The Bioware name is officially EA's bitch. 
 
They purchase the studio, subsequently Mass Effect become "streamlined" and watered down. They decide to create an MMO out of the KOTOR name which Bioware previously had success with. Dragon Age 2 turns out to be a complete mess. ME3's story, from what was taken from the leak, is laughable (so now they "may" have to change it). And now they're using the Bioware name to bolster a dwindling EA franchise. 
 
I miss the old Bioware, and I have a feeling they won't be coming back. 

Bioware let EA butcher the KOTOR name with a star wars skinned WOW clone. I was incredibly let down.

But I'm still excited for ME3, it's going to be fun, even if it's just a shooter. ME2 was spectacular. As for C&C, I really liked the original Generals, so hopefully this one is good too.

BioWare isn't making this game. It's BioWare Victory, which is a completely different studio made up of past EA LA guys. The "BioWare" part is just a marketing tool.

@Milkman said:

BioWare isn't making this game. It's BioWare Victory, which is a completely different studio made up of past EA LA guys. The "BioWare" part is just a marketing tool.

(that's what he's saying)

It's too late now. Also, wasn't EA already on board when Mass Effect 1 was published? And Dragon Age 1? Just saying...

Using the Bioware name is weirding me out becasue it has nothing to do with Bioware. Now when I hear the name Bioware I have to see with studio it is, mainly the Edmonton studio.

Dragon Age: Origins was fine. Dragon Age 2 showed me that something bad is happening to BioWare. What a rushed piece of CRAP game that turned out to be.

Generals is probably my favourite RTS of all time, and I love pretty much every Bioware game (remember jade empire? hells yeah) but I don't know about them doing Generals 2. They just aren't an RTS studio but it can't be worse than CnC4, that's a guarantee.

CnC4 was total rape of my memories of Command & Conquer. How the hell do they fuck up such a great IP. Apparently it comes natural to them. Watch Mass Effect go down the drain next when they start spewing out FPS shooters and platformers.

@Canteu said:

Generals is probably my favourite RTS of all time, and I love pretty much every Bioware game (remember jade empire? hells yeah) but I don't know about them doing Generals 2. They just aren't an RTS studio but it can't be worse than CnC4, that's a guarantee.

C&C 4? They never made a sequel to C&C 3 / Kane's Wrath.. I'm still waiting for it, personally.

Personally, I didn't care for C&C Generals. I thought C&C 3 was miles better.

But I'm still excited for ME3, it's going to be fun, even if it's just a shooter. ME2 was spectacular. As for C&C, I really liked the original Generals, so hopefully this one is good too.

Working Title: Command & Conquer: Generals 2: The Game: 3: Great success: The first one after Generals 1: Conquer & Command: Milk the Infidel 22.

CnC 3 was sick, if this is more like that than Red alert or... CnC 4, I am a happy man.

I am excited.

I have enjoyed every Bioware game to date, and while Dragon Age 2 was rushed and unpolished by Bioware's usual standards, I think it's still better than 80% of the other RPG's I played this year. Also, I liked ME2 better than ME1. It had better characters, the gameplay systems were integrated more smoothly and the gunplay was actually fun.

Although I am kinda bummed out about a C&C game being the big 'Bioware Announcement'

Yes, let's lay all of Bioware's failings at EA's doorstep.

Bioware let EA butcher the KOTOR name with a star wars skinned WOW clone. I was incredibly let down.

But I'm still excited for ME3, it's going to be fun, even if it's just a shooter. ME2 was spectacular. As for C&C, I really liked the original Generals, so hopefully this one is good too.

ME2 was good, and certainly more polished than ME1. However, I found the story, settings, music and characters more interesting and engaging in ME1. ME2 was a tad too Michael Bay-ey, and I fear the "EARTH INVASION OMG" vibe of ME3 will just worsen that.

There are two things that can happen here:

1) Bioware is making the next C&C game in which case, they never made a bad game. They might have made game that were okay but none of them were bad, so this isn't really bad news.

2) (This one is actually correct) Another studio is making the game under the Bioware name. So why do care so much?

@Funkydupe said:

Dragon Age: Origins was fine. Dragon Age 2 showed me that something bad is happening to BioWare. What a rushed piece of CRAP game that turned out to be.

Yep, it was shit. No two ways about it.

It's too late now. Also, wasn't EA already on board when Mass Effect 1 was published? And Dragon Age 1? Just saying...

Man, all this bitching about Bioware 'selling out' to EA is completely overshadowing how fucking amazing this new is.

Generals 2!

Fuck yeah!

I know there's been a steady decline in C&C games, but Generals was a pretty good high point in the series, and a return to it would do some good.

Without looking at the name of Bioware, I'm genuinely stoked for Generals 2. Generals was a great RTS and I always wondered why they didn't continued with that series.

The Bioware name is officially EA's bitch.  They purchase the studio, subsequently Mass Effect become "streamlined" and watered down. They decide to create an MMO out of the KOTOR name which Bioware previously had success with. Dragon Age 2 turns out to be a complete mess. ME3's story, from what was taken from the leak, is laughable (so now they "may" have to change it). And now they're using the Bioware name to bolster a dwindling EA franchise.  I miss the old Bioware, and I have a feeling they won't be coming back. 

@MooseyMcMan said:

It's too late now. Also, wasn't EA already on board when Mass Effect 1 was published? And Dragon Age 1? Just saying...

Both of those games were in production before the purchase was finalized.

Generals while not thematically as appealing as core CnC games, has undeniably been a rock solid RTS, on a technical/game play level better then quite a few of the core CnC titles.

And thank fuckin god they are ditching the original Generals engine. That shit was OLD, and was still being used in every CnC game post Generals up until now. It looked dated, felt floaty, and was an inefficient bastard.

@Tennmuerti said:

Generals while not thematically as appealing as core CnC games, has undeniably been a rock solid RTS, on a technical/game play level better then quite a few of the core CnC titles.

And thank fuckin god they are ditching the original Generals engine. That shit was OLD, and was still being used in every CnC game post Generals up until now. It looked dated, felt floaty, and was an inefficient bastard.

So they're using an engine that doesn't exactly scream RTS (Frostbite 2) instead?

@Hailinel said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Generals while not thematically as appealing as core CnC games, has undeniably been a rock solid RTS, on a technical/game play level better then quite a few of the core CnC titles.

And thank fuckin god they are ditching the original Generals engine. That shit was OLD, and was still being used in every CnC game post Generals up until now. It looked dated, felt floaty, and was an inefficient bastard.

So they're using an engine that doesn't exactly scream RTS (Frostbite 2) instead?

Hey it's a change.

Any change to that dated pos of an engine at this point is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

Whether or not Frostbite 2 will be better for the series we can't say. But staying with the one they have been using would have been worse.

@Tennmuerti said:

@Hailinel said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Generals while not thematically as appealing as core CnC games, has undeniably been a rock solid RTS, on a technical/game play level better then quite a few of the core CnC titles.

And thank fuckin god they are ditching the original Generals engine. That shit was OLD, and was still being used in every CnC game post Generals up until now. It looked dated, felt floaty, and was an inefficient bastard.

So they're using an engine that doesn't exactly scream RTS (Frostbite 2) instead?

Hey it's a change.

Any change to that dated pos of an engine at this point is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

Whether or not Frostbite 2 will be better for the series we can't say. But staying with the one they have been using would have been worse.

Getting back to the original topic, this doesn't really change the fact that EA has co-opted the Bioware name. What point is there in renaming the studio involved Bioware Victory when the studio and its product have nothing to do with what we know of as Bioware?

As I see it, Bioware is likely to become to to EA something similar to what Rockstar is to Take 2... almost the equivalent of a subsidiary  label in the music industry.  Most people really think the same dev. studio who make GTA made Red Dead Redemption and Bully and are now making Max Payne 3, which works out well for them in terms of marketing. 
  
That said, there is a certain style and artistic vision common to a lot of the output from the various Rockstar studios, which I don't think you even seen across games withing the same series from the same teams within Bioware itself lately. 
 
And yeah, EA seem to be intent on working DICE into the ground by helping out on eleventy million other games, which showed in the rushedness of BF3, I feel.

I saw the trailer but I'm not buying it. EA has ruined the Command & Conquer name and I don't think I will ever play any C&C games with their name on it. Just give me the original Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert any day.

Ok, now look here. I'm not going to chime in on the Bioware being co-opted thing, because I don't feel qualified to do so. HOWEVER, I am really exhausted about people saying that ME2 was dumbed down relative to ME1. The first game had a number of design problems. ME2 phased out, minimized or fixed the problematic systems in order to allow the really strong elements of the game to shine through. You might personally have liked the inventory management, or the weird shooting, or the vehicle sections...but you are in a very small minority that excludes a large number of people who otherwise genuinely love and respect the writing and stories that Bioware do better than anybody else. If you really want to construe that as selling out, then you are essentially saying that Bioware owes a small portion of it's audience something that they probably don't.

@Hailinel said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Hailinel said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Generals while not thematically as appealing as core CnC games, has undeniably been a rock solid RTS, on a technical/game play level better then quite a few of the core CnC titles.

And thank fuckin god they are ditching the original Generals engine. That shit was OLD, and was still being used in every CnC game post Generals up until now. It looked dated, felt floaty, and was an inefficient bastard.

So they're using an engine that doesn't exactly scream RTS (Frostbite 2) instead?

Hey it's a change.

Any change to that dated pos of an engine at this point is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

Whether or not Frostbite 2 will be better for the series we can't say. But staying with the one they have been using would have been worse.

Getting back to the original topic, this doesn't really change the fact that EA has co-opted the Bioware name. What point is there in renaming the studio involved Bioware Victory when the studio and its product have nothing to do with what we know of as Bioware?

That I'm not arguing. I still haven't fully forgiven EA for Westwood :P

.

@nintendoeats said:

Ok, now look here. I'm not going to chime in on the Bioware being co-opted thing, because I don't feel qualified to do so. HOWEVER, I am really exhausted about people saying that ME2 was dumbed down relative to ME1.

So you are arguing that they didn't simplify a number of systems? That's weird because Bioware themselves pretty much admitted that they overdid things a bit on the dumbing down part, which is why the gear/character system in ME3 is getting slightly more robust again.

You might personally have liked the inventory management, or the weird shooting, or the vehicle sections...but you are in a very small minority

Numbers numbers where art thou :(

that excludes a large number of people who otherwise genuinely love and respect the writing and stories that Bioware do better than anybody else.

You can both appreciate Bioware's writing and stories while still being able to criticize other aspects of their work/products. One does not prevent the other.

In fact if one prevents the other for somebody, that's called fanboyism.

@xyzygy: You make a good point. I still argue that Mass Effect 2 was awesome, and that most of the changes made were for the better. Have not played any Dragon Age games.

What a bizarre turn of events. No idea what to think at this point. While I'm finding it easy to ignore the existence of C&C: Generals 2, I don't like the prospect of the Bioware "brand" losing all semblance of value. Mark me as concerned.

@deerokus said:

As I see it, Bioware is likely to become to to EA something similar to what Rockstar is to Take 2... almost the equivalent of a subsidiary label in the music industry. Most people really think the same dev. studio who make GTA made Red Dead Redemption and Bully and are now making Max Payne 3, which works out well for them in terms of marketing. That said, there is a certain style and artistic vision common to a lot of the output from the various Rockstar studios, which I don't think you even seen across games withing the same series from the same teams within Bioware itself lately. And yeah, EA seem to be intent on working DICE into the ground by helping out on eleventy million other games, which showed in the rushedness of BF3, I feel.

Rockstar is largely distinct from the rest of Take Two. EA, on the other hand, appears to be homogenizing Bioware into just another EA brand.

I saw the trailer but I'm not buying it. EA has ruined the Command & Conquer name and I don't think I will ever play any C&C games with their name on it. Just give me the original Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert any day.

@babblinmule said:

@Psykhophear said:

I saw the trailer but I'm not buying it. EA has ruined the Command & Conquer name and I don't think I will ever play any C&C games with their name on it. Just give me the original Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert any day.

Ok this has been bugging me for a while; why are people still linking to the wiki pages midpost. I can understand if its a super obscure game, but I'm pretty sure that everyone reading this knows what EA and Command and Conquer are.

Because the functionality is there and there's no harm in doing so.

@babblinmule said:

@Hailinel: Just seems like a lot of hassle when you do it for well known stuff (granted I've not played around with it since the site launched, so it might be easier now). I dont have a problem with it, I'm just curious why people feel the need.

It barely takes effort. Highlight. Click. Click. Boom.

I hate having to check a studio's sub-name. I should be able to see Bioware or Rockstar and know it is the studio I've come to expect quality from and not have to worry about it being some tertiary studio that was renamed to mooch of off the goodwill that those original studios garnered. It just ends up sullying the name and image, and that's really sad. I wish Bioware Victory the best of luck and hope they can do the Bioware name proud.

@MooseyMcMan said:

@xyzygy: You make a good point. I still argue that Mass Effect 2 was awesome, and that most of the changes made were for the better. Have not played any Dragon Age games.

You should really play Dragon Age Orgins, even on PS3 if you don't have an PC capable of running it.

"Thank you for the new shoes!"
 
Generals is the best C&C game.
I think attaching BioWare's name to the project is just EA acknowledging how badly they fucked up C&C4.  It's either that or Generals 2 will have a dialogue wheel.

@Gabriel said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@xyzygy: You make a good point. I still argue that Mass Effect 2 was awesome, and that most of the changes made were for the better. Have not played any Dragon Age games.

You should really play Dragon Age Orgins, even on PS3 if you don't have an PC capable of running it.

I'm not a fan of the combat. It's too "old school" for me. Again, this is going mostly on footage I've seen, and only a small amount of actually playing it (very small, I don't own it or anything). All the stopping and issuing command stuff just isn't my thing. And I realize you don't necessarily have to do that stuff, but that game is supposed to get pretty hard, and I dunno. It's not my thing.

And Dragon Age II isn't my thing either. I tried the demo of that, and I didn't like that either. Something about having both a stamina meter and having a recharge time on things like a shield bash seemed really dumb to me.

imagine working at a developers and being sat round a meeting table and one guy says

'hey we been working on RPG's for so long now i fancy a change, what IP's have EA got we can work on'

then another guy stands up and slaps him in the face for even daring to stray from the RPG genre 'what are you talking about man!!! we make RPG's and thats all we will ever do, imagine what will happen if we stray from this pigeon hole, imagine how up set the posters on a internet gaming forum will be, can you imagine how venomous the comments will be that we dared to do anything different. they would accuse us of selling out and watering ourselves down!! could you live with that... well COULD YOU!!!.'

@mazik765 said:

I have enjoyed every Bioware game to date, and while Dragon Age 2 was rushed and unpolished by Bioware's usual standards, I think it's still better than 80% of the other RPG's I played this year. Also, I liked ME2 better than ME1. It had better characters, the gameplay systems were integrated more smoothly and the gunplay was actually fun.

Although I am kinda bummed out about a C&C game being the big 'Bioware Announcement'

I agree, even though I think the plot is really thin and forced in ME2 and at least better in the first game.

Hopefully BioWare takes the criticism of DAII to heart and makes it less over-the-top and... please, gives us varied areas.

Man...whole lot of baseless complaining going on in here =/ I can't wait for more information and a demo down the line. I loved the C&C franchise since the first one released when I was a kid and with Caneghem heading it up I am feeling confident about this one.

Like others have said, the game isn't being developed by Bioware, they're just using the name to drum up interest.

They bought a new studio to develop the game and simply renamed them Bioware Victory. It's not the Bioware developing it.

@Animasta said:

@Milkman said:

BioWare isn't making this game. It's BioWare Victory, which is a completely different studio made up of past EA LA guys. The "BioWare" part is just a marketing tool.

(that's what he's saying)

So then what's the problem? Bioware in Edmonton has yet to make a truly bad game, so I don't really care. Dragon Age II might not have been great, but I think they've learned their lesson in turning games out in a year, if delaying Mass Effect 3 was any indication.

I hope they inject some new talent into this, there hasn't really been a decent C&C game since Dustin Browder left for Blizzard (Or was moved onto BFME anyway.)

Change is good, Bioware stops being awesome and someone else steps up to fill the void.