<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: Anthem</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thoughts: The Division 2 &#124; The Scientific Gamer</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55899</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thoughts: The Division 2 &#124; The Scientific Gamer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] predicted in my Anthem review, The Division 2 has ended up being a significant beneficiary of The Bad Game [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] predicted in my Anthem review, The Division 2 has ended up being a significant beneficiary of The Bad Game [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55585</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ha, didn&#039;t even mention the Tombs quests, despite it wasting about an hour of my time (and more of everyone else&#039;s). There&#039;s just way too much wrong with Anthem to fully list out; I&#039;d have been here for days.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha, didn&#8217;t even mention the Tombs quests, despite it wasting about an hour of my time (and more of everyone else&#8217;s). There&#8217;s just way too much wrong with Anthem to fully list out; I&#8217;d have been here for days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55584</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55584</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What happens to Obsidian is going to be entirely driven by Microsoft&#039;s long-term corporate strategy. Right now, Microsoft is playing the kind uncle because they spent far too long being the evil vizier and shuttering studios/cancelling games, and so found themselves with nothing in the pipeline for the last few years of the XBox One&#039;s lifespan. As long as they&#039;re still lagging behind Sony (but not too far), Obsidian will probably be just fine as Microsoft needs them in order to catch up and will give them a lot of leeway. The problems start when either of the following become true:

1) Sony keeps screwing up, Microsoft manage to make up some ground, and the ridiculous spending splurge they went on this year starts to bring lots of new games down the pipeline. You look a lot more expendable when the company is doing well and there&#039;s five other developers all doing the same thing that you are.
2) The Xbox falls so far behind that Microsoft abandons the console gaming space entirely.
3) The Outer Worlds bombs. Least likely to happen as it&#039;s explicitly being marketed to the Fallout crowd who have far more money than they do sense.

Still, I doubt Obsidian could have survived much longer as a double-A indie since the Kickstarter well was well and truly drying up. They&#039;ll last longer now that they have Microsoft&#039;s money to fall back on, but their fate is no longer their own.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What happens to Obsidian is going to be entirely driven by Microsoft&#8217;s long-term corporate strategy. Right now, Microsoft is playing the kind uncle because they spent far too long being the evil vizier and shuttering studios/cancelling games, and so found themselves with nothing in the pipeline for the last few years of the XBox One&#8217;s lifespan. As long as they&#8217;re still lagging behind Sony (but not too far), Obsidian will probably be just fine as Microsoft needs them in order to catch up and will give them a lot of leeway. The problems start when either of the following become true:</p>
<p>1) Sony keeps screwing up, Microsoft manage to make up some ground, and the ridiculous spending splurge they went on this year starts to bring lots of new games down the pipeline. You look a lot more expendable when the company is doing well and there&#8217;s five other developers all doing the same thing that you are.<br />
2) The Xbox falls so far behind that Microsoft abandons the console gaming space entirely.<br />
3) The Outer Worlds bombs. Least likely to happen as it&#8217;s explicitly being marketed to the Fallout crowd who have far more money than they do sense.</p>
<p>Still, I doubt Obsidian could have survived much longer as a double-A indie since the Kickstarter well was well and truly drying up. They&#8217;ll last longer now that they have Microsoft&#8217;s money to fall back on, but their fate is no longer their own.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55582</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It drives me up the wall, honestly. I don&#039;t need everything to be hard sci-fi with meticulously explained backstory and physics. I *do* need it to have *some* backstory to it, though, if only because that demonstrates the script isn&#039;t just something I could have dashed off in ten minutes with a Markov Chain generator.

I&#039;ve recently been playing Objects In Space. This is an indie Firefly-esque space game where there is no spoken dialogue, no cutscenes and all of your conversations take place via text delivered by a chunky PDA or email. The writing in it isn&#039;t exactly stellar, but the developers have clearly thought about the world they wanted to create and spent a lot of time coming up with writing that is at least mechanically and thematically appropriate, and so it&#039;s approximately one million times better than Anthem, a game which has had millions of dollars spent on it but where the world has no unifying vision, the plot has been chopped up by multiple reboots and a rushed development process, and I&#039;m 90% sure it&#039;d just be word soup even if the previous two points weren&#039;t true.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It drives me up the wall, honestly. I don&#8217;t need everything to be hard sci-fi with meticulously explained backstory and physics. I *do* need it to have *some* backstory to it, though, if only because that demonstrates the script isn&#8217;t just something I could have dashed off in ten minutes with a Markov Chain generator.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve recently been playing Objects In Space. This is an indie Firefly-esque space game where there is no spoken dialogue, no cutscenes and all of your conversations take place via text delivered by a chunky PDA or email. The writing in it isn&#8217;t exactly stellar, but the developers have clearly thought about the world they wanted to create and spent a lot of time coming up with writing that is at least mechanically and thematically appropriate, and so it&#8217;s approximately one million times better than Anthem, a game which has had millions of dollars spent on it but where the world has no unifying vision, the plot has been chopped up by multiple reboots and a rushed development process, and I&#8217;m 90% sure it&#8217;d just be word soup even if the previous two points weren&#8217;t true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cauldar</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55542</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cauldar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2019 13:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah... my complaining in your Apex Legend review really belongs here. I had just come off a frustrating few hours with Anthem and might have misplaced my vitriol. 

Fort Tarsis, the UI and the loading screens maddening. Very nice review.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah&#8230; my complaining in your Apex Legend review really belongs here. I had just come off a frustrating few hours with Anthem and might have misplaced my vitriol. </p>
<p>Fort Tarsis, the UI and the loading screens maddening. Very nice review.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: innokenti</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55512</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[innokenti]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 19:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yeah, I got 7 hours in and was done at the point where the game asked me, on its critical path, to do a bunch of makework tasks. Now, this might be standard for MMOs, though usually not on the main quest list... but there was no easy way of tracking these things or hunting for them without a going into a bunch of (crappy) menus. Why would any designer ask a player to do this? The worst quest design I&#039;ve seen in quite a while.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I got 7 hours in and was done at the point where the game asked me, on its critical path, to do a bunch of makework tasks. Now, this might be standard for MMOs, though usually not on the main quest list&#8230; but there was no easy way of tracking these things or hunting for them without a going into a bunch of (crappy) menus. Why would any designer ask a player to do this? The worst quest design I&#8217;ve seen in quite a while.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ilitarist</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ilitarist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 15:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I actually liked Andromeda more than ME3 - mind you, I&#039;ve played fully patched version. But I can see all the signs of decay. It&#039;s just most of what I didn&#039;t like about newer BioWare was there since Mass Effect 2 which dropped the exploration of a seemignly infinite galaxy full of details in favor of constant action. Dragon Age Inquisition switched to itchy gameplay too but it still had its huge world, and Andromeda&#039;s world was very weak but it was still a world, not a coridor from ME2/3.

So if they&#039;re dying then let them die. I&#039;d be happy to see another Dragon Age game but not if it&#039;s designed by cometee released in a financially sensible time cashgrab. The sad thing is that similar story is probably happening to Obsidian. They had a great Pillars of Eternity game and I&#039;m sure Outer Worlds will be good. Same creative talent, huge support from big publisher - they&#039;ve made New Vegas last time it happened. Just like BioWare made Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect. But after that it&#039;s hard to imagine things not going downhill.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually liked Andromeda more than ME3 &#8211; mind you, I&#8217;ve played fully patched version. But I can see all the signs of decay. It&#8217;s just most of what I didn&#8217;t like about newer BioWare was there since Mass Effect 2 which dropped the exploration of a seemignly infinite galaxy full of details in favor of constant action. Dragon Age Inquisition switched to itchy gameplay too but it still had its huge world, and Andromeda&#8217;s world was very weak but it was still a world, not a coridor from ME2/3.</p>
<p>So if they&#8217;re dying then let them die. I&#8217;d be happy to see another Dragon Age game but not if it&#8217;s designed by cometee released in a financially sensible time cashgrab. The sad thing is that similar story is probably happening to Obsidian. They had a great Pillars of Eternity game and I&#8217;m sure Outer Worlds will be good. Same creative talent, huge support from big publisher &#8211; they&#8217;ve made New Vegas last time it happened. Just like BioWare made Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect. But after that it&#8217;s hard to imagine things not going downhill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Stanfield</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-anthem/#comment-55506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James Stanfield]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 12:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=5813#comment-55506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[haha, excellent point about them aping the vague mystic dialogue that the newer Bungie games are pretty infamous for; lots of talk about &#039;the Thing&#039; or &#039;The Tabernacle&#039; without it actually being of any substance. It feels like most studios nowadays have just ditched the whole science part of Sci-fi and are just shooting for Star Wars except with more killing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>haha, excellent point about them aping the vague mystic dialogue that the newer Bungie games are pretty infamous for; lots of talk about &#8216;the Thing&#8217; or &#8216;The Tabernacle&#8217; without it actually being of any substance. It feels like most studios nowadays have just ditched the whole science part of Sci-fi and are just shooting for Star Wars except with more killing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
