Theslammer
Member
Were the battles themselves a bit too big for your tastes in comparison to 2? I loved them considering the gameplay, but I guess I can see the other view.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why the bad vibes on Mass Effect Andromeda?
- Thread starter Caipirinha
- Start date
Were the battles themselves a bit too big for your tastes in comparison to 2? I loved them considering the gameplay, but I guess I can see the other view.
2 does better at providing challenge at Max difficulty. Admittedly this difficulty is slightly artificial, with everyone having shields that screw up a lot of powers, but ME3 could definitely have done with a bit more challenge.
(In SP that is, ME3MP is plenty hard)
Aizen.S.Kennedy
Banned
This is the correct answer.
I'm still hyped. I'm a big fan of science fiction RPGs and there just aren't enough of them out there. I also enjoyed Dragon Age: Inquisition though I'll admit that, retroactively, playing Witcher III afterwards really showed me the flaws of DA:I and even Skyrim and other open world RPGS.
However, I think the overall package of BioWare games tends to overcome the flaws for me. I'm still expecting some kind of delay announcement on this game, but I'm confident it will probably come out at some point this year, and it won't be an unplayable mess.
However, I think the overall package of BioWare games tends to overcome the flaws for me. I'm still expecting some kind of delay announcement on this game, but I'm confident it will probably come out at some point this year, and it won't be an unplayable mess.
Rei no Otaku
Member
Because it's Bioware. Them along with Bethesda and Ubisoft can really do nothing right as far as this forum is concerned. Anything less than perfect is seen as an absolute gaming travesty when it comes to these companies. While From Software could release a Dark Souls game that bricks consoles and you'd have most people here telling you it was your fault.
IcyRhythms
Member
Gotta love those "must be you or your platform because my shit is working perfectly fine" people. lol
Movalpolos
Banned
This is my issue but I really hope the game is good. I need another large scale space game and what I do like is that there seems to be some focus on exploration this time around (which 2 and 3 severely lacked).
Dre_G_Writer
Member
Nah, I dont do day ones.
I aint down for blindly buying a full price title for a game that could be potentially broken, and going buy the trend in gaming, its more likely than unlikely.
I'll wait a few days and see what the community and reveiws has to say about it's performance on PC before I take the jump. i've learned my lesson.
I'm with this guy. DA: I was a great game. It had flaws that I'll freely admit, but especially with the version existing now with all DLC I think there's enough there for everyone. The cast of characters were amazing, and overall it was just relaxing fun. I don't regret it getting my GOTY and it's still one of my favorite RPGs of the last few years. Witcher 3 is slightly ahead of it for me, but I like both for different reasons.
I don't see any reason Bioware doesn't realize some of the flaws in DA: I and won't correct them, nor do I think just because DA: I played a certain way that we should all expect that from ME: A. I think they'll take what worked through the series and maybe open things up for a bit more exploration, but I don't think they'll take the MMO design quite to where DA: I went. I could be wrong, but who knows. In my opinion if I get another RPG as good as Inquisition, though, I'm happy.
I love ME1 & 2, faults and all, but since those games and the rise of CDPR I've found that BioWare games seem very amateur by comparison. The writting especially cannot compare, never mind the massive disparity in world building.
More recently, playing FFXV had made me realize how important small (physical) interactions between party members are and BioWare is actually awful at this, oddly enough. All your interactions are two people standing face to face talking (alone, in a dim corner of a ship), and your party mostly NEVER interact amongst themselves. Just robots waiting for you to dial a convo. Yes, there are a handful of cutscenes of people hanging out in ME3, true. When you help your bud in FFXV you really give him a helping hand, in ME you crouch nearby and magically wake them with your tech glove...
Just examples I guess but in short today BioWare seems like a B level rpg games maker, and nothing wrong with that, but I'm not really expecting anything amazing either until Cyperpunk. Would love to be wrong though!
More recently, playing FFXV had made me realize how important small (physical) interactions between party members are and BioWare is actually awful at this, oddly enough. All your interactions are two people standing face to face talking (alone, in a dim corner of a ship), and your party mostly NEVER interact amongst themselves. Just robots waiting for you to dial a convo. Yes, there are a handful of cutscenes of people hanging out in ME3, true. When you help your bud in FFXV you really give him a helping hand, in ME you crouch nearby and magically wake them with your tech glove...
Just examples I guess but in short today BioWare seems like a B level rpg games maker, and nothing wrong with that, but I'm not really expecting anything amazing either until Cyperpunk. Would love to be wrong though!
The problem isn't that Bioware doesn't recognise flaws, but rather the disproportionate response they take to correct said flaws.
The Strokes
Banned
Sure, but then why the fuck are we worried it'll turn out like DA: I. They corrected DA: 2 with DA: I and went in the other direction. Shouldn't the worrywarts be thinking we'll get a crazy linear corridor full of only story and no side stuff at all?
It's funny, because XV made me realize even more how good DA: I was. To me XV was DA: I... but worse in almost every imaginable way. Worse quests, jumbled story, non-varied environments, less interactions between party members, worse combat. Everything.
I fucking love CDPR too and their writing is probably top of gaming, but I personally think Bioware is great in world building. CDPR got a big leg up in that their world was built by someone else already. Don't get me wrong, they added a ton of great stuff to it, but I await what they do with something a bit more original. Meanwhile I salivated at reading more lore in ME and DA. I went out and read the comics connected to the stories and got invested in the galaxy/world in a way I didn't with other RPGs.
That's also one of the ways XV utterly failed. No real lore to read or get immersed in.
Tony Redgrave
Member
Sorry, meant inclusiveness. Anyways, my point was that I like BioWare but they are definitely big on risk aversion.
In fact you can see it pretty clearly looking at ME:A, most elements we've seen are a call back to the OG trilogy (Nexus=Citadel, Tempest=Normandy, Vetra=Garrus etc.) and this video about the Kett is pretty much an exercise on how to make the safest alien design possible.
I'm not judging whether it's a good or a bad strategy but it's certainly a way to ensure sameness, I mean, you can see how most people were excited about the game taking place in another galaxy but now many are bummed out that what we've seen might as well have been part of the original trilogy.
Yeah, there were just a few too many bad guys in some of the fights.
It isn't always the opposite. The Mako stuff needed improvement, not cutting. People complained about long elevator rides, so they cut those in favour of long loading screens.
It should also be noted that we're comparing it to the previous Mass Effect game, where side content was extremely sparse, and it was actually a corridor shooter. Obviously these patterns aren't some rigid rule and they tend to apply selectively with the changing times.
The issue with DA2 wasn't so much the constraints of being a single city, but rather the repetition of content and dungeons. The city is fine as long as you make it a "City". DA:I just doubled down on repetition but in a different way, completely misunderstanding what the criticisms of that game were.
You might be comparing it to previous ME games, but I'm specifically responding to people citing DA: I as the reason ME: A might suck.
It seems like they're taking your advice, though. I think mako stuff is in this one again, and should be improved.
DA2 is a hard one to really talk about because I'm not sure, given the time and budget, anyone at Bioware would have actually planned for that sort of thing. Like, the game that came out isn't what they would have made. They were pushed into a shitty situation and the fact that they even got out a decent game in that time is kind of a miracle. As an artist myself, criticism on a project where you're insanely constrained by someone else and what you put out isn't really your full creative vision is just kinda strange to take and to put into action next time.
I'm excited but hesitant. I don't play DA so that hasn't influenced me; I'm just worried that it's gonna be too similar to the first 3 when I was hoping this would be a fresh start, not just bringing old species to a new place. The whole colonization thing could also go bad pretty fast, and that's not too appealing to me. I also kinda don't care about anything they've shown so far; show me a named character I'm gonna be allied with already, please.
RecRoulette
Member
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I don't know, I expect it to do as well as other Bioware releases.
I expect the same, old criticisms to be applicable, too, but that didn't hold DA: I back.
There are a lot of people who like the way Bioware does things, and I am confident that they will get what they want.
I expect the same, old criticisms to be applicable, too, but that didn't hold DA: I back.
There are a lot of people who like the way Bioware does things, and I am confident that they will get what they want.
The Artisan
Member
so by inclusiveness, did you mean just trying to do several of the same things as they did before?
Eh, the Mass Effect games have been pretty bold. ME1 was virtually a whole new type of game, ME2 was a big departure from ME1 and ME3 clearly took risks in where the story went - as is shown by how it blew up in their face.
(DAI was pretty safe though, since it was basically about showing they'd repented of the heresy of DA2)
TheRealJakoozie
Member
Quoted for truth. ME2 is a much better game than 1 gameplay wise.
I could understand people who want a semi turn based game, like KOTOR. That could be cool. But going back to ME1 gameplay? God no.
Tony Redgrave
Member
No, I mean that BioWare has been considered daring in the past for being inclusive in their games.
Things like being able to choose the main character's race and genre, including minorities as squadmates, having openly homosexual support characters (Cortez, Traynor) and allowing same-sex romance in ME3 and other titles (there was also a very positively recieved transgender character in DA:I) has been a kind of staple for them.
I was saying that I've always thought it is great but as far as risk taking goes, it is a calculated hazard which has ultimately had a positive impact in their reputation.
As I said, they're risk averse. When the Fox News alien sideboob fiasco happened back in ME1 we got clothed sex in DA:O and when DAII (which had some pretty daring story beats) was poorly received, they inmediately reverted to the overly treaded "chosen one" story in DA:I. ME:A seems similar to the OG trilogy too, as they probably think they'll alienate the fans if they deviate too much from the original formula problem is, that thinking often kills originality.
SaiyanRaoh
Member
All this talk of Bioware when EA themselves are likely the ones that will screw this up with their multiplayer focuses, nickel and diming us with paywalls, DLC and pay to win bullshit. I can envision some corporate millennial douchebag in a stupid tie fapping off to the possibilities right now. Ugh!
RoboticWater
Banned
This is one of the most anti-establishment buzzword-laden posts I've seen. You can almost cut yourself on that edge.
Oh no, BioWare are going to make a successor to that multiplayer everyone really liked with micro-transactions that gave out entirely random loot and funded free DLC updates, and they're going to make it an optional part of an already fully-featured RPG. The horror. Look, micro-transactions aren't that great, but let's not make shit up to criticize them. Like it or not, there's a demand for Mass Effect multiplayer, and quite honestly, ME3's micro-transaction policy wasn't the most egregious one on the market.
Lol, I love the original ME, but I don't get what people got out of exploring barren planets with that awkwardly controlling vehicle. The Mako was one of my few gripes from the first game in-fact. I didn't miss it one bit in ME 2.
I really disliked how the characters in Inquisition had such modern plastic surgery faces,make up & hairstyles that really don't jive with the setting at all.
It just looked terrible in this regard.
Look at her puffy lips,fake cheeks & nose.
eot
Banned
It's been a while since I played both games, so I might have some things wrong, but I'll write the things I remember. I also never played the MP in ME3, just FYI.
In ME2, all enemies have additional layers of protection on Insanity and the one difficulty setting below that. This has a significant impact on how you play the game, and I actually think the game on lower difficulty settings is much worse. When for example Husks don't have any armor, they're completely trivial (even in large groups) as you can just lift them with bionics and you're done. The same thing is true in ME3. It has a pretty large effect on most basic enemies; it forces you to play more strategically and it makes picking the right powers and squad members a lot more important. You can't just do biotic explosions on everyone from the get go.
Another change I don't like is the cool down system. I get that a lot of people probably think the equip load vs cool down system is a good addition, but if you minimize the cool downs they're simply too short. I forget the exact number, but as an Adept I think you can cast the quick powers like Throw with cool downs less than 2 seconds. I don't like it because it made playing an Adept (my preferred class) turn into nothing but spamming powers. In ME2 the powers have long cool downs. Maybe some people think they're too long, but it means that you a) have to be more considerate in how you use them b) have to use your guns as well. ME2 introduced an ammo system, and I found myself actually going around looking for ammo, changing weapons during combat because of ammo etc. That never happened in ME3, I used my gun so sparingly it was never an issue. Maybe not the case if you play a Soldier, but why play a Soldier heh. Being able to spam powers that rapidly simply wasn't enjoyable for me, but I did it because it seemed like the most effective way to play.
The third thing I don't like is the encounter design, and the enemy design / variety. ME2 had a butt load of different enemy types. They would be too many to list here, but it was basically every race in the game, spread across at least five different factions. I'll concede that the differences between them were to some extent superficial, but in a 40 hour RPG variety is nice. You know you only ever fight the Collectors on three missions in ME2, and that makes each time feel kind of special.
ME3 has two main enemy factions (Cerberus and Reapers), with some Geth every now and then. Not only is there less variety off the bat (no Vorcha, no Batarians, no Krogans etc. not even any of those fun but easy mechs), but I straight up like all the enemy designs way less. I don't like how the Cerberus troops look and I don't like how they sound, and I don't like fighting them. I don't like the riot shield guys, I don't like the shield generators and I don't like the turrets. This sounds stupid, but I even think the bipedal mechs look way worse than the robot ones in ME2.
The Reapers are slightly better I suppose, they did try to give them some diversity, but again as a matter of personal taste I just don't like them as enemies. Their designs simply don't appeal to me in the least. As for the encounter design, there are a lot of them where you're expected to run around constantly, because enemies keep coming and you'll get flanked if you don't. You say the rushing is better, which might be true, but it's not good. I don't think these types of encounters work well at all together with the game systems they designed. Which isn't to say that I think you should be able to go through every combat encounter without moving, I don't think you should and that wasn't the case in ME2, but I don't think the extent to which you have to run around in ME3 is good.
Then there's small shit like how I think all the weapons in ME3 sound weak as hell, even the ones I like from ME2. Or how the customisation system people were so happy to have is kinda lame because the weapon upgrades aren't all that interesting.
It's just personal taste in the end. I like ME2's combat pace much more than ME3's, which I think feels less strategic, and the fact that I hardly enjoy any of the enemy designs in the game makes the game so much more of a chore to play. I kept replaying ME2 just for the combat, whereas in ME3 I never got to the point of even enjoying it.
This still annoys me. Instead of having Miranda running around in hiding she could have easily joined the Normandy. Her joining would have made more sense than Tali imo.
The Artisan
Member
hm, I have to say I'm a bit lost. maybe because i'm just not as well versed in the nuances of Bioware as you. so you're saying they were inclusive in Me1, and they decided to continue being inclusive in Me3? wouldn't that be a good thing?
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
I really hate grouping people into a stereotype but this really does hit the nail on the head for me. Even the most in depth looks at why ME1 is better than 2, from unknowns to producers I generally agree with, always seems to boil down to loving the jankness of the original and the "perceived" openness of it all, over a tighter and more focused experience. The writing was as good if not better in a lot of regards in 2 as well. It really does feel like someone yelling at me that Baldurs Gate 1&2 are just the pinnacle of PC RPG's despite them having not aged well at all in various areas.
michaelius
Banned
Well it looks like you simply don't like rpg games and prefer to play shooters with branching dialogue trees which is direction Bioware took ME franchise starting with ME2.
There was more rpg combat elements in Borderlands than in whole ME2.
TC McQueen
Member
There's nothing about RPGs that mandates having horribly bad shooting mechanics when using guns and tons of incremental stat increases that are invisible to the player.
The problem with a more focused experience is that it's level design just screams THIS IS A GAME constantly while playing it. The strategic placed crates and short walls when entering a room or walking down a corridor is a instant tell that combat is about to start. Atmosphere is a big thing for me and it was something the first game had that the second removed in large part because of it's more streamlined experience.
The first game is not completely guilt free in it either, the same warehouse over and over tended to be a bit old but I prefer that any day over the corridor shooter experience in the sequels. Also for the record Mass effect 1's combat isn't super great, Bioware never done a good/fun combat system since Baldur's gate but it sure beats the action shooter of the later games.
Also Baldurs Gate 1&2 might be showing it's age at times but the Black Isle games really are the pinnacle of that kind of RPG experience. Bioware never managed to surpass them in my opinion.
I don't think most people deny that Mass Effect 2 and 3 were better executed than the first game, but at the same time they felt so much less imaginative and inspired. They don't feel like actual sequels that tried to refine or fix what people liked about the first game. ME2 and 3 feel like completely different games from ME1 in some critical ways.
With the first Mass Effect BioWare tried to make a game that felt like you were exploring the galaxy with a Star Trek crew. It was clumsily executed but basically nobody else has tried to make that game since. The sequels felt more like you were just traveling between different linear Gears maps which isn't what a lot of ME1 fans came into the series for. To be honest the combat is probably the one thing I could completely cut out of Mass Effect games and still enjoy them just as much.
The same argument always comes up when people start talking about Far Cry. Far Cry 3 and 4 were better executed games than Far Cry 2, but their structure and ideas were also much safer and by-the-numbers, and thus for a lot of people they turned out to be far less interesting games.
With the first Mass Effect BioWare tried to make a game that felt like you were exploring the galaxy with a Star Trek crew. It was clumsily executed but basically nobody else has tried to make that game since. The sequels felt more like you were just traveling between different linear Gears maps which isn't what a lot of ME1 fans came into the series for. To be honest the combat is probably the one thing I could completely cut out of Mass Effect games and still enjoy them just as much.
The same argument always comes up when people start talking about Far Cry. Far Cry 3 and 4 were better executed games than Far Cry 2, but their structure and ideas were also much safer and by-the-numbers, and thus for a lot of people they turned out to be far less interesting games.
ME1 isn't automatically a better game just because it had more rpg mechanics. Just having those doesn't make the gameplay experience a good rpg one. Bioware's real flaw there was throwing the baby out with the bath water for ME2, but ME1 gameplay remains pretty thoroughly mediocre.
It stumbled pretty hard by not staying in more turn based territory like kotor, or going full on shooter, instead trying to combine the two.
Ludendorkk
Member
No indication of an elcor squadmate yet
It's time, Bioware
It's time, Bioware
Tony Redgrave
Member
Some user said they were unambitious, I said they're not so much unambitious as they are risk averse as they've proven to be many times over the years, I gave you the reasons why I think it so, that's all I'm going to say.
The Artisan
Member
thank you, i understand what you're saying now and it makes sense, and i think i agree as well.
but you would also say they don't lack for ambition, yeah?
What do you think the DLC is for?
SchrodingerC
Member
How Bioware is marketing this game is not helping. They haven't shown their potential buyers why they should get excited for a Mass Effect game, especially since the game is suppose to be released sometime in Q1 2017.
We need a bit more videos on the different aspects of the game.
I still don't understand why Bioware did this. Between their artists' Tali concepts and the thousands of fanart, Bioware took the lamest route possible for Tali's reveal. Yeah Bioware could never 100% match the fans expectations, but anything would've been better than the photoshopped image.
We need a bit more videos on the different aspects of the game.
5- A lot of small details, like Tali's face being a stock photo, and such showing a lot of cut corners
I still don't understand why Bioware did this. Between their artists' Tali concepts and the thousands of fanart, Bioware took the lamest route possible for Tali's reveal. Yeah Bioware could never 100% match the fans expectations, but anything would've been better than the photoshopped image.
WrenchNinja
Member
The rachni queen choice still blows my mind with how much they botched it. Like how hard would it have been to checkmark
Save rachni queen? Okay Rachni show up as enemies
Kill rachni queen? Okay they don't show up as enemies
How fucking hard is that? Oh but we wouldn't want people to miss content
Instead they create some stupid mission with grunt and if you had killed the queen, don't worry, there's a clone around to justify all the rachni you fight as standard enemies
And that whole mission amounts to numbers going up or down with your readiness. like who fucking cares
Save rachni queen? Okay Rachni show up as enemies
Kill rachni queen? Okay they don't show up as enemies
How fucking hard is that? Oh but we wouldn't want people to miss content
Instead they create some stupid mission with grunt and if you had killed the queen, don't worry, there's a clone around to justify all the rachni you fight as standard enemies
And that whole mission amounts to numbers going up or down with your readiness. like who fucking cares
Keeping her forever masked would've made far more sense.
Stormblessed
Member
I'm sure it's a comparison made plenty, but Mass Effect has ended up in the same place as Star Wars kind of had. Their new thing needs to make up for the lacklustre effort(s) preceding it with different creative people at the helm. This has led to a product that lacks its own identity and is struggling to give us a compelling vision of what these people think the franchise is or should be, and where it ought to head. In lieu of risking new ideas and breaking from tradition, it's relying heavily on fanservice and the promise of at least being technically competent to win back its former audience.
Similar threads
- Poll