Mass Effect: Andromeda

I thought the War Room was a nice way of doing story telling, but I prefer to play out the story, not just have a Choose Your Own Adventure story spelled out in front of me.

what I liked about ME1, is that every land-able planet at least had something to do on it, aside from finding the two resource nodes. while each local could have had more depth in that activity, it was at least there. you lost that going forward.
 
War Room is shit. I hate having to travel there to do every little decision. If they made the war room accessible from anywhere or anywhere safe, I'd be a lot happier with it.
 
Nimisys said:
I thought the War Room was a nice way of doing story telling, but I prefer to play out the story, not just have a Choose Your Own Adventure story spelled out in front of me.

what I liked about ME1, is that every land-able planet at least had something to do on it, aside from finding the two resource nodes. while each local could have had more depth in that activity, it was at least there. you lost that going forward.
Click to expand...

I preferred the older hub planet model that ME1 and ME2 used with other things taking place on the Normandy.

pothb said:
War Room is shit. I hate having to travel there to do every little decision. If they made the war room accessible from anywhere or anywhere safe, I'd be a lot happier with it.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with the stupid war room was the fact that you had to walk through that slow ass fucking security scanner to get there.
 
Yea, that scanner stopped being OK about the third trip. I agree that it should be accessible from anywhere (or on any communication point like the Mako or Grizzly )
 
That scanner was a load screen, like the elevator/s in ME1. why they felt the need to split the level there, I do not know.
 
Nimisys said:
That scanner was a load screen, like the elevator/s in ME1. why they felt the need to split the level there, I do not know.
Click to expand...
Overly complicated assets that could've been achieved with a menu.
 
while I disagree with a menu, they could have very easily simplified that area of the ship, eliminated the security scan load screen and had a better experience as a result.
 
I didn't mind the war room much in ME3 as most of the action didn't take place there. But I absolutely hated the war room in DAI. I mean having to go back there for every menial little command / decision was just frustrating. Why couldn't I just issue commands to my commanders from the field? Half of the 70 hours I wasted on DAI was spent by running to the war room from the spawn point of the keep.
I sure hope they don't do no such thing in ME4. Besides in ME4 you're supposed to be some insignificant peasant, so you probably won't need a war room to decide which planet to raid for resources.

I hope ME4 will be an experience like Firefly. Small crew, and small scale problems. And not saving the world, just getting by as a merchant/explorer/terraformer, or whatever you happen to be.
 
Seconded- 'you' are a newb in this galaxy, and should be most interested in survival and exploration / gathering (research and resources, tech, whatever) in my mind...


(So proud of myself for not posting that in Firefly lingo)
 
M76 said:
I didn't mind the war room much in ME3 as most of the action didn't take place there. But I absolutely hated the war room in DAI. I mean having to go back there for every menial little command / decision was just frustrating. Why couldn't I just issue commands to my commanders from the field? Half of the 70 hours I wasted on DAI was spent by running to the war room from the spawn point of the keep.
I sure hope they don't do no such thing in ME4. Besides in ME4 you're supposed to be some insignificant peasant, so you probably won't need a war room to decide which planet to raid for resources.

I hope ME4 will be an experience like Firefly. Small crew, and small scale problems. And not saving the world, just getting by as a merchant/explorer/terraformer, or whatever you happen to be.
Click to expand...

I will wager that it's exactly the opposite of Firefly or even the Normandy. I expect whatever ship they have to stand in for the Normandy in Mass Effect: Andromeda to be a large, deep space capital ship of some sort. I'll wager that the story of how they got there is more of a Noah' Ark type situation where the council races and some of the other notable species got loaded up on a handful or even a single large ship bound for Andromeda. How long they've been there or anything beyond that is anyone's guess though.

To me it's the only thing that makes sense. In ME3 the Reapers were coming into trash the galaxy and at several points there was every reason to believe that life in our Galaxy was going to be wiped out leaving anyone beyond the stone age dead or turned into meat paste. While Shepard convinced the space fairing races to invest in the space magic machine and a massive fleet for a last stand, I doubt each government hedged all their bets on those plans. When you are facing annihilation I think you'd figure out all your options and try and many of them as you possibly can without hedging all your bets and devoting all resources to one of those. A single large ship, or a small fleet spared for a journey to a galaxy far from the Reapers is a sensible survival strategy. This makes even more sense given that those few or single ships almost certainly would make zero difference in the final battle.

The second the developers confirmed that the future Mass Effect games would take place in another Galaxy, I figured this would be the rough basis for the council races continued appearances in the series.
 
Dan_D said:
I will wager that it's exactly the opposite of Firefly or even the Normandy. I expect whatever ship they have to stand in for the Normandy in Mass Effect: Andromeda to be a large, deep space capital ship of some sort. I'll wager that the story of how they got there is more of a Noah' Ark type situation where the council races and some of the other notable species got loaded up on a handful or even a single large ship bound for Andromeda. How long they've been there or anything beyond that is anyone's guess though.

To me it's the only thing that makes sense. In ME3 the Reapers were coming into trash the galaxy and at several points there was every reason to believe that life in our Galaxy was going to be wiped out leaving anyone beyond the stone age dead or turned into meat paste. While Shepard convinced the space fairing races to invest in the space magic machine and a massive fleet for a last stand, I doubt each government hedged all their bets on those plans. When you are facing annihilation I think you'd figure out all your options and try and many of them as you possibly can without hedging all your bets and devoting all resources to one of those. A single large ship, or a small fleet spared for a journey to a galaxy far from the Reapers is a sensible survival strategy. This makes even more sense given that those few or single ships almost certainly would make zero difference in the final battle.

The second the developers confirmed that the future Mass Effect games would take place in another Galaxy, I figured this would be the rough basis for the council races continued appearances in the series.
Click to expand...

You assume that you'd be the leader of the entire milky way contingent in Andromeda. Would they send a nobody as a leader? I don't think so. At the minimum it would have to be a well respected tested veteran, exactly the opposite of what we were promised. I'd think of the protagonist as a tag along, the captain of a small exploration or frigate in the fleet.

I'd not mind being the leader of a huge ship / fleet either. Like captain of the von braun or the enterprise D. A ship where a few thousand souls can live for decades. But that goes against the promise that you're not an established figure, but a nobody. And who would send a nobody on a mission like that? Except if by some tragedy all the ranking officers were to be killed, and you left in command. But that's just too cheesy / clichéd of a story for me.
 
BTW Anyone remember Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force? Even though it was "just" an FPS. I loved that game, it gave me the experience like I was in a full evening Voyager episode. I'm looking for a similar experience from this game, where the immersion is absolute.And you truly feel like an explorer. ME1 did have some of that with the planet exploration, but it was obviously lacking.
 
M76 said:
BTW Anyone remember Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force? Even though it was "just" an FPS. I loved that game, it gave me the experience like I was in a full evening Voyager episode. I'm looking for a similar experience from this game, where the immersion is absolute.And you truly feel like an explorer. ME1 did have some of that with the planet exploration, but it was obviously lacking.
Click to expand...

I got that same feeling form Buck Rogers on the Sega Genesis. I've been waiting for game to recapture that experience.
 
I wouldn't be a fan of a Firefly theme. Essentially all the mediocre sci fi series use that. It also goes hand in hand with cookie cutter exploration, fetch quests and a long list of pointless things to get 100% completion on. I'd rather have them make a slightly unique story, like the first ME game.

The first ME game was good in that they didn't make Shepard out to be a superhero, although clearly played an important role in galactic affairs by the end of the story. The second game elevated Shepard and a bunch of other side characters closer to super hero status which felt very corny. Most of the characters made little sense in terms of skillset. Zaeed, Kasumi? Their skills are never even put to use. It felt like a bunch of odd mini-super hero side kick quests which added up to nothing in the end as they were all rather generic. The story focused too much on Shepard's legend. Three was a good mix of the first two games.

My point, I don't want a Firefly theme, but I also don't want a super hero. But I do want a good over arching story, and not another treasure hunt.
 
I liked neither Kasumi nor Zaeed... but Shepard, and Garrus both deserve super hero status considering their situation. Shepard came back from the dead and helped fight against a big disaster. Garrus, on the other hand became basically a vigilante that is feared by the gangs of whatsthatplace. Miranda was meh, SuperBaldyGirl was meh, TokenBlackGuy was meh. I liked the way they did Tali though. She seemed to mostly stay on course with herself from ME1, but that romance... ugh. Mordin and Legion were good too. That said, those 2 definitely ranks up there as a self sentient robot and super intellect.


What annoyed me ALOT, and I don't hear it anywhere else, so it might just be me... but the fact that Shepard constantly uses his damn pistol in cutscenes. Being a super soldier or super biotic, you end up using a pistol to threaten people? Really? That annoyed me to no end.

Anyway! I don't mind the super powered characters much... I mean, there is a reason why they are people leading the charge, they have ability to do so.
 
At this point, I just want a game that doesn't feel like a grind or a burden to play.

DA:I, to me, just felt like both of those things, and its why it's still the only Bioware game I've yet to complete even once.

ME, ME2, DA:O all got over a dozen complete playthroughs.

DA2 got maybe half a dozen.

ME3 got 2. (once with and one without the happy ending mod)

DA:I has none so far and I've had it since launch.

I'm not liking the trend.
 
pothb said:
You beat DA2 half a dozen times? HOW?!
Click to expand...

It wasn't as good as DA:O, but I ended up putting in 6 plays it seems (looking at my old saves folder). That was so long ago though so I couldn't tell you "why" I did it.

Some parts of the story I did like, but as a whole... it was very forgettable.

Hell I replayed a full DA:O run just last year, and still loved it. I wouldn't touch DA2 now if you paid me. :p

I figure to give DA:I one more solid chance sometime this year... but if that fails, it'll get deleted off my drive never to be touched again. Its had more than enough chances.

Just that I've noticed the lack of enjoyment from playing/replaying Bioware games has really dropped off for me... so I worry for ME:A. :(
 
M76 said:
You assume that you'd be the leader of the entire milky way contingent in Andromeda. Would they send a nobody as a leader? I don't think so. At the minimum it would have to be a well respected tested veteran, exactly the opposite of what we were promised. I'd think of the protagonist as a tag along, the captain of a small exploration or frigate in the fleet.

I'd not mind being the leader of a huge ship / fleet either. Like captain of the von braun or the enterprise D. A ship where a few thousand souls can live for decades. But that goes against the promise that you're not an established figure, but a nobody. And who would send a nobody on a mission like that? Except if by some tragedy all the ranking officers were to be killed, and you left in command. But that's just too cheesy / clichéd of a story for me.
Click to expand...

How did I assume that your new character would be the leader of jack shit? I made no assumptions and said nothing to imply that. You could easily be a no one that rises to prominence early in the game. The footage shown of the character at the Galaxy map doesn't preclude the possibility that you start off as nothing, nor does it mean that the clip was taken on the flagship of the fleet. There very well could be more ships, smaller ships or whatever. I'd wager there wasn't a single ark type ship. More than likely there was a smaller fleet representational of the Salarians, Asari, Alliance, etc. Finally a huge ship with lots of people is more likely if you are to start off as a nobody. On a small ship with a smaller crew there isn't a such thing as an unimportant person.
 
Dan_D said:
How did I assume that your new character would be the leader of jack shit? I made no assumptions and said nothing to imply that. You could easily be a no one that rises to prominence early in the game. The footage shown of the character at the Galaxy map doesn't preclude the possibility that you start off as nothing, nor does it mean that the clip was taken on the flagship of the fleet. There very well could be more ships, smaller ships or whatever. I'd wager there wasn't a single ark type ship. More than likely there was a smaller fleet representational of the Salarians, Asari, Alliance, etc. Finally a huge ship with lots of people is more likely if you are to start off as a nobody. On a small ship with a smaller crew there isn't a such thing as an unimportant person.
Click to expand...
Oh so much anger, what's wrong you having a bad day? OMG someone disagrees with me on the internet, the sky has fallen.

You assumed by saying your ship will be a huge capital ship. So now that you elaborated I understand that you meant you won't start off as captain. I don't like that scenario. No, I hate that notion, that implies that the beginning of the game could be wildly linear with no free choices, as you're bossed around as a subordinate. Not a good premise for an RPG.

A small insignificant ship is unimportant in itself, so anyone on it is unimportant by definition. Of course not unimportant to the crew of the ship. Why would you even define unimportant on ship scale anyway? To me it's clear as sky, that your character is not unimportant in the sense that he's the janitor of the ship, everyone ignores, but unimportant in the sense, that he never did anything noteworthy or heroic in his life, but you must be at least the first officer on your ship at the start of the game, otherwise the free reign element just falls apart.
 
Flogger23m said:
My point, I don't want a Firefly theme, but I also don't want a super hero. But I do want a good over arching story, and not another treasure hunt.
Click to expand...
To clarify I don't want firefly theme. I brought it up just as an example on the size of your ship and crew that I'm expecting. Or rather hope for. I don't want no space cowboy badboy shit.
 
M76 said:
The universal hate towards DA2 is beyond me. I played it more than once, and I still like it. I just finished it a few months ago and loved it.
Click to expand...
The universal hate, as far as I go is this.... the same dungeon is reused over and over again. The story claims you are the champion that affects it and what not but it plays out to make you little more than an extra. Bad enemy spawning, though I wasn't too concerned with this, is a bit glaring. Combat feels like they didn't think it through,like they wanted to make it faster pace but still kept everything in. Lots and lots of revisiting.

I'm sure I had more complaints as I was playing but those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I don't think it's as horrid as most of the haters, but it definitely was disappointing, and that's coming from someone who didn't really expect much in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
pothb said:
The universal hate, as far as I go is this.... the same dungeon is reused over and over again. The story claims you are the champion that affects it and what not but it plays out to make you little more than an extra. Bad enemy spawning, though I wasn't too concerned with this, is a bit glaring. Combat feels like they didn't think it through,like they wanted to make it faster pace but still kept everything in. Lots and lots of revisiting.

I'm sure I had more complaints as I was playing but those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I don't think it's as horrid as most of the haters, but it definitely was disappointing, and that's coming from someone who didn't really expect much in the first place.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned those things and a lot more in the linked post, but still overall I enjoyed it more than Origins.
 
M76 said:
Oh so much anger, what's wrong you having a bad day? OMG someone disagrees with me on the internet, the sky has fallen.

You assumed by saying your ship will be a huge capital ship. So now that you elaborated I understand that you meant you won't start off as captain. I don't like that scenario. No, I hate that notion, that implies that the beginning of the game could be wildly linear with no free choices, as you're bossed around as a subordinate. Not a good premise for an RPG.

A small insignificant ship is unimportant in itself, so anyone on it is unimportant by definition. Of course not unimportant to the crew of the ship. Why would you even define unimportant on ship scale anyway? To me it's clear as sky, that your character is not unimportant in the sense that he's the janitor of the ship, everyone ignores, but unimportant in the sense, that he never did anything noteworthy or heroic in his life, but you must be at least the first officer on your ship at the start of the game, otherwise the free reign element just falls apart.
Click to expand...

Not angry. As for not starting off as a captain, you are making too many assumptions. You weren't a Captain at the beginning of Mass Effect 1 and still had a reasonable amounts of freedom. And as you said, you can still be relatively high rank, or a bunch of people could die right off and you end up with a promotion. We just don't have enough information at this point.
 
Dan_D said:
Not angry. As for not starting off as a captain, you are making too many assumptions. You weren't a Captain at the beginning of Mass Effect 1 and still had a reasonable amounts of freedom. And as you said, you can still be relatively high rank, or a bunch of people could die right off and you end up with a promotion. We just don't have enough information at this point.
Click to expand...
Right, we don't know anything. That's why I don't want to contemplate unfavorable scenarios.
 
pothb said:
You beat DA2 half a dozen times? HOW?!
Click to expand...

What I liked about DA2 vs DA:I was its more curated story telling approach. Yes, DA:I had vastly more unique areas to explore, and DA2 stupidly recycled all kinds of garbage. But the reason why you were in that recycled area in DA2 was more interesting, many times, than the purposelessness I felt in DA:I despite a huge beautiful world.

A difference in what one enjoys; I played DA:O upwards of a dozen times, DA2 half a dozen, DA:I only once. I also am not a big fan of Fallout, have only put a few hours in the latest game. I appreciate a game's storytelling keeping a bit of pacing, not necessarily aimless open world exploration.
 
I can agree with that. I mean, having a central story/theme does help one start. I never played a fallout game before 3 and that I only plyaed for a couple of hours before just oging meh and quiting. 4 definitely was a better experience. I do feel DA2 had a story that helped pushed it alongbetter than DAO, but even so, it's short comings make it really hard for me to go back to do a 2nd play through.
 
pothb said:
I can agree with that. I mean, having a central story/theme does help one start. I never played a fallout game before 3 and that I only plyaed for a couple of hours before just oging meh and quiting. 4 definitely was a better experience. I do feel DA2 had a story that helped pushed it alongbetter than DAO, but even so, it's short comings make it really hard for me to go back to do a 2nd play through.
Click to expand...

I prefer games to have a plot with defined objectives for moving the story along. I prefer to have latitude in how I get there and or what missions I undertake and when. Mass Effect 1 and to a lesser extent, ME2 did this perfectly. You had a story and understood how to advance it. At the same time it was entertaining to go off your own and do whatever for awhile knowing how and when I could pick up the main plot again and advance it. ME2 was more structured and more cinematic which has good and bad points, but overall I still felt I had a fair amount of freedom to undertake side missions and quests whenever I felt like it. I like open worlds where I can drive the plot at my pace, but I need to know what that plot is or at least how to further it when I wish to do so. Truly open world games that are almost a complete sandbox annoy the fuck out of me. Those games tend to lack the interactivity or sophistication in the environments to make that entertaining. Even then I still need an interesting plot to drive me or I'll get bored fast.
 
I hate missing out on story, so ME2 having a somewhat specific play through path in order not miss out was frustrating for me as I felt like I had to do everything in specific order. while DAI had a small amount of it, it was a lot more flexible in that regard. DAI however needed more plot specific missions, and the content done in un-needed to be explored areas, needed to have some impact. while it was nice to have the content, that lack of effect made it feel hollow
 
Nimisys said:
I hate missing out on story, so ME2 having a somewhat specific play through path in order not miss out was frustrating for me as I felt like I had to do everything in specific order. while DAI had a small amount of it, it was a lot more flexible in that regard. DAI however needed more plot specific missions, and the content done in un-needed to be explored areas, needed to have some impact. while it was nice to have the content, that lack of effect made it feel hollow
Click to expand...

There is no question that each game got more linear. Having said that, ME2 still left you a lot of freedom with regard to the order of the missions you undertook. The only problem is that ME1 let you do most everything in whatever order you wanted to with the linear section of the game being gated behind the Ilos mission. In Mass Effect 2, you actually had much the same if not more freedom in some respects. Mass Effect 2 gated story centric or relevant sections of the game behind missions that weren't necessarily obvious triggers for advancing the story. If you undertook many of those missions outside of the proper order there were consequences, but only so far is in launching the suicide mission prior to completion of the loyalty missions had lethal consequences for some squad mates. Other consequences were mostly with regard to dialog later in ME2 or in ME3. Where ME2 was more open is with regard to the completion of the suicide mission not ending the game. You were free to go back and undertake the N7 missions or the DLCs after the completion of the campaign. In essence it was sort of reversed from ME1 in terms of where it's freedoms were.

By far, Mass Effect 3 was the most linear with certain missions actually advancing the story and locking you out of option missions that appeared earlier on. Fortunately these were fairly obvious, but you were far more constrained in Mass Effect 3 than in the previous two installments. In ME1 you had hub planets but you could still travel between them and do missions as you saw fit. ME2 only had three gates that put you on story centric linear paths for a time. ME3 on the other hand had sections that locked you into completing quests on a given world before you could move onto the next major planet. Side missions were even gated to appear after or before specific main planetary missions to further confuse people.
 
M76 said:
The universal hate towards DA2 is beyond me. I played it more than once, and I still like it. I just finished it a few months ago and loved it.
Click to expand...


...

It's times like these that the old saying, there is no accounting for taste crystallizes on your mind. You may as well have said you had latrine waste dumped on you and enjoyed the smell and it would have made about as much sense to my sensibilities.
 
tybert7 said:
...

It's times like these that the old saying, there is no accounting for taste crystallizes on your mind. You may as well have said you had latrine waste dumped on you and enjoyed the smell and it would have made about as much sense to my sensibilities.
Click to expand...

I sort of get where he's coming from. There are lots of reasons why the Force Unleashed 2 was terrible and I played the shit out of that game. I liked the first game but preferred to play the second. I really enjoy it despite the first one actually being better in almost every way. There are some games you like despite the huge flaws and everyone telling you how much it sucks.
 
Dan_D said:
I sort of get where he's coming from. There are lots of reasons why the Force Unleashed 2 was terrible and I played the shit out of that game. I liked the first game but preferred to play the second. I really enjoy it despite the first one actually being better in almost every way. There are some games you like despite the huge flaws and everyone telling you how much it sucks.
Click to expand...
Well, FU2 was the worst game I've ever had the misfortune of finishing. But it wasn't as bad to not finish it at all. But the most glaring issues in FU2 were the bugs and idiotic level design. Apart from those two it was OK I guess.

This actually prompted me to post my review of it.
 
Last edited:
tybert7 said:
...

It's times like these that the old saying, there is no accounting for taste crystallizes on your mind. You may as well have said you had latrine waste dumped on you and enjoyed the smell and it would have made about as much sense to my sensibilities.
Click to expand...
You just make yourself look spoiled. DA2 in many respects a very good game. Did it fall short of the expectations of core DAO fans? Yes, by a great margin. Does that make it automatically the worst game ever, comparable to urine being smeared in your face? Absolutely not. As I like to use the phrase if your expectations are not met by reality it's not reality that is in error.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
There is no question that each game got more linear. Having said that, ME2 still left you a lot of freedom with regard to the order of the missions you undertook. The only problem is that ME1 let you do most everything in whatever order you wanted to with the linear section of the game being gated behind the Ilos mission. In Mass Effect 2, you actually had much the same if not more freedom in some respects. Mass Effect 2 gated story centric or relevant sections of the game behind missions that weren't necessarily obvious triggers for advancing the story. If you undertook many of those missions outside of the proper order there were consequences, but only so far is in launching the suicide mission prior to completion of the loyalty missions had lethal consequences for some squad mates. Other consequences were mostly with regard to dialog later in ME2 or in ME3. Where ME2 was more open is with regard to the completion of the suicide mission not ending the game. You were free to go back and undertake the N7 missions or the DLCs after the completion of the campaign. In essence it was sort of reversed from ME1 in terms of where it's freedoms were.

By far, Mass Effect 3 was the most linear with certain missions actually advancing the story and locking you out of option missions that appeared earlier on. Fortunately these were fairly obvious, but you were far more constrained in Mass Effect 3 than in the previous two installments. In ME1 you had hub planets but you could still travel between them and do missions as you saw fit. ME2 only had three gates that put you on story centric linear paths for a time. ME3 on the other hand had sections that locked you into completing quests on a given world before you could move onto the next major planet. Side missions were even gated to appear after or before specific main planetary missions to further confuse people.
Click to expand...

And there was no way to change the order of main quests in ME3. Although the actual gameplay and map design was the most linear in ME2. It felt very funneled and artificial. ME1 was the most open. Take Virmire for example. You could enter a building via the ground floor or use walk paths. Some buildings which had some mission specific triggers could also be entered from a different direction. I hope ME4 goes back to the slightly more open map design that ME1 had, while maybe opening it up a bit more. But I don't want it to be open world, although I think that is more or less confirmed at this point.
 
Virmire was one massive tunnel. There was nothing open about it if you exclude that tiny choice.
 
M76 said:
You just make yourself look spoiled. DA2 in many respects a very good game. Did it fall short of the expectations of core DAO fans? Yes, by a great margin. Does that make it automatically the worst game ever, comparable to urine being smeared in your face? Absolutely not. As I like to use the phrase if your expectations are not met by reality it's not reality that is in error.
Click to expand...


You are speaking to someone that forms his opinions almost entirely in a vacuum when it comes to what I like personally. There is basically no bleed over from the views of others for status purposes. If the ENTIRE UNIVERSE of humanity hated and despised nexus the jupiter incident, my view would be they all have TERRIBLE taste when it came to that, because my PRIME reference frame of what is the best is my own.


All that is to qualify my views that I had a deep seeded HATRED of DA2. The combat vastly diminished the power of mages, which was unforgivable. In the original dragon age, mages were GODS, as it should be. Some people complained that rogues and warriors did not feel as powerful and as capable of effecting the world with combinations of effects like mages (things like grease and setting it on fire). My attitude was GOOD. Melee classes need to learn their effing place! All the gamers of the world whose fantasy is to walk around and swing a god damn metal stick and pretend they are some great power FINALLY got put in their place. They were FINALLY set against characters who had the power of creation springing from their fingertips, demigods, and the comparison was of the same order of console players vs pc gamers in the cross platform shooter that was scuttled because the truth came out, that the pc was superior.


Dragon Age 2 came, I chose the mage as I always do, and noticed that my spells had NO POWER, you were FORCED to do specific combos that relied on the charity of the lesser warrior/rogue classes to set up, or you were relegated to a setup bot for THEIR glory. I was not my OWN power, it was an ABOMINATION of design that I despised. The story was like exploring a single tomb. Narrow and like days of our lives in Kirkwall.

bg2 was a sprawling epic, kotor I/II a sprawling epic, dragon age a sprawling epic, da2 ???? a boring siloed black hole of nothingness. When the grey wardens were saved near the end of that game I BEGGED them to take me with them by yelling at my screen, I wanted to go on a REAL adventure.


I'm still not done with the combat, fewer spells, higher difficulty was less more difficult in terms of smarter AI with more abilities, it was more lets hike up the hp and resistances to the point where my mage spells don't effects the enemy....

-terrible scope for the game
-terrible combat and placing mages near or BENEATH lowborn melee trash
-terrible camera controls and loss of overhead control and an independent camera, that has STILL not been restored to its superior dragon age origins state even n inquisition thanks to the console peasants.
 
Tup3x said:
Virmire was one massive tunnel. There was nothing open about it if you exclude that tiny choice.
Click to expand...

That is practically how all ME maps were though. It was "open" for a ME game. As I said, I'd like to see it expanded more. And I'd like to see the ports become a bit bigger and more in number. But I'm not a fan of converting the game to open world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top