Dragon Age Dragon Age: The Veilguard Thread

[cvv]

The decline of Star Wars and Star Trek hasn't been a natural phenomenon

I haven't suggested by any stretch of imagination those IPs have died of old age. My whole point was they are dead and that's a fact and we should move on because they aren't gonna rise from their grave any time soon, if ever.

 

[Atlantico]

Star Wars was killed by the incompetence and silly ideological obsessions of Kathleen Kennedy; Star Trek was killed by the incompetence of Abrams and the Bad Reboot crowd. Neither of those needed to happen.

How do these people keep getting away with this. The perennially incompetent Kathleen Kennedy is still sinking the 3+ billion dollar investment.

Fucking Jar Jar is still producing movies and so are his fellow terrorists Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman.

Fail after fail after fail. Billions down the drain.

There's plenty of juden in Hollywood, but these mongoloids are the ones who keep getting a job. Disgusting and has cured me of believing that profit is what guides corporations. I have literally seen the opposite and those people are the living embodiment of it.

 

[GrainWetski]

A big bunch of the recent negative reviews seem to be legitimate but the site warns of potential "out of context" activity (presumably marking review bombings) but the scores tend to normalzie themselves after a while. The game is a failure and it will remain as such for a while though, that's undeniable.

Every single negative review of this game is "legitimate".

 

[Orud]

There's plenty of juden in Hollywood, but these mongoloids are the ones who keep getting a job. Disgusting and has cured me of believing that profit is what guides corporations. I have literally seen the opposite and those people are the living embodiment of it.

Because 'science' has supplanted religion. Anything that 'science' says or does is now the only right way to go about things.

Problem is, you can just select a dataset you agree with these days and there's a lot of bad research out there because:
a) Methodologies are almost never questioned and peer review status is incorrectly regarded as some sort of shield against fraud.
b) Proving a paper has been erroneous or fraudulent takes a long time, money and possibly opens you up for harm. See: Francesca Gino debacle, Roland Fryer on police racial profiling.
c) Proving, black on white, that a study is false is no guarantee that people will stop referring to it. For example: the Dunning–Kruger effect, DEI.
d) Academia are regarded by many as incorruptible and ever competent.

In comes just about any idiot that has a good sounding idea, like ESG, with studies and data that he selected. So everyone that wants to make more money buys into it because, hey, science says so.
And when it doesn't work out? They'll always either blame 'external factors' or go to the next good sounding idea... until the money dries up.

Personally I have a hatred against 'marketing experts' myself, after having graduated from college. Everyone from my year that was an absolute dud, only barely passing across all their grades, and managed to get through college by leeching onto other people, went into marketing.
I know what kind of people are doing these tests and how retarded their conclusions can be. But hey, they have a piece of paper that 'proves' something.

 

[jaekl]

Every single negative review of this game is "legitimate".

Yes, isn't it funny how no one bats an eyelash if a positive review is written no matter if it has anything to do with the game or not but god forbid you write a negative review without some kind of advanced scientific process to make sure its objectivity is perfect.

 

[Harthwain]

The decline of Star Wars and Star Trek hasn't been a natural phenomenon, as if they were sad examples of some sort of law of the natural decline of IPs. There's absolutely no reason why they couldn't have kept going, since the lore was being kept alive in part because fathers were passing the enthusiasm down to their kids in families.

Star Wars was killed by the incompetence and silly ideological obsessions of Kathleen Kennedy

The way I see it Star Wars was screwed even when Lucas was still in charge, because he didn't have the people who helped to keep him on track when he was making the first trilogy. I am talking about stuff such as changing an old Republican general into a young farm boy or not explaining the nature of the Force. And these are just two examples I know of.

 

[Tyranicon]

The way I see it Star Wars was screwed even when Lucas was still in charge, because he didn't have the people who helped to keep him on track when he was making the first trilogy. I am talking about stuff such as changing an old Republican general into a young farm boy or not explaining the nature of the Force. And these are just two examples I know of.

Even the decline has declined. Back in the prequel days, fans were complaining about lore.

Nobody really cares about the lore in the sequel series because the movies are too pants on head retarded for that.

Perfect comparison for Dragon Age tbh. How do you justify endless bickering about lore over something like Veilguard?

 

[gurugeorge]

Star Wars was killed by the incompetence and silly ideological obsessions of Kathleen Kennedy; Star Trek was killed by the incompetence of Abrams and the Bad Reboot crowd. Neither of those needed to happen.

How do these people keep getting away with this. The perennially incompetent Kathleen Kennedy is still sinking the 3+ billion dollar investment.

Fucking Jar Jar is still producing movies and so are his fellow terrorists Akiva Goldsman and Alex Kurtzman.

Fail after fail after fail. Billions down the drain.

There's plenty of juden in Hollywood, but these mongoloids are the ones who keep getting a job. Disgusting and has cured me of believing that profit is what guides corporations. I have literally seen the opposite and those people are the living embodiment of it.

I've seen it suggested by various people that Kennedy has been left alone because she "knows where the bodies are buried" as the saying goes. The loniger she remains in position while being such a gigantic failure, the more plausible that theory looks.

 

[gurugeorge]

The decline of Star Wars and Star Trek hasn't been a natural phenomenon, as if they were sad examples of some sort of law of the natural decline of IPs. There's absolutely no reason why they couldn't have kept going, since the lore was being kept alive in part because fathers were passing the enthusiasm down to their kids in families.

Star Wars was killed by the incompetence and silly ideological obsessions of Kathleen Kennedy

The way I see it Star Wars was screwed even when Lucas was still in charge, because he didn't have the people who helped to keep him on track when he was making the first trilogy. I am talking about stuff such as changing an old Republican general into a young farm boy or not explaining the nature of the Force. And these are just two examples I know of.

Yeah I agree there's definitely some truth to that, you can see it in the "making of" documentary where you can just tell that everyone's so pleased to have the gig that they wouldn't say boo to a mouse, far less George Lucas.

But for all the prequels' faults, they're still recognizably Star Wars, and the big test is the merch - they were hit movies with kids and the merch flew off the shelves, in a way that the sequels have singularly failed to duplicate (rows of unsold merch, etc.).

And if you can say Lucas failed, at least he was trying.

 

[Gargaune]

And if you can say Lucas failed, at least he was trying.

The Prequels were a thorough failure of execution, but there at least was a legitimate artistic concept behind them - Lucas wanted to 1) explore the story of Darth Vader's fall from grace and 2) flesh out his space-fantasy universe. Both of these were reasonable goals, since Vader was a character whose past bore investigation (unlike e.g. Han Solo) and didn't necessarily benefit from mystery (e.g. The Force), and the Original Trilogy hadn't really shown much of the setting beyond remote outposts and military bases, but unfortunately Lucas messed up everything downstream from those premises. So yes, he was trying.

Going into the Sequel Trilogy, however, Disney had some different artistic priorities - 1) hurf, make Star Wars again, durf, much moneys, and 2) make it shit. Fleeting success on the former, definitive success on the latter. Well done.

To swing this back to Dragon Age, perhaps that's just the natural course of successful entertainment IPs - any hit property becomes a victim of its own success, bloating until it becomes a grotesque mockery of itself, extended without any of its original artistic vision under the financial imperatives of a publicly traded company that's obligated to leverage its assets, until it bombs so catastrophically that it becomes radioactive to stockholders. And even then, whether it gets to rest in peace is very much dependent on its half-life. BioWare might not survive the next Mass Effect, but odds are you'll see another Dragon Age project in seven to ten years from now. Whether you want to or not...

 

[Orud]

Bioware might survive, it's been a brand more than a studio for the past 10 years. The studio? Hopefully not.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The BioWare brand has been shit for the last ten years.

Every BioWare game since Dragon Age 2 has released with some level of controversy around it. BioWare has basically been bleeding their old audience for the last 13 years while becoming a joke to the larger wider audience with games like Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem, and now Dragon Age: The Veilguard. They don’t make money anymore, and they don’t make EA look good anymore by putting out their games; BioWare serves no function for EA at this point.

 

[fantadomat]

Mass effect 3 was the last good game they made.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

The BioWare brand has been shit for the last ten years.

Every BioWare game since Dragon Age 2 has released with some level of controversy around it. BioWare has basically been bleeding their old audience for the last 13 years while becoming a joke to the larger wider audience with games like Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem, and now Dragon Age: The Veilguard. They don’t make money anymore, and they don’t make EA look good anymore by putting out their games; BioWare serves no function for EA at this point.

Eh Mass Effect 2, and Inquisition are both generally well accepted. The "controversies" are just anti-Bioware saying it's not selling as much as EA wants it too (which might be true, but this is not a negative public sentiment) and I guess fucking Sera. Mass Effect 3 got shat on hard due to the ending but the rest of the game, even the Multiplayer was recepted well.

 

[thesecret1]

Fuck off with the revisionism, both DA2 and DAI were SHIT. DA2 with its terrible, recycled maps and axing of all C&C, and DAI being a singleplayer MMO for faggots that want to ride the bull

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Fuck off with the revisionism, both DA2 and DAI were SHIT. DA2 with its terrible, recycled maps and axing of all C&C, and DAI being a singleplayer MMO for faggots that want to ride the bull

Nobody asks Codex reception of it. We are talking about general public reception.

DA2 had a lot of issues that yes even the public noticed but even at the time the public discourse is less "Bioware is shit at making game" but more of "Bioware got fucked over by EA asking the to release the game quickly"

Inquisition is shit from Codex perspective but once again it mostly decently received.

I am disputing the comment that:

The BioWare brand has been shit for the last ten years.

Every BioWare game since Dragon Age 2 has released with some level of controversy around it.

Which is non-sense. There is no controversy surrounding Mass Effect 2. ME3 I mentioned the ending (different colour blast) which they ended up fixing. Inquisition for general public are just a normal game. Codex hated it but it doesn't mean it has "controversies".

 

[Inec0rn]

They released 1 or 2 playable games when they were acquired by EA (i dont count the Interplay published games as Bioware games). Both games were flawed DA:O (also had MMO / FF12 type combat) and ME1 (had mediocre combat and itemisation). Neither game is worthy of more than a 7.5/10 score for those reasons alone. I don't see the why there is so much interest in this studio, Obsidian isn't that much better either.

idc the public response or shill review sites.

 

[thesecret1]

Which is non-sense. There is no controversy surrounding Mass Effect 2. ME3 I mentioned the ending (different colour blast) which they ended up fixing. Inquisition for general public are just a normal game. Codex hated it but it doesn't mean it has "controversies".

ME2 released 15 years ago, BEFORE DA2, so not sure why you're bringing it up. In ME3 they didn't fix shit – their ending DLC is a spit in the players' faces. Inquisition was ridiculed for shittastic-looking characters. Why are you trying to rewrite history?

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The BioWare brand has been shit for the last ten years.

Every BioWare game since Dragon Age 2 has released with some level of controversy around it. BioWare has basically been bleeding their old audience for the last 13 years while becoming a joke to the larger wider audience with games like Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem, and now Dragon Age: The Veilguard. They don’t make money anymore, and they don’t make EA look good anymore by putting out their games; BioWare serves no function for EA at this point.

Eh Mass Effect 2, and Inquisition are both generally well accepted. The "controversies" are just anti-Bioware saying it's not selling as much as EA wants it too (which might be true, but this is not a negative public sentiment) and I guess fucking Sera. Mass Effect 3 got shat on hard due to the ending but the rest of the game, even the Multiplayer was recepted well.

Fuck off with the revisionism, both DA2 and DAI were SHIT. DA2 with its terrible, recycled maps and axing of all C&C, and DAI being a singleplayer MMO for faggots that want to ride the bull

Nobody asks Codex reception of it. We are talking about general public reception.

DA2 had a lot of issues that yes even the public noticed but even at the time the public discourse is less "Bioware is shit at making game" but more of "Bioware got fucked over by EA asking the to release the game quickly"

Inquisition is shit from Codex perspective but once again it mostly decently received.

I am disputing the comment that:

The BioWare brand has been shit for the last ten years.

Every BioWare game since Dragon Age 2 has released with some level of controversy around it.

Which is non-sense. There is no controversy surrounding Mass Effect 2. ME3 I mentioned the ending (different colour blast) which they ended up fixing. Inquisition for general public are just a normal game. Codex hated it but it doesn't mean it has "controversies".

You got memory problems or something? Maybe the third will be the charm.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Well I did mistook DA2 and ME2 timeline. Didn't check so I guess I misremembered.

That being said, I stand by my opinion, there really was not much controversies after until Andromeda.

 

[Caim]

That being said, I stand by my opinion, there really was not much controversies after until Andromeda.

 

[Riddler]

Well I did mistook DA2 and ME2 timeline. Didn't check so I guess I misremembered.

That being said, I stand by my opinion, there really was not much controversies after until Andromeda.

There were massive controversies regarding both DA2 and the ending of ME3 but people weren't laughing at them.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Well I did mistook DA2 and ME2 timeline. Didn't check so I guess I misremembered.

That being said, I stand by my opinion, there really was not much controversies after until Andromeda.

There were massive controversies regarding both DA2 and the ending of ME3 but people weren't laughing at them.

As I mentioned, even back then the DA2 debacle, the common opinion was they got fucked over by EA.

And yeah I agree that ME3 was major controversy altho it is something that they recovered from and ME3 after that was still very well received.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Fuck off with the revisionism, both DA2 and DAI were SHIT. DA2 with its terrible, recycled maps and axing of all C&C, and DAI being a singleplayer MMO for faggots that want to ride the bull

There is something to be done in DA2 with C&C but it's more in a ME2 way where most things are self contained. Sometimes you could do interesting things like slaughtering an entire village of elves, which is something Bioware never wanted to do before or since.

 

[Thalstarion]

As far as 'lore' is concerned I increasingly believe that it is better for a good game to be a one and done experience rather than receive a sequel as in the majority of cases what made the original game work will inevitably be ignored and/or changed.

I have seen it play out many times but it has become particularly obvious in recent years. There is a false belief that the brand name alone will carry a game even if it is completely separate to what came before it.

A game inspired by Dragon Age: Origins with the same gritty atmosphere, tone and breadth of player choice and input would sell exceptionally well.

Most regular people have an innate disgust when looking at characters like Taash. Such dysgenic freaks have no star power, for lack of a better term. They only appeal to dysgenic freaks who in turn are fated to ever be a minority of the population. Albeit a very loud one.

The industry is simply having a major meltdown due to spite. They know that gritty, medieval settings based on European fantasy is what most people want out of an RPG but they are desperately trying to persuade investors otherwise and failing that, their last act of malice is to destroy existing franchises to tarnish the good memories gamers have of better days.