"Visceral" in the Amy Hennig era didn't really have its old staff. She was Creative Director while someone from Halo 4 was Game Director IIRC.
I'm not sure what team structure they had assembled at that point beyond that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jason Schreier: Visceral's game was not canned because it was single-player
- Thread starter mdubs
- Start date
"Visceral" in the Amy Hennig era didn't really have its old staff. She was Creative Director while someone from Halo 4 was Game Director IIRC.
I'm not sure what team structure they had assembled at that point beyond that.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
So its a bad game and they're gonna spend this last year and half of development pumping it full of monetization systems to try and recoup some of their loss?
This was cancelled (or set to be heavily reconfigured) by the publisher that released Mass Effect: Andromeda.
I think saying the game must have sucked is a safe bet to make.
Yeah...
I don't want to be that guy, but having two productions in a row that have been described as "production messes" is not a good look for Hennig.
The team they have on the project right now is effectively Black Box, who you will remember best from Need For Speed.
Mind, I'm not sure exactly what they have planned beyond that, but yes, EA has generally struggled in the action-adventure genre.
Sword Of Doom
Member
I got the impression from the EA statement that it was because of the type of single player game. Not because it was single player
Hari Seldon
Member
This thread reminded me to finally snag Jason's book on audible. He could probably come up with a sequel every 5 years in perpetuity lol.
Until weeks before release, the directors of The Last Of Us thought it was such a disaster that it'd kill their careers.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I knew this question was coming. Can't say it's not warranted to a degree.
Suzushiiro
Banned
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Only title the new lead studio has worked on is assisting with Battlefront 2 and technically Mass Effect Andromeda since the studio has been merged with Bioware Montreal.
ND also has years upon years of tech built up specifically for their needs.
Uno Venova
Banned
Are people rushing to claim the death of single player games in the same way they were predicting the death of home consoles?
I'm sure there were plenty of directors who thought their game was a disaster.......and it actually turned out to be a disaster.
At the same time, Bungie thought Destiny was going to score in the high 80's or 90's on Metacritic.
I'm not sure what you can really surmise about a creator's opinion of his project prior to release.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Yes.
Catalyst would be a better example as MEA still had microtransactions in the MP and it's the only part of the game that still gets updated now.
ByteSizeRick
Neo Member
I think the thread title is likely a reductive way to look at the issue. The game undoubtedly wasn't cancelled solely because it was single player. But the EA statement belies the current thinking of the executive class at EA (and perhaps elsewhere). All other things being equal, a single player game is going to be more scrutinized, the trigger pulled more quickly because it is not GAAS. A non-GAAS game is perceived to have less "upside".
Whether or not "it has become clear that, to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design" is just hot air to cover a blown management cycle, it clearly shows what EA thinks its investors want to hear.
If that is the case, we can expect EA to make additional decisions (including what to greenlight in the first place) incorporating that philosophy.
Whether or not "it has become clear that, to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design" is just hot air to cover a blown management cycle, it clearly shows what EA thinks its investors want to hear.
If that is the case, we can expect EA to make additional decisions (including what to greenlight in the first place) incorporating that philosophy.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Damn. Crunch was so bad it was making them delusional. Seriously though, how can two very experienced devs think such a thing so late on?
It seems to me that game development generally is in a very bad place right now (much worse than I could ever imagine)?
Lamenting over the death of X thing in games this year is more about peoples' dislike of GaaS and loot boxes than it is about things actually dying. It makes people feel all proper justified when "the things we like are dying!" and other hyperbole.
That's my point. Can't determine a game's quality, no matter how disastrous the project is, until it's done.
I appreciate the clarification from Jason, but to be fair, people were just taking EA at their word regarding the reasons. No one should be surprised at what was read into their messaging, they just did a poor job of communicating ... Or covering up, if it was really about a mess in their studios that they missed.
It is one in a long line of deaths that includes PC Gaming.
I wonder what made the project a mess? For ME:A it was the switch to Frostbyte combined with a new team. Visceral already shipped one game on Frostbyte so the problems must have been somewhere else.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Not that I think Jason is wrong here, but you can't really call the takes on it uninformed or leaping to conclusions, because that is exactly what Soderlund implied.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Guess it was too money spent for EA, meanwhile WB Montreal can't decide what game to make.
From what I recall they brought in one of Halo 5's Design Directors to head up (maybe?) multiplayer and DICE LA's Narrative Director as Narrative Producer.
The "worse than ME Andromeda" kind
The conversation about the changing landscape of AAA games definitely needs more precision than "single player games are dead". But that's how you get dem clickz.
Voidwolf
Member
lmao
Absoludacrous
Member
I think they were stuck on messaging, because closing a Star Wars studio is going to be a huge deal to their investors. So they had to come and say "don't worry, it'll be fine, we're going to GaaS the shit out of this game and recoup all this lost potential Star Wars revenue"
But given the timing right now it struck a very sour note with message board enthusiasts.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
I mean this was obvious? It went into preproduction YEARS ago, and we haven't seen a single thing or real comment?
It's obvious that there were dev troubles, and I found it strange people were making vast judgements on the gaming space as a whole in terms of SP and MP based on this one instance that obviously wasn't working out.
It's obvious that there were dev troubles, and I found it strange people were making vast judgements on the gaming space as a whole in terms of SP and MP based on this one instance that obviously wasn't working out.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Nah, I think he's right. A good game will be a success regardless of single/multi player. Even then, it could have had some kind of multiplayer component we were not aware of at this time in the development (like the Uncharted multiplayer).
The lack of any news for year(s) after first announcements means there was definitely trouble in the development cycle.
I don't know if you've noticed, but "rushing to proclaim..." is kind of a big hobby around here.
RedlineRonin
Member
Star Wars game Visceral was working on (and Amy Hennig)
Mushroomer25
Member
I mean, the statement directly said they didn't think market forces were favorable for a big single player game. Even if that's not the reason they canned the project, it's the reason they're willing to tell investors. Which isn't that different.
All those meltdowns and assumptions about the game being turned into a MP focused GAAS tho.....
Nightengale
Member
Amy Hennig worked at ND, probably the crunchiest of all Sony studios. And they don't have long dev time.
It's clear, given the original schedule of when the game was supposed to be released, that EA gave Visceral a loooot of time for this game to be made. 4-5 years for a linear story adventure.
It's not canceled, development has been moved to another studio - one that was already working on the project in conjunction with Visceral.
KawabataSan
Member
If it being single player wasn't the issue then why is it being remade as gaas
Because EA has shareholders and they want to create value for them and give them confidence in light of an announcement that makes them look kind of bad. They wasted a ton of time and money to just end up throwing much of the Star Wars project away.
BanjoLayleeYookaKazooie
Banned
It was basically going to be Uncharted: A Star Wars Story Solo. We know nothing about it other than cinematic, single player, Henning director and Visceral developer. We saw like 5 seconds of it at E3 last year I think lol.
I don't think whether or not (not in this particular situation) the game was canceled because it was single player necessarily wipes out ALL concern for AAA single player games moving forward.
I do believe they will continue to exist, but with seemingly more and more of these types of games under-performing, it does spur some potential concern.
I do believe they will continue to exist, but with seemingly more and more of these types of games under-performing, it does spur some potential concern.
EA in every call with investors: "We make service games now"
EA: We're canceling this game because it's single-player and linear instead of a service-based game.
EA (secretly): Also, the game was a mess.
Gamers: See! They're going to keep making single-player games because the last one they tried was a mess and then they decided that trying to save it was too big a risk and they should just make service-based games instead.
EA: We're canceling this game because it's single-player and linear instead of a service-based game.
EA (secretly): Also, the game was a mess.
Gamers: See! They're going to keep making single-player games because the last one they tried was a mess and then they decided that trying to save it was too big a risk and they should just make service-based games instead.
Oh don't get me wrong. GAF inserts way too much drama into this conversation that should be lead by facts and market realities, not feelings and blissful nostalgia. I've said this in a couple of loot box threads and was called a defender of billionaires amongst other things. There really is no need for this kind of end of the world mood, but press outlets rushing to write opinion pieces with those hot takes don't really help either. Angry YouTubers do that already anyway.
Just less drama in general would be nice.
RedlineRonin
Member
Yeah I guess canceled is the wrong term, but "seriously rebooted" isn't much of a stretch. I mean the likely have some base assets and tech that might migrate but it's pretty clear it isn't going to be the same game
shortsoptional
Member
I agree with this.
The game is being possibly a mess is an opportunity for them to shift to GaaS model. You don't have to be doom and gloom, but I think it's certainly fair to question the direction and viability of single player games from Western AAA devs.
I mean, Phil Spencer himself said this: