Support NeoGAF

SaylorMan · Apr 25, 2017

Eurogamer has put up a good article about Andromeda's ending, and all the threads to be picked up in either DLC or a sequel. Recommend a read.

Having it in written form sure does show there is a lot. I would have liked a few more answers in my base game but I'm eagerly awaiting details on DLC.
Fingers crossed for E3!

What do you guys want from DLC, and what are you expecting?

diaspora · Apr 25, 2017

SaylorMan said:
Eurogamer has put up a good article about Andromeda's ending, and all the threads to be picked up in either DLC or a sequel. Recommend a read.

Having it in written form sure does show there is a lot. I would have liked a few more answers in my base game but I'm eagerly awaiting details on DLC.
Fingers crossed for E3!

What do you guys want from DLC, and what are you expecting?

What the hell is going on with the Quarians.

On a side note, mod tool development seems to be progressing at a strong clip.

dr_rus · Apr 25, 2017

SaylorMan said:
Eurogamer has put up a good article about Andromeda's ending, and all the threads to be picked up in either DLC or a sequel. Recommend a read.

Having it in written form sure does show there is a lot. I would have liked a few more answers in my base game but I'm eagerly awaiting details on DLC.
Fingers crossed for E3!

What do you guys want from DLC, and what are you expecting?

The benefactor / conspiracy sub plot was easily the best part of MEA's story. It's really sad that they've spent so little time on it. Possible DLCs are certainly for the Quarian ark (although the idea of Geth being on it is all kinds of stupid) and dealing with Primus (they should really try to tie up everything related to Kett in this game as it's an awful enemy which should not return in MEA2 in any significant form). They can probably finish the benefactor story line with DLC as well because as fun as it is it's hardly something to continue into the next game.

As for MEA2 I really hope that it'll be a comeback to Milky Way although it would be double hard to salvage all this mess now. Staying in Andromeda doesn't seem interesting as Jardaans is the only relatively big mystery left after MEA and I feel that - as the article mentions - it's a set up for another man vs machine bullcrap storyline which already destroyed Milky Way trilogy plot more than once.

prag16 · Apr 25, 2017

SaylorMan said:
What do you guys want from DLC, and what are you expecting?

Each category in my expected order of likelihood:

DLC:
-Quarian Ark
-Ellen Ryder revival
-Benefactor / Garson murder mystery
-See more of Meridian

Sequel:
-Primus/Kett
-Jardaan/Remnant backstory
-EDIT: The Scourge backstory

I disagree that more Kett would be automatically horrible. And I can't see them going away entirely; they're not some kind of fringe upstart operation limited to Heleus.

I also disagree that Geth showing up would automatically be "beyond stupid". It makes perfect sense for non-heretic Geth to have an interest in tagging along. And it'd be easy enough for them to huddle hundreds of units into a giant cargo container, sneak it onboard and go dark for 600+ years.

JohnnyFootball · Apr 25, 2017

dr_rus said:
The benefactor / conspiracy sub plot was easily the best part of MEA's story. It's really sad that they've spent so little time on it. Possible DLCs are certainly for the Quarian ark (although the idea of Geth being on it is all kinds of stupid) and dealing with Primus (they should really try to tie up everything related to Kett in this game as it's an awful enemy which should not return in MEA2 in any significant form). They can probably finish the benefactor story line with DLC as well because as fun as it is it's hardly something to continue into the next game.

As for MEA2 I really hope that it'll be a comeback to Milky Way although it would be double hard to salvage all this mess now. Staying in Andromeda doesn't seem interesting as Jardaans is the only relatively big mystery left after MEA and I feel that - as the article mentions - it's a set up for another man vs machine bullcrap storyline which already destroyed Milky Way trilogy plot more than once.

What I think they should do is pick a canon ending. Destroy with the Geth surviving would work. Set it 100s of years into the future with the relays being rebuilt.

prag16 · Apr 25, 2017

JohnnyFootball said:
What I think they should do is pick a canon ending. Destroy with the Geth surviving would work. Set it 100s of years into the future with the relays being rebuilt.

Eh. Not expecting a return to the Milky Way. If they want more Milky Way races, they'll manufacture some reason for them to show up in Andromeda. I don't really think they need to go back to the Milky Way. The trilogy was one thing and Andromeda and beyond can be its own thing.

Also, one major thing I forgot to mention in my post above: The Scourge. That sounds like a "future game" type of thing rather than DLC.

DeadlyParasite · Apr 25, 2017

There's all sorts of interesting theories (albeit a bit farfetched) on who the benefactor is. Candidates for the character need to have a lot of money and know about the Reapers, that kind of limits things.

One interesting theory is that it is a Volus billionaire. The bio for the planet Klencory in Mass Effect 1 has this written:

"Klencory is famously claimed by the eccentric volus billionaire Kumun Shol. He claims that a vision of a higher being told him to seek on Klencory the "lost crypts of beings of light." These entities were supposedly created at the dawn of time to protect organic life from synthetic "machine devils."

Shol has been excavating on Klencory's toxic surface for two decades, at great expense. No government has valued the world enough to evict his small army of mercenaries."

The theory doesn't exactly explain why he would want

Jien Garson dead

and still leaves us with the question of

"Was her murderer the benefactor themselves or someone they sent ahead of time. Because it couldn't have been the Benefactor if they are a Volus. It would mean he's aboard the Quarian Ark.

If it was true though it could mean that the Benefactor and the Quarian Ark storyline will be tied together in one DLC instead of two.

Personally I believe that whoever it is will either be someone we knew in the trilogy extensively or a completely new character developed specifically for this story arc and not some hidden easter egg character.

Ralemont · Apr 25, 2017

ME3 > ME2 >> MEA >>>> ME1.

I feel if the content of Andromeda was trimmed into the length of the other games, it'd rank up there with 2 and 3 for me.

diaspora · Apr 25, 2017

Maybe the

Benefactor

is

Donovan Hock.

Half-kidding.

prag16 · Apr 26, 2017

Didn't see any NPD discussion in here. Considering the internet hate dogpile and critical thrashing, it seems to have done at least okay even if it appears to have missed EA's targets. (Better than ME2, worse than ME3; slotting in between Zelda and Horizon in the rankings... Ghost Recon at #1 was a surprise to me.)

A lot of people on gaf and anecdotally IRL tried it and were "surprised it wasn't a pile of shit" after seeing the cherry picked gifs endlessly and such. So hopefully it can get some positive word of mouth and avoid totally cratering in its second month.

They need to update us on the next patch though. It's been what, three weeks?

diaspora · Apr 26, 2017

It was never a pile of shit as much as it was full of contradictory design decisions. Like parts of the game were made by different teams that weren't communicating or something.

BrassDragon · Apr 26, 2017

prag16 said:
Didn't see any NPD discussion in here. Considering the internet hate dogpile and critical thrashing, it seems to have done at least okay even if it appears to have missed EA's targets. (Better than ME2, worse than ME3; slotting in between Zelda and Horizon in the rankings... Ghost Recon at #1 was a surprise to me.)

A lot of people on gaf and anecdotally IRL tried it and were "surprised it wasn't a pile of shit" after seeing the cherry picked gifs endlessly and such. So hopefully it can get some positive word of mouth and avoid totally cratering in its second month.

They need to update us on the next patch though. It's been what, three weeks?

It's frigging Mass Effect, one of the most passionately beloved brands in western gaming. It was always going to do well commercially even with the unfocused marketing campaign. It generated huge coverage by media and vloggers on the name alone. Doesn't take away that it's one of the poorest reviewed and received BioWare titles - sure it's not 'panned' by any stretch but we all hoped for a better reception.

I'm happy it's still selling okay because I want more (and much, much better) Mass Effect. Still, missteps in these big gaming brands tend to have an inertial effect, like how the very decent AC: Syndicate paid for the problems of AC: Unity (also an okay game with baffling design decisions and feature bloat that got memed and dogpiled to death.)

BioWare puts enormous stock in DLC to salvage a title's shortcomings so I guess DLC sales will be a good indicator how invested the gaming community really is. Again, I want a future for epic scifi roleplaying games... anything is better than putting the franchise out to pasture or turning it into a shooter.

prag16 · Apr 26, 2017

BrassDragon said:
I want a future for epic scifi roleplaying games... anything is better than putting the franchise out to pasture or turning it into a shooter.

Seconded. If Mass Effect as we know it goes away we'll be left with all high fantasy stuff. Plus Cyberpunk I guess, which is a different animal.

Though recall the vocal ME1 purists already accused the series of turning into a shooter with ME2, heh.

JohnnyFootball · Apr 26, 2017

diaspora said:
If nothing else can we agree that traversal design isn't really that compatible with how some (many?) quests are designed? Basically any assignment wherein the quest chain requires you to visit another zone/world doesn't inherently work well with the extensive work that goes into simply going from point A to B.

I don't have a problem inherently with a long sequence to go to another planet- nor do I have a problem with quests that involve going to other planets. What I do have a problem with are quests that involve going to other planets but also require that ridiculous means of actually getting there. Like if I'm going to other planets for a quest... that's fine but don't put me through like 10~ steps to actually get from the planet I'm on to the other one.

Like if all the quests were designed to have their entire chain to operate on the same world I don't think the long traversal issues would be as grating since you'd be able to do everything on the world itself.

Somewhat unrelated, I'd like to think Ryder should be able to access his goddamn email from his omni tool.

diaspora said:
The game could cut out the minerals/bodies/planets/wreckage finding tasks and frankly most of the tasks themselves and be better for it in so far as it'd at least stop cluttering the map.

I do find this to be a problem though:

In so far as the loading animation is fixed in length meaning the takeoff animation is at least as long as the load time or longer than the time to load the ship itself. Second, looking at this through a purely user experience lens, the game makes you:

Press/Hold T to board the Tempest
Watch the Tempest take off as it loads the ship interior
Select and open up the galaxy map
Click the system to travel to
Watch the ship fly there
Click the planet to travel to
Either press Tab to skip the animation or sit through the flight to the planet
Click on the landing zone
Watch an animation of landing to load the planet
Fast travel to the area you want to go to

If one wants to argue this gives you the feeling of space travel or likes the atmosphere, fine. I peresonally don't see this as being conducive to a good user experience versus selecting a fast-travel point on another planet. This at least would require at most half as many inputs, either a loading screen or a looping 0.5s-1s animation but still fewer screens. If someone wants to travel the traditional way- be my guest but I do hope BioWare addresses this IMO glaring UX and QOL problem.

I want to stress, if you prefer travelling by the means I had outlined- by all means. But, I would appreciate copying Inquisition's fast travel mechanics for those of us that would prefer it.

WHile you and me have disagreed in the past, I have never agreed with you more on this.

I'd really say that about 25% of the total time in my playthrough is the result of doing what you just described. I cannot fathom how much unneccessary length has been added to the game due to the constant back and forth.

It's beyond absurd how old it is getting to do a quest on one planet be forced to go to another and another.

diaspora · Apr 26, 2017

JohnnyFootball said:
WHile you and me have disagreed in the past, I have never agreed with you more on this.

I'd really say that about 25% of the total time in my playthrough is the result of doing what you just described. I cannot fathom how much unnecessary length has been added to the game due to the constant back and forth.

It's beyond absurd.

I know I've beaten the point to death but here's Inquisition as a point of comparison:
Inquisition:

Open map with M
open world map
open another location
click camp

Andromeda:

Hold T to go to the Tempest
Watch the Tempest leave the planet
Hold E for the galaxy map
Press space to zoom out from the planet to the solar system
Press space to zoom out from the solar system to the cluster
click on another solar system to fly to
watch your ship fly there
click on a planet
either watch your ship fly there or hit tab to skip the animation
Click on the planet to land
Watch the ship landing animation
Click the forward station to fast travel to

A few notes regarding quest design on this point though- the first being that in all fairness Inquisition does fast-travel better than most western RPGs, and the second is I do personally feel that many of Andromeda's side-quests are very well written and are a definite step up from Inquisition- an example being something as basic as setting up the deceased Nexus engineer's beacons on Eos and hearing about their sick child's condition deteriorating while offering words of encouragement. Or alternatively the Salarian conspiracy quest, or the Angaran AI quest.

Additionally, I'm 100% on board with having an email system and even using it to trigger quests; what I'm not on board with is having to go through steps 1 and 2 of the above to actually be able to access it. This shit should be accessible via your omnitool. Or at least board the tempest without having to take off.

On the point of multi-location quests the problem isn't entirely just being designed around being on different planets but different solar systems where you don't even land:

Hold T to go to the Tempest
Watch the Tempest leave the planet
Hold E for the galaxy map
Press space to zoom out from the planet to the solar system
Press space to zoom out from the solar system to the cluster
click on another solar system to fly to
watch your ship fly there
Right click to scan the system
click point of interest to launch a probe
fly to probe
scan point of interest

This is asinine and what frustrates about this is that I find the quests that do this to generally be well written and actually interesting but actually doing the quest by doing the above like 3-6 times is complete bullshit. Like, they're often not even fetch quests! The Salarian Conspiracy is about investigating, and talking. It's great until you realize you have to go through the 10-13 steps like 3 times because of reasons. God help you if you have to go to Kadara too.

Here are the conditions wherein I actually wouldn't mind the arduous travel system:

Entire quest chains take place in one place. It's fine if you GET a quest on the nexus and complete it on Kadara, but the actual bulk of the quest needs to be in one zone
Let me check email from the omnitool. Having to go to the tempest, watch it take off, then hold e to open my email to trigger a new quest sucks. Then I have to fly back down to actually do the quest

Here are the conditions where I'd be fine with multiplanet quests:

fast travel like in Inquisition
check email from your omnitool

Here's what we got:

A system to get messages and quests that requires multiple steps and an animation sequence to fucking check- the email system
Quests that take place on multiple planets and locations without it actually helping the story that it's a part of
traversal required to complete these quests that are 10-13 steps long each time you want to go anywhere. A quest requires going to 3 places? Enjoy doing these steps 30-36 times.

It's a perfect storm of shit, multiple design paradigms at complete odds with each other. Each of them conceptually fine under certain circumstances but specifically aggravating when used both as is and together.

Razgriz-Specter · Apr 27, 2017

On the subject of travel the only thing i'd like to see them change(that I can see believable)

1. Galaxy map in the Nomad(takeoff scene straight to landing scene)
2. Just let me go straight to the planet loading scene from that area. Don't make me fly there(even with a skip) and then pick to land

maybe email in the Nomad.

JohnnyFootball · Apr 27, 2017

Razgriz-Specter said:
On the subject of travel the only thing i'd like to see them change(that I can see believable)

1. Galaxy map in the Nomad(takeoff scene straight to landing scene)
2. Just let me go straight to the planet loading scene from that area. Don't make me fly there(even with a skip) and then pick to land

maybe email in the Nomad.

What about fast travel is believable to begin with?

I say just completely remove all of the unnecessary garbage.

Open your map, be able to select planets and instantly get to where you want.

It would make the game much much much less tedious and (for me) a lot more fun. Make it optional of course.

Like I said, when I'd estimate that over 25% of my playtime is due to the constant back and forth it's a problem.

diaspora · Apr 27, 2017

JohnnyFootball said:
What about fast travel is believable to begin with?

I say just completely remove all of the unnecessary garbage.

Open your map, be able to select planets and instantly get to where you want.

It would make the game much much much less tedious and (for me) a lot more fun.

Whether or not the arduous flight stuff is in there is irrelevant IMO. So long as they add the ability to cycle through other places' maps and select their forward stations I'll end up enjoying myself much more while those that like going through 10-13 steps to get anywhere can continue to do so.

Renekton · Apr 29, 2017

I am betting they will add fast-travel-anywhere and cut quest return steps by the June patch.

I hope they can add remote e-mail, it's not like Ryder lost comm links to the Tempest.

Mindlog · May 1, 2017

Speaking of the redundancy in SAM telling you that a message has arrived instead of just giving you the message.

For a certain mission in Andromeda you have to send a probe to a location in order to place a probe.

Kallo literally tells you to plant a probe after your probe arrives at the site.
I mean...

SaylorMan · May 1, 2017

What's everyone's thoughts on Andromeda vs Inquisition?

I've placed Inquisition higher on my list, I thought Mass Effect would do a better job of "open world" areas but its really doesn't.

Yeul · May 1, 2017

SaylorMan said:
What's everyone's thoughts on Andromeda vs Inquisition?

I've placed Inquisition higher on my list, I thought Mass Effect would do a better job of "open world" areas but its really doesn't.

Yeah I'm with you, I enjoyed Inquisition way more than ME:A. I haven't even started my 2nd playthrough of Andromeda yet, partially because of patches that are coming, but also if I was really into it in the same way that I was with Inquisition, I would have already started another playthrough and just played again once the patches hit. DA:I also has a lot more map variety. ME:A has a lot of dirt and sand on 2 of the planets you visit so it feels more redundant. That isn't to say that DA4 shouldn't focus on perhaps cutting down on the number of zones in favor of filling them up and making them feel more lively (i.e. a fleshed out Minrathous) - they absolutely should - but yeah, I enjoyed the DA:I maps and characters more.

prag16 · May 1, 2017

SaylorMan said:
What's everyone's thoughts on Andromeda vs Inquisition?

I've placed Inquisition higher on my list, I thought Mass Effect would do a better job of "open world" areas but its really doesn't.

Both are slogs in some ways, with laborious filler nonsense. But Inquisition pissed me off way more because I was less engaged with the world and story, and they locked main story progression behind that bullshit power level mechanic or whatever they called it. Andromeda at least did not do this.

Inquisition probably launched in a more polished state, but make no mistake, in a post Witcher 3 world, if Inquisition had launched in 2017, it would have been eviscerated by critics and players every bit as much as Andromeda was. Possibly worse since Mass Effect at least has very good combat and a scifi setting (change of pace from all the high fantasy RPGs) going for it.

Yeul · May 1, 2017

prag16 said:
Both are slogs in some ways, with laborious filler nonsense. But Inquisition pissed me off way more because I was less engaged with the world and story, and they locked main story progression behind that bullshit power level mechanic or whatever they called it. Andromeda at least did not do this.

Inquisition probably launched in a more polished state, but make no mistake, in a post Witcher 3 world, if Inquisition had launched in 2017, it would have been eviscerated by critics and players every bit as much as Andromeda was. Possibly worse since Mass Effect at least has very good combat and a scifi setting (change of pace from all the high fantasy RPGs) going for it.

I definitely see that. Locking progression behind Power, while it doesn't end up mattering once you get to Skyhold, was a huge mistake as it locks your story progression while trapped in the Hinterlands preventing you from doing a pretty neat quest and instead stuck herding animals and collecting blankets. On the point about characters, I guess it really depends on your taste. The writing in Andromeda, while not awful, it was more like the sarcastic quippy rapport isn't really my thing? So I ended up picking most of the professional "no fun allowed" options lol. I get that it's a younger group, but idk I'm 23 so Ryder's age and I'd be annoyed by that kind dialogue in everyday life (but again that's personal preference). One thing's for sure though, if DA4 doesn't end up being an improvement it will definitely be compared even more to the Witcher 3 than DA:I is now, and not in a good way, especially since it's a fantasy setting.

Though a side note to all of this, the DLCs to Inquisition were all really really well done and imo pretty amazing so when I think of Inquisition, I often think of the whole package. I mean, I'm obviously capable of separating a base Inquisition from it + DLCs, but I think you get where I'm coming from. I'm hoping once all the patches come out for Andromeda and DLC hits it will show improvements to the base game and I'd be more inclined to have a better view of it when all is said and done.

prag16 · May 1, 2017

Yeul said:
Though a side note to all of this, the DLCs to Inquisition were all really really well done and imo pretty amazing so when I think of Inquisition, I often think of the whole package. I mean, I'm obviously capable of separating a base Inquisition from it + DLCs, but I think you get where I'm coming from. I'm hoping once all the patches come out for Andromeda and DLC hits it will show improvements to the base game and I'd be more inclined to have a better view of it when all is said and done.

That's fair; I didn't see Inquisition through for the base game, let along the DLC. Definitely hoping the ME:A DLC is high quality and more along the lines of the 'good' main/loyalty content than the filler that pissed all of us off.

DeadlyParasite · May 1, 2017

Who is "all of us" in this scenario? It certainly didn't piss me off.

Patryn · May 1, 2017

DeadlyParasite said:
Who is "all of us" in this scenario? It certainly didn't piss me off.

Also like to say that, no, DAI did not "piss me off". Far from it.

There's a reason I've done multiple 100 percent runs of DAI.

prag16 · May 1, 2017

DeadlyParasite said:
Who is "all of us" in this scenario? It certainly didn't piss me off.

Patryn said:
Also like to say that, no, DAI did not "piss me off". Far from it.

There's a reason I've done multiple 100 percent runs of DAI.

I guess I didn't literally mean we were all angry. But you can't say there wasn't a bunch of fluff in there that wasn't up to par with other content in the game (in both games).

And remember, I gave ME:A a 9/10 so I'm not biased against the game or anything, clearly. (I do see DA:I as more of a 7/10 game though.)

Also, HA! Multiple 100% runs of DA:I sounds sort of masochistic, but that's me.

diaspora · May 1, 2017

My 5 runs of DAI total to over 500 hours. The side-content isn't as well written as Andromeda's- though zones like the Frostback Basin and Crestwood are startlingly better than the Hinterlands, but since it doesn't take me 13-14 steps to actually switch zones it's much more conducive for multiple playthroughs.

SaylorMan · May 2, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma0VKHnwArQ - Noah Caldwell-Gervais' new video on Mass Effect Andromeda.

Its a good watch! But it really does remind me that this game could have been SO much more. I liked the game, but in the end it was a disappointment.

I'm really hoping that BioWare and all their studios get together and have a good introspective look at themselves, work out what they like making, what they're good at making, and all together try and re-focus.
With the Witcher 3 and Zelda blasting the open world genre to pieces IF BioWare continue in the genre that need to study these two games.
But ultimately I hope they go back to their more linear structure, e.g Mass Effect and Origins.

EatChildren · May 2, 2017

I posted over in the main thread, but yeah; Andromeda sits alongside Mankind Divided as a game I was supremely excited for, still enjoyed, but lost all momentum and traction in play and got so bored it sits unfinished. In the case of Andromeda it's sitting there on my PC and I have zero draw to go back, which is really depressing given my love for the series.

I think the worst part is that I don't even hate it or anything. I just find so much about the narrative so fucking dull. Where Mass Effect 3 was brutally disappointing in its ending, Andromeda is disappointing in how underwhelming and flat the entire premise is. I'm so apathetic about the Kett and Angaran and Remnant. I don't really care about their conflict. And I'm apathetic about the Initiative too, given it never seems to settle on any poignant brevity or direction. It's so wishy washy and non-committal.

It's really sad, because I've spoken to a few others who feel the same. The game plays well, they're okay with that. It looks good, feels good. The premise in theory of travelling to Andromeda and having the Initiative is all cool. But the execution is just not resonating with any particular noteworthy emotional beat or focus. As disappointing as it is to say, it's really killed a lot of my interest in the series, not because of an inherent dislike for the series, but because I don't care about the narrative direction they've taken it. Boo.

Maledict · May 2, 2017

That's incredibly depressing given your love of Mass Effect and posts on it. I have to say it resonates with my experience. When I hear people say that if you like Mass Effect you'll like this im confused, because ultimately this doesn't have any of the strengths and attractions of the original trilogy. I'm not going to play a game just because it's got Turians in it, they need to be interesting and have a storyline that pulls me along as well.

TheUnsunghero26 · May 2, 2017

Have to say, I really liked the decision to make the Ryders a family rather than just a choice of gender.

EatChildren said:
It's really sad, because I've spoken to a few others who feel the same. The game plays well, they're okay with that. It looks good, feels good. The premise in theory of travelling to Andromeda and having the Initiative is all cool. But the execution is just not resonating with any particular noteworthy emotional beat or focus. As disappointing as it is to say, it's really killed a lot of my interest in the series, not because of an inherent dislike for the series, but because I don't care about the narrative direction they've taken it. Boo.

Yeah, it's a great premise that was squandered. On paper, traveling to a new galaxy allows them to pick what to carry over from the trilogy and then try to re-capture the feeling of being introduced to a new universe, like in ME1. But Andromeda's execution just isn't there.
ME1 did such a great job of introducing you to the universe. Humans were established in space, but still new enough that it felt like there was a lot to discover. The galaxy was full of different alien species to learn more about. The fact that Andromeda (well, the Heleus Cluster) only has one new civilized species is incredibly disappointing. I like the Angaran - despite the poorly handled "first" contact scene (which you later find out isn't the first contact?) But the sense of discovery is dampened by the fact that everything you find in Heleus is going to be from the either the Angaran or the Remnant. There was something special about finding a Prothean structure on an uncharted world. Remnant landmarks are all over the place that finding them just isn't exciting. Having just one more new species native to the cluster would have at least added some variety.

Perhaps the most damning thing I can say about Andromeda is that it makes me want to go back to the milky way.

Renekton · May 2, 2017

SaylorMan said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma0VKHnwArQ - Noah Caldwell-Gervais' new video on Mass Effect Andromeda.

Its a good watch! But it really does remind me that this game could have been SO much more. I liked the game, but in the end it was a disappointment.

This quite validates Stardock's decision to reboot Star Control without the OG aliens

As for the story, Star Control: Origins will be a complete reboot, with all-new aliens and an all-new adventure. It would not be realistic to do a sequel 25 years later. Not to mention Star Control II kinda tied things up. Another factor is that part of the appeal of the franchise is the first contact experience. If you already know Star Control, and youre meeting the Ur-Quan, it doesnt matter what they say. You know theyre the bad guys.

prag16 · May 2, 2017

Maledict said:
That's incredibly depressing given your love of Mass Effect and posts on it. I have to say it resonates with my experience. When I hear people say that if you like Mass Effect you'll like this im confused, because ultimately this doesn't have any of the strengths and attractions of the original trilogy. I'm not going to play a game just because it's got Turians in it, they need to be interesting and have a storyline that pulls me along as well.

Nobody should be depressed over this. It's a game.

This post and EC's post are light on facts; it's all "feelings" that this game sucks. I liked DXMD, but I understand the criticisms of that. It objectively (pretty much) has no main story and/or is half a main story.

ME:A has a main story, and for me it was plenty to pull me along. But it's not blatantly unfinished (story-wise) the way DXMD was/is. Andromeda also has a lot more going on (side threads, and big picture but outside the scope of the main story of the game [some of which remains unresolved]) than the main story arc. DXMD doesn't for the most part, and is more narrowly focused on the (nonexistent) main plot.

It's interesting how a lot of the huge trilogy fans on gaf are so divided on the game. Some say right up there with the trilogy (even if there's unfulfilled potential) and some think it's utter trash by comparison. Insane. (I'm in the former group; while it's not as polished as it should be, and it could/should have been and done more/better in some areas; it's Mass Effect and I'm not at all disappointed.)

EatChildren · May 2, 2017

prag16 said:
Nobody should be depressed over this. It's a game.

This post and EC's post are light on facts; it's all "feelings" that this game sucks. I liked DXMD, but I understand the criticisms of that. It objectively (pretty much) has no main story and/or is half a main story.

ME:A has a main story, and for me it was plenty to pull me along. But it's not blatantly unfinished (story-wise) the way DXMD was/is. Andromeda also has a lot more going on (side threads, and big picture but outside the scope of the main story of the game [some of which remains unresolved]) than the main story arc. DXMD doesn't for the most part, and is more narrowly focused on the (nonexistent) main plot.

It's interesting how a lot of the huge trilogy fans on gaf are so divided on the game. Some say right up there with the trilogy (even if there's unfulfilled potential) and some think it's utter trash by comparison. Insane. (I'm in the former group; while it's not as polished as it should be, and it could/should have been and done more/better in some areas; it's Mass Effect and I'm not at all disappointed.)

My problem with DXMD isn't that it's "unfinished", it's the same as Andromeda, in that I don't feel an emotional resonance with the premise, narrative beats, dialogue, and expression of thematic devices. The issue isn't a sense of dissatisfaction at finish, but disinterest during experience. And "feelings" are all we have to go off with emotional resonance and interest; these are not factually measurable, quantifiable variables. They're just how we respond and resonant with whatever experience we're presented with.

TheUnsunghero26 hits a lot of the notes I've expressed before for why I'm disappointed in Andromeda's execution of an otherwise interesting premise. To be perfectly blunt, I found exploring the deeply inhabited Milky Way in Mass Effect 1 significantly more evocative of uncharted worlds, stranger-in-a-strange-place, scope, wonder, and the mysteries of the cosmos, than almost if not every experience I've had with Andromeda. I don't think it's a bad game by any stretch of the imagination, but the experience I'm having with the premise as is, and how it's developing, across the worlds and lore they've built, is totally uninteresting. From my end it's like they took a premise with potential to be the most unique template for entirely new ground possible, and have done exceedingly little with that. It's so flat.

But I also understand that some others like this direction, which I guess is where the splintered fanbase occurs. For me it's like...with the trilogy BioWare did a lot of things I personally wouldn't have done, and took certain characters and themes in directions I felt undermined their own potential (see: Geth). But I was captivated by the whole, so these blemishes even at their most significant never totally deteriorated the entire experience. I was still drawn to the world, lore, and cast, excited to see the developing narratives even if it wasn't as nuanced as I hoped. Meanwhile Andromeda is so comprehensively a direction I'm not interested in that it significantly impacts my interest in future games. I'm just so bored with how they've executed almost everything that what was originally an exciting premise to me is now a forgettable cliffnote that might as well be regulated to a comic book.

For example, I had full intention to buy the expended canon material. Now I won't be, because I don't care.

prag16 · May 2, 2017

Well, agree to disagree. Level of "interest" and the rest of that stuff, for me, is about on par with the trilogy, personally. I'm still not quite 100% understanding; your displeasure with the "direction"? Are you in the "they should go back to the Milky Way" camp? Nothing they could do there can't be done in Andromeda, and Andromeda opens up other possibilities. (And there's of course the whole "sidestepping the color coded Mac Walters wank" part of it.)

The dangling threads they left regarding the Kett, Remnant, scourge,

Jardaan

, and more, are of interest to me. Why is all this "totally uninteresting"? What "direction" would have been better? I guess there's no answer; it comes down to subjective feelings at that point where we decide what we like and don't like.

When you say expanded canon, you mean the novels and comics and stuff? The Nexus Uprising novel was solid if unspectacular. Definitely fleshed out characters like Addison and Sloane Kelly. Without that book I probably would have found them to be 100% useless based on game content alone.

EatChildren · May 2, 2017

It's not so much agree to disagree, as it's just not for me, but it is for you (which I guess is agree to disagree). Some people fucking hated Mass Effect 3 from top to bottom, too. Even if I liked it. I'm just bored with what BioWare chose to do with Andromeda's everything that has me tapping out.

And yeah, I mean the novels and comics. They might be good, but that's how little I care, as reading just adds supplementing material that contribute to a whole that I'm not invested in.

It's depressing as a retrospect, given my otherwise love for the series, but oh well. Wouldn't be the first series to chart a course I personally don't find interesting. Hoping DLC or a new game (if we ever see one) reignite my love.

prag16 said:
Well, agree to disagree. Level of "interest" and the rest of that stuff, for me, is about on par with the trilogy, personally. I'm still not quite 100% understanding; your displeasure with the "direction"? Are you in the "they should go back to the Milky Way" camp? Nothing they could do there can't be done in Andromeda, and Andromeda opens up other possibilities. (And there's of course the whole "sidestepping the color coded Mac Walters wank" part of it.)

The dangling threads they left regarding the Kett, Remnant, scourge,

Jardaan

, and more, are of interest to me. Why is all this "totally uninteresting"? What "direction" would have been better? I guess there's no answer; it comes down to subjective feelings at that point where we decide what we like and don't like.

You're looking for purpose and reason to questions that are inherently subjective. I can't make you disinterested in the things you're interested in, and vice versa. I'm not arguing that Andromeda is objectively an uninteresting game that nobody should like. I'm stating it's totally uninteresting to me, the way I also thought Xenoblade Chronicles X was totally uninteresting, and Mankind Divided was totally uninteresting, and Uncharted 4 was totally uninteresting.

I don't want to go back to the Milky Way. I don't feel there's value in there that can't also be found in Andromeda, and I don't need or want them to infringe on the trilogy's ambiguous ending. What I'm disappointed with, ultimately, is for me what I feel is a lack of emotional brevity, thematic presence, and sense of purpose to the narrative being told. Or more specifically;
The Andromeda Initiative is in shambles and people could literally die frozen in cryo or starve amidst the cold, bleak backdrop of an uncharted galaxy, only it never wants to deeply commit to this theme and instead relax the player so the actual severity of your situation is absent.
It's a narrative loaded with plans gone awry, disasters on every front, betrayal and disorganisation, yet I never felt like anyone was actually under any pressure or risk and instead unusually comfortable.
First contact conflict is handled once and only once, with the Kett in the opening hours, and completely undermined with the Angara, making fresh new aliens fast tracked past introductions just to move the story forward.
The galaxy is ripe with "uncharted worlds" for you to visit, yet basically all of them are wholly lived in an populated, so you're always following in the footsteps of multiple species before you.
Remnant ancient technology is okay, but I'm personally tired of yet another ancient-aliens-with-cool-technology plot thread. It's the most tired, worn out trope in science fiction next to "AI have feelings".
Nexus is Citadel 2.0.
Tempest is Normandy 4.

I don't dislike everything about Andromeda. I really like the squadmate cast, and the loyalty missions I've played are cool. I really like the missing Arks concept, and the Scourge. These are real mysteries that play on the new setting and premise exceedingly well. Everything else though? I just don't care. The brevity and importance of the Initiative is lost on me not because of the inherent idea, but because of how BioWare has chosen to write it, specifically how flaky and non-committal it is to any brevity towards the actual stakes. I don't feel I'm exploring uncharted worlds or fresh alien landscapes due to how oddly populated and dense they are, often with kett and angaran and remnant and human colonies. I don't feel invested in the angaran and kett conflict, or any ambiguity between the two, due to how fast tracked the introduction of both species are. I don't care about the remnant mystery because (admittedly, I'm not finished) it's following predictable scifi trope narrative beat. So in the end I don't feel like a survivalist, I don't feel like a pioneer, I don't feel like a diplomat, and I don't feel like an explorer. I personally don't feel I have any value to the setting and premise, and I don't feel the setting or premise has an inherent value within itself. It's a shitty feeling and I don't feel it's an objective, quantifiable criticism that everyone should feel, or that people are wrong to enjoy the premise. But look; there's a million stories out there across film, literature, theatre, and games. You're not going to like everything, and neither am I. It's interesting to explore why you might like or dislike the things you do to better understand your taste, and so while I don't offer to criticism to others for their taste, I'm very confident in why I don't feel invested in Andromeda because of what it does and the way it does it. It's a story not for me.

diaspora · May 2, 2017

Potential spoilers

Where I'm at with the narrative isn't really a problem with the story so much as it's a part of my larger issue with the game's self-contradictory nature. I've already made a post juxtaposing the quest design again the user experience of inter-zone travel (using Inquisition as an example).

Now, the actual elements in the overall lore and story in this game are compelling to me. You have nation-states being established while a self-styled governing body is asserting its own authority concurrently. For example, you have the minor "nation" of Advent on Eos whilst the Initiative-backed Prodromos is founded on the same planet while also introducing a minor quest to show you potential for resource conflict via water allocation. Alternatively you have a self-styled city-state on Kadara's port founded with the basic premise of being antagonistic or "against" the initiative with the Inintiative itself founding its own settlement in the badlands. Not to mention the founding of settlements on Angaran worlds like Voeld. In the future would Voeld be a nation-state unto itself with the Initiative settlements being provinces or states a part of the Angaran nation? Would there be a plurality of nation states on Voeld? While not the main thread of the core story it does tickle my political bone and makes me look forward to where they take the overall setting when moving forward decades within the game's internal universe.

Alternatively you have the Kett and the Archon where

they're "evil" for exaltation yet as far as I can tell it's a necessary part of their propagation as a species.

This ends up falling into the exact same fucking trap as Sovereign. Sovereign is revealed as an ancient machine, then they fuck it all up by having him go on some asinine monologue about how great he is and how "you don't even get me maaaaan". The Archon does the same fucking thing. They could have gone down the route of them asserting

exaltation as necessary to propagating his species

but he ends up doing another Sovereign where he talks about how great he is and how nobody can get how great he is. Basically the main antagonists fail because they're too much like ME1's from Virmire and onwards. Does Saren legitimately believe in submitting to the technological singularity? Nope, just brainwashed. Is this an unknowable ancient machine? No just a dickhead with a stereotypical villain ego that thinks its' hot shit.

Where I think it really stumbles though, is that there are quests both main and ancillary that clash with both each other and the game's design. Because travel is so fucking arduous the game's design makes it impossible to have any urgency in any quests. Basically this happens:

EatChildren said:
The Andromeda Initiative is in shambles and people could literally die frozen in cryo or starve amidst the cold, bleak backdrop of an uncharted galaxy, only it never wants to deeply commit to this theme and instead relax the player so the actual severity of your situation is absent.
It's a narrative loaded with plans gone awry, disasters on every front, betrayal and disorganisation, yet I never felt like anyone was actually under any pressure or risk and instead unusually comfortable.

SliChillax · May 2, 2017

EatChildren said:
I posted over in the main thread, but yeah; Andromeda sits alongside Mankind Divided as a game I was supremely excited for, still enjoyed, but lost all momentum and traction in play and got so bored it sits unfinished. In the case of Andromeda it's sitting there on my PC and I have zero draw to go back, which is really depressing given my love for the series.

I think the worst part is that I don't even hate it or anything. I just find so much about the narrative so fucking dull. Where Mass Effect 3 was brutally disappointing in its ending, Andromeda is disappointing in how underwhelming and flat the entire premise is. I'm so apathetic about the Kett and Angaran and Remnant. I don't really care about their conflict. And I'm apathetic about the Initiative too, given it never seems to settle on any poignant brevity or direction. It's so wishy washy and non-committal.

It's really sad, because I've spoken to a few others who feel the same. The game plays well, they're okay with that. It looks good, feels good. The premise in theory of travelling to Andromeda and having the Initiative is all cool. But the execution is just not resonating with any particular noteworthy emotional beat or focus. As disappointing as it is to say, it's really killed a lot of my interest in the series, not because of an inherent dislike for the series, but because I don't care about the narrative direction they've taken it. Boo.

I feel exactly the same and it's why I wish for Bioware to go back to the Milky Way. I agree with every post you make it's weird lol

Patryn · May 2, 2017

I suppose this is where I should also hop in to say that I also quit on Andromeda before reaching the end.

For me, it was the one-two punch of meeting Reyes, who shared the exact face that I created for my Ryder (thus demonstrating both just how limited the character creator was and how low effort Bioware was creating their major NPCs) along with the glut of missions that were sloppily and clumsily opened up after finishing

Kadara

the first time. I suddenly looked at my mission log and realized that I just didn't care about any of them.

I'm planning on going back once Bioware has implemented their changes to the character creator, however.

I do think that Bioware ran face-first into the same problem as 343 did, where in an effort to connect to their roots they've let the old overwhelm the new, to the point that it doesn't feel like I'm actually discovering anything new. Everything I'm doing, someone else (generally someone from the Milky Way) has already done. I'm mostly just meeting the same old races.

For now, I've returned to SWTOR to get some of my sci-fi RPG fix, which means I have a whole bunch of other problems with Bioware, but that's for another thread. Still love that game more than I probably should, honestly.

prag16 · May 2, 2017

SliChillax said:
I feel exactly the same and it's why I wish for Bioware to go back to the Milky Way. I agree with every post you make it's weird lol

Why is the Milky Way inherently better? They can do anything in Andromeda that they could do in the Milky Way, and possibly more. If you have issues with the direction, I don't think they galaxy they're in was the main cause. And as we all know they did it to lave the trilogy endings as their own thing. You're sure this isn't rose-tinted trilogy goggles talking?

diaspora · May 2, 2017

I absolutely do not want them to go back to the Milky Way. I've been clear on what I feel are this game's shortcomings in how this game's story is told and how it, the quest design, and travel mechanics are a bicycle crash when put together; but I do find the setting infinitely more compelling than the Milky Way. Between the history of the Remnant/

Jardaan

and how they were at their height of power 300~ years post-Reaper War (mid-flight to Andromeda), the founding and reestablishing of multiple nation-states on Eos, Kadara, Elaaden, and Voeld (Havarl was in decline but it was still there), the scourge and

its use as a weapon and whomever used it

, and the Kett as an

Empire of a species that cannot reproduce naturally and requires both invasion and force genetic changes to propagate

, I feel like the setting is significantly more interesting than anything in the Milky Way during any point of the Trilogy.

I feel like this game as a good setting, lore, and world building. What I think it failed in was actually telling a good story in it.

prag16 · May 2, 2017

diaspora said:
I feel like this game as a good setting, lore, and world building. What I think it failed in was actually telling a good story in it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it "failed" personally, but otherwise I think this is a good way of putting it. There's good base imo for new content and games within the framework of what they established here.

diaspora · May 2, 2017

prag16 said:
I wouldn't go so far as to say it "failed" personally, but otherwise I think this is a good way of putting it. There's good base imo for new content and games within the framework of what they established here.

I think the story they told in the world is worse than the world that they're telling it in. IMO this isn't really unfair.

prag16 · May 2, 2017

diaspora said:
I think the story they told in the world is worse than the world that they're telling it in. IMO this isn't really unfair.

Agreed. I just wouldn't have gone so far as to say they "failed"; I'd have said something more like "just okay". But yeah, the particular story they told here was definitely weaker than the potential of the world.

diaspora · May 2, 2017

prag16 said:
Agreed. I just wouldn't have gone so far as to say they "failed"; I'd have said something more like "just okay". But yeah, the particular story they told here was definitely weaker than the potential of the world.

Fair enough. Ultimately, I see this game as a series of contradictions. You have multi-zone quests fighting against inter-zone travel design that simply does not allow for a continue flow of the quests' story. You have a main story about

beating the Kett and taking control of the terraforming network

that's nowhere near as interesting as the political questions, lore, and world that the story's being told in. You have quest design, travel design, and the main narrative arc all contradicting each other. This game feels like one team wanted to do X, another Y, and rather than prioritise one over the other they decided to try to make everyone on the team happy and do everything.

So I like most of these individual pieces- like the stories told in the sidequests, I appreciate the sense of travel the arduous inter-zone travel mechanics bring to the table, I appreciate the political setup, world building with the remnant/

Jardaan

, Angara, scourge, etc. I even liked the main story when mainlining it. What I don't like is how it's all put together because these things aren't working well together.

Maledict · May 2, 2017

prag16 said:
Nobody should be depressed over this. It's a game.

This post and EC's post are light on facts; it's all "feelings" that this game sucks. I liked DXMD, but I understand the criticisms of that. It objectively (pretty much) has no main story and/or is half a main story.

ME:A has a main story, and for me it was plenty to pull me along. But it's not blatantly unfinished (story-wise) the way DXMD was/is. Andromeda also has a lot more going on (side threads, and big picture but outside the scope of the main story of the game [some of which remains unresolved]) than the main story arc. DXMD doesn't for the most part, and is more narrowly focused on the (nonexistent) main plot.

It's interesting how a lot of the huge trilogy fans on gaf are so divided on the game. Some say right up there with the trilogy (even if there's unfulfilled potential) and some think it's utter trash by comparison. Insane. (I'm in the former group; while it's not as polished as it should be, and it could/should have been and done more/better in some areas; it's Mass Effect and I'm not at all disappointed.)

Mmm, it's okay to be depressed about a game. The Mass Effect trilogy was probably the single best gaming experience I've had in my 30 years of gaming taken as a whole, and seeing it go in a direction I don't like and even fail at doing that is really sad. If we do view games as having some sort of artistic value, and being relevant beyond just consumption to pass time, then seeing your favourite ever series go down hill so badly is definitely a cause for feeling down.

As much as I hated ME3 thanks to the ending and the corners cut throughout, the individual character beats remain the strongest of any game series I've ever played. Garrus, Mordin, Thane - they were fantastic character arcs and endings. I wish I had a tenth of that emotional investment in Andromeda, but it's just not there.

diaspora · May 2, 2017

It's... hard for me to use ME2 and 3 companions as a point of comparison to Andromeda insofar as ME2 was literally fantastic companions recruitment quests, their outstanding companion quests, and a ridiculously inane, shallow story, and frankly borderline non-existent world-building and lore. That game was effectively build almost entirely around those companion quests. ME3 had 1-2 games worth of character development behind it so...

FWIW I appreciated what was there in ME:A and it's one of the few things that isn't really contradicted by another part of the game.

prag16 · May 2, 2017

I guess I'm just having a hard time comprehending the disappointment some people feel. To me Andromeda is not downhill. It stumbles in a few areas (the biggest area being what diapora has been talking about) but in most areas it feels like a logical expansion/continuation for Mass Effect. Just not seeing how the series is "ruined" now for some people. But as was noted some people said ME3 ruined the for the series too.

Support NeoGAF

The Mass Effect Community Thread |OT2|

Member

Member

Member

Banned

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.

Banned

Member

not me

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.

Member

Member

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.

Banned

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Similar threads