Dragon Age veteran defends BioWare’s Anthem experiment after shutdown

Former BioWare executive producer Mark Darrah has spoken publicly about the studio’s troubled attempt to break new ground with Anthem, arguing that the failed game should be seen as part of a long history of creative change rather than a misguided detour. Darrah, a veteran developer who spent more than 20 years at BioWare, reflected on the project following the recent shutdown of Anthem’s online servers.

Anthem launched as a shared-world looter shooter featuring players in powered exosuits, a dramatic shift from the single-player role-playing games that made BioWare famous. The game struggled to find an audience and became widely regarded as a commercial and creative failure. Its closure has reignited debate about whether the studio should ever have attempted such a radical departure from its traditional strengths.

A defence of creative change at BioWare

Speaking in an interview with Destin Legarie, Darrah said the criticism aimed at BioWare for attempting Anthem often ignored the studio’s long-standing pattern of evolution. He recalled how, around the game’s launch, many critics resurfaced to claim the outcome had been inevitable.

Darrah said people would “come out of the woodwork” to say things like, “‘See, I told you so’” and “‘BioWare should have never made Anthem because they are a single-player RPG maker.’” He argued that this view misrepresented how the studio had operated throughout its history.

“My feeling is that BioWare’s always been changing,” Darrah said. He pointed to several earlier projects that also marked major shifts in direction. “By that argument, we should have never made Neverwinter Nights because we were a 2D RPG maker. We should never have made Mass Effect because we were a tactical RPG maker, not an action RPG maker.”

Darrah suggested that many of BioWare’s most celebrated titles only existed because the studio was willing to take risks. In his view, dismissing Anthem solely because it did not align with BioWare’s past ignores how studios grow and adapt over time. “So, I don’t know that that argument holds a lot of weight for me,” he said. “Studios evolve, and they try new things.”

Was Anthem an overreach?

While Darrah defended the decision to try something new, he did not shy away from acknowledging Anthem’s shortcomings. He accepted that the project may have stretched the studio too far, particularly given its scale and ambition.

“Was Anthem too big a reach? Yeah, for sure,” Darrah said. However, he questioned whether the risks would have been obvious at the outset. “But could you tell at the time? I don’t know. I don’t know that you could.”

Anthem was envisioned as a long-term live-service game, designed to grow and evolve through updates and online content. This model required different tools, workflows, and design philosophies than BioWare’s previous narrative-driven RPGs. The transition proved difficult, with reports of internal uncertainty and shifting creative direction during development.

Darrah also addressed the common narrative that publisher EA was solely responsible for Anthem’s failure. While he acknowledged that EA deserved criticism, he cautioned against oversimplifying the situation. “It’s easy to blame EA, and certainly they deserve a bunch of blame for Anthem,” he said, “but it’s not all their fault.”

His comments suggest that responsibility for Anthem’s problems was shared across both the developer and the publisher, reflecting the complexity of large-scale game development rather than a single point of failure.

Server shutdown reignites ownership debate

Anthem’s servers were shut down this week, effectively rendering the online-only game unplayable. The move has prompted renewed criticism from players and consumer advocates, who argue that buyers lose access to games they have paid for once companies decide to pull the plug.

The shutdown has drawn attention from the Stop Killing Games initiative, which campaigns for stronger consumer rights in the gaming industry. The group argues that publishers should not have the final say over when a purchased game can no longer be used.

In response to Anthem’s closure, the initiative reiterated its stance, stating: “You as the customer should have the final say as to when you’re done with a game, not the company.” The case has become a high-profile example of the risks associated with always-online titles and live service models.

For BioWare, Anthem’s end marks the conclusion of an experiment that failed to deliver on its early promise. For Darrah, however, it remains an important chapter in the studio’s history, illustrating both the necessity and the danger of creative risk-taking. His comments underscore a broader tension within the games industry: innovation often comes at a high cost, and failure can overshadow the intent to evolve.