You’re asking me to prove that the game’s messaging and story issues were a major reason for its failure, but you’re not holding yourself to the same standard.
This isn’t true. I’m perfectly willing to prove my viewpoints. You’re continuing to jump the gun here. I’m about to explain my viewpoint, eventually. I was just hoping you would prove your viewpoints first. We’re having a conversation online, we have all the time in the world. Everything in due time, right?
(It’s as if you’re engaging in this kind of complaints as a stalling tactic. This conversation would go so much smoother if you’d just address the points. Furthermore, you’re repeating yourself a lot, it makes the comments hard to read. So please, address the points. I’m cutting this down for brevity.)
The Dragon Age series once had strong audience trust, but that eroded over time, largely due to shifting priorities in writing and design.
Are you absolutely sure it had nothing to do with several key players in Bioware leaving over the years and EA quietly gutting the studio, replacing the talent and increasing their meddling? Because, as I said before, that raises the fanbase’s eyebrows. The Bioware that made DAV simply isn’t the same company that made DAO. Bioware hasn’t really been independent of EA’s meddling since 2016 at least - Mass Effect Andromeda was the clearest example of what happened when EA decided to assume more direct control of the process. Fans have had every reason to be suspicious of Bioware’s output ever since. It’s frankly a miracle Dragon Age Inquisition was anywhere near as good as it was.
Bioware doesn’t exist in vacuum, they’re not the only ones who are making decisions here.
Who exactly made the shifting writing decisions here? Can you give me concrete examples? I’ve not played DAV so it’s harder for me to compare the things.
I’ve seen EA put this same kind of ruin on a lot of studios over time. Many classic game series - including celebrated RPG series - have been ruined by EA’s meddling. What happened to Origin Systems has been happening to Bioware for over a decade now.
That is part of provable history. I would link to sources, but I suggest you read up on the history of EA and their studios (in particular Origin) on yourself - the information isn’t hard to find, the ones in Wikipedia are a very good start.
If industry trends were the dominant factor, we’d expect similar pushback against every game in this space—not just DAV.
Just reminded me: Are you seriously saying DAV is unique in this regard? This kind of pushback is levied against a lot of games these days. There’s so much of this kind of cries aimed at a lot of games these days. As long as people keep making lists about “woke” games on Steam, I don’t think DAV was a special case at all.
[Sources]
These sources appear to confirm that Dragon Age Veilguard was not as great success commercially as EA hoped. This was not part of our dispute, and I was never even claiming that DAV was a financial success story. The opposite, in fact.
These sources do not, however, appear to support your particular claims about the message being the primary reason why the game failed commercially.
Also, I see you did not respond to the more interesing questions I asked earlier, so allow me to reiterate: Was the whole polymorph magic issue ever addressed in the Dragon Age lore? And allow me to expand on that - what did you think of the narrative ideas I presented? I’m just curious about that.
The primary focus of this exchange is how the game’s story was a major factor in its poor sales performance.
I am asserting that the story significantly contributed to this lack of success, and I have provided sources to support this claim.
For further illustration, the game lacked meaningful moral choices and consequences, a defining feature of previous entries. Additionally, the gameplay was linear and unremarkable, with simplistic mechanics that failed to stand out.
I find it difficult to recall the exact point of our discussion, as you continue to introduce minutiae and nuance that, while relevant, stray from the core argument.
I have kept my points clear and concise, consistently attempting to keep the discussion focused on the central issue. However, much like Sean Hannity, you have managed to fill an entire comment section with excessive verbiage while ultimately saying very little.
I have no doubt that you will now argue this with an even longer response with more quotes for my comment but I don’t think I’m going to respond to it moving forward I’m going to let you have the last word. Sorry. I’m tired.
This isn’t true. I’m perfectly willing to prove my viewpoints. You’re continuing to jump the gun here. I’m about to explain my viewpoint, eventually. I was just hoping you would prove your viewpoints first. We’re having a conversation online, we have all the time in the world. Everything in due time, right?
(It’s as if you’re engaging in this kind of complaints as a stalling tactic. This conversation would go so much smoother if you’d just address the points. Furthermore, you’re repeating yourself a lot, it makes the comments hard to read. So please, address the points. I’m cutting this down for brevity.)
Are you absolutely sure it had nothing to do with several key players in Bioware leaving over the years and EA quietly gutting the studio, replacing the talent and increasing their meddling? Because, as I said before, that raises the fanbase’s eyebrows. The Bioware that made DAV simply isn’t the same company that made DAO. Bioware hasn’t really been independent of EA’s meddling since 2016 at least - Mass Effect Andromeda was the clearest example of what happened when EA decided to assume more direct control of the process. Fans have had every reason to be suspicious of Bioware’s output ever since. It’s frankly a miracle Dragon Age Inquisition was anywhere near as good as it was.
Bioware doesn’t exist in vacuum, they’re not the only ones who are making decisions here.
Who exactly made the shifting writing decisions here? Can you give me concrete examples? I’ve not played DAV so it’s harder for me to compare the things.
I’ve seen EA put this same kind of ruin on a lot of studios over time. Many classic game series - including celebrated RPG series - have been ruined by EA’s meddling. What happened to Origin Systems has been happening to Bioware for over a decade now.
That is part of provable history. I would link to sources, but I suggest you read up on the history of EA and their studios (in particular Origin) on yourself - the information isn’t hard to find, the ones in Wikipedia are a very good start.
Just reminded me: Are you seriously saying DAV is unique in this regard? This kind of pushback is levied against a lot of games these days. There’s so much of this kind of cries aimed at a lot of games these days. As long as people keep making lists about “woke” games on Steam, I don’t think DAV was a special case at all.
These sources appear to confirm that Dragon Age Veilguard was not as great success commercially as EA hoped. This was not part of our dispute, and I was never even claiming that DAV was a financial success story. The opposite, in fact.
These sources do not, however, appear to support your particular claims about the message being the primary reason why the game failed commercially.
Also, I see you did not respond to the more interesing questions I asked earlier, so allow me to reiterate: Was the whole polymorph magic issue ever addressed in the Dragon Age lore? And allow me to expand on that - what did you think of the narrative ideas I presented? I’m just curious about that.
The primary focus of this exchange is how the game’s story was a major factor in its poor sales performance.
I am asserting that the story significantly contributed to this lack of success, and I have provided sources to support this claim.
For further illustration, the game lacked meaningful moral choices and consequences, a defining feature of previous entries. Additionally, the gameplay was linear and unremarkable, with simplistic mechanics that failed to stand out.
I find it difficult to recall the exact point of our discussion, as you continue to introduce minutiae and nuance that, while relevant, stray from the core argument.
I have kept my points clear and concise, consistently attempting to keep the discussion focused on the central issue. However, much like Sean Hannity, you have managed to fill an entire comment section with excessive verbiage while ultimately saying very little.
I have no doubt that you will now argue this with an even longer response with more quotes for my comment but I don’t think I’m going to respond to it moving forward I’m going to let you have the last word. Sorry. I’m tired.