Mass Effect: Andromeda

Hopefully 1080p/60 will be a reality for my setup. I'm also hoping that we see resolution scaling like so many other new games are offering. For TV gamers that's the greatest thing ever.
 
Dan_D said:
I disagree. Character interactions in ME3 are far stronger and more complex than they are in ME2. This stems from having less crew members. Characters like Garrus, Liara, Tali, etc. all have much more dialog than they did in previous games. The difference is that ME2 is focused on the characters and their stories where ME3 focuses on the larger story. Even so, individual character story arcs, conversations and interactions are far deeper in the third game.
Click to expand...

Maybe the overall experience for me was degraded due to more of it feeling like a corridor shooter than much else. When it started to feel old, the character interactions didn't matter as much to me regardless.
 
Domingo said:
Hopefully 1080p/60 will be a reality for my setup. I'm also hoping that we see resolution scaling like so many other new games are offering. For TV gamers that's the greatest thing ever.
Click to expand...
Man, I hope my 1070 gives me decent fps on 1440p.
 
Official 5 min video on MP




Over 25 character kits available at launch
5 maps to start with
Any kit can use any weapon
You can upgrade your skills and weapons
 
Last edited:
Bankie said:
Doesn't Amazon only give the discount for physical copies of the game? I think I'll order from GMG - $47.99 there also.
Click to expand...

yes but with Prime I still get it on Release Day...so to me it doesn't matter if it's a physical copy or digital...most likely the box will contain an Origin code so I can discard the box if I choose...yes the digital copy will probably unlock a few hours earlier but I'm fine with it
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
Maybe the overall experience for me was degraded due to more of it feeling like a corridor shooter than much else. When it started to feel old, the character interactions didn't matter as much to me regardless.
Click to expand...

The forced linear nature of the game did hurt it compared to the previous two installments. That I will agree with. Supposedly, ME:A gets back to its roots and should be more like ME1 in this regard. ME1 being the least linear of the bunch. With the exception of a handful of missions, I always felt that ME1 could be done in virtually any order until the last leg of the story. ME2 has an optimal order to segments of it but for the most part the order is immaterial. The biggest issue in that game comes from having enough paragon or renegade points to get certain conversation results above anything. Once you start the Reaper IFF mission there is a definite order to things if you don't want to start losing squad mates.

ME3 is a different beast. Side missions can be done at virtually any time whenever they pop up. However, many of those have prerequisite missions that take place first to trigger them. DLC's can be done at almost any time but that's something I chalk up to their lack of integration into the larger game. Although ME3 masks this better than the previous games did. Unfortunately, the main planets are basically locked out and strung out in a specific order with few options. Even the planet missions really need to be done in some kind of order.

When you think about it, stories that are broader and cover more planets with a linear nature can be richer. More choices can conceivably be added as the locations and mission sequence will be a known quantity. At some point BioWare has to make a choice about going with a larger perhaps deeper story or give the game more of a sandbox feel. Personally, I think many games are too much of a sandbox and give you no direction to progress the story. Far Cry 2 and a few other games come to mind as being problematic about this. I think ME2 had the right balance between these elements. How ME2 did it was to trigger certain events based on your mission count in between events. This gave you some sense of time as if the galaxy was getting along whether you did a damn thing or not. In some events, there were consequences associated with you wasting too much time. This wasn't done a lot, and only on the main story. ME1's lack of linearity was fine and I'd be happy with something similar, but ME2 was perfect in this area. ME3 was too linear and although gameplay was much improved, I think they hurt replay value by making it too linear.
 
Dan_D said:
The forced linear nature of the game did hurt it compared to the previous two installments. That I will agree with. Supposedly, ME:A gets back to its roots and should be more like ME1 in this regard. ME1 being the least linear of the bunch. With the exception of a handful of missions, I always felt that ME1 could be done in virtually any order until the last leg of the story. ME2 has an optimal order to segments of it but for the most part the order is immaterial. The biggest issue in that game comes from having enough paragon or renegade points to get certain conversation results above anything. Once you start the Reaper IFF mission there is a definite order to things if you don't want to start losing squad mates.

ME3 is a different beast. Side missions can be done at virtually any time whenever they pop up. However, many of those have prerequisite missions that take place first to trigger them. DLC's can be done at almost any time but that's something I chalk up to their lack of integration into the larger game. Although ME3 masks this better than the previous games did. Unfortunately, the main planets are basically locked out and strung out in a specific order with few options. Even the planet missions really need to be done in some kind of order.

When you think about it, stories that are broader and cover more planets with a linear nature can be richer. More choices can conceivably be added as the locations and mission sequence will be a known quantity. At some point BioWare has to make a choice about going with a larger perhaps deeper story or give the game more of a sandbox feel. Personally, I think many games are too much of a sandbox and give you no direction to progress the story. Far Cry 2 and a few other games come to mind as being problematic about this. I think ME2 had the right balance between these elements. How ME2 did it was to trigger certain events based on your mission count in between events. This gave you some sense of time as if the galaxy was getting along whether you did a damn thing or not. In some events, there were consequences associated with you wasting too much time. This wasn't done a lot, and only on the main story. ME1's lack of linearity was fine and I'd be happy with something similar, but ME2 was perfect in this area. ME3 was too linear and although gameplay was much improved, I think they hurt replay value by making it too linear.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree. I generally appreciated the less linear nature of 1 vs the other two. However, I care far far more about story and experience than I do about replay-ability and being "able to do anything". Which is probably why I dislike sandbox games and haven't enjoyed any GTA or Elder Scrolls game. So for me, I'm willing to have "timed events" and all that sort of stuff to enhance my player experience. Even if they next time I play it (if I ever bother to) I spend time figuring out how to break the mechanics. In other words, I prefer great story executed well at the cost of any replay-ability. Because honestly I don't care. In the past 10 years, other than classic gaming, I can count on one hand the amount of times I replayed through a single player game.

Anyway, that all said, I still personally felt like even though ME1 branched and allowed you to finish any of the 3 missions in any order, that it was really beneficial from both a story perspective and utility to get Liara first. The other two missions afterward become less important in order, Noveria (which benefits a lot story wise if you have Liara) and Virmire. Although I think most people would say doing Noveria is still better first. That said, it was nice to have the option to go in any order, and having certain things be slightly different with different parts of the story exposed.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I mostly agree. I generally appreciated the less linear nature of 1 vs the other two. However, I care far far more about story and experience than I do about replay-ability and being "able to do anything". Which is probably why I dislike sandbox games and haven't enjoyed any GTA or Elder Scrolls game. So for me, I'm willing to have "timed events" and all that sort of stuff to enhance my player experience. Even if they next time I play it (if I ever bother to) I spend time figuring out how to break the mechanics. In other words, I prefer great story executed well at the cost of any replay-ability. Because honestly I don't care. In the past 10 years, other than classic gaming, I can count on one hand the amount of times I replayed through a single player game.

Anyway, that all said, I still personally felt like even though ME1 branched and allowed you to finish any of the 3 missions in any order, that it was really beneficial from both a story perspective and utility to get Liara first. The other two missions afterward become less important in order, Noveria (which benefits a lot story wise if you have Liara) and Virmire. Although I think most people would say doing Noveria is still better first. That said, it was nice to have the option to go in any order, and having certain things be slightly different with different parts of the story exposed.
Click to expand...

Yes, ME1 has an order that works better although you could do whatever you wanted with it. I always went to get Liara, then Noveria and then doing Virmire last. I suspect Andromeda will have a "preferred" order to things as well.
 
Mass Effect 1 is one of the few games that gives you that level of freedom and it actually works. In most games it throws off the difficulty, makes the overall plot irrelevant, or both. ME's 3-part plot and difficulty scaling somehow made it work and work well.
That said, I don't mind if things are a little more linear. If the rumors are true and this game is heavily influenced by DA:I, that game did a good job (until the very end) of letting you do the same things. The last couple of areas fell apart if you were a completionist, but it mostly worked there too.
 
Soo looking forward to this game like everyone else. I pre-ordered the super deluxe edition on origin. Looks like they took the money from my bank as of Friday of last week. I'm impressed what I've seen thus far.
 
Domingo said:
That said, I don't mind if things are a little more linear.
Click to expand...

Agreed but I don't think that will be the case with this title. As long as the maps are not extremely linear. ME2's map design was fairly poor in that they felt very funneled in a lot of parts. You did not even have the illusion that the space was bigger.
 
Flogger23m said:
Agreed but I don't think that will be the case with this title. As long as the maps are not extremely linear. ME2's map design was fairly poor in that they felt very funneled in a lot of parts. You did not even have the illusion that the space was bigger.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ME2 was the worst of the games in that regard. It felt like you went to all of these exciting new planets and star systems only to explore a hallway in each of them.
 
Kotaku has some good info and 20 minutes of SP footage. http://kotaku.com/five-hours-in-mass-effect-andromeda-is-overwhelming-1793268493

Some things they do note:
  • Removed because of spoiler
  • Character creation seems like an improvement - I made someone who appeared human on the first go around, without feeling too much regret once I saw them in action.
  • The new dialogue system is MUCH better. Now there are a many different types of responses, none of which are the obvious right/wrong/paragon/renegade choices. I’ve found myself picking liberally, depending on what felt right.
  • The voice acting feels more natural now, because you’re not a gruff Spectre.
  • Combat is more intense and kinetic, largely because of the added mobility. I can run, I can dash, I can get in the enemy’s face. On normal, the game seems harder, too - I’ve died in the tutorial mission / first real mission, which I’ve never experienced in a Mass Effect game before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Q-BZ said:
Awesome card. Just don't know what monitor I'd buy to go with it. There's this Asus 27inch 4k high refresh HDR that might come out at the end of the year but that's a ways off.
Click to expand...
I'm holding onto my 1440p until I sell my 1070. Then I'll probably go the cheap AOC 4k route for awhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Q-BZ said:
Awesome card. Just don't know what monitor I'd buy to go with it. There's this Asus 27inch 4k high refresh HDR that might come out at the end of the year but that's a ways off.
Click to expand...

I'm actually waiting for those new HDR monitors to come out before upgrading...the ones from Asus and Acer look really impressive (and expensive)...hopefully more PC games start to support HDR...I wonder if there is an official list anywhere that shows current and potential future games with HDR support...I know Andromeda is the first game that supports Dolby Vision (better version of HDR)
 
polonyc2 said:
I'm actually waiting for those new HDR monitors to come out before upgrading...the ones from Asus and Acer look really impressive (and expensive)...hopefully more PC games start to support HDR...I wonder if there is an official list anywhere that shows current and potential future games with HDR support...I know Andromeda is the first game that supports Dolby Vision (better version of HDR)
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
Rock, Paper Shotgun has a negative preview up,

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/03/14/mass-effect-andromeda-review-opening-hours/

Yeah, about that. The first few hours of Andromeda are a gruesome trudge through the most trite bilge of the previous three games, smeared out in a setting that’s horribly familiar, burdened with some outstandingly awful writing, buried beneath a UI that appears to have been designed to infuriate in every possible way.

I had gone in assuming this would be more BioWare pleasure. So far – and let’s be clear, there’s lots of room and time for it to pick up and turn things around – the first few hours have been just awful.
Click to expand...

I’m at a loss. What I expect from BioWare is slightly dodgy combat, but splendid writing and characters. What I’ve seen so far is some decent enough combat (but nothing beyond what you’d expect in a third person shooter), and some of the most dreadful writing. I cannot emphasise enough how poor it’s been.
Click to expand...

Side quests feel like something from a 2004 Korean MMO. Just complete nothingness, running from map icon to map icon, scanning objects with your scanner when told to, and then AI companion SAM letting you know that, yup, the source of the defects has been found/animal has been captured/toddler reunited with rabid tiger, despite your actually doing nothing relevant to the tissue-thin narrative.
Click to expand...

I'm not too bothered by this preview, still day 1 for me.
 
I've already bought it and I liked the previous games too well not to give this one a chance. If you want to be super picky, the other games had some terrible writing in them. The first few hours of ME1 and Dragon Age Inquisition are also horrible slog fests through boring bullshit before you get to the real meat of the games. I expect this going into it. Decent combat / gameplay can get me through that crap.
 
Here's a quality line from the RPS article.

I can’t even imagine how anyone can feel okay with writing that into a script without experiencing enough shame to just get up, walk away, and keep walking until they fall off of or into something.
Click to expand...

More quality from his Twitter account.

I wish I had the Witcher 3 gene. It was like eating cardboard for me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So it really sounds like another me3 from that article. Never could get myself to finish me3 because the writing was so bad, I've never seen the ending everyone complains about neither. Me3 felt like a bad TV show in its 15th season.

Infact I think the whole series has had some mediocre writing it was just eclipsed by its presentation and universe it created at the beginning.
 
Johnked6 said:
Rock, Paper Shotgun has a negative preview up,

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/03/14/mass-effect-andromeda-review-opening-hours/
Click to expand...

Side quests feel like something from a 2004 Korean MMO. Just complete nothingness, running from map icon to map icon, scanning objects with your scanner when told to, and then AI companion SAM letting you know that, yup, the source of the defects has been found/animal has been captured/toddler reunited with rabid tiger, despite your actually doing nothing relevant to the tissue-thin narrative.
Click to expand...

Hah, I knew Bioware was full of shit when it tried to draw comparisons to Witcher 3's side quests. These people who work for the large AAA publishers and developers like EA constantly prove that they are a nothing but a bunch of pathological liars.
 
From all the previews, this game is turning out to be absolute trash with crappy combat and poor storyline.
I am still holding off on my pre-order button.
 
Yup. Hope for the best. Expect the worst. Waiting on dan's opinion for the game. No bullshit there.
 
I admit, I'm going to be a crash test dummy on this game & see how it goes (though it will be during release & not before like some will be doing with the 10-hour trial run). I'll play it through as best I can just like I did with ME3.
 
Oh I will play the game either way. Just that I will wait on a sale instead of paying full price. Still a fan but yeah.
 
KickAssCop said:
From all the previews, this game is turning out to be absolute trash with crappy combat and poor storyline.
I am still holding off on my pre-order button.
Click to expand...

where are all these negative previews you mention?...besides RPS I've only seen very positive impressions...
 
It's ea folks. Take everything positive with salt. Wait for people you trust to play it if you are on the fence.
We know ea and most all major publishers have been with their releases lately. Too many upper management douchebags making game killing decisions.
 
Johnked6 said:
Rock, Paper Shotgun has a negative preview up,

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/03/14/mass-effect-andromeda-review-opening-hours/

I'm not too bothered by this preview, still day 1 for me.
Click to expand...

Me, either. I can take it under advisement. I respect RPS.


I understand games can be overhyped but there's a lot to be said about going in with realistic expectations. I've enjoyed every ME game and this will be no exception.

If this game is Dragon Age Inquisition in space I'll be happy. If it's better than that I'll be ecstatic. That's about it.
 
Sodapopjones said:
I hope the Multiplayer doesn't die in a week...
Click to expand...

People still play ME3's multiplayer to this day. Andromeda's MP seems to be pretty much the same thing with prettier graphics.

yourgrandma said:
So it really sounds like another me3 from that article. Never could get myself to finish me3 because the writing was so bad, I've never seen the ending everyone complains about neither. Me3 felt like a bad TV show in its 15th season.

Infact I think the whole series has had some mediocre writing it was just eclipsed by its presentation and universe it created at the beginning.
Click to expand...

One negative opinion piece doesn't make for a bad article. I think too many people sung the praises of ME3 and then glossed over or ignored the fact that the ending sucked ass. 95% of the game is excellent despite the some bad writing in places, various game play quirks, design decisions and a clear indication that the game was a rushed product. As to your second point you couldn't be more right. The presentation of the universe, its detail, solid gameplay and likable characters are what made those games great. The story isn't original at all. The presentation was. That counts for a lot. Its not at all dissimilar to the fact that Star Trek IV has a retarded plot and yet remains one of the most enjoyable films of the franchise. It's light hearted and fun despite being a total crock of shit plot wise. Its got enough plot holes to drop a galaxy in and people still love it. Like many things that have a huge fan base, I think Mass Effect is going to be cool to hate. This is especially true after the fiasco surrounding ME3.

Mass Effect, like most fiction can be picked apart and written off as terrible if over analyzed. Most of what people say is well written in films or books tend to be dull and unimaginative in my opinion. It's like those boring drama films each year that win tons of awards that no one seems to ever really watch. I'm not a fan of that shit and well "written" stuff often seems to fall into the abyss of being dull and dismal to get through. Sometimes its all about presentation, characters, settings and being successful with key story elements even when the overall story isn't anything special. For BioWare, they nail the setting, characters, music and ultimately created a universe fans of the series would love to spend time in if we could. In various Mass Effect threads on this forum we often talk about ME1 having the best story in the series thus far and while I will still defend that opinion I think its still chalk full of stupid stuff we ignore out of a feeling of nostalgia. The game's presentation and universe made us overlook those issues. The thing that BioWare does best is create characters. They aren't all winners in the sense that they aren't all liked but at the same time each character does what it's supposed to in the story.

As for Mass Effect 3's writing, it's the worst in the series thus far. I'll grant you that but its still an enjoyable gaming experience. It does fall apart a bit at the end but it's not as bad as it used to be. Changes made via the extended cut put the ending into the realm of tolerable at best. There is also a "Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod" which is a bit unimaginative but strangely satisfying. Given that Mass Effect 3 and its possible outcomes are being flat out ignored by BioWare going into Andromeda with its sequels there is no reason not to use that mod if you want to. While ME3's writing is no doubt questionable, its still chalk full of the things that made the previous installments a lot of fun. Stories like the man taking 3 years to get a refund on a toaster add amusement and charm to the game. The Citadel DLC for Mass Effect 3 is nothing short of the best DLC I've ever played. It may be one of if not the greatest DLC's of all time. In many ways, it fixes a lot of things that were wrong in the third game. Mass Effect 3 also brings satisfying conclusions to many story lines but none more so than the Tuchunka missions which culminate in curing the Genophage or keeping it in place. Those particular missions have a lot of variance and are a prime example of what BioWare is capable of with the right writers on staff. If you are a fan of the first two games the third really is worth some benefit of the doubt and slogging through the worst parts of it.

There are lots of reasons why ME3 fell short in the story department, a lot of which revolves around the story leaks and creative differences between writing staff. I'm very hopeful that EA and BioWare learned a valuable lesson with that game and that Andromeda will be great. We shall know soon enough I suppose.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top