Sorry, I should have been more specific: From a narrative and creative standpoint, they put themselves in a tough corner with the way ME3 ended.
I agree with what you wrote and it all goes to it.
All told: This didn't need to be this way.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Mass Effect: Andromeda
- Thread starter Blade-Runner
- Start date
Sorry, I should have been more specific: From a narrative and creative standpoint, they put themselves in a tough corner with the way ME3 ended.
I agree with what you wrote and it all goes to it.
All told: This didn't need to be this way.
dark_reign
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,314
The score tends to be very subjective, so I end up buying games based on a demo or a let's play video. Most pro reviews are too biased for my liking and Metacritic is a fucking joke.
Another 3 to 6 months of polish would have saved it from the bad PR and negativity surrounding it. EA could have stopped the train wreck from happening.
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,219
Most review sites adopted the US system, where a 5 or 50% is certainly a failure. Anything below a 7 is a failure or sub par. 7 being very average (just above failing), with higher than that qualifying as "good". Essentially, the grade school system. So if you didn't know why anything below an 8 ranged from "meh" to "crap" to so many on the internet, now you do.
TaintedSquirrel
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 12,981
They should switch to percentages instead of ratings. So instead of "7/10" write "70%" or even "C". Then people would know how to interpret it.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,416
This is not a school grade system. If anything below 5 is a dismal failure why even have that part of the scale? Just throw away 1-5.
It's very hard to differentiate between good games if the scale is so compressed. If you don't mind I'll continue to think that this system is stupid and won't ever adopt it.
Tup3x
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,946
Here in Finland 4/10 is equal to failure and lowest possible score in school and upper secondary school.
So, if I'd use the basic school grading range/system I'd give 6+ to this. Before patches 6 or 6-.
Last edited:
Played the 10-hour demo and ended up buying it for $30. I'm 87 hours in and there's still a ton of things to do. I think the pros of this game outweigh the cons, but it's not as good as the previous games which should be obvious. The story is lacking, but the gameplay is solid. I'd rate it a 7/10 game.
I'm not surprised they abandoned the game. No DLC makes me a sad panda.
I think this is a solid assessment of the game. I don't think the story is lacking in terms of how it's written as much as it falls flat due to pacing. I think some of the characters are a bit lacking as well. While many people cite this as an issue, many blow it out of proportion. Many of the characters are good, but Ryder himself/herself isn't Shepard or even different, but as good. Ryder simply isn't as entertaining to play. Most of the NPCs are reasonably good, but some of them are relatively lame. The facial animations didn't help with that. Cora's are so bad that I hated talking to her or bringing her with me. About the only good thing about Cora is her sex scene or looking at her from the next down.
The game has definite quality issues, but so do the previous ones. The quality of the animation is low in all of the games, it's just different areas of quality in this game compared to previous ones. The series have far more quality issues than people recognize or will acknowledge.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...mass-effect-andromeda-story-dlc/#75ba5e4021b7
I've liked a lot of Forbes' gaming related articles and this is no exception. Forgive any obnoxious splash screens and such. I largely agree with it but none of that is going to ever happen and like the tagline at the end says: Enough questions, murkiness, and warning signs were around that hey... at least they finally told us the truth and got on with it.
I've liked a lot of Forbes' gaming related articles and this is no exception. Forgive any obnoxious splash screens and such. I largely agree with it but none of that is going to ever happen and like the tagline at the end says: Enough questions, murkiness, and warning signs were around that hey... at least they finally told us the truth and got on with it.
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,219
But the part in bold is a fact you're denying. There is no reason to go on another rant, and I can see where you want to take this so let us not go there. I was merely explaining how the scale works on a large number of websites. I don't care about your reviews so I don't care if you use it or not. But you made a comment and I clarified why. I will note that websites are moving to a more forgiving "world wide appropriate" scale, even the big ones.
In any case, I think matches up fairly well with the grade school system. If you can't retain 70% or more of the information you fail, which I think is reasonable. If a game is dull/boring or has some game breaking bugs which cause you to backtrack and these moments take 35% of the time, meaning only 65% is "good" or "fun", then that is failing to me. If a whole 3rd of the game is off, you have a notable problem. IMO.
Still too expensive....wake me when its $5.
Add me to that alarm. Maybe GOG can pick it up next year.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,073
You make a very good point. Unfortunately, that really is the case for most review sites, to the point where anything below a 6 or so is considered garbage. I've seen a few reviewers try to use lower scores and usually it ends in a massive amount of outrage from "gamers".
I agree that it SHOULD be on a 0-10 linear scale but that just isn't the world we live in.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,416
I'm not denying that they're using it, I'm saying it's stupid to use a school grade system. You can't put an exact number on a game and say it's 70% fun and 30% not fun. Who measures that? It's all subjective. A school exam has clear points awarded for each task, and can be graded as such. If it doesn't fit you must acquit.
I don't think there is any game out there for that matter where all 99% of the playtime is actually enjoyable. Every game has filler content, or walking between two tasks that you just have to do but not part of the enjoyment, you wouldn't call it fun on it's own, it's build-up / suspense. So by that metric no game I ever played would hit even 70%.
Their system is like getting a 50 feet tape measure and only using the part between 40 and 50 on it to measure everything.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Fans have NOT forgotten, nor forgiven BioWare for Mass Effect 3's ending. At least, not all of them have. There are a lot of people who said "no" to ME:A on the basis of ME3's ending alone. Things like the Mass Effect Happy Ending mod that came out well after the ending wouldn't have happened if people had forgiven Mass Effect 3's ending. Certainly, the Extended Cut helped people like me get over a lot of Mass Effect 3's ending bullshit and enabled me to enjoy the game in subsequent playthroughs, despite not being overly fond of the ending or the final mission of the game. The Indoctrination Theory came out BEFORE the Extended Cut DLC, and therefore the revised ending cut short what could have been epic.
I do agree that the Citadel DLC was excellent, and the other DLC's were good.
The ending can and does ruin everything when that ending is incongruent with the themes of the story and that ending is unsatisfying to a large majority of the fan base. Endings are hard to write because everyone has a different idea of where they want a TV show, game or any story to go in the end. Some people like fatalistic endings, or vague endings, while other people want simple endings that tie things up nicely, or even open endings which allow for future stories with those characters in the same vein as what came before.
So yes, an ending can ruin things when it's emotionally unsatisfying, insulting, or anytime where it is so bad that it makes the journey feel like a wasted effort. It can happen, and it does happen. I hated ME3's original ending so bad that I had wished I never heard of the Mass Effect franchise. While it didn't "erase" the time I enjoyed before 3's ending, I felt like I couldn't ever enjoy it again knowing where the story ultimately ended up. I thought the ending did a disservice to the characters the fans had come to love over 100 hours or more of gaming. That's actually far more of an investment than you put into TV shows since its interactive and because your choices shaped the feel of the journey, even if they didn't ultimately change the overall outcome of that story.
This I can largely agree with. The problem is that EA's probably done dealing with Mass Effect's bad PR, rabid fan base and has no confidence that BioWare could produce a title that would be worth subsequent investments in new projects, be it DLC or additional games. EA knows there is money to be made here, but it probably wants the franchise to go on hiatus and get out of the public consciousness for some time before trying to bring it back in some form or fashion. EA just doesn't feel it's worth the investment. It isn't EA/BioWare couldn't produce DLC and work on Anthem, it's just that EA won't allocate additional resources to doing that. It's a risky financial proposition. EA looks at the bottom dollar alone. Building good will with fans and trying to make a mends isn't something EA knows how to do. EA probably can't even see the value in doing so.
In my opinion, BioWare has lost the ability to innovate. All it knows how to do is copy current trends. Those trends are based on the success of games like the Witcher 3 and Destiny, without understanding what aspects of those games or the formula for making them works. ME:A went open world without BioWare knowing how to do an open world game. Anthem sounds like a copy of Destiny and again, I don't know if BioWare has any clue how to do that right. The only thing that makes Anthem seem like less of a gamble is knowing that the original ME team is working on it. That's no guarantee and frankly, I'm not interested in it myself.
Your right in that the ratings have been skewed to a point where everything good and bad is in the 7-10 range. I won't get into the whole mess of why I think this is the case, but I do agree with you. I might rate a game 6/10 and consider it a good game, but the publications using a rating system like that don't see it that way.
As ME has gained more negative criticism with fans, investment in the franchise has become more and more risky. I think they are pulling the plug before it gets any worse. ME will be back in some form later on, but for the time being EA probably doesn't know how to save face and continue on with it. The artistic integrity crap was BioWare and EA not wanting to admit that their bullshit ending and creative direction wasn't a mistake. In lots of industries, the business won't admit that it's wrong, but will attempt to placate the customers for the purpose of retaining them. Businesses have a perception that admitting they are wrong will have a strong negative impact on future business endeavors. I'm not certain of all the reasons behind this, but I can understand them doing things that way. BioWare could have saved face in other ways and saved the franchise in a different way. Ultimately, people in power at the company were too proud and pig headed to do that.
BioWare could have gone with the indoctrination theory, and claimed that the public "figured it out" and everyone would have believed it and praised them for such deep writing even though BioWare had proved it was incapable of creating a plot that has that kind of depth. It would have allowed them to continue in a different direction than they went with ME:A which could have worked for the better. Ultimately, it comes down to some manager, CEO, or some board of directors making decisions. When you get to the core of those people, they are only human and some humans are fucking stupid and they make mistakes out of pride, fear, ignorance, or just plain bad luck. Whatever the reason, BioWare and EA have made lots of bad decisions and putting the franchise on the shelf probably seems like the best decision at present.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,416
Yes I know the IT was first coined as an idea before the Extended Cut. But it was expanded upon much later as well. It constantly evolved and just got better. It even sprang some more almost insanely outlandish fan theories. Since the IT came out I always played the trilogy with that "ending" in mind. Which is actually not an ending then. And that brings me to my other point. There is no ending that satisfies everyone. To me the journey is much more important than the actual conclusion. Some of my favourite TV shows were ones that never got to a conclusion. Yes it is infuriating that they were left hanging, but in some sense it made them timeless, the bubble was never burst. And with the IT Mass Effect has became such as well.
I've seen plenty of people who hated the IT, and would have been mad just the same had they confirmed it. As for me, I don't need them to even acknowledge it, that's my chosen ending regardless.
BTW speaking of fan theories, CW is probably the most fleshed out one and most enjoyable to watch. Even though I absolutely disagree with their conclusions, and I don't like the implications of this particular theory. It's extremely well thought out and researched. And it's worth watching if you care to waste ~240 minutes.
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 23,045
IMO it is. Obviously there are no additional content or patches coming. What you see is what you get. I didn't even do all of the side stuff and put in something like 80 hours. There's a TON of content and there's a lot to see and do. While some of the writing is laughable, some of it is brilliant, too. It's repetitious, but keep in mind that you don't need to everything. The game seems to scale enemies in such a way that whatever weapon you're using hurts the same. Be it a level 1 weapon or level 7 weapon. You can also only use a few powers at a time, so maxing out a whole bunch = mostly pointless. In other words, grinding fetch quests doesn't matter unless you enjoy them.
I put in almost 2 full months of casually playing the game and enjoyed at least 75% of it. To me, that's worth $20. Even if it drops another $5...does that really matter in the grand scheme of things? I'm not going to wait around for $5 personally.
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,219
That is why I prefer reviews that fall more on the "what I think" style. Problem is, people want a number for quick reference and so it can be averaged. So they can look and say well this has twenty reviews, all saying it deserves a 7-8, so they will buy it. Because reading 3 to 5 reviews just takes too much time for many.
ME:A was so long and parts felt like a 6-7, but overall I'd have to give it an 8.5 or so myself (US grade school scale). But playing through screwing around with the weapon customization menu, waiting for the story quests to progress made me hate the game at times. But I think my opinions of games grows when I look back at them... then if I replay them, I immediately remember all the crappy things about them.
To some extent, you are correct. The journey is more important in some respect but my point is that a really bad ending can make that journey feel pointless and even painful. That's what ME3's ending was in its original form. In many ways it isn't much better today. The only difference is the context provided makes the future of the universe seem less fatalistic and less bleak.
Completed this today after 100+ hours, (almost) 100% everything, from the magnificent set pieces to the pointless fetch quests. Going against the hive mind, I thought this was a great game. I heard about the backlash against the game in the weeks after it's release but avoided any info on it, I waited a few months till it was patched up a bit and went in blind without any high expectations. 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.
Other than the absolutely horrendous UI (which was the biggest problem with the game, especially the annoyance of traveling between systems) and a few poor design decisions (like the inconsistent re-spawning of enemies on some planets, whereas other planets there's almost no respawning), imo the game is worthy of the Mass Effect title and it's place as a sequel in the ME lineup. I'm not a huge mega fan of the series, but as a casual gamer it brought back memories of the first ME game a decade ago, when the series was an RPG first and a third person shooter second.
I only paid 30 bucks for this but I definitely got more than 60 bucks of entertainment from this title. 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. Yeah there's still the occasional glitch or wonky animation, some areas are repetitive and some quests/puzzles feel like they had no quality assurance testing - but as on overall package seeing the magnificent technical scope of this entire game it's easy to forgive those things.
If this game came out a decade ago before so many let themselves get overhyped on the ME name, it would have been receiving positive reviews and goty nominations. Thanks for the enjoyable return to the ME universe Bioware, pity things ended up the way they did. Couple random screenshots:
Other than the absolutely horrendous UI (which was the biggest problem with the game, especially the annoyance of traveling between systems) and a few poor design decisions (like the inconsistent re-spawning of enemies on some planets, whereas other planets there's almost no respawning), imo the game is worthy of the Mass Effect title and it's place as a sequel in the ME lineup. I'm not a huge mega fan of the series, but as a casual gamer it brought back memories of the first ME game a decade ago, when the series was an RPG first and a third person shooter second.
I only paid 30 bucks for this but I definitely got more than 60 bucks of entertainment from this title. 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. Yeah there's still the occasional glitch or wonky animation, some areas are repetitive and some quests/puzzles feel like they had no quality assurance testing - but as on overall package seeing the magnificent technical scope of this entire game it's easy to forgive those things.
If this game came out a decade ago before so many let themselves get overhyped on the ME name, it would have been receiving positive reviews and goty nominations. Thanks for the enjoyable return to the ME universe Bioware, pity things ended up the way they did. Couple random screenshots:
good way of looking at it...I plan on playing this soon and I think I will enjoy it in terms of a pure sci-fi game and not so much as a Mass Effect game...although one can't really ignore the Mass Effect part but hopefully can push it to the back of your brain
gerardfraser
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,368
I have this game and ME2,I have never played the ME games yet.I am on the fence about playing ME2 first but I think I could if there any good mods.Any suggestions on ME2 mods or just jump right into MEA.
DWolvin
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2002
- Messages
- 3,597
Honestly, if you have never played any- start with ME:A. Most of the hate will not be noticed (I think), and it's a solid 7 or 8 of 10 game, with some painful writing in a few spots. It's like the IT movie; great, but remember the book was uneven at best...
gerardfraser
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,368
Great thanks for the reply
The earlier Mass Effect games aren't easy to mod. Most of the time you have to use a texture injector which runs resident in memory that intercepts and replaces certain textures. It's unstable and not terribly efficient. This is due to the way it works and the fact that the software that does it is woefully out of date. That said, ME3 can be modded by decrypting the PCC files and replacing the textures, but that too has its issues. There are some texture mods out there for both games, but ME3 by far and away has more mods than the other games combined.
I agree with the above to some extent. If you've never played the series, Mass Effect Andromeda might be a better place to start. At the very least, I think you might enjoy Andromeda more without having played the earlier games despite aspects of the story or the in-jokes of the series not being clear to you. Certainly, ME2 is fine as its where I started. I went back to ME1 to learn more of the back story and to get a complete save which enhanced the experience of ME2 as the saves port over. However, ME1 has the worst gameplay, but the best story. ME2 is a solid game by most standards, though the ending is a bit on the weak side. The overall plot of ME2 is simple, but the main story is actually not the point. The characters, building your team etc. are what the game is really about. ME3 is known for being excellent up until the last hour or so of gameplay where the story takes a huge nose dive. It's in a better state today than it was when the game launched. The ending was altered and expanded upon somewhat, and the DLC's added what was missing to make the game great. ME3's probably my favorite game in the series due to the gameplay, but I have a love/hate relationship with the thing. I've played it through several times but rarely complete the Priority: Earth mission because the game's ending is anti-climactic and even painful. Mass Effect 2 is probably the best and most polished game of the series. It has the least amount of bugs, glitches, and animation issues. I've played it the most by far.
If you begin with Andromeda, you will get the best combat, but there will be things you won't get or understand because you didn't play the earlier games. Without getting into spoilers, the reason they came to Andromeda dates back to Mass Effect 1. I'd be most interested in seeing someone go through ME:A first, and hearing their impression of the game without having played the original trilogy. You'll be able to see the game without the bias the rest of us have coming out of the original trilogy.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
You know, there used to be games where that filler, (walking between "important" tasks for example) WAS actually part of the fun. I'll use the Ultima series as a good example of this. You'd be on your way somewhere, but you'd wind up discovering some very cool places, new fancy weapons with lore attached to them, complete dungeons or secret places that yielded cool things, and they were actually fun to explore. Then you'd continue on your way to the main story element that you were working your way toward. You don't see that a lot these days. Typically the filler is a fetch quest, or just a really long walk or drive to the next place without much to discover in between. I miss that sort of thing. Where accidental discoveries were as fun as the main storyline.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,416
You don't have to go that far back for that. There were examples of that in ME:A as well, just not nearly enough. Still more than in many games. Only ME:A is a huge game at 80 hours gameplay. It is 3-4x longer than most games. Had they cut the filler and only made it as long as previous me games were, it never would've felt boring.
Or Fallout games, where you actually want to explore things because they are interesting. Many games miss this aspect, and some can coast along on gameplay alone but most fail miserably to keep me interested.
And there are also games that can keep you interested with the story instead of the exploration. Like Last of Us, or Beyond Two Souls.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I agree that there are more recent examples. It's just those games are kind of my shining historical examples of all of this combined. Good exploration and discovery, good side quests, good main story, good game play, good audio and visuals, good extra content. Even as much as they botched Asecension, (and I mean, they did a number on it thanks to EA) it still had most of these elements intact. It just took a few patches, removing the voice acting, and adding a fan patch or two to get it there.
There are a lot of indie games these days that get most or all of this right. There are some AAA that do too. I bought ME:A, so as soon as I get some time to play it, I think I'll enjoy it for similar reasons too. I just wish I could say this about the majority of games. Even games that I really enjoy now, seem to be lacking this sort of thing at least in some degree. That doesn't make them bad at all, and some really aren't geared for "off the beaten path" sort of play anyway. I'd just like to see more that are.ME2 and 3 suffered from streamlining, in part due to the devs redefining the game from Adventure RPG ala KOTOR (ME1) to Turd-Person Shooter with very light RPG elements and the line can't be any straighter linear gameplay(ME2) to Turd-Person Shooter with light hints of Adventure RPG and heavy bullshit from Casey Hudson (ME3).
There's also a difference between exploration (wanting to find more to find hidden nuggets of game lore) and bitch work (fuuuuuuuuuuuck your fetch quests and idiotic "Go to A, do task B, go to C...wash/rinse/repeat).
There's also a difference between exploration (wanting to find more to find hidden nuggets of game lore) and bitch work (fuuuuuuuuuuuck your fetch quests and idiotic "Go to A, do task B, go to C...wash/rinse/repeat).
Colonel Sanders
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5,615
The RPG bits of ME1 were every bit as light (if not more so) than what was in ME2 and ME3.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Main change seemed to be the removal of inventory, which was handled poorly in ME1. In ME2/ME3, you just equipped the best for your playstyle and ran with it.
Colonel Sanders
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5,615
That's my point. It was really the same system as in ME2 and 3, it just gave you the illusion of complexity and choice because you'd find hundreds of different weapons and armors, which really boiled down to 2 or 3 of each that were actually good and worthwhile. The rest were just OmniGel fodder. The skill tree was also illusory; the actual abilities unlocked were generally lame and most points were just +5%, +10%, +15% and so on. All the pretty buttons and lists of items in an inventory just make people think it has "more RPG stuff" when in reality it didn't.
In ME2 and ME3 almost all the weapons were viable for one purpose or another. This was definitely more the case in ME3, where almost every single weapon had a use in some build or for some specific play style. ME1 is the one that had two or three models for the weapons and a bunch of color combinations to set them apart. You just went by stats in that game. Everything felt more or less the same. Every gun in ME2 and ME3 felt different. Mass Effect Andromeda works the same way.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,786
$13.38 on Amazon...don't think I recall seeing a AAA game hit the bargain bin so quickly.
https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-...62&sr=1-2&keywords=mass+effect+andromeda&th=1
Too bad the digital version isn't on sale, would consider snapping it up for that price but shipping to my part of the world makes it less of a deal.
https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-...62&sr=1-2&keywords=mass+effect+andromeda&th=1
Too bad the digital version isn't on sale, would consider snapping it up for that price but shipping to my part of the world makes it less of a deal.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
damn, I wish I had waited to buy this...I bought it on Day 1 and still haven't touched it yet
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Considering how quickly EA abandoned it and Bioware Montreal got shuffled around by EA, it isn't at all surprising.
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 23,045
The price is pretty low considering how recently that game was released. 1/2 off after a few months isn't too crazy, but that's less than 25% of what it shipped at.
The news of EA essentially bailing on the SP game probably did it no favors. That sounds worse than it is.
Either way, that's a great deal IMO. It's still an above average game with the option for 100+ hours of gameplay.
The news of EA essentially bailing on the SP game probably did it no favors. That sounds worse than it is.
Either way, that's a great deal IMO. It's still an above average game with the option for 100+ hours of gameplay.
I actually found the game to be a mediocre offering that clearly showed its rushed development. This could have been fixed with some SP DLC to flesh out some of the story and add to the game to mitigate the extreme amount of bitchwork side quests that is in the game. It was basically DA:I with a different coat of paint.
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,219
If I recall ME2 hit $5 within 1 year of launch, but that was back in the heyday of massive Steam sales. And it didn't include the absurdly priced DLC.
For all its flaws it is worth buying at that price. Especially since the game has been cleaned up a bit.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,786
Definitely don't recall that, and I would be somewhat surprised considering that ME2 was more much more well received. Are you sure you're not thinking of Titanfail 1 which was discounted to $5 after 9 months? MEA still handily beats that by a good 3 months.