Mass Effect: Andromeda

I just hope that it won't be so damn boring collecting game like DA:I was - those damn shards.... those damn shards.

Also I'm glad they won't force multiplayer on people to get best ending - before changes, patches and DLCs to get best ending you had to take part in the MP.

Oh, and I'd love the option of finally being evil. Not renegade. Evil like in Tyranny, with ability to kill team members if they fail or to conquering new worlds not by negotiations but by brute force and evilness.

But the best thing they could do is just making this like Witcher 3 in space. :)
 
MorgothPl said:
Oh, and I'd love the option of finally being evil. Not renegade. Evil like in Tyranny, with ability to kill team members if they fail or to conquering new worlds not by negotiations but by brute force and evilness.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah I agree. Renegade ranged from being overly blunt to a full-on dick, but never actually evil. I'm not sure the older plot would have worked well (it probably would have been a lot of work for the devs), but hopefully this one will offer up something a bit more vicious.
 
Evil is relative, and you are looking for a new home planet for humanity so I'd say the possibilities are there for some seriously evil actions...
 
Not sure I like the new character models. For lack of a better description, they either look adolescent and/or dwarfish. The humans all look like they have the bodies of 10 years old. Am I taking crazy pills or have others noticed that?

The Princess Buttercup House of Cards character looks ok I guess.
 
New models looks a bit uglier then old ones. But it is closer to real world. So ship team should not look like supermodels competition winners.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Hard to be 'evil' when you're out to save the galaxy and all...
Click to expand...

It is a misconception that Commander Shepard's renegade actions were intended to be "evil" in any way. If you think about it, a Renegade Commander Shepard and a Paragon Commander Shepard shared the same goals and the same basic ideology. The same scenarios drive the same basic actions from the character. The character is a hero regardless of the dialog options you choose. The real difference between the two extreme versions of the character are this: Paragon Commander Shepard takes a moral high ground believing that the ends don't matter if the means to get there compromised your morality. In other words, he or she believes that you can keep your morals and accomplish the greater task for saving the galaxy, society, people's lives, etc. without compromise. Even so, this Commander Shepard does allow for some moral flexibility as working with Cerberus in ME2 is minefield of morally questionable decisions at best. The "Renegade" version of the Commander is more of a Vic Mackey type of character who believes the ends justify the means every time. Even so, this version of the character is capable of self-sacrifice and still makes some decisions and statements that are in line with those of the "Paragon version."

The best example of this is the Project Overlord DLC for Mass Effect 2. Even a full Renegade Commander Shepard is horrified by the actions of the scientist who tortures and uses his brother for the greater good. Renegade Shepard essentially tells him that he's a scumbag and that he wants to shoot him for his actions, but understands that the project is important and that it must be allowed to continue. The dialog seems to come from the same basic moral point of view in both cases, but the Renegade Shepard is willing to sacrifice the younger brother for the greater good while the Paragon Shepard refuses to do so, no matter how important the work is. Paragon Commander Shepard even goes so far as to physically assault people on multiple occasions instead of outright killing them as the Renegade version does. Again, they seem to have the same basic morality in a broad sense, but take very different paths in some cases to achieve their goals.

BioWare also made statements that suggest that Renegade actions aren't inherently evil. This is why Paragon and Renegade points became meaningless in ME3 and that the sum total of both was used over individual amounts of either as the previous two games did.

I'm not sure how ME:A is going to handle morality as of yet. I doubt the protagonist(s) will be evil in any real sense of the word. More opportunistic, more self-serving, or driven to take shortcuts for Humanity's sake? I'd bet on it. If the goal is to find a new home planet for the council races Ark ships, or just Earth's ship then I can see potential to push a small colony of people of a planet either by force or even genocide rather than working to co-exist with whatever natives happen to be there as one example of a moral choice. Again with two approaches to the same goals. Either with the character either believing there is a right way to do things and that something isn't worth the cost if it isn't done right or the ends justify the means.

This isn't an issue of writing either. Its a practical way of adding variance to repeated play throughs and giving the illusion of player choice. It's a practical way to build a game because inherently evil actions would likely require two very divergent game paths that could be so different as to feel like and actually be two games. Some story lines like the Rachni story from ME1 were too technically demanding to implement properly in sequels because of how far apart those choices were in terms of their consequences. I expect this game to be handled the same way, albeit with more finesse and experience now that BioWare knows what its getting into going forward given the mistakes made with the previous trilogy.
 
I'd lean towards your view that you'll likely be able to veer in a more self-serving direction. I think scope practicality will limit diverging too much from the ultimate story outcome.

I highly doubt you'll be able to join the baddies to enslave what remains of humanity, however cool that may be.

Or better, if they're going all out, I'd vote for a "getting to old for this shit" path where you could settle in as a mid-level manager at an asteroid mining colony in a quiet corner of Andromeda. I'd just as well leave the whole save humanity plot behind.
 
harmattan said:
I'd lean towards your view that you'll likely be able to veer in a more self-serving direction. I think scope practicality will limit diverging too much from the ultimate story outcome.

I highly doubt you'll be able to join the baddies to enslave what remains of humanity, however cool that may be.

Or better, if they're going all out, I'd vote for a "getting to old for this shit" path where you could settle in as a mid-level manager at an asteroid mining colony in a quiet corner of Andromeda. I'd just as well leave the whole save humanity plot behind.
Click to expand...

In BioWare's other games with similar moral choices, you can either be self-serving, psychotic, intimidating (either physically, or verbally) or take a shortcut to achieve your goal at the cost of someone else. Some actions in some games could be classified as evil because they are psychotic or violent without purpose. An example of this is in Star Wars: The Old Republic in which the Sith Warrior kills a group of dock workers who were fully cooperative for his or her own amusement. Commander Shepard doesn't really have any actions that fit that criteria that I can recall off hand. Everyone he or she kills is either a threat, hindrance, annoyance or has something the Commander wants or needs. So while certain actions are evil according to a lot of societal norms, the violence committed or the actions committed generally serve some sort of purpose. Actions for the Sith Warrior in SWTOR do not necessarily. BioWare will undoubtedly give us choices that raise the bar in terms of cruelty or the ability to be selfish but I have no doubt the character will be like Commander Shepard in that he or she will have a specific goal that the character will always pursue. You won't be able to be evil all the time because the game is likely designed to be a part of a trilogy, even if it set to stand alone now. The reason for this is simple. The end roads have to tie up nicely to move into a sequel. This is why Mass Effect 3 had the potential to provide very diverse endings and why earlier games and actions rarely made much difference outside of the tone of the players experience with the character.

Mass Effect Andromeda will probably do the same thing. The dialog trees and actions may seem to branch out quite a bit but ultimately they will lead to the same conclusion. Limitations in budget, development time, and the constraints of sequels will always limit what the developers can do. Even if things get to a technological point where divergence is easier to handle, the above limitations will still be in place.
 
harmattan said:
Not sure I like the new character models. For lack of a better description, they either look adolescent and/or dwarfish. The humans all look like they have the bodies of 10 years old. Am I taking crazy pills or have others noticed that?

The Princess Buttercup House of Cards character looks ok I guess.
Click to expand...

Most of the dialogue I've heard from them sounds adolescent too. I'm going to have a hard time getting in to my character if this proves to be the case. They sound like a couple cocky kids yet to have a reality check, but maybe that's a part of their character building story (hopefully). If not and I have to suffer with some Justin Bieber of an avatar, the game won't last long with me.
 
DWolvin said:
New Andromeda Initiative video out...

And a new trailer.
Click to expand...

the overall 'look' of the game is fantastic in terms of the planets, environments and ships...but...the voice acting seems really bad and the characters don't seem as interesting...the voice acting in the original trilogy was fantastic so I'm not sure what's going on in this one...this latest trailer gave me a cheesy Star Trek TV show vibe with the planet exploration and forced romance etc...I'm still going to get the game but something just seems off to me...
 
I hear you- hoping it's polished, and that the characters they are introducing are not typical- we have not heard from the Krogan yet ('cause they aint got the quads!)
 
DWolvin said:
I hear you- hoping it's polished, and that the characters they are introducing are not typical- we have not heard from the Krogan yet ('cause they aint got the quads!)
Click to expand...

Lol. It will be interesting to see what these Krogan behave like since they technically left before the genophage was cured, and there is a good chance they never received word.
 
As much as I'm looking forward to getting immersed in Andromeda, I have to agree with the comments on voice characters and dialogue. Just not "feeling it" with what I've seen and heard so far.
 
Commander Shepard said:
As much as I'm looking forward to getting immersed in Andromeda, I have to agree with the comments on voice characters and dialogue. Just not "feeling it" with what I've seen and heard so far.
Click to expand...
I just hope there will be more options for the squad. And I damn well hope that's not all we get, that they already shown.
 
Frraksurred said:
Lol. It will be interesting to see what these Krogan behave like since they technically left before the genophage was cured, and there is a good chance they never received word.
Click to expand...

Oh- good call! One the one hand, the research from Maelon should mean that there is at least partial progress, and the cure may have been transmitted to the ship in flight (or quantum entanglement communication). It will be interesting and telling to see how that is handled.
 
M76 said:
I just hope there will be more options for the squad. And I damn well hope that's not all we get, that they already shown.
Click to expand...

I'd like options, but I'd be happy with 8 or so well detailed characters rather than 15-16 not so good ones. The original trilogy had a nice way of introducing a good number of the characters. A lot of different places, C-Sec, ect. Will be harder for unique introductions if everyone is aboard the same fleet.
 
Flogger23m said:
I'd like options, but I'd be happy with 8 or so well detailed characters rather than 15-16 not so good ones. The original trilogy had a nice way of introducing a good number of the characters. A lot of different places, C-Sec, ect. Will be harder for unique introductions if everyone is aboard the same fleet.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you'll be able to recruit from either the local races, or from the crews of other arks. Since it seems to me that your ship is not singular but only one of many similar colony vessels sent out in hopes of being a plan B.

In fact the whole initiative sounds like it is Cerberus. Actually I hope it turns out to be that, because otherwise how do they explain never hearing about it in ME3? Since it happened a year before that, but probably after you broke ties with them.
 
M76 said:
In fact the whole initiative sounds like it is Cerberus. Actually I hope it turns out to be that, because otherwise how do they explain never hearing about it in ME3? Since it happened a year before that, but probably after you broke ties with them.
Click to expand...

Cerberus doesn't make sense because they're focused on human advancement/survival, at least until ME3. Further, Shepherd is basically 'locked up' between ME2 and ME3 due to the Batarian incident in ME2, and doesn't hold a military status until after the beginning of ME3, so it would make sense that he/she isn't clued in on this project. Also remember that after the intro in ME2, Shepherd isn't military, or technically even alive according to the Alliance, so something big like the Andromeda Expedition (or whatever it'll be called) would be outside of his/her purview.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Cerberus doesn't make sense because they're focused on human advancement/survival, at least until ME3. Further, Shepherd is basically 'locked up' between ME2 and ME3 due to the Batarian incident in ME2, and doesn't hold a military status until after the beginning of ME3, so it would make sense that he/she isn't clued in on this project. Also remember that after the intro in ME2, Shepherd isn't military, or technically even alive according to the Alliance, so something big like the Andromeda Expedition (or whatever it'll be called) would be outside of his/her purview.
Click to expand...

This was explained near the end of ME3. The illusive man has the reaper shit put in him thinking he will be able to control it, but obviously that doesn't happen. This is why Cerberus is basically doing shit for the Reapers in ME3.
 
Mchart said:
This was explained near the end of ME3. The illusive man has the reaper shit put in him thinking he will be able to control it, but obviously that doesn't happen. This is why Cerberus is basically doing shit for the Reapers in ME3.
Click to expand...
And what does that have to do with anything that happened near the end of ME2? The IM had the implants during the events of ME3, or shortly before that.

This whole project doesn't fit the MO of the alliance or the council. They did everything in their power to discredit the reaper threat and go into full sjw mode about it (if we don't mention it it doesn't exist) and then went on to do a huge project from trillions and trillions of credits because of them? Doesn't make sense.

Cerberus however already allowed Shepard to work with aliens. They want to advance and protect humanity at all costs, and that included working with aliens by then.

I'll be sorely disappointed if they tell me this was an alliance / council project. And even more disappointed if they ex-machina the shit out of it and tell me it was funded by a third party that we never encountered during the trilogy.

Plus this project needed years of preparation, they couldn't have done it in the one year while Shepard was locked up. And even if they did, why wouldn't Anderson or someone tell him about it after, that not all would be lost if they can't defeat the reapers?
 
Every Dev house has people who believe in something you disagree with. This guy is just stupid enough to attract media attention. ME2 & ME3 both had minor plot lines I didn't care for.

I will judge the final game by its reviews before I buy, and then for myself if I do purchase. I could give a rip about this guy and his personal opinions.

Apart from that we should probably stay on topic and leave the political / race debates for their own dedicated threads, not this one. Anything else will only bring Moderator action.
 
Yea, the gameplay trailer looked like 'your' character only had three active skills... I'm thinking that you can have more than that, but three are hotkeyed in combat and the rest take more effort (or a couple of button presses).
 
i'm downloading Mass Effect 2 right now in preparation of Andromeda. i bought ME2 years ago on a $5 sale and never bothered to play it. i think i'll give it a whirl and see if the gameplay captures me. if so i'll pick up Andromeda too. i'm a sucker for pretty visuals and art design, and Andromeda looks great in that regard.
 
Mass Effect 2 is a good game. It's actually the one that got me into the series. Had I started with ME1 I don't think I would have played the rest. I liked ME2 enough to want to go back and play the first game so I'd have a save file with all the decisions and completed quests. The completionist in me had to finish ME1 once I got interested in the series. I had to power through some of the first game's more tedious moments. ME2 had much better gameplay even if the story was weak by comparison.
 
Dan_D said:
Mass Effect 2 is a good game. It's actually the one that got me into the series. Had I started with ME1 I don't think I would have played the rest. I liked ME2 enough to want to go back and play the first game so I'd have a save file with all the decisions and completed quests. The completionist in me had to finish ME1 once I got interested in the series. I had to power through some of the first game's more tedious moments. ME2 had much better gameplay even if the story was weak by comparison.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the first Mass Effect is pretty hard to get into, as the first couple of hours is a slog. The difficulty curve doesn't help matters, either, as you're at an extreme disadvantage for the first 15 levels or so. Once the galaxy is opened up to you, though, I think it's a pretty amazing experience. It did actually take me about a year to complete the game for the first time, but after that I powered through every combination of Shepard imaginable. I think they struck a pretty good balance with Mass Effect 2.
 
Once you get past the Citadel side quests, and the dull Mako exploration its a great game.
 
Agreed- it's not that ME1 is BAD, it's just not as good and the gameplay of 2 and 3. It was still pretty eye-opening when it came out.
 
I still can't forgive planet scanning and the end quest in ME2. I found it worse then any iteration of ME3 to be honest. For as bad as the child was, the final boss of ME2 doesn't fit in anywhere in the ME universe, before or after. It was so bad I could not bring myself to replay that game, just knowing that what was waiting for me.
 
Nimisys said:
I still can't forgive planet scanning and the end quest in ME2. I found it worse then any iteration of ME3 to be honest. For as bad as the child was, the final boss of ME2 doesn't fit in anywhere in the ME universe, before or after. It was so bad I could not bring myself to replay that game, just knowing that what was waiting for me.
Click to expand...

I'll take planet scanning over the same rehashed planet exploring from ME1 any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top