This is coming from a place of love. I care about video games alot, but this idea of a 'new audience' just has to go, man. Edit: This isn't just specific to Veilguard. That was just a recent example, as this is a problem the industry is facing over and over again.
But it's not the core issue, so really it shouldn't matter. Games don't necessarily benefit without them, just look at the history of video games over the last many decades. Some of them worse than modern games "for modern audiences". DA: Veilguard wouldn't have been good regardless.
This is just a buzz word no need to take it that serious most of these games are rehashes or franchise or Spiritual successors of them. These are games that people how gamed the last 10-20 decades care about. But honestly they do need a "new audience" we are getting older, and expecting more and more. Every new entry it gets hard to sell to us. We get a veilguard or outlaws average games of today and bash them. Verse 10-20 years ago we would have happly played or not been as critical. Ubisoft soft been making the same game for over a decade now we are tired 😂. And not to say we shouldnt expect more, but it would be easier on the industry if they go back to focusing on games for a younger crowd. You can only sell me on the same thing so many times.
To add, I'd say they added ingredients that the vast majority didn't like. You can have an amazing steak, but if you drown it in mustard, most aren't going to like it.
Don't nail me down on this but there was some sort of statistic that estimates the Modern Audience to amount to a mere 2% of sales. Why would you pander to them? Pandering to male nerds gives a much better return on investment. If you make a mediocre game that way it will be rated good.
As a fan of the series, I felt completely sidelined. This game was made for *new* players. I spent 10 years waiting and I felt completely swept under the rug for fresh new players.
You can see that this was coming from a live service game that was planned till the outcry…a lot of stuff like the loot was with live service in mind. They didn’t address the issues that was asked in previous games. Was sad
i wouldn't even say it got new players. since you know, it would have been us fans who would have brought new players in. with what they did they got the exact opposite of gaining anything.
It may have been made for new players, but it didn't get new players. The players it got are the people too stubborn to realize that the Bioware we all loved is dead and gone. Like a friend of mine who's enjoying it, except his "praise" of it was "it's not THAT bad..."
True. The second playthrough of DA2 I played on easy to get the combat over with faster, same with Inquisition. The fact that they didn't see that and made combat a bigger part of the game is what bothers me most about Inquisition.
Mary DeMarle who is the lead writer is the only thing giving me hope the story and writing will be good. She proved her good writing capabilities with the two modern Deus Ex games and the Guardians of the Galaxy game.
First, the lead writer of Veilguard wrote the plots of Mordin Solus and Trespasser, which didn't matter because of forced DEI indoctrination in the workplace hampering his talent. And second, the Bioware Edmonton studio is being shut down which means the mass effect sequel might be getting cancelled anyway, which might honestly be a good thing at this point.
@@N7Prometheus “Forced DEI indoctrination”? Holy shit dude, you are delusional. DEI isn’t about hiring unqualified people over qualified people. Unless you think non-white and less fortunate white people are always inferior to the skills of middle class white people and non-white people. Also, Dragon Age has been dying with every single game, the writing has been decreasing in quality game after game. Blame BioWare as a whole, the studio has been shit for a long time, at least the writing side of it. Don’t blame non-white or DEI, blame the actual writers like a sane person. It’s clear you’re just watching a lot of propaganda and parroting exactly what you hear because it validates your bias.
As a diehard Mass Effect trilogy fan, the recipe was tasty and got nearly cooked to perfection over ME 1, 2, and 3 minus the ending 15 minutes of ME3, Andromeda lost most of the Loyal Fanbase due to the recipe being ignored, Dragon Age The Veilguard is the Andromeda of the Dragon Age franchise, A game that deviated too far from its loyal base audience and failed to get enough new "Modern Audience" fans to make up for the fans that were the foundation of the original games.................Commander Shepard "Signing Out, I Should Go"
Eh, despite always preferring DA to ME, I played through and loved ME as it was coming out, but Andromeda still ended up being my favourite in the series. Hell, I prefer Ryder (female, mind) to Shepard. ME:A's writing was certainly wonky at times, but BioWare's writing has always been quite pulpy, and clumsy, so that wasn't new - it was just more pronounced at times. A big part of my subjective affection for ME:A was the premise itself; it's more Trek, more Interstellar. About a new frontier, and the aftermath of first contact. I loved those themes, and feel it cohesively explored those ideas quite well. I was incredibly skeptical about its more movement-biased combat, as I wanted more tactical depth than the [generally very shallow] trilogy, not less. But on playing it? It's by far the best designed combat in the series. I won't go into a full ME:A eulogy, but yeah, I love that game. I disagree DAV is its spiritual sibling, though. Andromeda may have been set in a new galaxy, but it was still engaged with the lore of its prior games. For example, Cora as a human biotic within an asari culture/military. Or Drack being so old he has a unique perspective on krogan history, identity, and therefore their future.. And it largely kept to the *tone* of writing for the series. ME:A felt like a great offshoot premise. It was perfectly understandable to want to escape the awful lore corner they'd painted themselves into with the trilogy (gamers need to learn 'big choices' in games cannot have big consequences that track across games... ). But DAV? DAV was trying to be two conflicting things at the same time; soft reboot, and a direct sequel to frikkin' DLC from a decade ago... The art style shifted, the tone shifted, the lore was mostly set aside and ignored. ME:A did not do these things. I'm still, mostly, looking forward to the next Mass Effect, but I do not want it to be some banal fan apology for DAV and/or ME:A. A sort of Rise Of Skywalker after The Last Jedi. Writers need to be much better than that, and just have more balls.
The “modern audience” isn’t an existing group that the market is trying to tap into. It’s a group that corporations are trying to create in order to farm them for profit. “Look we put x, y, z in the game! You should buy it because it represents your views and identity!” The idea is to take a hit in the short term in return for building a market with zero competition or effort required. As you can see it’s not working.
People shouldn't confuse corporate control and greed with genuine progressive culture. If someone's suggesting corporations exploit things to make money, well, duh... that's always been occurring, and it occurs every time a game more closely reflects conformist social values, themes, etc. Capitalists be capitalists... regardless of who they're selling to. Are their pea brains more confused by trying to reflect progressive concepts and culture? Perhaps, probably because it's not really natural to them, being pillars of the socioeconomic status quo. The ideas are more fluid, complex, more divisive, etc. The term 'modern audiences' has become a buzzword for outrage tourists and culture-warriors, many of which just aren't gamers, or DA fans. It's just grist for the culture-war mill/grift. DAV's failings aren't that it's progressive and has frikkin' pronoun selections and arcs involving gender. DAV's core failings are in not using its own universe's lore to explore those things through. As we all know, Dorian's DA:I arc pertained to sexuality, yes, but it was sexuality and, essentially, gender identity/roles as lensed through the eugenicist elitism of Tevinter culture. Taash's arc, meanwhile, just seems to port in contemporary vernacular, which is an extension of its hideous rejection of the broad trilogy style guide the writers mostly seemed to stick to, previously. Taash's arc even *knows* of the Qunari ideas for different gender identities, yet chooses to ignore it for the sake of an incredibly generic trans-coming-out narrative. It's not *what* DAV was, it's *how* it was. But yeah, overall I agree with this video, and therefore your initial point, that it's not an actual sector of the market to really capture. If they're trying to appeal to more progressive communities which are growing, well, those communities still exist within other communities and the general mainstream. Do it right, and almost everyone is going to be content (BG3 being a big, recent example).
@ You could have shortened that by saying “Dorian is a character who’s also gay, Taash’s character is entirely about being gay”. Everything else was just a long winded way of saying we’re right but with different language.
@ I mean, that statement about Taash is wrong on both counts. They're not gay, and the character arc isn't entirely about their gender identity. It's a core part of it, obviously, but there's also the cultural tension between Qunari culture (the perception, and/or reality of it) and Rivaini. Taash's story/stories also connects directly into ancient Qunari history before the first expedition. So there are a few layers. It's just the writing and tone often derail them or at least their presentation.
@@Scooby-Doo_Villain No, that's just plain ol' normal thinking about a subject. Played DAV twice, and even did a romance arc with Taash to fully assess the character and BioWare's work.
I feel your pain, MrHulthen. I wholeheartedly agree. If you have a franchise that existed for a long time and then bring a new idea to implement into the already long lasting franchise, it will not work well, ever. You can't. If you create a new franchise, go for it, idc. At worst I won't play it as it is not for me. But why break the thing that is already GOOD? I don't care about the whole good and evil, "Modern audience" and "gamers", black and white, neither of those see the gray anyway. I'm open to adding things I don't necessarily agree with into games, IF it has a nice plot, lore behind it, it WORKS well, it's a nice fluid experience that merges well with the rest in good measure so that it is "just alright" and not "too much"... but the way companies go about it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to that. PS: I said Veilguard will suck, lmao. Thanks for the video MrHulthen. o7
Imagine that. Giving audiences that are fans of an established franchise more of what they want earns you money and going in the complete opposite direction gets your game panned.
I didn't replay previous dragon age games before veilguard came out since I was replaying them every few year and I was soo in a hype train, clowning every year for a bit of new dragon age news. I thought I was satisfied after finishing the game but after +2 months i don't have a special need to play it again. I'm grateful for it and for all the work people put in that game but it's missing the thing that pulled me back in previous Dragon Age games. It's the same with mass effect, I can't count how many times I've replayed the whole trylogy yet I've finished Andromeda only once. All those things are making me even more grateful for Larian and Baldur's Gate and at the same time I'm also thinking to myself, If Larian did it why others cannot? Especially after seeing so many games trying to reach "modern audience' and failing and the others instead of learning are doing exactly the same thing.
Thing is, many devs, publishers and controlling interests want to attract the most amount of people they can, which usually has the opposite effect. They sanitize their product in order for it to appeal to a wide range, and because of that sanitization, they strip away the passion and elements that make games good. It’s greed and money Vs passion and creativity. It has always been this way in most art and media, but games have become such a large industry now with so much money in it, we are starting to see more of it. More people are coming into the game industry only for the money rather than the art.
sometimes i think the modern audience does exist, but they are the ones making the games today, not the one buying the games. and those people are so sure that their ideas are the right ones that they don't even try to make a product that brings a interesting perspective. and this is how you end up with a dragon age game, a franchise previously known for politics, dense characters, interesting discussions, to a game where you can''t even be mean to people you never met before in your life
Dragon age is the worst offender as there is no consistency . Every game there is new protagonist, new cast, new combat system, stripping of RPG features to appease new audience. They tried to make a game for everyone but it ended up pissing off fans and decrease interest in future projects. I'm not excited for the new Mass Effect game as this trend of turning ME/DA more into action adventure rather than RPG with emphasis on choice and consequences slowly turns Bioware into husk of its former self.
New Protagonist and New cast isn’t the issue. It’s typically the norm with games of that type. It’s the always changing art styles, drastically different combat styles and visual tones all for the sake of chasing new players to have it be more appealing to them. Now, it’s the writing style that was changed to appeal to more modern and casual audiences. Before, Dragon Age adopted a rule, use terminologies and wording that were pre 1900’s with a few select characters like Alistair and Varric being exceptions on rare occasions. Veilguard threw this out the window with modern LGBTQ terminologies and modern lingo and delivery. “They go hard.” - Taash
True, each DA game has different gameplay, but there is thing that (until Veilguard) unites them: choice and consequence. The ability to do an evil playthrough and then have your choices imported into the next game was amazing, and was enough to connect each new game. Take that away, and all you have is the setting. If you then turn the setting into "the elves did it" for every question, then you lose even that. And old BioWares biggest strength was its writing and characters. But the last three games prove that this is no longer the case.Andromeda, Anthem, and Veilguard all had good gameplay but terrible writing. And it's clear what it's core audience cares most about. RIP BioWare.
They don't need to get a new audience. If the game is good then the new audience will come along with the existing audience. No change is necessary to try to tempt the new people. It just alienates the existing people
If it were a completely new franchise, I would have been willing to give Veilguard a chance. But each Dragon Age game has driftwd further and further away from what it started out as, and I became more disillusioned with the franchise with each entry. Veilguard was the last straw. Between the art style, the full on abandonment of the strategy aspects, the phasing out of everything that could be considered offensive, the terrible dialogue, the "one hammer for every nail" world building where we learn the elves are responsible for EVERYTHING. It just disappointed on every level and made me not want to play it.
I feel your pain. Over 15 years of investment into two different IPs (Mass Effect and Dragon Age), just gone. For me both of these two gaming franchises are connected to one another. I got Mass Effect 1 on Xbox 360 and few years later pre-ordered Dragon Age Origins to get the Blood Dragon Armor for Mass Effect 2. Once I started playing Origins I was hooked. I've played the Mass Effect trilogy, played Origins thru Inquisition, and loved all of them. When Andromeda came out I played it, but the spark for me wasn't there and that was warning sign for me. Anthem looked like a Destiny clone with an Ironman skin, so I didn't get it and watched Bioware just... struggle is the best I could say about that time. When the Legendary Edition came out, so did that spark (though ButtGate was annoying for me and Miranda is my favorite romance option). But Failguard (because I refuse to use its real name) basically spit in my face with just "porting" three decisions and the devs not even knowing who ZEVRAN IS! I'm for God's sake they have Zevran's old VA in the game as a fucking Crow. They destroy all of Southern Thedas and that stupid secret ending has them setting up a Illuminati style faction that shape everything in the world for the past three games. WTF... I have no hope for Mass Effect 5... It was fun while it lasted.
Unfortunately the "suits" that decide what to do don't understand gaming. They only understand financials. And that is why so many bad decisions are made these days.
They don't even understand this properly. I mean look at the financial situations of these companies, they maybe can do some math but they can't make money. At least in the long run.
DA: TV's biggest problem is that it spent a large chunk of its development time as a Live Service Multiplayer Game, and a significant amount of that original DNA has made it into the final product.
i think this is also both David Gaider's department and project Joplin's cancellation by EA which more likely was his original vision other old devs like Epler or Weekes could build up upon.
Hm, I mostly disagree. I feel DAV's real core problem is that it's both a soft reboot and a direct sequel to DLC from ten years ago. The disinterest in lore, the new tone/lack of a style guide, the even more cartoony art style, the manic fear of mentioning anything about past events, people, theologies, social tensions, etc... It feels like there was a stipulation from up high - EA or/and at the top of BioWare - to ignore most lore and past events and themes so as to try not to alienate new players. However, I agree that that production history probably played a part in some of that. The hideously vapid and dull 'new' factions, for example, with their appalling colour co-ordinated uniforms, or the newly moral and upstanding Crows? These feel very much like bland player factions in an MMO or live-service structure; simple, shallow, clearly delineated, all good guys, and so the decision of which to pick is quick enough for a one-paragraph background or just a colour/vibes preference. The loot system does also feel like it has the DNA of a looter oriented co-op game. And yet, in this instance I think it worked wonders. I think the system cohesion across the board is superb in DAV. It perhaps went a bit too far, but the streamlining is fantastic; every item you can find is either new, or an improvement. No more carrying twenty iron or steel swords just to sell. No more inventory faffing, or weight limits, ergo very little time staring at stats to gain minor advantages. What matters is how well an item segues with your playstyle and build. A single item could change that, too, encouraging you to swap out your abilities. Each class has their own uniques, too, so no more getting amazing gear that's pointless to you or any of your party. So I do feel some of that live-service DNA was reworked and led to more interesting, more cohesive, and more focused game design.
GOW was my first thought too, but that was a franchise that had completely run its course. The story overhaul felt less like a revamp and more like a 'next chapter', and it was natural.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts Hulten. I genuinely do not want BioWare to fail but playing Veilguard for me, it felt like i wasn't the target audience anymore. I spent thousands of hours playing BioWare games and still do, but this current BioWare today is not the same company i fell in love with back then. ❤
Resident Evil already showcases this. A once Horror Survival game series that went to a more Heavy Action focused direction with that of RE5 and RE6, showed a decline in sales and interest from fans to attract new fans with the action focused style. Only to then return with RE7 and have it be a huge return to form and brought in new and old players.
Actually, this is kind of incorrect. RE5 and RE6 didn't have a decline in sales, totally the opposite, they are actually best sellers in the RE franchise. However, the situation is indeed similar to Bioware and Dragon Age for instance. How? Both RE5 and RE6 are two of the best seller entries in the franchise, (especially RE5), but unlike Bioware, Capcom listened to their fans and noticed that despite the excellent sales, many people weren't happy with the direction of the franchise, especially after RE6, thus Capcom realized that the next entry will not meet with the same luck if they didn't do something. Capcom visualized the situation in the long term. Bioware, just like Capcom, tried to turn Dragon Age into a more "casual" friendly franchise, and that especially happened with Inquisition. Inquisition sold many copies, but is not overall praised by the DA community, and it has a lower score in every metric compared to Origins, especially by user score metrics. This also divided the fandom more. Inquisition may have sold very well, but those sales had a big boost from the marketing of GOTY. How many people who bought the game actual liked it? How many would stick for the next game? How many "casuals" bought the game just because of GOTY? How many of them just entered at the Hinterlands and never looked at the game again? Bioware was short sighted and only saw the instant gratification. They didn't realize that in the long term that wasn't going to work for Dragon Age. With Veilguard they decided to "casualize" the franchise further (they even attempted to make it a live service game). And well, here you go, we got Veilguard. EA has no faith in games like Origins, ironically enough, Larian proved them wrong.
It worked with Inquisition since that game far outsold any of its predecessors, so there is definitely a mix of old audience and new audience. Veilguard did a lot of new things for DA, but most of them weren't remotely new for BioWare, so as an old BioWare fan, I enjoyed the callbacks and the melding of systems that were successful before. The problem with the "new audience" or "modern audience" arguments is that it's now just a dog whistle for homophobia at worst, and at best, it's someone telling creatives to never be creative again, to just only ever do the thing they personally liked. Not really sure I can get behind either of those stances.
BG3 kept me away until a month ago simply because it was turn based. With mods now it's easier and just awesome storytelling, narrating, music production etc. just wonderful
I thought Veilguard was okay. It just felt that childish, especially when romancing you're teammates, I wasn't feeling it. Also, that pushup scene was cringe... I honestly don't understand what massage their trying to send with that. To gamers...oh and please be mature everyone!!
Bought BG3 shortly after release, but said you needed an ssd so I refunded. Recently got a new rig and bought BG3, I can see why it won 45 awards. It's a bench mark game now
You are most definitely not stupid for thinking this way, or feeling this way my friend. I ultimately agree with you on many points here. Until Veilguard, I was a diehard Dragon Age fan. Now, I’m praying to the Powers That Be that the franchise gets sold off to Larian, and Mass Effect to Archetype, or other studios that care about their fans and will do what, quite frankly, BioWare can or will no longer do. I do feel the studio should be shut down, as well. After DAII I hoped it was just an anomaly, a rough patch. Unfortunately, over the years they have not aged well. I’m concerned that the issues BioWare has are too pervasive at this point and that there’s no going back for them. At any rate, this “modern audience” drivel needs to stop. If it even really existed, Veilguard or other recent releases wouldn’t have bombed.
The Mass Effect music in the background just shows me that this is all coming from a place of love. I hope that Mass Effect 4 is the opposite of Veilguard.
The absolute CLOSEST i can get to a big revamp working would be ME1 to ME2. The lore and art style was the same but there's a massive change of gameplay from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2.
That was widely considered to be a good change. While some people might miss the loot I did not. Tbh for me the usual RPG mechanics are not even that important. In ME1 you had boring loot, you got an upgrade from your Scorpion 5 to the new Scorpion 6. What is that? You are playing catchup with the level scaling. Loot has no place in a game that makes enemies stronger as you grow stronger. Do you know the old Gothic games? In those games creatures had fixed stats, when you start out fighting orcs is simply borderline impossible. You might be able to handle one with help. In the endgame you take on entire groups of orcs without a second thought. With that you are actually growing stronger. Mass Effect only ever gave you more options.
Ive said it a million times. Its not about a game that does everything new. Its about a game that rethinks something that we have been doing for years and twists it to make it feel like something we have never played before. This is what makes great games time and time again. Look at Exodus as a great example.
I assume that these gaming companies think, new audience = more $$, without realizing that the old audience of gamers who just want more of the same great games = far more $$ than the "new" people as the old gamers shed off and don't buy the new trash.
Ya, but the line has to keep going up if it is largely the same, and you are making the same as the last game that is not good, especially at the scale at which AAA is supposed to be
Am a die-hard DA fan. Have not played Veilguard yet, and still plan to, and actually in spite of everything, still looking forward to it. But damn man, so much truth here. Preach!
I'm enjoying the Veilguard, but I guess it's the new punching bag. So what can you do? At least now DA2 is a classic, and I can say I like it without risking ostracizing. I assume?
I guess anyone making a sequel or reboot has to try to find a balance between renewing their thing, and keeping what was. You can't make the exact same game again. Obviously. I mean there's got to be some evolution. And at the same time, you have to keep true to the predecessor, because if not then why are you even developing for that franchise if you could just as well make a new one. Baldur's Gate 3 is actually a good example. It's really QUITE different from Baldur's Gate 2. BG2 wasn't turn based, it was real time with pause. It was 2D isometric as well, and even the tone was a bit different. BG3 and BG2 are very different. But they are also a bit the same: The forgotten realms setting for one, some of the musical and visual design choices, and most of all, it's definitely a Baldur's Gate style story. One could argue that it's a spiritual successor to DOS2. And maybe it kind of is. But it did reach a lot larger audience, who never played DOS2. Even if it hadn't, it's not DOS3. Different world, different story, different style. On the other hand, most who played BG3 never played BG2 either, let alone BG1. So in essence, they hit a really good balance of finding a whole new audience, reinventing the franchise in fairly dramatic ways, but keeping true to the essence of BG. Perhaps the real skill is in identifying what it really is that is unique and compelling about your franchise. If you can nail that, then you can reinvent quite a lot around it. Veilguard, I think, didn't quite catch what original fans were fans for.
The Bioware that is now, is not the same Bioware that was: the big suites are nearly devoid of people who remember what was unique and compelling. Those folks either moved on ages ago or were strongly encouraged to box up their stuff. The Bioware of now does not want old dissenting voices and opinions.
@@1957DLT Sure, but having new people doesn't *have* to mean they can't get what was special about the original game. Not by itself at least. Look at BG3 as an example again: I don't KNOW, but I suspect not many people who worked on BG2 back in 1998-2000, nearly 20 years before BG3 development started, were deeply involved in making BG3. I'm sure there could be some, but still. Two decades of time, entirely different studio. So I'd say it's not about whether they're the same people or new ones. New people can also get it, and old people can also not get it :D Any artistic endeavour - which I consider game making to be, even if "the suits" don't see it that way - is a complicated thing.
Amen brother 🙏 We're definitely in a transition period and, while it's interesting to see new studios rise amongst the ashes of giants, it pains me every time we lose another great franchise...
Yup, you really nailed the subject in here, a franchise doesn’t need to change to a new audience, it’s the other way around, people will get interested in something new, but if they weren’t interested anyway, changing everything to appeal to them will only angry the older fans, i can only think of one franchise that changed successfully and that is God of War, apart from that, there’s no other in my mind that succeeded on getting new people, satisfying old fans, and still managed to keep its soul in the process, and what you say about BG3 is so true, many people played and still play that game, and its a very niche genre of gaming.
Im glad you're saying this, cause when others like myself called this out earlier, we were called all kinds of ists and isms, and phobes, just for not liking the direction they were going. When that couldn't be further from the trught in many people cases. While there are bad actors most of us just want what these established franchises already provided that made the games great.
they pushed people who love making games because they love games away and replaced them with people who make games to have a platform for their "activism" and only care about the message and not the games
Maybe it's more on the parallel side but I'll say this: I've been a video game marketing video editor/director for a long time now and I've seen the change...I've seen how we could be more creative back then with our approach because these last 6-8 years brought up a lot obstacles...to not offend anyone. I mean look, NOT ALL studios followed the trend for sure, I'm talking in the general sense here. But without going into too much details, I had to cut many things as ''little'' as a stroboscopic effect in case ONE person would have a problem with it. Other things that I had to cut out were stuff deemed too ''sensitive'' because some people could take it the wrong way, be triggered, etc etc etc. In terms of stories and characters in some already established IPs...do you really think the majority of the devs were okay with all the changes we've seen? You know where I'm going with this? This ''modern audience'' studios have been so after just doesn't exist and many of them are paying the price now. Destroying established lore and characters, making games a ''safe space'' because of that said audience to not offend them in any way possible, fighting with their customers when they don't like a product, etc, will inevitably lead to a company's downfall. Many companies forgot their loyal fan base and we see the results now.
The Modern Audience only ever interacts on social media and never actually plays the games. They love to yell and complain about things but never actually buy the games. Even ignoring that reminds me of a poll by a game studio where they asked if characters should be aspirational and good looking and majority said yes, almost nobody said no, and a tiny minority said dont care. So you have this situation where games keep going for the modern audience of "dont care" and annoy the huge audience that actually does care and would be put off. Why would you even do this?
This is something that happens a lot in heavy metal music. Some bands only slightly change their sound from one album to the next... they do explore new processes, themes, etc. but they stay true to who they were a year ago, who they were ten years ago. Bands like Nile, Dying Fetus. Every new release is different enough to be interesting, but similar enough to retain their die-hards. Then there are bands who make a drastic change mid-career and alienate all of their fans in hopes of selling more albums, and they always shoot themselves in the foot for it. Bands like Metallica, In Flames, Kataklysm. They may gain a few new fans who will eventually move on, but it always comes at the expense of their long-time fans.
Bioware has been trying to pivot to shallow action games since mass effect 1. It's been abundantly obvious that while a nice balance is enjoyable and profitable, going overboard always comes back to bite them. We used to be able to blame EA, but supposedly they kept their micromanaging to themselves this time, so it seems the rot has set in at Bioware itself. I really hope the different creative team for mass effect can learn from it.
100% agree with this take. I gotta be honest, I see BG3 and DA quite different, even the closest DA:O and BG3 are quite different, even tho they are like second/third cousins. However, the audience for these games is 80%, maybe even 90%, the same players. So, it should be quite telling to see the difference, regardless of comparisons, fair or not fair. Personally, I both felt like I'm a secondary audience for Bioware game in general, for the first time, and I felt not really welcomed in the very small, but very vocal, community, as the player who preferred DA:O type of fantasy RPG (and thus, by extension, older Bioware fantasy RPGs, new party-based fantasy RPGs like DOS2, BG3, Pillars, Pathfinder, and who wants from Bioware fantasy to bring cinematics without trumping complex mechanics and writing, a-la DA:O/BG3). And I will say it again, that The Veilguard is 8/10 action adventure game, it is good, I just felt left out somehow and not heard at all about how it isn't a very good practice to abandon your core audience in pursuit of "general audience", which usually somehow equates to "new players" (whoever they are) and "larger audience" (mainstream audience, idk). I actually don't mind the term "modern audience", but the thing is, I am that modern audience to be pursued by RPG devs, I'm exactly THE RPG player, like I guess almost 100% of the audience of this channel are.
So true actually! If you want to a character to this and that than create a new character for it, don't change someone people like, just cause he/she is so beloved. Same with games.
THANK YOU!! This was my argument for not finishing Veilguard. They took away everything that made Dragon Age, Dragon Age. And I’m on the wagon that enjoyed Andromeda. Dragon Age II was also fun, but doesn’t hold a candle to Origins/Awakening. The Mass Effect trilogy will forever be my all time favorite franchise in gaming, and there is a reason why it did so well- and BioWare had the recipe to continue its greatness. Instead, they threw it all away to be something they are not
Bioware is gone, the OG era is gone. The sooner we acknowledge that the better Edit:Personally i wasnt really feeling DreadWolf, because i would have preferred playing as the inquisitor, but the nail n the coffin was the name change. The devs lost the plot obviously.
It’s like your favorite burger place becoming a Pizzeria to cater to late night bar goers, but they use the same ingredients and cookware. No new oven, no dough machine, same patties, condiments, and buns.
They expect that the established fans of a franchise will always be there, good or bad, so they take them for granted, and they focus on trying to bring in a new audience because... well... MONEY. More money.
Something I liked about the original trilogy, is it didn't pull its punches in terms of a diverse roster of characters with a diverse array of beliefs - some of those beliefs that would be considered offensive or taboo in today's market and yet it didn't force you to agree or disagree with any particular character's choices, the player was free to make their own judgment about it and decide how they wanted to handle the situation. They were also free to ask follow up questions based off of view points characters had they didn't understand. That level of nuance and depth in the writing is something i severely miss in modern day gaming and RPGs where the player isn't being handheld/forced to think and believe the same way the writer does - they are respected as individuals capable of making their own minds up.
I call bs because how many video games (Dragon Age included), TV shows, movies, etc. are about how bigotry or racism is bad? But now when it comes to Veilguard, you suddenly have an issue with the writer telling you "hey don't be a d1ck"?
You're 100% correct. This is just what happens when greed gets in the way of a good thing. I'm super fond of Arizona tea because of the fact they could have easily sold out, and just... chose not to. They weren't greedy. Now, they have a super loyal following.
Albeit BioWare has chased Diablo's success since the days of Baldur's Gate, Veilguard's failure is more ideological than plain old corporate greed. While streamlining has broadened appeal, the ever more obtrusive radical ideology repels far more players than the elusive "modern audience" attracts.
@@RansomMemoryAccess. I disagree. Veilguard failed for many, many things. Some people focus so much on the ideological part, but corporate greed indeed was at fault as well. Take out all the ideological bs (you can even erase Taash) from Veilguard and you still have a bad game. The problem with DA4 started the very moment EA forced the Dragon Age team to turn it into a live service game. That's what killed the game from the very beginning and what caused its development to be so disastrous. The forced ideological bs just added one more flaw to an already flawed game.
Whoever the hell is in the office seems incredibly embarrassed and ashamed of what once brought their studio worldwide renown and acclaim, and have managed to convince themselves they know better what people want.. than literally anyone who isn't within arm's reach.
I agree, if you have an invested and enthusiastic core audience for an established franchise, write the new game with that audience in mind and trust that their vocal support will bring new players to the game. It’s not rocket science. In a side note: One of my pet peeves is the tonal inconsistency of a medieval fantasy world where the characters speak in contemporary language. That is a clumsy and immersion-breaking error that novice writers make, and I felt continually dragged down to their level while I was playing DA Veilguard.
Another franchise that changed their formula, quite late too, and still works is the Yakuza/Like a Dragon series. They switched from a real time brawler combat system to a full turn based JRPG combat system... Sometimes, changing the formula isn't the problem. Sometimes, it's just that the new formula is bad and not compatible with the established franchise style.
Unfortunately it's about ego and putting the developers stamp on things. Sometimes a brilliant idea on the drawing board doesn't transition into a game well. But ego gets in the way of making the best call. Hopefully this is also the death bell for wokeness filling our games.
The big corpos are like... "everyone knows what cake is, so lets make a brick of tofu, and call it cake, and people will buy it!" Except instead of cake, it's a franchise, and instead of tofu, it's something entirely different than what makes the franchise what it is.
Thank you for saying this! I'm so glad I'm not alone in my opinion on following the "modern audience". This modern audience won't appreciate anyway the story, the atmosphere or the characters that were crafted with love 10 or 20 years ago. They want something that belongs to them, something new. And they have completely different view on things. So why change our things, that we love, for them? Let them create their own thing.
What baffles me the most is that EA thought this was a smart decision. Usually, if something is successful, companies will milk it till the audience is bored with it. But EA didn't even give us a lazy, uninspired copy of Inquisition.
'For modern audiences' means for people who are not familiar with the original work. It's easier to sell those people not only preaching, but dumbed down version of the original. And it was dumbed down because devs/writers wanted to make their job easier. Or easier for new crew members who were hired not because of their skill, but for being a minority.
Can you stop using that stupid talking point? "Is this abstract concept in the non-existant room with us (here on the internet) right now." Not only does it demand an impossible thing it also uses echo chambers as proof.
This is why it's important to get out of your own bubble. The trying something new, they did it with Mass Effect going from 1 to 2 (swapped genres basically). I loved it, ME2 is probably my favorite game all time, but my cousin never finished ME2 because to him they let go of everything (in his opinion) that made it a Mass Effect game. And with that same cousin: he told me to buy BG3 because it's fantastic, but I can't finish it - to me it lacks everything that makes DnD fun (every character doesn't need to have a super emo tragic backstory) and all the bugs that, to me, make it almost unplayable even after all these patches (and having to add endings). I understand a whole lot of people love the game, and I'm happy for them and for Larian who seem like good developers. Just don't assume everybody in the whole world thinks the way your bubble does, there are plenty of new audiences out there (I have friends who fell in love with Star Wars due to Finn/Rey for example, because that's the first time they felt seen - and then dove deeper into animated shows etc and found more stuff they love). So saying that there's no point in "spreading your wings", going for the new, is just silly. Not everything is for everyone, and people need to stop being offended when they don't like something. You don't like something - ok fine, don't linger on it but move on to the stuff you like. But just being positive on a subject doesn't get views on this platform anymore, but be mindful that you don't fall into the trap of letting your hunt for views affect you as a human. It should be clear to a developer of a game that people don't like it if the game isn't talked about (you know, like in the good old days when we actually talked face to face) rather than people making a living trash-talking online. Rant over. TL:DR: not everything is for everyone, and that's ok - spread love instead, this world needs it.
I think it's too late for a lot of studios. We didn't complain and let a lot of people change games bc we wanted more people to also enjoy our hobby, we didn't want to be seeing as 4ss wholes or whatever. Inch by inch we got where we are. There are lot of up coming games that have potential, like Exodus, Dawnwalker, and this year Doom and E-Day. But, most western studios are going to pay a heavy price for the past decade.
I absolutely agree with you and if anyone miss interprets what you're saying other than the truth and honest criticism, I can safely say they are fools.
@@justaquietpeacefuldance Pretty typical. She is very sneaky; she deleted for example her review of DATV, had S&S banned from the Exodus server even know she is not the owner just because...she felt like it and many, many other things. Just not an honest actor and unfortunately Mr.Hultthen is her steadfast ally...
@apres-lachute8718 yes, yes and yes. I was surprised to be able to see her thread tho and being also able to reply to her as it was blocked for me on yt during vEiLgUaRd heights of "popularity". It is what it is. 😂
I'm assuming you are referring to becoming a right-wing grifter? I have to disappoint you but that is not what this video is. Even though he does use the "modern audience" dogwhistle in the thumbnail.
Feels like these days most big games are tailored for every one while at the same time for no one. Tailoring a game like that will only diminish it and make less fun and engaging.
I don't mind trying new things but these devs keep trying the SAME EXACT garbage and are surprised that it flops every time. Every time they get told what they did and didn't do right and they dont listen or learn. Then when things inevitably flop they cry about it and expect people to care.
I agree with all you said, Mr. Hulthen. I must be stupid too, then. XD I only started playing the Dragon Age games a couple of years ago. The first game I was introduced to was Inquisition. And I loved it. Only after playing it fully did I buy the other two games. That's when I "fell in love" with the franchise. I still want to play The Veilguard, if only just to form a proper opinion myself. However, whilst before I was tempted to buy the game imediately, now I kinda want to wait until its on sale, or something like it. I am also afraid the Veilguard will make me stop loving Dragon Age and I really don't want that to happen. I just hope they learned with this and don't repeat the same mistakes with the next Mass Effect game. It would actually break my heart if the same thing happened. And not just Bioware, but all the others too. Many cool games, with so much potential and I fear what may become of them and us players if this keeps happening.
The modern audience is a warning, Commander. When you see a game developer use the term then you know that their game will inevitably be thrown out of the airlock.
I feel like Bioware has always appealed to 'modern audiences', they were just better at doing it. It was effortless, they didn't need to go ham because they had their good writing and characterization. In Veilguard, this was totally lacking.
Aww welcome to the club. You figured out how things work nowadays with entertainment:). Kidding aside I’ve been dealing with this for at least the past 7 years. It fucking sucks but hey we re here. It’s fine to love something or a franchise etc but you don’t have to love every little bit of it. More people need to realize this which is why so much is being driven into the ground cause people never want to be honest about something cause they love it.
Trying to appeal to a broader “modern audience” is something even the developers/publishers of those games can’t even seem to define. And no, this isn’t about appealing to the LGBT+ community or women or disabled people or anybody that is non-white, it’s just that they they think younger people today are mostly of those groups when honestly they’ve kinda been there the whole time in the same proportion, they were just less open about belonging to those groups or that they were into video games at all due to the justified fear of gatekeeping backlash. They really need to get it through their heads that they don’t need to pander to any particular group (except for fascists, of course).
Exactly what I think as well: do not turn ME(or DA but it's too late)into something it's not because you want to ''innovate.''Create something new from scratch. But the problem unfortunately is this: they are no longer capable , their creative vein has run out(or never existed to begin with).So they appropriate the works of others and turn them into garbage. But hey, a character says it in The Veilguard: that it's better to break with the past and look forward. Sigh.😒
It's hubris, narcissism and arrogance. The companies hire all these new people who think they can do it better than the original creators. We see this in movies and TV all the time. The new writers will take an existing IP with established lore and history and rewrite it to insert themselves into it. They'll write nonsensical fanfics of the original work to push their messaging and their politics. They will warp and mold the characters to fit those narratives until the characters aren't even recognizable anymore. These talentless hacks can't carry a new IP on their own merit, so they will hijack an existing IP and butcher it to suit their taste.
Yes, my gawd you're not stupid or dumb and definitely not alone. Exodus has re-ignited my Mass Effect hope, and it's an entire different game. The original cooks and the recipe is important, they are what has the passion and motivation to make an exceptional game.
This is a unique take using that term. Normally y he term “modern audience” is usually just a dogwhistle anyway. They’re complaining about a “modern audience” because they don’t want to admit what they really don’t like about the content.
I feel teary-eyed for todays Bioware looking at this video. Dragon Age Origins was a life changing experience when i was a teen to hold on to Bioware games so passionately and adamently. The community was so wonderful and relatable, too. Until corporate culture, big money, mainstream popularity, and excessive political divisions slowly ruined it.
I think the biggest issue is that publishers want new markets and new audiences and then there is the perceived risk of introducing a new brand, so you end up with sequels chasing ghosts and piggybacking on the name of games that were successful in the past, but offering little to nothing of what made them fun or engaging
this is essentially what happened to Assassins creed. They completely abandoned the audience that built the franchise in the first place in order to appeal to "modern audiences". While there are still people who liked them, the vast majority of players hated AC Odyssey and Valhalla. And most of those that did like it were new players drawn in by the promise of a spartan/viking fantasy and have never even touched an earlier game or even understand what made the franchise what it is.
Why and how should devs who never played and loved the originals stick to what worked? If you never loved it, how can you distinguish between what was loved in the originals and what was ignored even then because it was not so great? I loved my grandpa. That does not mean I think that I should become a necromancer and dig up his moldering remains. I think all of us gamers would benefit from accepting that sometimes good memories being and staying memories is not such a bad thing.
This is coming from a place of love. I care about video games alot, but this idea of a 'new audience' just has to go, man.
Edit: This isn't just specific to Veilguard. That was just a recent example, as this is a problem the industry is facing over and over again.
Corporations are the bane. EA has been devouring companies since the 90s leaving crap in their wake. Sigh.
Completely agree! I’m sick of “modern audience” anytime I read that I’m like… either withholding money or just forgetting about the game.
But it's not the core issue, so really it shouldn't matter. Games don't necessarily benefit without them, just look at the history of video games over the last many decades. Some of them worse than modern games "for modern audiences". DA: Veilguard wouldn't have been good regardless.
Don't fall into the trap of scapegoating something so superficial when we've had these problems in the industry for far longer.
This is just a buzz word no need to take it that serious most of these games are rehashes or franchise or Spiritual successors of them. These are games that people how gamed the last 10-20 decades care about.
But honestly they do need a "new audience" we are getting older, and expecting more and more. Every new entry it gets hard to sell to us. We get a veilguard or outlaws average games of today and bash them. Verse 10-20 years ago we would have happly played or not been as critical.
Ubisoft soft been making the same game for over a decade now we are tired 😂. And not to say we shouldnt expect more, but it would be easier on the industry if they go back to focusing on games for a younger crowd.
You can only sell me on the same thing so many times.
They didn’t get rid of the ingredients, they got rid of the chefs and brought in people who know how to use a microwave
A genuinely appropriate analogy. Take my upvote.
That's an awesome analogy
Or in other words they only know how to make slop
@@chilbiyito not the point I was trying to make at all. My point is they got rid of developers or some devs left.
To add, I'd say they added ingredients that the vast majority didn't like. You can have an amazing steak, but if you drown it in mustard, most aren't going to like it.
Truth bomb: The Modern Audience was never interested in gaming, if not a few. They only consume social media.
Bro you are exactly right
This!
Sure then that means you have to try even harder to get those ppl attention
@@revolutionarydragon1123 Ana lisinho everyone else apparently
Don't nail me down on this but there was some sort of statistic that estimates the Modern Audience to amount to a mere 2% of sales. Why would you pander to them?
Pandering to male nerds gives a much better return on investment. If you make a mediocre game that way it will be rated good.
As a fan of the series, I felt completely sidelined. This game was made for *new* players. I spent 10 years waiting and I felt completely swept under the rug for fresh new players.
That's because they don't want you. They want the "modern audience"
Well, in the end Veilguard got exactly the audience it deserved. So there's that.
You can see that this was coming from a live service game that was planned till the outcry…a lot of stuff like the loot was with live service in mind. They didn’t address the issues that was asked in previous games. Was sad
i wouldn't even say it got new players. since you know, it would have been us fans who would have brought new players in. with what they did they got the exact opposite of gaining anything.
It may have been made for new players, but it didn't get new players. The players it got are the people too stubborn to realize that the Bioware we all loved is dead and gone. Like a friend of mine who's enjoying it, except his "praise" of it was "it's not THAT bad..."
I can forgive the gameplay, combat... but the writing? no, DA was all about the story!!! the complex companions and world!
True.
The second playthrough of DA2 I played on easy to get the combat over with faster, same with Inquisition.
The fact that they didn't see that and made combat a bigger part of the game is what bothers me most about Inquisition.
I'm terrified of the new mass effect.
Mary DeMarle who is the lead writer is the only thing giving me hope the story and writing will be good. She proved her good writing capabilities with the two modern Deus Ex games and the Guardians of the Galaxy game.
My face is tired
First, the lead writer of Veilguard wrote the plots of Mordin Solus and Trespasser, which didn't matter because of forced DEI indoctrination in the workplace hampering his talent. And second, the Bioware Edmonton studio is being shut down which means the mass effect sequel might be getting cancelled anyway, which might honestly be a good thing at this point.
Rather turn your energies toward Exodus
@@N7Prometheus “Forced DEI indoctrination”? Holy shit dude, you are delusional. DEI isn’t about hiring unqualified people over qualified people. Unless you think non-white and less fortunate white people are always inferior to the skills of middle class white people and non-white people. Also, Dragon Age has been dying with every single game, the writing has been decreasing in quality game after game. Blame BioWare as a whole, the studio has been shit for a long time, at least the writing side of it. Don’t blame non-white or DEI, blame the actual writers like a sane person. It’s clear you’re just watching a lot of propaganda and parroting exactly what you hear because it validates your bias.
Best part about this is that after a game does poorly they blame the original audience that they no longer focused on.
Fully agree with everything you say Mr. Hulthen.😁
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as they say.
As a diehard Mass Effect trilogy fan, the recipe was tasty and got nearly cooked to perfection over ME 1, 2, and 3 minus the ending 15 minutes of ME3, Andromeda lost most of the Loyal Fanbase due to the recipe being ignored, Dragon Age The Veilguard is the Andromeda of the Dragon Age franchise, A game that deviated too far from its loyal base audience and failed to get enough new "Modern Audience" fans to make up for the fans that were the foundation of the original games.................Commander Shepard "Signing Out, I Should Go"
Eh, despite always preferring DA to ME, I played through and loved ME as it was coming out, but Andromeda still ended up being my favourite in the series. Hell, I prefer Ryder (female, mind) to Shepard. ME:A's writing was certainly wonky at times, but BioWare's writing has always been quite pulpy, and clumsy, so that wasn't new - it was just more pronounced at times.
A big part of my subjective affection for ME:A was the premise itself; it's more Trek, more Interstellar. About a new frontier, and the aftermath of first contact. I loved those themes, and feel it cohesively explored those ideas quite well. I was incredibly skeptical about its more movement-biased combat, as I wanted more tactical depth than the [generally very shallow] trilogy, not less. But on playing it? It's by far the best designed combat in the series. I won't go into a full ME:A eulogy, but yeah, I love that game.
I disagree DAV is its spiritual sibling, though. Andromeda may have been set in a new galaxy, but it was still engaged with the lore of its prior games. For example, Cora as a human biotic within an asari culture/military. Or Drack being so old he has a unique perspective on krogan history, identity, and therefore their future.. And it largely kept to the *tone* of writing for the series.
ME:A felt like a great offshoot premise. It was perfectly understandable to want to escape the awful lore corner they'd painted themselves into with the trilogy (gamers need to learn 'big choices' in games cannot have big consequences that track across games... ). But DAV? DAV was trying to be two conflicting things at the same time; soft reboot, and a direct sequel to frikkin' DLC from a decade ago...
The art style shifted, the tone shifted, the lore was mostly set aside and ignored. ME:A did not do these things.
I'm still, mostly, looking forward to the next Mass Effect, but I do not want it to be some banal fan apology for DAV and/or ME:A. A sort of Rise Of Skywalker after The Last Jedi. Writers need to be much better than that, and just have more balls.
"In war, victory,
In peace, vigilance,
In death, sacrifice."
It was a good ride, sad that two great stories went out with a whimper.
The thing is, this "modern audience" doesn't exist- or if it does, by the numbers plainly they don't buy videogames, go to movies or watch television.
The modern audience is a bunch of unemployed virtue signalling weirdos on the internet, of course they don't buy a thing
They have their followers on TikTok lol
They exist, maybe not at scale, for how much they need for these huge budget have gotten
"One bird in your hand is better than two in an imaginary bush."
These people never learned this even after all the failures.
I agree. Don't change what works too much. As they say: Keep it simple stupid. KISS for short. This aplys as much to them as it does to us.
The “modern audience” isn’t an existing group that the market is trying to tap into.
It’s a group that corporations are trying to create in order to farm them for profit.
“Look we put x, y, z in the game! You should buy it because it represents your views and identity!” The idea is to take a hit in the short term in return for building a market with zero competition or effort required.
As you can see it’s not working.
People shouldn't confuse corporate control and greed with genuine progressive culture. If someone's suggesting corporations exploit things to make money, well, duh... that's always been occurring, and it occurs every time a game more closely reflects conformist social values, themes, etc. Capitalists be capitalists... regardless of who they're selling to.
Are their pea brains more confused by trying to reflect progressive concepts and culture? Perhaps, probably because it's not really natural to them, being pillars of the socioeconomic status quo. The ideas are more fluid, complex, more divisive, etc.
The term 'modern audiences' has become a buzzword for outrage tourists and culture-warriors, many of which just aren't gamers, or DA fans. It's just grist for the culture-war mill/grift.
DAV's failings aren't that it's progressive and has frikkin' pronoun selections and arcs involving gender. DAV's core failings are in not using its own universe's lore to explore those things through. As we all know, Dorian's DA:I arc pertained to sexuality, yes, but it was sexuality and, essentially, gender identity/roles as lensed through the eugenicist elitism of Tevinter culture. Taash's arc, meanwhile, just seems to port in contemporary vernacular, which is an extension of its hideous rejection of the broad trilogy style guide the writers mostly seemed to stick to, previously. Taash's arc even *knows* of the Qunari ideas for different gender identities, yet chooses to ignore it for the sake of an incredibly generic trans-coming-out narrative.
It's not *what* DAV was, it's *how* it was.
But yeah, overall I agree with this video, and therefore your initial point, that it's not an actual sector of the market to really capture. If they're trying to appeal to more progressive communities which are growing, well, those communities still exist within other communities and the general mainstream. Do it right, and almost everyone is going to be content (BG3 being a big, recent example).
@ You could have shortened that by saying “Dorian is a character who’s also gay, Taash’s character is entirely about being gay”.
Everything else was just a long winded way of saying we’re right but with different language.
@ I mean, that statement about Taash is wrong on both counts. They're not gay, and the character arc isn't entirely about their gender identity.
It's a core part of it, obviously, but there's also the cultural tension between Qunari culture (the perception, and/or reality of it) and Rivaini. Taash's story/stories also connects directly into ancient Qunari history before the first expedition. So there are a few layers. It's just the writing and tone often derail them or at least their presentation.
@SabiJD You are radically over thinking this.
@@Scooby-Doo_Villain No, that's just plain ol' normal thinking about a subject. Played DAV twice, and even did a romance arc with Taash to fully assess the character and BioWare's work.
I actually think EA doesn't get the criticism is deserves here.
I feel your pain, MrHulthen. I wholeheartedly agree. If you have a franchise that existed for a long time and then bring a new idea to implement into the already long lasting franchise, it will not work well, ever. You can't. If you create a new franchise, go for it, idc. At worst I won't play it as it is not for me. But why break the thing that is already GOOD? I don't care about the whole good and evil, "Modern audience" and "gamers", black and white, neither of those see the gray anyway. I'm open to adding things I don't necessarily agree with into games, IF it has a nice plot, lore behind it, it WORKS well, it's a nice fluid experience that merges well with the rest in good measure so that it is "just alright" and not "too much"... but the way companies go about it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to that.
PS: I said Veilguard will suck, lmao. Thanks for the video MrHulthen. o7
This
Imagine that. Giving audiences that are fans of an established franchise more of what they want earns you money and going in the complete opposite direction gets your game panned.
The reason they cannot stick to a formula is because either the developers get fired or they move on. This is a developer issue.
I feel like its more of a publisher issue in Bioware's case.
@@TheMarcHicksNope! BioWare bought into this modern audience nonsense years ago.
@@TheMarcHicksIt's both.
I didn't replay previous dragon age games before veilguard came out since I was replaying them every few year and I was soo in a hype train, clowning every year for a bit of new dragon age news. I thought I was satisfied after finishing the game but after +2 months i don't have a special need to play it again. I'm grateful for it and for all the work people put in that game but it's missing the thing that pulled me back in previous Dragon Age games. It's the same with mass effect, I can't count how many times I've replayed the whole trylogy yet I've finished Andromeda only once. All those things are making me even more grateful for Larian and Baldur's Gate and at the same time I'm also thinking to myself, If Larian did it why others cannot? Especially after seeing so many games trying to reach "modern audience' and failing and the others instead of learning are doing exactly the same thing.
Thing is, many devs, publishers and controlling interests want to attract the most amount of people they can, which usually has the opposite effect. They sanitize their product in order for it to appeal to a wide range, and because of that sanitization, they strip away the passion and elements that make games good. It’s greed and money Vs passion and creativity. It has always been this way in most art and media, but games have become such a large industry now with so much money in it, we are starting to see more of it. More people are coming into the game industry only for the money rather than the art.
sometimes i think the modern audience does exist, but they are the ones making the games today, not the one buying the games. and those people are so sure that their ideas are the right ones that they don't even try to make a product that brings a interesting perspective. and this is how you end up with a dragon age game, a franchise previously known for politics, dense characters, interesting discussions, to a game where you can''t even be mean to people you never met before in your life
Dragon age is the worst offender as there is no consistency . Every game there is new protagonist, new cast, new combat system, stripping of RPG features to appease new audience. They tried to make a game for everyone but it ended up pissing off fans and decrease interest in future projects. I'm not excited for the new Mass Effect game as this trend of turning ME/DA more into action adventure rather than RPG with emphasis on choice and consequences slowly turns Bioware into husk of its former self.
New Protagonist and New cast isn’t the issue. It’s typically the norm with games of that type.
It’s the always changing art styles, drastically different combat styles and visual tones all for the sake of chasing new players to have it be more appealing to them.
Now, it’s the writing style that was changed to appeal to more modern and casual audiences. Before, Dragon Age adopted a rule, use terminologies and wording that were pre 1900’s with a few select characters like Alistair and Varric being exceptions on rare occasions.
Veilguard threw this out the window with modern LGBTQ terminologies and modern lingo and delivery.
“They go hard.” - Taash
@@route77productions"Hey, assholes! Im non-binary."
True, each DA game has different gameplay, but there is thing that (until Veilguard) unites them: choice and consequence. The ability to do an evil playthrough and then have your choices imported into the next game was amazing, and was enough to connect each new game. Take that away, and all you have is the setting. If you then turn the setting into "the elves did it" for every question, then you lose even that.
And old BioWares biggest strength was its writing and characters. But the last three games prove that this is no longer the case.Andromeda, Anthem, and Veilguard all had good gameplay but terrible writing. And it's clear what it's core audience cares most about. RIP BioWare.
They don't need to get a new audience. If the game is good then the new audience will come along with the existing audience. No change is necessary to try to tempt the new people. It just alienates the existing people
Pre Vailguard, I would consider myself a huge Dragon Age fan.
Now, I will not even touch the game. I could not convince myself to purchase this slop.
If it were a completely new franchise, I would have been willing to give Veilguard a chance. But each Dragon Age game has driftwd further and further away from what it started out as, and I became more disillusioned with the franchise with each entry. Veilguard was the last straw. Between the art style, the full on abandonment of the strategy aspects, the phasing out of everything that could be considered offensive, the terrible dialogue, the "one hammer for every nail" world building where we learn the elves are responsible for EVERYTHING. It just disappointed on every level and made me not want to play it.
I can’t even bring myself to finish Veilguard, I’m maybe halfway through and I’m done, I’d rather replay the old games. I’m terrified for Mass Effect.
I feel your pain. Over 15 years of investment into two different IPs (Mass Effect and Dragon Age), just gone. For me both of these two gaming franchises are connected to one another. I got Mass Effect 1 on Xbox 360 and few years later pre-ordered Dragon Age Origins to get the Blood Dragon Armor for Mass Effect 2. Once I started playing Origins I was hooked. I've played the Mass Effect trilogy, played Origins thru Inquisition, and loved all of them.
When Andromeda came out I played it, but the spark for me wasn't there and that was warning sign for me. Anthem looked like a Destiny clone with an Ironman skin, so I didn't get it and watched Bioware just... struggle is the best I could say about that time. When the Legendary Edition came out, so did that spark (though ButtGate was annoying for me and Miranda is my favorite romance option). But Failguard (because I refuse to use its real name) basically spit in my face with just "porting" three decisions and the devs not even knowing who ZEVRAN IS! I'm for God's sake they have Zevran's old VA in the game as a fucking Crow. They destroy all of Southern Thedas and that stupid secret ending has them setting up a Illuminati style faction that shape everything in the world for the past three games. WTF...
I have no hope for Mass Effect 5... It was fun while it lasted.
Unfortunately the "suits" that decide what to do don't understand gaming.
They only understand financials.
And that is why so many bad decisions are made these days.
They don't even understand this properly. I mean look at the financial situations of these companies, they maybe can do some math but they can't make money. At least in the long run.
@@makiimark The problem is that you have to understand both to be successful in the long run. And they clearly don't.
@ True.
They are too out of touch to know what Gamers what.
The activists don't understand either
DA: TV's biggest problem is that it spent a large chunk of its development time as a Live Service Multiplayer Game, and a significant amount of that original DNA has made it into the final product.
i think this is also both David Gaider's department and project Joplin's cancellation by EA which more likely was his original vision other old devs like Epler or Weekes could build up upon.
Hm, I mostly disagree. I feel DAV's real core problem is that it's both a soft reboot and a direct sequel to DLC from ten years ago. The disinterest in lore, the new tone/lack of a style guide, the even more cartoony art style, the manic fear of mentioning anything about past events, people, theologies, social tensions, etc... It feels like there was a stipulation from up high - EA or/and at the top of BioWare - to ignore most lore and past events and themes so as to try not to alienate new players.
However, I agree that that production history probably played a part in some of that. The hideously vapid and dull 'new' factions, for example, with their appalling colour co-ordinated uniforms, or the newly moral and upstanding Crows? These feel very much like bland player factions in an MMO or live-service structure; simple, shallow, clearly delineated, all good guys, and so the decision of which to pick is quick enough for a one-paragraph background or just a colour/vibes preference.
The loot system does also feel like it has the DNA of a looter oriented co-op game. And yet, in this instance I think it worked wonders. I think the system cohesion across the board is superb in DAV. It perhaps went a bit too far, but the streamlining is fantastic; every item you can find is either new, or an improvement. No more carrying twenty iron or steel swords just to sell. No more inventory faffing, or weight limits, ergo very little time staring at stats to gain minor advantages. What matters is how well an item segues with your playstyle and build. A single item could change that, too, encouraging you to swap out your abilities.
Each class has their own uniques, too, so no more getting amazing gear that's pointless to you or any of your party.
So I do feel some of that live-service DNA was reworked and led to more interesting, more cohesive, and more focused game design.
Thank God You said this . Epic that's how i feel also .
GOW was my first thought too, but that was a franchise that had completely run its course. The story overhaul felt less like a revamp and more like a 'next chapter', and it was natural.
I appreciate hearing your thoughts Hulten. I genuinely do not want BioWare to fail but playing Veilguard for me, it felt like i wasn't the target audience anymore. I spent thousands of hours playing BioWare games and still do, but this current BioWare today is not the same company i fell in love with back then. ❤
You are not alone.
Resident Evil already showcases this. A once Horror Survival game series that went to a more Heavy Action focused direction with that of RE5 and RE6, showed a decline in sales and interest from fans to attract new fans with the action focused style.
Only to then return with RE7 and have it be a huge return to form and brought in new and old players.
Actually, this is kind of incorrect.
RE5 and RE6 didn't have a decline in sales, totally the opposite, they are actually best sellers in the RE franchise.
However, the situation is indeed similar to Bioware and Dragon Age for instance. How?
Both RE5 and RE6 are two of the best seller entries in the franchise, (especially RE5), but unlike Bioware, Capcom listened to their fans and noticed that despite the excellent sales, many people weren't happy with the direction of the franchise, especially after RE6, thus Capcom realized that the next entry will not meet with the same luck if they didn't do something. Capcom visualized the situation in the long term.
Bioware, just like Capcom, tried to turn Dragon Age into a more "casual" friendly franchise, and that especially happened with Inquisition.
Inquisition sold many copies, but is not overall praised by the DA community, and it has a lower score in every metric compared to Origins, especially by user score metrics. This also divided the fandom more.
Inquisition may have sold very well, but those sales had a big boost from the marketing of GOTY.
How many people who bought the game actual liked it? How many would stick for the next game?
How many "casuals" bought the game just because of GOTY? How many of them just entered at the Hinterlands and never looked at the game again?
Bioware was short sighted and only saw the instant gratification. They didn't realize that in the long term that wasn't going to work for Dragon Age. With Veilguard they decided to "casualize" the franchise further (they even attempted to make it a live service game). And well, here you go, we got Veilguard.
EA has no faith in games like Origins, ironically enough, Larian proved them wrong.
It worked with Inquisition since that game far outsold any of its predecessors, so there is definitely a mix of old audience and new audience. Veilguard did a lot of new things for DA, but most of them weren't remotely new for BioWare, so as an old BioWare fan, I enjoyed the callbacks and the melding of systems that were successful before.
The problem with the "new audience" or "modern audience" arguments is that it's now just a dog whistle for homophobia at worst, and at best, it's someone telling creatives to never be creative again, to just only ever do the thing they personally liked. Not really sure I can get behind either of those stances.
BG3 kept me away until a month ago simply because it was turn based. With mods now it's easier and just awesome storytelling, narrating, music production etc. just wonderful
I thought Veilguard was okay. It just felt that childish, especially when romancing you're teammates, I wasn't feeling it. Also, that pushup scene was cringe... I honestly don't understand what massage their trying to send with that. To gamers...oh and please be mature everyone!!
Bought BG3 shortly after release, but said you needed an ssd so I refunded. Recently got a new rig and bought BG3, I can see why it won 45 awards. It's a bench mark game now
@@ZacharyCollins-n677 Trans propaganda what else?
BG3 is a jewel, I'm glad you got it
@@dizy82 The existence of trans people is not "propaganda".
If even Swedes complain now, we're safe.
You are most definitely not stupid for thinking this way, or feeling this way my friend. I ultimately agree with you on many points here.
Until Veilguard, I was a diehard Dragon Age fan. Now, I’m praying to the Powers That Be that the franchise gets sold off to Larian, and Mass Effect to Archetype, or other studios that care about their fans and will do what, quite frankly, BioWare can or will no longer do.
I do feel the studio should be shut down, as well. After DAII I hoped it was just an anomaly, a rough patch. Unfortunately, over the years they have not aged well. I’m concerned that the issues BioWare has are too pervasive at this point and that there’s no going back for them.
At any rate, this “modern audience” drivel needs to stop. If it even really existed, Veilguard or other recent releases wouldn’t have bombed.
Dude, you’re pretty much voicing the exact same opinion of a large chunk of all fanbases. And we agree with you.
The Mass Effect music in the background just shows me that this is all coming from a place of love. I hope that Mass Effect 4 is the opposite of Veilguard.
The absolute CLOSEST i can get to a big revamp working would be ME1 to ME2. The lore and art style was the same but there's a massive change of gameplay from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2.
That was widely considered to be a good change.
While some people might miss the loot I did not. Tbh for me the usual RPG mechanics are not even that important. In ME1 you had boring loot, you got an upgrade from your Scorpion 5 to the new Scorpion 6. What is that? You are playing catchup with the level scaling. Loot has no place in a game that makes enemies stronger as you grow stronger.
Do you know the old Gothic games? In those games creatures had fixed stats, when you start out fighting orcs is simply borderline impossible. You might be able to handle one with help. In the endgame you take on entire groups of orcs without a second thought. With that you are actually growing stronger. Mass Effect only ever gave you more options.
Ive said it a million times. Its not about a game that does everything new. Its about a game that rethinks something that we have been doing for years and twists it to make it feel like something we have never played before. This is what makes great games time and time again. Look at Exodus as a great example.
It kind of worked with Fallout 3, but at the same time, because it was "Oblivion with guns" it had TES audience.
Thank you for saying this!!! My heart is broken over BioWare and I just have no more words! 😢
I assume that these gaming companies think, new audience = more $$, without realizing that the old audience of gamers who just want more of the same great games = far more $$ than the "new" people as the old gamers shed off and don't buy the new trash.
Ya, but the line has to keep going up if it is largely the same, and you are making the same as the last game that is not good, especially at the scale at which AAA is supposed to be
Am a die-hard DA fan. Have not played Veilguard yet, and still plan to, and actually in spite of everything, still looking forward to it. But damn man, so much truth here. Preach!
Yes play it. And be sad like the rest of us 😢
They promised us Werewolf, they delivered Failguard
They did it. They broke Hulthen - I never thought we would get here.
I'm enjoying the Veilguard, but I guess it's the new punching bag. So what can you do? At least now DA2 is a classic, and I can say I like it without risking ostracizing. I assume?
I guess anyone making a sequel or reboot has to try to find a balance between renewing their thing, and keeping what was.
You can't make the exact same game again. Obviously. I mean there's got to be some evolution.
And at the same time, you have to keep true to the predecessor, because if not then why are you even developing for that franchise if you could just as well make a new one.
Baldur's Gate 3 is actually a good example. It's really QUITE different from Baldur's Gate 2. BG2 wasn't turn based, it was real time with pause. It was 2D isometric as well, and even the tone was a bit different. BG3 and BG2 are very different. But they are also a bit the same: The forgotten realms setting for one, some of the musical and visual design choices, and most of all, it's definitely a Baldur's Gate style story.
One could argue that it's a spiritual successor to DOS2. And maybe it kind of is. But it did reach a lot larger audience, who never played DOS2. Even if it hadn't, it's not DOS3. Different world, different story, different style.
On the other hand, most who played BG3 never played BG2 either, let alone BG1. So in essence, they hit a really good balance of finding a whole new audience, reinventing the franchise in fairly dramatic ways, but keeping true to the essence of BG.
Perhaps the real skill is in identifying what it really is that is unique and compelling about your franchise. If you can nail that, then you can reinvent quite a lot around it.
Veilguard, I think, didn't quite catch what original fans were fans for.
The Bioware that is now, is not the same Bioware that was: the big suites are nearly devoid of people who remember what was unique and compelling. Those folks either moved on ages ago or were strongly encouraged to box up their stuff. The Bioware of now does not want old dissenting voices and opinions.
@@1957DLT Sure, but having new people doesn't *have* to mean they can't get what was special about the original game. Not by itself at least.
Look at BG3 as an example again: I don't KNOW, but I suspect not many people who worked on BG2 back in 1998-2000, nearly 20 years before BG3 development started, were deeply involved in making BG3. I'm sure there could be some, but still. Two decades of time, entirely different studio.
So I'd say it's not about whether they're the same people or new ones. New people can also get it, and old people can also not get it :D Any artistic endeavour - which I consider game making to be, even if "the suits" don't see it that way - is a complicated thing.
Amen brother 🙏 We're definitely in a transition period and, while it's interesting to see new studios rise amongst the ashes of giants, it pains me every time we lose another great franchise...
Yup, you really nailed the subject in here, a franchise doesn’t need to change to a new audience, it’s the other way around, people will get interested in something new, but if they weren’t interested anyway, changing everything to appeal to them will only angry the older fans, i can only think of one franchise that changed successfully and that is God of War, apart from that, there’s no other in my mind that succeeded on getting new people, satisfying old fans, and still managed to keep its soul in the process, and what you say about BG3 is so true, many people played and still play that game, and its a very niche genre of gaming.
Im glad you're saying this, cause when others like myself called this out earlier, we were called all kinds of ists and isms, and phobes, just for not liking the direction they were going. When that couldn't be further from the trught in many people cases. While there are bad actors most of us just want what these established franchises already provided that made the games great.
they pushed people who love making games because they love games away and replaced them with people who make games to have a platform for their "activism" and only care about the message and not the games
Maybe it's more on the parallel side but I'll say this: I've been a video game marketing video editor/director for a long time now and I've seen the change...I've seen how we could be more creative back then with our approach because these last 6-8 years brought up a lot obstacles...to not offend anyone. I mean look, NOT ALL studios followed the trend for sure, I'm talking in the general sense here. But without going into too much details, I had to cut many things as ''little'' as a stroboscopic effect in case ONE person would have a problem with it. Other things that I had to cut out were stuff deemed too ''sensitive'' because some people could take it the wrong way, be triggered, etc etc etc. In terms of stories and characters in some already established IPs...do you really think the majority of the devs were okay with all the changes we've seen? You know where I'm going with this?
This ''modern audience'' studios have been so after just doesn't exist and many of them are paying the price now. Destroying established lore and characters, making games a ''safe space'' because of that said audience to not offend them in any way possible, fighting with their customers when they don't like a product, etc, will inevitably lead to a company's downfall. Many companies forgot their loyal fan base and we see the results now.
The Modern Audience only ever interacts on social media and never actually plays the games. They love to yell and complain about things but never actually buy the games. Even ignoring that reminds me of a poll by a game studio where they asked if characters should be aspirational and good looking and majority said yes, almost nobody said no, and a tiny minority said dont care.
So you have this situation where games keep going for the modern audience of "dont care" and annoy the huge audience that actually does care and would be put off. Why would you even do this?
This is something that happens a lot in heavy metal music. Some bands only slightly change their sound from one album to the next... they do explore new processes, themes, etc. but they stay true to who they were a year ago, who they were ten years ago. Bands like Nile, Dying Fetus. Every new release is different enough to be interesting, but similar enough to retain their die-hards.
Then there are bands who make a drastic change mid-career and alienate all of their fans in hopes of selling more albums, and they always shoot themselves in the foot for it. Bands like Metallica, In Flames, Kataklysm. They may gain a few new fans who will eventually move on, but it always comes at the expense of their long-time fans.
Bioware has been trying to pivot to shallow action games since mass effect 1. It's been abundantly obvious that while a nice balance is enjoyable and profitable, going overboard always comes back to bite them.
We used to be able to blame EA, but supposedly they kept their micromanaging to themselves this time, so it seems the rot has set in at Bioware itself. I really hope the different creative team for mass effect can learn from it.
100% agree with this take.
I gotta be honest, I see BG3 and DA quite different, even the closest DA:O and BG3 are quite different, even tho they are like second/third cousins. However, the audience for these games is 80%, maybe even 90%, the same players. So, it should be quite telling to see the difference, regardless of comparisons, fair or not fair. Personally, I both felt like I'm a secondary audience for Bioware game in general, for the first time, and I felt not really welcomed in the very small, but very vocal, community, as the player who preferred DA:O type of fantasy RPG (and thus, by extension, older Bioware fantasy RPGs, new party-based fantasy RPGs like DOS2, BG3, Pillars, Pathfinder, and who wants from Bioware fantasy to bring cinematics without trumping complex mechanics and writing, a-la DA:O/BG3). And I will say it again, that The Veilguard is 8/10 action adventure game, it is good, I just felt left out somehow and not heard at all about how it isn't a very good practice to abandon your core audience in pursuit of "general audience", which usually somehow equates to "new players" (whoever they are) and "larger audience" (mainstream audience, idk). I actually don't mind the term "modern audience", but the thing is, I am that modern audience to be pursued by RPG devs, I'm exactly THE RPG player, like I guess almost 100% of the audience of this channel are.
When you spend so much time and effort chasing that new audience you lose your old audience, you know you've ****ed up.
"When has it ever worked?"
I mean, BG3. It also worked pretty well for Inquisition.
Oh, and Fallout 3.
Mario and Zelda 64.
So true actually! If you want to a character to this and that than create a new character for it, don't change someone people like, just cause he/she is so beloved. Same with games.
THANK YOU!! This was my argument for not finishing Veilguard. They took away everything that made Dragon Age, Dragon Age. And I’m on the wagon that enjoyed Andromeda. Dragon Age II was also fun, but doesn’t hold a candle to Origins/Awakening. The Mass Effect trilogy will forever be my all time favorite franchise in gaming, and there is a reason why it did so well- and BioWare had the recipe to continue its greatness. Instead, they threw it all away to be something they are not
Bioware is gone, the OG era is gone. The sooner we acknowledge that the better
Edit:Personally i wasnt really feeling DreadWolf, because i would have preferred playing as the inquisitor, but the nail n the coffin was the name change. The devs lost the plot obviously.
It’s like your favorite burger place becoming a Pizzeria to cater to late night bar goers, but they use the same ingredients and cookware. No new oven, no dough machine, same patties, condiments, and buns.
You´re totally correct!
You'd think these clowns should already know and understand what "if it ain't broke don't fix it" means.
They expect that the established fans of a franchise will always be there, good or bad, so they take them for granted, and they focus on trying to bring in a new audience because... well... MONEY. More money.
isnt that what Ubisoft does? sticking to what worked 20 years ago.
Something I liked about the original trilogy, is it didn't pull its punches in terms of a diverse roster of characters with a diverse array of beliefs - some of those beliefs that would be considered offensive or taboo in today's market and yet it didn't force you to agree or disagree with any particular character's choices, the player was free to make their own judgment about it and decide how they wanted to handle the situation. They were also free to ask follow up questions based off of view points characters had they didn't understand. That level of nuance and depth in the writing is something i severely miss in modern day gaming and RPGs where the player isn't being handheld/forced to think and believe the same way the writer does - they are respected as individuals capable of making their own minds up.
I call bs because how many video games (Dragon Age included), TV shows, movies, etc. are about how bigotry or racism is bad? But now when it comes to Veilguard, you suddenly have an issue with the writer telling you "hey don't be a d1ck"?
You're 100% correct. This is just what happens when greed gets in the way of a good thing. I'm super fond of Arizona tea because of the fact they could have easily sold out, and just... chose not to. They weren't greedy. Now, they have a super loyal following.
Albeit BioWare has chased Diablo's success since the days of Baldur's Gate, Veilguard's failure is more ideological than plain old corporate greed. While streamlining has broadened appeal, the ever more obtrusive radical ideology repels far more players than the elusive "modern audience" attracts.
@@RansomMemoryAccess. I disagree. Veilguard failed for many, many things.
Some people focus so much on the ideological part, but corporate greed indeed was at fault as well.
Take out all the ideological bs (you can even erase Taash) from Veilguard and you still have a bad game.
The problem with DA4 started the very moment EA forced the Dragon Age team to turn it into a live service game. That's what killed the game from the very beginning and what caused its development to be so disastrous.
The forced ideological bs just added one more flaw to an already flawed game.
Whoever the hell is in the office seems incredibly embarrassed and ashamed of what once brought their studio worldwide renown and acclaim, and have managed to convince themselves they know better what people want.. than literally anyone who isn't within arm's reach.
If they mess up and do the same thing with ME 5, I’m gonna be pissed.
I agree, if you have an invested and enthusiastic core audience for an established franchise, write the new game with that audience in mind and trust that their vocal support will bring new players to the game. It’s not rocket science.
In a side note:
One of my pet peeves is the tonal inconsistency of a medieval fantasy world where the characters speak in contemporary language. That is a clumsy and immersion-breaking error that novice writers make, and I felt continually dragged down to their level while I was playing DA Veilguard.
Another franchise that changed their formula, quite late too, and still works is the Yakuza/Like a Dragon series. They switched from a real time brawler combat system to a full turn based JRPG combat system...
Sometimes, changing the formula isn't the problem. Sometimes, it's just that the new formula is bad and not compatible with the established franchise style.
Unfortunately it's about ego and putting the developers stamp on things. Sometimes a brilliant idea on the drawing board doesn't transition into a game well. But ego gets in the way of making the best call. Hopefully this is also the death bell for wokeness filling our games.
The big corpos are like... "everyone knows what cake is, so lets make a brick of tofu, and call it cake, and people will buy it!" Except instead of cake, it's a franchise, and instead of tofu, it's something entirely different than what makes the franchise what it is.
Thank you for saying this! I'm so glad I'm not alone in my opinion on following the "modern audience". This modern audience won't appreciate anyway the story, the atmosphere or the characters that were crafted with love 10 or 20 years ago.
They want something that belongs to them, something new. And they have completely different view on things. So why change our things, that we love, for them? Let them create their own thing.
What baffles me the most is that EA thought this was a smart decision. Usually, if something is successful, companies will milk it till the audience is bored with it. But EA didn't even give us a lazy, uninspired copy of Inquisition.
'For modern audiences' means for people who are not familiar with the original work. It's easier to sell those people not only preaching, but dumbed down version of the original. And it was dumbed down because devs/writers wanted to make their job easier. Or easier for new crew members who were hired not because of their skill, but for being a minority.
We made this game for Modern Audiences.
Is this Modern Audience in the room with us right now?
Can you stop using that stupid talking point?
"Is this abstract concept in the non-existant room with us (here on the internet) right now."
Not only does it demand an impossible thing it also uses echo chambers as proof.
@@jasperzanovich2504 Wha chu talkin bout, Willis?
This is why it's important to get out of your own bubble. The trying something new, they did it with Mass Effect going from 1 to 2 (swapped genres basically). I loved it, ME2 is probably my favorite game all time, but my cousin never finished ME2 because to him they let go of everything (in his opinion) that made it a Mass Effect game. And with that same cousin: he told me to buy BG3 because it's fantastic, but I can't finish it - to me it lacks everything that makes DnD fun (every character doesn't need to have a super emo tragic backstory) and all the bugs that, to me, make it almost unplayable even after all these patches (and having to add endings). I understand a whole lot of people love the game, and I'm happy for them and for Larian who seem like good developers. Just don't assume everybody in the whole world thinks the way your bubble does, there are plenty of new audiences out there (I have friends who fell in love with Star Wars due to Finn/Rey for example, because that's the first time they felt seen - and then dove deeper into animated shows etc and found more stuff they love). So saying that there's no point in "spreading your wings", going for the new, is just silly. Not everything is for everyone, and people need to stop being offended when they don't like something. You don't like something - ok fine, don't linger on it but move on to the stuff you like. But just being positive on a subject doesn't get views on this platform anymore, but be mindful that you don't fall into the trap of letting your hunt for views affect you as a human. It should be clear to a developer of a game that people don't like it if the game isn't talked about (you know, like in the good old days when we actually talked face to face) rather than people making a living trash-talking online. Rant over. TL:DR: not everything is for everyone, and that's ok - spread love instead, this world needs it.
I think it's too late for a lot of studios. We didn't complain and let a lot of people change games bc we wanted more people to also enjoy our hobby, we didn't want to be seeing as 4ss wholes or whatever. Inch by inch we got where we are. There are lot of up coming games that have potential, like Exodus, Dawnwalker, and this year Doom and E-Day. But, most western studios are going to pay a heavy price for the past decade.
Amen!! Preach it Brother!!
I absolutely agree with you and if anyone miss interprets what you're saying other than the truth and honest criticism, I can safely say they are fools.
wow, creators growing a backbone in real time is always precious to witness, good video! Love it, liked it.
Unlike Kala Elizabeth since it looks like she deleted her comment 🤨🤫
@@MrDay53 lmao! She's just a blatant shill, cut her some slack 😂
@@justaquietpeacefuldance Pretty typical. She is very sneaky; she deleted for example her review of DATV, had S&S banned from the Exodus server even know she is not the owner just because...she felt like it and many, many other things. Just not an honest actor and unfortunately Mr.Hultthen is her steadfast ally...
@apres-lachute8718 yes, yes and yes. I was surprised to be able to see her thread tho and being also able to reply to her as it was blocked for me on yt during vEiLgUaRd heights of "popularity". It is what it is. 😂
I'm assuming you are referring to becoming a right-wing grifter? I have to disappoint you but that is not what this video is. Even though he does use the "modern audience" dogwhistle in the thumbnail.
Feels like these days most big games are tailored for every one while at the same time for no one. Tailoring a game like that will only diminish it and make less fun and engaging.
I don't mind trying new things but these devs keep trying the SAME EXACT garbage and are surprised that it flops every time. Every time they get told what they did and didn't do right and they dont listen or learn. Then when things inevitably flop they cry about it and expect people to care.
I agree with all you said, Mr. Hulthen. I must be stupid too, then. XD
I only started playing the Dragon Age games a couple of years ago. The first game I was introduced to was Inquisition. And I loved it. Only after playing it fully did I buy the other two games. That's when I "fell in love" with the franchise. I still want to play The Veilguard, if only just to form a proper opinion myself. However, whilst before I was tempted to buy the game imediately, now I kinda want to wait until its on sale, or something like it. I am also afraid the Veilguard will make me stop loving Dragon Age and I really don't want that to happen. I just hope they learned with this and don't repeat the same mistakes with the next Mass Effect game. It would actually break my heart if the same thing happened.
And not just Bioware, but all the others too. Many cool games, with so much potential and I fear what may become of them and us players if this keeps happening.
The modern audience is a warning, Commander. When you see a game developer use the term then you know that their game will inevitably be thrown out of the airlock.
I feel like Bioware has always appealed to 'modern audiences', they were just better at doing it. It was effortless, they didn't need to go ham because they had their good writing and characterization. In Veilguard, this was totally lacking.
Aww welcome to the club. You figured out how things work nowadays with entertainment:). Kidding aside I’ve been dealing with this for at least the past 7 years. It fucking sucks but hey we re here.
It’s fine to love something or a franchise etc but you don’t have to love every little bit of it. More people need to realize this which is why so much is being driven into the ground cause people never want to be honest about something cause they love it.
Trying to appeal to a broader “modern audience” is something even the developers/publishers of those games can’t even seem to define. And no, this isn’t about appealing to the LGBT+ community or women or disabled people or anybody that is non-white, it’s just that they they think younger people today are mostly of those groups when honestly they’ve kinda been there the whole time in the same proportion, they were just less open about belonging to those groups or that they were into video games at all due to the justified fear of gatekeeping backlash. They really need to get it through their heads that they don’t need to pander to any particular group (except for fascists, of course).
Exactly what I think as well: do not turn ME(or DA but it's too late)into something it's not because you want to ''innovate.''Create something new from scratch. But the problem unfortunately is this: they are no longer capable , their creative vein has run out(or never existed to begin with).So they appropriate the works of others and turn them into garbage. But hey, a character says it in The Veilguard: that it's better to break with the past and look forward. Sigh.😒
It's hubris, narcissism and arrogance. The companies hire all these new people who think they can do it better than the original creators. We see this in movies and TV all the time. The new writers will take an existing IP with established lore and history and rewrite it to insert themselves into it. They'll write nonsensical fanfics of the original work to push their messaging and their politics. They will warp and mold the characters to fit those narratives until the characters aren't even recognizable anymore. These talentless hacks can't carry a new IP on their own merit, so they will hijack an existing IP and butcher it to suit their taste.
Yes, my gawd you're not stupid or dumb and definitely not alone. Exodus has re-ignited my Mass Effect hope, and it's an entire different game. The original cooks and the recipe is important, they are what has the passion and motivation to make an exceptional game.
This is a unique take using that term. Normally y he term “modern audience” is usually just a dogwhistle anyway. They’re complaining about a “modern audience” because they don’t want to admit what they really don’t like about the content.
I feel teary-eyed for todays Bioware looking at this video. Dragon Age Origins was a life changing experience when i was a teen to hold on to Bioware games so passionately and adamently. The community was so wonderful and relatable, too. Until corporate culture, big money, mainstream popularity, and excessive political divisions slowly ruined it.
I think the biggest issue is that publishers want new markets and new audiences and then there is the perceived risk of introducing a new brand, so you end up with sequels chasing ghosts and piggybacking on the name of games that were successful in the past, but offering little to nothing of what made them fun or engaging
this is essentially what happened to Assassins creed. They completely abandoned the audience that built the franchise in the first place in order to appeal to "modern audiences". While there are still people who liked them, the vast majority of players hated AC Odyssey and Valhalla. And most of those that did like it were new players drawn in by the promise of a spartan/viking fantasy and have never even touched an earlier game or even understand what made the franchise what it is.
Why and how should devs who never played and loved the originals stick to what worked? If you never loved it, how can you distinguish between what was loved in the originals and what was ignored even then because it was not so great?
I loved my grandpa. That does not mean I think that I should become a necromancer and dig up his moldering remains.
I think all of us gamers would benefit from accepting that sometimes good memories being and staying memories is not such a bad thing.
Common sense, such a hit of fresh air to hear someone that has it.