What went wrong at Bioware? (Perhaps a touchy subject)

[ZedClampet]

There was a lot of discussion online about this around the time of Mass Effect Andromeda. Most people agreed that EA's meddling was fairly devastating, but there were others who believed that, in addition to EA's meddling, that Bioware had become a victim of its own politics. Some of these arguments I wouldn't really want to mention here, as they weren't very pleasant, but one example that they gave was that the characters of Andromeda were all seemingly far less attractive than in previous games, and that was pretty hard to argue against. However, I'm not sure that character attractiveness really amounts to much, but it was being held up as an example of an underlying issue that was supposedly getting in the way of Bioware making great games.

I don't want to bring up politics here. I hate politics and am a political independent. But, just generally speaking, could it be possible that there was an activist-type culture that emphasized things that were antithetical to great game development? I guess I think that's possible, but I feel like it would have to be so extreme that it's unlikely that this was the case at Bioware. I think a lot of political-type stuff just came to the front for Bioware because they were going through such difficult times, being jerked one direction and then the other by Andrew Wilson.

Anyway, without getting into a political miasma, do you think that something about Bioware's culture played a role in the duds they were producing at the time or was all of that just hooey? Personally, I lean toward it being nonsense and a product of the times (I think Gamer Gate (? was that what it was called) was going on at the time), but I'd be interested to see what others think.

 

[Zloth]

<shrug> Too hard to tell. There's going to be some "it's EA so it must be bad" in there, too.

 

[Pifanjr]

https://kotaku.com/the-story-behind-mass-effect-andromedas-troubled-five-1795886428

Seems like Mass Effect: Andromeda's development was difficult, resulting in a lot of developers leaving and souring the work environment. A major reason why the development was so difficult was that Bioware really dropped the ball on basic management of their projects and teams. Another is the switch to Frostbite engine.

 

[mainer]

My personal belief is that the start of the gradual dysfunction of Bioware began when EA (Electronic Arts) purchased them back in 2007: EA buys BioWare, Pandemic - IGN

One interesting paragraph from that brief article is a quote by Ray Muzyka:
"We are truly excited by John Riccitiello's new vision for EA," said Ray Muzyka, Co-founder and CEO of BioWare Corp. in a news release Thursday. "This vision is consistent with BioWare's focus on crafting the highest quality story-driven games in the world. It will enable us to further the careers of the passionate, creative and hard working teams at BioWare Edmonton and BioWare Austin."

That, obviously turned out to be false. EA's focus was, or became, the "live service game" model and moving away from the story-driven games that Bioware was known for. Everybody loves to hate EA, but was it entirely their fault that the quality of Bioware's games degraded over the years? I certainly don't know, but I do believe that EA's interference/meddling/pressure on Bioware's leaders played a large part in the games they produced. It felt like the focus and leadership of Bioware became so erratic, with employees being jerked one direction then another, that the single player, story-driven gameplay they were known for was lost.

And then there were all the resignations of project leads which certainly didn't help with stability. In many forums/discussions I've seen the statement: "all the talent has left Bioware" (or something similar). To me, that's BS. Yes, several well know project lead have left, but that doesn't mean that there aren't talented people/artists/writers left, we just don't know their names. But there is a definite lack of focus and direction. I still have a slim hope that they can turn things around, but I also hope to win the lottery someday, so we'll see which happens first.

There was a lot of discussion online about this around the time of Mass Effect Andromeda. Most people agreed that EA's meddling was fairly devastating, but there were others who believed that, in addition to EA's meddling, that Bioware had become a victim of its own politics.

The article that @Pifanjr linked is an excellent one, giving much insight into Andromeda's troubled development cycle. I've often felt that had Andromeda not been a Mass Effect game, it would have been far better received and reviewed. While certain aspects seemed a bit rushed or incomplete, the actual gameplay, exploration and combat were excellent.

but one example that they gave was that the characters of Andromeda were all seemingly far less attractive than in previous games, and that was pretty hard to argue against. However, I'm not sure that character attractiveness really amounts to much,

The character models, and to some degree the character animations (especially at release) weren't as good as ME3 or even ME2, but I don't think that was the real issue. For me, it was harder to relate to the protagonist, whether Scott or Sarah Ryder, after being Commander Shepard (male or female) for the first 3 games. The strength of a real personality just wasn't there, and I initially found it harder to relate to being a Ryder rather than a Shepard.

I think that was the main negative for me, the personality of my character, as well as those of my crew just weren't as in depth, and the conversations/dialogue far less intricate and branching. How could they compete with Shepard, Liara, Garrus and the others? Not that they were terrible, and the voice acting was excellent, they just weren't as complex.

 

[Pifanjr]

My personal belief is that the start of the gradual dysfunction of Bioware began when EA (Electronic Arts) purchased them back in 2007: EA buys BioWare, Pandemic - IGN

One interesting paragraph from that brief article is a quote by Ray Muzyka:
"We are truly excited by John Riccitiello's new vision for EA," said Ray Muzyka, Co-founder and CEO of BioWare Corp. in a news release Thursday. "This vision is consistent with BioWare's focus on crafting the highest quality story-driven games in the world. It will enable us to further the careers of the passionate, creative and hard working teams at BioWare Edmonton and BioWare Austin."

That, obviously turned out to be false. EA's focus was, or became, the "live service game" model and moving away from the story-driven games that Bioware was known for. Everybody loves to hate EA, but was it entirely their fault that the quality of Bioware's games degraded over the years? I certainly don't know, but I do believe that EA's interference/meddling/pressure on Bioware's leaders played a large part in the games they produced. It felt like the focus and leadership of Bioware became so erratic, with employees being jerked one direction then another, that the single player, story-driven gameplay they were known for was lost.

It seems the worst thing EA did was to switch multiple studios over to Frostbite at the same time.

How the Frostbite Engine Became a Nightmare for EA in General, and BioWare in Particular

After years of development, BioWare finally launched Anthem earlier this year to a wave of critical and community backlash. BioWare's next big thing didn't s...

www.usgamer.net

They didn't have the systems in place to support everyone and the engine was not at all fit to make anything but multiplayer FPS games. So every studio tried to adapt to the engine at the same time while DICE kept updating it, which would often break the modifications each studio made.

 

[ZedClampet]

It seems the worst thing EA did was to switch multiple studios over to Frostbite at the same time.

How the Frostbite Engine Became a Nightmare for EA in General, and BioWare in Particular

After years of development, BioWare finally launched Anthem earlier this year to a wave of critical and community backlash. BioWare's next big thing didn't s...

www.usgamer.net

They didn't have the systems in place to support everyone and the engine was not at all fit to make anything but multiplayer FPS games. So every studio tried to adapt to the engine at the same time while DICE kept updating it, which would often break the modifications each studio made.

I wonder what Frostbite looks like to use. Is it a slick, user-friendly experience like a commercial engine, or is it more barebones and difficult to learn since it was intended only for internal use?

Sorry, I haven't read the linked articles yet. Saving them for when I'm waiting to pick up Guido at school. Usually have about a 20+ minute wait.

 

[Pifanjr]

I wonder what Frostbite looks like to use. Is it a slick, user-friendly experience like a commercial engine, or is it more barebones and difficult to learn since it was intended only for internal use?

Sorry, I haven't read the linked articles yet. Saving them for when I'm waiting to pick up Guido at school. Usually have about a 20+ minute wait.

From the first article: "In the video game industry, Frostbite is known as one of the most powerful engines out there—and one of the hardest to use."

 

[ZedClampet]

From the first article: "In the video game industry, Frostbite is known as one of the most powerful engines out there—and one of the hardest to use."

haha thanks. you could have just told me to shut up until I read the articles

 

[Pifanjr]

haha thanks. you could have just told me to shut up until I read the articles

I always appreciate it when someone quotes relevant parts of articles so I don't have to read the whole thing.

 

[ZedClampet]

I always appreciate it when someone quotes relevant parts of articles so I don't have to read the whole thing.

I'm glad you did because I was in too much pain to want to read anything while I was waiting at school, so reading has been pushed back to after dinner.

 

[mainer]

It seems the worst thing EA did was to switch multiple studios over to Frostbite at the same time.

They didn't have the systems in place to support everyone and the engine was not at all fit to make anything but multiplayer FPS games.

That switch to the Frostbite Engine was a disaster, at least for Andromeda, although DA Inquisition (which also used Frostbite) turned out to be a really good (if not great) single player RPG. But you're right, it's really a game engine designed for multiplayer and not the single player focused games. It's apparently extremely difficult to use, and difficult for modders as well, judging the variety and scarcity of mods available for both MEA & DAI, when compared to other games.

The Wiki for Frostbite (which has a list of Frostbite games), Frostbite (game engine) - Wikipedia , reflects that difficulty. A couple notable quotes:

Frostbite is notorious for having well-publicized difficulties, including its complexity. This led to development issues involving two BioWare games and Battlefield 2042.
In 2017, Mass Effect: Andromeda suffered from multiple issues at launch due in part to the complexities of Frostbite and a troubled development.[60][61][62]
In 2019, sources within BioWare claimed that Frostbite's complexity had also contributed to difficulties surrounding Anthem's development.[63][64][65] Former BioWare general manager Aaryn Flynn acknowledged these issues in an interview in November 2019.[66][67]

It's hopeful though, especially with the failure of Anthem, is that EA seems to be allowing Bioware to go back to the single player focused game model. Plus, ME4 is being developed in UE5 instead of Frostbite.
Mass Effect 4 Will Use Unreal Engine 5 (gamerant.com)

I wasn't able to find anything specific regarding the engine for DA4 (Dreadwolf), but I'm ever the optimist. The DA4 brief Wiki doesn't give much info, but it does note many of the notable personnel departures.
Dragon Age: Dreadwolf - Wikipedia

 

[Brian Boru]

engine for DA4 (Dreadwolf)

The Wiki page info panel says Frostbite.

 

[ZedClampet]

@mainer @Pifanjr So according to the first article (Kotaku), the problem really wasn't EA or even Frostbite (though those didn't help). The problem was a failed pre-production, where they didn't manage to get to a point where they could prove that they could make the game they envisioned, and also they made they decision late in pre-production to change the animation software, which put animation significantly behind. The other big factor was writing, which lagged all throughout the process, causing problems in other areas.

And there are odd bits in the story that seem to point to poor management at Bioware, for instance the part about how only one team could generate acceptable procedural planets and none of the other teams could ever pull it off. How is that even possible? Have the one team train the others. But it sounds like everyone was working like lone wolves.

But clearly the important thing was the pre-production during which they were supposed to produce a vertical slice to prove that the game was makeable and fun. They didn't do that, and the game turned out to be nearly impossible to make and no fun, so they had to keep cutting down what they wanted to do until there was almost no time left, and then they had to scramble.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

@mainer @Pifanjr So according to the first article (Kotaku), the problem really wasn't EA or even Frostbite (though those didn't help). The problem was a failed pre-production, where they didn't manage to get to a point where they could prove that they could make the game they envisioned, and also they made they decision late in pre-production to change the animation software, which put animation significantly behind. The other big factor was writing, which lagged all throughout the process, causing problems in other areas.

And there are odd bits in the story that seem to point to poor management at Bioware, for instance the part about how only one team could generate acceptable procedural planets and none of the other teams could ever pull it off. How is that even possible? Have the one team train the others. But it sounds like everyone was working like lone wolves.

But clearly the important thing was the pre-production during which they were supposed to produce a vertical slice to prove that the game was makeable and fun. They didn't do that, and the game turned out to be nearly impossible to make and no fun, so they had to keep cutting down what they wanted to do until there was almost no time left, and then they had to scramble.

As I understand it, thats how Bioware made just about every game they ever produced. They expected it all to come together at the end, with a ton of crunch and sticky tape. Maybe Frostbite was the final straw on top of that attitude?

https://kotaku.com/bioware-magic-is-bullshit-says-former-dragon-age-pro-1848385237

 

[mainer]

The problem was a failed pre-production, where they didn't manage to get to a point where they could prove that they could make the game they envisioned, and also they made they decision late in pre-production to change the animation software, which put animation significantly behind. The other big factor was writing, which lagged all throughout the process, causing problems in other areas.

And there are odd bits in the story that seem to point to poor management at Bioware, for instance the part about how only one team could generate acceptable procedural planets and none of the other teams could ever pull it off. How is that even possible? Have the one team train the others. But it sounds like everyone was working like lone wolves.

While I strongly believe that the EA influence and use of the Frostbite engine were major negative factors, there also appears to be a definite lack in project leadership. A strong project manager (or whatever title they go by), should have identified those issues and coordinate all those lagging teams, instill a unified focus for the game project and get help for those teams that need it. Not being able to produce that "vertical sl ice" as proof of game concept, should have raised enough red flags that someone needed to say, "Hey, this isn't working, to release a great ME game, we're going to need more time to get all these game elements & project teams on the same level of production."

Then the EA influence rears its ugly head and puts pressure on an already ununified Bioware team to finish the game so it can be released. While the initial release wasn't near as terrible as some people say (though paled in comparison to ME1-ME3), it often felt like the strong elements (and there were many) and the weak elements were sort of duck-tapped together. Worst of all, is that EA just dumped the game after a few patches, and the Quarian DLC never materialized, and they moved many employees over to the next great game in production, Anthem. Yeah, that worked out really well.

the game turned out to be nearly impossible to make and no fun, so they had to keep cutting down what they wanted to do until there was almost no time left, and then they had to scramble.

"Being impossible to make" is a real possibility, especially with the failed procedural generated planet system. But MEA was fun to play, especially the combat & exploration. Story, characters, and dialogue paled in comparison to the 1st 3 ME games, but they we're bad by any means, just not as in depth, at least in my opinion.

 

[ZedClampet]

But MEA was fun to play, especially the combat & exploration. Story, characters, and dialogue paled in comparison to the 1st 3 ME games, but they we're bad by any means, just not as in depth, at least in my opinion.

I was talking about where they said they tested the exploration focus and couldn't make it fun. They didn't get much more specific, but it was possibly due to the failed procedural generation.

 

[Pifanjr]

As I understand it, thats how Bioware made just about every game they ever produced. They expected it all to come together at the end, with a ton of crunch and sticky tape. Maybe Frostbite was the final straw on top of that attitude?

https://kotaku.com/bioware-magic-is-bullshit-says-former-dragon-age-pro-1848385237

So they've always had bad management, they've just been lucky their developers have managed to stitch the game together well enough in the past during crunch.

Frostbite probably didn't help, but it's also a style of management that scales really badly as development teams get bigger and bigger and get spread over multiple locations over the globe. It's kind of inevitable that it would implode at some point.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

So they've always had bad management, they've just been lucky their developers have managed to stitch the game together well enough in the past during crunch.

Frostbite probably didn't help, but it's also a style of management that scales really badly as development teams get bigger and bigger and get spread over multiple locations over the globe. It's kind of inevitable that it would implode at some point.

I'd guess so. It worked better when they were smaller and got worse and worse as the games scaled up. Dont know really.

 

[JarlBSoD]

If i get to have a guess i think it is the same problem Blizzard and many other companies have, none or few of the "old guad" is still at the company, that mixed with a bit of preasure from above and.. voila!