Mass Effect: Andromeda... 1 Year Later

Discussion in 'PC Gaming & Hardware' started by dark_reign, Dec 23, 2018.

  1. dark_reign

    dark_reign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    A look back on this controversial or disaster of a game.

     
    Montu, Q-BZ and AlphaAtlas like this.
  2. AlphaAtlas

    AlphaAtlas [H]ard|Gawd Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,243
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Wow... That was spot on. Definitely bookmarking this guy, thanks.


    That signal:noise ratio is exactly why I never went back for another playthrough. And as he mentioned, I do wonder how Bioware will dig the Mass Effect IP out of the hole they're written it into.
     
  3. dark_reign

    dark_reign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    EA loves to shitcan IPs if they're not making enough money. And they've said that singleplayer games are dead. I'll be surprised if they release another SP Mass Effect game.
     
    Q-BZ and AlphaAtlas like this.
  4. AlphaAtlas

    AlphaAtlas [H]ard|Gawd Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,243
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Well Bioware repeatedly stated they're still working on ME, and they still need a plot for an Anthem-ish ME game or a more MMO like one... I guess they could squeeze one in between the battle of the citadel and ME3's start, when Shepard was keeping a (relatively) low profile.

    That being said, you're right. I wouldn't be surprised if EA quietly ignored the IP for the foreseeable future.
     
  5. DWolvin

    DWolvin [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    The worst thing (to me) is that the bones are good. If they had hired a decent writer and put a bit more QA there was loads of possibility. But EA / Bioware screwing up and starting over but not extending the deadline really burned the bridge before they got across. It's not a bad game after the updates, but much of the plot can't be fixed after deploying the game. Hell, if the multiplayer had been supported half as much as ME3 it would still be going strong, it's often ridiculously fun and further polish would only help.
     
    Armenius and Flogger23m like this.
  6. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,710
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    EA and activision care too much about stock price and the “bottom line”. Which leads them to make short sighted decisions to make money in the short term. I think when there is a critical mass where players get too sick of their garbage, they’ll have to change. But as long as people keep buying Assassins creed and COD every year, they’re going to grind up any title that can’t sell 20+ million copies.

    Unfortunately mass effect and BioWare in general are casualties of this. Blizzard seems next up on the on chopping block, although that’s activision. Same difference though.


    What will really kill you then is if you learn about the internal strife that happened inside EA regarding BioWare. ME4 was changed by and altered by execs that thought that mass effect should be open world and sand box like. Which forced them to take the engine and the game in directions that were not intended by the writing or design team.

    The issue isn’t finding a good writer. It’s not meddling with good creative people that know what they’re doing in the name of trying to sell a more trendy product.

    ===

    EDIT: grammar.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2018
    Flogger23m likes this.
  7. DWolvin

    DWolvin [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Truth, I have ready those breakdowns, and the real issue is that EA is not a game company any more. They are an international corporation, and only care about profit and reporting to shareholders.
     
  8. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    You'd have a point if Assassin's Creed wasn't a good game. Alas I don't see what buying other games hasto do with this.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  9. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,710
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    It doesn't matter if Assassins Creed and COD were 100%, 5/5 rated games or 0% 0/5 rated ones. They have one priority: profit. And if Mass Effect can't make Assassins Creed money even after direct studio involvement and manipulation (whether executed perfectly or in this case poorly) then entire studios and franchises get the axe. That's the bottom line.

    So if EA and Activision are allowed to continue eating other companies, then you can expect this line to continue. Where franchises that are profitable (but not insanely so) become a shadow of their former selves and then axed in the name of creating something that can produce more money. We live in a time in which literally I read headlines about EA's market cap decreasing by 21 billion because Battlefield V didn't meet expectations. How little do you think they care about Mass Effect or any one of their given properties in the face of 21 billion? Every loot box and copy sold from their popular franchises feed their ability to continue this buying and gutting machine.

    If you don't think I have a point, that's fine. The writing is on the wall in cold hard cash.
     
  10. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    It seemed like you were kind of blaming people for the failure of mass effect, because they dared to buy those games. My point was why shouldn't we buy good games?

    I don't know how EA thinks, but putting out a decent linear story game and making half of what COD does is still better than putting out a failure and killing the cow in the process.
     
  11. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,710
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Feel free to quote me where I've remotely stated that. Which I haven't. People should buy good games. Andromeda obviously was garbage, but it was garbage because of execs. That's the only statement I've stated about anyone buying anything. Well that and their propensity to buy Assassins Creed and COD every year fueling EA.


    You think that way. They don't. And that's apparent. If you care to do the Google searches, you can see how the entire Bioware team is on edge regarding Anthem. If Anthem isn't a hit as EA defines a hit, then it's very likely that Bioware will cease to be a studio. That means not just making a profit, that means making a massive profit. Because that's the only way shareholder stock price goes up. This is 100% just economics. Otherwise it's Battlefield V all over again and losing 21 billion because it wasn't enough of a hit.

    EDIT: You can also look at how ME:A was handled. It was profitable (though perhaps not tremendously so), but all single player DLC got cancelled. And they didn't even put 1 year of support into it. That's the level of whiplash EA has. They don't want "some" of the money. They want all of the money.

    $110 million in revenue in it's first quarter for ME:A. And another $53 million in the fourth quarter in special editions alone (no amount listed for regular copies. EA doesn't release sales numbers).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect:_Andromeda
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2018
  12. Ryan7968

    Ryan7968 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    268
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    I'm with you there, and just like the guy said in the video the gameplay loop is good. I still don't know if I like the addition of the jump jets, it was great for single player but it really changed the multiplayer to something that was not as enjoyable as ME3:MP.

    There are many ways they could have gone with the story, a new galaxy being a fresh start for the franchise and all. My own thoughts were that the Kett should not have been the big bad. The Andromeda Initiative should have been the focal point throughout, with more importance placed on scouting out viable locations and internal strife being the ultimate conflict that needs to be resolved.
     
    DWolvin likes this.
  13. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    I think I already did.
    You said as long as people keep buying, doesn't that imply that we shouldn't buy them?
     
  14. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Well obviously the problem is being publicly traded. If they were private companies it wouldn't be necessary to produce constant growth. There would be no pressure to have more revenue in the next quarter than they had in the last. They make a game as long as it comes out ahead of expenses they'd be fine. Greed ruins everything.
     
  15. stolikat

    stolikat n00bie

    Messages:
    38
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
  16. DWolvin

    DWolvin [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Yeah, there are many potential places to improve the story. I think I've heard at least five versions that would have been better, but at the end of the day we have what we have. On the other hand, I came back to say dark_reign's post video is really worth a watch.
     
  17. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,710
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Except I didn't. I reread everything I wrote.


    The short answer is: "yes". But I don't think you really get what I'm saying at all. If you like EA's annual titles, then this whole thing isn't an issue for you. But if you want studios that get purchased by EA to continue to exist, then you can't feed EA's business model. And their business model is to make any game they make have to be mega successful. The only way that model changes is if their bottom line changes.
    Personally I think their games are all garbage. If you love them, great. Clearly the "popular" vote is that these games are the bees knees. But then it doesn't leave you with any room to complain about their mishandling of other projects, because they only do things one way.


    It all depends on how rich you want to get. If you're the head of a small studio that has 25 employees and makes say 5 million in revenue a year (which of course the net for the company is far lower as you're paying for things like salary, investments in computers, power, rent, other overhead etc), and you're offered $250 million to grow your studio and help with the development of your next several games, you're probably going to take it. You just went from making maybe $100,000 a year on a good year to being a millionaire overnight (because obviously you're going to give yourself a cut as the owner and the person that brokered the deal). That's what stock is. People investing in companies. They just expect a return at the end of it.

    Being publicly traded isn't the bottom line end of the problem. No more so than any other company we talk about in tech. To cut it short: it's obvious the way Tesla as an example does business versus EA does business is very different and they are both publicly traded. It is EA's choice to run the company like assholes.
     
  18. JavaLava

    JavaLava [H]Lite

    Messages:
    88
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2018
    Well its $4 on Origin right now....picked it up. It does sure look good so far at 1440p (still on the first mission on the first planet).
     
    Flogger23m likes this.
  19. dark_reign

    dark_reign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    It's barely worth $4, and it gets a bit boring not too far into the game. The ship, scanning planets and the Kett bases make the game a real chore to get through.

    It could have been a good or even great game if the devs from the original trilogy had worked on it. RIP.
     
  20. braamer

    braamer [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,503
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    I disagree completely. The game is well worth $4, and is a good game if you look at it separate from the original trilogy.
     
    Flogger23m and CAD4466HK like this.
  21. dark_reign

    dark_reign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Some of the game design was done pretty well, but story, characters and gameplay didn't pan out too well. The horrid facial animations and dead eye stares didn't help one get immersed into the game.

    I slogged through it to the bitter end, but I can never see playing it again.
     
  22. Drexion

    Drexion [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,184
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    The hate for this game imo was overblown, I think too many gamers had too high expectations for it. From my post game thoughts: "I went into this game with the mentality of 'I'm going to be playing a sci-fi game, hope it's cool', rather than 'I'm going to be playing a mass effect game, this better be good', and I enjoyed it throughout from start to finish. (full post)
     
  23. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    16,366
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    That's not remotely how it works. If they weren't publicly traded then they would be relying on outside investors and holding companies for their money. This means they would still need to have ever increasing profits in order to pay back the ever increasing amount of companies and money they have coming in from investors. Being private does not mean a company will cease being profit focused or beholden to outside sources.
     
  24. JustinCorrigible

    JustinCorrigible Gawd

    Messages:
    667
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Certain things about this game were overblown, but it left a whole lot to be desired on release. I didn't care for the companions, but then again I only like ME1 companions (although I doubt anyone could legitimately convince me Andromeda's companions were any good... Peebee was interesting for the first half hour or so). I think the best improvement this game had done for the series was the combat. Now, the encounters were tedious, as was their design, but the combat itself felt good. The exploration of the galaxy was also improved, but you could clearly tell a lot was cut short. Oh, except the traveling to planets. You know, they tried to fix it for us, but failed to tackle the right one: the whole zoom-in/zoom-out at EVERY. SINGLE. PLANET. It didn't even fit with the whole birds-eye view traveling to the planet...
     
  25. dark_reign

    dark_reign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    It took them FIVE years to turn a $40 million game into a disaster. I'd say the hate was justified. Reviews were mixed from various game sites and the game is mostly hated from gamers who actually played it to the very end.
     
    Master_shake_ likes this.
  26. Flogger23m

    Flogger23m [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,346
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Yeah the game dragged on obscenely long at points but I still found it better than most recent games. I liked the combat more, the story was more focused (although still bad) & it somewhat felt like you had something to accomplish. Shame the overall story was a let down. But better than many of the other recent open world adventure/shooting games over the last two years. Ghost Recon Wildlands released around the same time and that was utter horseshit, so I suppose that is why in retrospect Andromeda seems nice. It shouldn't have been considered a good game, but the competition has sucked so much as of late.
     
  27. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    It makes it possible to not be beholden to outside sources. If they don't stretch beyond their worth. I mean obviously you can get into debt and involve outside funding even if you're not publicly traded, but why would you do that if you can fund development without outside investors? The only sustainable way of doing business is by investing the money that the business makes. Not borrowing money and hoping they can pay it back later with interest. Yes it means slower growth rate, and not going from respectable wages to being millionaires in a year. Again, greed and market pressure being the centerpieces. Outside investors should be only a last ditch effort for a struggling business, not business as usual.

    You can't make a 200 million game without outside investors? Then don't make a 200 million game. Or gamble using someone else's money, and risk loosing your autonomy and creative freedom. That's all there is to it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  28. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    I don't know where you're getting that, most people who actually cared to complete the game were positive about it. When it was released the discussion on it was about 10 to 1 positive on forums among players. And the ones hating the game probably weren't even playing it just being " STOP LIKING WHAT YOUTUBE SAYS WE SHOULD HATE"
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  29. Drexion

    Drexion [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,184
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    A lot of the hate was due to the day 1 glitches/bugs/animation issues - something that gamers like myself who waited a few months before picking it up would not have experienced. I can fully understand how someone who picked it up day 1 would have been disappointed (and rightly so) but for those who had the patience to wait for a few patches they would have had a much more solid experience.

    This series was a victim of it's own success - a couple spectacular titles raised the bar and too many gamers let themselves get over-hyped to the point that no dev would be able to meet their inflated expectations.

    More than a year ago I posted in the me:a thread, "There are some players who let themselves get overhyped and overexcited over some franchises and they end up with an unrealistic standard in their head that will only inevitably lead to disappointment." The sad thing is I see some of those same players doing the same thing right now about some upcoming 2019 titles - overhyping them without realising the circle of disappointment they are weaving themselves into.
     
  30. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    As I've mentioned many times now, I've pre-ordered the game, and it wasn't that bad even on day one. Most of the hate were from people who signed up for origin access and got to play the game one week early, many of whom weren't even potential customers of the game. And the rest of the hate was from people parroting those early access players without having played the games themselves.

    Funny enough some of the "fixes" they implemented made the game worse for me. But by this time I was halfway trough the game. For example the ability to skip space travel sequences. Which outright killed the immersion for me, as the text "press escape to skip" was put there in the middle of the screen in bold letters and would never even fade away.

    I always knew it was unrealistic to expect it to be better than the trilogy or even as good as. I was ousted as a naysayer. But I ended up liking the game more than those hyping the shit out of it.
     
  31. psy81

    psy81 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    484
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Its a shame that this game got so much hate... it was buggy at times but overall I still enjoyed the game. I think this game was a victim of all the reviewers who wield way too much influence and haters that followed suit. ME1 was kind of boring for me but set the table for the second and third games which in retrospect made ME1 a great game.

    I was hoping Andromeda was doing the same and setting the table for future games but who knows if we'll even get any sequels...

    EA's move towards online multiplayer game play and micro transactions and shifting away from SP also doesn't help...
     
  32. Domingo

    Domingo Skip My Posts

    Messages:
    16,461
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    I had a fun time with the game. I found it to be a more complete game than ME1 and ME2, which were pretty lousy games with a great story. I started playing it about a month after release and encountered no weird bugs, animation issues, etc. Those VERY early reviews based on the preview should be the only ones with 1/2 as many complaints as they ended up having.
    It wasn't perfect, but the backlash was laughable. Especially all of the bandwagon stuff that was posted long after the buggy preview release. It almost reminds me of the PMRC type stuff in the 80's where people would criticize things sight unseen because they'd been told how to feel. There are obviously some legit issues with the game, but most of those are ported straight from the other 3 ME games. I think it's more that people made up their mind about the game and then worked backwards to justify it. With ME1-3 it was the opposite.
     
    termite likes this.
  33. cageymaru

    cageymaru [H]ard|News

    Messages:
    18,590
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Just fired the game up and I'm just after the father scene. Anyway it seems alright. I'm not a big fan of the writing so far I must admit. I'm not so sure about the cover system; I'm more of a Warframe type of person when it comes to cover. The character's eyes look weird though. And I should have changed the way the main character looks instead of choosing to play their story. Her look isn't my cup of tea.

    It runs alright, but for some reason I get slowdowns in the cut scenes only. Running the game at 1440p on this Vega 64 / Ryzen 1700 combo at stock speeds. Maybe something will click and I'll like the combat more.
     
  34. DWolvin

    DWolvin [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,865
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    You will get the ability to change looks in the medbay of your ship- just look around (I forget what it's called).
     
    cageymaru likes this.
  35. dark_reign

    dark_reign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,102
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    It helps their bottom line assuming any multiplayer games they release sell in big numbers. Anthem might save their ass.
     
  36. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    16,366
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    That's like saying the only reason the original ME3 ending was hated was due to the press and "haters". The part of ME: A where you playing the game, going around planets and fighting mobs or just exploring, that is really well done. However, everything around that is just sub-standard. Nothing about the characters, the plot, the writing, the world building, and so on stands up to the standards Bioware set previously. Even with the notoriously rushed Dragon Age 2 there were better characters and the over-all quality of the writing was better. I rather doubt most people play the ME games (or any Bioware games, for that matter) solely for the gameplay. People were there for the lore, for the characters, to be told a new and interesting story within the Mass Effect universe. The game failed at all of that. Every single potentially interesting plot thread they set up failed. The voice acting is some of the worst in Bioware's history, it doesn't seem like anyone really cared or they had a really bad vocal director. Its a game you can still have fun playing, its some of the best gameplay Bioware has ever had and some of the planets look beautiful, but it just fails as a Mass Effect game and fails to live up to what Bioware has been in the past.
     
  37. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Not on my watch.

    IF it saves their ass, then we can kiss goodbye any new mass effect for the next 10 years, or any story oriented game for that matter.
     
  38. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    ME3 didn't fail did it? The ending disappointed but that didn't hurt sales one bit. ME:A failed much harder than it was supposed to. Sure it wasn't the 8-9/10 that previous ME games were, but it failed like a 2/10, when it was really a 6/10 at worst. And however you try to spin this that did happen because of the detractors, who presented the bugs as the norm, instead as the very rare occurrences they were. The game was doomed from the get go, long before anyone would've had the time to properly explore the story and characters in the game.
     
  39. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    16,366
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Of course the game had an uphill battle. ME3's ending soured a lot of people along with early impressions of the game not being terribly positive. If the game had actually been good and had characters or writing that could stand up to previous Bioware games it would have been able to overcome it. Also, those bugs cropped up pretty often around launch. The dev team worked quick to try and address stuff, but the game made a very bad first impression. Bioware spent years building, and encouraging, a hardcore fanbase. They drew in passionate people and rewarded them. They wanted people to come into their games with emotions, and expectations, high. When a game fails to deliver on literally every single thing the company is known for people are going to react incredibly negatively. You build a passionate fanbase and you get a passionate response (positive or negative) to anything you do.