New Mass Effect Game

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,793
Ya well, skeptical Sycraft is skeptical given their history. This is one of those I will assume sucks until proven otherwise. To make it good they need to:

1) Give it to a competent dev team and give them the time needed to develop it.
2) Keep it away from Casey Hudson and Mac Walters until they get out of their emo phase.
3) Not load it full of microtransaction, multiplayer, garbage.

I do not have faith those will happen.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
And I wouldn't be mad if it was ME:A2 to continue that (but would equally like something new).

Literally just creating another story arc that picks up where Andromeda left off would be fine, again, if well produced.

I'll say that I was certainly hoping for another trilogy myself!
 

DWolvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
2,405
Yeah- I'd love another trilogy in the home galaxy, even if they have to handwave the destruction of the gateway network. I'd even take that the explosions didn't destroy the gates, but were just coronal discharges...
 

viivo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
1,698
It was trendy to shit upon Andromeda but it was and still isan above-average game, and more of an RPG than garbage like Destiny and Borderlands. It at least tried to have a plot, badly written and horribly paced though it be.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,458
It was trendy to shit upon Andromeda but it was and still isan above-average game, and more of an RPG than garbage like Destiny and Borderlands. It at least tried to have a plot, badly written and horribly paced though it be.

Who cares if it was more of an RPG than other games? The game had a ton of problems and was rightly called out for them. It was judged based on other Bioware titles, rightly so, and did not live up to the studio's usual output.
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,408
Who cares if it was more of an RPG than other games? The game had a ton of problems and was rightly called out for them. It was judged based on other Bioware titles, rightly so, and did not live up to the studio's usual output.

ME:A biggest real issue was shoddy writing and some laughably unneeded and bad characters.

The issues that were drug through the mud by twinstagramers were no worse than issues that existed in the previous three ME games. I played all four games from launch, and all of them had graphical and animation issues, and bad pathing, and other day one issues. It is just that when ME:A came out people either had played patched/fixed versions of the other ME games or they were looking at them through rose colorwd glasses.

Other than having to sit through some cringy dialog, and oddly bad VA, I had one instance where an NPC character skeletal model went apeshit walking up some stairs. ME:A wasn't a great game when compared to the prior three, bit it wasn't the nearly as bad as the trend train made it out to be.

If they are actually going to make a new game, likely as a reboot, they should at least do a short freebee DLC to wrap up ME:A. They won't of course, but the way they left it is kind of a big warnings sign for the new game.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,458
ME:A biggest real issue was shoddy writing and some laughably unneeded and bad characters.

The issues that were drug through the mud by twinstagramers were no worse than issues that existed in the previous three ME games. I played all four games from launch, and all of them had graphical and animation issues, and bad pathing, and other day one issues. It is just that when ME:A came out people either had played patched/fixed versions of the other ME games or they were looking at them through rose colorwd glasses.

Other than having to sit through some cringy dialog, and oddly bad VA, I had one instance where an NPC character skeletal model went apeshit walking up some stairs. ME:A wasn't a great game when compared to the prior three, bit it wasn't the nearly as bad as the trend train made it out to be.

If they are actually going to make a new game, likely as a reboot, they should at least do a short freebee DLC to wrap up ME:A. They won't of course, but the way they left it is kind of a big warnings sign for the new game.

Sequels are supposed to improve as they go on, not have the same problems. The ME trilogy suffered from Bioware using a pretty stock version of UE3 with UE3 animations and other issues. ME: A came out a full decade after the trilogy started and was on a completely different engine, an engine that generally doesn't suffer from all the issues ME: A had. Hell, DA: I had less graphical and animation issues and that team had a lot of issues with Frostbite as well.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,477
ME: A had. Hell, DA: I had less graphical and animation issues and that team had a lot of issues with Frostbite as well.
Except the "influencers" told the mob that they must like DA:I and hate ME:A. When in reality ME:A was a far superior game than the single player MMO collect weed and rubble that was DA:I. Even the writing was better. DA:I was all over the place, didn't make sense, had terrible pacing. While the main story of ME:A was very intriguing, the overall arch was great even if there were issues and was affected by the woke plague on a smaller level. I enjoyed ME:A far more than I did DA:I. The latter felt like a chore from beginning to end, while I had genuine excitement for much of ME:A. Sure it doesn't come anywhere near the first 3 games in story / writing, but that's not saying much when you are comparing to the best trilogy ever created.
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,408
Sequels are supposed to improve as they go on, not have the same problems. The ME trilogy suffered from Bioware using a pretty stock version of UE3 with UE3 animations and other issues. ME: A came out a full decade after the trilogy started and was on a completely different engine, an engine that generally doesn't suffer from all the issues ME: A had. Hell, DA: I had less graphical and animation issues and that team had a lot of issues with Frostbite as well.

I agree with that, excessive find the shiney quests aside, DA:I was great. I did have some of the same graphical issues in DA:I, like the model skeletons freaking out, missing face textures and what not, but they were once or twice. The writing was absolutely better, the VA was better etc. Not to say it didn't have its problems.

My point is that the ME trilogy games had problems that were as bad as what ME:A had, even with a different engine. I really think if ME:A had come out as the exact same game a couple years prior it would have had glowing reviews, or at least not so many cut and paste "rewiews" by for clicks Youtube and twitch influencers.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,458
Except the "influencers" told the mob that they must like DA:I and hate ME:A. When in reality ME:A was a far superior game than the single player MMO collect weed and rubble that was DA:I. Even the writing was better. DA:I was all over the place, didn't make sense, had terrible pacing. While the main story of ME:A was very intriguing, the overall arch was great even if there were issues and was affected by the woke plague on a smaller level. I enjoyed ME:A far more than I did DA:I. The latter felt like a chore from beginning to end, while I had genuine excitement for much of ME:A. Sure it doesn't come anywhere near the first 3 games in story / writing, but that's not saying much when you are comparing to the best trilogy ever created.

DA: I got a ton of (mostly well deserved) hate on release and continues to. I don't know where you got the idea that it was well loved from. It got a lot of praise for things it did well, but it was hit hard for its horrible opening area and the lacking (to put it nicely) quest design. Not to mention the abysmal performance at launch. But, people were a bit more forgiving of DA: I probably because it was first. If ME: A was before DA: I maybe it would have been excused more, but as it is ME: A was a clear sign that old Bioware was dead and gone. It was proof that we are never going to see the Bioware peopled used to love again. Plus, it failed on something Bioware used to always nail: Characters. Even with all of DA: I's other issues, it had multiple great characters. ME:A's garbage writing really killed the characters. ME: A was the better playing game though, I'll give it that. If I wanted to I could probably install the game, load up an older save, and go run around a planet doing random quests and still have fun with how well it plays.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
It was trendy to shit upon Andromeda but it was and still isan above-average game, and more of an RPG than garbage like Destiny and Borderlands. It at least tried to have a plot, badly written and horribly paced though it be.

I played ME:A through to the end before the first patch. Most glaring issue?

No shadows on eyes. That was a bit creepy. Also got stuck once with a door that wouldn't open and had to replay a bit.

After the first patch, I immediately replayed it twice, on the second highest and then highest difficulty levels.

The game is just flat-out fun to play and with a few minor quality of life patches after release damn-near issue free.
 

Drexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,329
Going against the hive mind, I thought andromeda 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 expectations. I went into the 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.

There were some players who let themselves get overhyped and overexcited and they ended up with an unrealistic standard in their head that inevitably led to disappointment.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,477
Going against the hive mind, I thought andromeda 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 expectations. I went into the 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.

There were some players who let themselves get overhyped and overexcited and they ended up with an unrealistic standard in their head that inevitably led to disappointment.
The fact that EA released it on Origin Access early and for free meant a ton of people completely new to Mass Effect tried it, and I think that's where most of the criticism came from. Youtubers who were total Mass Effect noobs.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
961
it will be easy to bring back Shepherd for the next ME release .... at the start of the game all you need do is reference it to a time before Andromeda (when did Andromeda take place, some 600 years later?). Poof, you're back where it belongs :barefoot:

Going against the hive mind, I thought andromeda was a great game.

I can respect your perspective, definitely do not agree with it but to each their own (it has been said that one person's garbage is another persons treasure).

There were some players who let themselves get overhyped and overexcited and they ended up with an unrealistic standard in their head that inevitably led to disappointment.

not really, the game was a dud in many respects, very boring except for a few play through moments like the Archon's ship and the game was justifiably bashed because many wrong choices were made during its developement
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,477
it will be easy to bring back Shepherd for the next ME release .... at the start of the game all you need do is reference it to a time before Andromeda (when did Andromeda take place, some 600 years later?). Poof, you're back where it belongs :barefoot:
What does Andromeda have to do with bringing back Shepard?

I can respect your perspective, definitely do not agree with it but to each their own (it has been said that one person's garbage is another persons treasure).
That mentality is exactly the problem. If you call Andromeda garbage, then what do you call Anthem? Or Fallout 76 even?

not really, the game was a dud in many respects, very boring except for a few play through moments like the Archon's ship and the game was justifiably bashed because many wrong choices were made during its developement
No, it's exactly that. Some people had unrealistic expectations of it, and when it didn't live up to that they started calling it garbage. You are not let down by the game, but by your own expectations of it.
Andromeda was a very enjoyable game, unlike many games I tried since that didn't get nearly as much criticism.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
961
If you call Andromeda garbage, then what do you call Anthem? Or Fallout 76 even?

ok, you are right, I agree with you now ... ME:A though not complete (EA never did patch quite a few of the quirks) is a good game. I don't play Anthem or the Fallout series.

IMO ME:A would have faired much better had the title not been tied to the ME Trilogy
 
Last edited:

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,170
I'm playing through ME:A right now for the first time, about 55% of the way through and am enjoying it. Yes, agree that writing/characters generally fall short of ME1-3 (I'm with the consensus on ME1-2 being the best, 3 having some story issues with the ending) but overall this is a quality game. The story is decent so far, the worlds/detail/art style are decent, character models are OK and the gameplay is very fun. As someone who spent 100ish hours in DA:I, I went into this game knowing I will ignore the "Tasks" fetch quests and focus on main story, character quests and some planet quests.

I waited quite a while to play so I only paid $20 for the game on sale and had low expectations which have been exceeded. Definitely excited for more in this franchise in the future. I'd definitely prefer less open worldy fetch quest style and more directed/contained with focus on polished story/characters/RPG mechanics. Edit: I guess I should say that a lot of the issues/negative feedback with this game was upon initial release which has been cleaned up. I don't have time to play games on release (other than some multiplayer stuff) so I have the benefit of paying less for a better/fixed product I guess.
 
Last edited:

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,310
ME:A had terrible launch issues even if you excuse the writing, alot of it was technical & buggy / janky graphics. After they patched all that stuff, It was an alright game ... really more of the same. Not as bad as ME III (?? was that the one that had the different colors / same ending no matter what you did, yeah that one) but definitely not up to I or II either.

The thing that annoyed me the most was that some graphics (like outside with HDR turned on) was so great looking while other graphics, like facial animations, were hot garbage.
 

DWolvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
2,405
Yeah- it certainly had bugs, but if you go back and watch the hate videos at release, there were huge complaints about stuff you had to try to do and they made it sound like it was the unavoidable truth of the gameplay. I really wish it would have been better, but I wonder how much support was driven off by the online aggression. There were certainly plans for more DLC, and a deserved history of the game improving in time (based on the first 3). But the scared the beancounters so we got basically nothing.

If there is one thing I really want them to understand (other than taking their time and getting a good writer), it's that no matter what they do there will be a need to support and expand the game both single and multiplayer. ME3's multiplayer was iffy at best at the start, but borderline amazing by the end of it's run.
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,138
They should stay in Andromeda with AI being legal or law enforcement not having enough power to ban it, anyway. Pathfinder is even less accountable to authority than SPECTRE. Kett encountered far more species than Angara, it's in the codex for nerds. Bring them in. And the Quarians who will hate AI, like Cerberus was terrible in ME1 but then in ME2 you deal with it.

They should also just put in giant spaces or facilities that aren't related to missions. There's a Kett base on the ridge over the human settlement on Eos and I don't think it ever ended up mattering to the story but it was fun to clear. And there is a less important landing of human separatists but I can't even remember their name.

Edit: Revamp the crew in the ship but let the player bring in OP/interesting squadmates like the other pathfinders or Kesh, Bain Massani but he isn't stuck on the ship, August Bradley, etc.
 
Last edited:

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,214
Production issues aside, ME:A was a pretty good game. Much of its problems stem from the fact that its an open world game rather than the thoughtfully crafted albeit more linear and traditional quest hub to mission type mechanics that served RPG's for so many years. The ME trilogy had a strong and tight narrative which elevated it above most other games of that type. It was also a matter of timing as we hadn't seen somewhat branching narratives like that a whole lot.

Mass Effect Andromeda gets a lot of shit for its characters and I'd argue that while some are shit, (basically most of them on the Nexus itself) the Tempest crew was largely solid for the most part. They seem cookie cutter at first, but as the game draws to a close you realize that they are in a better place in terms of narrative and established personality than Garrus, Ashley, and Tali were by the end of ME:1. The problem is that people tend to compare Andromeda to the ME trilogy as a whole which is the wrong way to do it. Especially when the trilogy reached "member berries" levels of reverence. You need to compare ME:1 to ME:A and on that front, the latter, despite animation issues was more thoughtfully crafted and better in most respects aside from its story. One very major problem that Andromeda has are with its protagonists. The male / female brother or sister dynamic is good with each character's dialog and past being different, but linked. However, Shepard was larger than life, interesting and fun to play. His or her actions were always bold, heroic, aggressive, and just plain memorable. The Ryder twins by comparison are boring, difficult to like or identify with and wooden.

This problem is exemplified as the protagonist is reminded at every turn that he or she isn't their father. A character that's barely there, but being an N7, he's bold and his actions memorable. He's barely there but shapes the game's narrative with what little he says and does via flashbacks and his opening mission. He casts a shadow over the protagonist the entire time and the game makes it hard to become a hero in the same vein as Shepard was. The game presents you with four or five choices in any given situation but all the dialog says the same thing with a tone that you have to really pay attention to in order to tell one option from another. When you replay the game, the dialog options and their results are so generic that its nearly impossible to remember what you chose the first time. The sheer amount of useless dialog and exposition at the hands of the game's worst characters doesn't help with this problem either. The only way to remember the dialog choices you made or to see any impact from them is to be a sarcastic asshole the entire time.

Even then, it comes across as a half-assed impersonation of Dead Pool. It doesn't really work, but its the best you've got. I'll give them credit in that the dialog often comes across more naturally than it did in previous games in some instances. In contrast, each play through of Mass Effect was easily differentiated from another as the dialog was memorable and the consequences were easy to see. Shepard takes action where needed. Shepard instantly commands respect or fear where needed. There is a specific situation where you and your squad are wearing full armor and you find a pair of thieves who may have even murdered the person who's corpse they are looting.

I looked for a clip of this and I couldn't find it. I certainly can't be bothered to go into the game right now and make one. However, we can see how Shepard handles the same situation. In ME2, you find apartment looting going on and you can stop it. Shepard has no option to kill, but intimidates the duo into stopping what they are doing. Shepard is intimidating in or out of armor, while Ryder could be standing there in full armor, with four guns and a Krogan yet still back down in this situation. WTF? You don't have a choice either. You simply back off despite being able to take these two out easily.

It's also extremely difficult to customize them and make them look good after Sarah was given down syndrome at the last minute and Scott's kind of goofy looking to begin with. However, he's far better in his default form than his custom crafted counterparts are due to the creation system being utterly terrible.

The next major issue is that the Kett were a discount version of the Reapers. Essentially, they were doing the same thing and turning everyone else into them. The Reapers harvest organics, turn them into paste and then make shells out of them. This is how they "preserve" the genetic diversity of the galaxy. The Kett essentially do the same thing, but instead of preserving the galaxy's genetic variety they seek to eliminate it. The former is far more interesting and while not wholly originally, the presentation is unique and its a reversal of what we normally see. The Kett are generic bad guys who basically have a desire to eliminate anything that's not them by turning it into them or destroying them. It's an idea that certainly has been a thing in human history but its also a lame motivation for an advanced species and something that's been done time and time again and more competently.

I liked the game, despite how this post will read. One of, if not the biggest problems with Andromeda is the open world nature of it. There is a decent enouhg story and an excellent foundation to build off of even if it is derivative of earlier games. It's unfortunately ruined by awful pacing. The pacing problems are due to the open world nature of the game eliminating any sense of urgency the plot should demand. Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 all had their side missions and distractions from the main plot, but they served to flesh out the characters and the universe in satisfying ways. Not all of the side missions were winners but many of them had some impact on the narrative even if it was small. Some of them would turn into bigger issues in later games which made them all the more satisfying to replay. Andromeda fills your time with busy work and fetch quests. There is a reverence that the NPC's have for the "Pathfinder" like he or she is some religious figure. They also put menial tasks off on you and many of those quests feel like a huge waste of time to pad the game's length.

The game has about 100 hours of content in it but only 20 or 30 of them hold any meaning and that's the crux of the problem. The focus of the narrative is lost too frequently while playing the game. Exploration is rarely rewarding enough to justify doing it. Most of the time, you just end up in gun fights you've done 100 times before. The only saving grace about this is the combat system is deeper than its ever been and satisfying for the most part. Although, the game's enemies can be bullet sponges on a difficulty level that forces you to be conscious to any significant degree. You have no squad mate control so who you take depends on who's voice and banter you want to listen to. That said, there are hilarious combinations and character arcs between characters that are hidden in this random dialog. Unfortunately, most of you probably never heard it because the banter system was broken for the first few weeks of the game's release. Many of you finished the game or dropped it never to be played again by that point.

The original technical state of the game was inexcusable. If the Kotaku report is accurate (and it seems plausible) then the game we got was surprisingly good for the short development time. However, post launch support was solid and the state of the game six months later is as good or better than that of the trilogy game's which have some fairly annoying bugs to this day. Even at launch you had fewer armor and weapon clipping issues in cutscenes. Sure, facial animations were horrible and even creepy, but today they've done enough work on them that I would dare say they are often better than those of the trilogy. Other cut corners never were fixed such as there only being two faces for all Asari in the game.

On the other hand, the game is good looking and quite a bit of fun if you stick to the primary story. The game's ending is satisfying and gives us an idea of what Mass Effect 3's final mission should have been like. Its built with amazing set pieces that are breathtaking even now. It has gravitas, scope and it makes a fair amount of sense. The boss fight is reasonably good, albeit a bit formulaic. It's still miles better than the boss fights of each of the Trilogy games from a game play perspective. The only reason why ME1's worked is because it was concealed by an extremely strong narrative. ME2's ending was nothing short of epic and inspiring. The only problem was with the mechanics of the boss itself which were dull and very easy on any difficulty. The boss was also a bit out of character as the reason for the Reaper's suddenly going off script was never revealed.

ME3's ending mission was dull and depressing. It was awkwardly paced and concluded in an unsatisfying way that was thematically different in every way from what came before. It was nihilistic and awful. The Extended Cut was slightly better, but players ended up feeling cheated by it. Ultimately, ME:A showed that BioWare learned something from this debacle. The problem is that it went with industry trends of being open world and tried to avoid controversy and creating offense which left many of its characters feeling dull and uninspired. That said, people who finished it can generally agree a sequel would be in order as the setup for future games is all there. Unfortunately, I don't know that we'll get one. I'm also not sure its the right way to go.

The problem is that Mass Effect either needs a total reboot that's keeps the best elements of the trilogy while doing something different with its basic story. Certainly, the last parts of ME3 need to be completely redone. Alternatively, a fourth game could be made pretty easily but the problem with doing so is that BioWare would have to pick a canon ending. Something the company is dead set against doing. Two of the four endings are incompatible with a sequel. One could argue that it would be possible to fast forward time far enough to where the trilogy didn't matter. Sadly, that's problematic too. That would force them to change virtually everything that made Mass Effect, Mass Effect. All the weapons, armors, and everything would need to be different. That's a risky proposition and it was hard enough with the changes they made to Mass Effect Andromeda by going to another galaxy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
747
I will say that the team that worked on Andromeda was the "B Squad". People that had no direct work on the original games and were only involved in making an expansion or two and most of the multiplayer stuff from ME3. So, they did pretty damn good for a team that kept getting pulled off their jobs and farmed out to Anthem and other projects (IIRC) in addition to the team being reassigned all over the place and the concept for the game changing multiple times.

I played and enjoyed Andromeda thoroughly. I also enjoyed the hell out of the multiplayer game. Only losing interest when Bioware chose to utterly disband the creating studio and cease all work on the game moving forward. While social media had given the game two black eyes (much of it justified... However, a lot of it was complete bullshit and a clear example of an online community devolving into sheer idiocy) I still expected that promises that were made for the support and development of the game would have been kept. The game ultimately became abandonware. To their credit the scaled down team that did continue to support the game for a time did a remarkable job fixing most of the game and expanding multiplayer.

It sickens me that no expansions came out for the game, nothing to fully flesh things out like the Quarian Arc.

Now, Anthem was supposed to be supported for ten years and damn near all development on it has ceased. Though recent news points to the game being disassembled completely and re-built form the ground up... It is another failed promise that was over promised and under delivered upon. Any re-built game we get will likely come in the form of another, completely new, game we will have to pay for...

So, I've been burned by EA and Bioware twice now. There isn't enough left of Bioware to even call the studio Bioware. It's EA, with some sprinkling of old staff like Casey Hudson still remaining.

None of that prevented me from picking up a copy of Jedi: Fallen Order, and enjoyed the shit out of it. Some will hate EA for their failures, doesn't mean everything they create is shit.

EA needs to re-boot the Mass Effect Franchise completely, that re-boot should leverage the framework of Andromeda and the lore and models of weapons and tech from the setting so the wheel isn't re-invented from scratch and the next game doesn't take 7 years to show up and fail... Honestly, I would love to see a continuation of exploration of the Milky Way Galaxy after the Reapers. Lots of potential there, rogue reapers, factions, fragmented mass effect relays, local and regional galactic menaces, etc. There is a stupid amount of material out there to launch a great game filled with exploration and action.

I hope EA doesn't fuck up it up again... I will be one of the first in line to pick the game up. There is just something about the setting that captures me and I have never been able to shake. It's almost like being the hero in a real, cinematic, science fiction story. I think all of us loved picturing ourselves as Shepard.

I hope we see something like that again, in my lifetime ;)
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,138
Kett can be okay if the Primus launches a war against a replacement Archon. Reapers didn't have strife that I can remember.

And they have biotics, but nobody discussed it. SAM lets Ryder be a powerful biotic? If an actual biotic gets a new implant they are now like Samara?

It's all right for Ryder to be a civilian with some peacekeeping service and basic capabilities but nothing like the Commander level. It does make more boring dialogue. But now they could have Remnant skeptics clashing with Ryder about using their tech, uprisings, etc. and more aggressive options.

All the weapons, armors, and everything would need to be different. That's a risky proposition and it was hard enough with the changes they made to Mass Effect Andromeda by going to another galaxy.

Why can't military or other vessels make a trip to Andromeda? More arks. Then they bring over the same weapons, grudges, etc. since they aren't scientists and explorers.
 
Last edited:

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,214
Kett can be okay if the Primus launches a war against a replacement Archon. Reapers didn't have strife that I can remember.

And they have biotics, but nobody discussed it. SAM lets Ryder be a powerful biotic? If an actual biotic gets a new implant they are now like Samara?

It's all right for Ryder to be a civilian with some peacekeeping service and basic capabilities but nothing like the Commander level. It does make more boring dialogue. But now they could have Remnant skeptics clashing with Ryder about using their tech, uprisings, etc. and more aggressive options.



Why can't military or other vessels make a trip to Andromeda? More arks. Then they bring over the same weapons, grudges, etc. since they aren't scientists and explorers.

You miss the point. If they keep everything in the Milky Way in a new installment but set it far enough ahead to try and get away from choosing a canon ending for ME3, they'll have to change everything. In Andromeda, they already have the same weapons and armor we had in the earlier games and the plans to fabricate more via the Nexus and ships like the Tempest. They can more or less 3D Print M96 Mattock's or the M76 Revenant at will. My point is that the changes to the setting in Andromeda weren't necessarily well received and that game has all the classic Mass Effect weapons and some new ones. There are countless references to the trilogy as well.

Also, Scott Ryder wasn't a civilian. He was in the Alliance Military. He just never went as far as his father did. He mentions guarding a Mass Relay. Good way to make the old man proud. Sarah on the other hand was an archaeologist. She may or may not have ever been Alliance Military as well, but she mentions getting her combat experience fighting raiders and mercenaries she encountered on digs. The two are nobodies. Their father is the important one. This was intentional as Shepard was already a hero when the first game started. This is established immediately. The writers wanted a protagonist that was a blank slate and the first game in the Andromeda series was to basically earn the character their stripes and reputation.

It was a nice concept but fell short by not being that interesting.
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,138
They already used the Grineer for the Kett, they can take some more weapons and armor from Warframe. /s

I wouldn't mind the same planets with new characters, maybe playing as an Angaran instead of always human.
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,408
Short of a complete reboot they would need to go into the past, maybe starting with the terrans jumping the first relay and meeting the Taurians and the hostilities that followed Or maybe go a hundred or so years in the future and show the reestablishment of the mass relays, the main quest being working on the new relay system/what happens to the various cut off systems.

The latter or course would need a canon ending for the original trilogy.

The easy would be to stay in Andromeda and go from there.

I wouldn't mind a reboot, but I assume it will be some crap MMO/coop only/battle royal shitfest. I'm not sure Bioware can pull off a good SP RPGish game anymore.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,077
The problem is that Mass Effect either needs a total reboot that's keeps the best elements of the trilogy while doing something different with its basic story.

I've been saying it needed a sequel in an entirely new universe prior to Andromeda was announced. Entirely different universe, but keep the core there:

- Science fiction.
- Action shooter with RPG elements.
- RPG elements based around story & dialogue, not unlocks or quests.
- Heavily story based.
- Takes place in space.
- Mixes dialogue sections with combat.

I wouldn't be as interested in them rebooting the same story similar to how super hero moves are redone where we hear the origin story and the same antagonists with slightly altered details but the same general plot.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,814
The biggest issue and I think the reason Mass Effect can't move forward is that Mass Effect is Shepard vs The Reapers. That is the totality of the successful Mass Effect franchise and the formula which made the games so well loved. Without that (and a good canon ending) we simply cannot move on.

The short war with the Turians is irrelevant because we already know how everything turns out there. Same thing with the Skyllian Blitz and anything revolving around the issues with Batarians. To have any success the series must move forward. The series also needs to have the ending of ME3 rewritten. Shepard needs to survive and a real ending needs to be chosen. Personally, I'd like a modified version of the harmony for all ending but without every organic being turned into cyborgs. Simply kill that horrible Star Child and allow the Reapers free will. That would not mean every Reaper would suddenly turn into a good guy either.

Continuing the series from that point but far enough in the future for Shepard to be in the past but with most of the rebuilding having been completed would be a good starting off point. It doesn't need to be hundreds of years in the future but a few decades would be nice. Hell, starting from that point would be perfect regarding a trip to another galaxy since the technology and knowledge of the Reapers would be the only thing to allow it to happen in so short a time.

If staying in the galaxy it would allow for a jump forward in technology for some races while others may have backslid during the reconstruction. Governments would have fallen and there would be plenty of unrest and conflict as warlords, splinter groups and whatever vied for control and dominance of different parts of the galaxy. There are still plenty of areas in the galaxy which hadn't yet been explored in the current but now defunct cycle. Simply put, there's plenty of fodder for new heroes in new games following in the legacy of Shepard and building on that legacy rather than attempting to abandon it and put as much distance between Shepard and a new game as possible.

As I said, Shepard and by extension the Reapers are Mass Effect. To make a successful game it must be built upon and a continuation of the story (and a well written story at that.) Mass Effect was made great by the writing and the characters. I guarantee you it wasn't the combat or Mako missions from ME1 which made so many people love the game. Leave out the critical elements of what made the games great and you end up with a flop every single time.
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,138
I like how they struggle with the canon ending but didn't rewrite Alenko, Williams, Jacob Taylor and Vega. Edit: Acknowledging the staff has scattered since 2012 but just saying I would accept some flops like Kai Leng while they do well with Mordin Solus.

In the Javik cutscenes were Protheans using rifles pretty much like an M76? Maybe Bioware can just largely ignore time jumps if the story is better.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,077
The short war with the Turians is irrelevant because we already know how everything turns out there. Same thing with the Skyllian Blitz and anything revolving around the issues with Batarians.

You can still easily make games based around those scenarios. Spin off games, maybe a bit shorter as well. It certainly wouldn't be as interesting, but that is what they should've done instead of Andromeda. Two shorter spin off games (12-15 hours) while the main team spent 5 or so years building something from the ground up with the core Mass Effect mechanics. Time to move past Shepard's story. While I do like him/her, they were not what made Mass Effect great. The whole world, presentation, and a bigger picture is what made the story. You can't keep dragging Shepard around because they weren't what held up the game in the first place. Ending wasn't superb, but that arc is done.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,214
I'm absolutely dead set against prequels. I hate them. They are confined by the narrative of other games or films. Rarely do they explore anything meaningful enough to be of any real interest. I absolutely disagree that a prequel was the way to go vs. Andromeda as a setting. In fact, the vote on BioWare's forums agrees with me. Nearly no one wanted a prequel. Stories are far less impactful when you know how they turn out and that's what you always get with prequels. I think Andromeda as a setting has a fountain of potential. It's a good basis to move forward even if the first game was flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
Top