Another year of E3 has come and gone. Just like last year there were highs and lows from the conferences. Some conferences did better than others, but not all of them were perfect. They at times did outstanding jobs of showing what is coming out soon and later in the future, but at the same time they were just downright senseless. I would like to talk about what a waste of time Square Enix's presence was at E3, but I am better off being like everyone else when it comes to Electronic Arts.
Electronic Arts' E3 press conference was really bad this year. The biggest fault of it was by showing all these games, but with no gameplay to support them. Hell, "Madden 19" and "NBA Live 19" didn't even get their limelight for whatever minimal differences in gameplay that they have every year. A lot of people don't really care about EA's sports games, I am certainly one of them, but by the end of the day their choice for not showcasing gameplay for their sellers is kind of stupid no matter how big or small the changes of the game.
The only game that mattered and showcased gameplay at EA's press conference was "Anthem." This should have happened since it is EA and BioWare's next IP/franchise coming February 22nd, 2019. When they first showed pre-alpha game footage from last year I was a little excited because it looked cool. The gameplay from the pre-alpha was interesting as well, but we all know you cannot fully trust pre-alpha footage for games anymore. Ubisoft's "Watch_Dogs" is a prime example of that.
"Watch_Dogs" pre-alpha footage vs. released gameplay.MACHINA/Gaming
Since then, it has been a roller coaster of one thing after anothers when it comes to "Anthem." Most people know about how "Mass Effect: Andromeda" became the mess it came to be because of how EA pushed BioWare's development team. The reason so they can release a product as soon as possible, and bank off of a huge title like "Mass Effect." "Anthem" seems to be another victim when it comes to that. This time it's to launch a new franchise in order to focus on getting money.
Patrick Söderlund, EA's Executive Vice President, stated after Microsoft's press conference last year that "Anthem" has been in development since 2013. He said the company hopes "Anthem,"when it launches, can be a "10-year journey". Where have we heard that before? Sounds very similar to what Bungie was saying when it came to their franchise "Destiny" over 4 years ago. I am not saying there is nothing wrong of having a 10-year plan. The issue is when you are planning for a franchise that hasn't even started and is brand new.
An example I'm going to use is Marvel's cinematic universe. Granted, they were planning to have a cinematic universe in some way when they released 2008's "Iron Man." The difference is that they still focused on releasing a quality first project before getting ahead of themselves in case of the long-term goal not working out. They took it piece by piece until they perfected it to the audience's liking. You can say whatever you want about Marvel's MCU, but it succeeds for a reason and it works. Something like "Destiny" is a prime example in these cases to not get ahead of yourself.
Just to warn you now, I will be using "Destiny" and "Mass Effect: Andromeda" as examples quite a bit for two big reasons. For "Destiny" it has put itself in the situation of questioning the politics and quality of games behind closed doors at these studios. The other reason is something that is very personal. I was in that seat of excitement and going full throttle into something that was cool, and was offered to be something great by the studio. Even when I knew, and heard, not so positive things going around in the background. Since 2014, it has been the most stressful thing during the time span of me being a gamer. I don't want anybody else to feel the same way I have for these past four years.
BagoGames
One of the biggest things that showed these signs was the departure of so many well-known people leaving in the middle of development for these games, especially for the important parts. Aaryn Flynn is one of those people because he was BioWare's general manager. Which, granted, Casey Hudson replaced Aaryn Flynn in that position. That can be a positive note since Casey Hudson is the legend behind the "Mass Effect" series and "Star Wars: The Old Republic." Another big name that left the company was Steve Gilmour who was the lead animator for "Star Wars: The Old Republic", "Dragon Age: Inquisition", and more. He was with the company since 2000 and was with the development of "Anthem" between December 2014 until August 2017.
Frostbite, EA's game engine, doesn't really help "Anthem's" situation either. The Frostbite engine is collectively one of the most powerful and one of the hardest game engines to use. What doesn't help is it doesn't really benefit towards open-world games. Here I go using "Mass Effect: Andromeda" as an example again. The engine is specifically focused on shooters like "Battlefield" and "Star Wars: Battlefront." One of the developers used an analogy of cars to best describe the Frostbite engine:
"Epic's Unreal Engine is like an SUV, capable of doing lots of things but unable to go at crazy high speeds. The Unity Engine would be a compact car: small, weak, and easy to fit anyplace you'd like. Frostbite is a sports car. Not even a sports car, a Formula 1. When it does something well, it does it extremely well. When it doesn't do something, it really doesn't do something. Whenever you're trying to do something that fits the engine—vehicles, for example—Frostbite handles that extremely well. When you're building something that the engine is not made for, this is where it becomes difficult."
BagoGames
Another issue that "Mass Effect: Andromeda" had was something I talked about earlier in this article. The developers were being forced to finish a game when it was nowhere near to be finished. The game was in development for five years, but that doesn't mean that is how long the production took. The start and finish were five years, but the bulk of its production was just only 18 months. There are hints here and there that "Anthem" can't escape EA's push.
When "Anthem" was announced and presented at E3 last year it originally had a 2018 release window. Six months later, the game was then delayed for an early 2019 release. Electronic Arts' Blake Jorgensen tried to skew it by saying that it wasn't a delay even though the game was announced for a Fall 2018 release. The developers have even gone out of their way to say that their company is connected to "Anthem." What does BioWare mean by that?
Determining how the game does on reception by critics and consumers tells the state of what will happen to BioWare. If it doesn't do well, EA can completely consume BioWare. If it does do well, Electronic Arts doesn't take that course of action. BioWare is a little scared because the worst case scenario can most likely happen. Not that it will happen, but there is a possibility that it can happen. Electronic Arts wouldn't even allow BioWare to delay "Anthem" any further than March 2019.
For the last note, I want to talk about the presence that "Anthem" had for E3 this year. Just like "Destiny," the world of the game looks absolutely gorgeous. Hands down, the team behind the art is truly making a world we crave to experience. My issue with the presentation was the gameplay they presented. The whole time it was playing I found it boring and not really impactful. Especially compared to the game's pre-alpha footage from last year. I wish I was there to play whatever demo they had this year. Issue with that is it would still be difficult to know of how the gameplay would be without actually playing the "finished" product. From what I heard it is certainly fun, but to what was shown and offered was pretty dull. This can be, one-hundred percent, a different case when the game's full release comes.
TheOmegaNerd
They had Casey Hudson, Mark Darra, and Cathleen Rootsaert talk more about the game. I was expecting a lot more in the details for the specific ways of how the game would function. Customization in the game is a perfect example for this. The only thing they talked about with customization was cosmetics, and how there will be some available for in-game purchase. The problem is we already knew that information since January. A lot of what they said was standard, typical and a lot of froth to cover the length of time for the conference. Nothing very specific was talked about within the systems of the game, and we really want to know how the game works. I understand having surprises when the game launches, but there is certain information for us to know before the game is in people's hands.
By the end of the day, I hope what I said makes you a little wary. I'm not saying," Don't get the game." I'm just saying to take "Anthem" with trepidation because I don't want anyone to feel the way I did when it came to games like "Destiny" and "No Man's Sky." Especially for these past four years because Bungie said the right words for me to be like," Destiny 2 is gonna be better and improved from the first!" Yet, at the end of the day we all know that was not true. I want "Anthem" to succeed and turn out to be what BioWare wants it to be. Games like "Destiny", "The Division" and "Anthem" are the closest thing to what people have for an MMORPG-esque game with an online cooperative play that people want and deserve.
