-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect: Andromeda |OT| Ryders on the Storm
- Thread starter Blue Ninja
- Start date
Eh, rumours for this game were upwards of $40-$50 million with no real concrete numbers on marketing. Plus, thos game got Edmonton and Austin involved. It probably had the same EA Shanghai outsourcing as other games get. You'd be surprised at how many non-DICE employees actually worked on Battlefront or Battlefield games.
Alpha Centauri
Member
We won't know for years, but Witcher 3 brought over and showed a little bit of payoff for many of TW2 quests. Chief among them was Letho. They did cut out the Iorveth scenes due to deadlines though. I didn't like the fucking elf anyway...
I miss you Iorveth! 
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I have said this numerous times on this very page, i am perfectly fine with people giving this game a 7. What I have an issue with is games like BOTW getting 10s for the same shit AC games get flack for. I have an issue with people dismissing my criticisms of Uncharted and Witcher 3 while ignoring those same criticisms to give ME:A a 7 instead of their GOTY award.
I like this thread a lot. Everyone here is giving this game a shot and finding lots to like about the game. I agree with every criticism mentioned here. And I love that we can talk about it objectively. Soundtrack is objectively worse than previous games. Story and characters are objectively worse than the trilogy. The cutscene quality and facial animations are all worse than previous games. The quest and open world structure is just as bad as Dragon Age inquisition. I love that we can get past the internet outrage over silly bugs and facial animations and focus on real issues with the game.
And yet as soon as I start comparing it to the other games who received a 70 on metacritic, all objectivity is thrown out the window. Now we cant even compare them to GOTY winners from previous years because well, reasons. Cant compare combat systems, cant compare mission structure, cant look at why Fallout 4, DA:I and Witcher 3 got a pass for the same issues. Cant discuss their shortcomings.
I dont hate Uncharted 4. I am just disappointed. Same with Witcher 3. I think both games are a 7. Just like Mass Effect: Adromeda. U4 might have the best combat in the series, just like ME:A but it's hidden in there in a 15 hour walking simulator that is a slog to go through. I dont like the double standard. I see the 10s Zelda got and I am like what? All i am asking for is critics to start rating everything objectively.
Mediking
Member
Flawed logic is flawed.
MrTroubleMaker
Gold Member
lol neat!
Alpha Centauri
Member
Objectivity is not the golden beacon of achievement. As well, it is nigh impossible. Nearly all reviews are a subjective take on a product. In every qualitative field, people would state that we all see things through a particular lens. You have to acknowledge that when someone gives one game a 7, vs another game a 9, subjective elements will always be at play. The only objective review you will ever see will be on the quantitative side. Resolution, frame rate, voice line amount, TTK vs similar genre enemies, bug count, etc. And those are important too! Digital Foundry is flourishing in that particular niche.
The fact that games like Uncharted, the Witcher 3, BOTW, and others made people feel a certain way has to be taken in account somehow. Tastes will never be objective in any meaningful way to discuss. Emotion is a part of the human experience.
I've disagreed with you a number of times on this point, but I think that most of what you've written here is reasonable. While I would give ME:A a 6 or so on some personal scale, I agree that it's better than most games with similar Metacritic scores. However:
- The two bolded words do not go together. That's not how criticism works.
- At the risk of repeating myself, you're omitting some crucial complicating factors in your game comparisons. Specifically, that DA:I came out years ago in a very different environment (crucially, it came out prior to TW3), was much more polished, and would still get savaged if released today; that TW3 had, by popular consensus if not in your own opinion, historically good RPG writing (pretty much no one would argue that ME:A can say the same, even if they disliked TW3); and that Fallout 4 is a sandbox open-world RPG, which is not a genre typically judged by characters and quest writing in the same way that Mass Effect games are (note: I have not played FO4, and am reasonably sure I would hate it if I did).
SirPinkyNose
Member
Hmm seems like I shouldn't stay up at 3AM. Can't even make sense on what I read and write.
Anyway objectivity can't be achieved for reviews unless you review techs or something. Too many factors.
Anyway objectivity can't be achieved for reviews unless you review techs or something. Too many factors.
This is a list of all games released on PS4 this year so far.
ME:A should not be around those trashy games.
And standards dont change in a couple of years. you cant rate say DA:I is GOTY and then two years later trash ME:A. You cant give No Mans Sky a 71 and 8 months later give ME a lower score.
Again I have no problems with people giving this game a 7 if they rate other games accordingly. Let's stop going gaga over the story and characters in Witcher 3 and Uncharted 4 and rate the game on the GAME part of it. Otherwise, we are all just here talking about how the game made us feel inside. Instead of obectively discussing each game's shortcomings.
You seem to genuinely have no clue what objectivity means. Objectivity does not mean agree with SlimySnake. Why are you the arbiter of what games should be rated on? What comprises the GAME part of a game?
You also still seem to be incapable of coming to terms with the fact that reviewers think these games are in the same ballpark, in terms of quality.
Hundreds of reviews, thousands of user scores, game of the year awards, and sales all imply Andromeda is not in the tier as W3 and U4. They're better games. It doesn't mean Andromeda is irredeemable trash.
Ovek
7Member7
Considering how a majority of people in that thread dogpiled on him I'm not really surprised he left.
Tbh he got the game well before launch and would not say/how or why and his thread was pretty much a marketing thread playing up positive aspects, trying to dismiss the negative ones. His treatment was not warranted and mods did deal with those who were bad, but I don't really blame others for wanting more transparency. He chose to leave the site of his own accord. Dogpiling happens in a lot of threads, it has happened to me before too.
In hindsight, having played the game, and then following Shinobi on twitter, I can see his thread coming from the place of a fan, but I can see why others also thought it subversive shilling/marketing.
prag16
Banned
This is not how I remember it. I'm pretty sure he disclosed how he got the copy; he's friends with some guys at Bioware and one of them sent him a code. Simple as that.
Following his twitter commentary on the game now that he's through most of the game (not all, last I checked), he quite possibly likes the game less than I do. So to see the accusations of astrotufing and shilling, and the sheer anger with which he was met by some, was kind of surreal.
The way he was treated was downright embarrassing.
Really? Interesting
prag16
Banned
Granted, to put that in perspective, as I said in one if the topics, I'm poised to give it a 9/10 which is definitely higher than most would go even among fans of the game.
I'm enjoying some stuff about MEA. I like the loyalty missions so far, and using biotics to jump around is fun, in fact gameplay overall is fun. The space travel graphics are very, very pretty. I could just wander to different planets all day. Combat is good, though to be honest I enjoyed the combat in the original trilogy too (especially ME3) and it isn't a massive deal for me. I like the tons of armour/weapons, they look good, and I like being able to customise colours and patterns.
But overall, I'm struggling with it. It seems to have doubled down on some of Inquisition's weaker points (too much filler, slightly underwhelming main story) while not matching that game's strengths (excellent cast, wonderful lore, decent writing, lots of ways to make your protag 'your own').
The companions have their moments (except Cora, who I find extremely boring), but that's all really. Can't change their weapons, or their armour, and there are, for me, no real standout characters, whereas the main trilogy had loads of them. Some of the more fun characters seem like rip-offs of earlier Bioware efforts (Reyes seems like space Zevran for example, the exotic bisexual bad boy with a good heart), while others just come across as a bit bland, which isn't usually something Bioware is guilty of. SAM, the AI, has no personality at all. which is fine if he's a bit part. But he's a big part of the game, and has less character than an Avina VI.
The writing is not great so far for the most part, though there are exceptions (Liam's loyalty mission was well done); the faces seem regularly recycled outside of the main cast, as do the voices.
Ryder seems to have quite limited character options. Either professional, snarky, or a bit emotional. No incredibly badass. No options to be really horrible, or resentful at having had Pathfinder forced on them. Very few dialogue options outside of infodumps :/
The most disappointing thing for me so far though, is that for a brand new, completely alien galaxy, how little about it is actually alien. Eos is your regular desert planet, Voeld is your regular snowy planet. Havarl was nice, but the smallest of them all. Kadara is okay and pretty with its little pools everywhere, but nothing wildly exotic. The wildlife is samey on all the planets, and apart from those flying things all of it hostile. There were more sentient species on the Citadel in ME1 than in the whole of MEA. And the two new species introduced were pretty unmemorable. The ME series aliens were wonderful - Hanar, Elcor, Volus, Yahg, Leviathan, Vorcha. Where's the variety? what's the point of setting the game in a new galaxy if we're going to spend large parts of the game seeing the same old faces, or things that look a lot like the same old faces? Some familiarity is nice (I like that there are other Milky Way Arks to find) but that's enough, the rest should be weird and wonderful. Kadara could have been like Mos Eisley, instead it's just a smaller version of Omega but without Quarians or Vorcha or Aria
I also miss the lack of random missions. I loved how, in ME1/2, you could pick up a strange signal from an uncharted world and head down there for a short mission, or just to explore. In MEA I feel more led around, somehow, everything you can do is ultimately clustered onto the same few planets. Okay so you might follow a radiation trail around the cluster, but it's basically guaranteed to end in a quest on one of the main worlds, rather than a random planet in the middle of nowhere. For an 'open world' game, I actually feel as though I have far less freedom than in either ME1 or ME2.
And then there are little things - the lack of a voiced codex (which I loved in the original trilogy), less detailed and interesting planet descriptions when you scan them. And yes, the animations, eyes, limited character creator etc. Which aren't a massive problem for me on their own, but it stacks up with other stuff.
The feeling I get is that in order to really concentrate on the MP and open world aspects of the game, it's lost a lot of what made Mass Effect so charming. It feels aimless, and without much character. I'm honestly struggling to want to finish it, and it's gutting because over the years I've always loved Bioware titles. Even when they haven't reviewed amazingly (DA2), and even when they've been janky and buggy (which is a lot of Bioware games).
Sorry for the rant.
But overall, I'm struggling with it. It seems to have doubled down on some of Inquisition's weaker points (too much filler, slightly underwhelming main story) while not matching that game's strengths (excellent cast, wonderful lore, decent writing, lots of ways to make your protag 'your own').
The companions have their moments (except Cora, who I find extremely boring), but that's all really. Can't change their weapons, or their armour, and there are, for me, no real standout characters, whereas the main trilogy had loads of them. Some of the more fun characters seem like rip-offs of earlier Bioware efforts (Reyes seems like space Zevran for example, the exotic bisexual bad boy with a good heart), while others just come across as a bit bland, which isn't usually something Bioware is guilty of. SAM, the AI, has no personality at all. which is fine if he's a bit part. But he's a big part of the game, and has less character than an Avina VI.
The writing is not great so far for the most part, though there are exceptions (Liam's loyalty mission was well done); the faces seem regularly recycled outside of the main cast, as do the voices.
Ryder seems to have quite limited character options. Either professional, snarky, or a bit emotional. No incredibly badass. No options to be really horrible, or resentful at having had Pathfinder forced on them. Very few dialogue options outside of infodumps :/
The most disappointing thing for me so far though, is that for a brand new, completely alien galaxy, how little about it is actually alien. Eos is your regular desert planet, Voeld is your regular snowy planet. Havarl was nice, but the smallest of them all. Kadara is okay and pretty with its little pools everywhere, but nothing wildly exotic. The wildlife is samey on all the planets, and apart from those flying things all of it hostile. There were more sentient species on the Citadel in ME1 than in the whole of MEA. And the two new species introduced were pretty unmemorable. The ME series aliens were wonderful - Hanar, Elcor, Volus, Yahg, Leviathan, Vorcha. Where's the variety? what's the point of setting the game in a new galaxy if we're going to spend large parts of the game seeing the same old faces, or things that look a lot like the same old faces? Some familiarity is nice (I like that there are other Milky Way Arks to find) but that's enough, the rest should be weird and wonderful. Kadara could have been like Mos Eisley, instead it's just a smaller version of Omega but without Quarians or Vorcha or Aria
I also miss the lack of random missions. I loved how, in ME1/2, you could pick up a strange signal from an uncharted world and head down there for a short mission, or just to explore. In MEA I feel more led around, somehow, everything you can do is ultimately clustered onto the same few planets. Okay so you might follow a radiation trail around the cluster, but it's basically guaranteed to end in a quest on one of the main worlds, rather than a random planet in the middle of nowhere. For an 'open world' game, I actually feel as though I have far less freedom than in either ME1 or ME2.
And then there are little things - the lack of a voiced codex (which I loved in the original trilogy), less detailed and interesting planet descriptions when you scan them. And yes, the animations, eyes, limited character creator etc. Which aren't a massive problem for me on their own, but it stacks up with other stuff.
The feeling I get is that in order to really concentrate on the MP and open world aspects of the game, it's lost a lot of what made Mass Effect so charming. It feels aimless, and without much character. I'm honestly struggling to want to finish it, and it's gutting because over the years I've always loved Bioware titles. Even when they haven't reviewed amazingly (DA2), and even when they've been janky and buggy (which is a lot of Bioware games).
Sorry for the rant.
true enough.. There are little subtleties that makes me feel a certain way for many games with crappy scores...a cut-scence that captures a shot correctly with zoom and angle. The lighting, and sounds of a particular instance of gaming. The VA can do it too.
On tbe flip: Being a writer I know that it doesn't come easy - working the ins and outs if plot; making sure it makes sense, making sure the continuity is sound and non-conflicting with other aspects of plot and lore..With that said, I would like for some people on here to elaborate on their opinions on the plot other than hyperbole
i would truly like to hear WHY a story sucks..can anyone present an actual argument as to what is good storytelling, and better yet what makes a good story..a good writer for that matter, because we're all experts right please, anybody - enlighten me.
Seems more like major complaints are towards narrative structure and dialogue. The core story is unimaginative but gets the job done, but if you're a writer maybe you have better insight into Andromeda's pitfalls unless you're coming from the point of view that everything's fine?
From my perspective of dialogue and narrative faults Andromeda has constant issues with how it paces or builds dialogue interactions (Cora's loyalty mission), simple writing at important moments (Nakmor Morda), bootlegged characters (Sloane), and very sketchy scene direction that negatively impacts many interactions. Andromeda is in some ways the opposite of something like The Order 1886 where that game has pristine production values and great scene direction but bare bones gameplay. By contrast Andromeda is a dense and complex game with clumsy as hell presentation, at least half of which is due purely to bugs or unfinished work.
MAX PAYMENT
Member
When does the salarian ark show up?
Keep going with the story, it shows up late game.
soapypanda
Member
Kinda disappointed with what happened with Reyes at the end. Neither of them were angels but meh.
Worked through a few story missions today, my first time playing in at least 3 weeks. Things definitely started to pick up a bit as the story unfolded and I got to know my squadmates a little better. I know they patched it once, but it also just felt a little less janky overall. Maybe placebo.
For the time being I've been ignoring all of the "Tasks" they just seem boring, save for a select few. Is this a good call or am I missing critical stuff?
For the time being I've been ignoring all of the "Tasks" they just seem boring, save for a select few. Is this a good call or am I missing critical stuff?
il Diavolo
Banned
Trash MMO tier missions meant to pad out your quest log. You're not missing anything.
I H8 Memes
Member
Question about Havarl.
There are a couple of slightly difficult to find consoles through the first area of the map. I'm pretty sure I triggered them all and they pointed to what looks like a console above the doorway on the other side of the ditch. Even after finishing everything on the level I still couldnt find a way up to it. Whats up there and how do I get to it?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I've just been opening up all the loot boxes I've been getting from multiplayer, and I was just wondering if there's a reason to keep dupe weapons?
I assume you can't use dupes to level up the guns like you can in multiplayer, but can you equip your squadmates with Black Widows? Do I need more than one of each gun? Or should I just scrap all the extra guns? (I've gotten like 8 Hurricanes from the gold boxes...)
I assume you can't use dupes to level up the guns like you can in multiplayer, but can you equip your squadmates with Black Widows? Do I need more than one of each gun? Or should I just scrap all the extra guns? (I've gotten like 8 Hurricanes from the gold boxes...)
Scrap or sell.
SirPinkyNose
Member
Yes.
I'd advice to just stick with loyalty missions and priority quest the first playthrough.
Finished the game tonight with just over 60 hours in and my save file saying 70 something % completed. While the gameplay was fun and I didn't have any serious bugs it isn't a great game. It's enjoyable but I don't think I'll remember much of it after a few months. I think the main issue is they tried to do to much. Instead of tight interconnected storyline they just pumped out a ton of quest. Like I don't understand why the game is playable after you finish the main mission. None of the quest are memorable and few are even just good. Tomorrow it gets traded in for HZD.
Blue Ninja
Member
In a purely technical view, the two games' sidequests are similar. The big difference is that sidequests in TW3 feel like consequential tasks: you're hunting a monster, saving a village or protecting worshippers. They'll often have a twist or two, like the quest where you're sent to burn mass graves of plague victims, only to discover they're people who didn't pay protection fees to the priest who hired you.
In Andromeda, they feel like busywork. Go here, follow this marker, scan this, then follow another marker, scan this, shoot some enemies and done. If you're lucky, you get a follow-up email, if you're not, you need to travel all the way back to the questgiver across several loading screens, to get ten seconds of "thank you" and an insubstantial reward. They were clearly inspired by the quests in the aforementioned game, but BioWare (like many developers) simply didn't understand what made them different.
Back in '14, genre fatigue hadn't set in as much as it has now. We've had so many open worlds in years past, with varying degrees of success. Andromeda just took the worst time-padding parts of it, thinking that's what people want. As you can see, the majority doesn't.
For a lot of players, "but the shooting is nice" is not enough in an 100-hour game. Witcher 3 had great, engaging content in spite of its lacking combat. The world was interesting to explore. Skyrim was the same. Andromeda has great combat, but the worlds you're exploring feel hollow and lacking. The characters, save your squadmates and a few exceptions, are unengaging. DA:I had some similar issues, but not to the same degree and that was a few years ago. Andromeda hasn't evolved from that formula, at all.
I'd love to discuss further but I'll have to cut my message short, I'm at work. :lol
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm enjoying the game a lot. I'm on my NG+ playthrough and having a lot of fun. The thing is that half of that fun comes from not engaging certain quest givers and completing less content. Can't imagine that's what the designers wanted.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Oh really? Feels bad deleting some Black Widows, but I guess if they're useless... lol
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I'm about 25 Hrs in but this is my first venture into the OT.
Whilst I think it's far better than people made out, I have to admit I feel like I'm hitting a wall with it. The last two hours or so I have just been bombarded with quests, up until now I felt like I was keeping on top, but I just got to the outcast/pirate settlement and someone is asking me to do something pointless every other minute. Did they really think people could keep track of all these? I'm constantly just checking the map screen for things to do close-by with no idea of why I'm doing it.
I also think the combat is a step down from ME 2/3, not being able to use squadmate powers completely invalidates the whole combo system, I don't know why they would remove this.
Overall I'm still enjoying it, but it took a nosedive in the last 3 hours, I miss the linear missions of the previous games more than I thought I would. There has been one so far, where you
. Are there many more of these in the rest of the game?
Whilst I think it's far better than people made out, I have to admit I feel like I'm hitting a wall with it. The last two hours or so I have just been bombarded with quests, up until now I felt like I was keeping on top, but I just got to the outcast/pirate settlement and someone is asking me to do something pointless every other minute. Did they really think people could keep track of all these? I'm constantly just checking the map screen for things to do close-by with no idea of why I'm doing it.
I also think the combat is a step down from ME 2/3, not being able to use squadmate powers completely invalidates the whole combo system, I don't know why they would remove this.
Overall I'm still enjoying it, but it took a nosedive in the last 3 hours, I miss the linear missions of the previous games more than I thought I would. There has been one so far, where you
attack the Kett facility, I think maybe the next one will be going after the Archon's ship
Yeah, you have to be good with quest management in your head. You have to be able to at least memorize 2-3 quests that happen within the same world or regularly checking the map for uncompleted quests while on that world. Otherwise, hope you like backtracking back and forth.
Having said that, I still enjoy it. Just finished Peebee's loyalty mission, which had me grinning because of how silly it is. I finally understand that scene that blew up on the web was meant to be silly and somewhat cartoon-like but I guess the animation didn't quite get there. Although the patch somewhat helps. Somewhat.
Also, that planet they land on is one of the nicer-looking ones along with Havarl and Kadara, which is unfortunate because you're only there for a short period of time.
Having said that, I still enjoy it. Just finished Peebee's loyalty mission, which had me grinning because of how silly it is. I finally understand that scene that blew up on the web was meant to be silly and somewhat cartoon-like but I guess the animation didn't quite get there. Although the patch somewhat helps. Somewhat.
Also, that planet they land on is one of the nicer-looking ones along with Havarl and Kadara, which is unfortunate because you're only there for a short period of time.
SirPinkyNose
Member
All main loyalty missions are linear. Most main quests are also linear.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
That's good to hear but, like I said, I'm 25 hrs in and there has been just one of these so far. The first area was a mini open-world and even the first vault has been copy/pasted so I personally don't count those. I was hoping the loyalty missions would be like that, but the only one I have so far is Drack's one, which has dragged on for ages and been the same open world nonsense as the rest of them. I'm assuming the final bit will be more interesting.
alexanderftw
Banned
After 75 hours I finally finished the game with 97% completion, missed a few tasks that had no map markers so couldnt bother with them. Theres even a nice reward after the end if you do all the planets 100% which I liked. The short verion of my experience is that it was okay, for every good thing it did, it also did a lot of bad things. 7 out of 10 would be the perfect score for it, which generally isnt a bad score but considering the previous games were easily 9, its quite disappointing. The game is extremely light on the whole aspect of survival. Theres never really an urgency trying to make the planets livable. Theres a lot of humor, some good some bad, the bad mostly comes from Liam though his loyalty mission was pretty fun. Speaking of loyalty missions they were all good but extremely short. You could probably finish the game in 20 hours if you could only focus on the main mission and loyalty stuff, just like the previous ones. The stuff you do on the planets is meh. There was nothing memorable and the whole "we learned from Witcher 3's amazing side quest" PR was total BS. Theres not a single main nor side quests that even close to what W3 offers. Instead of making you gather 1000 things like DAI they converted that into 1000 boring quests. Liam and Cora were utter meh but the rest of the companions range from okay to great starting with Peebee and ending with Drak .Combat was fun but too incredibly easy even on latest difficulty. It also bothered me that it left things up in the air with the mysterious benefactor and the whole upper kett leadership but I guess we'll see that in a DLC if theres going to be one. I most likely wont pay for any upcoming DLC/expansion.
That's some real revisionist bullshit. Shinobi was up front about it being his opinion and with how he got the game. The first review thread was locked due to people attacking him over his opinion and using reviews as ammo. Fuck you with this, "its just dogpiling, happened to me." Not like that, it didn't.
FrontalMonk
Banned
Agreed. That shit was gross and uncalled for.
Via Purifico
Banned
I've put my run on hold waiting for new patches, anyone have an ETA for the next one? They really need to improve performance on the pro, it's abysmal.
I dunno, I like the idea of having defined characters, but it would be really good if they fleshed them out some more so you're not just playing as "KROGAN VANGUARD" or "HUMAN FEMALE SENTINEL." Actual people with personality, please.
Chill out. This is the Mass Effect OT, if you have an issue with what happened take it to mods or PM's, don't derail the thread anymore. I didn't say Shinobi deserved it all and I still read what he posts on twitter.
Your post makes some very good points but I don't think you are looking for critics to rate things objectively. What you are asking for is for critics to come to their own subjective opinions and not just repeat the narrative that begins to develop around high profile games.
The amount this happens among popular websites/reviewers is debatable but I do think there is a certain amount of group think that goes into modern reviews. Most of the time I don't think it is even a conscious decision by the reviewer but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
prag16
Banned
I suppose it's probably not the same people doing it (I'm not keeping score), but it's interesting to see the dichotomy of people who think the games is pretty good and rate it a 7/10 (lots of such people in the OT and community thread), but meanwhile a 70 metacritic is generally considered an abject failure (and earmarks it as something to avoid) for anything but games with the tiniest of teams/budgets.
I'm still a little bit at a loss. People have tried to explain why the questing there is drastically better, but I'm still not entirely getting it. There are a couple objective aspects such as the inordinate length of some of the ME:A chains especially when excessive travel is required. But everything involving the story and characters is so subjective. Most of what I'm getting from people is a "feeling" that they're having a hard time elucidating.
I recognize the issues with ME:A's questing, but TW3 still bored me more. Probably far more (part of this is my personal preference for scifi over high fantasy; high fantasy is oversaturated as fuck in the RPG space...).
In this quoted post, the first paragraph is a fair, but positive characterization of some of TW3's quests, while the second paragraph is an overly reductive characterization of some of ME:A's quests. Someone else (Deadly Parasite?) already touched on this either here or in the community thread, but a lot of ME:A's side quests can easily be characterized the way you're characterizing TW3's quests. So we're back at a "feeling" where the Witcher stuff "feels" important, or you "care" whereas with ME:A even though the level of exposition/story is similar, but you don't "care".
Granted a lot of people are saying this, so they probably fucked up somewhere (not sure if it's more than just some of the awkward delivery and animations; TW3 had these factors too but probably not as severe). But on the whole I'm not seeing the vast gulf many are implying. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
I'm still a little bit at a loss. People have tried to explain why the questing there is drastically better, but I'm still not entirely getting it. There are a couple objective aspects such as the inordinate length of some of the ME:A chains especially when excessive travel is required. But everything involving the story and characters is so subjective. Most of what I'm getting from people is a "feeling" that they're having a hard time elucidating.
I recognize the issues with ME:A's questing, but TW3 still bored me more. Probably far more (part of this is my personal preference for scifi over high fantasy; high fantasy is oversaturated as fuck in the RPG space...).
In this quoted post, the first paragraph is a fair, but positive characterization of some of TW3's quests, while the second paragraph is an overly reductive characterization of some of ME:A's quests. Someone else (Deadly Parasite?) already touched on this either here or in the community thread, but a lot of ME:A's side quests can easily be characterized the way you're characterizing TW3's quests. So we're back at a "feeling" where the Witcher stuff "feels" important, or you "care" whereas with ME:A even though the level of exposition/story is similar, but you don't "care".
Granted a lot of people are saying this, so they probably fucked up somewhere (not sure if it's more than just some of the awkward delivery and animations; TW3 had these factors too but probably not as severe). But on the whole I'm not seeing the vast gulf many are implying. ¯\_(ツ
_/¯I finished up my play through late last week, overall I'd probably sum it up as "disappointing", certainly this was the weakest game I've played this year by a fair stretch.
Doubtless its tired at this point to complain about animation but I honestly found it just dreadful and jarring from start to finish, I felt it prevented me from being truly immersed in my team and the story. After a few hours I turned subtitles on and just read those and used square to skip actual conversations. I always enjoy the narrative and social aspects of these games above just about everything else and having to actively "look away" was just annoying. I appreciate how complex and expensive it must be to animate the game to avoid this, but when Bioware themselves set the scope and price of the game I lose some sympathy, if production cost is an issue I'd rather it was smaller and of a greater overall quality.
I found combat enjoyable enough and while it's certainly not dreadful I didn't find it particularly thrilling. Initially I was quite happy to lose fine control of the other team members but that sentiment didn't last long, I didn't think the combat was solid enough alone to lose that other layer.
I started the game quite enjoying exploration in the tank and some of the side missions but that didn't last beyond the second (third?) planet when I just concentrated on loyalty and main missions.
Personally I'd say while the bad didn't outweigh the good, nether did the good outweigh the bad, a mediocre experience from beginning to end. Though to the games credit I did stick with it to the end, something I didn't do to ME3, and the loyalty missions were generally of high quality, despite loathing him I enjoyed Liam's in particular. I don't see myself ever replaying it like I did to the first 2 games in the series and I very much doubt I'll ever go back for DLC or similar, shame really.
Doubtless its tired at this point to complain about animation but I honestly found it just dreadful and jarring from start to finish, I felt it prevented me from being truly immersed in my team and the story. After a few hours I turned subtitles on and just read those and used square to skip actual conversations. I always enjoy the narrative and social aspects of these games above just about everything else and having to actively "look away" was just annoying. I appreciate how complex and expensive it must be to animate the game to avoid this, but when Bioware themselves set the scope and price of the game I lose some sympathy, if production cost is an issue I'd rather it was smaller and of a greater overall quality.
I found combat enjoyable enough and while it's certainly not dreadful I didn't find it particularly thrilling. Initially I was quite happy to lose fine control of the other team members but that sentiment didn't last long, I didn't think the combat was solid enough alone to lose that other layer.
I started the game quite enjoying exploration in the tank and some of the side missions but that didn't last beyond the second (third?) planet when I just concentrated on loyalty and main missions.
Personally I'd say while the bad didn't outweigh the good, nether did the good outweigh the bad, a mediocre experience from beginning to end. Though to the games credit I did stick with it to the end, something I didn't do to ME3, and the loyalty missions were generally of high quality, despite loathing him I enjoyed Liam's in particular. I don't see myself ever replaying it like I did to the first 2 games in the series and I very much doubt I'll ever go back for DLC or similar, shame really.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
A couple thoughts being a couple weeks removed from beating the game.
The biggest issue for me--technical flaws, bad writing etc. aside--looking back are the lack of urgency and purpose. The fate of a few hundred thousand lives, as well as the the future generations they would produce if given a viable home, never really comes across. I mean, getting planets to 100% viable is optional for fuck's sake, and there's no major reward for doing so. A neat moment, but it doesn't affect the story or ending at all.
I'm not a creative type at all and even I can come up with multiple ways this could have been remedied. For instance, why not have the Kett launch invasions of each colony in the late game. Ones at 100% survive and are able to send help for a revised final battle, ones that aren't can't send help or are wiped out if below a certain percentage viable which leads to different endings adding replay value.
Beyond that, cut down on the pointless fetch quests and give each colony meaningful, well-written quest lines you are compelled to do as you know have incentive to complete them and get to 100% viability. Couple that with not getting such huge bumps for a couple of main tasks (making an outpost, activating the vault) as now the quests are compelling and more will do them and they can thus count for a large chunk of viability. It's not even a new idea for the series as it's in the same vein as rounding up allies and doing their loyalty quests to have their support at the end of ME2, or rallying support as the driving purpose in ME3.
This would also help with my other big gripe I posted about before of hating the boring, empty open world planets. Exploring them would be less painful if doing so while carrying out these compelling and meaninful quests--though I still think it would be better for those to just take place in well designed semi-linear areas you go to when launching a side quest to cut out the boring (IMO) traversal).
Hopefully the game gets a sequel and can explore some of these type of ideas as the colonization of Andromeda an conflict with the Kett continue.
TLDR; The game needed to put more emphasize on the importance of establishing colonies and have the quests and main plot centered around doing so and increasing viability of planets.
The biggest issue for me--technical flaws, bad writing etc. aside--looking back are the lack of urgency and purpose. The fate of a few hundred thousand lives, as well as the the future generations they would produce if given a viable home, never really comes across. I mean, getting planets to 100% viable is optional for fuck's sake, and there's no major reward for doing so. A neat moment, but it doesn't affect the story or ending at all.
I'm not a creative type at all and even I can come up with multiple ways this could have been remedied. For instance, why not have the Kett launch invasions of each colony in the late game. Ones at 100% survive and are able to send help for a revised final battle, ones that aren't can't send help or are wiped out if below a certain percentage viable which leads to different endings adding replay value.
Beyond that, cut down on the pointless fetch quests and give each colony meaningful, well-written quest lines you are compelled to do as you know have incentive to complete them and get to 100% viability. Couple that with not getting such huge bumps for a couple of main tasks (making an outpost, activating the vault) as now the quests are compelling and more will do them and they can thus count for a large chunk of viability. It's not even a new idea for the series as it's in the same vein as rounding up allies and doing their loyalty quests to have their support at the end of ME2, or rallying support as the driving purpose in ME3.
This would also help with my other big gripe I posted about before of hating the boring, empty open world planets. Exploring them would be less painful if doing so while carrying out these compelling and meaninful quests--though I still think it would be better for those to just take place in well designed semi-linear areas you go to when launching a side quest to cut out the boring (IMO) traversal).
Hopefully the game gets a sequel and can explore some of these type of ideas as the colonization of Andromeda an conflict with the Kett continue.
TLDR; The game needed to put more emphasize on the importance of establishing colonies and have the quests and main plot centered around doing so and increasing viability of planets.
Yeah, it seems like what this video was saying.
I couldn't quite tell why things felt off, but I think this was why.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
ME:A is really starting to frustrate me in a few places.
The checkpoints in large open areas are just plain piss poor and can set you back quite a ways in the event of a cheap death. Seriously, this has got to be better. As it really takes the fun out of those battles.
Am I the only who finds it annoying how drawn out a bunch of the big fights can be?
The fights with Giant Remnant and the Orb bosses are just not fun, IMO. They got old real quick.
While the game has some good moments, just the repetition and lack of any characters I give anything close to a damn about make for an underwhelming experience on a game that had tempered expectations to begin with.
Right now I am merely forcing myself to finish the game.
The checkpoints in large open areas are just plain piss poor and can set you back quite a ways in the event of a cheap death. Seriously, this has got to be better. As it really takes the fun out of those battles.
Am I the only who finds it annoying how drawn out a bunch of the big fights can be?
The fights with Giant Remnant and the Orb bosses are just not fun, IMO. They got old real quick.
While the game has some good moments, just the repetition and lack of any characters I give anything close to a damn about make for an underwhelming experience on a game that had tempered expectations to begin with.
Right now I am merely forcing myself to finish the game.
Yeah, I agree. Like most players, I quite enjoy ME:A's combat, and especially the flexibility and smoothness of the player's movement (the jetpack was a very nice touch), but the game undermined that with a strangely punitive save system that made me so paranoid about dying that I eventually turned the difficult down to "normal" or whatever, which made the combat much too easy.
I just don't understand the reasoning behind their checkpointing -- was it a technical issue? -- and I really don't understand why I can't keybind quicksave on PC. It really damaged my enjoyment of on of the strongest aspects of the game.