A little while ago, I wrote a piece on how Dragon Age: The Veilguard’s disastrous sales ought to rekindle a desire within EA and BioWare to make the once-great RPG series great once again.
In this piece, I note several problems with the game including the lack of depth in the RPG elements, the uneven writing and the sometimes preachy, heavy-handed politics (which I go into more depth on here). One thing I didn’t go into much depth on was corporate meddling and after some pretty wild, out-of-touch comments by EA chief, Andrew Wilson, it’s time to take that into account.
“In order to break out beyond the core audience, games need to directly connect to the evolving demands of players who increasingly seek shared-world features and deeper engagement alongside high-quality narratives in this beloved category,” Wilson said in an investor call.
“Dragon Age had a high-quality launch,” he continued, “and was well-reviewed by critics and those who played. However, it did not resonate with a broad enough audience in this highly competitive market.”
Wilson is saying two things here:
First, that the game was received well by players “who played” which is implying that the game was only negatively received by gamers who sat it out, relying on negative Youtube and social media backlash. This is a curious statement on its own. He’s effectively saying that bad word-of-mouth was one reason the game failed, which is certainly true. He does not really interrogate why the game’s optics were so bad, however.
Second, he suggests that modern gamers actually want “shared-world features” aka some form of multiplayer or live-service element. And sure, lots of players do want that in video games these days. That’s why so many online multiplayer games from Call Of Duty to GTA Online to Marvel Rivals are such huge successes. That, and they do what they advertise very well. They understand their target audiences, something the creators of The Veilguard clearly do not.
But this also suggests that gamers don’t want single-player games, which is demonstrably false. Look no further than Baldur’s Gate 3 for an example of a single-player game (albeit one with co-op features) that did extremely well. Elden Ring also has limited cooperative and PvP multiplayer, but the game is largely a single-player experience. I list both these games because they are the closest thing to competitors that The Veilguard has in the modern gaming landscape. Both games almost certainly did benefit from their inclusion of co-op, and I’m sure many players who enjoy co-op would have liked to have it in The Veilguard as well, but neither succeeded because of their multiplayer components, but rather because they gave gamers exactly what they wanted: Great RPG experiences that would have been great even without multiplayer.
What strikes me about Wilson’s comments is just how breathtakingly out-of-touch they are with what Dragon Age players actually want. Like so many corporate suits who only understand trends, Wilson identifies a broad market within the gaming space (players who “increasingly seek shared-world features”) while ignoring the core audience of the game in question. The right question isn’t “What gaming trend should we chase with this well-established franchise?” but rather “What does the core audience of this well-established franchise want from this game?”
What actual Dragon Age players and RPG fans want from a series like this is a return to form; a gritty, well-written story with meaningful choices, tactical combat and deep RPG elements. I’m sure you could do this and include “shared-world” elements like co-op or competitive multiplayer, or some kind of shared universe similar to Destiny, but that isn’t what RPG fans are pining over. I’ve always thought that co-op would be cool in a game like Skyrim, but clearly Skyrim succeeded without it, because there was (and there remains) a vibrant RPG community that adores single-player games.
This is why it’s important to remember how dangerous corporate meddling can be when it comes to video games. The corporate suits identify profitable gaming trends and then mandate these trends be adopted across all categories. There’s a reason why BioWare games took such a nosedive after the company was acquired by EA in the first place. Dragon Age 2 was rushed out the door to meet a corporate timetable that might make sense for Madden NFL releases, but certainly doesn’t work for a sprawling, single-player RPG. And look how well live-service worked for BioWare’s Anthem, a game with some genuinely cool ideas that would have been a thousand times better as a single-player game (and even better if the flight mechanics had been less arduous).
If you can look at the failures of Anthem and The Veilguard and not spot a trend, I’m not sure you’re in any position to judge what players actually want from BioWare games. The only thing Wilson gets right here is the fact that Veilguard had a good launch. Unlike Mass Effect: Andromeda, it was pretty solid on a technical front. The truth is, if this had been a game that appealed to RPG fans and longtime Dragon Age players, it would have been a massive hit. In trying to please a vague “modern audience” with its weirdly chipper tone and aesthetic, it alienated fans and, right from the very first trailer, started generating negative reactions online.
I’d wager that even just a remake of Dragon Age: Origins with modern graphics and slightly updated controls would be a massive hit, but that remains a goldmine that EA has yet to tap into, which is baffling. I suppose I’m also surprised that EA didn’t include live-service elements in Veilguard. The game’s design right down to its mobile-game-like UI felt primed for Battle Passes and seasonal updates where you unlock new heroes and cosmetics every ten weeks or so. I suppose I should be pleased there wasn’t an in-game store, but honestly I just wish we would have gotten a better game.
There are ways to save this franchise, though increasingly that looks like handing it off not just to a new developer but as far from EA’s clutches as possible.
发表回复