Mass Effect Andromeda: Yay or Nay?

Discussion in 'Mainstream Games' started by Endwar, Apr 14, 2017.

  1. kingofbrocoli

    kingofbrocoli Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
  2. Garn

    Garn Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    The story is rather weak, and has problems within that they actually point out as a joke in the game but that doesn't make it better. The new jet-pack system adds so nice movement dynamics to exploration but is little more then a gimmick to combat. If you don't specialize in using it then all you can really use it for is jumping into the air to hover for a few seconds to shoot over cover. Of course since you are hovering in mid air, your a stationary target with no cover so you get your shit ruined pretty quickly. Using it for melee combat is pointless unless you specialize in it because you simply don't do enough damage for it to be worth the risk late game, still no cover remember. If you do specialize in it your fights turn in to a series of hopscotch matches, as you jump up throw out whatever abilities aren't on cool down then melee dive an enemy. Rinse and repeat.

    Ryder also just doesn't seem as interesting as Shepherd was. While I never liked the fact the paragon and renegade system had actual in game effects on what conversation options you had forcing you to choose one or the other for the whole of your play through, they at least gave Shepherd character, I mean who can forget Femshep headbutting a Krogan? Ryder on the other hand lacking paragon or renegade at all just comes across as bland most of the time since a lot of his conversation options require the npcs to followup with the same line regardless of what Ryder just said.

    Your NPC crew mates are interesting, although some of them may want to make you throttle them (Kora and peebee for me). They were literally the reason I kept playing. I reached something like an hour from finishing the game and realized I had run out of content for my squad mates: they didn't say anything when we where deployed anymore since they had exhausted their in game dialogue, I didn't have conversation options left on the ship and I had done their respective quests. So I just stopped playing, without the continuing interaction with my NPCS, I wasn't interested enough in the game to keep playing.

    So no I would not recommend ME:A unless you can get it cheap.
     
  3. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Hence why I'm still waiting for a sale, to pick it up.
     
  4. TheDarkMaster

    TheDarkMaster Well-Known Member
    Creator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    I quit when I got all the planets to 100% viability. So, you can see where my motivation and interest in the game was. I actually found it really annoying having to go and do main story quests just to be able to continue doing the stuff I actually wanted to do (get the initiative and colonies on their feet). I wish there'd been more choices to make there like the first colony choice between science and military, as well as more to do with how your diplomacy turns out with the Angara, the Krogan, and the exiles. I also wish the research system was affected by your choices in game. Having just the one special weapon you get for an early quest was a real letdown.

    I bought the game for fun of saving a failing society and making it great. I really didn't give a damn about the war with the Kett and digging up the Remnant tech. So when the former ran out of content, I stopped playing.

    I actually did keep playing the multiplayer for awhile after that, since I was having a lot of fun with it. However, getting 9 sniper rifles as all but one of my rare or better weapons killed that game mode for me. I've no interest in grinding content out if the game only randomly awards me stuff I don't want.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. Evil

    Evil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Played the entire series several times, but I haven't had the chance to play it, but I know several people who loved the series from the beginning.
    The general consensus seems to range from "Its a Meh game" to "So very disappointing in almost every way." In other words, might have been a decent enough game if it hadn't had Mass Effect on it.

    And it does seem like Bioware has given up on the Mass Effect franchise for the time being, with dlc in development being cancelled. Of course, it could be that they'll be looking to their newest property, Anthem, to serve as their cash cow/golden goose for their sci-fi games from now on.
     
  6. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Maybe they shouldn't have put one of their biggest franchises in the hands of a SUPPORT STUDIO. And right now, the whole "Mass Effect" brand has turned to dirt, so it's very fucking unlikely we're gonna get anything else in the series for a while. (Which sucks, because I liked 1-3 a lot.)

    Guess all eyes are on whatever they're doing with Anthem, or if Cyberpunk 2077 turns out decent.
     
  7. Tinman

    Tinman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    I think it's time they let Mass Effect die in peace. Bioware really dropped the ball with 3 (not just the ending, choices and NPC interaction were worse overall) and then Andromeda was just demolished by critics. I'd really prefer they leave things as is rather than continue diluting the series quality with more mediocre and bad games.
     
  8. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    That seems to be what they're doing, with cancelling the DLC and all that. Which pisses me off, because I like the Mass Effect universe. Much more than I enjoy whatever fantasy world Dragon Age is set in.
     
  9. Ch0w

    Ch0w Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    I dont think so, mass effect 3 was in all besides the awful closing, a great game, specially after all the fixes, bonus and dlcs they gave trying to appeal due that ending.

    Andromeda was shitstorm due several things, all major heads from previous mass effects games were out of it, they tried to build it on a whole new engine while the other 3 games used the same, Andromeda was bound to be a bug fest as ME1 was but endup way worse.
    All in All Andromeda was... fine if you waited a few months for the fixes, but it was already too late and had suffered serious burns to it image unfortunately. I really hope too they revisit it sometime in the future, Dragon Age only gets more and more stupid with each new game, but maybe that new game called Anthem will be a new IP to replace ME.
     
  10. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    In many areas, I find it beats Mass Effect 2 (which I personally find to be the weakest of the trilogy).
     
  11. Tinman

    Tinman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    I believe the world is called Thedas and the nation is Ferelden. But yes, Mass Effect was a much better setting and game than Dragon Age in pretty much every way through both trilogies.

    There were mechanical changes between 2 and 3, that personally I was ambivalent about but I can see how other people would like them. What really bugs me about 3 is the way choices in past games, and choices in 3, don't really seem to change much. It doesn't matter what you do in 1 because Udina is going to wind up the human Council member in 3. Cerberus goes full evil regardless of whether you preserve the collector base or not. And there is no difference between whether you get minimum preparedness or 100%. The only change seems to be in what missions are available and how they end, and that's based on who survived the final mission of 2.

    I think the graphic and mechanical improvements to 2 make it better than 1, while the lack of impactful choices renders 3 the weakest part of the trilogy.
     
  12. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Has anyone actually had anyone die during the Suicide Mission? Legit curious. I pretty much just play 2 for the recruitment and Loyalty missions, everything else is rather meh.

    3 does have plenty of things from 1 and 2 that come back to either surprise or haunt you. (The Rachni Queen, Wrex, Tali's status on the flotilla...)

    And I have to wonder why you think preserving the collector base or not would make Cerberus any more or less wicked. Think it would make more sense to have Cerberus troops be more of a threat had they preserved the base, moreso than their villiany.
     
  13. Klaptrap

    Klaptrap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    My first playthrough Tali died, because I picked Thane as the squad leader (I have no idea why I did this). Then Garrus died because I picked Miranda for the shield. Perfect genes my ass. Lastly Jack died holding the line because I had lost her loyalty and couldn't get it back.

    And I doubt I'll ever pick up Andromeda, I'm just too burned out on big, empty sandboxes.
     
  14. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    I always did suspect that was more of a lie she told herself, than anything rooted in fact. It certainly doesn't show in-game, as her only useful trait is, ironically, making everyone else better.
     
    Freed85 and Tinman like this.
  15. Tinman

    Tinman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    I lost Legion once because I picked the wrong leader for the second squad while Legion was my designated hacker. I think I picked Samara (why does an Asari matriarch and justicar not have the experience to lead a field mission?) but that was the only time. I don't think I've ever had Wrex die in a playthrough of 1.

    The Illusive Man goes dark side because of Reaper indoctrination through Collector technology. If you destroy the base he loses access to most of that tech and shouldn't fall victim to the indoctrination that he's very aware of. At the very least I'd expect a difficulty increase if you preserve the base since he'd have access to more of their technology. Instead there's no impact on the story, the difficulty, or the end where he tips off the Reapers regardless of what you choose at the end of 2.
     
  16. Evil

    Evil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Yeah, TIM's indoctrination feels like several elements were left out along the way. I mean, it's obvious he's falling under the sway of the Reapers as the game progresses, but there's never anything tangible to highlight how far he has fallen. Other than a terrible complexion, that is.

    But you can perhaps attribute that to the hack job Bioware did producing the game.
     
  17. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    I always suspected it might have been explained in the books.
     
  18. Nonesuch

    Nonesuch Well-Known Member
    Creator

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Think people who say 'ME3 was great except for the ending' don't appreciate that it was a string of really bad development decisions and horrible writing that caused it to collapse under its own weight. Up until that point the game (and the series as a whole) was basically telling you 'this doesn't make much sense, but don't worry, there'll be a pay off for it'. Then we get to Earth, the devs have to show their hand and obviously they've got nothing. Bethesda pulled the same sort of shit in F4, and it's probably the best way of alienating your audience possible.

    Also I'm sorry, but even in general terms ME3's writing is fucking terrible. Best of the series in terms of gameplay, easily the worst in terms of dialogue and story - the mirror image of ME1. I knew I wasn't going to get Andromeda just based on that. For whatever reason, Bioware are incapable of writing engaging stories anymore, and that's what used to set them apart from every other company making space shoot the mens/COME PLAY WITH BOOB ELVES MY KING games.

    I really recommend Shamus Young's articles on Mass Effect, if you've got the time and love(d) the universe: it's as definitive a critique of a few video games you're likely to see.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Tinman, Evil, noobsaleh and 1 other person like this.
  19. TheDarkMaster

    TheDarkMaster Well-Known Member
    Creator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    The fundamental flaw with ME3 was simply rushed development. The game was done in a shorter time period than 2 was, but with far more variations and content to cover. Unfortunately, most of that content is stuff that people will never even see. They took the time to have two completely different possible companions depending on a choice in the first game. Every companion from the second game has a possible replacement character in the event they died, even though most players will only ever import full surviving teams or just one death. Many other things get callbacks or minor mentions that you might not even notice, but if you take a look on youtube it's surprising just how many of them there are and how many variations.

    Complaints about fewer dialogue options and a ton of the story jankiness all come from that. The team had so much work to do, and not enough time to do it in. Cuts were made, new storytelling techniques had to be invented, and they still ran out of time when it came to the game's ending. A huge lore dump at the end is almost always a sure sign that the team ran out of time and just did what they could to get the lore out. I've watched and compared the extended endings a lot and I think they do a good job, if you ignore synthesis. Destroy or control is a major choice that was being lead up to and it makes sense for that to be open for interpretation, it's just a shame that a random new character shows up at the last second to explain everything to you and what will happen in each choice and why the reapers do what they do.

    Synthesis is just an asspull.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Evil likes this.
  20. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Maybe they should have kept Drew Karpyshyn as Lead Writer. :thinking:
    Also a very unsatisfying ending. I gotta admit, I didn't spend more than a second weighing my options before shooting that console.
     
  21. Nonesuch

    Nonesuch Well-Known Member
    Creator

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Maybe they shouldn't have ended the second game with about 12 characters in a dead/not dead state, thus forcing a ridiculous amount of development time focused on accounting for each possibility, and inevitably making a lot of them unsatisfying. I mean the final mission of ME2, in terms of execution at least, is great - but it's absolutely not something you should be doing at the end of the second part of a trilogy, unless you're operating with no long term planning or over-arcing goals. That is what I mean by piss-poor directing and decision-making. You can't excuse Bioware because they didn't have enough time to do what they wanted to do, they created that situation for themselves.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  22. Evil

    Evil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Ultimately, Bioware's failure in its execution of Mass Effect was caused in part by EA buying it up and seeing it as another cash-cow franchise.

    What should have been the grand send off to the Shepard trilogy descended into a social media backlash and farce, with previously raised plot hooks forgotten about completely (Dark matter and Haestrom in ME2), railroading and lack of choices, with choices made in previous games resulting in little returns (Noveria and the Rachni Queen or the Durrr-I-really-should-recruit-that-obviously-Reaper-Clone-Rachni-Queen-that-will-inevitably-turn-on-us Rachni Queen).

    It certainly wasn't helped by the way certain members of the Bioware staff were treated, both by the higher-ups and by the fandom, with several of the key writers from ME1 and ME2 leaving, leaving Bioware to try and fill in the gap. And then we end up with Angry!Ashley Williams and MildlyAnnoyed!Kaidan and other off characters. (Really, the only thing I was truly shocked by was that Liara didn't try stalking Shepard with a test-tube so she could have creepy-stalker babies. Although the game did ramp up her stalkerish tendencies in 3).

    What should have been the grand finale, was one of the most divisive games in history. Don't get me wrong, I liked 3, well, parts of it. But it suffered terribly from the rush job that comes from being under the EA umbrella.
     
  23. Tinman

    Tinman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    I hate to be super specific here (I really don't) but it's dark energy not dark matter. I mention the distinction because several ME3 missions also indicate that the Crucible utilizes dark energy linking it to the rapidly aging star from ME2. And I have to disagree with TDM, as control was never indicated to be an option until the end. Reaper indoctrination was a very Lovecraftian madness that couldn't be fought off regardless of personal strength or your species natural abilities. Controlling something that can so effortlessly manipulate the minds of others is inconceivable. Everything was pointing towards ME3 being a kill or be killed finale where you either succeed in destroying the Reapers or doom the galaxy to another cycle.
     
  24. Evil

    Evil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    It doesn't matter, that particular plot hook was dropped.

    As for control, it was always something that the Reapers planted in their agent's minds. Saren thought he could show the Reapers that the Turians could be useful. No doubt the same happened with the Protheans. Its the proverbial carrot on a stick to get people to think they are still in control, when the truth is, they're just husks that can talk.

    The rest of the endings are just as bad:
    - Synthesis, you're forcing a fundamental change on billions of people, changing how they think and act. That's just messed up.
    - Control, you're the one in charge now, but what happens when a mortal becomes immortal? What can happen to the mind when eternity is open to it?
    - Damage, yeah, you're committing synthetic genocide, but at the same time its an end. Shepard might die, but like Legion, it'll be on their own terms.
    - Shooting the Catalyst. Okay, I'll admit that this is actually mildly satisfying, but in the end, its still a "You Lose".
     
    Reptillicus likes this.
  25. Klaptrap

    Klaptrap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Mass Effect 4 should have continued after the control ending where you run around the galaxy doing shit as the Reaper hivemind. At least the "the shepard" thing would have made some sense.

    And it wouldn't have been worse than Andromeda at least.
     
  26. Woider

    Woider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Actually, that sounds fucking boring. The idea behind Andromeda was good, and the logical next step for the series. It was the execution that failed to meet expectations.
     
    Nonesuch, Ch0w and Evil like this.
  27. Ch0w

    Ch0w Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2017
    exactly it had everything to be really good, but whatever, i just hope that now that Casey Hudson came back to Bioware they will revisit it in the future after they are done with Anthem
     
  28. Nonesuch

    Nonesuch Well-Known Member
    Creator

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    I wouldn't say it was logical, exactly. The logical thing to do, if they were keen on producing a sequel would have been not to completely trash the existing galaxy.

    But I agree, it was a neat idea that presented almost limitless opportunity. I feel that was another reason people were so down on it, that they wasted that potential on creating such an ordinary and by-the-numbers experience. People are always claiming that if you subtract the context Andromeda is a perfectly decent AAA game, but nothing lives in a context free environment.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...