EA: Mass Effect Was Unfairly Criticized, Franchise Could Return

[lostin3d]

I admit I don't have this issue with the TI rig but it's almost a totally different beast as well, but both running same drivers and OS. On both rigs, though, the cutscenes can be a bit choppy while actual gameplay is fine.

 

[Dan_D]

In my experience, you don't want to use a driver version newer than that one with Andromeda. You end up with flickering objects, broken HDR and all kinds of other bullshit.

 

[Zion Halcyon]

That's not entirely true. BioWare has a habit of listening to the vocal minority and not the people who actually have suggestions for making the game better. They finally got Drew Karpyshyn back at BioWare and are wasting him on SWTOR. He's having to pick up the pieces after some badly written expansions. BioWare is also clearly investing less and less into the game and it's dying a slow death as a result.

Charles Boyd seems to be the more active and vocal writer for the team there. Don't know what capacity Drew is serving in but the latest expansions I can only hope are a byproduct that they are pushing out and have some better written ones upcoming.

The expansions and writing since Shadow of Revan have been absolutely awful and the whole story plot of knights of the Fallen Empire all the way through now have been ridiculous.

 

[lcpiper]

Well they are basically not developing it further and the franchise appears dead.

But I can still buy the game and play the single-player as is, and there is still support for the multi-player so ................. it's gone ?

I really have no interest in the multi-player so the only issue for me is whether the single-player is worth the cost.

 

[wizdum]

But I can still buy the game and play the single-player as is, and there is still support for the multi-player so ................. it's gone ?

I really have no interest in the multi-player so the only issue for me is whether the single-player is worth the cost.

The game was clearly set up for expansions or sequels, there were several story arcs that ended with cliffhangers, and they beat you over the head with the idea that you will be searching for the last ark. The end cinematic for the game even showed a monologue from the "enemy" saying that he's not done yet. I still think the game was worth the cost, it just wasn't a good Bioware game. I was expecting more story and character development (which did start happening near the end).

 

[SomeoneElse]

And we're telling you that the reviews that are telling you that those are significant issues in the game are biased, or outright wrong. When you actually play the game, these issues that were blown out of proportion are barely noticeable unless you get fixated on them.
The only real issue of the game is the pacing, that means that there are a lot of dullness in the first 50 hours of the game until the story starts picking up, and more interesting side quests start to pop up (the loyalty missions). But contrary to ME1 for example the gameplay is good enough to keep you engaged, it's not just a tool to move the story forward it is enjoyable on it's own merits.

When I first started playing the game even before any of the patches it didn't feel unfinished, or rushed, on the contrary it felt extremely polished. I also was ready to dismiss the game based on the reviews, but I already pre-ordered it at that point, so there was no going back. But when I got my hands on it I realized how terribly wrong those reviews were, and the game is actually very good, not great, but very good.
In the few first hours of play I was actively looking at facial animations like a hawk, and thought to myself, what was all the fuss about? There is barely anything there apart from a few weird expressions, that were not uncommon in the first three games either. The videos depicting the so called "animation debacle" were supercut from cherry picked moments that are absolutely not representative of the overall experience.
I realized It would've been a huge mistake to not buy the game. And I feel that my money was well spent on it. I played about 80 hours with it, so I spent about 50c / hours. I also purchased prey and dropped it in 2 hours because it was uninteresting, the graphics was shit and it was derivative. And mind you this is a game that got glowing reviews and all out praise.

This is an argument over a matter of opinion. Most people thought it was lacking in production and you are saying that it wasn't and people are wrong, isn't based on fact its based on your opinion. So why even try to persuade someone else on what you thought about the game versus what they thought? Looks like wasted breath to me.

 

[M76]

This is an argument over a matter of opinion. Most people thought it was lacking in production and you are saying that it wasn't and people are wrong, isn't based on fact its based on your opinion. So why even try to persuade someone else on what you thought about the game versus what they thought? Looks like wasted breath to me.

I'm not trying to convince someone who played the game, I'm trying to convince those who dismissed the game based on a third party opinions of the game.
As I've said if the only thing available to me were the people raving and ranting about animations and other issues plaguing the game, I'd have certainly dismissed it myself. But luckily I had it pre-ordered.
So it is fair to assume that others who dismissed the game based on third party information could also find enjoyment in it.
Because despite all it's flaws the game is still the one I've enjoyed second most from the games that were released this year.
I'm arguing that fans of ME series shouldn't dismiss the game outright without even trying it.

 

[SomeoneElse]

I'm not trying to convince someone who played the game, I'm trying to convince those who dismissed the game based on a third party opinions of the game.
As I've said if the only thing available to me were the people raving and ranting about animations and other issues plaguing the game, I'd have certainly dismissed it myself. But luckily I had it pre-ordered.
So it is fair to assume that others who dismissed the game based on third party information could also find enjoyment in it.
Because despite all it's flaws the game is still the one I've enjoyed second most from the games that were released this year.
I'm arguing that fans of ME series shouldn't dismiss the game outright without even trying it.

But that's the thing guy who played it before expected a $60 game and it was not delivered as a $60 game. Its a AAA title and these types of issues should have been ironed out BEFORE release not after.....and AFTER all of the push back because of the flaws. Being that you are a fan makes you already a bit biased which alters the way you view it. This is why opinion shouldn't be an argument point. If he played the previous games and did in fact say i'm not spending 60 bucks on it shouldn't be chastised for it. That why EA should receive criticism for pushing this game as it was one of their cash cows and they wanted to sell more games......all we have said is that it is warranted because its supposed to be part of a acclaimed series and it is not living up to the standard of the other three at release ( animations and what not included.)

 

[IdiotInCharge]

all we have said is that it is warranted because its supposed to be part of a acclaimed series and it is not living up to the standard of the other three at release ( animations and what not included.)

You forget that the other three weren't perfect at release either.

And that's not an excuse- they certainly knew better- but a slightly unpolished release just isn't a good base for comparison. Half-assing is the name of the game at EA.

 

[M76]

But that's the thing guy who played it before expected a $60 game and it was not delivered as a $60 game. Its a AAA title and these types of issues should have been ironed out BEFORE release not after.....and AFTER all of the push back because of the flaws. Being that you are a fan makes you already a bit biased which alters the way you view it. This is why opinion shouldn't be an argument point. If he played the previous games and did in fact say i'm not spending 60 bucks on it shouldn't be chastised for it. That why EA should receive criticism for pushing this game as it was one of their cash cows and they wanted to sell more games......all we have said is that it is warranted because its supposed to be part of a acclaimed series and it is not living up to the standard of the other three at release ( animations and what not included.)

I give up. Why is opinion an argument against the game, but not for it?

It's one thing to criticize EA which I'm doing at every turn for every mistake and issue the game has. But it's entirely another thing to dismiss the game completely.

I said multiple times that the game did feel polished at release, possibly more so than the previous ones felt. And the animations are not as bad as they're made out to be, animation issues were present in the previous games as well, even worse ones than these. Remember when the characters turned their heads 180 degrees to the back, or 360 degrees around in previous games? I DO.

 

[lostin3d]

Well I have to say I was pretty late in getting to the party with Mass Effect. I just got the first three a couple of years ago. Heard about 'em but had never played and heard the amazing praise given to them. I was kind of bummed when they didn't have true controller support(tried mapping through some software) and was a little intimidated by all the keyboard commands. Granted at this point it was just after trying some ridiculous SIMS or something that went out of its way to use every key and combo imaginable so I probably didn't give the first 3 a fair shot. I put maybe an hour into each one and keep thinking about going back.

That being said, I didn't know the originals had some bumpy launches as well. I only knew that ME3 had a lot a criticism for its ending. That 180/360 head thing sounds hilarious. I also knew they had a rep for being hardware demanding and I was ready for that. I build my rigs to enjoy the benefits of such things. As an experiment I may follow Dan's recommendation and try to match up the right driver to the game release or appropriate patch. I semi-regularly witnessed similar driver related issues with WItcher 2 & 3 so I understand exactly what he means.

I almost wish there was a way to omit the cutscenes/animations since they're where I have nearly all performance issues. Unfortunately that's also where most of the background story takes place. Ultimately I think its shameful that Bioware has chosen to simply walk away and abandon it. The game does have potential, its not horrible, just not really finished and now it never will be.

 

[Dan_D]

all we have said is that it is warranted because its supposed to be part of a acclaimed series and it is not living up to the standard of the other three at release ( animations and what not included.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Mass Effect Andromeda is no worse than it's predecessors in terms of quality. Even if you don't get into the animation issues, the last two Mass Effect games have crash to desktop bugs to this very day. They are all bad PC ports with few PC specific settings to work with. From a technical standpoint, Andromeda is better in almost every way. And, while the animations are bad in Andromeda, we traded one set of issues for another. Mass Effect has egregious clipping errors and "guns in the hand you don't have" issues well beyond anything in Andromeda. Andromeda is only worse because it fucked up the human faces which is much more noticeable than the other types of errors.

Beyond that, Andromeda really falls flatter on the story. Even worse, it doesn't look like what's there will get expanded on anytime soon. There are connections to the previous game and subplots that may never be explored or resolved.

 

[SomeoneElse]

You forget that the other three weren't perfect at release either.

And that's not an excuse- they certainly knew better- but a slightly unpolished release just isn't a good base for comparison. Half-assing is the name of the game at EA.

I give up. Why is opinion an argument against the game, but not for it?

It's one thing to criticize EA which I'm doing at every turn for every mistake and issue the game has. But it's entirely another thing to dismiss the game completely.

I said multiple times that the game did feel polished at release, possibly more so than the previous ones felt. And the animations are not as bad as they're made out to be, animation issues were present in the previous games as well, even worse ones than these. Remember when the characters turned their heads 180 degrees to the back, or 360 degrees around in previous games? I DO.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Mass Effect Andromeda is no worse than it's predecessors in terms of quality. Even if you don't get into the animation issues, the last two Mass Effect games have crash to desktop bugs to this very day. They are all bad PC ports with few PC specific settings to work with. From a technical standpoint, Andromeda is better in almost every way. And, while the animations are bad in Andromeda, we traded one set of issues for another. Mass Effect has egregious clipping errors and "guns in the hand you don't have" issues well beyond anything in Andromeda. Andromeda is only worse because it fucked up the human faces which is much more noticeable than the other types of errors.

Beyond that, Andromeda really falls flatter on the story. Even worse, it doesn't look like what's there will get expanded on anytime soon. There are connections to the previous game and subplots that may never be explored or resolved.

Basically what I saying is EA should really stop trying to defend the fact that they let some QA issues slip through. It got bad reviews because people are voicing their frustration with publishers trying to bash us over the head with more and more unpolished games. Paying a premium $60 per game people expect to get a much better experience. I get it Andromeda is a good game now and they fixed some of the issues with patches. My point is EA is trying tell people they were wrong for the first take on the game. They need to stop playing the PR game and start making sure the game is at the highest standard before they ship it. Yes almost every game that comes out has some type of issue I fully know that.
EA doesn't like criticism and they are trying to tell everyone who was not satisfied with the release of the game they were wrong for not liking it. That's like telling someone who likes a medium steak that a rare steak is what they wanted when they ordered it.

 

[lcpiper]

The game was clearly set up for expansions or sequels, there were several story arcs that ended with cliffhangers, and they beat you over the head with the idea that you will be searching for the last ark. The end cinematic for the game even showed a monologue from the "enemy" saying that he's not done yet. I still think the game was worth the cost, it just wasn't a good Bioware game. I was expecting more story and character development (which did start happening near the end).

Well I certainly can understand having expectations and being disappointed. No game ever disappointed me as much as Diablo3, with an honorable mention to Crimson Skies which wouldn't even install much less run. Who remembers that one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Skies_(video_game)

 

[Dan_D]

Basically what I saying is EA should really stop trying to defend the fact that they let some QA issues slip through. It got bad reviews because people are voicing their frustration with publishers trying to bash us over the head with more and more unpolished games. Paying a premium $60 per game people expect to get a much better experience. I get it Andromeda is a good game now and they fixed some of the issues with patches. My point is EA is trying tell people they were wrong for the first take on the game. They need to stop playing the PR game and start making sure the game is at the highest standard before they ship it. Yes almost every game that comes out has some type of issue I fully know that.
EA doesn't like criticism and they are trying to tell everyone who was not satisfied with the release of the game they were wrong for not liking it. That's like telling someone who likes a medium steak that a rare steak is what they wanted when they ordered it.

What I'm saying is that people are putting the first trilogy on a pedestal and judging Andromeda more severely than it deserves for things the original trilogy did just as badly, or worse. If you want to slam Andromeda on it's pacing, it's story, it's characters, or it's story, that's fine. Saying it's a technical turd would be fine too. What people often say is that it's not up to BioWare's usual standard which isn't true. When you look at BioWare's recent history, it's no less polished than the previous games were when they launched. If we traded the facial animation issues for clipping and unequipped weapons in cut scenes, or always using pistols in the cut scenes then I don't think anyone would have noticed the issues Andromeda has on a technical basis.

Dragon Age: Inquisition, Star Wars: The Old Republic, and Mass Effect 3 were no less shitty in the animation or quality department. BioWare's track record, when viewed objectively tells me that Andromeda was business as usual. The difference is that this game was going to be more harshly criticized coming in on the heels of Mass Effect 3's ending fiasco. The long development cycle suggested the game would be highly polished, and it wasn't. Combine all these factors together and I think this game is unfairly criticized. That isn't to say it isn't deserving of some of that criticism.

 

[SomeoneElse]

What I'm saying is that people are putting the first trilogy on a pedestal and judging Andromeda more severely than it deserves for things the original trilogy did just as badly, or worse. If you want to slam Andromeda on it's pacing, it's story, it's characters, or it's story, that's fine. Saying it's a technical turd would be fine too. What people often say is that it's not up to BioWare's usual standard which isn't true. When you look at BioWare's recent history, it's no less polished than the previous games were when they launched. If we traded the facial animation issues for clipping and unequipped weapons in cut scenes, or always using pistols in the cut scenes then I don't think anyone would have noticed the issues Andromeda has on a technical basis.

Dragon Age: Inquisition, Star Wars: The Old Republic, and Mass Effect 3 were no less shitty in the animation or quality department. BioWare's track record, when viewed objectively tells me that Andromeda was business as usual. The difference is that this game was going to be more harshly criticized coming in on the heels of Mass Effect 3's ending fiasco. The long development cycle suggested the game would be highly polished, and it wasn't. Combine all these factors together and I think this game is unfairly criticized. That isn't to say it isn't deserving of some of that criticism.

Right but wasn't Andromeda pushed back even after a 5 year development cycle? I'd say they criticism is warranted and after all of the changes they made, including not having the main character in the game from the first 3.

 

[Dan_D]

Right but wasn't Andromeda pushed back even after a 5 year development cycle? I'd say they criticism is warranted and after all of the changes they made, including not having the main character in the game from the first 3.

Yes. The crux of the Kotaku article suggests that the developer had tried prototyping for years and BioWare wasn't really sure how to proceed with the game's design. It suggested earlier versions of the game offered space combat and other features that never panned out. My take on the situation is that the project lacked focus and direction. I think it was determined early on that the game needed to be open world to follow in line with the trends of other established and successful franchises which went that direction. DA:I was successful, though probably not as successful as EA/BioWare had hoped. EA/BioWare decided to follow the open-world trend, despite not being entirely certain how to proceed in doing so within the Mass Effect franchise. I think there were a lot of ideas put out there by a relatively green development team and they were given too much slack by EA after the ME3 fiasco and that too bit BioWare in the ass. Once they finally got some direction, they were way behind on creating a usable product, much less an actual entertaining game. The article suggested that BioWare developed the game in only 18 months. If they used assets that were created during gameplay prototyping, I don't see that as being too far off the mark.

Basically, putting the B-Team on the game and losing the leadership that guided the previous installments in the franchise, while going open world didn't work out too well. It's actually surprising the game is good as it is, if the Kotaku article has any varacity. Ultimately, I believe it's closer to the truth than anyone at BioWare would readily admit.

 

[sirgallium]

I totally agree and even more depressing for me since I liked EA back in the 8bit days. They were a good part of the 80's along with Activision and I still can't believe what its all become.

This is the same path all businesses follow when profit is the number 1 goal above all else, everything else suffers. Interstate '76 is my favorite game of all time, made by Activision. Back when they made good games.