Mass Effect: Andromeda

Mitch Connor

degrassinoel wrote: »

do you really want another andromeda?

Do you mean another game with a poor development history and questionable quality? No.

But why would you assume a new game wouldn't be made better - and be along the lines of the original trilogy? Why would ea and bioware not review the issues Andromeda had and take steps to rectify each one?

If you mean simple another game in Andromeda? Yeah, I still think that's the right direction for the series, and I think it is an interesting location for the series to stay in. I just hope it is differently designed and executed.

I love the original trilogy, and enjoyed Andromeda well enough all in - though I don't like the open world structure in terms of replay ability, so why would I not want to see ea and bioware return to the universe and give us another game? Maybe it would be a let down like Andromeda, but I'd prefer the chance to find out than never see another mass effect title.

degrassinoel

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Do you mean another game with a poor development history and questionable quality? No.

But why would you assume a new game wouldn't be made better - and be along the lines of the original trilogy? Why would ea and bioware not review the issues Andromeda had and take steps to rectify each one?

If you mean simple another game in Andromeda? Yeah, I still think that's the right direction for the series, and I think it is an interesting location for the series to stay in. I just hope it is differently designed and executed.

I love the original trilogy, and enjoyed Andromeda well enough all in - though I don't like the open world structure in terms of replay ability, so why would I not want to see ea and bioware return to the universe and give us another game? Maybe it would be a let down like Andromeda, but I'd prefer the chance to find out than never see another mass effect title.

i wasn't obscuring anything.
It was a genuine question based on my own experiences of the franchise at this point.

It's pretty obvious i loved the trilogy too, even the Me3 endings. I forgave them for the 3 coloured ends when the extended cut was released for free and the DLC more than made up for what it did lack. And that's an argument that's been done to death anyway.. But yeah..

to answer my own question -
Would i want another andromeda?
Short answer, No.

Long answer - Maybe, if Bioware grew a pair of balls, returned to what made Me/2/and 3 worth playing, and replaying over and over again, with storytelling and actual decent gameplay. And make a sequel worthy of the Mass Effect name instead of the trite cash-in they threw at the punters with andromeda.

It's just pointless being optimistic about EA and Bioware with the ME franchise at this point. If yer man thinks it's a good idea to bring back something that's generally disliked by almost everyone that's bought it, then maybe EA really is the devil.

CatInABox

EA VP wrote:

"What we need to be careful though of is, whenever we bring Mass Effect back again, we have to make sure that we bring it back in a really [relevant] way, and in a fresh, exciting place."

Man, that sounds so ominous.

Mass Effect Kart Racing is what that sounds like.

K.O.Kiki

If they make an Andromeda 2, they need to find a way to make it shorter, and more memorable.

The side missions were so generic & toothless, I don't remember anything about most of them.
In the end, I found them all boring, pointless fetch quests where I spent the majority of time staring at the waypoint on my mini map.
And I found it hard to bond with my squadmates, too.

The combat also - it's missing something. I'm not sure if it's because I couldn't setup combos easily (can't control squadmates), the weapons having little character (I literally don't remember what guns I used in the final missions), or that the enemies don't react to hits - probably a combination of all these, and more issues.

Skerries

Skerries wrote: »

There was an interesting discussion about this - but someone mentioned an interesting point;

With ME:A, what you're seeing is facial animation in-game by a studio mostly filled with first-time game makers. The next one isn't in-game and is filled by experienced developers that worked in either movie post-production or other big projects.

Maximus Alexander

degrassinoel wrote: »

the first mass effect game is a step up compared to andromeda.

Having gone back and completed it again directly after Andromeda this year; it's really, really not.

Arytonblue

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Having gone back and completed it again directly after Andromeda this year; it's really, really not.

Well to be fair it is 10 years old on a previous console generation so that really isn't much of an achievement for Andromeda! :pac: Seriously though, I went back to replay the trilogy recently for the first time in a couple years and one thing really struck me.

ME: 1 is really a very different game compared to it's two successors. It has a really weird 70's Star Trekesque feel with it's atmosphere and structure. There's so much focus on world building, lore and history within it's universe and most of this is done through dialogue with a LOT of characters. This was necessary of course due to it being the first in the series but you can really tell it was being made in the style of older RPGs.

A by-product of this overt focus on conversations and a generally decent progression system was it's absolutely God-awful combat. I don't even think that is hyperbole anymore, it is an utter chore at the best of times to grind through fighting segments of missions. There were some nice variations in the enemies and some mission areas were okay but coupled with a near non existent auto-save function you had an overall very flawed game.

What makes ME:1 interesting is in the overall context of the trilogy and in particular the massive changes from 1 to 2. Immediately the overall structure of the game is changed, instead of a story gradually leading to new discoveries and eventual resolutions we have a set of missions designed to prepare for an inevitable climactic mission. I liked 2 in and of itself and they certainly improved the combat but there was something very unique to ME:1's tone that I found engrossing. For instance, one of the highlights of the entire game for me was discovering and conversing with the Prothean VI on Ilos. Essentially it was just several lines of dialogue with a broken recording but the setup to that moment, coupled with great music and voice acting made it such a memorable moment. The missions combat segments beforehand however? Utterly forgettable.

With all that said, I feel like Andromeda is something of a deformed hybrid trying to be all things at the same time for everyone. I had earlier posted that I was surprised how much I was enjoying the game after about 60 hours of my play-through. Having nearly finished the game I've grown more bored and frustrated by the game. It has these great little moments and opportunities where you really feel it's coming into it's own then it gets bogged down into repetitive grinding. The game's universe feels so big during it's early stages but you quickly realise the opposite, 'I'm gonna have to keep bouncing back and forth between these 4 planets aren't I? Yep'. The opening mission for example I thought was really well done, decent setup, an interesting quirky planet and well crafted open world feel. I honestly thought that all the planet's missions were gonna be like that, except they weren't. The same with the first vault encounter. Really well done with good cinematic moments and a feeling of discovery and whatnot. Yet every other vault in the game is a carbon copy minus the cinematic element. It just felt lazy to me, in the same league with Ubisioft and their 'incredibly large open worlds'. Having a huge map with a bunch of collectables and radiant missions is not interesting or enjoyable to me. If you're going to have large open world segments you'd better make real use of them. I honestly began to miss ME:2 and 3's more linear mission setups, and that says a hell of a lot because I really disliked them. The whole thing just feels like a completely missed opportunity in the end.

The combat is honestly the only thing I can say is really well done, but even that rings a little hollow because I never played a Mass Effect game for it's 'great cover based combat'. The reason I'm not particularly optimistic about a sequel is that since ME:1 Bioware have known only one way to go with Mass Effect, better fighting, stripped features, more linear gameplay, watered down choices and weaker dialogue. Andromeda is really a result of this IMO and I'm not sure how they could make an engaging and entertaining game with the same characters and world setup. As flawed as ME:1 was it had a terrific set of characters and an interesting over-arching plot which essentially carried the rest of the games,

until THAT ending which we won't speak about of course.

Anyway, at least EA haven't tried to make us fork out another 30 quid for DLC that will give us the 'real' gaming experiences of Andromeda :rolleyes:.

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

With ME:A, what you're seeing is facial animation in-game by a studio mostly filled with first-time game makers. The next one isn't in-game and is filled by experienced developers that worked in either movie post-production or other big projects.

Was listening to an interesting story from game writer Tom Bissell on the Kotaku podcast yesterday and he made it pretty clear that he was talking about Mass Effect Andromeda.

https://kotaku.com/a-video-game-writer-explains-how-technology-can-make-st-1818918558

"I won’t name the project, but I went into a game project with a bunch of people who were absolutely aces, top of their game, top-tier level people, amazingly talented, great studio, that was just in the process of shifting from their old engine, which everyone knew how to make stuff quickly [on], to a new engine, which was very hard to use. And you probably know roughly what I’m talking about and which company sort of mandated an across-the-board shift to one engine, which in a business sense, a corporate cultural sense, made perfect sense. In the long run it was the right thing to do. But in the short run, a lot of games got thrown into a meat grinder on it. Which, everyone pretty much expected would happen.

"So you go from working with these people who in the previous game franchise could literally have an idea on Monday, have a workable prototype on Wednesday, and have it more or less functioning in the game on Friday. On their old engine. They could get stuff up on its feet—is this cool? does it work? OK yes, let’s polish it, go with that.

"To suddenly they’re working with an engine that took, no ****, 2-4 months to get a working prototype up on its feet and into the game. So now, when the iteration process is slowed to such a crawl, you don’t have a choice to do anything other than polish the turds of your original first ideas, because by the time you have something up on its feet there’s no time to tweak it, and implement it. Your idea that you had 4 months ago or 2 months ago, it’s now so late in the development process, you have to run with it and make [it] work."

Kiith

The problems with the game weren't with the engine though. Pretty shoddy writing, some really uninteresting characters, and a general slow feel to the game were what made it an inferior game.

super_furry

Yeah but that seems to have come about because they weren't able to refine ideas because of the engine. If it takes you four months to implement prototype into a game, you can't really scrap it if it's not what you envisaged. If something isn't working but you've spent a huge amount of time just getting it up and running, it's kind of easier to see how the game ended up how it did.

Venom

super_furry wrote: »

Yeah but that seems to have come about because they weren't able to refine ideas because of the engine. If it takes you four months to implement prototype into a game, you can't really scrap it if it's not what you envisaged. If something isn't working but you've spent a huge amount of time just getting it up and running, it's kind of easier to see how the game ended up how it did.

Have to disagree on this. The characters, story and lore is what sucked people into the Mass Effect universe in the first game not the how good the graphics looked or how well the models lip synced with the vocals.


Even taking what you have said about the new game engine as 100% true, it's doesn't excuse how dull, boring and generic Andromeda's characters and main story was, which is down to piss poor writers who have nothing to do with getting the games engine working correctly.

The Specialist

Venom wrote: »

Have to disagree on this. The characters, story and lore is what sucked people into the Mass Effect universe in the first game not the how good the graphics looked or how well the models lip synced with the vocals.


Even taking what you have said about the new game engine as 100% true, it's doesn't excuse how dull, boring and generic Andromeda's characters and main story was, which is down to piss poor writers who have nothing to do with getting the games engine working correctly.

I don't think the story is that bad, it wasn't great by any means but as the start of a new (now iced) franchise it was grand. It was missing that vital cliffhanger though, it was all sunshine and lollipops in the end.


I really do hope we get a part 2. Still disgusted in the fact that some pricks, complaining about facial animation or PC depictions of irrelevant NPC characters, along with some sites (e.g Eurogamer), managed to sway opinion. It is not a "bad" game by any stretch of the imagination and doesn't deserve half the flack it got.

Venom

The Specialist wrote: »

I don't think the story is that bad, it wasn't great by any means but as the start of a new (now iced) franchise it was grand. It was missing that vital cliffhanger though, it was all sunshine and lollipops in the end.


I really do hope we get a part 2. Still disgusted in the fact that some pricks, complaining about facial animation or PC depictions of irrelevant NPC characters, along with some sites (e.g Eurogamer), managed to sway opinion. It is not a "bad" game by any stretch of the imagination and doesn't deserve half the flack it got.

I never said nor do I think Andromeda's story was awful just dull and a rather generic by the numbers sci-fi tale. The criticism and lets be honest here, was pretty valid as the game was hyped and priced as a triple A title with an end product being very glitchy.



Some of these issues were pointed out by fans and critics long before the game launched, when the first in-game trailer dropped so it's not like the studio, one of the biggest in the world with the biggest publisher in the world behind them, didn't have the option to delay the game long enough to sort out these issues.


Rockstar delayed GTA5 so many times for the PC release and they more than profited from the delay with the game staying in the top 10 charts years later.

Maximus Alexander

Venom wrote: »

I never said nor do I think Andromeda's story was awful just dull and a rather generic by the numbers sci-fi tale. The criticism and lets be honest here, was pretty valid as the game was hyped and priced as a triple A title with an end product being very glitchy.



Some of these issues were pointed out by fans and critics long before the game launched, when the first in-game trailer dropped so it's not like the studio, one of the biggest in the world with the biggest publisher in the world behind them, didn't have the option to delay the game long enough to sort out these issues.


Rockstar delayed GTA5 so many times for the PC release and they more than profited from the delay with the game staying in the top 10 charts years later.

You may personally have gripes with the writing, but let's be realistic here, the vast majority of the criticism that was leveled at Andromeda was based on technical issues. The anti-hype train that likely killed the franchise centered largely around animations and bugs.

FWIW, I thought there was lots of really great dialog and some really solid world building which would have been a good step into a new trilogy, but it was let down by some weak voice acting in places and a lack of really memorable characters.

Blazer

Thought the gameplay was good as well but the story was poorly written and the characters was awful. I honestly couldn't have given a toss whether any of them had died.
Contrast that with Mordin, Wrex, Garrus. I rate Mordin's death as one of the best death scenes in gaming history and it really tugs at the heart.
Then you compare that to Andromeda and you see how poorly written it was.
It was commissioning Michelangelo for the Sistine Chapel and getting the local paint guy in afterwards to continue on.
Then again the human characters weren't great either in the originals but the alien species were fantastic

Arytonblue

Blazer wrote: »

Thought the gameplay was good as well but the story was poorly written and the characters was awful. I honestly couldn't have given a toss whether any of them had died.
Contrast that with Mordin, Wrex, Garrus. I rate Mordin's death as one of the best death scenes in gaming history and it really tugs at the heart.
Then you compare that to Andromeda and you see how poorly written it was.
It was commissioning Michelangelo for the Sistine Chapel and getting the local paint guy in afterwards to continue on.
Then again the human characters weren't great either in the originals but the alien species were fantastic

This ^
This is the thing with Bioware really, they seem to be able to create some utterly fascinating and really in-depth alien or non human characters yet when it comes to your ordinary human man or woman you're left with a really bland set of nobodies that you couldn't care less for. This goes all the way back to ME:1 for me with Ashley and Kaiden and follows through with many of their human characters from Dragon Age as well.

When they make you choose between effectively killing Ashley or Kaiden I think most most people reacted with 'meh, who's going to annoy me the most in the next two games?'.

Garrus, Wrex, Mordin, Liara, Thane, Tali and Grunt are all among the best characters from the series IMO because they are unique, with their own backstory and characteristics. Human characters almost feel like an afterthought by comparison.

Shiminay

Just a quick note on Frostbite, the engine that EA mandates for all its studios. Battlefield 3 was the first game to use it and a senior producer at Dice (who built Frostbite) said there would never be mod tools or any community driven components to it because it was deliberately built so that these wouldn't be available options. For very complex reasons, everything has to be specified and built to spec by their own people which allows ultimate control, but at the cost of time and effort (especially if you're new to it). This requires a very different approach to developing with it and means that prototyping as many software people understand the term (and I used to be one) goes out the window.

Billy86

Is it me or do EA seem to not like the idea of people improving upon their own games? In this day and age, that kind of attitude to modding is nothing but weird.

Gbear

Billy86 wrote: »

Is it me or do EA seem to not like the idea of people improving upon their own games? In this day and age, that kind of attitude to modding is nothing but weird.

It'd be one thing if they planned on supporting it properly with DLC, but there's **** all coming for a lot of these games and even if that wasn't the case, modding covers niches that developers never think of.

It's also like free market research for the next title.

I was listening to a podcast the other day with one of the lead designers for Civ 5 and they went into how they adopted some of the ideas Civ 4 modders had come up with, and X-Com 2 subcontracted some DLC to the guys who made the Long War mod for X-Com 1.

You also quite often hear of modders getting jobs with the developers.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's some out of touch technological illiterate way up the food chain making these kinds of decisions. It feels like that would explain a lot of EA's decision-making.

They've enough marketing data to get games that perform but it's through blandness and broad brush strokes.

K.O.Kiki

https://www.masseffect.com/n7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxFiRlPyIt8

End of an era.

Zero-Cool

That music What an epic series (not you Andromeda).

Bioware FB posted "One more mission, anyone? www.masseffect.com/n7"

You can imagine the hate they are getting for that one. Even though I played through ME trilogy multiple times now, I'd still love to play through a remaster. Whole thing makes me want to finish my playthrough of Andromeda but I have such a disconnect with that game.

Mr.Fantastic

Just got this recently as I avoided it initially due to the negative reviews.

Have to say don't think its too bad so far, granted am only a few hours in have noticed the somewhat hammy acting in it so far.

Its more of a disappointment that the series has been canned that this might be the last mass effect we get for a good while.

Mr.Fantastic

Mr.Fantastic wrote: »

Just got this recently as I avoided it initially due to the negative reviews.

Have to say don't think its too bad so far, granted am only a few hours in have noticed the somewhat hammy acting in it so far.

Its more of a disappointment that the series has been canned that this might be the last mass effect we get for a good while.

I don't think Andromeda itself is a bad game. If it had been released as a standalone completely new IP, then it could have been just fine. But the fact that it came on the back of one of the greatest trilogies in video game history hampered it a lot.

It needed to be a groundbreaking earth-shattering game, but instead it was released too soon, too buggy, and ... not Mass Effect.

DeadlyByDesign

It was the promise of vast open worlds that had me chomping at the bit. Granted the were very open, but full to the brim of....nothing...sweet FA. Traversing them was an exercise in boredom. Animation was god awful, even with the updates. Acting was pi$$ poor, as was the phoned in story line. Mission structure repetitive AF. I did like the idea of colonizing planets and establishing habitats. I lost interest long before that though. Combat was very good though I do have to give them that.

Mitch Connor

Have to think EA will be reluctant to give it another shot as a more standard RPG. they are pushing the loot box/Games as Service model it feels - Star Wars feedback for example.

I wonder could a company pay EA/Bioware to dev the game for them, or licence the product?

To me, ME is an Xbox game - based purely on that is where I played the trilogy from start to finish, a number of times. Could MS, as part of their renewed push for exclusive titles pay for a new ME game to be made, as a MS title.

On a different note - I wonder could EA/Bioware think to revisit a rerelease of the original trilogy on PS4 and XBoxOne. I know they are available as backwards compatable on Xbox, but a proper redone port of them - maybe try to introduce the combat style from 2 and 3 to 1, for example. I think it would a fantastic way for them to build hype again for a new ME game down the line, so that instead of the most recent memory being ME:A, it is the OT.

Kiith

It's only a matter of time before they do a remaster of the original trilogy. Might be a few years, but all "classics" will get that treatment at some stage.

I'd love to see another one in our universe, but it is tough if they want peoples choices to matter from the original trilogy. Unless it's a prequel, set during the First Contact war or something like that.

DeadlyByDesign

DeadlyByDesign wrote: »

It was the promise of vast open worlds that had me chomping at the bit. Granted the were very open, but full to the brim of....nothing...sweet FA. Traversing them was an exercise in boredom. Animation was god awful, even with the updates. Acting was pi$$ poor, as was the phoned in story line. Mission structure repetitive AF. I did like the idea of colonizing planets and establishing habitats. I lost interest long before that though. Combat was very good though I do have to give them that.

The combat in ME:A was so well done. It was on par with (and even surpassed with how fun it was) that seen in ME:2 & 3.

DeadlyByDesign

Deleted User wrote: »

The combat in ME:A was so well done. It was on par with (and even surpassed with how fun it was) that seen in ME:2 & 3.

Agreed, I really can't take that away from them. Pity the rest was so God awful.

Mitch Connor

Kiith wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before they do a remaster of the original trilogy. Might be a few years, but all "classics" will get that treatment at some stage.

I'd love to see another one in our universe, but it is tough if they want peoples choices to matter from the original trilogy. Unless it's a prequel, set during the First Contact war or something like that.

I'd actually like to see more of Andromeda - I liked the universe they were setting up, and seeing how the various species grow together would be interesting. I had no issue with the setting or idea for the story, its just the execution of the game that disappointed me.

Kiith

Oh so would I. I quite enjoyed Andromeda, even with all it's flaws.

But as they've said there won't be any more Andromeda releases, i suspect they'll just go back to the Milky Way.