Dragon Age Veilguard - Another Failure, yay

[LordBaguette 840]

Another AAA failure, seems like it will never end

 

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,032]

A potentially good game ruined with some of the most amateur, inappropriate and laughable writing ever witnessed. It will join Concord, Dustborn and Unknown 9 as catastrophic failures. 

 

The characters look like partial cartoons with shocking lip-sync and animations. The tone is just hideous for a game of this nature and I wish writers wouldn't insert their personal problems and squabbles from Twitter into the story as they think they are the star of the show. 

 

Reviews from the mainstream media are also suspicious as hell with several word-for-word sentences strategically inserted into their body of context. 

[Luseth 1,946]

It has its issues but most games do these days but its really not a ‘catastrophic failure’ and certainly not comparable to Concord, you only have to see the average user reviews on steam for that as well as the number of players the game has on steam.

 

Have either of you 2 played it?

 

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,032]

19 minutes ago, Luseth said:

It has its issues but most games do these days but its really not a ‘catastrophic failure’ and certainly not comparable to Concord, you only have to see the average user reviews on steam for that as well as the number of players the game has on steam.

 

Have either of you 2 played it?

I haven't played it but I've watched several hours of gameplay. I do like the mechanics and it seems fairly polished but the writing is absolutely pitiful and unforgivable. Player counts are also quite low especially considering how massive this brand is and the reach it has. Anything shy of 750,000 concurrent is poor and that barely achieved 10% of on launch. Not sure if it'll even break even at this rate. If the writing was better and it actually resembled a D&D fantasy with some degree of spirit and authenticity then it probably would be a solid game. 

[LordBaguette 840]

37 minutes ago, Luseth said:

It has its issues but most games do these days but its really not a ‘catastrophic failure’ and certainly not comparable to Concord, you only have to see the average user reviews on steam for that as well as the number of players the game has on steam.

 

Have either of you 2 played it?

 

 

Saying 'have you played it' just isnt an answer as Ive said before. You cant say you cant have an opinion just because someone hasnt played it, its impossible to play every game ever made. You need to pick and choose based off sometinhg. Ive seen / heard enough to know its awful from reviews. The cutscenes alone are some of the cringiest shit Ive ever seen

[Luseth 1,946]

12 hours ago, J4MES OX4D said:

I haven't played it but I've watched several hours of gameplay. I do like the mechanics and it seems fairly polished but the writing is absolutely pitiful and unforgivable. Player counts are also quite low especially considering how massive this brand is and the reach it has. Anything shy of 750,000 concurrent is poor and that barely achieved 10% of on launch. Not sure if it'll even break even at this rate. If the writing was better and it actually resembled a D&D fantasy with some degree of spirit and authenticity then it probably would be a solid game. 

 

What determines the 750,000 figure? Is that something you have decided upon as I can't see anything online that states this? As a comparison, Call of Duty, released in a similar timeframe on the same console / pc formats and probably a much larger budget. A game with multiple modes and generally multiplayer games achieve higher audiences in the first place had a peak of 300 thousand since release.... Is that also considered a failure for not achieving 750 thousand concurrent players at any one point? Is this a figure EA themselves have stated must be achieved? Just for something to compare it too, Skyrim has never achieved 750 thousand and is considered one of the most successful RPG's ever, Baldurs Gate 3 did exceed it but also didn't have quite the social media bashing that this game has received up to now. There are so many factors that can influence whether a game is considered a success or a 'catastrophic failure in the same realms as Concord', a big statement to make and I am trying to understand the metrics to it. We also have no idea what sales and numbers are like on console

 

12 hours ago, LordBaguette said:

Saying 'have you played it' just isnt an answer as Ive said before. You cant say you cant have an opinion just because someone hasnt played it, its impossible to play every game ever made. You need to pick and choose based off sometinhg. Ive seen / heard enough to know its awful from reviews. The cutscenes alone are some of the cringiest shit Ive ever seen

 

No need to go on the attack, I am not saying you can't have an opinion and have never done so. But what I am saying is whether you have first hand experience or whether you have watched video's / social media posts etc that someone where someone has pre-selected footage and such based on their opinion influences what you are saying. An opinion can be influenced, based on past experiences (for example have you played the last games at all? Were you hoping for something more akin to the original 2 games? Did you enjoy Inquisition and wanted more of that? Are you comparing it with Baldurs Gate, probably our most successful recent single player title), based on your personal outlook (and we all know what a happy bloke you are) or can be based on what you want from something. What I want from Dragon Age as a game would be very different from what you would want from it and depending on whose experience the game more closely achieves will influence our opinions of the game. You are entitled to have an opinion but what someone takes from that will be again different for each person depending on the background behind it and it is perfectly valid of me to ask if your opinion is based on social media or from first hand experience 🙂 

 

I have played a number of games that were not received well initially (particularly by social media) and gone on to really enjoy them and in some instances have become popular games such as Days Gone, Hogwarts Legacy & Cyberpunk as recent examples, in fact I think Fallout New Vegas took a bit of a beating for all it's glitches and such early days and most of these weren't ever rectified and can still be found in the game today! 😄 

 

As you have not not played it there are a number of positive things that I probably can't discuss with you because you may even not know they are part of the game and may not have been shown in the videos or posts you have seen -

- Loading times seem minimal as you transition between places through the mirror transports which is really quite cool. The only thing I have seen that even closely resembles that was Ratchet & Clank.

- Combat is really quite good. I generally prefer my turn based combat games, be it JRPG or Western RPG's, I like to take my time and pick my strategies. However the combat is quick, slick and looks fantastic.

- The world building is up there with some of the best, they all look phenomenal, the way the blight has been crafted in certain areas and one of my favorite aspects is the use of mist in some areas. More often than not weather features tend to affect performance but it doesn't here.

- The creation of your character actually impacts the game, most games where you create your protaginist it is typically a visual thing. This is much more like the original Dragon age game if you ever played it in that your decisions at the start impact upon how factions respond to you when you meet them. I have played 2 classes and factions through to Chapter 6 now and they have been somewhat different experiences.

- It's also quite accessible, we live in a gaming world where your souls like games are something a lot of games try to recreate or capture. Tough games that require a fair amount of skill. My first run through of this I set the difficulty to one of the easy one's and it was exactly that. I find with single player games sometimes you just want to take in the world and story of it rather than taking on the challenges it offers.

 

It is not a 10/10 experience by any means but it's also not the 'failure' you are both alluding to. It is probably more a 7/10 game, good ideas, good traits in there but it does have issues. I think James mentions one above which is probably my biggest bugbear, the lip syncing has not been done well at all. However that is something that could be patched. My other somewhat big gripe is the fact that the series started off much in the same vain as the Baldurs Gate games, I loved the original 2 games and for me that's where they should have taken the series and kept budgets smaller to suit, by appealing to a wider audience the game has had to change and evolve and it's just simply not the direction I would have preferred. A note on the writing, it does start off weak admittedly but once you get to the second half of the game it certainly improves, judging by both your comments above it would suggest the snippet of the game you have seen was likely in the first portion of the game which goes back to my point in that generally you would likely form a different opinion playing the game than watching something on social media. You have to also consider most of what is on social media is incomplete, a lot of the content release in the first few days of a games launch is all about getting your content out first which likely means the person has only experienced the first number of hours of the game.

[J4MES OX4D 10,032]

54 minutes ago, Luseth said:

 

What determines the 750,000 figure? Is that something you have decided upon as I can't see anything online that states this? As a comparison, Call of Duty, released in a similar timeframe on the same console / pc formats and probably a much larger budget. A game with multiple modes and generally multiplayer games achieve higher audiences in the first place had a peak of 300 thousand since release.... Is that also considered a failure for not achieving 750 thousand concurrent players at any one point? Is this a figure EA themselves have stated must be achieved? Just for something to compare it too, Skyrim has never achieved 750 thousand and is considered one of the most successful RPG's ever, Baldurs Gate 3 did exceed it but also didn't have quite the social media bashing that this game has received up to now. There are so many factors that can influence whether a game is considered a success or a 'catastrophic failure in the same realms as Concord', a big statement to make and I am trying to understand the metrics to it. We also have no idea what sales and numbers are like on console

Skyrim has sold over 60m copies and cost £45m to make. It will also have more players in January and throughout 2025 playing than Veilguard will most likely and it's the reason Bethesda existed for the following decade. A game that cost $250,000,000 needs a substantial population not just to make a profit but to remain sustainable especially in today's ruthless climate. I absolutely guarantee that in a few months we will hear that the game failed to meet expectations from EA despite having X amount of players and how it was BioWare's 'biggest' game in years blady blah. Hogwarts Legacy last year had almost 900,000 at peak concurrent and that's where this game could and should've been really. Black Myth achieved 2.4m and that's after the developers had several western left wing smear campaigns thrown at them on top of being blackmailed.  

 

Alan Wake 2 last year has been deemed a 'catastrophic failure' despite being an excellent game. It has failed to make a single penny profit even for Epic resulting in Remedy to secure an emergency loan from their minority shareholders in China just to remain in business for the next two years. Failures can happen for several reasons and the entry player counts for the biggest AAA game of the year is very light and that's because it was justifiably bashed on social media for its approach and the conduct of staff that worked on the game. When you alienate longstanding fans online and appeal exclusively to the modern audience then you're gonna get criticised and it will affect sales and wider interest. 

[phil bottle 9,750]

I tend to take internet opinions with a pinch of salt. So much online now is just clickbait for views and clout. And nothing feeds the algorithm more than fear or anger. 

 

But yes, I'd say if they dropped the name Dragon Age and made it clear it was being pitched at a teen audience there probably wouldn't have been so much drama around it. Just call it Veilguard, that's a decent name for a game all by itself.

[Luseth 1,946]

1 hour ago, J4MES OX4D said:

Skyrim has sold over 60m copies and cost £45m to make. It will also have more players in January and throughout 2025 playing than Veilguard will most likely and it's the reason Bethesda existed for the following decade. A game that cost $250,000,000 needs a substantial population not just to make a profit but to remain sustainable especially in today's ruthless climate. I absolutely guarantee that in a few months we will hear that the game failed to meet expectations from EA despite having X amount of players and how it was BioWare's 'biggest' game in years blady blah. Hogwarts Legacy last year had almost 900,000 at peak concurrent and that's where this game could and should've been really. Black Myth achieved 2.4m and that's after the developers had several western left wing smear campaigns thrown at them on top of being blackmailed.  

 

 

 

It may well turn out to be a failure but only EA & Bioware have the right to really determine that. You are stating it as a fact with no metrics, not real justification other than it's the biggest game of the year it should be comparable to everything else, . Considering the number of issues that affected this game's development they may have already reduced the internal expectations and to them a success of this game may not be 'achieving the biggest games of yesteryear' it may be, can we generate a new audience, does it show promise for developing future games in the same vein. The 250million figure can be found by doing a google search and is a guess that someone made based on 25 million a year between now and the last game (literally the first thing you find on google), regurgitating things you found on google doesn't make it fact.

 

 

It ignores the fact that there was a whole different game initially called Dragon Age 'Dreadwolf', it ignores the fact this modern game is a whole different project and has only really been in real development for the past 5 years (maybe reusing elements of the original but it would have had it's own budget and resource allocated to it.

 

 

1 hour ago, phil bottle said:

I tend to take internet opinions with a pinch of salt. So much online now is just clickbait for views and clout. And nothing feeds the algorithm more than fear or anger. 

 

But yes, I'd say if they dropped the name Dragon Age and made it clear it was being pitched at a teen audience there probably wouldn't have been so much drama around it. Just call it Veilguard, that's a decent name for a game all by itself.

 

This is kind of my point and I have probably said it in a very very very long winded way! It's ok to view stuff online, it's ok to form opinions based on it but be mindful that so much of it is very much created and curated to generate views and you are only viewing snippets. Snippets that have been curated and selected to help encourage people to certain opinions. We have seen it oh so much with politics in recent years, this is obviously for a different audience and on a much smaller less important scale.

[Tar-Eruntalion 511]

I haven't played it yet, only seen a few reviews etc and it doesn't seem promising for me but nevertheless I will reserve judgement until I get to play it, on the other hand though the only game in this series that I truly liked was origins, so for me, it has been going downhill ever since

[Luseth 1,946]

9 minutes ago, Tar-Eruntalion said:

I haven't played it yet, only seen a few reviews etc and it doesn't seem promising for me but nevertheless I will reserve judgement until I get to play it, on the other hand though the only game in this series that I truly liked was origins, so for me, it has been going downhill ever since

 

It certainly does not go back to it's roots in terms of gameplay and such though the game does keep to the lore quite well.

[J4MES OX4D 10,032]

12 minutes ago, Luseth said:

The 250million figure can be found by doing a google search and is a guess that someone made based on 25 million a year between now and the last game (literally the first thing you find on google), regurgitating things you found on google doesn't make it fact.

 

 

The screenshot you've taken is from a Google keyword cookie-enhanced search which shows a Steam Community discussions entry based on your own browsing behaviour for a priority result. The actual original source which generated thousands of these discussions and results is the same one that provided the Concord information which were 100% correct and verified by the usual suspects like Schreier and co. It's also a pretty credible figure for a triple A game of this nature which has been in development since long before the pandemic so there's no reason not to believe it. Whether it costed $50m or $500m, the numbers are really low especially for such a massive brand. 

 

I couldn't care how much it sells though - the game and developers have totally alienated me along with many other longstanding fans with their shambolic out of place writing and obscene online conduct. 

 

1 hour ago, phil bottle said:

I tend to take internet opinions with a pinch of salt. So much online now is just clickbait for views and clout. And nothing feeds the algorithm more than fear or anger. 

 

But yes, I'd say if they dropped the name Dragon Age and made it clear it was being pitched at a teen audience there probably wouldn't have been so much drama around it. Just call it Veilguard, that's a decent name for a game all by itself.

Ultimately they need the Dragon Age IP to leech off of else they'll end up being another Forspoken, Unknown 9 and Dustborn. That's the sad thing these days - too many iconic brands are being infested by low quality writers who openly hate the people they are supposed to be catering for and in some cases have huge disregard for even the source material and aren't scared to announce it. The OG's left at BioWare who are responsible for the engine have done a superb job with Veilguard but that's all been undone by having such abysmal writers on board. 

[Luseth 1,946]

So, I have spent some time with this game now. I am definately on the side of it being a half decent game. I am not going into the is it or is it not a failure conversation again, just givnig you guys a brief run through of my thoughts

 

- Visually it is quite a stunning game in places, I have put some early in game screenshots into the screenshots thread. The art style of the characters isn't quite my cup of tea and the Qunari characters you meet are a bit odd. There are also some on the other 'team' that look more how you would expect them to if you are a fan of the series.

- The story & writing, it starts off medicore however the past couple of hours I have been playing and where I hit what I imagine is the halfway point it is getting much better. The characters are really quite good and engaging and I really like most of the companions.

- Combat is not what I have enjoyed with past Dragon age games however it is quite fun and engaging. Quite fast paced but some of the bosses can be quite the challenge compared to the normal mobs. Creatures that were considered tough in previous games are somewhat weak here but that is because the big bads are at a level above. It is a combat system very much geared towards a wider audience.

- The world building is quite good and there are moments where characters speak lines and such reminscent of old school dragon age. And some of the places you visit are brilliant, I think Treviso is fantastic running through the rooftops.

 

General thought, the start of the game is not the strongest, it improves as it goes on but that is never a good thing with any game as it can often result in you losing players before the game really gets going. Only one decision so far seem's to have impacted things, generally your conversation decisions don't make much difference other than altering the opions your companions have of you, it is reminisicent of the Mass Effect games so I wonder if their opinion of you dictates if they live or die at the end of the game or something.

 

Last night I was actually nodding off on the sofa as I was knackered yesterday but putting on the game and furthering the story at this one point I am at suddenly woke me right up. I won't go too much into it in case anyone here does play it but there is a section of the story where you are involved in a siege of a castle (won't say which side you are on) but it genuinely felt like one. It reminded me a bit of when I first player the lord of the rings two towers was it where you are fighting on top of the castle walls. It was brilliant and then fighting your way through to the boss of this area was great, with everything going on at the same time it led to a feeling of urgency, to get to where you are going before the place was overwhelmed (I am not sure that's even programmed into it but it felt like it).

 

For me it's probably a 7.5 / 10, so not a bad game but not quite reaching the heights I had hoped it would but that's more because of what I have historically enjoyed from the series and really the series is moving away from that in the same way Final Fantasy has done from it's origins in recent years.