We've talked a lot about the impact of video games increasingly becoming more of a widely marketed and socially accepted form of media. For me, a large part of the uncertainty I have in the creative future of video games specifically in relation to AAA/corporate game creation comes from how little we actually know about how game production works. For example (and because my concern has been rooted in this subject) let's talk about Bioware as a developer for EA.
Bioware became famous from the story-rich, character-driven games like Baulder's Gate and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic as an independent developer, and as a developer owned by EA quickly created two new successful IPs Mass Effect and Dragon Age. The games from these series have accrued strong fan bases that swear by the quality of a Bioware game (even if there's vocal disagreement with some writing choices, like Mass Effect 3's ending). Yet these Bioware-EA IPs both have games that kind of stick out for the lack of quality. Dragon Age II (2011) had mixed reception of its deviation from the narrative model Dragon Age: Origins (2009) set, but more to the point it was criticized - and continues to be joked about as a bad game - for blatant reuse of game map assets for different quest areas. Mass Effect: Andromeda (2017) fell flat in every sense with wide critique of its glitches, weird animations, and general lack of polished that distracted from the experience of a Bioware game. In my opinion, Dragon Age II and ME:A have excellent bases in what makes Bioware games so good. In fact I would argue that the potential in the experimentation these games played with - unreliable narration and inevitable tragedy of an exceptional nobody in DAII , the opportunity for tag-team gameplay/dynamics between protagonist twins and coming of age for an imperfect young hero in ME:A - had a sort of ingenuity that more acclaimed titles of each series lacked.
DAII and ME:A have fallen to the wayside more because of building elements of development than narrative planning, and coincidentally both were being produced by Bioware at the same time as big ticket games like Mass Effect 3 (2012) and Anthem (2019, probably). Despite fans having more access to game developers than ever through social media platforms, the approach to game development is kept very much away from the public (and thus scrutiny and demand for reform). Since ME:A's release there's been some (mostly anonymous) insight into the troubles of production for the game (https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/12/the-story-behindmass-effect-andromedas-troubled-five-year-development/) among them learning how to translate the Frostbite engine's set up into more narrative-focused gameplay and cutscenes and the constant shift of employees from ME:A to Anthem and other projects. Contractual silence on the inner-workings of game development isn't all that different from what corporations in other markets do, but the lack of transparency in why a game didn't live up to potential and expectations goes is potentially devastating to game creation. The developers often more than publishers received blame/punishment even when fault lies with mismanagement and rush to get a product out the door; in the case of ME:A EA has shelved any future production and made their/Bioware's own game the ass-end in comments of comparison for news about Anthem and its games as service model. There are a number of other ways I'm cynical about the future of game developers in the AAA-field - particularly the constant investment in "trendy" capabilities like open-world and photorealism for games regardless of genre - but in terms of detriment to talent and potential for interesting new games the lack of transparency (and protection) for game developers working in large publishing companies seems especially unsustainable.
Comments