Mass Effect: Andromeda

Kiith

And i'd say the first game was the best of the lot.

Cordell

I liked all of them, but I liked the second best. I don't think that ME:A was that bad, just not up to the level set by the previous ones.

Gbear

It depends what you're measuring.

ME1 feels mechanically dated but at it's core it really cracks the sci-fi RPG perfectly.

As ME2 and 3 improved the mechanics and performance, they steadily reduced the scope and quality of the story.

The writing and characters are very patchy in every title.

J. Marston

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've played the original Mass Effect trilogy and the first game was absolute cock. It nearly put me off the rest of the trilogy. Being an optimist, we could see the kind of refinement of gameplay that we saw from ME1 to ME2.

Totally agree. Never understood how the first's gameplay was so revered.

ME2 was definitely the best.

kunst nugget

Gbear wrote: »

It depends what you're measuring.

ME1 feels mechanically dated but at it's core it really cracks the sci-fi RPG perfectly.

As ME2 and 3 improved the mechanics and performance, they steadily reduced the scope and quality of the story.

The writing and characters are very patchy in every title.

With ME3, the scope and quality took a massive hit but I think ME2 expanded positively on ME1 in every way.

Kiith

Story - 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Companions - 2nd, 3rd, 1st
Gameplay - 3rd, 2nd, 1st
Mechanics - 1st, 3rd, 2nd
Music - 2nd, 1st, 3rd

Or something like that

Gbear

kunst nugget wrote: »

With ME3, the scope and quality took a massive hit but I think ME2 expanded positively on ME1 in every way.

It made the world smaller and removed the element of free exploration entirely, to produce completely scripted corridor fights.
In practice, they were more enjoyable, but in principle, they were less ambitious and narrower in scope.

It also went backwards in terms of its approach to the plot, with the Collectors, despite their ties to the Reapers, being less exciting or epic in scale and the plot losing much of the drama and urgency before the sucidie mission is triggered.

I'd agree that the midpoint ME2 reaches makes it the best one overall, but it's probably not the best at any one element, except maybe characterisation. 3 and Andromeda are better mechanically, ME1 is a better pure storytelling experience and game world.

Zero-Cool

Feck ye anyway, I was over the whole trilogy remaster. I had gotten a loan of a PS3 and played through the original trilogy again and loved it. Got a bit burnt out some way into 3 though but I was cramming a whole lot of ME. Plus I never did play the citadel dlc and feel I missed out.

Last few posts have rekindled my want for a trilogy remaster but it should be all in one package with all DLC included. I can't see EA/bioware doing that but it bears the hell out of the thought of Andromeda 2.

Gbear

I was reminded of a really long series of short essays I read about the series.

These two essays; 1, 2, explore some of the failures in storytelling that get ME2 off to a really bad start.

I thought these paragraphs in particular were a good analysis:

Like Fellowship of the Ring, Mass Effect 1 set a tone and pushed the story in a very particular direction. It created a quest for knowledge, and put our heroes into a position where they were the best people to go on that quest. Not in a “chosen one as decreed by the gods / fate” sort of way, but in a practical way that the events of the first game gave them tools that nobody else had. They were explorers, searching for answers. The plot called for them to go out into that great big universe of mystery and danger, and find out how to break the cycle of destruction forever. They weren’t going to win because of their guns and biotics. They just needed the guns and biotics to get to the answers that would make victory possible.

The writers not only failed to make use of these plot elements, they took every single aspect of this setup and smashed it to pieces. The council is retconned to not believing in the Reapers and not caring about the massive attack that nearly wiped out their government. Shepard loses his status as both a Spectre and a member of the Alliance. Liara goes away and forgets all about Prothean archaeology. Shepard’s ability to understand Prothean is no longer an asset to their mission. Shepard’s relationship with the council reverts to the pre-Ilos status quo. Shepard is no longer the protagonist because his team is uniquely qualified to learn about Reapers, but instead he’s the protagonist because of his fame and combat prowess. As Miranda says, “He’s a hero. A bloody icon”. Most importantly, Shepard is no longer an explorer on a quest to uncover a mystery, but a badass trying to rouse an apathetic galaxy to action[6].

Like making a story about Frodo mastering the One Ring and becoming a general, this argument isn’t really about “plot holes”, even though there are plenty of those. You can’t fix this story by adding cruft to the in-game codex or touching up a few lines of dialog. The problem is that this is a fundamentally different story. The first volume set a goal and got the story rolling in a particular direction, and the second volume performs a hairpin turn and goes off in a completely different direction before we reach the opening credits.

And even once we’ve accepted the hand-wavy justifications, this new story is dealing with new themes and different ideas. You could even argue we’ve changed genres. Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 feel about as different as Star Trek the Motion Picture and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Even if you enjoy them both and even though they both allegedly take place in the same universe and feature the same characters, they don’t have any connective tissue. Placed side-by-side, they don’t seem to be saying anything.

Venom

J. Marston wrote: »

Totally agree. Never understood how the first's gameplay was so revered.

ME2 was definitely the best.

The story, characters and villains were epic is why.



The complete opposite of Andromeda.

CatInABox

Gbear wrote: »

I was reminded of a really long series of short essays I read about the series.

These two essays; 1, 2, explore some of the failures in storytelling that get ME2 off to a really bad start.

I thought these paragraphs in particular were a good analysis:

When I read this:

Like Fellowship of the Ring, Mass Effect 1 set a tone and pushed the story in a very particular direction. It created a quest for knowledge, and put our heroes into a position where they were the best people to go on that quest. Not in a “chosen one as decreed by the gods / fate” sort of way, but in a practical way that the events of the first game gave them tools that nobody else had. They were explorers, searching for answers. The plot called for them to go out into that great big universe of mystery and danger, and find out how to break the cycle of destruction forever. They weren’t going to win because of their guns and biotics. They just needed the guns and biotics to get to the answers that would make victory possible.

I knew that the rest of it was going to be a mess. Shepard was in the right place at the right time to find and use the beacon, giving him special knowledge and power beyond a normal man, and he somehow thinks that's not fate? Seriously, the story in ME wasn't great at all, really standard stuff that you'd find in a bargain basement scifi book.

Gbear

CatInABox wrote: »

When I read this:



I knew that the rest of it was going to be a mess. Shepard was in the right place at the right time to find and use the beacon, giving him special knowledge and power beyond a normal man, and he somehow thinks that's not fate? Seriously, the story in ME wasn't great at all, really standard stuff that you'd find in a bargain basement scifi book.

Someone had to use the beacon. It happened to be Shepard. He wasn't the chosen one or decreed to be humanity's saviour by the gods.

Fate had no involvement. Fate is something that needs to be established in a story, like with prophecies in Harry Potter, the Wheel of Time or the Matrix.
In fact, Aragorn is kindof that character in LOTR, but Tolkien was clever in how he made him not be the hero.

The point of the piece isn't that ME is brilliant. It's that ME2 doesn't follow the tone or themes of the first game, to the detriment of both.

Gbear

I don't agree that it's a good game.

It has good elements. It's not completely without merit, however, I think a game like it relies an awful lot of elements it's bad at.
Outside the good core mechanics of exploration and combat, which have numerous layers of crap getting in the way of accessing them, including a poor UI, you have a situation where the engine of the game that propels you along never gets going. The plot, characters and writing all fall flat, and the open world and quest design is mediocre to poor, limiting the amount of enjoyment you can get when away from your ship and the hubs, and how well the core mechanics can be leveraged.

I was already getting frustrated with it when I first went to the homeworld of the Electric Cat People but arriving on Vold really was the start of it feeling like a chore. My sense of completionism lead me to nearly 100% it but I have absolutely no interest in or ability to ever stomach another playthrough.

I'm certainly a person whose far more forgiving of mechanical foibles, so I can happily enjoy ME1, because, for one thing, it's really easy once you get the best weapons, so you can breeze through the janky bits and get to the story.

And I'm not a stickler for perfection in the story either - the first 3 are not particularly well written, novel, the plot isn't particularly inventive... mechanically, however, it's solid story telling, and that is something that you can't do without IMO. Motivations, consistent behaviour of characters, distinctiveness (AKA, why Kaiden always gets nuked), dialogue that is at least believable.

If you're just eyerolling every bit of dialogue and don't give the slightest **** whether anyone lives or dies, then it's hard to muster the energy to go anywhere or do anything. When Andromeda does that, it's fine, as with Vetra and Drax. If that was the standard and no better, it probably wouldn't hook me as much as Wrex and Garrus, but I'd still be happy to breeze through again to see my space buddies. Even that is too much of an ask though.

Gbear

RopeDrink wrote: »

I like the worlds - they aren't massive enough to become a chore but also not small enough to lose all sense of exploration - and most of them are actually quite beautiful in their own way, even places like Eledan which is almost exclusively desert. You have the smaller foot-designed planets like Havarl and the sprawling wastelands of Eladen / Kadara to venture through, all with distinct atmospheres and most with some very glorious sights to see. Many a time you'll open the map and can decide between hunting down all those juicy loot-caches or tying up stories/quests. Even with the map having (!) signs indicating quests, I still bumped into some purely by accident while driving about. Fast Travel remedies some of the longer stretches, so it's a 50/50 between aimless driving or just getting things done - in neither case did I ever feel "Ugh, I have to drive".

Havarl's alright. Some of the sky boxes were nice. I liked the whale things under the ice on Vold. There's a certain sterility to most of them though. I really loved the Remnant vaults. Only Havarl felt like a living environment though. I get that that's a plot point, but it makes for a pretty bland series of backdrops. The wide open spaces with clearly visible enemy emplacements makes the whole thing feel very MMO-y and not like a real immersive environment.
Even in in ME2 where you have short missions in cities, a jungel planet, a guy's mansion, scrapyards, it felt like you were seeing a living galaxy.

So the Helix cluster is a sort of deadzone filled with nasty gack and a bunch of semi-terraformed planets. Well that's fine in itself, but it makes for boring places to visit. Similar to the story with the aliens who're all slightly different skins on the same creature design.

The rest have their own predictable but relatable arcs that are easier to pick up on compared to the more alien aspects of past games. Cora is a by-the-books soldier lost without their mentor(s) being around to give them a path, trying to find her own feet. Drack is the cranky, lovable granddad trope, looking out for the young-blood without much care for what happens to him in the process. Vetra is thrust into motherhood early due to horrible parents forcing her to become benefactor of her own sister while she herself was also a child - she has to be strong for someone else, not so much herself. Peebee as the token annoying but likeable 'no-strings' character -- the list goes on.

The above will either resonate on a human level or make you feel like they're flat because they're not being totally alien. Sure, the writing can often be flat/awkward, but I certainly would like to see these characters get fleshed and reach their conclusions.

I would have rathered they were fleshed out first time around alright. I found Drack and Vetra ok, but the others....

If you're going to stick the landing with these things, then you probably need a solid set of characters right out the gate.
Liara and Ashley weren't that amazing, but they did actually have concrete involvement in the main plot, which is another thing that adds value to their characters, and pretty much everyone added in 2 was either interesting or at least had a good loyalty mission.

Slim pickins in Andromeda. Liam's looked interesting with the upside-downess. In practice that didn't make that much difference, but at least it was a bit more creative and visually engaging than spaceship corridors.
I was quite disappointed in Drack's. Vetra's also had a little gimmick to it with the hacking. It felt a bit tacked on though. It's a pity it wasn't really an emergent property of the games systems and something they just hooked up for that mission.

Such as?

UI is fine for me. Similar to past games and doesn't give an information overload, all compact to the bottom - anything non-combat is elsewhere. Only issue I have is limited quest indication, but this is common with games clearly designed with consoles in mind.

Galaxy map, inventory, economy, loading screens within small areas, the donkeywork required to do fetch quests across multiple systems.
The in-action stuff is fine, although I dislike the reduction in number of active skills. There's a bunch of issues that by themselves aren't deal-breakers, but cumulatively, and in concert with the fact that I wasn't arsed about everything that wasn't shooting things, grated more and more.

Some of these are legacy issues from previous games, but I feel they should've fixed them by now. Part of the problem is, I think, Frostbite. I don't think it's designed for huge expansive areas, so they had to piss about with loading screens more than should really be necessary in this day and age. Time that should've been spent putting AAA gloss that made the world feel real were spent trying to twist Frostbite into something that could actually function.

ME:A is no different. More forgiving, even. I'm on hardcore and during no playthrough have I ever bothered utilizing a different profile or build. Weapons I chose were mostly favourites, or ones I liked from past games - they weren't 'the best' yet there was no clear detriment to playing this way. Fights still presented a challenge (I can die now and then when being slack) but combat overall is neither difficult nor a chore. With that in mind, you could adapt profiles/builds and grab your best weapons for a relatively easy time even on Nightmare (give or take some custom weapons using proper mods).

In short, there's not a lot of roadblocks if all you care about is the story.

My point was more that duff combat isn't a roadblock in ME1. That's not really a factor in Andromeda, one way or the other, because there's no story I want to get to, making the entire thing feel a bit pointless.

It's the opposite problem there, where I could do with being able to more easily breeze through everything else so I can get back to shooting things in the face more easily.
Cutting out all the fetch quests (optional, I know), streamlining the quest chains. That and the aforementioned UI/Meta Systems and QOL problems.

And I'd have a minor foible with the game difficulty. I played it on Insane, or whatever the hardest is. It was a little tricky early on, but really, the problem was attrition. It was a problem they created first in ME2, where they gave all enemies shields or barriers on the hardest difficulty, which massively impacted the effectiveness of some weapons (pistols, single shot snipers), but they fixed it in ME3 with well defined unit types, headshots, and combos.

But then everything in Andromeda turned into a bullet sponge, up until about halfway through, and then things are great for a little bit, until your passives become so powerful that you make mincemeat of everything and it becomes a bit of a procession.
The rag-dolling has never been better. The guns were a little indistinct and underwhelming.

Well then, we'll put that down to being a you thing. I may not have cared deeply about the whole cast but to say I didn't care about some of them or didn't want to see how everything panned out would be incorrect. There's enough pull in the story to want to go from A to B, and enough meat inbetween to fall in love with those joining in on the action, whether it's just listening to the frequent nomad chatter, loyalties, their reaction to side-quests, or having different perspectives for key moments.

Eg. During the Salarian ark, my gut always tells me to save Raeka, yet it's extremely hard to do that with Drack around as he's mah Brogan, and giving the Kett free reign to figure out Krogan exaltation is not a good thought. Between that, his loyalty mission, ambassador choices and other aspects, he'll treat you like a surrogate son or get pissy about things, and all relationships are jotted down in different lights via the codex depending on those decisions. Can't deny the writing and characters certainly go a bit flat thanks to the obvious rush to get it out - I mean, again, they cut out a whole companion but still used his loyalty mission because 'release it nao' - but let's not pretend like we didn't roll our eyes at the story or reactions or characters in the Trilogy at times.

I assume you mean Drack - my favourite duo - both giving eachother advice in their quest to stop being grumpy not-really-parents. Some of their dialogue in that vein is also quite touching/sweet. All the crew have their moments, just not as many as the trilogy because, again, lots of games, more story focus etc.

Hey, we all have our opinions - but I'm not seeing it. To me it was fun, there was enough meat to be invested (even if not OVERMUCH), and some cringey moments aside, it could have been a whole lot worse. I put it down to it being the first of a possible new-trilogy that got rushed out. If they hadn't cut characters/story down for the sake of pushing it out quicker and just gave the whole product more care to mull in before release, I'm pretty sure things would have been perceived a little differently.

Little things like the Nomad chatter were tantalising glimpses of what could be. The level of care that went into Drack's character and his place within the not-Citadel (I just watched the Avengers again, hence the name clobbering). The care given to the level-design in the first mission that wasn't carried into the rest of the game. The window-dressing to have characters appear in the final battle but not make any tangible difference to how it feels (doubly galling after the criticism ME3's ending got). The Architect battles that seem novel and amazing the first time but show little variation after.

You can put it down to a me thing if you want but I really just think it's poor quality stuff, and more, it seems clear where the issues sprung from. The game being rushed might be an explanation as to where the fleshing out went, but it's not an excuse and it doesn't make the game any better.

EoinHef

So Ricochet augment on a sniper,what a bloody joke:P

Pretty pissed after getting the mats for a remnant sniper onpy for that mod to make it totally useless. The game need a firing range to try stuff out. The descriptions are not enough

Kiith

EoinHef wrote: »

The game need a firing range to try stuff out. The descriptions are not enough

It really did need one. Given how the 3rd one had a range, it's crazy they didn't add one here.

EoinHef

I still havent played through ME 1 through 3,gave up on 1 awhile back,just felt too janky:o

Andromeda certainly has its issues,at certain points it just feels super repetitive,then every now and then it does something really good.

The point system for abilities is good,some of the abilities great but i feel like it would need another playthrough to fully explore all the abilities and im not sure the game overall is good enough to warrant that so thats a bit of a shame imo.

The gunplay itself its pretty average to bad imo,the mods/augments do add a nice little layer to it though,even if most of the mods are kinda what you would expect to see ie 2% extra on X or Y. Only the rarer ones having more imaginative effects. Im not sure withholding those mods till so far into the game is beneficial seeing as the variation they allow would have givin a more interesting early game. Not being able to experiment,via a firing range of some sort,is a real shame though:( Feel discouraged to try random combos.

I really like the art style,kinda hardcore sci fi,highly detailed textures etc. Armour sets look great. They have a nice consistent theme going. Very pretty game imo.

Why do the tempest cut scenes look like they have vaseline smeared all over the screen though?:P

A real mixed bag,i do find the game compelling enough to keep ploughing on though:D

Reckon ill take a break from the SP and try some MP at some point though.

pixelburp

Never went near Andromeda in the end, not even on budget. Not because of all the bugs etc - given I'm a happy player of Elder Scrolls games, it'd be a bit hypocritical to bash Mass Effect for that - it was more a narrative choice.

Mass Effect was one of the first games I got genuinely invested in the characters and their respective arcs / stories. Unlikes TV, books or film I've always had an emotional disconnect with games and the characters within. Probably because 99% of the time, the writing in video games has been beyond abysmal. Mass Effect actually managed to strike a note with some truly memorable, likeable and charismatic characters; the cinematic presentation definitely bridged the gap in portraying the cast as living individuals.

So honestly, I didn't want to go back, knowing none of that cast were returning, in what was clearly a tacked on fourth part of a trilogy. For better or worse (it was definitely worse), Mass Effect 3 capped off the Mass Effect universe for me (the Citadel DLC basically acting as a celebration tour). And given I hadn't heard Andromeda's cast were as noteworthy as the previous set, that further convinced me to stay away.

And I get that sounds a bit sappy over a video-game, but :shrug:

CatInABox

pixelburp wrote: »

Never went near Andromeda in the end, not even on budget. Not because of all the bugs etc - given I'm a happy player of Elder Scrolls games, it'd be a bit hypocritical to bash Mass Effect for that - it was more a narrative choice.

Mass Effect was one of the first games I got genuinely invested in the characters and their respective arcs / stories. Unlikes TV, books or film I've always had an emotional disconnect with games and the characters within. Probably because 99% of the time, the writing in video games has been beyond abysmal. Mass Effect actually managed to strike a note with some truly memorable, likeable and charismatic characters; the cinematic presentation definitely bridged the gap in portraying the cast as living individuals.

So honestly, I didn't want to go back, knowing none of that cast were returning, in what was clearly a tacked on fourth part of a trilogy. For better or worse (it was definitely worse), Mass Effect 3 capped off the Mass Effect universe for me (the Citadel DLC basically acting as a celebration tour). And given I hadn't heard Andromeda's cast were as noteworthy as the previous set, that further convinced me to stay away.

And I get that sounds a bit sappy over a video-game, but :shrug:

I don't know, if you look at Mass Effect 1 on it's own, it's pretty standard fare in terms of story line and characters. I think that a lot of people were a little unfair comparing the characters that were built up over three games with the characters that were just introduced in a new game, to be honest. I didn't love any of the characters in the Mass Effect trilogy until the second one.

Gbear

CatInABox wrote: »

I don't know, if you look at Mass Effect 1 on it's own, it's pretty standard fare in terms of story line and characters. I think that a lot of people were a little unfair comparing the characters that were built up over three games with the characters that were just introduced in a new game, to be honest. I didn't love any of the characters in the Mass Effect trilogy until the second one.

There's a greater attachment and a lower bar for writing and character development when you're interacting with characters rather than just observing them.

You're more likely to be bridging the gaps in the story with your own worldbuilding because the investment in the mechanics invests you in the story as well.

A well written book has an element of this as well. In hindsight you might think that the way everything was described was really intricate and specific, but when you go back to a book that has well realised characters or environments, you actually find that generally the details are quite sparse. The skill is in creating fuel for you brain to fill in the gaps. This is less pronounced in games, because they're a more visual medium, but it's still there.

There's a harder balance to strike with games, because films are ultimately one-dimensional in that respect. The more the narrative is prescribed, the less of an active agent in it you are, but the more active, the less room there is for good writing and meaningful character devleopment (at least with modern dev processes).

Where ME1 excelled was in the suggestion of a massively vibrant galaxy and an unknowable horror just beyond the edge of it. As in a lot of sequels, the more details have been filled in, the more writing has failed to live up to an intangible promise made by your imagination.

Zero-Cool

All this chat makes me want a trilogy remaster.

CatInABox

Zero-Cool wrote: »

All this chat makes me want a trilogy remaster.

I'm sure EA are all over it, once they get Anthem out the door. Mass Effect is too big a brand to leave behind, so they really need some way to rehabilitate it.

K.O.Kiki

CatInABox wrote: »

I'm sure EA are all over it, once they get Anthem out the door. Mass Effect is too big a brand to leave behind, so they really need some way to rehabilitate it.

I'd be fine with a Mass Effect reboot if it had a more consistent story/tone, however it'd probably have to be trimmed to 2 games max.

Gbear

I've spent a bit of time thinking about what I want from a newer game.

It'd probably be post ME3, retconned destroy ending so the Geth are still there, and the general premise would be that you're in a new cross species salvage and repair spec ops team tasked with dealing with dodgy reaper tech and forces still buzzing around, finding resources to repair the Mass Effect Relay network and expanding your own team and tools in an environment where there's a lack of centralised resources and you need to make your own way to some degree.

Start on Earth, work your way through the relays reconnecting the main galactic hubs, explore the devastated homeworld of everyone, deal with reaper cultists and indoctrinated, leftover cerberus, criminals, and the odd reaper force that dodged the big red shockwave.

It'd be cool to go to Khar'shan - the Batarian homeworld, and walk around a sort of post apocalyptic setting with the towering hulks of half-finished reapers dotted around the capital city as you try to find survivors/supplies/mcguffin(s).

Outkast_IRE

Thanks to Origin Premier i finally played and completed Mass Effect Andromeda.



Too much grinding across the galaxy with too many load screens in between.

Too many small tedious missions with little payoff bar maybe they make an appearance at the end.

Never felt challenged at all, i honestly feel if you could remove maybe 1/3 - 1/2 of the game it might then be something that plays pretty well.



Driving all over the planets while cool was actually a massive time waste. People did not play the mass effect trilogy to have 200 small useless missions, the main story arc needs to be more dramatic, the buildup of the surrounding characters needs to be better handled, build up the story that way.



Overall 5-6 outta 10 is a fair rating , ultimately the good is dragged down by the bad.

EoinHef

After spending about 2hrs this morning mopping up side missions only for more to constantly appear i reckon im just gonna stick with priority ops until i finish the main story line.

Dont think ive ever seen a game with more side missions.

Outkast_IRE

EoinHef wrote: »

After spending about 2hrs this morning mopping up side missions only for more to constantly appear i reckon im just gonna stick with priority ops until i finish the main story line.

Dont think ive ever seen a game with more side missions.

Yeah, pointless side missions for the most part at that. I wonder if some of the Knights of the old Republic team were put in charge of gameplay , it's like someone designed an online mmorpg , threw a mass effect story in there and worked from there.

Even the allies and relationship missions are dull enough for the most part

K.O.Kiki

EoinHef wrote: »

After spending about 2hrs this morning mopping up side missions only for more to constantly appear i reckon im just gonna stick with priority ops until i finish the main story line.

Dont think ive ever seen a game with more side missions.

It's not that there's too many side missions - it's that there's very little payoff for them.

EoinHef

Finished the point of no return mission yesterday morning.

Was enjoyable enough,having not played the previous mass effect games i had no baggage/expectations going in.

It certainly has its flaws and low points but some of it was good enough to keep me ticking along. The pacing was something that constantly felt off.

And a lot of the top tier abilities/mods/augments will never be used because i dont see a reason to keep playing. They locked them off with too high requirememts imo.

Have a feeling of the game wasnt attached to the mass effect series it wouldnt have been judged so harshly though.

A lot of the criticism is valid but its not a total write off.

Zero-Cool

Watching Nightflyers at the moment and it's giving me the sci-fi itch (I hope that's what it is anyway). I've a few games on the go at the moment but I'm tempted to spin up Andromeda early new year and start again. Like above, I think I'd stick to priority ops as I got caught up in the mind numbing side stuff and made me hate the game. Will try think of it as just a sci-fi game instead of a ME game as well, might help.

Found this interesting video this morning, I knew development was shyte but didn't know it was that bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D12n35evy0Y