BioWare's new IP: Anthem

Looks very pretty, I'm sure I could play this game and enjoy it for at least 30 or 40 hours. Destiny 1, Destiny 2 and the Division couldn't keep me playing the endgame and I doubt this one could either but that doesn't mean I wouldn't give it a try.

Seems like a strange game for Bioware to make, how deep can the story be in this type of game compared to their classics?
 
Ryan7968 said:
Looks very pretty, I'm sure I could play this game and enjoy it for at least 30 or 40 hours. Destiny 1, Destiny 2 and the Division couldn't keep me playing the endgame and I doubt this one could either but that doesn't mean I wouldn't give it a try.

Seems like a strange game for Bioware to make, how deep can the story be in this type of game compared to their classics?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine it being comparable simply because these types of games...by nature of what they are... impose limits.

I don't think anyone should come into this game with those kinds of expectations on story and narrative. Except something comparable to Destiny or Division and anything past that will be a pleasant bonus.
 
Ryan7968 said:
Seems like a strange game for Bioware to make, how deep can the story be in this type of game compared to their classics?
Click to expand...

Precisely why their traditional fanbase is skeptical. And any emerging fanbase is also skeptical. It's a gorgeous game with beautiful set pieces, so between that and the hype EA is so masterful at whipping up, I'm sure it will sell. But after that initial wave, I fear this "live" product that EA wants to keep going for "10 years" won't have enough depth to be anything more than another failure in their eyes.

To be honest, like brutally honest, I'm expecting this to do middling and EA to "restructure" BioWare. The once loved studio will be gone at that point, barely a shell of what made it. My only hope is that the Talent at BioWare will pull an 'Infinity Ward Respawn' and leave to form a new Dev house that returns to the kind of games BioWare has always been passionate about. Maybe they can become a US wing of CD Projekt Red.
 
Last edited:
Frraksurred said:
To be honest, like brutally honest, I'm expecting this to do middling and EA to "restructure" BioWare. The once loved studio will be gone at that point, barely a shell of what made it. My only hope is that the Talent at BioWare will pull an 'Infinity Ward Respawn' and leave to form a new Dev house that returns to the kind of games BioWare has always been passionate about.
Click to expand...

Wow. When I was watching the Anthem presentation earlier today, this is exactly what was going through my mind. I'm sure the core gameplay will be solid (and we can already tell it looks fantastic,) but you just can't have a really engaging story in games like this. It always ends up feeling like a light coating of "flavor" instead of the engrossing experience you get when it's designed from the ground up as single player.
 
Please have it so it's working well at release or shortly thereafter ... thanks
 
It looks great but I'm not sure if they're going for Mass Effect rebundled as a new game, Sci-Fi Division or Destiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
They didn't want to engage a giant 50 foot tall enemy so they flew past it at 200 MPH or however fast they go. Seems different than Destiny.

And they tie weapons to Javelins, but you can change to any Javelin. I think just going to the "walker" forward base.

I don't think they wanted to show too much of the Storm but it's better in the air, there are sheer cliffs and some turrets but she is floating around and shoots them, though it does 1 damage each time so it's ineffective. It's floating more easily like Vision instead of Iron Man.
 
I actually got a Defiance vibe from the gameplay demo. Yes, I actually bought and played that game. It was pretty decent.
 
I guess one of my concerns thus far is there doesn't seem to be any depth to the combat mechanics. Everybody is standing still, out in the open, like there is no threat. Just drown the enemies in pretty looking combos we lifted from Mass Effect and pick up your loot. Now they may not be showing the mechanics yet, this may be god mode footage to start up the hype engine, so maybe they will get into that later. Still, coming from The Division, and knowing it will be competing with Division 2 at launch (roughly), I need more than giant health pools and pretty explosions if I'm going to be playing the game for more than 20 hours.
 
Frraksurred said:
I guess one of my concerns thus far is there doesn't seem to be any depth to the combat mechanics. Everybody is standing still, out in the open, like there is no threat. Just drown the enemies in pretty looking combos we lifted from Mass Effect and pick up your loot. Now they may not be showing the mechanics yet, this may be god mode footage to start up the hype engine, so maybe they will get into that later. Still, coming from The Division, and knowing it will be competing with Division 2 at launch (roughly), I need more than giant health pools and pretty explosions if I'm going to be playing the game for more than 20 hours.
Click to expand...

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if the combat was somewhat shallow. As much as I enjoyed certain aspects of Andromeda's combat, it was far easier than it was in the earlier games which were cover based shooters. You never really needed to take cover very often in ME:A. You could dart around, shoot everyone and pick up the loot. You had to throw some cloaking in there if you wanted to really maximize your damage but your character skills and abilities made you overpowered, even on the highest difficulty. ME2 and ME3 were much more difficult on the highest difficulty despite having cover.

Despite my extreme affinity for these games, combat mechanics aren't necessarily BioWare's forte. If anything, ME:A took a step back from ME3 in some areas. It wouldn't totally shock me if Anthem did the same thing.
 
Dan_D said:
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if the combat was somewhat shallow. As much as I enjoyed certain aspects of Andromeda's combat, it was far easier than it was in the earlier games which were cover based shooters. You never really needed to take cover very often in ME:A. You could dart around, shoot everyone and pick up the loot. You had to throw some cloaking in there if you wanted to really maximize your damage but your character skills and abilities made you overpowered, even on the highest difficulty. ME2 and ME3 were much more difficult on the highest difficulty despite having cover.

Despite my extreme affinity for these games, combat mechanics aren't necessarily BioWare's forte. If anything, ME:A took a step back from ME3 in some areas. It wouldn't totally shock me if Anthem did the same thing.
Click to expand...

I had the same feeling. Andromeda on its hardest setting, compared to a Platinum round in ME2, was like Arcade vs Sim.
 
Dan_D said:
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if the combat was somewhat shallow. As much as I enjoyed certain aspects of Andromeda's combat, it was far easier than it was in the earlier games which were cover based shooters. You never really needed to take cover very often in ME:A. You could dart around, shoot everyone and pick up the loot. You had to throw some cloaking in there if you wanted to really maximize your damage but your character skills and abilities made you overpowered, even on the highest difficulty. ME2 and ME3 were much more difficult on the highest difficulty despite having cover.

Despite my extreme affinity for these games, combat mechanics aren't necessarily BioWare's forte. If anything, ME:A took a step back from ME3 in some areas. It wouldn't totally shock me if Anthem did the same thing.
Click to expand...

Frraksurred said:
I had the same feeling. Andromeda on its hardest setting, compared to a Platinum round in ME2, was like Arcade vs Sim.
Click to expand...
Adding verticality to ME ruined the combat experience, in my opinion. They had to balance and incentivize players to jump around, so you take less damage in the air than you do on the ground.
 
They basically confirm what we all suspect: Broadly a lot like Destiny. Shooter and looter. More impressive vertifcality. Bullet spongey enemies. (like Division I s'pose.) Game scales. Warframe-ish hub.

They dislike EA but are giving credit where it's due but a lot of unknowns. Unclear about story, monetization, plot, logistics, etc. etc. Unknown about "Bioware staples."

They said EA should have just shown people what they saw instead of continuing to be "the worst at trailer in the business."
 
Q-BZ said:
They basically confirm what we all suspect: Broadly a lot like Destiny. Shooter and looter. More impressive vertifcality. Bullet spongey enemies. (like Division I s'pose.) Game scales. Warframe-ish hub.

They dislike EA but are giving credit where it's due but a lot of unknowns. Unclear about story, monetization, plot, logistics, etc. etc. Unknown about "Bioware staples."

They said EA should have just shown people what they saw instead of continuing to be "the worst at trailer in the business."
Click to expand...

These two... I only know SkillUp (dude on the left) from his Division coverage. I enjoyed him in the beginning because he would break stuff down and analyze things, quantify them, explain them. Then MarcoStyle came along and no one could compete with his analyses. After that SkillUp just started resorting to a lot of "best I've ever seen", "worst I've ever seen", kind of 'opinion over journalism' videos. A child's quantification. I haven't been able to watch him since. That said, he has been vocal about his distrust of EA, so I'm glad to see his optimism for this game nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Sounds like they are giving Destiny the same treatment SWTOR did to WoW. Hopefully they learned some lessons there.
 
Q-BZ said:
They basically confirm what we all suspect: Broadly a lot like Destiny. Shooter and looter. More impressive vertifcality. Bullet spongey enemies. (like Division I s'pose.) Game scales. Warframe-ish hub.

They dislike EA but are giving credit where it's due but a lot of unknowns. Unclear about story, monetization, plot, logistics, etc. etc. Unknown about "Bioware staples."

They said EA should have just shown people what they saw instead of continuing to be "the worst at trailer in the business."
Click to expand...

Well that seals it. Bullet sponge enemies destroys whatever little interest I still had for this game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
M76 said:
Well that seals it. Bullet sponge enemies destroys whatever little interest I still had for this game.
Click to expand...
ARPGs are now coming in all types of skins, the typical old school "sword and sandals" skins are no longer the only kid on the block. The same gamer that might complain about needing 100 bullets to kill a boss in The Division has no issue with needing 100 "fireballs" to kill a boss in a typical fantasy rpg.

I understand it can be jarring for some because of the relatively 'realistic' skin, but I think most gamers don't have trouble adjusting, it's just an arpg in a different artstyle. Someone shouldn't go into The Division, or Destiny 2, or Anthem expecting some simulation-type game when the devs of those games are completely honest and upfront about it being an arpg.
 
Drexion said:
ARPGs are now coming in all types of skins, the typical old school "sword and sandals" skins are no longer the only kid on the block. The same gamer that might complain about needing 100 bullets to kill a boss in The Division has no issue with needing 100 "fireballs" to kill a boss in a typical fantasy rpg.

I understand it can be jarring for some because of the relatively 'realistic' skin, but I think most gamers don't have trouble adjusting, it's just an arpg in a different artstyle. Someone shouldn't go into The Division, or Destiny 2, or Anthem expecting some simulation-type game when the devs of those games are completely honest and upfront about it being an arpg.
Click to expand...
Oh and calling it an arpg suddenly makes bullet sponge enemies ok? NO
I complained about Dragon Age just as hard about having to grind enemies for half an hour.

It's not jarring. I don't have the slightest intention to adjust to utter garbage.

Being an a-rpg is no excuse, on the contrary. I might look past it in a classical RPG. But a fully real-time action game should make the highest effort to be realistic in terms of damages. My immersion is out the window as soon as I have to administer 1000 rounds into a lesser enemy. And it's not just immersion, I don't even have the patience. If a simple lowly enemy is already a grind, then what is the game on a whole if not a grindfest?
 
Kudos to the developers out there that want to try new things, including making arpgs that are not just "sword and board", "mage with staff" and "rogue with dagger". Whether or not it's an indie or a massive conglomerate.

There will always be a small percentage of gamers who will have trouble adjusting, nothing is wrong with that - they can simply not purchase or play those games, and stick to the games they are comfortable with.

Anthem might turn out to be garbage, it might turn out to be a great - but attacking the game because it doesn't match the oldschool tropes of what you think an arpg should be like is silly. I play arpg games like Path of Exile and The Division regularly and believe it or not you can play arpgs in different skins and have a fun time doing so.
 
Well if the Division is the standard then anthem might be called great :LOL:

Why not attack the game? I don't understand, am I not allowed to freely criticize a game on a forum?

You make it sound, like I'm retarded "having trouble adjusting".

Saying "rpgs in different skins" already makes my skin crawl. Games shouldn't just be reskinned versions of each other. Ideally they're all unique.

And stop with this ARPG categorizing. There are no stone tablets that say what games should be like. But there are things that are generally accepted as making a game bad. Like, boring, bullet sponge, grindy, repetitive, pay to win, and so on.
 
M76 said:
But there are things that are generally accepted as making a game bad. Like
bullet sponge,
grindy,
repetitive
Click to expand...
Wrong. Games like Diablo/Path of Exile/Titan quest etc have all of the above, high hp (sponge) bosses with repetition and grinding - but are considered great games. You don't complain when you have to put 100 "fireballs" (or whatever) to kill a boss in PoE or Diablo, then you shouldn't complain if you have to put 100 bullets into a boss in an arpg shooter.

Devs: Hi, we are making an arpg shooter
M76: Your game sucks, it isn't a typical one shot kill third person shooter!

That isn't criticism, it's silliness.

Edit: I don't know if you've played The Division since the 1.8 patch last christmas when they overhauled a lot of the systems in the game - but it is actually in an excellent place now and a very decent arpg shooter I have no problem mentioning in the same sentence as Diablo or Path of Exile.
 
Kind of surprised no one has posted this yet. Here is the 19 min demo they played behind closed doors at E3:



Looks like the love child of Destiny and The Division. That can be good and bad; still too early to draw conclusions.
 
Drexion said:
Wrong. Games like Diablo/Path of Exile/Titan quest etc have all of the above, high hp (sponge) bosses with repetition and grinding - but are considered great games. You don't complain when you have to put 100 "fireballs" (or whatever) to kill a boss in PoE or Diablo, then you shouldn't complain if you have to put 100 bullets into a boss in an arpg shooter.

Devs: Hi, we are making an arpg shooter
M76: Your game sucks, it isn't a typical one shot kill third person shooter!

That isn't criticism, it's silliness.

Edit: I don't know if you've played The Division since the 1.8 patch last christmas when they overhauled a lot of the systems in the game - but it is actually in an excellent place now and a very decent arpg shooter I have no problem mentioning in the same sentence as Diablo or Path of Exile.
Click to expand...
Typical ? You dare say typical? Lots of games they make nowadays is inside the division / destiny / pubg triangle of horror. So if anything is typical it is this.

I never played diablo, but if I had I'd have complained about needing 100 fireballs. As I told you already, that I complained about DA where it took 30+ minutes of grinding to take down a dragon. It's a waste of my time, repetitive, boring.

For an isometric view top down a-rpg the accepted gameplay mechanics are different as well.
As in a game where graphics is made to be realistic, where you are not in god view, but in first person or third person, I expect the fighting to be realistic as well.

And please refrain from calling my complaints about the game silliness. I'm not calling you stupid for liking it, you like whatever you want, but please allow me to express my frustration about the game freely without being called stupid for it. There aren't wrong opinions just different ones.
 
Last edited:
Frraksurred said:
Kind of surprised no one has posted this yet. Here is the 19 min demo they played behind closed doors at E3:

Looks like the love child of Destiny and The Division. That can be good and bad; still too early to draw conclusions.
Click to expand...

With some Titanfall and maybe a touch of Mechwarrior thrown in.

It looks for solid for what it is and I doubt it will be a bad game. It really looks like it picks up where Andromeda multiplayer basically left off and built on it. I sure hope the gunplay is more compelling than that to build a whole game around it.


But is this what we all expect from Bioware and does anyone really believe that somehow the "deep story and narrative" can be put into this sort of game concept?

I don't think it's possible regardless of who is doing it because of the way these types of games are structured.

I doubt this game is going to be good enough to warrant the death of at least one major franchise (Mass Effect) and possibly two or at least unknown lengthy hiatus for it. (Dragon Age)
 
Since everyone is doing the 'it looks like game':

Firefall and Heavy Gear...
 
M76 said:
I never played diablo, but if I had I'd have complained about needing 100 fireballs.
Click to expand...
Then the ARPG genre is not for you, and you should avoid these games.

M76 said:
In a game where graphics is made to be realistic, I expect the fighting to be realistic as well.
Click to expand...
This statement is fucking ridiculous. It only proves my point some players have trouble adjusting to playing an arpg in any form other than sword-and-sandals. There is a game genre called 'simulation' which might be more up your alley.

M76 said:
without being called stupid for it.
Click to expand...
Not once have I done so, but you're certainly not helping the situation.

I think you have a sense of entitlement that devs should cater to you and you alone, and everyone else is somehow wrong. In imaginary fantasy worlds, there is no wrong and right, only the artists (developer's) impression matters. If you don't like it, fine - don't play it - but don't expect others to agree with the changes you want to see to the game.

Realistic visuals, with unrealistic gameplay is fun to many gamers. This game might turn out to be garbage, but I'm glad there's devs out there going against the grain and sticking with their vision.
 
Gotta admit, Now that I have seen some gameplay, I am kind of diggin the feel to this game. Has a Mass Effect/Titanfall/Mechwarrior built into 1 game with an RPG element. I also like how you can play with buddies regardless of level, thats a nice touch.

What really impressed me was the small things. Like your Jets can overheat, but going threw a waterfall can cool them down? Thats cool imo. Attention to detail.

Not saying I will pre-order this game, but I like the direction I am seeing so far.
 
Drexion said:
Then the ARPG genre is not for you, and you should avoid these games.

This statement is fucking ridiculous. It only proves my point some players have trouble adjusting to playing an arpg in any form other than sword-and-sandals. There is a game genre called 'simulation' which might be more up your alley.
Click to expand...
You're insisting that this is an arpg, bioware has no history of making that type of games, I gave those a wide berth all the time.

This is a situation where a rock concert suddenly turns into an electronic music festival, and the electronic music fans try to tell the metal fans that they're in the wrong.

I think bioware will make a lot of people unhappy with this. What is ridiculous is that you act is if I'm alone in this view.


Not once have I done so, but you're certainly not helping the situation.
Click to expand...
No you just implied, which you just did again right here. That counts too.

I think you have a sense of entitlement that devs should cater to you and you alone, and everyone else is somehow wrong.
Click to expand...
There is an expectation from some developers. You think it's fine that some of the last remaining historically story based game developers should also turn to developing these online games? It is not entitlement it is fear that soon all games will be like this where the story is completely in the background and only serves as set decoration and there is no story progression at all, everything is about the grind.
So I will criticize every fucking game for this, especially those made by developers who have a history of making story driven games. You don't like it, too bad, so sad.
 
M76 said:
There is an expectation from some developers. You think it's fine that some of the last remaining historically story based game developers should also turn to developing these online games? It is not entitlement it is fear that soon all games will be like this where the story is completely in the background and only serves as set decoration and there is no story progression at all, everything is about the grind.
So I will criticize every fucking game for this, especially those made by developers who have a history of making story driven games. You don't like it, too bad, so sad.
Click to expand...

I think that developpers in spite of their history should be allowed to make the game they want to even if it's not something you want them to or expect from them.

If you make a perfect sequel to an existing game players will say it's more of the same.
If you make a different game players will say they wanted more of the same.

All they can do is make the best game they can and hope enough people will like it and buy it so they make money and can make more games.
 
Denpepe said:
I think that developpers in spite of their history should be allowed to make the game they want to even if it's not something you want them to or expect from them.

If you make a perfect sequel to an existing game players will say it's more of the same.
If you make a different game players will say they wanted more of the same.

All they can do is make the best game they can and hope enough people will like it and buy it so they make money and can make more games.
Click to expand...
Like anyone much complained about ME2.

I doubt it was their dream to make a generic scifi shooter. I very much suspect they were told by EA that you must do this, because of monies.
Yes, I think this game is beneath bioware.
 
Denpepe said:
I think that developers in spite of their history should be allowed to make the game they want to even if it's not something you want them to or expect from them.
Click to expand...
Yep. Some developers might even be better at another genre that what you're accustomed to seeing from them.

Imagine if someone were to go into the Cyberpunk thread and say "CDProject how dare you make a futuristic sci-fi FPS, you've sold out, this couldn't be the title you wanted to make, you should stick to deep story based RPG titles only!!"

What's funny is that cyberpunk is rumored to have spongy high health bosses like RPGs (with realistic visuals), I wonder if there's a single person on this planet who's going to skip the game because of that.
 
Drexion said:
Yep. Some developers might even be better at another genre that what you're accustomed to seeing from them.

Imagine if someone were to go into the Cyberpunk thread and say "CDProject how dare you make a futuristic sci-fi FPS, you've sold out, this couldn't be the title you wanted to make, you should stick to deep story based RPG titles only!!"

What's funny is that cyberpunk is rumored to have spongy high health bosses like RPGs (with realistic visuals), I wonder if there's a single person on this planet who's going to skip the game because of that.
Click to expand...
Well in M76 favor I have an issue with bullet sponges if there isn't a pattern to learn that makes the fight interesting. In World of Warcraft I used to LOVE figuring out dungeon and raid bosses because there was a pattern to the madness. Even though the enemies had a ton of health it was interesting because we all had to coordinate to keep our group alive. In the Division I was bored with the bosses because they didn't do interesting things. I loved the idea of getting tons of loot, but I couldn't play long because I was indifferent to the main attraction of the PVE portion of the game. Crap that one shots you as the most appealing mechanic isn't interesting for example. Now if the boss turns 45 degrees and then drops bombs after blowing steam to warn you of an impending dangerous situation that will one shot you is an interesting mechanic.

In short a bullet sponge isn't a bad thing if the fight to kill it is interesting. If you're just shooting bullets over and over for the sake of shooting bullets then it is a yawn fest.
 
Q-BZ said:
But is this what we all expect from Bioware and does anyone really believe that somehow the "deep story and narrative" can be put into this sort of game concept?

I don't think it's possible regardless of who is doing it because of the way these types of games are structured.

I doubt this game is going to be good enough to warrant the death of at least one major franchise (Mass Effect) and possibly two or at least unknown lengthy hiatus for it. (Dragon Age)
Click to expand...

Despite Casey Hudson being at the helm, I don't think this is the same BioWare we associate with the games that built the studio. Today's BioWare seems more like the spoiled kids that inherited what the Parents built, which is not to say there isn't serious talent and motivation there, but it seems run over by EA's "games as a service" bulldozer.

I agree, the structure of co-op games does not cater to story or character development, and I'm not sure how they think they are going to pull it off with this game. We've yet to see what they have in store for the SP area of the game, but I think we can all confidently rule out a 30+ hr story driven saga. I'm guessing more like a 4-6 hr excuse for a plot, but we'll see. BioWare is fairly aware their neck is on the chopping block with both fans and EA, I think they are going to give it a solid effort no matter what. I just hope the end result is a fresh new genre that can be built upon.
 
I'm hot and cold on this one, every time I hear something that makes me think it's going to rock, there is something like this that makes me think it's going to be another Firefall… The bad parts of Firefall, that is (it was often great).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top