After the first release of Anthem on E3 in 2017, many people believed that BioWare would come out of the haze of Mass Effect: Andromeda, play a turnaround battle, leave a good story, and regain the glory of the past. At that time, most people thought that BioWare had just fallen on Andromeda and suffered a bit of skin trauma, and the amazing first video of "Anthem" proved that BioWare still had enough creativity and technical power. For a long time after the first release of Anthem, BioWare continued to announce new information and demos of the game, interacting with the player community more frequently than ever before, looking confident and ambitious.
Now, with the official release of the game, I don't know how many BioWare fans' smiles are fading.
"Hymns" on E3 2017
Friends should have heard of how many problems there are in "Anthem": many bugs, long reading notes, little content, rotten servers, ugly female characters... With our usual understanding of service-oriented games, it is not a big problem to have some problems in the early stage, and to adjust and supplement by subsequent corrections and updates. Destiny, The Division, Warframe, Rainbow Six: Siege, Final Fantasy XIV, and many more. So, will "Anthem" with an average score of 60 for Metacritic media and 4.4 for players have a chance to turn around?
Maybe unlikely? Far from bugs and lack of content, anthem is a soulless mixture of contradictions and chaos.
<h3>Anthem is more of a single-player game than a multiplayer game</h3>
One of the selling points of "Anthem" is the multiplayer team, and the 4 kinds of mecha collective action in the promotional video that year, the majestic and magical appearance of each has attracted a lot of powder for the game. In the actual game, "Anthem" also "does" this: there is almost no single-player content in the whole game, except for the opening teaching level, all of which are multiplayer modes in which 4 people match teams to complete tasks---- and even the free mode without tasks will force you to match 3 players in a map.
How does this look like a real "multiplayer game"? But that's exactly where the anthem is: Do players really need these teammates? Or from another point of view, what can these teammates who are teaming up together do?
There are probably only two things that a "teammate" can really do and make sense: resurrection and combo. If you are unfortunate enough to be shot in battle, your teammates will come over to repair your mech, and you can also perform "combos" with your teammates' skills during the battle. For most of the rest of the day, your "teammates" are essentially meaningless: no coordination is needed in combat, and no communication is required outside of combat.
Such battles don't require so many people to cooperate
Among the 4 mechs, the tank-located colossus is the most team-oriented mech, very fleshy, has a shield and a taunt skill, but in battle, the team function of the Colossus does not play a role: teammates are either running around in the sky, or running around on the ground, not within your protection range, of course, it may also be that they think you are too fat to block their bullets and skills; the taunt skill can not be messed up, although the Colossus has a high amount of health, but there is no healer in this game, and if you are beaten more, you will really die.
The other 3 mechs are not to mention, 90% of the battles are fought by everyone, each person's position and target may be different, there is no need to care about the situation and situation of others, the so-called combo cooperation is actually just a fate.
In terms of copy design, "Anthem" does not design some puzzle elements that must be cooperated by multiple people like the Raid book of "Destiny", and one person can do such things as picking up a ball and turning a table; the game has detailed and accurate mission instructions, follow the flight, and there is no need to communicate; the game does not have an auction house, player trading, production skills and other systems that promote player interaction, everyone plays their own.
Combos are not particularly necessary, and they are mainly used by coincidence
So the mission begins, 4 free warriors are silently matched together, silently take off, meet the enemy, solve some repetitive puzzles, kill some bosses that do not need to cooperate, and achieve the mission objectives. Then put on an exactly the same Pose and disband.
Throughout the battle, they don't have to care who their teammates are, what mechs they are, what they're in, what kind of help they can provide to the team, because it really doesn't matter. There is neither the value nor the need to communicate, so you play the "multiplayer team" game "Anthem" for dozens of hours without even remembering the name of a teammate.
So, why can't Anthem be a single-player game? It doesn't have any core elements of team games, and the "damage", "resurrection" and "combo" that teammates can provide can be easily replaced by higher individual damage, more skills, and more recovery. If you replace the scenes of your teammates with the plot interaction of NPCs, there is no violation at all, and it will even be a single-player game that looks good.
There have been rumors that "Anthem" was originally a single-player game, which was forcibly changed to multiplayer at the request of EA, which is difficult to distinguish between true and false, but it turns out that "Anthem" does not bring us any multiplayer cooperation and communication experience.
The game has designed a dedicated player gathering place that doesn't seem to make any sense at the moment
<h3>Flying mech, but gimmick</h3>
Mechs and flight are two of the most iconic labels of Anthem, and the experience of operating cool mechs with tail flames flying around in the open world, although not unique, is also rare, and is the player's most urgent desire for The Hymn. At this point, Anthem did its job, meeting the needs of the mech control as much as possible: the virtual world under the blessing of the Frost Engine is beautiful, the mech movements are cool and powerful, and the flight experience is convenient and stylish. For a moment, we all thought we were playing Iron Man.
It should be admitted that the visual perception is excellent
But when the novelty passes, do mechs and flights mean more to the Hymn? Almost nothing.
From a combat point of view, "Anthem" is actually a traditional TPS, in addition to the storm has a hovering in mid-air output gameplay, the other 3 mechs in the battle is basically a high-level marine infantry that relies on bunkers to fight. Flying does not provide much help and functionality in battle--- and in high difficulty, flying around in battle will be shot out for losing cover. Many people imagine that the scene of rushing left and right and defeating the enemy at high speed like Iron Man did not appear. The role of flying in the Hymn is almost downplayed to "hurrying": you seem to be just a warrior with your own flying mount.
The concept of "Anthem" mecha only stays on the surface of the gloss and coolness, part destruction, part customization, man-machine separation, form transformation, these "Titans", "Gundam", "Warframe" and other excellent mecha games have appeared and the widely acclaimed mecha elements are not.
You're wearing mechs, but most of the time you'll feel like you're no different from a normal soldier.
Except for storms that can hover for a long time, the other mechs are basically fighting on the ground
From the game's various missions, dungeons and even plot point of view, "Anthem" lacks a set of tailor-made designs for "flying mechs": no battle and which boss is designed around flight, no mission is designed around the mech, no mission is to reflect the performance of the mech, and even in the plot, the game does not explain the specific origin, background, and skill details of the mech, but only tells the player that the mech can fly and is very strong, so you must fly it to defeat the enemy.
It's a flying mech game, but it doesn't seem to matter if you swap your skin for another shooter background.
There's nothing new about the boss design, and the mech's setting seems unworkable
<h3>It can only be said that this is a "childish" BioWare</h3>
In the case that the two core designs of flying mechs and multiplayer games have not played their due role, another feature of "Anthem", the design of "equipment driven", can be said to be a mess. I've really never seen a brushing game with a driver design that can make so many mentally retarded mistakes.
The problem with equipment entries is one of the most obvious. The entries of the Anthem equipment are completely random, "Ou Huang" may brush a superb weapon with two +200% physical damage entries, and thus climb to the peak of seconds and seconds, while the "non-chief" looks at the shotgun with +1% pistol damage and +10% sniper gun ammunition in his hand--- obviously you spend more time in the game.
The entry problem is relatively easy to adjust, and the developers are aware of this, and they should have fixed this error at the time of publication. But the problem highlighted by this is that it is already 9102 years old, and the equipment drive and entry protection of a 3A game need to be reminded by outsiders before they can be modified.
As you can see, all terms are completely random
In terms of equipment acquisition, BioWare's design is also extremely "childish": the boss does not have any special drops, and the difficult boss will not have any additional gains; after completing the level, the difficult copy will still drop the initial white and green clothes, after playing a difficult copy, looking at a pack of "blue sky and white clouds", you will feel like a fool; before repairing, the fall of wild chests and the quest boss are the same, and opening a box can be opened until graduation. In addition, this is an attribute-oriented brush equipment game, but it doesn't even do the most basic character attribute panel...
"Anthem" is also an "online game" without an economic system. Yes, quests in the game allow you to earn in-game coins, but there is no use other than buying skins and dyes in the Marketplace: there is no equipment to buy, no consumables or materials to buy, and no transactions between players.
The mature service games on the market are inseparable from a mature economic system - the currency of Diablo and Road of Exile, the auction house of World of Warcraft, the player-owned economic system of Star Wars Eve, the prestige/token system of Destiny, and so on. It's hard to imagine how a game like Anthem, which lacks even a basic economic system, will be able to achieve "long-term service" in the future.
Prior to its release, Anthem had been compared to countless games that were equally positioned, Destiny, Warframe, Diablo, The Division, Monster Hunter: World, and so on. People have expressed doubts about whether BioWare can transform from "RPG Maker" to "action shooting online game", and at the same time, there are expectations, and the performance of "Anthem" has given a very direct answer - BioWare will not do online games.
After the full level, you will also lose white clothes, why is it so hard?
<h3>BioWare's confusion</h3>
The flaws of "Anthem" can still be said, but when the three core elements of the game, such as mecha flight, multiplayer teaming, and equipment drive, are all out of place, more and more of the remaining shortcomings are no longer of much significance. Compared with the terrible performance of "Anthem", what is more curious is why BioWare, once the leader of European and American RPGs, will make such a game with only gimmicks and contradictions.
We can generally look back at the history of the development of the Anthem. The development cycle of "Anthem" is said to be as long as 6 years, and BioWare revealed more than once in interviews that "Anthem" first began in 2012 after the completion of the "Mass Effect" trilogy, a project code-named "Dylan" initiated by BioWare's well-known producer Casey Hudson.
That was obviously only the early stages of the development of Anthem, as BioWare Edmonton Studio, which was primarily responsible for developing Anthem, has been fully engaged in the development of Dragon Age: Judgment after 2012, along with the Montreal studio. It wasn't until the completion of The Trial in 2015 that Edmonton actually had time to devote himself to the development of The Anthem. They are also assisted by Austin Studios, who has experience developing the massively multiplayer game Star Wars: Old Republic. The Montreal studio took over the development of Mass Effect: Andromeda, and their subsequent story friends are familiar with it.
Some of the designs that inherit Andromeda can be seen in the Anthem
In short, the development of "Hymn" took about 4 years. Four years is not a short time, but it is worth noting that in 2014, before the official start of the anthem, the project's initiator, Casey Hudson, left BioWare. Later, when EA mentioned BioWare's new game at earnings reports and investor conferences, it described it as a "non-RPG multiplayer action game." Logically, this is the positioning of "Anthem" at that time, so is Casey Hudson, who is good at RPG game production, leaving, dissatisfied with EA's new positioning of "Anthem"?
We don't know what EA and BioWare were looking forward to, but although the "Anthem" currently played has shooting battles, from the perspective of plot and gameplay, it is still a typical RPG game. Perhaps the reason is that Casey Hudson returned to BioWare in July 2017, becoming the project leader of Anthem while serving as the general manager of BioWare.
The development of Anthem is full of mysteries, and the current hasty content and empty design can never be all that a first-line AAA studio can achieve in 4 years. What was EA's original expectation of it? Are the rumors about the single-player game true? Can it go through a reboot like Destiny? Only time will give us the answer.
The development of the Anthem was certainly not smooth sailing
<h3>AAA and "Service Games"</h3>
Counting "Anthem", this is the third time in recent years that the so-called "service multiplayer game" of European and American manufacturers has encountered a release crisis. The initial criticism of Destiny and The Division is incomparable to that of Anthem: inexperience, lack of content, and half-finished product. These 3 games represent the development and distribution capabilities of European and American first-line game manufacturers, which makes people wonder why European and American manufacturers will not do PvE online games?
Looking at the relatively successful PvE online games in Europe and the United States in recent years, whether it is Warframe, Road of Exile, or The Elder Scrolls Online, you will find that they are some medium-sized or even independent-scale games. These games are actually not complete when they are launched, but due to the relatively low starting point, attention, flexible development strategy and development costs, there is often enough time to slowly improve the game, continue to promote, and finally attract passers-by players in a more mature form. This is a typical environment for long-term service game growth.
"Warframe" is also gradually improved through slow updates
These advantages are precisely what AAA games do not have. Since the birth of the concept of "3A", 3A games have actually run counter to the concept of "long-term service": the ultimate audio and picture experience and a large amount of content are behind the high development costs, catering to the public means that the gameplay and type are bound to be limited, and the explosive publicity strategy has attracted everyone's attention, increased expectations, and attracted countless questions.
This highlights the european and American AAA game "fast food, popcorn" side--- if you only play 20 hours of "Destiny", "The Division", "Anthem", you will feel that these games are actually a good experience; when you play them as 200 hours of games, there will inevitably be a variety of spit - "not enough brush ah" "repeated brushing, to vomit", "how is the content so little" "do it and then sell it well".
AAA-level games were originally used by European and American manufacturers as a powerful weapon against the Japanese game industry - "We may not be as good at making games as you, but we have money." This strategy did once make Japanese traditional game manufacturers suffer a lot, however, with the development of the game industry, the development cost continues to rise, the ceiling of 3A games is becoming more and more obvious, the manufacturers who previously held up the 3A signboard are under increasing pressure, and more and more manufacturers are beginning to want to make games into long-term service-oriented in order to reduce costs and improve returns.
Relying on sequels and DLC reversals seems to have become the norm for AAA online games
Ironically, the magic weapon that was originally used by AAA games to conquer the world has now become a constraint on transformation. We're certainly not saying that AAA and service games are necessarily contradictory, and you could say that Anthem is a special case, just as Apex Legends is a special case. However, it is worth thinking that if you do not break the development ideas and inertia of previous AAA games, you cannot straighten out the relationship, and it seems that it is more difficult for famous large studios to find a good way to develop long-term service games.
The situation is particularly dire for the Anthem. "Destiny" and "The Division" have finally won a fairly bright future for themselves with their head iron and timely correction of mistakes, and "Anthem", which is more difficult to return in design, is faced with the "stroke of god" of Origin's senior members, and may also be the butcher knife of Hoho in the hands of studio killer EA.
"If Anthem fails, some tough decisions will follow; if it does, it will have a huge impact on the future of the studio." Before the game's release, an unnamed BioWare employee told the media.
As a player, you can't do anything but bless BioWare, which has brought countless good memories.
Hope everything will be fine...