 the other week on the remastered Settlers pack since the last game I bought (Anno 2070) and France, at least, does have labour laws.)

Paradox gets the lion's share of my pennies these days and given both the amount of times they shut down down various holidays (Notably because people whinge on the forums about how many national holidays they apparently have in Sweden), and they have stuff lke the regular dev streams, I am fairly sure they have a considerably healthier environment, too.



(Plus, companies - not just the one in the computer game industry - bank on the apathy of "well, I still want that stuff, so I'll by it anyway..." There are probably - certainly, even - a lot of non-game companies that we all use that get away with that that we should draw the same line against, but you have to start drawing the line somewhere, right?

Until such time as I take personal control of the planet and the people responsible for such behavor find themselves crawling around without internal organs, of course, because I am taking an ever-dimmer view of this sort of thing...)

[factotum]

Then again, a little overtime towards the end of a big project is hardly unheard of in the corporate world. You can hardly not support any business that does it. Even non profit hospitals have things like residents pulling 36 hour shifts.

Doing hundred-hour weeks for months at a time really isn't normal in any other industry, especially since I'm pretty sure that isn't paid overtime those guys are doing. I was once involved in game development (for a small developer on the CD-i platform about 25 years ago) and I recall doing 70-hour weeks for the last six weeks before a product shipped because we were racing to get it done, and that was an experience I vowed never to repeat--I can only imagine how much worse it is now.

[Anteros]

Doing hundred-hour weeks for months at a time really isn't normal in any other industry, especially since I'm pretty sure that isn't paid overtime those guys are doing. I was once involved in game development (for a small developer on the CD-i platform about 25 years ago) and I recall doing 70-hour weeks for the last six weeks before a product shipped because we were racing to get it done, and that was an experience I vowed never to repeat--I can only imagine how much worse it is now.

I can tell you first hand that hospital doctors have to do it. Residency is practically slave labor. I've always heard stories of lawyers doing it as well. I can't speak for every job on the spectrum but I know it's not unheard of in a lot of industries.