I added the quotes around "TRUE" in "True" Sequel because its a Mark term. Obviously Andromeda is a sequel to Mass Effect 3 as Inquisition is to DA2. Trying not to be confusing
This reminds me of our conversation when I proposed that instead of hoping for BioWare to "get back to their old ways" people should hope that Dreadwolf and the next Mass Effect will set a new standard and a new level of greatness for BioWare. I think nostalgia and people's tendency to only remember the best parts of things makes it impossible for a dev or game or franchise to ever really return to previous "greatness".
I enjoyed the way you define at "true sequel" to be about more of a tool set and pipline continuum rather that strictly a narrative continuation. Sort of dovetails nicely into your reuse mantra.
It's funny ,as a fan who has been riding the BW wave since DAO's release, who is also heavily involved within the fandom, many of us agree that, as far as Dragon Age goes, the Dragon Age golden age, from a fan perspective, was the time between DA2's release and up until DAI's release which fits neatly within the golden age you proposed. There was a special energy within the fandom then due to a lot of factors that I won't go into now but seems to have disappeared after DAI's release. I hear similar things from the ME crowd regarding the time between ME2 & ME3. I really think that your suggestion of what a true sequel is is a huge part of the reason why. Thanks for the post.
The reason I miss the Golden Age of BioWare was that as a consumer the hype was truly there, and keps sustaining itself one year at a time. DA2 and ME3 may have gone too far with being rushed, but as a fan I was EXCITED. I'm also excited on recent BioWare games but it comes with the reluctance that I have to wait 2-3 years after seeing something hype-worthy and that time could span me undergoing different education, living in another place, breaking up with someone, etc. and by the time the hype returns I have to reconsider how much of a fan I still am. Thanks for making this video. I think it's a really interesting topic, and you're dead-on about calling that ME1->DAI period the golden age. I also like the games that came after ME2, but truth be told they started to have controversies, and DA:I always had a weird mixture of high praise versus people who feel it is too "AAA" in terms of all its grinding and Ubisoft style objectives, same with MEA. But despite those things DAI definitely had that "Disney 90s Cartoon" quality to me still, which is what defines this era of BioWare to me. You knew you were getting a deep game with cinematically competent storytelling that is INTERACTIVE, and great RPG features.
Nice video. IMO DAO is the greatest BW game hands down. First of the series so it had the "newness" factor. Lots of player choices. Interesting story. Quite mod-able also. I certainly got my money's worth on it, considering I've started well over 100 characters, and finished 30+ times;) I also considered KOTOR and ME1. To me DAO beats these because it has far more choices at the start, and the mod friendliness.
This channel has got me playing inquisition again. Yea it’s almost too big, which I can not really believe I’m saying. But this is a peak game. So amazing and satisfying to play.
Mass effect 2 is great but it's more impactful the first time you play, subsequent playthroughs you realize the whole game is go get these people, now do a mission for them , now play the last mission. Great video, Mass Effect and Dragon age Origins made me go back and buy\play every Bioware game. I really wish Dragon age was a true sequel series.
Truth be told, I feel like this Golden Era/Vintage BioWare talk is a lot of looking at older games with rose colored glasses. I've been gaming since the early 90ties and been into BioWare games since BG1 shipped eons ago. Only two games by BioWare not up my alley were Sonic and Anthem. I always felt that MEA was unfairly hated on, the devs behind it dropped by both leadership and EA. I think we might be at the beginning of a BioWare Renaissance bc BioWare NEEDED new blood both at the top and in their teams overall. Over the last...18 months or so I saw BioWare devs tweeting happily about work again (Which they haven't really done since before DAI), veterans and newcomers are excited about their projects and a lot of the stress, bitterness and ennui has been lifted. I can't tell what exactly led to that shift in tone but it's definitely there. So...as much as I love "Golden Age" BioWare...I'm excited for current BioWare shipping DA:D, ME5 and more SWTOR content. If that makes me a Pollyanna, so be it. I prefer being positive about my pretendy fun and the people creating my fave games.
Absolutely. Change is often met with disdain but then embraced later. And with 2 underperforming games (MEA and Anthem) there is a lot of scrutiny. But this period still offers for interesting lessons
Interesting to see this video after Veilguard release. I played a fair amount of hours but work has priority but I would say I also find it very interesting of the villain choice. Bioware in DAI Trespasser DLC created in Solas a what I like to label "Thanos level antagonist" ( I know writers who would do anything to produce that ) yet they made the move to brush that and instead offer 2 "Corypheus". These villains i find more generic " I want to control/destroy the world because i am EVIL!" They seem to get better and as a player you can get a better understanding of them only if you engage in every codex entry and go out your way to read Dragon Age Wiki informations about them but only from the game itself you don't get that enough to consider them a stand out
Do you think the true sequel philosophy applies to Bethesda games and their Creation Engine despite them taking so long to come out? Seems to be mostly beneficial to the modding community. Games being built on previous entries as true sequels is definitely something I'm going to keep an eye for when looking at game series in the future. Thanks for the video!
I just don't have a favorite era, but for me that's a good thing. My first Bioware game was Baldur's Gate, which I bought with my allowance during one of our regular family trips to Comp USA. It was my first exposure DnD, and gave me a deeper connection to the fantasy genre that I already loved. I gave each game its own chance so that I could appreciate them for what they are, and ended up loving them all. Over the years it really feels like Bioware has grown along side me, and I can't imagine anything nicer than that.
My partner and I are both partial to a certain idea of BioWare's Golden Age... Except by virtue of being older and a pc gamer, his golden age starts with Baldur's Gate and ends with Mass Effect 2 and mine started with da:O on Xbox 360! I think we have to account for the huge impact of the seventh generation in term of bringing the role-playing experience to a new public distinct from the "historic player base." The labor of art of the development teams of the "Golden Age" of BioWare was instrumental in shaping the expectations of later entries in forging the console RPG experience, epitomised by the shift from the list of dialogue options to the dialogue wheel mechanic in my mind.
Baldur's Gate was the first Bioware game I ever played, I was only a kid at the time and I used to have to commandeer my older brother's PC to play it. It left such a strong impression on me that when I heard about Dragon Age: Origins, as a newly moved out adult, I had to play it. I loved it so much I picked up Mass Effect 2 and got into that series as well. I view the Baldur's Gate era as a golden age simply because it's wrapped in nostalgia, but I also see 2007-2014 as a golden age because it's when I was buying every new release.
For story/sequel games, I feel like the gaming technology of hardware/software, graphics etc. are all on one train track, and the story/sequence is on another train track and they aren’t meeting at the crossing often enough, which has essentially punished the story and the people who are buying the story game. The problem now is a whole new gen of gamers grow up and never even heard of the earlier story (Mass Effect Remaster on Twitch, amazing how many Gen Z streamers had never even heard of the series). And the adult demographic who started the story has aged into customer oblivion where they may not be playing games any longer for various reasons related to time. I hope gaming companies can look at story sequel games and focus up front on a timeline for the delivery of the entire story. Gamers may need to be trained on what to expect, reused assets, same engine, graphics etc. But I think the 10 years waiting on story may have done some of that training already. I really believe that BioWare stories have won out over the tech now, and reused assets matter less on sequels than they once did, as long as the story is a sequel.
What do I consider BioWare's greatest game? God that's a tough one, I like so many. I'd probably have to say Jade Empire simply because no matter how many times I go back to it, I can still go back to it with a sense of freshness and wonder. It had Nathan Fillion and John Cleese in it (admittedly bit parts, but memorable performances) and it had a simple but rewarding combat system and even itemization. And I still think the characters introduced are amongst the best that Bioware has ever created. From the amusingly named Henpecked Hou who wants to be anywhere but where his wife is to the sad story of Little Flower - and even her hosts. Even the story is great, crossing the boundary between the 'mortal' and the divine and the overworked beaucracy blaming you and the Black Whirlwind for their antics and their inability to cope. It's amazing to me that BioWare still hasn't released a sequel to that game, although I suspect as time goes on the chances of an actual sequel would be even less likely as I feel a huge portion of BioWare's audience now has never even heard of it (or Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, maybe assuming that Larian made those as well...)
The idea of a "true" sequel was very interesting. Not necessarily a narrative sequel (although, that's certainly true in the case of Mass Effect and Dragon Age), but a mechanical sequel. It kind of reminds me of the original Gears of War trilogy or the original Halo trilogy, where each sequel was built on a rock-solid foundation that they iterated and refined in fairly quick succession. I wonder if "true" sequels have fallen out of fashion because the tools used to make games now, or at least AAA games, are way more complex than they were during the 6th and 7th generation. Just going off of graphics, the detail in animations and textures and models are way higher than they were back then, which I can only imagine naturally slows down development as there are more things to check to make sure they're working correctly than there was in the Xbox and Xbox 360 eras.
That's why "true" instead of true. Current complexities should encourage MORE of this. But we saw the (ridiculous) backlash again the Horizon sequel for DARING to reuse its rappelling animation. This makes devs gun shy.
@@MarkDarrah That's very true. I'd honestly forgotten that backlash had happened. It is strange that people are so deadset against reusing anything from a previous game even though it works perfectly fine (or at least things that are obvious, like animations or levels or whatever; hard for the average person to tell if, for example, an AI routine is reused). Do you think it's more a problem of the tools devs are using nowadays are just too complicated to use efficiently or is it more external pressure for a sequel to be bigger, badder, more? Like the last time I can think of where a direct sequel to a hit game was noticeably "smaller" (not necessarily in terms of map size or game length but in production, I guess? Sorry, can't think of a better word than "smaller") than its predecessor was Dragon Age II, and that had a) a good narrative reason to limit its scope, b) that narrative reason I'm sure was influenced heavily by the lack of dev time to expand it and c) the expectation that it should look at least better than Origins if nothing else almost certainly had to take time away from other things.
Hey Mark!! I'm new to your channel and I'm loving the content. I don't know if this has been asked before but, do you have plans on working on making video games again? I'm a big fan of your work, specially on the Dragon Age franchise, thanks and keep on being awesome!!
Right on the money. I agree on all points. I LOVED Baldur's Gate and NWN and KotOR, but the time period you identified is really the time the studio became beloved by gamers on a larger (and wider) scale. KotOR will always be my favorite (nostalgia), but ME3 might be the 'best' BioWare game overall, at least in my opinion. For me, there wasn't an 'average' game released until Andromeda. They were all exceptional. Everyone who worked on those games deserves to be proud of their work.
DAI was my first game ever. I had not even played D&D yet. I was gob smacked to be living inside a playable novel where my decisions were critical. This game will always be my first wonderful memory After playing games for some time, ME2 is a true amazing game that stands on its own and has fantastic replay satisfaction. The Shadow Broker dlc is as important as the game itself.
As a modder it's interesting seeing how the internals of the first 3 mass effect games changed over time. ME1 used a bunch of your older tech like TLK and 2DA. As the games went on these additions became more native in the engine vs bolted on. With a whole engine change none of that would even be relevant to the kinds of things I do.
For me it's both - BG and Dragon Age. They both kinda hit my life in a good spot. BG2 was in my teens while I still lived home. Dragon Age came out after I had my first kid and was sort-of-kind-of an adult. There were a few years of chaos between there that wasn't really gaming intense for me.
Interesting video, I've always assumed Bioware's golden age to be that period of time where the company was well established and players were confident that each new release was going to be even better than the previous, and their expectations were (apparently) always met. In other words, I'd say the years between KotOR and Mass Effect 2, with DA2 starting to crack this hopeful collective image of the company and the controversy around the ME3 ending putting a definitive end to it. I personally believe the greatest contributing factor to the end of this "golden era" to have been the shift in the public image of Bioware: from the "small", independent team of passionate developers to the soulless EA-owned video game company. This, in my opinion, has led to an harsher response to objective (and subjective) flaws in following games.
Strongly agree BG1, BG2, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect plus Dragon Age Origins followed by Mass Effect 2 were constantly delivering, very impressive streak of successful games.
Btw thank you for your part in creating these beautiful masterpieces. I fell in love with ME because of Andromeda and played the trilogy after. I ended up finding DAI first, then playing 2 and Origins. After playing them all in order, I was hooked forever. It was only 3 years ago but they inspired me and changed my life forever. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I would love to see a video on the merits of making games that continue the development of a published game, what you seem to call a "True Sequel," here. It seems to me that selling such games might be something of a challenge in a modern marketplace, because reviewers and players often judge a game more harshly if it doesn't iterate/evolve the core mechanics of a game much. It's frustrating to me, because I tend to *prefer* games feel familiar when I buy a sequel, and rather enjoy games that continue the story of a previous game. Is there a way to avoid losing points from reviewers when your game is a continuation of a story that doesn't change the game engine much?
It only sort of bothers me when there's a precedent set for innovation and evolution. If you compare Arkham Knight to Arkham City and Arkham Asylum, you can see a lot of ways in which the gameplay evolved and grew, while still feeling true to its roots (Batmobile stuff aside, that's a whole other can of worms lol). Then you have Arkham Origins, which mostly just feels like an expansion of City. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in its own right, but when I look at it as part of the larger series, it definitely stands as the odd one out in that regard so I don't really have much to say or think about it. If we look at Assassin's Creed, I wasn't bothered that Revelations didn't innovate much on Brotherhood, though that was a very common criticism of the game back at the time.
I've been getting BW games since 1999 and BG1. I'm not sure what I'd define as BW's best game eras because each of them were immensely enjoyable as I lived through them and I've got fond memories of all the BW games I've played, even Anthem. lol. Best is yet to come? I think your definition of true sequel is understandable, but I think if someone clips you out of context, it could spread to clickbait news sites. So, best of luck with that. But, if people are going to be disingenuous, context matters little.
For me golden age was Kotor to ME3. Kotor being what really put bioware style on the map (a style no other company has) and ME3 was the beginning of the end.
I do hope you make a video on the topic of new IPs as it seems most of the industry (including Bioware) don't really make anything new. Is that simply because it's better to continue established IPs? Or because there is no energy for new IPs? As to me what also makes Bioware's Golden Age golden is the establishment of new IPs.
It really saddens me that Inquisition won't be getting a "true" sequel, as while I really liked the game, the main thing my thoughts revolved around after finishing it were "this is now an awesome and beautiful set of tools and assets that Bioware can really exploit to craft more Dragon Age games". With the really outstandingly good Jaws of Hakkon and Trespasser DLCs further reinforcing that belief in me - those two DLC's were probably peak Dragon Age for me, and I was very enthusiastic about getting more of that.
It will be almost a decade between Inquisiton and Dragon Age "4" when Dreadwolf will arrive. How crazy this sounds. Hope Dreadwolf will set a bar for "true" sequels.. if we'll have to wait another 10 years for Dragon Age "5".. now that sounds even more crazy lol
This was a good period for Bioware (I didn't like all of the mentioned games but a couple of them are some of the best Bioware has ever released). However for me nothing tops Baldur's Gate 2. It was not only a great game but it is one of the pillars that make up what gaming has been the last 20 years. To find games with comparable cultural significance you have to look to Diablo 2, Doom and Dark Souls. Some of the best RPGs of the last 5 years are direct descendants of BG2 and it's "sequel" is one of the (if not the most) anticipated cRPG currently in development.
Do you think "True" sequels hurt the next sequels in the IP? For me Assassin's Creed games are always fine with their "true" sequels but the next leap's first game always comes out a bit short in some stuff. I am mainly talking about AC1/AC3/Unity/Origins. In my opinon after these first attempts they somewhat figure things out on their relative "True" sequels and everything is fine(Same order AC2/AC4/Syndicate/Odyssey). Andromeda had issues too. I think Andromeda and Inquisition were good candidates to have "True" sequels. They would be amazing as any other Bioware game but that's another reality now. How big of a studio do you think is good for constantly pushing out "True" sequels and normal sequels after that? Should you make fans wait longer than usual for the next leap or would having a separate team already working on the next thing work?
Having a separate team can allow you to leapfrog. BUT you run the risk of "2 steps forward, one step back" as the one game experiments and the next one doesn't integrate those experiments
I always find the "Golden Age" thing to be weird. I think it's basically nostalgia. If I had a "Golden Age of Bioware" it would definitely include KOTOR, as that's the first BW game I played and it had a huge effect on me. Someone else would include NWN, because that's when they became aware of BW. But saying the next DA is not a "true sequel" is going to get the internet hopping, so I'm going to get some popcorn.
The BioWare Golden age for me was from Baldur’s gate (through my father playing BW games) to Inquisition. My first BioWare game personally was Kotor and I loved it, followed with Mass Effect which I’m a huge fan with also Dragon Age. Andromeda wasn’t the same sure but I feel it could have grow into something very nice if given the chance for a sequel. I think the iterative sequel is/was the best approach for a full generation (in console time.) Then after a complete trilogy or a new gen, why not starting with new fondations etc. But today, I don’t know what to think of BioWare anymore, it has been so long even since Andromeda already and without you Mark for Dragon Age or Casey for Mass Effect I feel like… Star Wars without George Lucas. « Modern » BioWare might do great games in the futur but will the magic be the same again? I don’t know, we will see. Each franchises that lost their creator so far ended with mixed or divisive most of the time. Love your videos and insight on BW, always loved BioWare here since a kid so it’s fascinating. Thank you sir.
My personal "Golden Game" will always be Neverwinter Nights, it was my first RPG and no other game has given me so many years of joy and content, but a lot of that was driven by the community too. Otherwise, somewhere between KOTOR and DA:O, after that I noticed that shift towards more action and, hmm... let's call it writing style that don't really caters towards me anymore from DA2 on (although in DA2's case the main issue was gameplay and art direction, not story). And yes, I still directly blame EA for this whatever you tell me. :D ME2 and 3 were still fun, although with a lot of cringy moments I replayed them often enough and love them for the soap opera they are. DA:I was my personal breaking point, so it's not included in that Golden Age anymore and I'm still unsure about DA4, I really hope it'll be different.
Official website/forum also contribute to golden age because peoples get in and talk about the games. Internet arguments is like a magnet, those who come in not always the player, but people who just want to hangout. It is the place where the games kept alive outside the games. even not everybody like the certain games but there the games are alive, because the community talked about them. it is the place where all the dramas happen between the members, the mods and the devs. But since Bioware closed BSN, not just the memory but the spirit is lost. Now people talked about Bioware without connecting to Bioware. Forums can be toxic, but which forums didn't? Ironically, the toxicity have it's own contribution, it is the poison Bioware need, it shows that people care...
I fully understand the point being made, but in my heart, any definition of a golden age that does not include Kotor and Jade Empire is a flawed definition ;)
My favorite game of all time was Inquisition so there is that. On the age front think terns like golden age may be a little over played but whatever you call them Inquisition certainly was the end of an age where Anthem and Andromeda was another and maybe Dreadwolf will be the making of another. Interesting video as always and as always learning more about the industry and why Ubisoft is so good at making games quickly. Hopefully with Dreadwolf we can see more true sequels, more faster released games, but still avoiding crunch.
How much would you say those quick releases were also due to "crunch" being more prevalent back then? Glen Schofield got a lot of heat from this tweet “I only talk about the game during an event. We are working 6 to 7 days a week, nobody’s forcing us. Exhaustion, tired, COVID, but we’re working. Bugs, glitches, performance fixes, One last pass through audio. 12 to 15 hours days. This is gaming. Hard work. Lunch, dinner, working. You do it ‘cos you love it.” Do you think it's even possible to ship a great game without crunch? Jason Schreier believes so, but he never made a game so his word doesn't really mean much.
Crunch is largely being used to generate completion urgency (or the desire to finish). But its actually a terrible way to DO this. Most studios haven't found a replacement. I think that it is ABSOLUTELY possible. But we may not have figured it out yet.
Dragon Age: Origins is BioWare's greatest game. DA2 did some things wrong. Inquisition was a massive leap back in the right direction, but wasn't quite as great as Origins. I think BioWare should have made more true sequels to Inquisition by utilizing the Frostbite engine and Inquisition resources to make new, short adventures that continue the story of the Inquisitor. Hakkon and Descent were good. BioWare should have kept doing DLCs like those and sold them for $5 to $15 depending on length. I'd have even liked to have seen new adventures for the Champion and Hero as well, to get their character models loaded in and ready for DA4 if nothing else. It just seems BioWare spent all that time converting Frostbite's FPS style to accommodate the RPG style, but they didn't quite get their money's worth for all that effort.
DLC is a tough business because you are dealing with attach rate. 8-20% of your original audience buy each DLC. Not a great $ maker in magnitude as a result
@@MarkDarrah 8% of Inquisition's 1.14 million units sold is 91,200. Even at $4.99 each, that's $455,088 for a DLC that reuses assets and game engine. Hakkon, Descent, and Trespasser each sold at $14.99, Origin deals not included. So that's anywhere from $455,088 to $3,417,720 per DLC.
@@BelieveIt1051 so Inquisition is north of 10 million not 1.14. Think about it this way: A piece of DLC at 10$ with a 10% attach will make 1.6% of what the original game made (10% * 10$/60$) So if the game sells a lot, it can make money. But only a small percentage
@@MarkDarrah Oh. I only had Inquisition's initial release number to work off of, not the full eight years it's been out. I think the major payoff for DLCs would be that they don't take that much time or money to produce thanks to reused assets.
I wouldn't consider Ubisoft series as "True sequels" as in ME trilogy and DA sequels. The Assassin's Creed series, for exemple, has had so many narrative & gameplay changes that the name and a few iconic elements are the only things left to tie the games together and leave the fandom fighting over what is "a true AC game". Pretty much all their series have followed the same road : keep the name and a few stuff to keep the old guard and media attention, twist the rest beyond recognition to reach a larger audience. Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, etc. all went along this same journey. Sure, ME and DA's have had their own narrative and gameplay changes. Some I liked, some I didn't. But still they seem like a consistent whole to me (so far) compared to Ubisoft's production. To me, that lack of consistency (weirdly compounded with an overly consistent "method"), is what gave Ubisoft's games a bad name. Off the top of my head (because they had an event yesterday) RGG studio's Yakuza / Like A Dragon series seems like a good exemple of maintaining "true sequels" over a long period of time.
Hence "true" The ubisoft games reuse a lot (including core gameplay loops and engine) which allowqs a lot of changes. This isn't always to their benefit
The golden age for me was from Baldur's Gate and up to immediately after the acquisition by EA. So I would say up to and including Mass Effect 2. After that, the tone at the top started to seep into BW and old timers in the company started leaving... which is never a good sign. Like you said in the other video, that cultural tug o' war between EA and BW that had been going on behind the curtains started to become apparent to players as well.
I like Dragon Age 2's art direction and gameplay design a lot more than in Origins. I think DA2 is FAR from a perfect game, but it speaks to me more, I found the characters, how they interacted, and the political problems of Kirkwall very engrossing.
@@MarkDarrah Yes, DA2's look is distinct. I think the ideas it brought to the table with combat were solid and I think there's an interesting battle mechanic delineation from DA2 to Inquisition to Final Fantasy Fifteen to Final Fantasy Seven Remake. Did Bioware look at all to Final Fantasy Twelve for the combat of Origins and DA2?
I find that the gameplay doesn't hold up for Origins in a modern day. Same for Kotor. Not that I haven't replayed both of them. But it's has some parts what are just a bore fest. Mostly the fade in Dragon age Origins
So, Mr. Darrah, why was DAI not a "true" sequel to DA2? And I don't mean that definition-wise, I mean what happened that caused it to diverge from that "true" sequel pattern you'd be following for the studio's previous 3 releases? Was it EA coming in demanding Frostbite? Or BioWare's desire to change it up more? Or something else? Thanks!
It was: 1. A desire to get exploration back into the franchise 2. The inability of Eclipse to support that (at least not without the level artists killing everyone) 3. Therefore the need to go to a new engine Once you switch engines "true" sequel isn't possible
@@MarkDarrah That makes perfect sense. I figured the engine switch was the main cause, but I didn't know the driver behind the switch. Thank you so much!
I almost consider... well... Dragon Age: Origins to be an interesting cutoff point. It feels almost like it was in some ways... out of place? For its era. In some ways, and this is from someone who has played it for a long time, on and off, it feels almost like the Mass Effect of Neverwinter Nights, if that makes any sense whatsoever. And now that I'm listening to the video, that makes sense. Given its development cycle. 😆I feel so dumb, I should stop posting before I watch.
I think most gamer's opinion of Bioware depends solely on whether they're a PC gamer or console gamer. For us PC gamers, Bioware wasn't considered 'obscure' during their Baldur Gate/NWN/KOTOR times. They were taking tactical RPGs to a whole new level at that time. But when they started making games for consoles that needed to be played with analog sticks and limited buttons, that's when they started changing from tactical, highly strategic RPGs to more straight up action RPGs. Dragon Age Origin is their last truly strategic RPG and one of my top 5 favourite games of all time. Every fight is about proper positioning of your party, flanking maneuvers, and combining your characters powers to maximize their attacks. I've never got tired of having my mage use cone of cold and then setting my fighters and rogues to use their critical hit abilities to shatter enemies in a single blow. I remember playing through the Origins DLC with the game's hotbar spread clear across my monitor filled with every ability, spell, potion and grenade choice I needed on the fly and wondered how any console player was playing this game without a mouse. Well apparently they couldn't, because Dragon Age 2 stripped out half the combat choices of DA:O from flanking to traps to friendly fire to spell combinations. DA:O was about having to be creative in combat. For DA2 you could just run your party anywhere and you spent more time watching the cool down meters of your powers than caring about where your enemies were. When you faced a Reverent in DA:O it was a moment of pure terror and excitement where you had to make sure each party member was positioned perfectly and using all of their spells, abilities and potions correctly. Facing a Reverent in DA2 just meant it had a slighter bigger health bar than the other enemies around it so it took an extra few seconds to kill. For a lot of PC gamers (including me) the golden age ended with Dragon Age 2. I still really love the writing in both DA 2 & 3 but the combat is something I only tolerate to get through the wonderful storytelling. It no longer has the creative combat and strategic decisions of their previous games and as an action game it isn't anywhere near as good or as memorable as The Witcher or Dark Soul RPGs. Game play wise it's stuck in some no man's land.
I always get nervous about supposed "golden ages" because it seems like nostalgia + hindsight combines into what can charitably be called a rounding up of experience. I definitely remember DAO being a real watershed moment for me, but I was resistant to DA2 and didn't catch up with the series until later. Now, DA2 is experiencing a renaissance as word-of-mouth is getting people to play it, and I think that the game holds up but that's because people now _know_ what experience they're looking for in DA2. If you go in understanding that the levels will be re-used, and that you're going from a sprawling Ferelden to a smaller Kirkwall, and maybe the combat isn't as tactical as you liked in DAO, but the writing and acting is _top shelf_ then you're more likely to rate the game highly. In the moment, when people were in the middle of the golden age, I don't know that people realized it at the time. I guess another thing about a Golden Age that annoys me is that one you name a golden age, you don't really have anywhere else to go but down, and even if there is going to be a cyclical nature to creative output, we should never just assume that the best is behind us.
I agree that naming any era a "Golden Age" is going to be create resentment and disappoint. I prefer to think as it simple is. Which is that if the game is good at what the game is trying to do then that's good. If it's not then that's bad.
Whenever I hear the term "Golden Age", my mind goes to the question of what killed it. From an outsider and consumer's point of view, Anthem seems to have killed BW's golden age. You, Gaider, and other ex-BW staff brought so much value and credibility to the company. I appreciate your insight
ME2 might be the best reviewed ME game, but it is at best a glorified side story that ultimately doesn't add anything to continue the main narrative of the Shepard trilogy, except maybe Arrival dlc... And even then, it doesn't really matter because it feels like ME3 just steamrolls off of what was left behind in ME1. Nothing you do in ME2 truly changes any outcome in ME3. At least, the death of Virmire survivor/Wrex from ME1 has real consequences in ME3. For me Mass Effect 3 is the best Bioware game. Because it ties up all the loose ends. It ended the trilogy in a satisfying way. (On a side note, I prefer the RGB endings to the "Dark Matter" ending, because the latter would mean there would be scenario where the universe itself (and not the galaxy) would end, which in turn meant no more Mass Effect games.)
@@MarkDarrahThe reason why i said what i said was, take Dragon Age, for example: DAO starts the universe which leads into DA2. Even though a small part of DA2 takes place during DAO, the bulk of it is its own thing, and the consequences of the events of DAO (ending the blight of that time) make DA2 possible. The consequences of the events of DA2 ultimately leads to DAI. While DAI takes some choices from DAO (like old god baby) into account to modify its narrative, without DA2's events, it would have not taken place at all. Whereas it has always felt like you could simply skip ME2 compeletely after playing ME1, directly play ME3 instead, because ME2 didn't lead into ME3. I'm not complaining or anything, but to me ME2 has felt like a big fetch quest that can simply be ignored. Yes, most characters are well written, but that is true for all Bioware games. I think playing the legendary version might make it slightly better, instead of playing each of the trilogy game separately.
I only played Mass effect series and Dragon age series, I never played Kotor or baldur gate but I hear great things about them. But Mass effect was the first game where you can say that games aren't just digital toys, but an experience that can change someone, like a damn fine book. Dragon age series was definitely amazing but I don't think it has the same emotional impact as the mass effect series, probably because of how well Shepard is written as a protagonist and the relationship that you build with them and their companions over 3 games, the ME trilogy is great because the three games work together to make one of the best story ever told, on par with lord of the rings. Dragon age felt more like three separate games in the same universe. They are all great, but they don't work as a cohesive trilogy. DA:O was the so well written with real weight behind decisions, and some of the best character's in gaming. DA:2 had a lot of heart, and DA:I I felt have some of the best original soundtrack in gaming. To me that is the golden age of Bioware. When it came to Andremda, I belive the base for a great game is there (great gameplay mechanics, graphics and sound), it start very strong and ends very strong, in fact most of the main quest and companion quest are fine, but it the rest of side content was not as good as mass effect or witcher 3 which at that time is the standard for excellence in quest writing. I was really disappointed when the Quarian ARK DLC cancellation. I started Anthem but I couldn't really get into it.
Oh, gosh, the best one? That's a really hard question. My gut is to say Mass Effect 2, but then I look at Baldur's Gate II and I doubt myself. Certainly those two are the best in (and probably definitive of) their respective "eras," and they usually both make it into my top 10 games lists. Hesitantly, I think I still lean toward ME2 as the "best" Bioware game, but it's such a tough call!
ME2 is probably the best representation of BioWare's current dev strategy. Character first BG2 is a great refinement of something that is very niche these days. But at the time...
For me epic Bioware stuff ended with DA Inquisition (where camera and controls were somewhat disappointing and felt somewhat broken compared to DAO and DAII). The first Bio game I'd played was NwN 1, which was pretty awesome + it had Aurora Toolset module editor. I don't think a modern husk of Bioware (I consider it nothing, but a name, since the founders dropped it and many other original Bioware people left) would ship a game with a fully functional editor, becuase why do that when you can sell 10 billion DLCs instead?
We were trying to push for a toolset with Joplin. There wasn't much appetite at EA but (surprisingly) that actually changed after we dropped the idea. UGC doesn't hurt DLC sales too much, TBH because it is canonical. But Story DLC is expensive for the $ it makes
@@MarkDarrah Yeah I know that doesn't make much sense and several great games came out after, but the cloud of EA loomed over BW ever since it was acquired and something like Anthem seemed inevitable to many of us fans. I just can't consider the period of time that BW was being "digested" by EA to be BW's golden age, even though good work was done during that time.
As a helpless Mass Effect fan I cannot but agree that this was a "golden age" for BioWare. Unsurprisingly, Mass Effect 2 is BioWare's greatest game in my opinion, so many things came together on that one. Really enjoying the videos, please keep them coming
@@MarkDarrah Interesting that 2D graphics in BG series aged well in remasters. Backgrounds still look great now. However, NWN remaster with it's early 3D graphics looks like poor old MMO now. Just my perception.
@@aidanhouk totally. The backgrounds were barely limited by tech so they look close to as good as they would if you remade it (though lower resolution)
I'll always wonder why Bioware&EA don't organize small teams to create small but impactful dragon age/mass effect games in between the "BIG" games. Just from the lore that is already written in games via codex for example there can be made some great great games with good stories to tell and adventures to happen. I get it when other games aren't rich in world universe and characters but Bioware games sometimes have a better history than our real life one
EA doesn't like spending money. As a result BioWare is constantly fighting itself over resources. Though, to be fair, this would probably STILL happen if you added 500 people. To do this would require a formal structure. I think its a good idea, though
I added the quotes around "TRUE" in "True" Sequel because its a Mark term.
Obviously Andromeda is a sequel to Mass Effect 3 as Inquisition is to DA2.
Trying not to be confusing
This reminds me of our conversation when I proposed that instead of hoping for BioWare to "get back to their old ways" people should hope that Dreadwolf and the next Mass Effect will set a new standard and a new level of greatness for BioWare. I think nostalgia and people's tendency to only remember the best parts of things makes it impossible for a dev or game or franchise to ever really return to previous "greatness".
"No man ever steps in the same river twice"
A studio most grow and change.
That doesn't have to be bad
@@MarkDarrah agreed. In many ways, especially after so much time, I'd argue that it's ideal. Thanks for the great video as usual Mark!
I enjoyed the way you define at "true sequel" to be about more of a tool set and pipline continuum rather that strictly a narrative continuation. Sort of dovetails nicely into your reuse mantra.
Indeed.
Thaty's why I felt I needed the quotes ("true") because its more dev facing then player facing
It's funny ,as a fan who has been riding the BW wave since DAO's release, who is also heavily involved within the fandom, many of us agree that, as far as Dragon Age goes, the Dragon Age golden age, from a fan perspective, was the time between DA2's release and up until DAI's release which fits neatly within the golden age you proposed. There was a special energy within the fandom then due to a lot of factors that I won't go into now but seems to have disappeared after DAI's release. I hear similar things from the ME crowd regarding the time between ME2 & ME3. I really think that your suggestion of what a true sequel is is a huge part of the reason why.
Thanks for the post.
Hopefully, BW can start sequelling again soonish
The reason I miss the Golden Age of BioWare was that as a consumer the hype was truly there, and keps sustaining itself one year at a time. DA2 and ME3 may have gone too far with being rushed, but as a fan I was EXCITED. I'm also excited on recent BioWare games but it comes with the reluctance that I have to wait 2-3 years after seeing something hype-worthy and that time could span me undergoing different education, living in another place, breaking up with someone, etc. and by the time the hype returns I have to reconsider how much of a fan I still am.
Thanks for making this video. I think it's a really interesting topic, and you're dead-on about calling that ME1->DAI period the golden age. I also like the games that came after ME2, but truth be told they started to have controversies, and DA:I always had a weird mixture of high praise versus people who feel it is too "AAA" in terms of all its grinding and Ubisoft style objectives, same with MEA. But despite those things DAI definitely had that "Disney 90s Cartoon" quality to me still, which is what defines this era of BioWare to me. You knew you were getting a deep game with cinematically competent storytelling that is INTERACTIVE, and great RPG features.
The density increasing the buzz is a good point.
Nice video. IMO DAO is the greatest BW game hands down. First of the series so it had the "newness" factor. Lots of player choices. Interesting story. Quite mod-able also. I certainly got my money's worth on it, considering I've started well over 100 characters, and finished 30+ times;)
I also considered KOTOR and ME1. To me DAO beats these because it has far more choices at the start, and the mod friendliness.
Thank you for sharing!
exaclty the video I was waiting for you to do !
thank you
You are welcome
This channel has got me playing inquisition again. Yea it’s almost too big, which I can not really believe I’m saying.
But this is a peak game. So amazing and satisfying to play.
enjoy it!
Bioware's golden age was from Kotor to Mass Effect 2
That was an interesting period, for sure
This is a super cool video. I had some idea that it took so long to make some of these but not that long. Glad to be informed. :)
DAO was… a while
Mass effect 2 is great but it's more impactful the first time you play, subsequent playthroughs you realize the whole game is go get these people, now do a mission for them , now play the last mission. Great video, Mass Effect and Dragon age Origins made me go back and buy\play every Bioware game. I really wish Dragon age was a true sequel series.
It absolutely IS that.
The crit path is effectively 3 missions
I enjoyed all the Bioware games from Baldur's gate 1 onwards to Dragon Age inquisition so it was all golden for me!
BG1 - NWN is another interesting period, for sure
Very interesting discussion, I look forward to the true sequels video.
Need to sort it out
Truth be told, I feel like this Golden Era/Vintage BioWare talk is a lot of looking at older games with rose colored glasses. I've been gaming since the early 90ties and been into BioWare games since BG1 shipped eons ago. Only two games by BioWare not up my alley were Sonic and Anthem. I always felt that MEA was unfairly hated on, the devs behind it dropped by both leadership and EA. I think we might be at the beginning of a BioWare Renaissance bc BioWare NEEDED new blood both at the top and in their teams overall. Over the last...18 months or so I saw BioWare devs tweeting happily about work again (Which they haven't really done since before DAI), veterans and newcomers are excited about their projects and a lot of the stress, bitterness and ennui has been lifted. I can't tell what exactly led to that shift in tone but it's definitely there. So...as much as I love "Golden Age" BioWare...I'm excited for current BioWare shipping DA:D, ME5 and more SWTOR content. If that makes me a Pollyanna, so be it. I prefer being positive about my pretendy fun and the people creating my fave games.
Absolutely.
Change is often met with disdain but then embraced later.
And with 2 underperforming games (MEA and Anthem) there is a lot of scrutiny.
But this period still offers for interesting lessons
Interesting to see this video after Veilguard release.
I played a fair amount of hours but work has priority but I would say I also find it very interesting of the villain choice. Bioware in DAI Trespasser DLC created in Solas a what I like to label "Thanos level antagonist" ( I know writers who would do anything to produce that ) yet they made the move to brush that and instead offer 2 "Corypheus". These villains i find more generic " I want to control/destroy the world because i am EVIL!" They seem to get better and as a player you can get a better understanding of them only if you engage in every codex entry and go out your way to read Dragon Age Wiki informations about them but only from the game itself you don't get that enough to consider them a stand out
Interesting perspective
Do you think the true sequel philosophy applies to Bethesda games and their Creation Engine despite them taking so long to come out? Seems to be mostly beneficial to the modding community. Games being built on previous entries as true sequels is definitely something I'm going to keep an eye for when looking at game series in the future. Thanks for the video!
YES!
Fallout is effectively a "true" sequel of Elder Scrolls. And vice versa
I just don't have a favorite era, but for me that's a good thing. My first Bioware game was Baldur's Gate, which I bought with my allowance during one of our regular family trips to Comp USA. It was my first exposure DnD, and gave me a deeper connection to the fantasy genre that I already loved. I gave each game its own chance so that I could appreciate them for what they are, and ended up loving them all. Over the years it really feels like Bioware has grown along side me, and I can't imagine anything nicer than that.
Probably the healthiest approach
My partner and I are both partial to a certain idea of BioWare's Golden Age... Except by virtue of being older and a pc gamer, his golden age starts with Baldur's Gate and ends with Mass Effect 2 and mine started with da:O on Xbox 360! I think we have to account for the huge impact of the seventh generation in term of bringing the role-playing experience to a new public distinct from the "historic player base." The labor of art of the development teams of the "Golden Age" of BioWare was instrumental in shaping the expectations of later entries in forging the console RPG experience, epitomised by the shift from the list of dialogue options to the dialogue wheel mechanic in my mind.
Both good windows
Baldur's Gate was the first Bioware game I ever played, I was only a kid at the time and I used to have to commandeer my older brother's PC to play it. It left such a strong impression on me that when I heard about Dragon Age: Origins, as a newly moved out adult, I had to play it. I loved it so much I picked up Mass Effect 2 and got into that series as well.
I view the Baldur's Gate era as a golden age simply because it's wrapped in nostalgia, but I also see 2007-2014 as a golden age because it's when I was buying every new release.
BG arguable saved CRPGs from the genre garbage heap
For story/sequel games, I feel like the gaming technology of hardware/software, graphics etc. are all on one train track, and the story/sequence is on another train track and they aren’t meeting at the crossing often enough, which has essentially punished the story and the people who are buying the story game. The problem now is a whole new gen of gamers grow up and never even heard of the earlier story (Mass Effect Remaster on Twitch, amazing how many Gen Z streamers had never even heard of the series). And the adult demographic who started the story has aged into customer oblivion where they may not be playing games any longer for various reasons related to time. I hope gaming companies can look at story sequel games and focus up front on a timeline for the delivery of the entire story. Gamers may need to be trained on what to expect, reused assets, same engine, graphics etc. But I think the 10 years waiting on story may have done some of that training already. I really believe that BioWare stories have won out over the tech now, and reused assets matter less on sequels than they once did, as long as the story is a sequel.
There is something to this, yes
What do I consider BioWare's greatest game? God that's a tough one, I like so many. I'd probably have to say Jade Empire simply because no matter how many times I go back to it, I can still go back to it with a sense of freshness and wonder. It had Nathan Fillion and John Cleese in it (admittedly bit parts, but memorable performances) and it had a simple but rewarding combat system and even itemization. And I still think the characters introduced are amongst the best that Bioware has ever created. From the amusingly named Henpecked Hou who wants to be anywhere but where his wife is to the sad story of Little Flower - and even her hosts. Even the story is great, crossing the boundary between the 'mortal' and the divine and the overworked beaucracy blaming you and the Black Whirlwind for their antics and their inability to cope.
It's amazing to me that BioWare still hasn't released a sequel to that game, although I suspect as time goes on the chances of an actual sequel would be even less likely as I feel a huge portion of BioWare's audience now has never even heard of it (or Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, maybe assuming that Larian made those as well...)
Jade Empire is interesting
I don't expect that BioWare will do a sequel (it didn't sell super well for one)
I really loved Jade Empire but I never understood why it wasn't as popular as say Dragon Age...do you have any thoughts on this?
A few:
1. Microsoft marketed it ... oddly
2. The western wushu phase was over by the time it came out
3. Single platform
The idea of a "true" sequel was very interesting. Not necessarily a narrative sequel (although, that's certainly true in the case of Mass Effect and Dragon Age), but a mechanical sequel. It kind of reminds me of the original Gears of War trilogy or the original Halo trilogy, where each sequel was built on a rock-solid foundation that they iterated and refined in fairly quick succession.
I wonder if "true" sequels have fallen out of fashion because the tools used to make games now, or at least AAA games, are way more complex than they were during the 6th and 7th generation. Just going off of graphics, the detail in animations and textures and models are way higher than they were back then, which I can only imagine naturally slows down development as there are more things to check to make sure they're working correctly than there was in the Xbox and Xbox 360 eras.
That's why "true" instead of true.
Current complexities should encourage MORE of this. But we saw the (ridiculous) backlash again the Horizon sequel for DARING to reuse its rappelling animation. This makes devs gun shy.
@@MarkDarrah That's very true. I'd honestly forgotten that backlash had happened. It is strange that people are so deadset against reusing anything from a previous game even though it works perfectly fine (or at least things that are obvious, like animations or levels or whatever; hard for the average person to tell if, for example, an AI routine is reused).
Do you think it's more a problem of the tools devs are using nowadays are just too complicated to use efficiently or is it more external pressure for a sequel to be bigger, badder, more?
Like the last time I can think of where a direct sequel to a hit game was noticeably "smaller" (not necessarily in terms of map size or game length but in production, I guess? Sorry, can't think of a better word than "smaller") than its predecessor was Dragon Age II, and that had a) a good narrative reason to limit its scope, b) that narrative reason I'm sure was influenced heavily by the lack of dev time to expand it and c) the expectation that it should look at least better than Origins if nothing else almost certainly had to take time away from other things.
@@aldenraymond771 AAA content is way more complicated than it used to be for sure
Hey Mark!! I'm new to your channel and I'm loving the content. I don't know if this has been asked before but, do you have plans on working on making video games again? I'm a big fan of your work, specially on the Dragon Age franchise, thanks and keep on being awesome!!
We shall see.
Theoretically, I'm working on "High Tea on the High Seas" as an example project but I didn't do anything over Summer
Right on the money. I agree on all points. I LOVED Baldur's Gate and NWN and KotOR, but the time period you identified is really the time the studio became beloved by gamers on a larger (and wider) scale.
KotOR will always be my favorite (nostalgia), but ME3 might be the 'best' BioWare game overall, at least in my opinion. For me, there wasn't an 'average' game released until Andromeda. They were all exceptional. Everyone who worked on those games deserves to be proud of their work.
Thank you!
came here because LevelCap suggested you. glad he did
welcome!
DAI was my first game ever. I had not even played D&D yet. I was gob smacked to be living inside a playable novel where my decisions were critical.
This game will always be my first wonderful memory
After playing games for some time, ME2 is a true amazing game that stands on its own and has fantastic replay satisfaction. The Shadow Broker dlc is as important as the game itself.
Thanks for sharing!
As a modder it's interesting seeing how the internals of the first 3 mass effect games changed over time. ME1 used a bunch of your older tech like TLK and 2DA. As the games went on these additions became more native in the engine vs bolted on. With a whole engine change none of that would even be relevant to the kinds of things I do.
ME1 tried to lay “BioWare way” on top of unreal. To… mixed results
For me it's both - BG and Dragon Age. They both kinda hit my life in a good spot. BG2 was in my teens while I still lived home. Dragon Age came out after I had my first kid and was sort-of-kind-of an adult. There were a few years of chaos between there that wasn't really gaming intense for me.
Cool to hear
Interesting video, I've always assumed Bioware's golden age to be that period of time where the company was well established and players were confident that each new release was going to be even better than the previous, and their expectations were (apparently) always met.
In other words, I'd say the years between KotOR and Mass Effect 2, with DA2 starting to crack this hopeful collective image of the company and the controversy around the ME3 ending putting a definitive end to it.
I personally believe the greatest contributing factor to the end of this "golden era" to have been the shift in the public image of Bioware: from the "small", independent team of passionate developers to the soulless EA-owned video game company.
This, in my opinion, has led to an harsher response to objective (and subjective) flaws in following games.
Once you lose "scrappy independent" you are definitely judged more harshly.
This has recently happened to Bethesda
Strongly agree BG1, BG2, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect plus Dragon Age Origins followed by Mass Effect 2 were constantly delivering, very impressive streak of successful games.
Btw thank you for your part in creating these beautiful masterpieces. I fell in love with ME because of Andromeda and played the trilogy after. I ended up finding DAI first, then playing 2 and Origins. After playing them all in order, I was hooked forever. It was only 3 years ago but they inspired me and changed my life forever. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Thank you!
I would love to see a video on the merits of making games that continue the development of a published game, what you seem to call a "True Sequel," here. It seems to me that selling such games might be something of a challenge in a modern marketplace, because reviewers and players often judge a game more harshly if it doesn't iterate/evolve the core mechanics of a game much. It's frustrating to me, because I tend to *prefer* games feel familiar when I buy a sequel, and rather enjoy games that continue the story of a previous game. Is there a way to avoid losing points from reviewers when your game is a continuation of a story that doesn't change the game engine much?
I'll definitely do something on "true" sequels. I think its worth picking apart the good and the bad
It only sort of bothers me when there's a precedent set for innovation and evolution. If you compare Arkham Knight to Arkham City and Arkham Asylum, you can see a lot of ways in which the gameplay evolved and grew, while still feeling true to its roots (Batmobile stuff aside, that's a whole other can of worms lol). Then you have Arkham Origins, which mostly just feels like an expansion of City. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in its own right, but when I look at it as part of the larger series, it definitely stands as the odd one out in that regard so I don't really have much to say or think about it. If we look at Assassin's Creed, I wasn't bothered that Revelations didn't innovate much on Brotherhood, though that was a very common criticism of the game back at the time.
I've been getting BW games since 1999 and BG1. I'm not sure what I'd define as BW's best game eras because each of them were immensely enjoyable as I lived through them and I've got fond memories of all the BW games I've played, even Anthem. lol. Best is yet to come? I think your definition of true sequel is understandable, but I think if someone clips you out of context, it could spread to clickbait news sites. So, best of luck with that. But, if people are going to be disingenuous, context matters little.
HOPEFULLY that won't happen...
For me golden age was Kotor to ME3.
Kotor being what really put bioware style on the map (a style no other company has) and ME3 was the beginning of the end.
Alright
I do hope you make a video on the topic of new IPs as it seems most of the industry (including Bioware) don't really make anything new. Is that simply because it's better to continue established IPs? Or because there is no energy for new IPs?
As to me what also makes Bioware's Golden Age golden is the establishment of new IPs.
New IPs are very tricky.
Worth a video for sure.
It really saddens me that Inquisition won't be getting a "true" sequel, as while I really liked the game, the main thing my thoughts revolved around after finishing it were "this is now an awesome and beautiful set of tools and assets that Bioware can really exploit to craft more Dragon Age games". With the really outstandingly good Jaws of Hakkon and Trespasser DLCs further reinforcing that belief in me - those two DLC's were probably peak Dragon Age for me, and I was very enthusiastic about getting more of that.
I am also sad about this
It will be almost a decade between Inquisiton and Dragon Age "4" when Dreadwolf will arrive. How crazy this sounds. Hope Dreadwolf will set a bar for "true" sequels.. if we'll have to wait another 10 years for Dragon Age "5".. now that sounds even more crazy lol
Hopefully BioWare can find a new, sustainable, cadence
This was a good period for Bioware (I didn't like all of the mentioned games but a couple of them are some of the best Bioware has ever released).
However for me nothing tops Baldur's Gate 2. It was not only a great game but it is one of the pillars that make up what gaming has been the last 20 years. To find games with comparable cultural significance you have to look to Diablo 2, Doom and Dark Souls. Some of the best RPGs of the last 5 years are direct descendants of BG2 and it's "sequel" is one of the (if not the most) anticipated cRPG currently in development.
BG2 makes "bast PC games of all time" lists even now
Do you think "True" sequels hurt the next sequels in the IP?
For me Assassin's Creed games are always fine with their "true" sequels but the next leap's first game always comes out a bit short in some stuff.
I am mainly talking about AC1/AC3/Unity/Origins. In my opinon after these first attempts they somewhat figure things out on their relative "True" sequels and everything is fine(Same order AC2/AC4/Syndicate/Odyssey).
Andromeda had issues too. I think Andromeda and Inquisition were good candidates to have "True" sequels. They would be amazing as any other Bioware game but that's another reality now.
How big of a studio do you think is good for constantly pushing out "True" sequels and normal sequels after that? Should you make fans wait longer than usual for the next leap or would having a separate team already working on the next thing work?
Having a separate team can allow you to leapfrog. BUT you run the risk of "2 steps forward, one step back" as the one game experiments and the next one doesn't integrate those experiments
Wow TH-cam why you recommend me this video. I watched it 2 years ago and by the looks of it left a comment too. Good video though xD
Now just watch it 150,000 more times...
I always find the "Golden Age" thing to be weird. I think it's basically nostalgia. If I had a "Golden Age of Bioware" it would definitely include KOTOR, as that's the first BW game I played and it had a huge effect on me. Someone else would include NWN, because that's when they became aware of BW. But saying the next DA is not a "true sequel" is going to get the internet hopping, so I'm going to get some popcorn.
It really is nostalgia.
And drawing boxes arbitrarily
03-12, Mark are you still in the gaming industry?
I’m not at a studio atm, but yes
@@MarkDarrah that’s cryptic Mark 😝
to me the period starts with baldursgates and "stops" at mass effect 3
Well let’s hope you see a renaissance
The BioWare Golden age for me was from Baldur’s gate (through my father playing BW games) to Inquisition. My first BioWare game personally was Kotor and I loved it, followed with Mass Effect which I’m a huge fan with also Dragon Age. Andromeda wasn’t the same sure but I feel it could have grow into something very nice if given the chance for a sequel. I think the iterative sequel is/was the best approach for a full generation (in console time.) Then after a complete trilogy or a new gen, why not starting with new fondations etc. But today, I don’t know what to think of BioWare anymore, it has been so long even since Andromeda already and without you Mark for Dragon Age or Casey for Mass Effect I feel like… Star Wars without George Lucas. « Modern » BioWare might do great games in the futur but will the magic be the same again? I don’t know, we will see. Each franchises that lost their creator so far ended with mixed or divisive most of the time. Love your videos and insight on BW, always loved BioWare here since a kid so it’s fascinating. Thank you sir.
A trilogy of right sequels and then a reimagining makes a lot of sense.
You can imagine a world where MEA starts a new ME trilogy
Glad ME3 was chosen as the "end of the golden age" considering how hard it was fumbled.
If you say so
My personal "Golden Game" will always be Neverwinter Nights, it was my first RPG and no other game has given me so many years of joy and content, but a lot of that was driven by the community too. Otherwise, somewhere between KOTOR and DA:O, after that I noticed that shift towards more action and, hmm... let's call it writing style that don't really caters towards me anymore from DA2 on (although in DA2's case the main issue was gameplay and art direction, not story). And yes, I still directly blame EA for this whatever you tell me. :D
ME2 and 3 were still fun, although with a lot of cringy moments I replayed them often enough and love them for the soap opera they are. DA:I was my personal breaking point, so it's not included in that Golden Age anymore and I'm still unsure about DA4, I really hope it'll be different.
interesting
Yikes, my English totally left me there... *doesn't cater
Official website/forum also contribute to golden age because peoples get in and talk about the games. Internet arguments is like a magnet, those who come in not always the player, but people who just want to hangout. It is the place where the games kept alive outside the games. even not everybody like the certain games but there the games are alive, because the community talked about them. it is the place where all the dramas happen between the members, the mods and the devs. But since Bioware closed BSN, not just the memory but the spirit is lost. Now people talked about Bioware without connecting to Bioware. Forums can be toxic, but which forums didn't? Ironically, the toxicity have it's own contribution, it is the poison Bioware need, it shows that people care...
Interesting perspective.
I fully understand the point being made, but in my heart, any definition of a golden age that does not include Kotor and Jade Empire is a flawed definition ;)
Fair
My favorite game of all time was Inquisition so there is that.
On the age front think terns like golden age may be a little over played but whatever you call them Inquisition certainly was the end of an age where Anthem and Andromeda was another and maybe Dreadwolf will be the making of another. Interesting video as always and as always learning more about the industry and why Ubisoft is so good at making games quickly. Hopefully with Dreadwolf we can see more true sequels, more faster released games, but still avoiding crunch.
I do think Andromeda and Anthem were powerful lessons for EA and BioWare.
We'll see if the lessons stick
How much would you say those quick releases were also due to "crunch" being more prevalent back then?
Glen Schofield got a lot of heat from this tweet “I only talk about the game during an event. We are working 6 to 7 days a week, nobody’s forcing us. Exhaustion, tired, COVID, but we’re working. Bugs, glitches, performance fixes, One last pass through audio. 12 to 15 hours days. This is gaming. Hard work. Lunch, dinner, working. You do it ‘cos you love it.”
Do you think it's even possible to ship a great game without crunch? Jason Schreier believes so, but he never made a game so his word doesn't really mean much.
Crunch is largely being used to generate completion urgency (or the desire to finish). But its actually a terrible way to DO this.
Most studios haven't found a replacement.
I think that it is ABSOLUTELY possible. But we may not have figured it out yet.
Interesting. I look forward to see the first successful AAA developer to pull it off.
Dragon Age: Origins is BioWare's greatest game. DA2 did some things wrong. Inquisition was a massive leap back in the right direction, but wasn't quite as great as Origins. I think BioWare should have made more true sequels to Inquisition by utilizing the Frostbite engine and Inquisition resources to make new, short adventures that continue the story of the Inquisitor. Hakkon and Descent were good. BioWare should have kept doing DLCs like those and sold them for $5 to $15 depending on length. I'd have even liked to have seen new adventures for the Champion and Hero as well, to get their character models loaded in and ready for DA4 if nothing else. It just seems BioWare spent all that time converting Frostbite's FPS style to accommodate the RPG style, but they didn't quite get their money's worth for all that effort.
DLC is a tough business because you are dealing with attach rate.
8-20% of your original audience buy each DLC. Not a great $ maker in magnitude as a result
@@MarkDarrah 8% of Inquisition's 1.14 million units sold is 91,200. Even at $4.99 each, that's $455,088 for a DLC that reuses assets and game engine. Hakkon, Descent, and Trespasser each sold at $14.99, Origin deals not included. So that's anywhere from $455,088 to $3,417,720 per DLC.
@@BelieveIt1051 so Inquisition is north of 10 million not 1.14.
Think about it this way:
A piece of DLC at 10$ with a 10% attach will make 1.6% of what the original game made (10% * 10$/60$)
So if the game sells a lot, it can make money. But only a small percentage
@@MarkDarrah Oh. I only had Inquisition's initial release number to work off of, not the full eight years it's been out. I think the major payoff for DLCs would be that they don't take that much time or money to produce thanks to reused assets.
@@BelieveIt1051 They can have pretty good ROIs as a % of cost (though something like Trespasser is actually worse than the main game was)
I wouldn't consider Ubisoft series as "True sequels" as in ME trilogy and DA sequels.
The Assassin's Creed series, for exemple, has had so many narrative & gameplay changes that the name and a few iconic elements are the only things left to tie the games together and leave the fandom fighting over what is "a true AC game".
Pretty much all their series have followed the same road : keep the name and a few stuff to keep the old guard and media attention, twist the rest beyond recognition to reach a larger audience. Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, etc. all went along this same journey.
Sure, ME and DA's have had their own narrative and gameplay changes. Some I liked, some I didn't. But still they seem like a consistent whole to me (so far) compared to Ubisoft's production.
To me, that lack of consistency (weirdly compounded with an overly consistent "method"), is what gave Ubisoft's games a bad name.
Off the top of my head (because they had an event yesterday) RGG studio's Yakuza / Like A Dragon series seems like a good exemple of maintaining "true sequels" over a long period of time.
Hence "true"
The ubisoft games reuse a lot (including core gameplay loops and engine) which allowqs a lot of changes.
This isn't always to their benefit
The golden age for me was from Baldur's Gate and up to immediately after the acquisition by EA. So I would say up to and including Mass Effect 2. After that, the tone at the top started to seep into BW and old timers in the company started leaving... which is never a good sign. Like you said in the other video, that cultural tug o' war between EA and BW that had been going on behind the curtains started to become apparent to players as well.
That is probably when the EA culture started seeping in
I like Dragon Age 2's art direction and gameplay design a lot more than in Origins. I think DA2 is FAR from a perfect game, but it speaks to me more, I found the characters, how they interacted, and the political problems of Kirkwall very engrossing.
DAO looks "generic fantasy RPG 2005-2010)" DA2 actually looks like DA2
@@MarkDarrah
Yes, DA2's look is distinct.
I think the ideas it brought to the table with combat were solid and I think there's an interesting battle mechanic delineation from DA2 to Inquisition to Final Fantasy Fifteen to Final Fantasy Seven Remake.
Did Bioware look at all to Final Fantasy Twelve for the combat of Origins and DA2?
I find that the gameplay doesn't hold up for Origins in a modern day. Same for Kotor. Not that I haven't replayed both of them. But it's has some parts what are just a bore fest. Mostly the fade in Dragon age Origins
So, Mr. Darrah, why was DAI not a "true" sequel to DA2? And I don't mean that definition-wise, I mean what happened that caused it to diverge from that "true" sequel pattern you'd be following for the studio's previous 3 releases? Was it EA coming in demanding Frostbite? Or BioWare's desire to change it up more? Or something else? Thanks!
It was:
1. A desire to get exploration back into the franchise
2. The inability of Eclipse to support that (at least not without the level artists killing everyone)
3. Therefore the need to go to a new engine
Once you switch engines "true" sequel isn't possible
@@MarkDarrah That makes perfect sense. I figured the engine switch was the main cause, but I didn't know the driver behind the switch. Thank you so much!
I almost consider... well... Dragon Age: Origins to be an interesting cutoff point. It feels almost like it was in some ways... out of place? For its era. In some ways, and this is from someone who has played it for a long time, on and off, it feels almost like the Mass Effect of Neverwinter Nights, if that makes any sense whatsoever.
And now that I'm listening to the video, that makes sense. Given its development cycle. 😆I feel so dumb, I should stop posting before I watch.
It is a line
I think most gamer's opinion of Bioware depends solely on whether they're a PC gamer or console gamer. For us PC gamers, Bioware wasn't considered 'obscure' during their Baldur Gate/NWN/KOTOR times. They were taking tactical RPGs to a whole new level at that time.
But when they started making games for consoles that needed to be played with analog sticks and limited buttons, that's when they started changing from tactical, highly strategic RPGs to more straight up action RPGs. Dragon Age Origin is their last truly strategic RPG and one of my top 5 favourite games of all time. Every fight is about proper positioning of your party, flanking maneuvers, and combining your characters powers to maximize their attacks. I've never got tired of having my mage use cone of cold and then setting my fighters and rogues to use their critical hit abilities to shatter enemies in a single blow. I remember playing through the Origins DLC with the game's hotbar spread clear across my monitor filled with every ability, spell, potion and grenade choice I needed on the fly and wondered how any console player was playing this game without a mouse. Well apparently they couldn't, because Dragon Age 2 stripped out half the combat choices of DA:O from flanking to traps to friendly fire to spell combinations. DA:O was about having to be creative in combat. For DA2 you could just run your party anywhere and you spent more time watching the cool down meters of your powers than caring about where your enemies were. When you faced a Reverent in DA:O it was a moment of pure terror and excitement where you had to make sure each party member was positioned perfectly and using all of their spells, abilities and potions correctly. Facing a Reverent in DA2 just meant it had a slighter bigger health bar than the other enemies around it so it took an extra few seconds to kill.
For a lot of PC gamers (including me) the golden age ended with Dragon Age 2. I still really love the writing in both DA 2 & 3 but the combat is something I only tolerate to get through the wonderful storytelling. It no longer has the creative combat and strategic decisions of their previous games and as an action game it isn't anywhere near as good or as memorable as The Witcher or Dark Soul RPGs. Game play wise it's stuck in some no man's land.
BG is a more obscure time in large part because ALL gaming was more obscure back then
I always get nervous about supposed "golden ages" because it seems like nostalgia + hindsight combines into what can charitably be called a rounding up of experience. I definitely remember DAO being a real watershed moment for me, but I was resistant to DA2 and didn't catch up with the series until later. Now, DA2 is experiencing a renaissance as word-of-mouth is getting people to play it, and I think that the game holds up but that's because people now _know_ what experience they're looking for in DA2. If you go in understanding that the levels will be re-used, and that you're going from a sprawling Ferelden to a smaller Kirkwall, and maybe the combat isn't as tactical as you liked in DAO, but the writing and acting is _top shelf_ then you're more likely to rate the game highly. In the moment, when people were in the middle of the golden age, I don't know that people realized it at the time.
I guess another thing about a Golden Age that annoys me is that one you name a golden age, you don't really have anywhere else to go but down, and even if there is going to be a cyclical nature to creative output, we should never just assume that the best is behind us.
ABSOLUTELY
I agree that naming any era a "Golden Age" is going to be create resentment and disappoint. I prefer to think as it simple is. Which is that if the game is good at what the game is trying to do then that's good. If it's not then that's bad.
Whenever I hear the term "Golden Age", my mind goes to the question of what killed it. From an outsider and consumer's point of view, Anthem seems to have killed BW's golden age. You, Gaider, and other ex-BW staff brought so much value and credibility to the company. I appreciate your insight
Anthem is another symptom.
ME2 might be the best reviewed ME game, but it is at best a glorified side story that ultimately doesn't add anything to continue the main narrative of the Shepard trilogy, except maybe Arrival dlc... And even then, it doesn't really matter because it feels like ME3 just steamrolls off of what was left behind in ME1. Nothing you do in ME2 truly changes any outcome in ME3. At least, the death of Virmire survivor/Wrex from ME1 has real consequences in ME3.
For me Mass Effect 3 is the best Bioware game. Because it ties up all the loose ends. It ended the trilogy in a satisfying way.
(On a side note, I prefer the RGB endings to the "Dark Matter" ending, because the latter would mean there would be scenario where the universe itself (and not the galaxy) would end, which in turn meant no more Mass Effect games.)
For me the Trilogy makes the most sense as a single very long game.
In that case all of ME3 becomes the ending
@@MarkDarrahThe reason why i said what i said was, take Dragon Age, for example:
DAO starts the universe which leads into DA2. Even though a small part of DA2 takes place during DAO, the bulk of it is its own thing, and the consequences of the events of DAO (ending the blight of that time) make DA2 possible. The consequences of the events of DA2 ultimately leads to DAI. While DAI takes some choices from DAO (like old god baby) into account to modify its narrative, without DA2's events, it would have not taken place at all.
Whereas it has always felt like you could simply skip ME2 compeletely after playing ME1, directly play ME3 instead, because ME2 didn't lead into ME3.
I'm not complaining or anything, but to me ME2 has felt like a big fetch quest that can simply be ignored. Yes, most characters are well written, but that is true for all Bioware games.
I think playing the legendary version might make it slightly better, instead of playing each of the trilogy game separately.
I only played Mass effect series and Dragon age series, I never played Kotor or baldur gate but I hear great things about them. But Mass effect was the first game where you can say that games aren't just digital toys, but an experience that can change someone, like a damn fine book. Dragon age series was definitely amazing but I don't think it has the same emotional impact as the mass effect series, probably because of how well Shepard is written as a protagonist and the relationship that you build with them and their companions over 3 games, the ME trilogy is great because the three games work together to make one of the best story ever told, on par with lord of the rings.
Dragon age felt more like three separate games in the same universe. They are all great, but they don't work as a cohesive trilogy. DA:O was the so well written with real weight behind decisions, and some of the best character's in gaming. DA:2 had a lot of heart, and DA:I I felt have some of the best original soundtrack in gaming.
To me that is the golden age of Bioware. When it came to Andremda, I belive the base for a great game is there (great gameplay mechanics, graphics and sound), it start very strong and ends very strong, in fact most of the main quest and companion quest are fine, but it the rest of side content was not as good as mass effect or witcher 3 which at that time is the standard for excellence in quest writing. I was really disappointed when the Quarian ARK DLC cancellation.
I started Anthem but I couldn't really get into it.
We talked about retconning DA:O, DA2, and DA:I into the "champion's trilogy" but that was never planned that way.
Oh, gosh, the best one? That's a really hard question. My gut is to say Mass Effect 2, but then I look at Baldur's Gate II and I doubt myself. Certainly those two are the best in (and probably definitive of) their respective "eras," and they usually both make it into my top 10 games lists. Hesitantly, I think I still lean toward ME2 as the "best" Bioware game, but it's such a tough call!
ME2 is probably the best representation of BioWare's current dev strategy.
Character first
BG2 is a great refinement of something that is very niche these days. But at the time...
For me epic Bioware stuff ended with DA Inquisition (where camera and controls were somewhat disappointing and felt somewhat broken compared to DAO and DAII). The first Bio game I'd played was NwN 1, which was pretty awesome + it had Aurora Toolset module editor.
I don't think a modern husk of Bioware (I consider it nothing, but a name, since the founders dropped it and many other original Bioware people left) would ship a game with a fully functional editor, becuase why do that when you can sell 10 billion DLCs instead?
We were trying to push for a toolset with Joplin.
There wasn't much appetite at EA but (surprisingly) that actually changed after we dropped the idea.
UGC doesn't hurt DLC sales too much, TBH because it is canonical.
But Story DLC is expensive for the $ it makes
For me BW’s best game was KotOR, and it’s golden age was from KotOR’s release until EA acquisition.
So KOTOR and Jade
@@MarkDarrah Yeah I know that doesn't make much sense and several great games came out after, but the cloud of EA loomed over BW ever since it was acquired and something like Anthem seemed inevitable to many of us fans. I just can't consider the period of time that BW was being "digested" by EA to be BW's golden age, even though good work was done during that time.
2007 best year for me in video game ^^
Mass Effect
Assassin's Creed
The Witcher
what else? I'm a fan of action rpg X)
I remember the assassin creed tv campaign
As a helpless Mass Effect fan I cannot but agree that this was a "golden age" for BioWare. Unsurprisingly, Mass Effect 2 is BioWare's greatest game in my opinion, so many things came together on that one. Really enjoying the videos, please keep them coming
Thank you!
Baldur's Gate II - Mass Effect 2 (2000-2010) is the best
That's an interesting period that represents a big change for BioWare from 2.5D tactical to Action RPG
@@MarkDarrah Interesting that 2D graphics in BG series aged well in remasters. Backgrounds still look great now. However, NWN remaster with it's early 3D graphics looks like poor old MMO now. Just my perception.
@@aidanhouk totally.
The backgrounds were barely limited by tech so they look close to as good as they would if you remade it (though lower resolution)
I'll always wonder why Bioware&EA don't organize small teams to create small but impactful dragon age/mass effect games in between the "BIG" games. Just from the lore that is already written in games via codex for example there can be made some great great games with good stories to tell and adventures to happen. I get it when other games aren't rich in world universe and characters but Bioware games sometimes have a better history than our real life one
My dream schedule for bioware games would be a big game every 4-5 years and a smaller one in the middle
EA doesn't like spending money.
As a result BioWare is constantly fighting itself over resources.
Though, to be fair, this would probably STILL happen if you added 500 people.
To do this would require a formal structure.
I think its a good idea, though