OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10 CPU: Intel Core i5 3570 or AMD FX-6350 RAM: 8 GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 660 2 GB, AMD Radeon 7850 2 GB Hard Drive: At least 55 GB of free space DirectX: DirectX 11 Recommended System Requirements
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10 CPU: Intel Core i7-4790 or AMD FX-8350 RAM: 16 GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060 3 GB, AMD RX 480 4 GB Hard Drive: At least 55 GB of free space DirectX: DirectX 11
Seriously though, there's so little information about this game on the web. Aside from some teaser trailers and like 5 minutes of gameplay (read:movement) footage there's like next to no info. Dunno why hey're keeping it so hush hush when the release is supposed to be early 2017.
On September 11 2016 05:08 Latham wrote: I want a threesome with 2 asari.
Seriously though, there's so little information about this game on the web. Aside from some teaser trailers and like 5 minutes of gameplay (read:movement) footage there's like next to no info. Dunno why hey're keeping it so hush hush when the release is supposed to be early 2017.
ugh, Asari are so squishy. How are you supposed to get a decent grip?
I kinda like the fact that they do not flood us with info about the game, but on the other hand a little more general info would be nice. I guess we'll get some of that on the N7 Day.
Probably someone isn't confident about the product and doesn't want to put out information to hurt preorders and day1 sales. Could have many reasons, deadline not reachable or because the first trailers where not well received. Its not the first time that happened. And not every game turned out bad, where the marketing did everything to hide it from the world. Just part of the preorder culture. Or some silly NDA on the upgraded console versions and they don't wanna show pleb graphics.
Well it's still 7 or 8 months till release, I'm pretty confident the marketing will gain a lot of momentum in November. I think it's good that they don't overhype things. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
If they can tighten up the Dragon Age 3 gameplay and make fewer useless side quests, I'll enjoy this game. I liked DA:I when it was focusing on teh main quest and important side quests. Not when it made me harvest elfroot until I wanted to die.
I expect nothing good of this team and the drop of developers and the low amount of infos does not help.
I guess I can wait for the GOTY Edition if this game actually gets good old Bioware style, else I can skip it over and stay salty forever for ME:3 and the crime it has done to ME and ME:2
I guess the game didn't have a thread on its own because there was so little to work with until the PS4 pro conference (not that is much after).
I just want a fun game, I don't expect it to live up to the original trilogy as that style of game is getting less and less popular among developers. One thing you have to keep in mind is that DA:I got bogged down by last gen consoles, it won't happen in ME:A. I won't say that it will prevent it from going single player MMO again, but there is hope that the sidequest are more significant.
And get over the ending to ME3, the ship has sailed a long time ago (DA:I Trespasser had a very good ending)
About the quiet marketing, I say it is possible that it's Bioware's last game. They shut down their forums, many people left and the fact that we know so little about ME:A, each one can be explained individually but together it is worrying. I don't want them to go out like Westwood... They stated they wanted to go with the Fallout 4 marketing style, but in contrast to FO4 the game was announced almost 2 years before release, so I dunno what is going on.
Could be because everyone told me to brace myself for it (also the fact I w as playing it post Director's cut), the ending wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. Was more mad at the lack of a "true" final boss fight, (although fighting 15 goons and 4 Banshees was pretty bad).
On September 12 2016 06:22 sung_moon wrote: Could be because everyone told me to brace myself for it (also the fact I w as playing it post Director's cut), the ending wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. Was more mad at the lack of a "true" final boss fight, (although fighting 15 goons and 4 Banshees was pretty bad).
Damn right, I wanted to blast Harbinger's huge metalic ass into bits before the end.
On September 12 2016 06:22 sung_moon wrote: Could be because everyone told me to brace myself for it (also the fact I w as playing it post Director's cut), the ending wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. Was more mad at the lack of a "true" final boss fight, (although fighting 15 goons and 4 Banshees was pretty bad).
Damn right, I wanted to blast Harbinger's huge metalic ass into bits before the end.
I just wanted to finally talk with Harbinger, while being in Harbinger and trying to Nuke the shit... all I got was some matrix level contstruction dude I couldnt care less.
But whatever, that happens, when you kick your lead writer inbetween ME:2 and ME:3...all the dark energy references in ME:2 for nothing.
On September 12 2016 06:22 sung_moon wrote: Could be because everyone told me to brace myself for it (also the fact I w as playing it post Director's cut), the ending wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. Was more mad at the lack of a "true" final boss fight, (although fighting 15 goons and 4 Banshees was pretty bad).
Damn right, I wanted to blast Harbinger's huge metalic ass into bits before the end.
I just wanted to finally talk with Harbinger, while being in Harbinger and trying to Nuke the shit... all I got was some matrix level contstruction dude I couldnt care less.
But whatever, that happens, when you kick your lead writer inbetween ME:2 and ME:3...all the dark energy references in ME:2 for nothing.
I've heard that Bioware changed the ending to the current one because of a plot leak that detailed the dark energy ending. Anyway in Andromeda they clearly trying to escape the whole fiasco, as the arks launch before ME3 endings, possibly before the entirety of ME3's events. (After the mission to Thessia the Asari councilor told Shepard: "Plans to put in motion, continuety of civilization to consider", maybe it will be used in Andromeda)
Everyone tries to escape the guided by prophecy plotline atm. Its nice if you want to make a game with multiple pathes, because the prophecy main plot will always pull them together into one ending again. But it was used to much and usually resulted in really bad endings. So people don't want the whole save the universe stuff atm and developers are right to avoid it.
So guess we are back to bad guy doing their thing crossing pathes with you only a couple of times to keep you motivated, while you do lenghty sidequests with little outside impact until the main plot bad guy starts their master plan.
Basically just like the Prophecy bit, just not everyone screaming Dragonborn ! at ya.
On September 12 2016 22:22 FeyFey wrote: Everyone tries to escape the guided by prophecy plotline atm. Its nice if you want to make a game with multiple pathes, because the prophecy main plot will always pull them together into one ending again. But it was used to much and usually resulted in really bad endings. So people don't want the whole save the universe stuff atm and developers are right to avoid it.
So guess we are back to bad guy doing their thing crossing pathes with you only a couple of times to keep you motivated, while you do lenghty sidequests with little outside impact until the main plot bad guy starts their master plan.
Basically just like the Prophecy bit, just not everyone screaming Dragonborn ! at ya.
Wrong thread? There is nothing in Shepard's trilogy or ME:Andromeda suggesting any kind of prophecy o_O
On September 12 2016 22:22 FeyFey wrote: Everyone tries to escape the guided by prophecy plotline atm. Its nice if you want to make a game with multiple pathes, because the prophecy main plot will always pull them together into one ending again. But it was used to much and usually resulted in really bad endings. So people don't want the whole save the universe stuff atm and developers are right to avoid it.
So guess we are back to bad guy doing their thing crossing pathes with you only a couple of times to keep you motivated, while you do lenghty sidequests with little outside impact until the main plot bad guy starts their master plan.
Basically just like the Prophecy bit, just not everyone screaming Dragonborn ! at ya.
Wrong thread? There is nothing in Shepard's trilogy or ME:Andromeda suggesting any kind of prophecy o_O
Welp, there is some kind in ME 1-3: every now and then an ancient evil comes up wipes out everything that got into space. And soon they will come back and wipe the floor with everyone.
It might not be named a prophecy and its not like some old wise guy told Shepard that, but thats what he finds out in the end by the information stripes he gets. And the games are then bound to follow this general "prophecy" till the ancient evil finally gets taken out. The prothean arthefacts Shepard hits up on Eden Prime and Virmire and the talks with Souvereign (the best dialog in the entire series) finally make up some kind of bigger prophecy plot.
If Andromeda follows some kind of Ubisoft formula, it can kill itself. You can make games that are strongly driven by a main story, still some kind open and non "MMO-like" side quests.
On September 12 2016 04:55 Plansix wrote: If they can tighten up the Dragon Age 3 gameplay and make fewer useless side quests, I'll enjoy this game. I liked DA:I when it was focusing on teh main quest and important side quests. Not when it made me harvest elfroot until I wanted to die.
I was literally bored to tears picking up stuff off the ground in DAI, yet I logged over 300 hours of play. I won't say it's half the game Witcher 3 is, but I've gotten a lot more replay value from DAI. The astrariums were fun, the shards were not; I got to change gender/race/class every time and flirt with a much more diverse cast. The excessive focus on being funny/cute pays off sometimes, like with Cassandra's romance novels or back with Mordin Solus before 'scientist salarian' got milked in ME3.
Bioware has hopefully learned from games where it's actually fun to explore, like, well, Mass Effect 1. Just slapping on the open world tag doesn't make it true. I can't walk from Redcliffe village to Redcliffe castle. The events at Redcliffe castle, if you chose mages instead of templars, were really cool, but I still felt boxed in--in one of Biowares playgrounds, not a world. Defying physics in the MAKO in ME1 was better than sliding backward trying to jump up a rocky face in DAI. Holy crap was every rock and fallen tree limb a stumbling block for the Inquisitor. Jumping may have been a bit overboard in Xenoblade but it didn't frustrate.
Characters mostly looked horrible in DAI. They looked better in DA2 and DAO. Even ME3 didn't look as bad. Somehow Morrigan looked perfect though. I've never been certain what's to blame, but often the Frostbite engine comes up. If that same engine is in effect when seeing the new FemShep, Ryder, then it appears they made huge improvements.
The biggest improvement is getting as far away from those ME3 endings as possible. I still haven't been able to replay any ME game, and at times I really want to. A whole galaxy away will hopefully be far enough.
The ME3 ended landed with the impact of a wet fart, but I appreciate that they shot the moon. No one had ever tired to link three games worth of story together before that(for good reason) and they were meet with a lot of problems along the way. But I liked the effort and it is a road map for other narrative games(Banner Saga for example).
I would rather games try and fail in amazing fashion and just play it safe. Its more interesting that way and we get better stories/gameplay.
A new short video appeared on the game's website (see below), advertising the "Andromeda Initiative" which seems to be just a newsletter service for the title (link: http://x.ea.com/25657 ). It also says that "Orientation begins November 7, 2016". Get hype for the N7 day! Sadly I won't be here to update the OP because I'll be travelling till November 13 (smh fam).
On September 21 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote: The ME3 ended landed with the impact of a wet fart, but I appreciate that they shot the moon. No one had ever tired to link three games worth of story together before that(for good reason) and they were meet with a lot of problems along the way. But I liked the effort and it is a road map for other narrative games(Banner Saga for example).
I would rather games try and fail in amazing fashion and just play it safe. Its more interesting that way and we get better stories/gameplay.
I think the saddest part with ME3's ending wasn't that it failed, it's that it lost all its narrative to force an ending. There was framework in place for a well laid-out conclusion, and then they tossed it for a Deus Ex Machina.
So a road map for future series, and a cautionary tale not to let ego trip you at the finish line.
Giving the last track record of Bioware, I am not hyped at all.
All the ideas sound great, they lay down a track to a great game, but then again, alot is still "what if?" and "what do I have really to do?" and more.
I would never name a ship Hyperion anymore or anything containing the word Hype. But game looks like another Masseffect game we even get another shepard as the protagonist it seems.
On September 11 2016 05:08 Latham wrote: I want a threesome with 2 asari.
Seriously though, there's so little information about this game on the web. Aside from some teaser trailers and like 5 minutes of gameplay (read:movement) footage there's like next to no info. Dunno why hey're keeping it so hush hush when the release is supposed to be early 2017.
ugh, Asari are so squishy. How are you supposed to get a decent grip?
I kinda like the fact that they do not flood us with info about the game, but on the other hand a little more general info would be nice. I guess we'll get some of that on the N7 Day.
On September 21 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote: The ME3 ended landed with the impact of a wet fart, but I appreciate that they shot the moon. No one had ever tired to link three games worth of story together before that(for good reason) and they were meet with a lot of problems along the way. But I liked the effort and it is a road map for other narrative games(Banner Saga for example).
I would rather games try and fail in amazing fashion and just play it safe. Its more interesting that way and we get better stories/gameplay.
I think the saddest part with ME3's ending wasn't that it failed, it's that it lost all its narrative to force an ending. There was framework in place for a well laid-out conclusion, and then they tossed it for a Deus Ex Machina.
So a road map for future series, and a cautionary tale not to let ego trip you at the finish line.
I would like to point out that an unknown entity controlling all the robots in the citadel was hinted at in the first one!
All the Mass Effect games were very good games, not without flaws, but very enjoyable to play. I don't see why this one would be different. Looking forward to this!
The ending you pick at the end of 3 really has no bearing at all on this game? That must mean that the main character has left for Andromeda prior to the events of ME3? Because it seems like at least one of those choices + Show Spoiler +
controlling the reapers
would have wide ranging effects not just in the milky way but possibly in other galaxies as well..?
On November 14 2016 00:59 IAmWithStupid wrote: Hyperion? Sounds familiar... I wonder if Matt Horner is the captain.
But conceivably since the reapers hibernate in dark space it stands to reason that they could be sent between different galaxies. I always kind of assumed that the reapers were reaping more galaxies than just the milky way, but I guess I could be wrong there since they were created in the milky way and I don't recall any actual evidence to support my theory. A shepherd that controls the reapers might send them out to scout out the other galaxies, though I would think. I guess that since there is such a large amount of space/time between ours and andromeda galaxies that even the end of ME3 might not affect events in andromeda. Maybe the reapers are incapable of making it to another galaxy (but somehow humans manage to pull it off) Maybe all that is part of what the player has to discover.
But conceivably since the reapers hibernate in dark space it stands to reason that they could be sent between different galaxies. I always kind of assumed that the reapers were reaping more galaxies than just the milky way, but I guess I could be wrong there since they were created in the milky way and I don't recall any actual evidence to support my theory. A shepherd that controls the reapers might send them out to scout out the other galaxies, though I would think. I guess that since there is such a large amount of space/time between ours and andromeda galaxies that even the end of ME3 might not affect events in andromeda. Maybe the reapers are incapable of making it to another galaxy (but somehow humans manage to pull it off) Maybe all that is part of what the player has to discover.
The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us. So could be a case of original programming excluding it or that it only recently has become practical with the level of technology in play.
Today the Andromeda Initiative Website was launched, which includes a new cinematic as well as a training hub in which you can subscribe to "complete training" and unlock some goodies (in-game cosmetic items as far as I can tell). Looks pretty nice, and extra stuff is always welcome
Not exactly excited about the open world scavenging stuff. It's in almost every game nowadays and very few do a good job at it. The characters are the heart of the original trilogy at least and vast wildernesses aren't really filled with interesting encounters.
I do like the idea of being a pathfinder being lost in some more shady parts of the universe and having to operate on your own, but I'm not sure if mainstream AAA title can really embrace that properly. At least the trailer scanning bit looks pretty strong with its hand holding. Hopefully it's not that straightforward outside the trailer.
Interesting to see how the combat works. I don't think the ME cover based system is that good for random fights in open spaces.
Overall, the original three felt like just enough of Mass Effect for a while. I'm not really hungry for more at this point. Probably going to wait for some reviews and see how it goes from there.
the scanning looks like it could be tedious, but something similar worked with the batman arkham games (seemingly so at least) so it has potential. I'm looking forward to seeing how the multiplayer stacks up because i fucking LOVED the multiplayer for 3, so I'm super hype to see how it goes
Open world scouting sets off alarm bells. It's Mass Effect... if I'm playing it, it's because I want to be making decisions that impact the storyline dozens of gameplay hours later in surprising ways. Combat is necessary for the plot, but that's mostly its function. There are real shooters to play if that's what I'm going for. I want to make gut-wrenching decisions that cause characters I care about to die horribly. And occasionally to talk down mass murderers by asking them to think hard about their life choices.
But after 3 mass effect games you know thats not the case in this series. But the exploration part was skipable in all 3 mass effect games. So it had something for for everyone. Though this one seems even more shifted into the exploration direction which is pretty cool for me personally. But I don't need to play more then 1 checklist game a year. Atleast there should be no Radio towers if you can teleport anywhere you want.
On December 03 2016 04:35 FeyFey wrote: But after 3 mass effect games you know thats not the case in this series. But the exploration part was skipable in all 3 mass effect games. So it had something for for everyone. Though this one seems even more shifted into the exploration direction which is pretty cool for me personally. But I don't need to play more then 1 checklist game a year. Atleast there should be no Radio towers if you can teleport anywhere you want.
Eh. If the exploration is about meeting people and interacting with them, that's cool. If it's rock collecting I gave that up in the second grade.
The Mako bits in ME1 were tedious except when you found a settlement that actually had a story going on. And they more or less cut the exploration minigame to a shell in the subsequent games; and it was even less of a thing in 3 then 2. Which was a good shift.
I mean Andromeda is set in the ME universe, but it's not Mass Effect 4. The game does not need to follow the same patterns as the trilogy, in fact I expect quite a lot new/altered features (like the greater focus on exploration, which makes sense as you're playing as the Pathfinder). I think the devs had enough time to figure out the exploration and not make it tedious or too simplictic (fingers crossed).
One thing I'm happy about is the comeback of the coop multiplayer, I loved that shit in ME3 (still love it in fact).
On December 03 2016 05:23 PoulsenB wrote: I mean Andromeda is set in the ME universe, but it's not Mass Effect 4. The game does not need to follow the same patterns as the trilogy, in fact I expect quite a lot new/altered features (like the greater focus on exploration, which makes sense as you're playing as the Pathfinder). I think the devs had enough time to figure out the exploration and not make it tedious or too simplictic (fingers crossed).
There is a legitimate theory to both corporate core competencies and consistent branding. That is, when you buy a Star Wars game, there are certain things you expect: blasters, the force, lightsabers, shit about loyalty and friendship, and a bit of moral dualism. Lose too much of that, and customers will feel ripped off (or the studio will give up and fail to renew the copyright). You make a Diablo game, and people expect to cut through hordes of monsters. You make a ME game, and there's some expectations there, and most of what Mass Effect offered was the choose-your-own-adventure game wrapped up in a (fairly simplistic) cover-based shooter.
As far as companies go, Bioware is mostly known as a maker of RPGs. And we all have fond memories of at least one, and try really hard not to notice that on a chart of quality against year of release, they just don't look great.
Trends change, companies change. Mass Effect games were still tons of fun even if they were not your oldschool RPG games we all used to play in the past.
Obviously I don't expect them to change too much of the core Mass Effect experience, but I feel that focus might be a bit different in certain areas. Anyhow, I'm excited
On December 03 2016 06:35 PoulsenB wrote: Trends change, companies change. Mass Effect games were still tons of fun even if they were not your oldschool RPG games we all used to play in the past.
Obviously I don't expect them to change too much of the core Mass Effect experience, but I feel that focus might be a bit different in certain areas. Anyhow, I'm excited
Mass Effect was very much the standard Bioware formula. They've always played around with the combat mechanics between all their releases, but the core RPG mechanics of Mass Effect are no different than Jade Empire, or KotoR, or Dragon Age, or Baldur's Gate...
Not that's it bad to want something different. Just that Bioware is very much a formula company that doesn't stray far.
Gameplay looked solid enough in that trailer IMO. Lots of maneuverability, a bit more open space to maneuver in, and action packed. The player pathfinder looked like a vanguard-type in that trailer, with the charge and bionic pulls. I played Vanguard in ME1 and it was crazy fun, but for ME2/3 I switched to infiltrator and never looked back. When firing The Widowmaker, I always felt so satisfied, even if it wasn't a 1-shot kill on the highest difficulties.
I imagine they'll keep the classes more or less the same, thematically, with some skills added and others overhauled. 1 straight forward "soldier" class, solider-bionic, solider-tech, full-tech, full-bionic, and maybe a mix of bio and tech? I always liked the variety to choose from even if I always had my favourite.
As for exploration, I wish they'd make it really meaningful and open. I.E. having the option to visit like 5 planets at a time with expiration dates on missions, not only 1 or 2, and some bonus hidden planets that you'd have to find along the way, that'd have tech that is not essential but could ease up some of the future missions.
On December 04 2016 18:43 Latham wrote: As for exploration, I wish they'd make it really meaningful and open. I.E. having the option to visit like 5 planets at a time with expiration dates on missions, not only 1 or 2, and some bonus hidden planets that you'd have to find along the way, that'd have tech that is not essential but could ease up some of the future missions.
As it is a Bioware game the extra planets/locations would likely be tied to companion quests. It is a good way to do them and at the same time fleshes out the companions.
On December 04 2016 18:43 Latham wrote: As for exploration, I wish they'd make it really meaningful and open. I.E. having the option to visit like 5 planets at a time with expiration dates on missions, not only 1 or 2, and some bonus hidden planets that you'd have to find along the way, that'd have tech that is not essential but could ease up some of the future missions.
As it is a Bioware game the extra planets/locations would likely be tied to companion quests. It is a good way to do them and at the same time fleshes out the companions.
Of all things that have become a trend with Bioware, this is the one thing I'd wish they'd change back.
Everything up to and including ME1 had the companion development tied closely with the rest of the story. Even when it involved random sidequests, it was sidequests that were on the way or built into places you were already exploring.
ME2 onward all have a clear separation between main quest and side story, which ends up taking a lot away from the main storyline.
The trailer looked cool. I'm excited, it got me to fire up ME3 (haven't played much of this one yet, completed the other 2).
I just wish they'd remove the ammo system. It just sucks, I'm not playing a single player RPG to worry about ammo management. Bring back the heat-up system from ME1.
On December 05 2016 09:01 ZenithM wrote: The trailer looked cool. I'm excited, it got me to fire up ME3 (haven't played much of this one yet, completed the other 2).
I just wish they'd remove the ammo system. It just sucks, I'm not playing a single player RPG to worry about ammo management. Bring back the heat-up system from ME1.
Since it is single player, just cheat/mod the ammo to stay at max. Or whatever else you want to change to make your experience better. People seem way too focused on the base experience of the game most of the time instead of removing annoyances for them.
I might do that. I'm just not used to cheat or mod anything in my games, usually. I even play TES games at their most "vanilla".
I'm not saying ammo clips completely ruin the experience, but it's certainly not fun mechanics. For one, the way they just litter the floor everywhere makes no sense. For two, after each fight, instead of rushing ahead to follow the action/narrative/whatever at a nice pace, you just look around everywhere on the ground for a good minute to find ammo clips... Actually in my current ME3 playthrough I'm thankfully much more reliant on cooldown-based dps (powers) rather than ammo-limited dps. I used to play Infiltrator in other MEs so it was less of an uninterrupted power-spamming fest.
Well, you can play the Lancer assault rifle in Me 3 with the citadel DLC. Does not need a reload.
I think there are some more weapons with infinite ammo in the game via the multi-player DLC.
But in the end, I rather played Infiltrator with the ammo. Instead of waiting for the cooldown (or overheat) a sniper rifle with 1-2 shots, just kick out the heat mag and play on. Reloading took less then time then waiting for the cooldown with sniper rifles and there were plenty of mags everywhere anyway. Especially in ME 3, where these boxes of mags have been put over all maps.
For me, combat, weapons and character have been the very best in ME 3, while they fall over their story telling and characters in that episode.
But now for real, in ME 2 and ME 3 Infiltrator was super OP, or? With the invisibility that gave you +100% headshot damage, you could oneshot kill almost anything except banshees.
There are the trailers for the general audience and trailers for ME fans with much more detail about the story and the settings. I think DA:I was a good but undercooked game, if Bioware learns from what worked and what didn't in DA:I (and what worked and didn't in The Witcher 3) then Andromeda would be excellent.
I must say, the universe and the lore are probably one of the strongest points of the Mass Effect series. They really did a great job with that. That's a big reason for why I'd come back to ME. Not so much the gameplay or the story.
Yea, I agree with that assesment. The ME games made for good but not great first person shooters. The story was enveloping and interesting and suspenseful but it kind of fell flat at times. It also famously had a bland ending. But flying around the galaxy exploring and landing on new planets was what made it for me. The level design was also quite good especially in 2 and even 3.
On December 10 2016 09:41 TheFish7 wrote: Yea, I agree with that assesment. The ME games made for good but not great first person shooters. The story was enveloping and interesting and suspenseful but it kind of fell flat at times. It also famously had a bland ending. But flying around the galaxy exploring and landing on new planets was what made it for me. The level design was also quite good especially in 2 and even 3.
I would rank those bioware series like this:
ME2 > ME1 > ME3
DA:O > DA:O-A > DA:I > DA2
Personally I would rate it something like this:
ME2 = ME3 > ME1
DA:O > DA2 > DA:O A > DA:I
ME 2 and 3 had interesting story and well developed game play that worked if not being spectacular. They were fun games that didn't really let one down. ME1 had a lot of bland exploration content as filler. Something we are likely to get in the next one again.
Origin is without doubt the best RPG in the Dragon Age universe. DA2 was a fun action RPG that reused its areas a bit too much, no real story or depth but still entertaining. DA:O A just cashed in on the main title and did more of it, was not really interesting to me.
DA:I I never finished. Its combat was mind-numbingly boring and a lot of the places one visited made the game uninteresting. I just quit 2/3 into the game since I had learnt enough about my companions and nothing else held my interest. Was probably a bigger chance of me replaying for a different romance than actually finishing the game. Was the only part of the game that engaged me after 10h.
(Was years since I played them so could recall wrong.)
Mass Effect 1 is actually my favorite in the series, it felt fresh at the time and is more RPG like than the sequels. Sure the copy pasted planets for exploration weren't great, but I'd take them over scanning anytime and I actually kind of liked exploring them.
ME: 1 > 2 > 3
DA: O > I > 2
Origins being my favorite post KotoR era Bioware game.
Seems to have gotten a late March release date. 21 in NA and 23 in EU. Expected a bit of a later release date than that. I'll probably play it and regret not waiting for DLCs.
Seems to be focused on the one man army with one person being able to unlock everything or close to it by grinding out points. Based on a cursory glance of that trailer.
It will be the standard PC + 2 squadmates. It seems that way maybe because of the lower use of cover from the videos. I'm concerned about the 3 active ability limit, it's like the artificial limit from Inquisition all over again.
It's interesting to see how they handle the villain(s) this time. Reapers are different than most RPG baddies and have their own charm as the impending doom, but they never were particularly relatable in human side of things. Saren had some interesting ideas and lots of potential, but also had pretty limited screentime and the quick change of heart in the end felt a little cheap. It might be fun to see some different take on villains now that the original save the whole galaxy storyline is over.
I actually haven't played through ME3, so not sure if there's some interesting villainy going on.
^It's not really a sudden change of heart. You can try to convince Saren that what he's doing is wrong throughout the whole game, I can't recall the exact moments--but one example where you talk to him more in depth is on the planet where ash/caiden die.
That said the option at the end felt cheap because he just gets rezzed...gotta have a final boss in video games!!
On December 10 2016 11:57 Vaelone wrote: Mass Effect 1 is actually my favorite in the series, it felt fresh at the time and is more RPG like than the sequels. Sure the copy pasted planets for exploration weren't great, but I'd take them over scanning anytime and I actually kind of liked exploring them.
ME: 1 > 2 > 3
DA: O > I > 2
Origins being my favorite post KotoR era Bioware game.
Mass effect 1 had a certain feel and mood that i would say is superior to the other games.
On January 27 2017 07:45 Andre wrote: ^It's not really a sudden change of heart. You can try to convince Saren that what he's doing is wrong throughout the whole game, I can't recall the exact moments--but one example where you talk to him more in depth is on the planet where ash/caiden die.
In depth is a pretty strong word for that discussion. Basically you can yell "You're being brainwashed!" and "I'll never surrender to the Reapers!" at Virmire (the Ash/Kaidan planet). In the end he then goes "Hmh. What you said back there makes sense. I'm convinced now!" and that's it. As far as I can tell, those are the only two interactions you get to have with Saren. It's probably less than 30 seconds of pretty straightforward popcorn flick hero dialogue to undo the domination spell that's strong enough to control an asari matriarch.
These are also pretty much the two times you actually get to learn anything about Saren, the rest of the plot is spent figuring out what his plan is and how to stop it. There's one short cutscene after the first mission where Saren rages about the failure, but after that the actual character pretty much disappears and everybody just keeps talking about how to stop the plan. The way they used the one early cutscene makes me wonder if there was some kind of plan for more Saren narrative, but it never ended up in the final game.
That being said, I think it was totally fine in ME context. The narrative worked well just as it was because the world and it's history were strong enough to carry the storyline. I just feel like Pathfinder could explore different narrative stuff now that the Reaper storyline is finished, most players are familiar with the Mass Effect universe and there's suddenly more room for new characters and story elements.
Yeah, when you compare Saren vs Illusive Man when it comes to breaking their indoctrination, the difference is jarring. But it was growing pains in the series, more or less. ME1, getting enough Paragon or Renegade points made big dialogue options appear out of nowhere. ME2 and especially ME3, a lot more emphasis was put into cause-and-effect decision making, with Paragon/Renegade just helping to push certain outcomes along.
This briefing brings couple of interesting points:
1. SAM was developed by Ellen Ryder, it is an AI. AI is illegal in council space. Cerberus ties? Blackops research? Terminus Systems? If you remember from ME3, Javik told how similar AI's took over their hosts bodies and rebelled (Zha and Zha'til), so I wonder... 2. Cora is the second in command and the designated successor for being the pathfinder in case something happens to papa Ryder. Why is one of the twins becomes the pathfinder? 3. Cora's last name is Harper. Like Jack Harper aka Illusive Man. Also it has to be mantioned that the IM's girlfriend and later the bot EDI took over both named Eva Core. Coinedence?
Besides, Why in the actual fuck Cora has the Miley Cyrus haircut?
Well I assume this is quite a bit in the future from ME3, not that unlikely the laws regarding AI development changed with the times. And as for #2, we'll see when the game comes out, won't we?
Usually trailers tend to go overboard in trying to create some kind of excitement and tension, but this one definitely wasn't one of them. At this point they look a pretty generic bunch of human NPCs.
I'm fairly sure there's more than that to it, but I can't grasp it from the trailer. You can surely speculate with the name refrences and all that, but that's pretty vague to be the 'meat' of the trailer.
I prefer the trailers with less overblown hype, too much hype can hurt a game so much :/ I'm also pretty excited for things like moments of first contact with Andromeda races, or a plot that (hopefully) isn't "save the galaxy from an ancient threat" all over again.
On January 31 2017 00:22 PoulsenB wrote: I prefer the trailers with less overblown hype, too much hype can hurt a game so much :/ I'm also pretty excited for things like moments of first contact with Andromeda races, or a plot that (hopefully) isn't "save the galaxy from an ancient threat" all over again.
Yeah. I much prefer the more subtle approach in general, but I'm a bit puzzled on where they were going with this particular one.
Pretty much my feelings too, the way those characters look make me expect that they would be manning random stations at the ship and have maybe one line of dialog they repeat through the game.
Hopefully most of them end up dying fast due to story reasons and get replaced by interesting alien crew.
In general the human characters have been less interesting in ME usually. I'm not sure if aliens allow them to go into a bit weirder directions with writing, but most humans are on the more bland end of the cast. Also, I guess less facial expressions and all that can help in hiding the fact that they're still just puppets in a computer game.
That's no excuse for writing plain dull stuff though. For example half of the Kaidan's comments in early ME 1 are something like "Whoa! Big place!" or "Nice and quiet here! I like it!". Never taken him around much in later game, so I'm not sure if there's something more insightful later on.
If you're talking about the random comments that are passed on when you click on your teammates, then no there's nothing meaningful to be had from Kaiden. All of those interactions suck no matter the companion though, at best Wrex makes some fart joke, Liara talks about sand and her vagina.
As for the new companions in ME:A they really do look bland. Even the new enemy just looks like collectors v.2 in terms of aesthetics.
Bioware has a really big opportunity to shake up things in the ME universe. The only really interesting aliens have been elcor, volus and the flying spaghettis--but you never really explored their cultures directly(codex and random dialogues are whatever).
It would be disappointing to find just more humanoid aliens in an entirely new galaxy. (unless they have boobs, this is ME after all)
Replaying through ME1 and 2 and I am getting hyped for this game. Though I probably won't be able to afford it until it goes on some big sale in the future
I enjoyed the first Mass Effect. After watching the last 3 videos in this thread I have to say this game just looks lackluster. Boring generic team of elites on their cool ship doing whatever. I just feel no connection or desire to play with that team on the tempest ship? Does this game do anything new for the genre? I think they have a lot of potential to do almost anything with unexplored lore and mysteries they could create in this universe but then they just put some bad guy that reminds me of saren named archon? seriously that's the best they could do. I've been itching for an rpg but this one feels like a waste of money/time. I'm not sure Bioware has put out a good game since Dragon age origins or ME1.
Depends on how you define 'games'. Gameplay is very weak.
I also share the sentiment that ME:A has a lot of potential, but if it turns out that it's another 'Chosen One vs the Big Bad Evil' type of story It'll be disappointing(what we've been shown so far definitely resembles that type of a plot). New galaxy, actual aliens(not just reskinned humans) and the exploration of all the themes that come with colonization of new planets could be interesting, but then again I doubt Bioware would delve into that.
The deal here is that there is so much unknown, the marketing has been extremely quiet: few trailers and a bunch of briefing videos that represent the "initial condition" of the story and there are interesting tidbits if you look carefully. It is a cat in the bag, there are things going for and against this game. I say we wait and see what happens.
There should be a 15 minutes gameplay video coming this month, so it will give some indication of what the game actually looks like.
The game does not become worse, if you wait 1 month after release... or a year.
Just chill out and wait till you get a bunch of complete playerfeedback. Then decide if you want it know or wait for the DLCs to show the true game quality.
On February 02 2017 20:13 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: The deal here is that there is so much unknown, the marketing has been extremely quiet: few trailers and a bunch of briefing videos that represent the "initial condition" of the story and there are interesting tidbits if you look carefully. It is a cat in the bag, there are things going for and against this game. I say we wait and see what happens.
There should be a 15 minutes gameplay video coming this month, so it will give some indication of what the game actually looks like.
This. Compared to ME2 and 3 the marketing, trailers etc. is very limited, and mostly shows us the "manifest destiny" of the Andromeda Initiative. This makes me curious about the actual plot direction, and also indicates that the devs want this game to be seen as separate from the original trilogy - Andromeda gives off an entirely different feel than previous games (based on the trailers), at least for me. And it isn't a bad thing at all.
Tried mass effect abit, i kinda liked it. So got mass effect 2 for free, got mass effect for 3.5£ and mass effect 3 for 15$~ Great, and then this game after these are done.
On February 02 2017 20:13 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: The deal here is that there is so much unknown, the marketing has been extremely quiet: few trailers and a bunch of briefing videos that represent the "initial condition" of the story and there are interesting tidbits if you look carefully. It is a cat in the bag, there are things going for and against this game. I say we wait and see what happens.
There should be a 15 minutes gameplay video coming this month, so it will give some indication of what the game actually looks like.
It feels like the release trailer needs to deliver big time. Otherwise they have to hope that people haven't had enough of Mass Effect with the trilogy being finished.
On February 02 2017 20:13 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: The deal here is that there is so much unknown, the marketing has been extremely quiet: few trailers and a bunch of briefing videos that represent the "initial condition" of the story and there are interesting tidbits if you look carefully. It is a cat in the bag, there are things going for and against this game. I say we wait and see what happens.
There should be a 15 minutes gameplay video coming this month, so it will give some indication of what the game actually looks like.
It feels like the release trailer needs to deliver big time. Otherwise they have to hope that people haven't had enough of Mass Effect with the trilogy being finished.
The name itself will bring alot of interest in the game. Despite the lack of promotional material many sites rank ME:A as one of the top if not the top anticipated game of the 2017. Bioware are a bit gambling here by staying that quiet and hoping the name would carry the sales, but after the ME3 ending fiasco and the lukewarm player reception of Inquisition, I can understand them. I don't agree, but I understand.
I have to agree the marketing was quite sparse. I'm a big ME fan and I absolutely want to play this game. But there's so little info to this game that for the longest time I didn't even realize just how close we are to release.
On February 07 2017 13:42 Foxxan wrote: The gameplay looks better atleast in this game. Not sure i will actually play through ME2 and ME3 because the combat isnt good to be frank.
Wait, trying to get this from your last few posts. You played through ME1 recently, but then moved to ME2/3 and didn't play through them or like them because of the combat changes? That seems to be the one thing most people agreed improved throughout the trilogy. Surprised. I assumed ME:A will be similar.
The combat in ME2/3 is decent. It's not great but I never got bored (though 2 was a bit too easy sometimes). But the reason to play those games is hardly the combat, it's the amazing story and the fucking insane way you feel pulled into the relations with the other characters and the world. I actually got teary-eyed twice in ME3 which I haven't had in any other game ever.
ME2 had very solid combat, and ME3 made it even better, especially when you take the multiplayer into account, the amount of weapon/skill builds was insane. ME1 was kinda clunky, but had some fun stuff, like Geth Hoppers (honestly why did they cut them from 2 and 3? They were great), being able to use Lift even on Geth Armatures/Collosi, and turning sniper rifles into small cannons with proper mods and explosive ammo.
I've been playing through ME1 recently on PC. All my original playthroughs were on the 360, so it was a fresh start without all my good old Spectre gear. And combat for the first few hours is a chore. You fire less accurately than a stormtrooper and your guns do tickling damage. Also I never really noticed this on the 360 versions, but Wrex (one of my favorites) is a fucking idiot in combat. He constantly gets stuck in random places from which he can't help you fight.
ME2 and 3 are so much smoother in this aspect. But I still enjoy playing ME1 despite that. Also it took a decade but I have now mastered the Mako.
On February 07 2017 17:36 PoulsenB wrote: ME2 had very solid combat, and ME3 made it even better, especially when you take the multiplayer into account, the amount of weapon/skill builds was insane. ME1 was kinda clunky, but had some fun stuff, like Geth Hoppers (honestly why did they cut them from 2 and 3? They were great), being able to use Lift even on Geth Armatures/Collosi, and turning sniper rifles into small cannons with proper mods and explosive ammo.
Even ME2 combat is seriously lackluster at times. It only works when you're fighting stationary enemy in front of you, anything else breaks the system to an almost unplayable mess. There are moments in the game where you easily get flanked and at that point the whole thing falls apart right away. And any attempt of improvising and playing creatively falls into same issues of total lack of flexibility.
The steam version also seems to have some bugs and inconsistencies with the cover. Sometimes your shields fail to regenerate when somebody is shooting your cover and some missiles hit you directly despite you being in cover. Retrying a long fight for the fifth time because some oddball cover inconsistency gets very frustrating at the few tough fights the game produces.
The combat works when you're excited about the next piece of storyline, dialogue or world building, but on 2nd playthrough it starts to get obvious how barely it actually holds together at times. I guess you can call it sufficient, but it really requires that AAA+ delivery outside the combat.
I've never had any problems with cover or shields on the Origin version, and such bugs are not really the fault of the combat system itself. I also have a total of 5 full playthroughs of ME2 and 2 of ME3 (not counting about 8-10 unfinished runs with both the games) and never found the combat boring or annoying. It was designed as a (admittedly) pretty basic cover shooter, so no wonder it doesn't lends itself to attempts on creativity, seeing as getting out of cover on higher difficulties means certain deaths in 1-2 seconds because of how much dps the enemies dish out. The way I see it serves it's purpose very well and is still able to bring a lot of fun to the gameplay (except for Praetorians in ME2, fuck those fuckers xD). I can understand how it might not be everyone's tastes, but saying that it barely hold together is a bit too much imo
for creativity I would recommend ME3 multiplayer, there are tons of characters and playstyles to choose from (provided you have things unlocked)
Maybe it's different if you play on the hardest levels but generally I just think that ME combat falters because you can usually just crouch by the nearest cover and kill off enemies with your variety of weapons. You don't have to necessarily do so much (even if it's more fun to do so).
I generally think Vanguard is the most fun to play.
On February 07 2017 20:30 PoulsenB wrote: but saying that it barely hold together is a bit too much imo
Yeah, rereading my post afterwards, the description 'barely holds together' is a bit harsh. What I meant to say is that there are moments where it starts being borderline tedious and frustrating. It's OK as it is, but I think it's still one of the weaker and least exciting parts of ME experience.
And to be clear I tend to complain about a lot of stuff in games even when they're all passable and even decent. It usually gets more interesting discussion going on.
Andromeda will have a more dynamic combat system from what we've seen in the trailers. Less cover, jetpacks, also the new Nomad for some vehicle combat.
On February 07 2017 23:58 PoulsenB wrote: discussion is nice
Andromeda will have a more dynamic combat system from what we've seen in the trailers. Less cover, jetpacks, also the new Nomad for some vehicle combat.
Are you hyped? I'm hyped.
Considering how much of the combat seems to be in open ground, I think they absolutely have to rethink the system to be less cover based. Either that or every planet needs to have some pretty convenient rock formations scattered around.
I've kind of given up on being hyped about pretty much anything, but I'm definitely curious and looking forward to see how it looks on release.
The combat in ME2 is infact tedius, not only is the challenging part laughable on the hardest difficulty its also very unflexible. Using charge as the class that has it is usually a nono because if you use it and ram into 3-4 enemies, you might end up dead because of the unsmoothness of moving your character.
Just powers in general feels way to unflexible to use which should be a big part of the game.
You cant do much in combat in general either, just rinse and repeat and be "immortal" under cover.
The "fun" part about the combat isnt really the combat itself but more about collecting companions and getting money for upgrades.. The collective part is the fun part or if there are some part of the story you like. The combat itself is at best 5/10.
The combat in adromeda looks way better than in ME2. Hell even ME3 looks way more flexible than ME2.
ME2's combat issues were basically too many barriers, shields and armour. No matter which class you played, all of the fun powers were completely negated until you took out 2/3rds of an enemy's EHP. Was probably a lot better on difficulties below Hardcore, but anything higher and you and your squad were just spamming the same 2-3 powers.
ME3 improved things a lot by having a lot less enemy protection, adding a lot more power combos, and letting a lot more powers hit through barriers/shields/armour.
ME1 had some clunky shooting, playing early Infiltrator is just stupid. The sniper rifle bounces around as if you're in a rollercoaster. The Lift and Throw physics were fun though when I played as Adept.
ME2 was smoother but enemies had a lot of protection as mentioned above.
ME3 was a good improvement on that and I also liked the armor/wall piercing abilities some weapons had.
On February 08 2017 02:09 Foxxan wrote: The combat in ME2 is infact tedius, not only is the challenging part laughable on the hardest difficulty its also very unflexible. Using charge as the class that has it is usually a nono because if you use it and ram into 3-4 enemies, you might end up dead because of the unsmoothness of moving your character.
Just powers in general feels way to unflexible to use which should be a big part of the game.
You cant do much in combat in general either, just rinse and repeat and be "immortal" under cover.
The "fun" part about the combat isnt really the combat itself but more about collecting companions and getting money for upgrades.. The collective part is the fun part or if there are some part of the story you like. The combat itself is at best 5/10.
The combat in adromeda looks way better than in ME2. Hell even ME3 looks way more flexible than ME2.
I am just using charge + geth plasma shotgun in a new ME 2 run. Its quite a thrill to charge into a bigger group, give them alot of plasma and get out barely. Its also waaaay faster then the commen infiltrator widow gameplay or the warp+singularity+lift hammer. There is cover in ME 2? Using geth shield ability and then charge, charge and more charge with the plasma shotgun doesnt show you much of the cover in the game. Must be said, I play on normal, because I want to have fun.
Its obvious, that ME 3 had the best combat and item system of the games. It took the good things of the ME 2 systems and fixed the bad ones. The ME 1 system has its own charm, but it has only 2 states for me: Being underpowered, especially as an Infiltrator... till you got the IX and X upgrade stages... then you are so overpowered, that everything dies with one shot.
For Andromeda: If they are intelligent, they use the ME 3 system as a base, put in new classes, combine it with genetics and cybernetics options and the game will be pretty fun combat wise. I dont expect Bioware to fuck up the combat... thats where I am pretty sure they got enough data from the first 3 games to know what is fun and what not... I am afraid they fuck up the (side)quests, the general story becomes a stale hero saves humanity and gives them freeedooom (aka place to live in andromeda cluster) against the evil evil aliens, that are just too racists to understand that the incoming milky wayers are so friendly, they only want to take away your planets. Oh and yeah, please, do not put in MMO quests in a story driven single player, this is not DA:I, I can scan in no mans lie as much as I want and I dont want to go to planet X, clear out 4 hideouts, drop a base and then increase the humanity survive index by 3%.
Well, anyway, its EA and Bioware and as they broke the promise "no companien DLCs" and will bring companien DLCs for ME:A, I gonna buy it after the last DLC release anyway. Till then, its clear how good or bad it is.
even tho I do not buy Andromeda before the end of their DLC releases (and people tell me it is worth it), I played another run of ME Shepard Universe. And as maybe someone read before, I had large problems with ME 3. Not only the ending, I can deal with that, but the atmosphere, the general story and the terrible war asset system made me dislike the game, while I really like the combat of ME 3 (charge run succesful) and the general flow.
But 2 out of the 3 problems are mostly solved for me by the EGM - Expanded Galaxy Mod ( http://www.nexusmods.com/masseffect3/mods/350/? ) I used in this run: The war asset system gets a major rework here, no more does a small ship give almost the points of a fleet, no more does a single person outperform major armies. You will also lose assets during the war, as the war demands victims. Thanks to this mod, my last playthrough was not formed by the thoughts :"I dont care, you dont bring me anything" or "Well, I let you live, as you give me XYZ points more". Really motivating for a fresh playthrough with a fresh mindsetting. On top the Mod brings the war back into the Reaper War. Constant battlereports by the allied information agencies, every system you ever saw from ME 1 to ME 3 is open to travel (ever wanted to revisit the collectors base?), all with their very own stuff to find. While you spend time trying to find allies for the war, the reapers will continue their run, you see how more and more systems are under reapercontrol and you lose support from the colonies that get taken by them. The Normandy itself gets a major rework, not only can you now buy additional upgrades and a new second vehicle (like a Mako) to replace Vegas crashed shuttle, you can also now assign an XO (like Miranda in ME 2 or Presley in ME 1) and other personal like a marine commander, a head engineer and find new personal for the medbay, the engine or more and more marines to secure the ship. You are also able to bring on older crew members back to the normandy and use them in several missions (this addon-mod helps you with that: http://www.nexusmods.com/masseffect3/mods/467/?) As the war continues, you will decide where to use the fleets and what battles should be fought, risk major fleets to help evacuating Tessia? Or let these never helping, technology hoarding blues die in the hands of the reapers?
Read the description of the mod and use it for your next run, its really great to make Mass Effect 3 a better game.
Even tho no mod ever will bring me Mass Effect 3: Cerberus Edition where Shepard, who did clean the collectors base for Cerberus not go to the alliance back, just to be grounded in time the reapers are right at the front door but stay with Cerberus and you are leading Ceberus in the war for humanity (and maybe the galaxy).
Goddamn I'm such a sucker for good single player experiences... I might have to break my "never buy on day 1" creed and actually buy this on release day >_>; I usually wait a minimum of 1 week for reviews to be up from AngryJoe, Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit among others to see if these "console ports" or "developed for both PC and console" games aren't a complete disaster and are functional / runable in reality.
Oh well, XCOM2 was decent on release when I took a leap of faith, hoping this will be too.
On February 18 2017 06:58 Latham wrote: Goddamn I'm such a sucker for good single player experiences... I might have to break my "never buy on day 1" creed and actually buy this on release day >_>; I usually wait a minimum of 1 week for reviews to be up from AngryJoe, Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit among others to see if these "console ports" or "developed for both PC and console" games aren't a complete disaster and are functional / runable in reality.
Oh well, XCOM2 was decent on release when I took a leap of faith, hoping this will be too.
It's an EA published product, so no matter how good the game may be, I'd still wait. You never know how much shit is going to be locked behind Day 1 DLC, online-only, multiplayer, etc.
I've gotten ME2 and 3 on release day and they were perfectly functional, but with the new engine who knows, fingers crossed for no gamebreaking bugs. Also I can't imagine them locking away multiplayer behind a day 1 DLC. In the past DLC has been always non-essential to the game and story (it expanded many parts of the universe, see Leviathan, Lair of the Shadow Broker etc., but games never felt like they were incomplete on the release, at least for me), hopefully it will stay the same.
I like the hyper mobile combat style, growing on the Unreal Tournament series and now playing Overwatch occasionally. I have concerns with squad AI, that if you focus on Liam and Cora you notice they are as dumb as a sack of bricks, standing in the open to be shot upon.
On February 19 2017 07:16 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: I like the hyper mobile combat style, growing on the Unreal Tournament series and now playing Overwatch occasionally. I have concerns with squad AI, that if you focus on Liam and Cora you notice they are as dumb as a sack of bricks, standing in the open to be shot upon.
Well their profiles have both of them pegged as close range fighters so it would make sense for them to be in the open, then move to cover if things are real bad, then go back out into the open.
I loved the little biotic throw section. Throwing around people freely and the way I wanted to was one of my favorite things in the Star Wars - The Force Unleashed games. There aren't nearly enough games that give you the freedom to wreak havoc like that and I'm glad this seems to be in the game.
Also I'm having a hard time deciding whether to play male or female Ryder on my first playthrough. I quite like the voice acting for fem Ryder, but every time I see her face in a "cutscene" it looks weird (to an extent where I'm not sure character customization can fix it).
Meh. It looks like a lot more of the same from ME3 so far, except that instead of picking a defined class, you just have access to all of the skill trees, which is nice. Still the story trailer was awful and ME has a history of expensive DLCs locking essential parts of the story, which tempers the hype quite a bit.
The gameplay stuff looks pretty excellent, I think, if you're into the standard ME formula. This definitely looks like a good upgrade.
The story and character design and writing all seem god awful, which I suppose is to be expected given the direction Bioware has been going for the last few years.
On February 19 2017 07:16 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: I like the hyper mobile combat style, growing on the Unreal Tournament series and now playing Overwatch occasionally. I have concerns with squad AI, that if you focus on Liam and Cora you notice they are as dumb as a sack of bricks, standing in the open to be shot upon.
Well their profiles have both of them pegged as close range fighters so it would make sense for them to be in the open, then move to cover if things are real bad, then go back out into the open.
I loved the little biotic throw section. Throwing around people freely and the way I wanted to was one of my favorite things in the Star Wars - The Force Unleashed games. There aren't nearly enough games that give you the freedom to wreak havoc like that and I'm glad this seems to be in the game.
Also I'm having a hard time deciding whether to play male or female Ryder on my first playthrough. I quite like the voice acting for fem Ryder, but every time I see her face in a "cutscene" it looks weird (to an extent where I'm not sure character customization can fix it).
I have no problem with them charging like Cora did on the mech near the end of the big battle or like Liam did with the dual omni blades in the beginning of the trailer, at least they are doing something. I'm talking when they both either crouch and look around or just stand there while getting shot at. Sometimes in ME2 the squadmates did some stupid things, like Garrus charging often to close range while carrying a sniper rifle. I relied on their powers on ME2 so I had to babysit them. In ME1 it was less of a problem because they survived often well enough if I took only pot shots at the enemies. In ME3 I didn't care because the game was easy (All games in Insanity). I do wish for improved squadmate AI, hopefully I can at least customize it more.
Isn't in Force Unleashed you play as a massively overpowered hero? The biotic throw reminds me of the gravity gun from HL2 actually. I cannot wait to min-max a biotic diety xD
I will probably do as I always do in RPGs I play. First I pick the simplest class (tanky shielded warrior, soldier) and run the game in normal playing a male. Then I will pick a female mage/biotic and start a high difficulty run. If the character creator is like DA:I you will be able to create pretty good looking characters (except for hair, Bioware doesn't do good hair, wait for mods). The Shepard smile wont go away though...
On February 20 2017 05:07 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: Isn't in Force Unleashed you play as a massively overpowered hero? The biotic throw reminds me of the gravity gun from HL2 actually. I cannot wait to min-max a biotic diety xD
I am so glad they are leaning into the action elements of the game and pulling back on the party stuff more. Mass Effect combat was at its best when I didn’t have to pause all the time.
Looking at the recent combat vid, the enemy AI is going to have some tricky time. The big fiend seems a bit lost with its pathfinding and targetting at times. Can't really blame the programmers too much either, must be pretty nightmarish to navigate a big clunky melee monster around ME environment with all kinds of charges and jetpacks changing the positioning constantly.
Not the end of the world, but I'm kind of interested in game AI programming and it stood out a bit on otherwise fluent looking combat.
On February 24 2017 02:24 Bacillus wrote: Looking at the recent combat vid, the enemy AI is going to have some tricky time. The big fiend seems a bit lost with its pathfinding and targetting at times. Can't really blame the programmers too much either, must be pretty nightmarish to navigate a big clunky melee monster around ME environment with all kinds of charges and jetpacks changing the positioning constantly.
Not the end of the world, but I'm kind of interested in game AI programming and it stood out a bit on otherwise fluent looking combat.
There will also be a ton of growing pains from Bioware using a brand new game engine (I think they used the older Unreal Engine for the last decade or so?).
On February 24 2017 02:24 Bacillus wrote: Looking at the recent combat vid, the enemy AI is going to have some tricky time. The big fiend seems a bit lost with its pathfinding and targetting at times. Can't really blame the programmers too much either, must be pretty nightmarish to navigate a big clunky melee monster around ME environment with all kinds of charges and jetpacks changing the positioning constantly.
Not the end of the world, but I'm kind of interested in game AI programming and it stood out a bit on otherwise fluent looking combat.
There will also be a ton of growing pains from Bioware using a brand new game engine (I think they used the older Unreal Engine for the last decade or so?).
Yeah they've been using Unreal engine for ages. Hopefully there'll be no gamebreaking bugs and crashes at the release (fingers crossed!).
In the other vids we've seen some open terrain too, so it won't be all cramped cover combat all the time it seems. The character seems really mobile with the jetpack, kinda like the Armiger Legion Turians from the ME3 multiplayer, but even more. Add biotic charge and you'll be zipping across the battlefield like nobody's business.
On February 24 2017 02:24 Bacillus wrote: Looking at the recent combat vid, the enemy AI is going to have some tricky time. The big fiend seems a bit lost with its pathfinding and targetting at times. Can't really blame the programmers too much either, must be pretty nightmarish to navigate a big clunky melee monster around ME environment with all kinds of charges and jetpacks changing the positioning constantly.
Not the end of the world, but I'm kind of interested in game AI programming and it stood out a bit on otherwise fluent looking combat.
There will also be a ton of growing pains from Bioware using a brand new game engine (I think they used the older Unreal Engine for the last decade or so?).
Many of those growing pains should have been solved in Dragon Age Inquisition as it is the same engine. I don't like Frostbite 3, and Bioware aren't really that good at programming it seems. While the impressions from the gameplay itself were very positive in much of the gaming media, many articles mentioned numerous bugs and performance issues. Myself I just hope the game will be decently playable.
What's wrong with the frostbite engine? You can criticise almost everything EA does, but the engine is one of the best things to come out of that dung heap. Not sure if any other recent engine has better performance-graphics fidelity ratio.
You know, everything about this game sounds great. It has to be too good to be true, right? Something somewhere has to go wrong, right?
Well they snake around topics and terms that are currently perceived in a negative way while trying to generate alot of hype. So the lack of confidence in their product could be the only thing wrong. Wouldn't be the first game, where the publisher thought the game would suck, while the game turned out amazing.
And if its only that then yay. (probably performance issues for some pc users and some bugs) Totally not a day 1 buy for me. But that has more to do with ME 3. Because I don't want to play a game where you are a creep listening to other peoples conversations and then approach them and say:" hey, I got exactly what you need."
On February 24 2017 19:45 Andre wrote: What's wrong with the frostbite engine? You can criticise almost everything EA does, but the engine is one of the best things to come out of that dung heap. Not sure if any other recent engine has better performance-graphics fidelity ratio.
FB3 is an FPS engine. Bioware went through hell and back to make DA:I function well and it shows, this engine is not flexible. There were severe performance issues on Nvidia GPUs for months after DA:I's release as well as a bucket load of bugs. Besides, DICE proud themselves that the engine is nearly unmodable, which is a deal breaker with games like this.
Which engine is better? hmmmm. UE4? I've got my hands on the new Unreal Tournament and damn, the graphics are so sweet and the engine runs as smooth as silk.
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10 CPU: Intel Core i5 3570 or AMD FX-6350 RAM: 8 GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 660 2 GB, AMD Radeon 7850 2 GB Hard Drive: At least 55 GB of free space DirectX: DirectX 11 Recommended System Requirements
OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1, or Windows 10 CPU: Intel Core i7-4790 or AMD FX-8350 RAM: 16 GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060 3 GB, AMD RX 480 4 GB Hard Drive: At least 55 GB of free space DirectX: DirectX 11
Ugh, I love mouse & keyboard for any type of shooter games but Mass Effect is such a perfect sit on the couch and zone out while playing. It's a nice "get-away" from my PC since I"m on it so much.
I like it on console too because hopefully the hard copy I buy will be good to go with no updates (which when you have garbage rural usa internet it matters...) but then again, maybe it'll be easier to mod / edit / play on PC. The choices!
On February 25 2017 09:46 SidianTheBard wrote: Ugh, I love mouse & keyboard for any type of shooter games but Mass Effect is such a perfect sit on the couch and zone out while playing. It's a nice "get-away" from my PC since I"m on it so much.
I like it on console too because hopefully the hard copy I buy will be good to go with no updates (which when you have garbage rural usa internet it matters...) but then again, maybe it'll be easier to mod / edit / play on PC. The choices!
Can't you just stream it from your home PC to your TV through one of those Steam USB dongles? I think they cost about $50 and you'd need to have a controller too obviously.
On February 25 2017 09:46 SidianTheBard wrote: Ugh, I love mouse & keyboard for any type of shooter games but Mass Effect is such a perfect sit on the couch and zone out while playing. It's a nice "get-away" from my PC since I"m on it so much.
I like it on console too because hopefully the hard copy I buy will be good to go with no updates (which when you have garbage rural usa internet it matters...) but then again, maybe it'll be easier to mod / edit / play on PC. The choices!
Can't you just stream it from your home PC to your TV through one of those Steam USB dongles? I think they cost about $50 and you'd need to have a controller too obviously.
I've looked into these (I often have the same dilemma) and I've heard very mixed opinions. Anything wireless is going to be unreliable and laggy, but even with a good network setup apparently the performance depends a lot on whether the game/dev/Steam provides good support for it, which they've apparently been abandoning over time. It's unfortunate, I wish they'd push it more because I think there's definitely a market for it.
Edit: oh also since it's an EA title it will be on Origin and not Steam, right? So...
On February 25 2017 09:46 SidianTheBard wrote: Ugh, I love mouse & keyboard for any type of shooter games but Mass Effect is such a perfect sit on the couch and zone out while playing. It's a nice "get-away" from my PC since I"m on it so much.
I like it on console too because hopefully the hard copy I buy will be good to go with no updates (which when you have garbage rural usa internet it matters...) but then again, maybe it'll be easier to mod / edit / play on PC. The choices!
Can't you just stream it from your home PC to your TV through one of those Steam USB dongles? I think they cost about $50 and you'd need to have a controller too obviously.
I've looked into these (I often have the same dilemma) and I've heard very mixed opinions. Anything wireless is going to be unreliable and laggy, but even with a good network setup apparently the performance depends a lot on whether the game/dev/Steam provides good support for it, which they've apparently been abandoning over time. It's unfortunate, I wish they'd push it more because I think there's definitely a market for it.
Edit: oh also since it's an EA title it will be on Origin and not Steam, right? So...
There is always the classical moving the computer box next to the TV and just using a cable to connect them. That has worked for 10+ years and still works well.
I am just above the minimum requirements. Guess my GPU is getting old and amount of RAM starting to get too little. I'll wait until I upgrade (probably late autumn) to play the game then.
On February 25 2017 16:57 Heartland wrote: I swear if I have to get a new computer for this I will commit soduko
You can often play games even below minimum. Just won't get good FPS, which might not be important if they mess up and make this another cover based shooter. Usually are some ini or similar modifiers that can lower it even more.
My CPU just meets the minimum requirements. There aren't many games with such high requirements. But we'll see, there's always stuff you can tweak to get a better experience. So I don't think it'll be much of a problem.
I don't need everything to be on the absolute highest settings to enjoy it anyway.
On February 25 2017 16:57 Heartland wrote: I swear if I have to get a new computer for this I will commit soduko
You can often play games even below minimum. Just won't get good FPS, which might not be important if they mess up and make this another cover based shooter. Usually are some ini or similar modifiers that can lower it even more.
On February 25 2017 16:57 Heartland wrote: I swear if I have to get a new computer for this I will commit soduko
You can often play games even below minimum. Just won't get good FPS, which might not be important if they mess up and make this another cover based shooter. Usually are some ini or similar modifiers that can lower it even more.
Yeah, as long as I don't have death lag.
Exactly, as long as it manages to run somewhat decently I'm fine playing it.
my rig fortunately is between the minimum and recommended reguirements, so it should run fine on at least medium-high settings I'll add the reqs to the OP later today
On February 26 2017 00:40 Elentos wrote: Also in case you guys didn't notice, they released the 5th briefing video (Weapons & Biotics) narrated by Liam.
So remember how I talked about replaying the originals on PC?
I just started ME3 a few hours ago. Back when it came out, at the start of the game, when the Reapers invade and we watch Shepard watch that kid get in the shuttle and die, I didn't feel anything. I didn't care, "It's just a video game character, no reason to feel bad." and every time after that, it reminded me of ME3's pathetic ending, so I had even less sympathy.
Well, replayed it 5 years later. Things have changed. I have a little nephew now and for some reason I couldn't help but think of him when I watched that scene. Imagine, for the first time in 5 years, the scene has caused something other than indifference or disgust because of the whole Starchild thing in me.
And after those very strange 30 seconds it was right back to "Well, I'll see this little shit again in a few hours."
Remember Indoctrination Theory? Remember when we were outraged? When we were convinced that "That can't be the ending they wanted to do"? Those were the days. I hope they don't do anything nearly as outrageous now.
On February 26 2017 06:39 Elentos wrote: Off-topic: + Show Spoiler +
So remember how I talked about replaying the originals on PC?
I just started ME3 a few hours ago. Back when it came out, at the start of the game, when the Reapers invade and we watch Shepard watch that kid get in the shuttle and die, I didn't feel anything. I didn't care, "It's just a video game character, no reason to feel bad." and every time after that, it reminded me of ME3's pathetic ending, so I had even less sympathy.
Well, replayed it 5 years later. Things have changed. I have a little nephew now and for some reason I couldn't help but think of him when I watched that scene. Imagine, for the first time in 5 years, the scene has caused something other than indifference or disgust because of the whole Starchild thing in me.
And after those very strange 30 seconds it was right back to "Well, I'll see this little shit again in a few hours."
Remember Indoctrination Theory? Remember when we were outraged? When we were convinced that "That can't be the ending they wanted to do"? Those were the days. I hope they don't do anything nearly as outrageous now.
One of my worries is that they will play it TOO safe, therefore it will be boring. Inquisition played it safe, with a clear final boss fight, and an easy to get "everyone lives" ending. The ending ended up being meh, trying to do one similar to Dragon Age Origins. Trespasser's ending was really good though, but it's a DLC and Bioware probably can go more wild there.
On February 26 2017 06:39 Elentos wrote: Off-topic: + Show Spoiler +
So remember how I talked about replaying the originals on PC?
I just started ME3 a few hours ago. Back when it came out, at the start of the game, when the Reapers invade and we watch Shepard watch that kid get in the shuttle and die, I didn't feel anything. I didn't care, "It's just a video game character, no reason to feel bad." and every time after that, it reminded me of ME3's pathetic ending, so I had even less sympathy.
Well, replayed it 5 years later. Things have changed. I have a little nephew now and for some reason I couldn't help but think of him when I watched that scene. Imagine, for the first time in 5 years, the scene has caused something other than indifference or disgust because of the whole Starchild thing in me.
And after those very strange 30 seconds it was right back to "Well, I'll see this little shit again in a few hours."
Remember Indoctrination Theory? Remember when we were outraged? When we were convinced that "That can't be the ending they wanted to do"? Those were the days. I hope they don't do anything nearly as outrageous now.
One of my worries is that they will play it TOO safe, therefore it will be boring. Inquisition played it safe, with a clear final boss fight, and an easy to get "everyone lives" ending. The ending ended up being meh, trying to do one similar to Dragon Age Origins. Trespasser's ending was really good though, but it's a DLC and Bioware probably can go more wild there.
That's true. I'm also worried that the ending will be too much sequel baiting, as is common practice these days.
On February 26 2017 20:35 Bacillus wrote: Has there been any announcement whether this is start of another trilogy or just a standalone in ME universe?
It affects heavily on how wild they can go with all kinds of storyline branching and such.
So it turns out, ME3 multiplayer still has a solid playerbase at least on PC. I just tried it for the lulz, it never took more than a few seconds for me to find a public session. Pretty impressive.
I wonder if Andromeda can get that kind of longevity.
The comment section on that one is pretty rough. Both gameplay and animation getting trashed.
I don't think I find the facial animations on this one as completely hopeless as some people seem to claim. It's not the old ultra cool Shephard heroics, but I think I can still understand where they're going with it. At times it looks awkward, but at the same time they're at least trying to create something less flawless than the spec op surface of the original trilogy. Not sure if it works all the way, but I don't feel as bad about it as some others seem to do.
Unfortunately the gameplay looks very ... generic. So many voiceovers of "Do that, do this" and repetetive filler objectives. In the original trilogy most of the guidance and communication was meaningful, now there seems to be way more of useless banter and silly quips. I guess it goes with the same direction as animations, but to me the voiceover spam feels way more annoying than the few oddball animations we've seen.
I think the hate is over the top. They can still improve the animations a bit (though I wouldn't call them bad). And keep in mind that this is "just" a side quest and not even a complete playthrough of one.
I think people are just looking for things to shit on.
On March 01 2017 20:11 Elentos wrote: I think the hate is over the top. They can still improve the animations a bit (though I wouldn't call them bad). And keep in mind that this is "just" a side quest and not even a complete playthrough of one.
I think people are just looking for things to shit on.
Gamers? Looking for things to be negative about?! Say it ain't so!
On March 01 2017 20:11 Elentos wrote: I think the hate is over the top. They can still improve the animations a bit (though I wouldn't call them bad). And keep in mind that this is "just" a side quest and not even a complete playthrough of one.
I think people are just looking for things to shit on.
Gamers? Looking for things to be negative about?! Say it ain't so!
On March 01 2017 20:11 Elentos wrote: I think the hate is over the top. They can still improve the animations a bit (though I wouldn't call them bad). And keep in mind that this is "just" a side quest and not even a complete playthrough of one.
I think people are just looking for things to shit on.
Gamers? Looking for things to be negative about?! Say it ain't so!
But watch them buy the game day 1 anyway...
The best thing about sequels to games is that all the people who UTTERLY, TOTALLY HATED the second-to-last installment of whatever series will become die-hard fans of said installment of the game the moment the new one came out. The moment SC3 is revealed an army of SC2 fans who say how much better it is than anything before, etc, etc.
Sara looks crosseyed and derpy. While I don't like it I don't think it's a big deal like the interwebs seems to make it. People need to get their priority straight if thats what they are most vocal about. I doubt Bioware will fix it as they are known to have crappy animations, I just hope that characters out of the CC will look decent. There are more pressing concerns for me over the game.
Keep in mind that the gameplay shown is by a guy that is playing really bad, not utilizing the mobility options and doing 0 combos. He went on Reddit and said that he is not used to playing shooters on controllers, so it begs the question why don't they show the KB&M scheme? Thats concerning to me, I just can't for the life of me play shooters with controllers. And I hope this isn't DA:I all over again in regards to that.
Peebee and Kalinda have a childish middle school rivalry Mean Girls style, that was grating... I just hope there is a good reason for it and that we can call Peebee out on her bullshit as she comes off as an annoying selfish brat. But I'm less worried here.
What worries me the most is that I've heard that the game has serious performance issues. That's pretty bad as it is something that can't be fixed easily with a patch. It comes down that my biggest worry is to being able to run the thing at all.
In the video I didn't notice any red flags (dialog options were removed in editing so it's fine), so my opinion about the game didn't change because of it.
On March 02 2017 16:31 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: Sara looks crosseyed and derpy. While I don't like it I don't think it's a big deal like the interwebs seems to make it. People need to get their priority straight if thats what they are most vocal about. I doubt Bioware will fix it as they are known to have crappy animations, I just hope that characters out of the CC will look decent. There are more pressing concerns for me over the game.
It only now occurs to me how little facial animation skills Bioware has shown in ME saga. All the humans have very reserved behaviour and most of the humour is very low key and dry. It's probably part of the reason why Wrex, Tali and Garrus are so loved characters - they can actually get away with the combination of more off-the-wall dialogue while still requiring only minimal facial expression. Maybe even Miranda's camera angles were not there just to attract horny teenager players, but also to highlight her more expressive body bits.
Hopefully the derpiness is because they're actually trying to build more expressive human characters now. I'm not sure how it fits to the ME universe and fanbase expectations, but it's at least a noble goal rather than just them being careless and rushing.
On March 02 2017 17:43 Clonester wrote: We see what people say at release. Up to now, it looks like teens in space, targeting the audience of the the 100 tv show.
Or, it is Peebee and her shenanigans. Only she and that Asari rival displayed that kind of behavior. It's a bit contradictory to have M rating with space boobs, and at the same time targeting 12 years olds. Besides, this isn't the crowd that will play story heavy content usually. Well, Activision has done it to death with CoD, so...
On March 02 2017 17:43 Clonester wrote: We see what people say at release. Up to now, it looks like teens in space, targeting the audience of the the 100 tv show.
Or, it is Peebee and her shenanigans. Only she and that Asari rival displayed that kind of behavior. It's a bit contradictory to have M rating with space boobs, and at the same time targeting 12 years olds. Besides, this isn't the crowd that will play story heavy content usually. Well, Activision has done it to death with CoD, so...
I heard 12 year olds really like beewbs.
As I said, release will tell, DLCs will get released (I expect 2 new crew members) and then I have to decide if I buy it or not. I just dont understand the marketing devision of EA/Bioware for ME:A.
On March 02 2017 17:43 Clonester wrote: We see what people say at release. Up to now, it looks like teens in space, targeting the audience of the the 100 tv show.
Or, it is Peebee and her shenanigans. Only she and that Asari rival displayed that kind of behavior. It's a bit contradictory to have M rating with space boobs, and at the same time targeting 12 years olds. Besides, this isn't the crowd that will play story heavy content usually. Well, Activision has done it to death with CoD, so...
I heard 12 year olds really like beewbs.
As I said, release will tell, DLCs will get released (I expect 2 new crew members) and then I have to decide if I buy it or not. I just dont understand the marketing devision of EA/Bioware for ME:A.
One part overcompensation for DA:I's marketing that possibly revealed too much, one part bad marketing as a whole that killed Mirror's Edge Catalyst and Titanfall 2, one part trying to go the Fallout 4 route, but with announcing the game 2 years before release instead of few months before.
I just want the game to be enjoyable, with good plot and good multiplayer, it doesn't need to be a total 11/10 masterpiece. All this talk however makes me a bit worried, I think I'll check out the gameplay vid today after work and see for myself.
On March 08 2017 02:21 Elentos wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe4NoXadPI IGN with even more stuff. Tbh the amount of content supposed to be in the game sounds shockingly huge.
I expect a lot of DA:I style content, so it might be "huge". I hope I'm wrong.
On March 08 2017 02:21 Elentos wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe4NoXadPI IGN with even more stuff. Tbh the amount of content supposed to be in the game sounds shockingly huge.
I expect a lot of DA:I style content, so it might be "huge". I hope I'm wrong.
DA:I wasn't that bad over all. It's main problem was the poorly designed hub and need to run around talking to people. The regions and their questlines were pretty interesting over all, if you ignored the shitty busy work. As long as ME:A streamlines the process and gives you better travel/communication options, it will be fine.
I hope the new characters live up to the standard set by the old ones. That's what I'm a bit wary of, just watching the videos. The world building seems on point, the characters a bit bland.
I gotta say, I'm mostly worried about the overall concept. It's like someone played ME1 and said, this is great, but could we make it more about driving around the mako and scanning for shit?
Now, I hope to be proven wrong, but I'm holding off until I see evidence that it has an interesting story with impactful decisions. Like, I played a ME1/2/3 playthrough once with house rules of "no persuade" which was just about the most awesome game-story experience I've ever had... heart-wrenching and heroic and beautiful. That's what I want. The combat and exploration is super secondary.
On March 08 2017 02:21 Elentos wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe4NoXadPI IGN with even more stuff. Tbh the amount of content supposed to be in the game sounds shockingly huge.
I expect a lot of DA:I style content, so it might be "huge". I hope I'm wrong.
DA:I wasn't that bad over all. It's main problem was the poorly designed hub and need to run around talking to people. The regions and their questlines were pretty interesting over all, if you ignored the shitty busy work. As long as ME:A streamlines the process and gives you better travel/communication options, it will be fine.
I can't disagree more. I really liked DA:O (it had its problems, the game was not perfect either), hated DA2 and I found DA:I to be even worse, mostly due to the amount of filler in the game, dumbed down mechanics (I'm playing on PC) and so on. There was SO MUCH busy work it took away all the fun out of it for me.
The game seems even worse when you attempt to play it after Witcher 3. I absolutely, wholeheartedly detest the direction in which Bioware's RPGs seem to be going nowadays.
On March 08 2017 02:21 Elentos wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe4NoXadPI IGN with even more stuff. Tbh the amount of content supposed to be in the game sounds shockingly huge.
I expect a lot of DA:I style content, so it might be "huge". I hope I'm wrong.
DA:I wasn't that bad over all. It's main problem was the poorly designed hub and need to run around talking to people. The regions and their questlines were pretty interesting over all, if you ignored the shitty busy work. As long as ME:A streamlines the process and gives you better travel/communication options, it will be fine.
I can't disagree more. I really liked DA:O (it had its problems, the game was not perfect either), hated DA2 and I found DA:I to be even worse, mostly due to the amount of filler in the game, dumbed down mechanics (I'm playing on PC) and so on. There was SO MUCH busy work it took away all the fun out of it for me.
The game seems even worse when you attempt to play it after Witcher 3. I absolutely, wholeheartedly detest the direction in which Bioware's RPGs seem to be going nowadays.
Everyone designer is focusing on filler BS in these bigger RPG's. Don't care how big or beautiful you make the landscape, if the story, side quests, combat, and characters aren't well developed you'd be better off buying a picture of that landscape. I really didn't like how much BS there was in DA:I and Witcher 3. Sure, I can collect 10 Widget Roots to get paid, or I could collect those roots to help my companions make a serum that saves the life of one of their ambassadors or whatever. Just make everything count.
What I'm most interested in is how the hell are they going to top the Reapers. They started HUGE with machines wiping out majority of life throughout the universe every 50,000 or so years.
I don't think its possible. I feel like whatever big threat is in Andromeda and if this is going to be another trilogy, is going to be good, but at the same time being disappointing. I also can't wait to get my hands on the character customization so I can fix the way Fem Ryder looks. I've seen the person they modeled Fem Ryder off of and they seriously did not do her justice. In terms of voices, I'm very interested in seeing how Male and Fem Ryder do. Theres no way in hell Male Ryder will be terrible like Mark Meer was for Male Shep. As long as they are good, I'll be happy. I doubt they will be Jennifer Hale good.
On March 09 2017 07:37 Disengaged wrote: Theres no way in hell Male Ryder will be terrible like Mark Meer was for Male Shep.
Mark Meer was hilarious.
I think (hope) that they, very smartly, won't try to one-up the Reapers. They couldn't properly close out that story, how would they handle an even greater threat? I don't think Andromeda itself is under threat, just the Milky Way colonists. Which is fine.
I never found him to be hilarious until I came across the gamer poop videos.
Your probably right though. That they won't try to one up the Reapers since they failed at properly closing it out. Even if they tried, they wouldn't be able to do it, I think.
On March 08 2017 02:21 Elentos wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe4NoXadPI IGN with even more stuff. Tbh the amount of content supposed to be in the game sounds shockingly huge.
I expect a lot of DA:I style content, so it might be "huge". I hope I'm wrong.
DA:I wasn't that bad over all. It's main problem was the poorly designed hub and need to run around talking to people. The regions and their questlines were pretty interesting over all, if you ignored the shitty busy work. As long as ME:A streamlines the process and gives you better travel/communication options, it will be fine.
I can't disagree more. I really liked DA:O (it had its problems, the game was not perfect either), hated DA2 and I found DA:I to be even worse, mostly due to the amount of filler in the game, dumbed down mechanics (I'm playing on PC) and so on. There was SO MUCH busy work it took away all the fun out of it for me.
The game seems even worse when you attempt to play it after Witcher 3. I absolutely, wholeheartedly detest the direction in which Bioware's RPGs seem to be going nowadays.
Everyone designer is focusing on filler BS in these bigger RPG's. Don't care how big or beautiful you make the landscape, if the story, side quests, combat, and characters aren't well developed you'd be better off buying a picture of that landscape. I really didn't like how much BS there was in DA:I and Witcher 3. Sure, I can collect 10 Widget Roots to get paid, or I could collect those roots to help my companions make a serum that saves the life of one of their ambassadors or whatever. Just make everything count.
Wait what, my understanding is that DA:I and TW3 are on opposite ends of the fetch-quest-bullshit spectrum. I only played TW3, and some subquests were amazingly detailed and well structured, exactly like a short story from the Witcher books.
On March 09 2017 07:37 Disengaged wrote: What I'm most interested in is how the hell are they going to top the Reapers. They started HUGE with machines wiping out majority of life throughout the universe every 50,000 or so years.
I don't think its possible. I feel like whatever big threat is in Andromeda and if this is going to be another trilogy, is going to be good, but at the same time being disappointing. I also can't wait to get my hands on the character customization so I can fix the way Fem Ryder looks. I've seen the person they modeled Fem Ryder off of and they seriously did not do her justice. In terms of voices, I'm very interested in seeing how Male and Fem Ryder do. Theres no way in hell Male Ryder will be terrible like Mark Meer was for Male Shep. As long as they are good, I'll be happy. I doubt they will be Jennifer Hale good.
There is PLENTY of things you can do in a scifi universe. I read perry rhodan and every 5-10 books they have a new threat and they are at like book 150.
and in the end the reapers ended up pretty demystified.
I adored DA:I and ME3 and consider them the pinnacle of RPG experiences. But to each their own. I agree that there is always a danger of "power creep" among baddies which is the case in a lot of shows, games, etc. How do you top fighting the literal devil? I think it's important to remember that villains who rely on being the "baddest of them all" tend to be dull, it's their visceral relation to the main character which makes them interesting not their power. So I hope that is the case in this game.
Plus, and not saying this is the case here (it's pretty clear there is a main antagonist iirc), stories don't have to have villains to be interesting. Andromeda could just be about humanity setting a solid and peaceful foothold in a new galaxy, amidst all the different occupants. No Big Bad Guy, still interesting.
On March 10 2017 00:00 ZenithM wrote: Plus, and not saying this is the case here (it's pretty clear there is a main antagonist iirc), stories don't have to have villains to be interesting. Andromeda could just be about humanity setting a solid and peaceful foothold in a new galaxy, amidst all the different occupants. No Big Bad Guy, still interesting.
I'd already be more than delighted if they decide to simply keep storyline in some less grandiose scale than saving the whole galaxy from an ancient evil. Just a gritty conflict in the remote areas of galaxy could be a bold and interesting move. It could allow the storyline to focus even more on characters' personal ambitions and cover some new themes through that. The storyline being contained inside one single game might help them do more dramatic and surprising character arcs too.
The presumed main antagonist still seemed kind of supervillainish, so maybe it'll still stick to known Mass Effect scale and formula.
One of the most compelling RPGs I have played in the last 10 years was Persona 4, which was only about catching a murderer. The end of the world/Galaxy/History/Time/Space/humanity isn’t necessary to tell a compelling story. In fact, there are a lot of pitfalls to that narrative.
On March 10 2017 05:08 Plansix wrote: One of the most compelling RPGs I have played in the last 10 years was Persona 4, which was only about catching a murderer. The end of the world/Galaxy/History/Time/Space/humanity isn’t necessary to tell a compelling story. In fact, there are a lot of pitfalls to that narrative.
I absolutely love smaller scale storylines, but I do fear that the expectations for a Mass Effect game may push the devs to play it safe and have another saving the galaxy plotline.
Nevertheless, I think you could probably have a whole game built around the dirty criminal activities related to bar Afterlife if it ever comes down to that.
On March 10 2017 05:08 Plansix wrote: One of the most compelling RPGs I have played in the last 10 years was Persona 4, which was only about catching a murderer. The end of the world/Galaxy/History/Time/Space/humanity isn’t necessary to tell a compelling story. In fact, there are a lot of pitfalls to that narrative.
I absolutely love smaller scale storylines, but I do fear that the expectations for a Mass Effect game may push the devs to play it safe and have another saving the galaxy plotline.
Nevertheless, I think you could probably have a whole game built around the dirty criminal activities related to bar Afterlife if it ever comes down to that.
I will pay unlimited moneys for the Mass Effect murder mystery game where you just solve murders on the citadel.
Absolutely agree about focusing in on a smaller scale narrative. Mass Effect 1 had the best plot of the series, and while the stakes were pretty high in the end, it was a slow burn to get there and most of the game was about chasing down one rogue agent.
On March 08 2017 02:21 Elentos wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xe4NoXadPI IGN with even more stuff. Tbh the amount of content supposed to be in the game sounds shockingly huge.
I expect a lot of DA:I style content, so it might be "huge". I hope I'm wrong.
DA:I wasn't that bad over all. It's main problem was the poorly designed hub and need to run around talking to people. The regions and their questlines were pretty interesting over all, if you ignored the shitty busy work. As long as ME:A streamlines the process and gives you better travel/communication options, it will be fine.
I can't disagree more. I really liked DA:O (it had its problems, the game was not perfect either), hated DA2 and I found DA:I to be even worse, mostly due to the amount of filler in the game, dumbed down mechanics (I'm playing on PC) and so on. There was SO MUCH busy work it took away all the fun out of it for me.
The game seems even worse when you attempt to play it after Witcher 3. I absolutely, wholeheartedly detest the direction in which Bioware's RPGs seem to be going nowadays.
Everyone designer is focusing on filler BS in these bigger RPG's. Don't care how big or beautiful you make the landscape, if the story, side quests, combat, and characters aren't well developed you'd be better off buying a picture of that landscape. I really didn't like how much BS there was in DA:I and Witcher 3. Sure, I can collect 10 Widget Roots to get paid, or I could collect those roots to help my companions make a serum that saves the life of one of their ambassadors or whatever. Just make everything count.
Wait what, my understanding is that DA:I and TW3 are on opposite ends of the fetch-quest-bullshit spectrum. I only played TW3, and some subquests were amazingly detailed and well structured, exactly like a short story from the Witcher books.
TW3 had some amazing side quests, but there was also a ton of bullshit. Keep in mind I didn't play any of the DLC. But there are things that you do X million times that don't have any real effect on the things that I find core in the game. I want my side quests to affect more than my XP bar.
On March 10 2017 05:08 Plansix wrote: One of the most compelling RPGs I have played in the last 10 years was Persona 4, which was only about catching a murderer. The end of the world/Galaxy/History/Time/Space/humanity isn’t necessary to tell a compelling story. In fact, there are a lot of pitfalls to that narrative.
I absolutely love smaller scale storylines, but I do fear that the expectations for a Mass Effect game may push the devs to play it safe and have another saving the galaxy plotline.
Nevertheless, I think you could probably have a whole game built around the dirty criminal activities related to bar Afterlife if it ever comes down to that.
I will pay unlimited moneys for the Mass Effect murder mystery game where you just solve murders on the citadel.
I'm Commander Shepard and Space Oj is definitely guilty.
On March 10 2017 09:59 imJealous wrote: Absolutely agree about focusing in on a smaller scale narrative. Mass Effect 1 had the best plot of the series, and while the stakes were pretty high in the end, it was a slow burn to get there and most of the game was about chasing down one rogue agent.
ME1 style storyline could be possible and maybe even likely. The endgame might be about saving civilizations, planets or even a galaxy, but the new storyline gives them some time before they have to make it huge again.
I say ME2 had the best story line, focused on a nemesis that you hunted and hunted you throughout the game. It was small scale, you were only trying to stop one ship and one group with your own small group of elite crew. Plus it had the creepy aspect that the collectors seemed to know you. I remember being so unnerved the first time it went “Shepard, I know this hurts you,” combat. All I could think was “Why does it know my name?”
Small scale adventures are under rated. For all its faults, I loved the idea of DA:2 taking places around one city over a decade. I wish they had been given more time.
I dont think there was any moment in ME better then Virmire, talking to Nazara. The moment you found out who your true enemy is and that the one you were hunting was nothing more then a puppet. The voice, the background music, the talk itself, everything was special.
If you can reproduce such a moment in ME:A, the game might start getting me.
We will see what we get. I still expect 1 character DLC, 1 Planet DLC (remember sometimes you hear 7 planets, sometimes you heard 5) and 2 more. Till these ones are out, I try to not get hyped in any way.
So guys are we going for day 1 purchase ? is it a fallout/witcher kind of game when you know its going to be good ? or holding up until reviews come is better ? i have to admit that for some unknown reason i never played a ME game ..... but im in for a space RPG after reading red rising trilogy
On March 11 2017 00:45 bluzi wrote: So guys are we going for day 1 purchase ? is it a fallout/witcher kind of game when you know its going to be good ? or holding up until reviews come is better ? i have to admit that for some unknown reason i never played a ME game ..... but im in for a space RPG after reading red rising trilogy
They usually release the reviews for these games before launch. Regardless, this will probably be a day 1 purchase for me as long as I can clear out my work schedule. All of the other ME games have been excellent, and I haven't regretted buying them (ME3's ending aside).
On March 11 2017 00:45 bluzi wrote: So guys are we going for day 1 purchase ? is it a fallout/witcher kind of game when you know its going to be good ? or holding up until reviews come is better ? i have to admit that for some unknown reason i never played a ME game ..... but im in for a space RPG after reading red rising trilogy
It all depends on how much you personally trust BioWare really. If you expect this to be Witcher 3 in space you'll be sorely disappointed, I'd sooner look towards Deus Ex: Human Revolution for a comparison in terms of RPG design, both story-wise and fighting-wise. By that I mean the story will be a little dumbed down and the narrative will hold your hand on missions, but the combat will be fluid and mostly satisfying.
Can't compare to Dragon Age: Inquisition since I haven't played it myself, but I also expect ME:A to be better than Fallout 4, if that's saying anything at all.
There is no reason to purchase any game day one unless you want to play it day one. You are always better waiting to see how a game launches, even if it is amazing. Even the Witcher 3 was better after launch.
I only plan on getting it Day (or Week) 1 to play some multiplayer with friends. Assuming they pick it up. The combat looks pretty great and we enjoyed ME3 multiplayer as well so I assume it will be more of the same really. I may not even get to the story for weeks or months, depending on personal schedule and other backlog games.
If you're just looking for a sweet space adventure it really wouldn't hurt to wait a few days or weeks and see what the critic/user response is.
On March 11 2017 00:45 bluzi wrote: So guys are we going for day 1 purchase ? is it a fallout/witcher kind of game when you know its going to be good ? or holding up until reviews come is better ? i have to admit that for some unknown reason i never played a ME game ..... but im in for a space RPG after reading red rising trilogy
It really depends on whether or not you want to hold off and wait for the DLC or feel comfortable with backtracking. This is especially true if they stick to the same DLC schedule as Mass effect 3 whereby important lore and context for an unfinished ending gets unveiled over a year after the game has released.
The world of mass effect doesn't bear close scrutiny well. The presentation is cool, but when it comes down to justifying the existence of cool they often fall short (The Geth are a prime example of this for anyone that has been involved with mass effect 1-3). Or the cool is in direct opposition to some other theme that the writers thing are cool, and when you start comparing the two the entire thing falls apart.
The DLC are usually self-contained stories. Much like how a slice of life tv series might show some character growth and then never call back to it save for a single conversation or callback.
The villain / antagonist or a story beat involving opposition to the main character often follows a set route, and in some cases it's almost as if the villain has been reading the script (Illusive man).
Sometimes a thing might happen that invalidates player agency for the sake of drama (Kai leng temple incident). Sometimes a thing might happen because it's a game mechanic, but it won't make sense from a lore perspective.
But if you just want to play Dirty Harry meets star trek then you're good.
1) I'm a ME sucker. I hated the series after ME3 because that final 5% really really really pissed me off. But I do like the atmosphere and generally the stories, scenery & score are great.
2) 20% discount from Amazon Prime to pre-order games, so why not.
W3 was special in that it was probably the only game you can justify from hype to release as an actual preorder but I think I'll be watching this on a lets play until I make up my mind.
I mean its nothing special, its just your average horde mode, but ME style. Its not really gonna matter though because its still gonna be fun. Still play ME3 multiplayer every so often.
It's a horde mode, but it's a mighty fine horde mode. ME3 came out 5 years ago and people still play the multiplayer. Can't wait to jump into it once I finish the singleplayer.
I guess we will have to wait for reviews. Maybe Angry Joe's, but he tends to be biased in favor of Bioware. Note that the guy from RPS also said that playing The Witcher 3 is boring like eating a cardboard or something like that, so your millage may vary.
I prefer varied opinions rather than everyone singing a games praises. Even the Witcher 3 or Zelda: BotW. It is cool if some folks just are not into those games and write about why.
I'd say this game has a few small issues but if you loved the original trilogy this will definitely scratch the mass effect itch and is super enjoyable. That said I don't think this is a game for someone that hasn't played the first three. I know they said you could just come in without playing the first 3, but both story and gameplay wise I think you need some knowledge of them.
from what i saw Andromeda seemed to have alot of rough edges and other things that can annoy people. But someone that enjoys the genre/setting, will probably overlook them and be just fine. I made the mistake to watch funny stuff about the Andromeda footage so far, and I will not be able to unsee those. So i broke the game for myself. So one that seeks the immersion might want to avoid streams.
On March 16 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote: I prefer varied opinions rather than everyone singing a games praises. Even the Witcher 3 or Zelda: BotW. It is cool if some folks just are not into those games and write about why.
I'm with you on that, but if someone says "Witcher 3 is boring like watching paint dry", he clearly shouldn't review that game. Because it objectively isn't. I've heard people say "i didn't like Schindlers List", which is fine, but you won't see someone review Schindlers List who has "Rambo II" as his all time favourite movie in his resumee.
Sidenote, i actually played it for around 3 hours (EA Access or what it's called, wanted to see if i have to preorder). Preordered now. It's not without flaw, rarely a game is - but i personally enjoy it a lot, as someone who likes Sci-Fi RPGs.
On March 16 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote: I prefer varied opinions rather than everyone singing a games praises. Even the Witcher 3 or Zelda: BotW. It is cool if some folks just are not into those games and write about why.
I'm with you on that, but if someone says "Witcher 3 is boring like watching paint dry", he clearly shouldn't review that game. Because it objectively isn't. I've heard people say "i didn't like Schindlers List", which is fine, but you won't see someone review Schindlers List who has "Rambo II" as his all time favourite movie in his resumee.
Sidenote, i actually played it for around 3 hours (EA Access or what it's called, wanted to see if i have to preorder). Preordered now. It's not without flaw, rarely a game is - but i personally enjoy it a lot, as someone who likes Sci-Fi RPGs.
That is just bad writing in general and a poorly framed opinion. If someone loved Rambo II but didn’t like Schindlers List, I would at least like to hear their reasoning. There are plenty of deeply flawed movies that I love(Avatar) and some critically acclaimed movies that just don’t grab me. Someone can respect that the Witcher 3 is a well made game and find it dull as bricks.
It is why I like to read a variety of views on games. I never would have gotten deep into Far Cry 2 if people didn’t keep talking about all the reasons they like that deeply flawed game.
On March 16 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote: I prefer varied opinions rather than everyone singing a games praises. Even the Witcher 3 or Zelda: BotW. It is cool if some folks just are not into those games and write about why.
I'm with you on that, but if someone says "Witcher 3 is boring like watching paint dry", he clearly shouldn't review that game. Because it objectively isn't. I've heard people say "i didn't like Schindlers List", which is fine, but you won't see someone review Schindlers List who has "Rambo II" as his all time favourite movie in his resumee.
Sidenote, i actually played it for around 3 hours (EA Access or what it's called, wanted to see if i have to preorder). Preordered now. It's not without flaw, rarely a game is - but i personally enjoy it a lot, as someone who likes Sci-Fi RPGs.
That is just bad writing in general and a poorly framed opinion. If someone loved Rambo II but didn’t like Schindlers List, I would at least like to hear their reasoning. There are plenty of deeply flawed movies that I love(Avatar) and some critically acclaimed movies that just don’t grab me. Someone can respect that the Witcher 3 is a well made game and find it dull as bricks.
It is why I like to read a variety of views on games. I never would have gotten deep into Far Cry 2 if people didn’t keep talking about all the reasons they like that deeply flawed game.
Oh sure, i personally didn't like Avatar (i feel like there's no need for a metaphor to have a decent movie about the US past), but i don't mind the Transformers movies too much. The later ones got hammered, i got two hours of explosions out of it, so all good.
There's a big difference, as a reviewer, to say "the game is boring", or "i can't get along with the game". It's like saying "the color red is shit". It's an idiotic statement to make, and to me, disqualifies your opinion completely. If you say "i think red is shit", sure, why not. We can discuss it, or agree to disagree while accepting that there's people out there that think different. If you argue like your opinion is an established baseline, gtfo.
Especially if it's a no brainer like Witcher 3, which is pretty much one of the best games made in the last decade. Unarguably. Yeah, it might not be your setting (i personally like Sci Fi/Cyberpunk more, yay Cyberpunk 2077). Or you might not like RPGs in general. Not realising that the game isn't catering to you and still call it shit makes you just a shitty reviewer though. Not because it's a negative review, but because you can't see that not the game in that case is the problem.
Now i'm expecting a bit different with Mass Effect Andromeda, it has flaws. Especially compared to older games in the series, so you can certainly make good points (when was the last time you had to uninstall software to make your game run - if you have Corsair Utility Engine installed, like me for my keyboard, all you get is a blackscreen), which i would admit in a hardbeat to. I think things like these shouldn't happen, and they should be pointed out/taken into consideration while reviewing a game.
edit: in regards to Schindlers List/Rambo, nah. It's like me asking a vegetarian why he doesn't like steak. I know the answer. "It's meat." - or in the movie comparison, it's "no explosions". The only reason i would wanna hear that reasoning is to confirm what i already know: the movie isn't tailored to his interests.
edit2: actually, a better example of a recently reviewed game: Ghost Recon Wildlands. Fans hate it, reviewers go "meh", but some reviewers to the extra mile to point out that the "meh" part changes a bit once you play it coop. Still not a masterpiece, but certainly a lot of fun. I can agree that, if i'd play singleplayer, i would've uninstalled the game by now. If i go by most reviews, i wouldn't even buy it - if it weren't for the few reviews that pointed out that it certainly is worth giving it a shot in coop.
Ghost Recon Wildlands is a great example of a game that is workman-like in its makeup, but deeply flawed. There is nothing super bad about the gameplay. It the standard open world here is your check list of things to do in each region.
But its totally unoriginal gameplay only further highlights how bad the entire framing of the game is. It game’s plot is literally Clear and Present Danger without all that preachy stuff about how secret wars based on vengeance are super bad. As one person said “the characters are so terrible you end up hoping the drug lords will win.” Its like the game wants to be Just Cause, but then decided they should set the game in a real country that they researched on a wiki a couple time a week.
If someone has fun with that game with buddies, more power to them. But I hope they can understand why a lot of people are ripping into that game for being super lazy.
After reading a few non-spoilery opinions from people who played the early access there are couple of points that stand out:
1. The character creator is horrible, huge downgrade from DA:I and even the first Mass Effect. It seems it's very hard to make a decent looking character and there are far too few options.
2. Facial animations are terrible as seen in preview material, there is hope for improvement in day 1 patch, but it's Bioware so we are stuck with it.
3. Story is pretty good, some dodgy pacing in the prologue but overall looking forward to play the entire game.
4. Combat is the best in the franchise. All guns have the proper kicks and it's fun mixing and matching abilities.
5. Performance reports are all over the place. Some say there are bad slowdowns while others play it very well on sub-par PC's. I guess its similar to DA:I. That game works better on AMD GPUs.
I don't give 1 & 2 as much importance compared to 3-5, but its very disappointing that the different Bioware teams don't seem to communicate with each other. Also expect the launch to be rocky, Bioware aren't very good programmers.
On March 16 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote: I prefer varied opinions rather than everyone singing a games praises. Even the Witcher 3 or Zelda: BotW. It is cool if some folks just are not into those games and write about why.
I'm with you on that, but if someone says "Witcher 3 is boring like watching paint dry", he clearly shouldn't review that game. Because it objectively isn't. I've heard people say "i didn't like Schindlers List", which is fine, but you won't see someone review Schindlers List who has "Rambo II" as his all time favourite movie in his resumee.
Sidenote, i actually played it for around 3 hours (EA Access or what it's called, wanted to see if i have to preorder). Preordered now. It's not without flaw, rarely a game is - but i personally enjoy it a lot, as someone who likes Sci-Fi RPGs.
He didn't review the Witcher 3. The comment was a tweet:
Well, neither i have the witcher 3 gene. I found it uninspiring and boring despite me being a huge fan of RPGs. So i understand that twitter for what it is, i really wished i could enjoy witcher 3 as other people did (somewhat jealous to be honest). Bioware already ruined DA for me (alert, subjective opinion), so i can see how it could happen to ME:A too.
On March 16 2017 23:34 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: After reading a few non-spoilery opinions from people who played the early access there are couple of points that stand out:
1. The character creator is horrible, huge downgrade from DA:I and even the first Mass Effect. It seems it's very hard to make a decent looking character and there are far too few options.
2. Facial animations are terrible as seen in preview material, there is hope for improvement in day 1 patch, but it's Bioware so we are stuck with it.
I don't give 1 & 2 as much importance compared to 3-5, but its very disappointing that the different Bioware teams don't seem to communicate with each other. Also expect the launch to be rocky, Bioware aren't very good programmers.
Can't say anything about points 3-5 since my early access version just started downloading (took the 7 days free trial to give it a go) but what I find interesting is that Kotaku specifically stressed that the character creator is "easier" than previous Bioware versions.
I'll give my own opinion in an hour or two but frankly this would be the first bioware creator where I actually create a character that looks human. Granted I am not the most artistically inclined person, but so far all my creations dating back to DA:O and ME1 looked terrible and i usually took the default for any second playthrough.
oh btw: fuck origin again.... why can't EA use Steam like any normal sensible firm..... Or at least enable the access program on the PS4.....
To be honest, "easier" is just some weasel word nonsense. It has been stripped of tons of features and options. It's indicative more of reviewing in general, start with conclusion you want and then work backwards filling in the blanks. ME:A is 'good' so here's how the character creation is 'good'.
Has anyone been able to create a character that does not look like an abomination? All presets are really bad looking, compared to ME 3 preset characters. ( I guess frostbite is just terrible to work with char. generation).
And what I've seen from the character creation (where you have to use one of the 9 presets as a base), its really hard to get a good looking character out of it. Is there a way to share they characters, if someone acidently made a good looking one?
The part that I don’t understand is the creators spend hours upon hours crafting reasonable looking NPCs, but can’t give you 5-7 nice looking pre-sets.
even presets still have the customisation bit, that npcs don't have. If there are deformations sliders it makes meshes alot more complicated to fit. Think main character customisation was on their low priority list and was just added for the sake of it last minute, because some higher up said: "games need that!"
On March 17 2017 01:27 Plansix wrote: The part that I don’t understand is the creators spend hours upon hours crafting reasonable looking NPCs, but can’t give you 5-7 nice looking pre-sets.
Even the default face they used for Scott Ryder in the trailers is really not memorable. Not Shepard-level.
On March 16 2017 23:34 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: 5. Performance reports are all over the place. Some say there are bad slowdowns while others play it very well on sub-par PC's. I guess its similar to DA:I. That game works better on AMD GPUs.
Runs perfectly fine for me, around 90-110fps for the most part on 1080p/ultra with everything. Sometimes dips to 80fps, but i could only tell through afterburner, didn't see any hiccups while playing - i7 6700k stock clock, 980ti, 16gb 3200 and started off of ssd. My wife has constant crashes once, basically, the game starts. Like complete freeze of the system, AMD FX somthingsomething and GTX 1060. Very hit and miss.
One thing though: their AA is absolute pants. I don't know what it is, the temporal AA just looks "off", can't put my finger on it - just sometimes smears etc.
If someone has fun with that game with buddies, more power to them. But I hope they can understand why a lot of people are ripping into that game for being super lazy.
Played through the.. preview, i guess, whatever it's called. I think it sums it up for me if i say i was actually annoyed that it stopped there - i wanna know, see and figure out more. Yeah it releases soon, but still. Blergh.
I'd suggest to anyone who's thinking about it to pay the 5 dollars or how much it is for one month of the EA Vault access thing. The "preview" is around 4ish hours long, shows a few things that are wrong with the game, but it also shows strong points. I like the exploring, i like the "open worldness" driving around with the rover, i do like the story and characters so far, even though they kind of are a bit one dimensional (which could change). Sudoku is always fun, too.
Facial animations, dead eyes, graphic glitches (rarely, but obvious), misplaced/flying items, and partially controls are meh at best. Don't like that i can't press "use" out of a sprint, constantly have to stop, then walk, then "use". Same for the scanner, can't use it out of the sprint. It's not that the controls are not working, they're just inconvenient sometimes.
And the menu doesn't do it for me either, the research/development. It feels incredibly simplistic yet very cluttered.
Still. I enjoyed it a lot, and i assume the rest of the game will be the same experience. I would not suggest pre-ordering it blind though, because it has problems.
On March 17 2017 05:53 JacobShock wrote: The facial animations and dead eyes in this game is something else.
Pretty typical EA doesn't care about those animations even in cut scene heavy games
Bioware, actually. And the facial expressions in former Mass Effect games were considerably better (even though not top notch).
That being said, in the grand scale of things, that's actually a minor thing. Yes, facial expressions rarely match up with the "emotion" of a scene, but the voices most of the times do. I ignored it after a while.
Bioware was gutted by EA and is an EA exclusive developer it's EA so I blame EA. Hopefully the community will come in and redo the animations later in this games life. While I agree ME2/3 animations weren't top notch there is a noticeable drop in quality here and it's a shame for a story driven game like this.
I don't disagree, it's a shame. But i wouldn't let it ruin my experience - that's down to the personal pain barrier though. Honestly, yeah it looks really bad on gifs etc, but in the game it blurs out really quick. It's not half as bad as the gifs make it look.
Nowhere near good, obviously, just not as bad as it seems/the gifs make it seem.
On March 17 2017 08:18 semantics wrote: Well i expect actually playing the game drowns out the focus unlike the gifs where the sins are obvious.
Yeah, that could be it - also, you sometimes focus on different things like the background. At least me.
Again, it's not a justification or something, the facial animations are actually bad - but they don't take that much away from the game as a few people try and make it out to be.
Its the frostbite engine, it just sucks for these games. Its good for a battlefield, where all you see of other persons face is when you give them a bullet in their head, but its really not good for this kind of games.
The 10 year old Unreal 3 Engine used in ME 1 made a much better job. Seriously, when my super hot looking female shep aproached Kaidan or Liara, you could sense the tension and their facial expressions have been really top notch for 2007.
Its obvious that pictures/webms/gifs are putting way more attention on this matter then you would in a normal playthrough, and especially non human persons are easier to work with, as we dont expect them to have facial expressions in certain manners, so every facial movement becomes an acceptable expression. But this game shows so much why the idea of EA to push the frostbite engine into everyones throat is such a disaster, its at a point, where characters became comical and animations become slapstick.
Played 9.5h of horde multiplayer on the trial now. It is fun and shows that the game is pretty fluid and combat flows very well in most cases. I just fulfil the minimum requirements thus I have pretty much everything on low or off so the game looks like shit. Yet I still played the full trial.
I think the move from the previous engine that did facial stuff better to Frostbite is good here. The combat is so much more fun (I never did play ME3 multiplayer though, that might have had good combat). Single player was possible to start and I played 5 min of it, no point wasting trial time on it.
I pre-ordered it based on the multiplayer since it is just the type of brain dead PvE shooter I want now and then (still play L4D 2 on and off). The single player will likely be fun as well since I have enjoyed all Bioware games I have played though not all of them were game of the year level. Early opinions seem to be that the game is good enough from what I have read, not game of the year but not an unplayable mess either.
edit
Vanguard is a ton of fun. Jet pack up for vision, charge for teleport strike on enemy and then start pummeling with shield regen per hit. You usually can kill one and then get out again with the dashes, jet packs and occasionally some cover usage.
Snipers seem strongest right now though. Their DPS is so much higher that most stuff dies before getting to them and they have stealth for reviving allies, fleeing enemies or taking capture points.
Big downside of the multiplayer though is that if you want any good items you have to grind or buy packs (assume DLCs will be an option as well). Assume the top packs will take around 1h to grind once one has levels on the characters.
These silly animations / expressions / etc probably don't detract from most of the in-game experience (especially stuff in the background), nor is it a huge factor in my deciding whether or not to buy it next week.
But boy oh boy is it a gold mine of comedy with all the screenshots/gifs/vids people have been posting.
Just realised that it isn't possible to upgrade from standard to a higher edition of the game without rebuying it for full price. Good thing since I almost went for the highest tier for the multiplayer chests, to do it now I would have to call/chat their support and refund my game (normal refund doesn't work since I played trial) to then order a higher tier.
On March 17 2017 10:02 Duka08 wrote: These silly animations / expressions / etc probably don't detract from most of the in-game experience (especially stuff in the background), nor is it a huge factor in my deciding whether or not to buy it next week.
But boy oh boy is it a gold mine of comedy with all the screenshots/gifs/vids people have been posting.
Actually, i might be biased in that regard, i realised that i actually have subtitles on and focus on them rather than the faces. As someone who's used to watch subbed stuff, might be why i'm honestly not that bothered about it.
Not to mention, by far the biggest part is the exploration etc, in which pretty much all the dialogue is spoken, but not shown. Like, no close ups, just commentary while you continue to play. Also, "inter-species" conversations are actually fine, although i've only seen asari (well, they're a bit like humans) salarian and krogan so far.
I do understand if somebody is miffed about it, but personally, i can live with it.
Just realised that it isn't possible to upgrade from standard to a higher edition of the game without rebuying it for full price. Good thing since I almost went for the highest tier for the multiplayer chests, to do it now I would have to call/chat their support and refund my game (normal refund doesn't work since I played trial) to then order a higher tier.
Same shit as Ubisoft. Tried upgrading Wildlands, was told to refund/reorder. Couldn't be arsed, their loss.
On March 17 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote: Also, "inter-species" conversations are actually fine, although i've only seen asari (well, they're a bit like humans) salarian and krogan so far.
From what I've seen, the non-human races all look way better than any of the humans. They continue to do a pretty good job in that respect. Makes you wonder how they got humans so wrong. People saying it's just uncanny valley but there are similar games (and old ones in the same series...) that have done much better lol.
On March 17 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote: Also, "inter-species" conversations are actually fine, although i've only seen asari (well, they're a bit like humans) salarian and krogan so far.
From what I've seen, the non-human races all look way better than any of the humans. They continue to do a pretty good job in that respect. Makes you wonder how they got humans so wrong. People saying it's just uncanny valley but there are similar games (and old ones in the same series...) that have done much better lol.
Well maybe it actually is a limitation of the engine. I'm not a programmer, i have zero idea in that regard. It's just that Krogan/Salari expressions are quite different from humans - Salari seemingly barely have any, and Krogans, well.. It's a bit like animating a tank, i guess.
From all I've seen it just looks like its a bunch of bad actors.
Maybe the animators just simply didn't put in enough care or rigging on the faces? I mean when you consider the sheer amount of work it takes to animate a face well it kinda makes sense some corners get cut.
On March 17 2017 10:02 Duka08 wrote: These silly animations / expressions / etc probably don't detract from most of the in-game experience (especially stuff in the background), nor is it a huge factor in my deciding whether or not to buy it next week.
But boy oh boy is it a gold mine of comedy with all the screenshots/gifs/vids people have been posting.
It actually kills the game for me. I watched some streams but the game couldn't grab me at all. What's happening on screen, the animations and I felt even the voices seemed so disconnected from each other. Like the characters didn't care what was actually happening, so why should I? I can't remember anything about the story anymore.
I am really interested in the reviews and comments when the game is finally released. I hope it won't turn out too bad and the game makes up for it.
On March 17 2017 19:10 PoulsenB wrote: Are the face animations consistently bad, or there're just some really cringy moments?
To be honest any human face is consistently bad. Aliens are fine but your player character (even while playing a default skin) and any human NPC is bad.
It's not game breaking bad for me since the gameplay seems good (bit bullet spongy but then every mass effect played like that and I haven't progressed to any decent weapon in the time available so thats pretty much what I expected).
Anyway, let me get back to my "defense" of the character creator and give my own impression: 1) The bioware "curse" that I cannot by any means possible create a character that doesn't look vaguely asian persists in this game as well. 2) Granted I didn't give it more than 10 minutes but trying to create a bog standard blonde girl with white skin and somewhat human eyes failed simply put. There is no other way to phrase it, it simply failed. My creation looked so bad that I couldn't finish the tutorial planet (also there is some mechanic that your father is a mashup of your own face and your brothers so for the love of god try to create some kind of family resemblence I didn't and my "father" honestly looked like a horses ass)...
Now some other points keep in mind these are restricted by both the time limit and that I personally cannot progress the story past an arbitrary point (even though I should since i have pre-ordered but nm that spent the last 3 hours giving the multiplayer a go): 3) Fuck Origin and their stupid interface. So far at least it was impossible for me to change the spoken language to English (there is an option ingame which is disabled, hopefully only for the trial version). 4) On that topic I have NEVER in the last 5 years played a more lackluster voiced game than this. Hopefully it is simply the German (our VO's often have problems which is the main reason I want to play in English god damn it!) but it is a disgrace. 5) The intro is exposition heavy, and frankly doesn't even hook a hardcore fan like myself until you finally get your own ship and reach the first planet (3 hours in approximately depending on how fast you play it starts to pick up). Sadly that is also the point where the trial stops but still I expected far better from this. For all its own faults DA:I hooked properly until you started to get bored in the hinterlands. 6) The combat mechanics are improved from ME3 and seem top notch for this genre (meaning RPGish shooter). 7) The characters are NOT on the usual bioware level never mind the heights they reached in DA:I. I didn't expect them to have the same feeling as my beloved Triology crew but so far only a single NPC has been interesting enough that I wanted to have a conversation outside of mission stuff. This last point should probably be taken with a large grain of salt because ME1 characters didn't really start to gain character until you had the 2nd or 3rd return convo as well.
So, I won't link one of the 30000 gifs that are becoming memes but yes from an RPG PoV this engine sucks. It's great for combat and scenery but conversations are almost immersion breaking. For me that isn't such a problem. I've played stuff like this since before 3D was a thing so graphics aren't what I'm looking or judging a game for but it is definitely noteable and if that is important to you give this game a pass.
The story itself is interesting (if pretty mysterious) so far, but all the big reveals are yet to come. Maybe it picks up and becomes great but it could also end in a ME3 ending situation even before this game is done so i'm keeping my options open regarding that. Stability wise I had a stable framerate above 60 and not a single crash. I managed to bug out a quest on my second playthrough by running past a prior step and there seems to be no way to fix that if it happens (specifically I reached a button to open a door before running into the closed door, when i ran through the now open door I got a quest called "get this door open" or something like that in my log which i couldn't clear out by any means. In this rather meaningless sidequest not a problem but if that happens in a main quest down the line it might be very problematic indeed and it doesn't show their QA in the best light so i mentioned it).
Summa summarum if you truly love ME and enjoy games that play like this it likely is a good game for you. If you insist on perfection or a greatly acted story I'd honestly recommend Horizon Zero Dawn more than this.
Ps: One small quibble at the end cutscenes that cannot be skipped should also be a thing of the past in a game that you want to play more than once.... Hopefully NG+ (obviously disabled/not available in the trial) allows that.
edit: After messing around with Origin for quite a bit (20 minutes actually) I finally found the default language option. After setting that to English I managed to turn my game version to english as well. With 20 minutes or so left in the trial I can't say much about the quality difference in writing and voices but the few minutes I had were noticeably improved. Still compared to the performances of Martin Sheen in ME 2 and 3 no voice seems to be done with the same amount of care. Maybe it simply isn't evident enough who the "main characters" on the NPC side are, but so far everyone seems kind of bland with the exception of Cora and the Asari seen in all the previews (who was the only german voice that seemed well done). Anyway I'll still say with absolute confidence that the german version is not worth the money!
I can't for the life of me understand how NONE of the 100 or whatever many people working on this game looked at those animations and said: Guys we can't do this, this looks worse than 15 years ago.
Andromeda looks more and more Warframe inspired to me. And that it would have needed a few more years of polish. The groundwork seems great though. And some ceo wanted it to have good combat and interesting multiplayer option, so they can add microtransactions on mass after enough people got hooked hehe.
On March 18 2017 05:01 FeyFey wrote: Andromeda looks more and more Warframe inspired to me. And that it would have needed a few more years of polish. The groundwork seems great though. And some ceo wanted it to have good combat and interesting multiplayer option, so they can add microtransactions on mass after enough people got hooked hehe.
To be fair, after 9h I am really liking the multiplayer. So if that was their focus they did it well. But all I know say the single player was the focus and a semi separate team did multiplayer. The single player is rumoured to be around 100h (not sure how much or little of the content done that is).
Bad facial animations isn't enough to ruin the game for me. Its a very minor flaw in my opinion. I'm enjoying the story and the gameplay is great. I already have a favorite character
If facial animations is enough to ruin an entire game thats been overall good(so far) then lol
I can see why people can get bothered by it though. Now, I'm not saying that anyone here is this kind of person but I've seen people hate on the game solely because of the animations. If someone brings up the story, gameplay, exploration, they don't care except for the animations. People are hating on the game just because its the "cool" thing to do when they probably haven't even played it themselves.
Its only the animations, it comes togeather with a screenwriting, that is... questionable..
"hey yeah, where is your dad?" "Well, he is dead, I took his job" *insert braindead smiling "Alec dead?" *insert no facial expression of whatsoever *Moves away without further comment.
This girl just lost its father, her brother might not be awaken of the cyrosleep any time soon and all she does is smiling like a braindead and acting, like that is just normal? Nobody questions if she is okay, how to deal with it?
Its not the really really terrible facial animations, its not the terrible character designer, funny enough with a limited amount of skins colours, its the combination of all that togeather with the acting and the script, that makes people joke about the game and turn people away. Yeah, gameplay is important, story is important, but an RPG lives of more: Characters, emotions, immersion. And you cant transport these things with such hard flawed things like the writing, the acting and the animations. And exploration? That splits the community in half anyway, as one half likes it and the other half will say "hello no mans inquisition".
The short preview version obviously doesnt show the complete game and ME 3 got shitted on for its demo version (ME 3 has very very terrible animations for the crew members and everytime you see a crewmember sprinting like Anderson in the prolog, cringe factor got maxed out) but this time its different, because its not just the animations: It hurts the core of a story driven RPG, when the screenwriting combined with the animations/expressions is so off, that you cant take the game seriously anymore. And when you see that ME 1 had better facial animations and better looking charactermodels, then you can only take it with a grain of salt, how can it be better 10 years ago and why is the modern frostbite engine so much behind the old Unreal 3 engine of 2007 when it comes to human faces and animations?
Oh and one more thing to add: When people joked about IGNs first mission looks and the animations of the cut scenes, Bioware said "well yeah, we know, it gets fixed till release". Now we know its not gonna be fixed till release (tweeted by Bioware) and its super hard to correct this special problem anyway. If you learned something, while still alot of gamers love to get lied in the face about features of games, the outrage gets bigger and bigger after they release another developer lied to them.
On March 18 2017 07:07 Clonester wrote: Its only the animations, it comes togeather with a screenwriting, that is... questionable..
"hey yeah, where is your dad?" "Well, he is dead, I took his job" *insert braindead smiling "Alec dead?" *insert no facial expression of whatsoever *Moves away without further comment.
This girl just lost its father, her brother might not be awaken of the cyrosleep any time soon and nobody and all she does is smiling like a braindead and acting, like that is just normal? Nobody questions if she is okay, how to deal with it?
Its not the really really terrible facial animations, its not the terrible character designer, funny enough with a limited amount of skins colours, its the combination of all that togeather with the acting and the script, that makes people joke about the game and turn people away. Yeah, gameplay is important, story is important, but an RPG lives of more: Characters, emotions, immersion. And you cant transport these things with such hard flawed things like the writing, the acting and the animations. And exploration? That splits the community in half anyway, as one half likes it and the other half will say "hello no mans inquisition".
The short preview version obviously doesnt show the complete game and ME 3 got shitted on for its demo version (ME 3 has very very terrible animations for the crew members and everytime you see a crewmember sprinting like Anderson in the prolog, cringe factor got maxed out) but this time its different, because its not just the animations: It hurt the core of a story driven RPG, when the screenwriting is combined with the animations/expressions so off, that you cant take the game seriously to get into it. And when you see that ME 1 had better facial animations and better looking charactermodels, then you can only take it with a grain of salt, how it can be worse 10 years ago and how the modern frostbite engine is so much behind the old Unreal 3 engine of 2007.
I don't want to defend it too much but you are aware that the video above is heavily edited? It's paused/slowed to cut the laughter in each time and the turn around and walk away isn't the end of the conversation. Far from it she (and the group) walk to a display and then the real talk starts.
As i said in my longish post this game has some flaws (quite deep ones) but it also has its upsides. Frankly the screenwriting could be improved but mostly that has to do with exposition dump and you can actually skip that or ignore that. Was visiting with a friend this evening who had the english version of origin pre installed and you honestly can't believe how much of a difference that makes. The Turians actually sound like Turians again with overtones added for example (and yes the german version somehow doesn't have that makes my mind boggle...) I can ignore a lot of stuff on the screen if the voices actually convey emotion in conversations.
And yes I am still not quite sure how EA has managed to somehow get worse at facial animations in 10 years, but it isn't quite as bad as the cut/outtake stuff you can see on the internet.
In terms of ME1 having better facial animations, I disagree. In terms of character models, I agree and also disagree. There are some prettty poor character models in ME1 while there are some great ones. Wrex being one of the great ones. The poor ones you pretty much have to look around for and sometimes come across by chance. The facial animations, to me, looks basically the same. They don't look better or worse, just same-ish with ME1 being like 5% more animated. Which I understand, is a problem. A game of today shouldn't have the same kind of quality of a game from like 10 years ago. Granted, Andromeda has been in development for like 5 years but still, I can see the argument.
The choice of engine they decided to go with is questionable though.
I'm enjoying the story for what it is. So far, its nothing great but its not bad. If I went into games and being all nitpicky and complaining over the small things that add up over time then I wouldn't enjoy it because I'd care too much about those small issues instead of playing and enjoying the game and the universe I step into. I can't really talk more about the story because I don't know exactly what it is or wants to be until it releases.
I am currently playing andromeda on Origins prerelase thingy and I got as far as most of the playthrougs that are around on youtube, so my experience is very limited and only covers the turtorial planet and a bit of the first planet you are sent to with the Tempest. In general I have to say I like the game so far. It has a mass effect feeling to it and some nice cinematic/cinegraphic additions. I already preordered the full game and I will play it for many hours and will have my fun, but there are several issues I want to adress.
I choose a female Ryder because I always play female characters if available and the animations are bad. They seemed to have fixed some of the worst issues I have seen on you tube but the thing that bothers me the most are the facial expressions. The lips are always twirling, you always see huge parts of the teeth, which looks unnatural. Also the eyes are quite horrible. On my first Ryder I wanted to have a bit of a soft colored taint looking a bit like someone from for example india. In some perspectives it looks really nice, on others it looks dark orange like Donald Trump ... I really do not want to know how the colors would look like if I choose a very black character, I can only imagine horrible. On my secoond character I choose a caucasion taint and other facial features and it certainly looked a bit better but still had issues with facial animations from time to time. The player character especially looks horrible in some scenes, even the other characters look better and I dont understand why they didn't put more time into the main character animations...
The character options are quite limited and they are not really special to Ryder but all these resources seem to be shared across the board with the npcs running around. So you will run into many NPSc that look alike and on my first character I managed to more or less copy another character from the crew unintentionally (just with darker skin color).
The graphics in general, seem to have some improovements when it comes to lighting and the souroundings itself, but in general they are not a great step up if it all from Mass Effect 3. The character graphics have animation issues and just do not live up to a game released in 2017. In my opinion Dragon Age 3 has better looking characters and don't get me started on how much better characters from the witcher look.
How does the character feel and the team mates? Its not shepard and I need to get them to know better to give a really qualified answer. There is funny banter and jokes the make me laugh and some crewmates really seem nice. I only started to get to know Liam who seems well done and funny and Cora who seems somewhat strange looking and a bit off ... and Peekaboo I saw her only a few minutes. Alec Ryder my father looks like a Nanderthal or ape... Female Ryder herself, can be serious, can be funny, I just hope that the dialog options I choose have some impact on the game, maybe not as simple as the paragon system but something that gives my character character. Speaking of character: Ryder seems a bit disconnected. I mean her brother is insured or in a coma, her father dies and saves her life, she unexpectedly becomes pathfinder and has to shoulder the weight of responibility, the golden worlds are a bust, the nexus is in shambles. These are very tough and hard experiences and yet Ryder does not really seem impacted by them. I think there might be a problem with the writing? I hope it gets better in the future.
The developers said that the worlds or the game is X times bigger. I just hope they didn't just go for width and length but also for depth of the game and story. In dragon age origin I really hated the gathering and the benine sidequests that made the game feel like a single player mmo, putting in the grinding but leaving out the social experience of an mmo... Since I have just done the tutorial and parts of the first planet I can't really put my finger on it. There are a few signs that there will be Dragon Agey things to do like gather and collect stuff and some of the sidequests also feel like meh ...
The main quest has me hooked, because there are mysteries I want to solve and things I want to know about, I just hope they didn't screw up the writing and I hope Ryder will show a bit more of an emptional impact as the game progresses.
The combat feels good (only encountered some easy enemies as of know) but it still has the cover system that is core of mass effect it only feels more fluent and engaging now. Also the booster is a nice addition.
All in all, as I said I will like the game and play it for hours, but I think that there will be some issues that will hurt the general experience while playing the game which can not be easily ignored ... I just hope that they would have gone for more quality in the animations, story and characters than for quanitity in planet size and small side quests and gather stuff ...
in this short scene there are like 5 lazy shortcuts.
bottles break uses window shatter animation, after the attack the char just stares dead into the void, how to headbutt, headbutt physics, whats happening with the table did a water baloon explode? No....chair.......
This whole thing honestly in parts looks like some indy team tried to do some cutscenes in unity.
On March 18 2017 07:44 Holy_AT wrote: I wanted to have a bit of a soft colored taint looking a bit like someone from for example india.
On my secoond character I choose a caucasion taint and other facial features and it certainly looked a bit better but still had issues with facial animations from time to time.
Just an FYI... the word you were looking for is "tint" though in this case you're better served with "skin tone."
On March 18 2017 07:44 Holy_AT wrote: I wanted to have a bit of a soft colored taint looking a bit like someone from for example india.
On my secoond character I choose a caucasion taint and other facial features and it certainly looked a bit better but still had issues with facial animations from time to time.
Just an FYI... the word you were looking for is "tint" though in this case you're better served with "skin tone."
Taint means something else.
Haha thanks for the unintentional hilarity of the day. <3
in this short scene there are like 5 lazy shortcuts.
bottles break uses window shatter animation, after the attack the char just stares dead into the void, how to headbutt, headbutt physics, whats happening with the table did a water baloon explode? No....chair.......
This whole thing honestly in parts looks like some indy team tried to do some cutscenes in unity.
There is the 6th shortcut, the female getting headbutted stares dead next to the one she smashes a bottle on instead of watching her target.
On March 18 2017 07:44 Holy_AT wrote: I wanted to have a bit of a soft colored taint looking a bit like someone from for example india.
On my secoond character I choose a caucasion taint and other facial features and it certainly looked a bit better but still had issues with facial animations from time to time.
Just an FYI... the word you were looking for is "tint" though in this case you're better served with "skin tone."
Taint means something else.
Thanks for pointing it out. English is not my native tongue and I misspelled the word anyway. I meant "teint" instead of "taint", which in french or german means complexion and I got a bit turned around
There is a massive lack of AAA sci fi games, so if I have to live with bad animations, so be it. It's not like Mass Effect 2 had amazing animations, yet it's still one of the best games I've ever played.
I'm starting to think that it's edgy/hipster/trendy to hate on this game at the moment. Personally I haven't found the issues people complain about to be a big deal. Especially the movement I find to be much better than the atrocity it was in ME3. Well at least the male Ryder movements seem quite natural to me.
And the game is a really nice breath of fresh air. I was honestly getting a bit tired of the whole "end of the world" shtick we had to deal with in ME3. Mass Effect to me was always about adventure and exploration, and so far Andromeda provides.
The only thing I've found annoying thus far is when I exit the Nomad my squad sort of pops up mid air, and the squad movement in general. I don't know why they have such a hard time with squad gameplay, they even switched engines and they still look like ragdolls and are mostly there to eat bullets to the face.
Minor gripes are the cover system which sometimes doesn't work and the fact you can't pause the combat and order your squad what skill to use. In fact so far I only know how to tell the squad where to move to and who to attack. The rest is pretty much automatic or maybe I'm missing something. I guess I can live with this though.
Whatching the start of the game on youtube its very werid that they don't mention the original trilogy at all and the people are all Human at the start.
Also the Main father is much better drawn and animated then anyone else. Why wouldn't you play as him. How many main characters have their children with them?
On March 19 2017 02:01 Sermokala wrote: Whatching the start of the game on youtube its very werid that they don't mention the original trilogy at all and the people are all Human at the start.
Also the Main father is much better drawn and animated then anyone else. Why wouldn't you play as him. How many main characters have their children with them?
The last of us used that well, slowly growing into a parental role and showing it from both sides.
On March 19 2017 02:01 Sermokala wrote: Whatching the start of the game on youtube its very werid that they don't mention the original trilogy at all and the people are all Human at the start.
Also the Main father is much better drawn and animated then anyone else. Why wouldn't you play as him. How many main characters have their children with them?
On March 19 2017 02:01 Sermokala wrote: Whatching the start of the game on youtube its very werid that they don't mention the original trilogy at all and the people are all Human at the start.
Hm.. That's not entirely true though? I remember quite well that right at the beginning of the game somewhere, i've read about Liara and her research. Or where do you mean?
The "all human" at the start is correct, but also kinda necessary. I assume you watched some of it, so it's not too bad a spoiler to say it's a human Ark. The other races have their own.
The Liara stuff doesn't show up until a little while after the tutorial mission. Couple of hours depending on how you play or if your in a hurry. Liara is the first and won't be the last reference to the previous games.
Of course we won't know how many and what kind of references until it fully releases.
On March 19 2017 02:01 Sermokala wrote: Whatching the start of the game on youtube its very werid that they don't mention the original trilogy at all and the people are all Human at the start.
Also the Main father is much better drawn and animated then anyone else. Why wouldn't you play as him. How many main characters have their children with them?
Only if you play default chars. As soon as you start to customize your PC weird things start to happen with him. Can't screenshot now since my trial is done but I referenced what happened to him earlier and I still stand by it being so bad that that alone made me restart and go to default (didn't know at that point how soon he would be removed and yes my own PC was also so bad that the decision wasn't really hard).
I'd love to know what exactly happened here with the animations but since it is highly unlikely we'll ever get an "inside view" with the NDAs at EA I guess we'll have to remain ignorant. Still I'm honestly astonished that this engine (one of the more expensive ones on the market) is so bad at facial animations. Considering how many in-engine cutscenes are common nowadays I thought that would be something they invest quite a few bucks in...
I'd love to know what exactly happened here with the animations but since it is highly unlikely we'll ever get an "inside view" with the NDAs at EA I guess we'll have to remain ignorant. Still I'm honestly astonished that this engine (one of the more expensive ones on the market) is so bad at facial animations. Considering how many in-engine cutscenes are common nowadays I thought that would be something they invest quite a few bucks in...
It really depends on the focus. The older Mass Effect engines weren't great at expressions either, and i'm pretty convinced that they wouldn't be able to do what the frostbite can do: quite vast open world stuff that looks good on top. Not to mention, i don't actually know if the Witcher 3 engine (which had its moments too btw) is available for licensing - but even if, the frostbite engine is "in house", so most likely free or dirt cheap. Still not defending the expressions, they're just bad - but honestly, if the options are either A: a pretty open world filled with stuff but meh facial expressions, or B: "another mass effect", i'd actually go with A. Especially with the new combat system. Don't get me wrong, i love the older mass effects, but with the new combat system, tube levels would just suck.
But everyone as he needs/likes, if someone just can't live with those quirky/bad animations, sucks - for me, the rest makes up for it. So far anyway, only played the trial obviously, which left me with a feeling of "fuck off, i wanna see the rest now". Which is good.
On March 19 2017 02:01 Sermokala wrote: Whatching the start of the game on youtube its very werid that they don't mention the original trilogy at all and the people are all Human at the start.
Also the Main father is much better drawn and animated then anyone else. Why wouldn't you play as him. How many main characters have their children with them?
Well, my Alec Ryder looked like a Neanderthal ape, I would even find a Krogan better animated thoughtout and drawn than Alec Ryder ...
I really hope they did not mess up the game with Inquisition type Quest and exploration style, because the RPG element suffers heavily because of the immersion breaking animations and the most incompetently modeled faces I have seen in years. Bioware or EA should immediatly fire the guys in charge of this, because their work is subpar at best and doest not deserve to be in a AAA game in 2017 at that pricing level.
Man, word on this is so scattered that it's making my purchase choice rather difficult. I have no past with ME games, but I love sci fi and RPGS and have been looking to scratch that itch for a while. Will this game do it?
Splurge the $5 and play the trial? You get 10% off of the game (with that EA Vault stuff) on top if you decide to get it, so no wasted money - if you don't like it, you only "wasted" $5 (you still played 10 hours of ME:A, and have the option to play other games too).
edit: so far, if you can live with sub-par face animations, i'd actually say yeah, from what i've seen (well, the trial), the game at its core is fun. Exploration, combat, atmosphere. But it's subjective - and $5 really, i mean.. Well.
As something to remember: people went completely apeshit and hammered Witcher 3 for the "downgraded graphics". It just seems to be a trend that if you personally have a disappointing experience with something, it automatically makes it horrible for everyone. I wouldn't (in fact, didn't) give a shit about people slamming the game, nor about people who so far thoroughly enjoy it - form your own opinion for $5, one burger less this month, and you get a precise idea.
edit2: that being said, if you haven't played the first three MEs, you might wanna consider getting those for cheap. While differing in quality (some are better than others), all of them are very enjoyable.
I recommend buying ME 2 and 3 first (only get one if you do not mind really outdated graphics). You can have them quite cheep and they are a blast to play. I would really wait on MEA and maybe get it cheeper or wait for bug fixes that they will hopefully do unless you are already a really great fan of the universe...
The face animations won't get fixed across the board, that's already official.
Also being a fan of the universe has quite literally nothing to do with ME:A, in fact, it is just another thing that people could (actually, do) rub themselves on because it doesn't "refer enough" to older games.
The trial is simply the smartest option. So smart, that i actually wished that every (AAA) game would offer me the first couple of hours for $5 and 10% off if i decide to buy it. Would've prevented shitbuys like Dishonored 2 etc.
edit: and it really rubs me the wrong way when people act like this game is unplayable in its current state. It's not. Stop dramatising stuff. There's plenty people out there who don't give a shit if they can't chose "the exact skin color i want", or expressions partially(!) are derpy.
It just seems to be a trend that if you personally have a disappointing experience with something, it automatically makes it horrible for everyone.
I am going to play ME 3 first. ME 1 was good and ME 2 was amazing. Might but Andromeda as soon as major problems are fixed because i love the universe.
Just get ME 1-3, all of them are good sci fi RPGs.
ME 1 has obviously the worst combat (in my opinion) and some other flaws (like the generic buildings for the side quests, the inventory managment and well, also the open chests mini game), but its atmosphere is so dense, it sucks you right in and doesnt really let you out. Obviously the graphics are outdate as its based on the good old unreal 3 engine, but the game still looks acceptable, textures are big problem for it nowadays, but the characters design and facial animations (huh huh huh) still stand for themself.
All games should cost maximum of 10$/€ as keys, if you say, you like sci fi RPGs, then you should really replay all 3 of em starting with the first.
Also my face when I made Parasini and Andoles kill each other for the first time ever in a ME 1 run in 2016 and never knew that this was even possible.
On March 20 2017 00:12 m4ini wrote: The face animations won't get fixed across the board, that's already official.
Also being a fan of the universe has quite literally nothing to do with ME:A, in fact, it is just another thing that people could (actually, do) rub themselves on because it doesn't "refer enough" to older games.
The trial is simply the smartest option. So smart, that i actually wished that every (AAA) game would offer me the first couple of hours for $5 and 10% off if i decide to buy it. Would've prevented shitbuys like Dishonored 2 etc.
edit: and it really rubs me the wrong way when people act like this game is unplayable in its current state. It's not. Stop dramatising stuff. There's plenty people out there who don't give a shit if they can't chose "the exact skin color i want", or expressions partially(!) are derpy.
On March 20 2017 00:12 m4ini wrote: The face animations won't get fixed across the board, that's already official.
Source? I remember Bioware saying it wont be fixed at day 1, not that it wont be fixed at all. Not that I think that they will be fixed at all, but if the shitstorm is strong enough, who knows.
I finally beat ME2 for the first time the other night, I had beaten ME1 4 or 5 times on xbox 360 many years ago before it broke.
Just getting into ME3 now as well (full of errors and bugs because I messed up the texture mod so I lost 6 hours to a reinstall Q_Q)
Its great. I don't think I'll finish it before ME:A comes out but hopefully before friday I can hop into ME:A. I havent bought a new game in a while and ME1/2/3 have been sitting on my PC for months now, and with the new job starting monday I want to get into ME:A with the hype, and then pay for it with my first paycheck :D
On March 20 2017 00:12 m4ini wrote: The face animations won't get fixed across the board, that's already official.
Source? I remember Bioware saying it wont be fixed at day 1, not that it wont be fixed at all. Not that I think that they will be fixed at all, but if the shitstorm is strong enough, who knows.
In my opinion this issue deserves a shit storm, because otherwise there would be no motiviation for them to fix anything or do better in possible sequels. It is just unfathombale how the main characters could pass through their internal reviews, quality control and external monitoring without raising red flags ... How could they screw this up? The main character is the red line that runs through the entire game. It is the most important aspect of the game and it is that bad ...
In general all human females in the game look like they have been hit with the Niqab of uglyness to make them uninteresting and weak. This game could have been programmed by ISIS to make the players who actually want to play female characters hide them in their space suits ... This is eithur blunt incompetence or malicous intent to model females across the board like this. The staff that was in charge of character modelling, managing and quality control and game design should be layed off immediatly...
Its really not that bad .... the problem is the way the faces were rigged for animation and the fact they don't move. I mean ME1 had some janky ass animations but they looked ok because the shoulders and neck moved.
From what I've seen they just messed up the small things which make talking to people face to face seem okay.
On March 20 2017 01:48 Plansix wrote: The knives seem to be out for this game, that is for sure. The faces look silly, but the blow back seems out out of control.
Because this is has been a long string of disappointments from Bioware. From DA:2 and DA:I to ME:3's ending and now a failure of basic animation so obvious it should have never been allowed to pass beyond the animation department, meaning they knowingly skimped on it.
It makes people wonder how more glaring failures there are past the trial.
That and the internet has a hard on for AAA studio's failing
Yeah, seems misguided. DA:2 was clearly a game being rushed out the door by EA to meet a financial quarter. ME:3 ending was meh, but I never felt the rage. The DA:I was fine. But people gunna be pissed if they are still mad about ME:3.
I just see a lot of the hate as people jumping on the bandwagon because its the cool thing to do right now. The original ME trilogy was not without its flaws and bad animations but that didn't stop it from being some of peoples best games they've ever played. Like someone said, I think just because other stuff isn't really animated like hand movements, body movements, like in the original trilogy, we notice the bad facial animations more because we aren't as distracted by the other stuff.
Andromeda is not without its flaws, thats for sure, but its a pretty good game, just like the old games. I'd say the combat is the best its ever been. I'd compare it to ME1, slow to start, but once it gets going its good. The trial did its job on me because I can't wait.
On March 20 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote: Yeah, seems misguided. DA:2 was clearly a game being rushed out the door by EA to meet a financial quarter. ME:3 ending was meh, but I never felt the rage. The DA:I was fine. But people gunna be pissed if they are still mad about ME:3.
DA:I was not fine, it was severely flawed in several key aspects such as storytelling, character developement and so on, they sacrificed deepness for size. Bioware openly admittes this and promised improvements come MEA.
So uh... I preordered the game and played the trial. And now I have a question. The trial was 40-something GB, the full game is supposed to be 55-ish GB. After downloading the full trial, my ME Andromeda folder is 45 GB, but Origin says I have fully preloaded the full version of the game as well.
So like... am I in for a 10 GB download on launch day?
DA:I was fine for you specifically. The game was utter rubbish for me. Tactical component crushed to please console controls, irresponsive, full of pointless content with a story that wasn't remarkable enough to keep me interested and finish the game, like any other RPG i played from bioware before, and the combat, which would had been the only saving grace for me, was really really bad, bland and repetitive.
I just see a lot of the hate as people jumping on the bandwagon because its the cool thing to do right now.
Yep, and to defend it is the hipster thing to do. Silly labelling is silly. People are hating on it because what we had seen from the animations is completely trash, specially if we compare it to a 2007 videogame. That's 10 years, and we are speaking about a cinematic RPG here.
And i say this as someone who has it did reserve after the trial, because the combat looks promising, and that weights more for me at this point, but i won't claim people are just hating because it's cool to hate. C'mon. They have some legit reasons to criticize it.
Nobody is complaining about legitimate complains, of which there are many.
Hell, nobody would actually give a shit if you couldn't stand it so much that you can't play it. The problem are people who think they're so important that their opinion of something goes so far that it's enough to make a blanket statement like "don't get it, it's shit".
Nobody here is actually defending the flaws, every single posting i've seen (and written) is acknowledging the problems, except the "hipsters" as you call them (first time ever heard that comparison) realise that they have fun with the game despite the flaws. Whereas you have others, getting a raging boner telling you how bad and disappointing it is and you totally should stay away from it. See the difference? And that's actually considered "medium hardcore" now, the real fans go after a girl who they think is solely responsible for the entire animation system. Obviously.
So like... am I in for a 10 GB download on launch day?
According to Bioware, you already should have downloaded the full client, nothing more. That's how in understand it anyway. Not even a day 1 patch, that's already applied.
Erhm m4ini... Disengaged just said that people are hating it because it's cool to hate it, which directly implies people aren't hating it because its flaws, which is a way to cast aside any legit criticism as hate, and then play it down, even tho how important those flaws are entirely subjective.
The hipster (what's cool to do = mainstream, right ?) is just a stupid analogy on how silly it is to actually put labels and polarize the discussion to characterize people who criticize the game as haters, and the oppossite would be characterize people who praise it as shills. I wasn't saying that people were defending it here specifically.
And to be honest, most of the criticism online is more humorous than pure hating or bashing (except some GG weirdos left, who as always, they have to be complete pricks and open up for "gamers are mysoginists dickheads" headlines). I am sure it has worked better for bioware than worse, as free advertisiment and reminder that the game is being released.
Disengaged has a point though. I don't know if you were part of the Witcher 3 discussion here? People went absolutely crazy after some morons on the interwebs pointed out that there seemed to be a graphical downgrade, literally calling "shitty graphics now" etc a valid argument. For Witcher 3, a game that to this date is pretty much still one of the best looking games out there.
Again, i have zero problem with criticism, at least if it's valid (which for some part, it certainly is with ME:A as i said multiple times). Going out telling people not to buy it because.. well, quite literally, it boils down to "because the facial animations are shit", to me personally would actually count as hating. There's a difference between me accepting that the game isn't for me and moving on, and NOT accepting that the game isn't for me, so i decide to go after it not just by telling people "be aware of those faults", but by trying to impact sales by saying "these faults make the game unplayable". edit: which is more glaringly obvious in this case where you actually have the option to suggest a 10 hour trial.
Hipster never stroke me as "what's cool to do" though, the weird trousers that end somewhere halfway on the shin with bright red socks etc never stroke me as "cool" or even perceived cool hehe. Hipster is "against mainstream", that's why fixed gear bikes etc are "hipster".
Thankfully, my character animations came with an actual game attached to it, which is enjoyable.
edit: regardless of definition, we can agree that labeling people doesn't get us anywhere though.
Well I do not think they are "hating" hating, they are just disappointed.
Many people loved Mass Effect 1-3, they were counting on a successor that embraces the good things, tosses out the bad and invents a whole new experience. People have seen games with grpahic just as witcher, tomb raider and what not and they expected mass effect andromeda to be a decicive step forward because it is a new beginning in the Mass effect universe.
And from what we have seen there are no decisive steps. It does not feel like a new beginning, a new core with some remanescent traces of the old. It feels like the same old same old with some alterations, many mistakes and missing polish and we all hope we do not experience a game full of width and length but without any depth to it.
It does not mean that the game is unplayable or bad in general, it just has many aspects that lead to great disappointment in some important areas that can not or should not be overlooked.
My hope as of now, is that the story and the questing is thrilling and addicting and the characters and squadmates are interesting, because the graphics are not the wow effect in this game and the gunplay never has really been the driver of the game. It was just something you did that was enjoyable, but you just did it to get to the next piece of story, to the next dialog, to the next part of the puzzle.
Bringing a game from tubes to a huge open world (multiple, actually, as far as i can tell) is rather decisive i'd say. In fact, it makes it an entire subgenre.
Nobody is arguing that it's polished, it's not. Hell, i absolutely hate the DA:Inquisition type quest table real time thing. Already did in DA:I.
Also, the gunplay actually is great now. That's exactly what i mean: you're disappointed because it's not Mass Effect 3.5. Which is fair i guess, but that's on you. It was always known that ME1-3 is a closed trilogy, and that IF something else comes out, it'd be different. Hell for the longest time we actually thought "that's it" in regards to Mass Effect.
I enjoy the open world part, driving around with the Rover seeing a little ruin barely visible far in the distance - and then drive there, check it out. Maybe find a datapad. I enjoy the new fast gunplay with hovering while shooting and whatnot. Story obviously is hard to judge, but from what i've been able to gather, the setup at least is great. Is puzzling fun? Hell yes. Did i see any so far? Sadly, apart from a sudoku, no. But the problem might be that the game stopped right in front of where i'd suspect trials and puzzles.
On March 20 2017 04:29 m4ini wrote: Bringing a game from tubes to a huge open world (multiple, actually, as far as i can tell) is rather decisive i'd say. In fact, it makes it an entire subgenre.
Nobody is arguing that it's polished, it's not. Hell, i absolutely hate the DA:Inquisition type quest table real time thing. Already did in DA:I.
Also, the gunplay actually is great now. That's exactly what i mean: you're disappointed because it's not Mass Effect 3.5. Which is fair i guess, but that's on you. It was always known that ME1-3 is a closed trilogy, and that IF something else comes out, it'd be different. Hell for the longest time we actually thought "that's it" in regards to Mass Effect.
I enjoy the open world part, driving around with the Rover seeing a little ruin barely visible far in the distance - and then drive there, check it out. Maybe find a datapad. I enjoy the new fast gunplay with hovering while shooting and whatnot. Story obviously is hard to judge, but from what i've been able to gather, the setup at least is great. Is puzzling fun? Hell yes. Did i see any so far? Sadly, apart from a sudoku, no. But the problem might be that the game stopped right in front of where i'd suspect trials and puzzles.
No, people are not disappointed its not Mass Effect 3.5 (well some no doubt are).
They are disappointed that the animations look terrible to someone who has lived in a cave since 2000. That the writing is (at time) worse then a tumblr fanfic.
This is a 2017 AAA game and while the gameplay may be great and smooth, everyone else around it looks to, many people, like shit.
Let me be clear. I'm not defending Andromeda because its the "hipster" thing or the fact that I'm a big Mass Effect fan. I'm defending it because majority of the criticisms that I've seen is on the animations and only the animations. Those people fail to provide more valid criticism besides the animations and those are the people are who I am calling sheep. There are people who have valid legitimate criticisms and have more to go off of then just animations. Those are the people I have no problem with because they have actual reasoning and thought put behind their criticisms other then "LUL facial animations". They state their reasoning and thought behind why they have a problem with the story(so far), the combat, gameplay, character customization, etc. Those people are cool. The ones who only have "bad animations" in their vocabulary when it comes to Andromeda, are not.
As I said, the game is definately not without its flaws but even with its flaws, its a good game from what I have played so far. We still don't know where the story is going to go in Andromeda and that will help with determining if its a good game for the gameplay/combat or the story or even both. Also, like I said, the original trilogy had its fair share of flaws and bad animations but that doesn't make it any less of a good bunch of games.
I don't have a problem with people criticizing Andromeda, but they should at least have something more then the animations being bad to at least show they aren't just following the bandwagon.
On March 20 2017 04:29 m4ini wrote: Bringing a game from tubes to a huge open world (multiple, actually, as far as i can tell) is rather decisive i'd say. In fact, it makes it an entire subgenre.
Nobody is arguing that it's polished, it's not. Hell, i absolutely hate the DA:Inquisition type quest table real time thing. Already did in DA:I.
Also, the gunplay actually is great now. That's exactly what i mean: you're disappointed because it's not Mass Effect 3.5. Which is fair i guess, but that's on you. It was always known that ME1-3 is a closed trilogy, and that IF something else comes out, it'd be different. Hell for the longest time we actually thought "that's it" in regards to Mass Effect.
I enjoy the open world part, driving around with the Rover seeing a little ruin barely visible far in the distance - and then drive there, check it out. Maybe find a datapad. I enjoy the new fast gunplay with hovering while shooting and whatnot. Story obviously is hard to judge, but from what i've been able to gather, the setup at least is great. Is puzzling fun? Hell yes. Did i see any so far? Sadly, apart from a sudoku, no. But the problem might be that the game stopped right in front of where i'd suspect trials and puzzles.
No, people are not disappointed its not Mass Effect 3.5 (well some no doubt are).
They are disappointed that the animations look terrible to someone who has lived in a cave since 2000. That the writing is (at time) worse then a tumblr fanfic.
This is a 2017 AAA game and while the gameplay may be great and smooth, everyone else around it looks to, many people, like shit.
Yeah, animations do look partially shit. I don't actually understand why, considering the Asari have extremely humanlike features (apart from weird penises for hair), and for the most part their animations are actually fine. It literally is only human NPC/PC. And even there you have to differ between a default male character which isn't amazing, but fine for the most part, and custom chars/females, which are way worse.
Judging the writing based on not even 2% into the game is ballsy at best. No, the conversations don't raise deep philosophical questions yet, but then again, we don't have any bigger story characters revealed yet. Saying "writing is shit" is fair once you played through or at least a decent story portion, but you can hardly judge it now.
In regards to your last sentence, you might want to read that again. "Gameplay might be great and smooth but everything else is shit" - who gives a shit? Without attacking you, if the game is a blast to play, and you decide not to because "reasons other than it not running on your PC" (which is another thing i hate, it doesn't run on my wifes PC - crashes), you really don't have that legitimate of a claim to call it a bad game. Might just be me though.
On March 20 2017 04:37 Disengaged wrote: Let me be clear. I'm not defending Andromeda because its the "hipster" thing or the fact that I'm a big Mass Effect fan. I'm defending it because majority of the criticisms that I've seen is on the animations and only the animations. Those people fail to provide more valid criticism besides the animations and those are the people are who I am calling sheep. There are people who have valid legitimate criticisms and have more to go off of then just animations. Those are the people I have no problem with because they have actual reasoning and thought put behind their criticisms other then "LUL facial animations". They state their reasoning and thought behind why they have a problem with the story(so far), the combat, gameplay, character customization, etc. Those people are cool. The ones who only have "bad animations" in their vocabulary when it comes to Andromeda, are not.
As I said, the game is definately not without its flaws but even with its flaws, its a good game from what I have played so far. We still don't know where the story is going to go in Andromeda and that will help with determining if its a good game for the gameplay/combat or the story or even both. Also, like I said, the original trilogy had its fair share of flaws and bad animations but that doesn't make it any less of a good bunch of games.
I don't have a problem with people criticizing Andromeda, but they should at least have something more then the animations being bad to at least show they aren't just following the bandwagon.
People are judging a cover, because that's the only thing it's avaible to them. If you are expecting more nuanced critics, you will have to wait until the game is released.
And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in.
And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in.
As we know, facial expressions were the reasons for bestselling books. Or bestselling movies, for that matter.
Story telling is not just about facial expressions, i'd argue that it's actually a small part of it. I agree that a good story can be destroyed by goofy characters, but you can also have a superb story with them - story telling is about pace, drama, suspense, "speed" (don't know how to word it better) etc.
Facial expressions don't convey story, but emotions. You can have an amazing story/universe and shitty facial expressions. The emotions part is where facial expressions let you down. And in this case, yes they do. The father/pathfinder thing at the beginning, without spoilering much, comes off as "meh" because emotions are not shown properly. Partially because of it being rather badly written (no argument from me there), the rest is lack of emotions.
Lets say it from one of the guys, who is highly critical towards ME:A in its current form, that people would call me a hater.
ME:A had insane expectations uppon itself, since it was announced. I am not different from that, I had very very high expectations to this game. Now these expectations clash with the reality, as a very large amount of different people with different high expectations judge the prereleased contents and go online to "talk about it". The expectations come from the legacy of Bioware (which is dead for alot of people under the unfluence of EA) since BG and the best RPG in the Star Wars Universe, one of the best RPGs after the BG/classic RPG era and being extreme close to the perfection of the "bioware formula", KotoR are very high. On top Mass Effect followed alot of the now ME:A awating crowd over 6 years, being played and loved and thus obviously watched with alot of nostalgic feelings, that make you think good about things, that the ME games might have done not really good. For example: Alot of you say the face animations of ME 1 werent good either, while I see it in my nostalgic way, the way my brain thinks about ME 1, as one of the best facial animations I've met till 2007 and it took games long time to transfer emotions and just conversations to me like ME 1 did. Is this the objective truth? I guess nah. But it is how people remember Mass Effect 1. And from here come the expectations for ME:A, that its once again such a big leap, that you expect it to at least be top notch, better the best up to now. Why I dislike ME 3s Story, not the ending, the whole game in very short: + Show Spoiler +
Then for me comes another thing, I deeply dislike ME 3s story and atmosphere. My Sheppard was never the hero the council or the Aliance wanted, she (my Femsheps are always renegade, my low amount of male shepards tended to be paragon) was the hero humanity needed. Humanity first was not only Cerberus concept, it was often times the one of my Sheppard. She killed the ones in the way, the killed the ones she didnt like, destruction of planets and species, she didnt what hat to be done to stop the threads of mankind. And then, my Sheppards kept the secret cerberus data you find in a blue suns hideout for cerberus, she cleared the freaking collector base because she knew everything is a possible tool against the reapers... only to return to the never helping Alliance after saving the Galaxy for 6 more months to get grounded and to watch the days pass till the reapers come? No, my sheppard would have stayed with Cerberus and do what had to be done, no matter what the price was.
Then comes the DA:I. Half you us hate it, half of us like it. I deeply disliked its concept of how to give me work and not plessure, how to drive the game just far enough to return myself to work. And alot of people thought so and Bioware said, they were aware and didnt want that to happen in ME:A. DA:I is practically the Ghost Recoon Wildlands of Bioware, when it comes to this concept of games, where the soul of the game dies in front of the altar of "flashing open world with nonstop things to do". People liked DA:I, people like GR:W. But others do not.
And now ME:A comes, clashing with the expection to be a groundbreaking game, to renew the legacy of Bioware, to be over the top in every regard, the expectation that all people disliked in previous Bioware games is gone...and this ME:A cant meet the expectations, that was obvious, because they were often times very unrealistic. But is more, this ME:A has flaws it shouldnt have, sins that are not allowed on an AAA game that has been in development for 5 years. The flaws like some of the writing (I mean, the game itself seems to be aware... "kill me now"), the acting, the perfectly still standing persons in some conversations, the face animations, the eyes, the broken character creator, which tends to give you a very good looking father, when you take a bad looking generic preset and gives you a god damn abomination when you worked 2 hours to get your Char to look as good as possible and then the open world style, which smells like Ubisoft formula, a formula, that way more people dislike then classic bioware formula. Will this be the case? We dont know, the pregame only shows very minimal amount of free roam, but enough to have the fear of ubisoftisation.
And when peoples expectations are crushed or at least not met, they do what: They talk about it. And as nobody as friends anymore, they do it online. And here I am and say, even as a person who would buy ME:A only in 1 year with the release of the last DLC, I dislike what I saw so far, I am annoyed by the things and my expectations were crushed. And so do I post about it. I wont say "hur dur stupid SJW made this game supershit, fucking tumblr girls writing our games", but I say that I am quite disapointed of this game and Bioware... once again. Objectivly ME:A will be 80 out 100, most likely, flawed but still good, especially for people who want to sit back and crush some fools in a 3rd person combat with a story that is not bullshitly stupid and on top get 3 more friends on and grind some simple horde shooter. But this is not what I expected it to be... or hoped it to be. And as the animations are the most eyecatching, people who are not happy with the released preversion overall, will jump on it first, at its really big sin for such a game.
And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in.
As we know, facial expressions were the reasons for bestselling books. Or bestselling movies, for that matter.
Story telling is not just about facial expressions, i'd argue that it's actually a small part of it. I agree that a good story can be destroyed by goofy characters, but you can also have a superb story with them - story telling is about pace, drama, suspense, "speed" (don't know how to word it better) etc.
Facial expressions don't convey story, but emotions. You can have an amazing story/universe and shitty facial expressions. The emotions part is where facial expressions let you down. And in this case, yes they do. The father/pathfinder thing at the beginning, without spoilering much, comes off as "meh" because emotions are not shown properly. Partially because of it being rather badly written (no argument from me there), the rest is lack of emotions.
... Your saying that animations are a minor thing before mentioning that a major character building moment is (kinda) ruined by bad animation and bad writing...
You won't find a lot of best selling novels with bad story telling and bad sentence construction (the book equivalent of animations one might say).
I would argue that emotional investment is one of, if not THE most important aspect of a single player game, even moreso for an RPG. The best stories will not be appreciated if you don't care for the protagonist. Well-written movies have been ruined by bad acting plenty of times. And games are in another category anyways, as YOU ARE the protagonist, which makes immersion/identification with that character even more important.
And i do think you are downplaying how poor animations can work against suspension of disbelief for a good chunk of the playerbase who are not that much into game systems as we might be, and it's the storytelling the part they are more interested in.
As we know, facial expressions were the reasons for bestselling books. Or bestselling movies, for that matter.
Story telling is not just about facial expressions, i'd argue that it's actually a small part of it. I agree that a good story can be destroyed by goofy characters, but you can also have a superb story with them - story telling is about pace, drama, suspense, "speed" (don't know how to word it better) etc.
Facial expressions don't convey story, but emotions. You can have an amazing story/universe and shitty facial expressions. The emotions part is where facial expressions let you down. And in this case, yes they do. The father/pathfinder thing at the beginning, without spoilering much, comes off as "meh" because emotions are not shown properly. Partially because of it being rather badly written (no argument from me there), the rest is lack of emotions.
Small part ? Man, i think you should really self-reflect on what you are saying. Or maybe we should just hire an army of Arnold Schwarzenegers for every movie, because facial and physical expression doesn't matter that much as a comunication device. Emotions ? That's overrated! (Not trying to be offensive btw)
So if Bioware had just gone with static portraits for conversations (as in their classical BG games) we would have much less complaints about the game?
I didn't play the single player since the trial was only 10h and I didn't see the point. If animations are shit and conversations take 2 times the time to read the subtitles (as always) I guess I will not be looking at the screen during most of the longer conversations and enjoy it as an audio book. Just as in most 3D games such as Witcher 3 (which is a good game with a shit conversation system in my opinion), Skyrim or Fallout 3/4.
I mostly play 3D RPGs in spite of their conversation systems which fall far short of movies and take a lot of time. I simply enjoy the combat systems more than in 2D systems and the story they can tell is the same, even if it takes longer.
Edit
As for the overall DA:I and so on complaints. I can agree with them to a degree. I still say that was a good game with too much pointless content. I played it and didn't regret it. Nor did I finish it since the main plot was pointless, same as for Fallout NW, Fallout 4, Skyrim and to a lesser degree Witcher 3.
I enjoy those types of games and have fun with their systems and characters. Then I stop playing them and am still mostly happy with the games. If they cut their content breadth for depth I would likely finish them but open sandbox games generally don't encourage me to finish them. (True sandbox games I don't even play since I don't enjoy that type of content.)
I don't tend to get to max level in a MMO before getting bored with exploring their combat system and play style. I more likely re-roll as something else in most cases. I don't see that as a fault with the genre, more a case of what I actually enjoy in games. This is probably also why I enjoy Dota after a decade, there is both breadth and depth to the game while it doesn't tie you down for 60h to enjoy a story.
In terms of the male main character voice acting, its average but its not an abomination like male Shepard. Male Ryder at least has some emotion in his voice, maybe not in the right moments, can't say much else cuz spoilers, whereas Male Shep/Mark Meer literally sounded like a robot reading a script. Took him 3 games to at least get 5-10% better in his voice acting but it was still terrible and yet some people haven no problem with it.
From what I've seen so far, some characters/actors know how to put emotion into what they are saying but there are some that don't. That character thats voiced by a game of thrones actor for example. Shes not that good.
On March 20 2017 05:39 Yurie wrote: So if Bioware had just gone with static portraits for conversations (as in their classical BG games) we would have much less complaints about the game?
I didn't play the single player since the trial was only 10h and I didn't see the point. If animations are shit and conversations take 2 times the time to read the subtitles (as always) I guess I will not be looking at the screen during most of the longer conversations and enjoy it as an audio book. Just as in most 3D games such as Witcher 3 (which is a good game with a shit conversation system in my opinion), Skyrim or Fallout 3/4.
I mostly play 3D RPGs in spite of their conversation systems which fall far short of movies and take a lot of time. I simply enjoy the combat systems more than in 2D systems and the story they can tell is the same, even if it takes longer.
Edit
As for the overall DA:I and so on complaints. I can agree with them to a degree. I still say that was a good game with too much pointless content. I played it and didn't regret it. Nor did I finish it since the main plot was pointless, same as for Fallout NW, Fallout 4, Skyrim and to a lesser degree Witcher 3.
I enjoy those types of games and have fun with their systems and characters. Then I stop playing them and am still mostly happy with the games. If they cut their content breadth for depth I would likely finish them but open sandbox games generally don't encourage me to finish them. (True sandbox games I don't even play since I don't enjoy that type of content.)
I don't tend to get to max level in a MMO before getting bored with exploring their combat system and play style. I more likely re-roll as something else in most cases. I don't see that as a fault with the genre, more a case of what I actually enjoy in games. This is probably also why I enjoy Dota after a decade, there is both breadth and depth to the game while it doesn't tie you down for 60h to enjoy a story.
TL;DR: you are not the typical player of single player RPGs, which is why it's ok for you if one of the main selling points for that genre is badly done. I respect your opinion, but you surely realize that a genres let's call them core values should be done well for it to be called a good game. And to the average RPG player, the main story is equally if not more important than say the combat. If MEA had been advertised as a story driven shooter game, people would not be so overly critical towards this failure.
Just watched TBs stream, he was also laughing so hard at the animations and story telling flaws ... He stopped the stream because of frame rate issues after landing on the first planet with the tempest. Well I could run it on high without any issues, I only noticed if you are playing a video on the second monitor the frame rate goes to shit (some games have this issue, I suppose it was a problem in conjunction with the recording software.)
The game is not broken on a technical level and one can still ignore the issues and have fun, especially in combat, but the animations and ugly modeling is still an issue that bioware/EA needs to address...
On March 20 2017 05:39 Yurie wrote: So if Bioware had just gone with static portraits for conversations (as in their classical BG games) we would have much less complaints about the game?
I didn't play the single player since the trial was only 10h and I didn't see the point. If animations are shit and conversations take 2 times the time to read the subtitles (as always) I guess I will not be looking at the screen during most of the longer conversations and enjoy it as an audio book. Just as in most 3D games such as Witcher 3 (which is a good game with a shit conversation system in my opinion), Skyrim or Fallout 3/4.
I mostly play 3D RPGs in spite of their conversation systems which fall far short of movies and take a lot of time. I simply enjoy the combat systems more than in 2D systems and the story they can tell is the same, even if it takes longer.
Edit
As for the overall DA:I and so on complaints. I can agree with them to a degree. I still say that was a good game with too much pointless content. I played it and didn't regret it. Nor did I finish it since the main plot was pointless, same as for Fallout NW, Fallout 4, Skyrim and to a lesser degree Witcher 3.
I enjoy those types of games and have fun with their systems and characters. Then I stop playing them and am still mostly happy with the games. If they cut their content breadth for depth I would likely finish them but open sandbox games generally don't encourage me to finish them. (True sandbox games I don't even play since I don't enjoy that type of content.)
I don't tend to get to max level in a MMO before getting bored with exploring their combat system and play style. I more likely re-roll as something else in most cases. I don't see that as a fault with the genre, more a case of what I actually enjoy in games. This is probably also why I enjoy Dota after a decade, there is both breadth and depth to the game while it doesn't tie you down for 60h to enjoy a story.
TL;DR: you are not the typical player of single player RPGs, which is why it's ok for you if one of the main selling points for that genre is badly done. I respect your opinion, but you surely realize that a genres let's call them core values should be done well for it to be called a good game. And to the average RPG player, the main story is equally if not more important than say the combat. If MEA had been advertised as a story driven shooter game, people would not be so overly critical towards this failure.
I agree the story should be well done or I won't finish the game after the actual game system novelties wear off. The main complaints doesn't seem to be on the story but its presentation though. The actual gameplay seemed fun from my test, which likely makes actually going through the parts that aren't story fun and interesting (some story driven games the gameplay is so bad that I would have greatly preferred a visual novel). Giving me plenty of reasons to withhold judgement on that until I actually play it.
If the story is passable I'll likely rate it a good game. If the character dialogue is great and its dialogue animations suck I'll likely rate it great since graphics outside of that seems good enough to not matter. Since it seems to have a big fault it will likely not make game of the year which isn't such a major thing since I play more than 1 game a year.
Something I consider interesting when it comes to RPGs is what people actually want and mean. Do you want a sand box game where you can truly role play your character with minor creator influence outside of what they enable? Or do you want a tightly scripted story with some decent game play thrown in to space it out? The genre is quite wide and any open world game sacrifices a lot of focus on the overall story in my mind, making other parts of the game more important (since they take up more time).
On March 20 2017 12:49 Yurie wrote: Something I consider interesting when it comes to RPGs is what people actually want and mean. Do you want a sand box game where you can truly role play your character with minor creator influence outside of what they enable? Or do you want a tightly scripted story with some decent game play thrown in to space it out? The genre is quite wide and any open world game sacrifices a lot of focus on the overall story in my mind, making other parts of the game more important (since they take up more time).
Or basically Bioware is well-known for having tight narratives, strong story and developed, engaging characters at the expensive of somewhat sloppy gameplay mechanics.
Whereas a company like Bethesda is known for environments and open worlds, and massive modding platforms, at the expense of focus and overall story (though they still offer very good overall lore and disconnect story) and loads and loads of bugs.
And maybe Bioware did branch out from their formula, I haven't really seen enough of MEA to know, and if it is a truly open world environment where the main story is simply for setting and the rest of the galaxy is at your leisure, then that would be cool.
But from what I've seen from trailers so far, it's basically the exact same Bioware story formula except the explorable boxes in between the plot points have grown again (a la difference between KotoR and ME). And if they screwed up the story and characters badly enough, then Bioware basically lost the one thing they consistently had a good reputation for.
I have played about 4 hours now, and it's strange. In the prologue things seem to be animated acceptably, most people are voiced okay, except the male field doctor and Cora, who don't seem to know what situation they are in, but despite all that there are lot of good moments, in both story and animation. But after you finish the prologue and you hook up with the nexus, it suddenly takes a huuuuge dip. It's day and night in my mind. Hopefully the stronger story beats will be like the beginning, because I find people like the now famous Addison so immersion breaking that I'd rather stare at the subtitles. Also I ran into 1 shitty side quest, with a lot of running between loading screens, but to me thats to be expected. Another things is depth of field, people and things in the background look terrible, the aliasing is all messed up at times.
ATM it seems like the lowest ranking Bioware game besides their Sonic game. So much for that... I've downloaded the early access in the end, it seems like a good decision to test if the game runs well or at all on my subpar CPU and to see if I like it despite mediocre (horrible compared to a ME game) reviews. Maybe sadly I would stick to Overwatch and wait for Divinity Original Sin 2 for my RPG fix. Sigh... I wish Horizon Zero Dawn was on PC so I wouldn't have to watch the story on Youtube and actually enjoy the full experience, so many people praising that game.
On March 20 2017 19:11 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: ATM it seems like the lowest ranking Bioware game besides their Sonic game. So much for that... I've downloaded the early access in the end, it seems like a good decision to test if the game runs well or at all on my subpar CPU and to see if I like it despite mediocre (horrible compared to a ME game) reviews. Maybe sadly I would stick to Overwatch and wait for Divinity Original Sin 2 for my RPG fix. Sigh... I wish Horizon Zero Dawn was on PC so I wouldn't have to watch the story on Youtube and actually enjoy the full experience, so many people praising that game.
Horizon was the first time I felt truly happy with my console choice this generation. Uncharted was good enough but nothing special but Horizon was the first exclusive where I absolutely would have regretted missing out on it.
Anyway on topic, to be honest even if my previous posts were critical some of the following posts in this thread have drifted a lot into "unfair" territory. Frankly Bioware has never had a reputation for good "in engine" animations and dialogues. Commander Shepards dead expression was an internet meme for a reason, so my criticism is mostly in the sense of "this still hasn't improved whereas many other titles have". Honestly it might be that I am from a different gamer generation, but aside from a slight amusement when something bugs out obviously I simply ignore such faults.
I've spent my youth playing text based RPGs so what do I care about something silly like that. As long as the dialogue is well written and voice acted that is all I personally need and that is where I am really worried for this game. Yes the "welcome to the nexus dialogue" is longer than the gif shown previously but frankly I expect better work writing dialogue from my high school students. What worries me about it is that it is a pivotal scene in the demo they have chosen to show. Frankly if i had played this as an EA exec to "test" my product I would have nixed the single player for early access entirely and said just go with the multiplayer as a demo since that shows our impressive combat engine and system instead...
Don't get me wrong if i had to put a number on this game it likely would be an 85 at most so far with the possibility to go much lower if there is too much "busywork" involved in the proper game. The slice available in the early access was about 3 hours of gameplay I'd say, meaning its a demo nothing more, not even a proper first impression on a game this size.
Also the origin preload has updated twice so far while I was locked out of playing, so obviously Bioware is still hard at work in the background. If they can actually fix anything at this late a point is a completely different question I'm not nearly qualified to answer.
Frankly I think we can pretty much guarantee that this game won't be what people want it to be. That being a picture perfect reboot of Mass Effect with enough nostalgia to satisfy the fans and enough new systems/stuff to grip people for the future. Simply by writing this sentence I can already imagine how fucking hard that would be and it seems Bioware fell short of that mark. Did they make a good game regardless? Probably yes, at least for my personal tastes, but it doesn't seem as if this game will have nearly the same impact as ME2 or DA:O had. Most likely it will have to be compared to DA:I instead. A good game but not a great one.
edit: On that closing note I just read through the US game review which gave the game a 3 out of 5 and it perfectly illustrates my point. He writes about the stuff he loves and how the crew grew on him how well they did combat with the addition of the jetpack and that the sidequests make him leave the main story without becoming busywork. So far that sounds pretty good right? Basically he praises the game (doesn't even mention any problems with animations in the entire review btw.) except for the "uninspired" villains and says he regrets that Bioware wasn't brave enough to do something drastically new. 3 out of 5 not good enough!
Dear author it sounds like bioware did quite a lot of new stuff in your review, maybe some more words on if you liked that new stuff or not would be more appropriate. It seems the author of that article did not like the outpost building and settlement progression, but in total I'd say what he didn't like is that bioware didn't fulfill his own dreams for ME:A but instead tried to make theirs work.
On March 20 2017 19:56 Plansix wrote: Zero Dawn is a great YA novel in video game form. The plot is fine, but the character some good depth and nuanced moments.
As a teacher I'd probably be happy to spend 3 hours ripping apart the characters and archetypes in Zero Dawn for the flaws they have (leaving aside the absurdly common "whenever something goes wrong a Man broke and now a Woman comes to fix it"), but yes YA novel with some decently done mystery coupled with a pretty great combat system and awesome (and beautiful) scenario is what I'd use to sum up that game.
It was trope filled, but they own it. The heroes journey is well worn territory, especially in video games. And the world felt more natural than it had any right to feel with robot dinos in it.
On March 20 2017 20:57 FeyFey wrote: penny arcade comic is spot on the reason why to buy andromeda xD.
I can somewhat agree to that. Reviews seem to overall state it is a good game, not great or game of the year but likely worth the time for a large portion of players. I'll probably play multiplayer until I get bored of it, then do single player after a few patches. I'll likely enjoy single player and drop it 60% through, same as with DA:I, Fallout 4/NV, Witcher 3 (only one where I consider going back to finish).
On March 20 2017 20:57 FeyFey wrote: penny arcade comic is spot on the reason why to buy andromeda xD.
Heh yeah.
I guess the main question right now is: What actually is the best selling point of ME:A?
I don't mean this necessarily in any kind of negative way, the idea just gets buried under all the critique and countercritique. What does the game do exceptionally well to justify the AAA hype and pricing?
On March 20 2017 20:57 FeyFey wrote: penny arcade comic is spot on the reason why to buy andromeda xD.
Heh yeah.
I guess the main question right now is: What actually is the best selling point of ME:A?
I don't mean this necessarily in any kind of negative way, the idea just gets buried under all the critique and countercritique. What does the game do exceptionally well to justify the AAA hype and pricing?
For me it is its combat system. It feels more like a variant of one of the modern shooters with special abilities (while allowing a melee play style) than a classical RPG system. Liking it a lot more than Fallout 4's. Other than that I don't know enough about the single player to give an opinion.
VPNs seem to work as normal for Origin if you are in EU. Can get it in 2.5h by going to the Korea/India etc region. Normally it would be in 3 days.
On March 20 2017 20:57 FeyFey wrote: penny arcade comic is spot on the reason why to buy andromeda xD.
I can somewhat agree to that. Reviews seem to overall state it is a good game, not great or game of the year but likely worth the time for a large portion of players. I'll probably play multiplayer until I get bored of it, then do single player after a few patches. I'll likely enjoy single player and drop it 60% through, same as with DA:I, Fallout 4/NV, Witcher 3 (only one where I consider going back to finish).
The game has some huge shoes to fill, came out in the middle of Zelda return to glory, Zero Dawn, RE:7 return to scary and so many other good games. I bet the dev team would have loved to come out in June to have another three months to polish the game.
I’m gunna wait and get Persona 5. But I’ll get ME:A at some point for sure.
Maybe it's an issue with inexperienced developers, but it seems quite unfortunate they seem to be having double the content anyone could ask from a Mass Effect game, but at the same time they're taking a lot of flak for uneven, unpolished and dull content. Somewhere, somehow they probably should've done some pruning and prioritizing.
On March 20 2017 23:30 Bacillus wrote: Maybe it's an issue with inexperienced developers, but it seems quite unfortunate they seem to be having double the content anyone could ask from a Mass Effect game, but at the same time they're taking a lot of flak for uneven, unpolished and dull content. Somewhere, somehow they probably should've done some pruning and prioritizing.
That the writing is getting panned in a lot of reviews is the most surprising thing to me. Many of the same writers were on ME2 or ME3 as on this game. So it is likely as you say, they kept pretty much all content, even things that might detract from the overall experience instead of polishing up a smaller amount.
I’m not really sure about the writing at all. Most of the people I follow that are playing agree that it’s a little flat. I’m willing to bet that the problem is the lack of focus that the first Mass effect had. It was a grand, sweeping space story in the vein of Star Trek, with massive conflicts between cultures and complex relationships. That was the vision. I bet this game is pulled between that and being its own thing about a smaller space adventure into the weird unknown. You can’t be both Star Trek and Firefly at the same time.
I just hope all the drama and memes about Andromeda haven't ruined the game for me already :C Oh well, we'll see on Thursday. I want to enjoy this game so badly. At least the multiplayer is kinda confirmed to be good...
Star trek and firefly have as much to do with each other as breaking bad and Lord of the rings. Ones an psudo realistic take on a star fairing human society that is incredibly habitable planet rich but lacks communication technology of the age that it should have. The other is what I would call a cheerful-dark post apoc earth society that struggles with what makes Humanity worthwhile in a sea of terrors. Basicaly I shouldn't look too far into either of these because they ruin the fun and I should really just relax.
ME may not be perfect but there isn't exactly many other American space opera video games.
Yeah, that was the point. They needed to pick. Space Opera where the galaxy is at risk and you are the chosen one/flagship/super leaer. Or smaller story about survival on the fringe of space where everything is broken, calling people is hard and shit gets weird.
I think I said it before, but I would have loved a ME game where you just solved crimes on the Citadel. Some detective story with light shooting and smaller scale. No one would ever make that with the ME license of course. But god it would be amazing if they did. Fuck saving the galaxy.
I was thinking that this game would be an automatic buy for me once I had some free time. However, between the general Cleveland steamer that reviewers are dumping on the game and the craptastic ending of ME3, I'm actually having second thoughts about getting it at all.
On March 21 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote: Yeah, that was the point. They needed to pick. Space Opera where the galaxy is at risk and you are the chosen one/flagship/super leaer. Or smaller story about survival on the fringe of space where everything is broken, calling people is hard and shit gets weird.
I think I said it before, but I would have loved a ME game where you just solved crimes on the Citadel. Some detective story with light shooting and smaller scale. No one would ever make that with the ME license of course. But god it would be amazing if they did. Fuck saving the galaxy.
This is exactly what I'm disipointed EA never did with its city state system it tried to set up a few years back. A lot of spinoffs from their main IP's would give them games that could use the same successful universe and setting but with different strengthened studios and for lower costs.
C-sec a multi racial police force trying to stop crime amidst the terrible things that happen during the Mass effect series. There was a tremendous beat in ME3 when garrus complains about how he was investigating saren and how he was trying to stop him but couldn't get anywhere until after saren had attacked one world I can't remember which with the geth.
On March 21 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote: Yeah, that was the point. They needed to pick. Space Opera where the galaxy is at risk and you are the chosen one/flagship/super leaer. Or smaller story about survival on the fringe of space where everything is broken, calling people is hard and shit gets weird.
I think I said it before, but I would have loved a ME game where you just solved crimes on the Citadel. Some detective story with light shooting and smaller scale. No one would ever make that with the ME license of course. But god it would be amazing if they did. Fuck saving the galaxy.
This is exactly what I'm disipointed EA never did with its city state system it tried to set up a few years back. A lot of spinoffs from their main IP's would give them games that could use the same successful universe and setting but with different strengthened studios and for lower costs.
C-sec a multi racial police force trying to stop crime amidst the terrible things that happen during the Mass effect series. There was a tremendous beat in ME3 when garrus complains about how he was investigating saren and how he was trying to stop him but couldn't get anywhere until after saren had attacked one world I can't remember which with the geth.
DA: 2 was the biggest bummer for me because of that. It was such a cool idea to have a story centered around a single city over the span of 15-20 years, where you move up in the world and your status changes. They rushed it out the door and all the cool ideas they had for story telling got roped in with the bad ending and re-used assets. Now every game is going to be this world ending, humanity destroying plot line until someone has the creative pull to tell a smaller story. Because we can only give a shit if the fate of the galaxy is at risk.
On March 21 2017 02:28 xDaunt wrote: I was thinking that this game would be an automatic buy for me once I had some free time. However, between the general Cleveland steamer that reviewers are dumping on the game and the craptastic ending of ME3, I'm actually having second thoughts about getting it at all.
Just get the goty half a year later. Its the only way to force studios to not publish half baked things, also its cheaper.
On March 20 2017 20:57 FeyFey wrote: penny arcade comic is spot on the reason why to buy andromeda xD.
Heh yeah.
I guess the main question right now is: What actually is the best selling point of ME:A?
I don't mean this necessarily in any kind of negative way, the idea just gets buried under all the critique and countercritique. What does the game do exceptionally well to justify the AAA hype and pricing?
setting is the biggest selling point atm, as we get burried under a ton of good games, that all copy from each other. So the setting becomes the only point where one can distinguish a game.
EA games probably the best examples atm. With their Starwars game, and WW1 game.
after that comes the combat system. "Games shit, but atleast the combat feels decent" Seems to have become a trend with Darksouls and the rise of multiplayer shooters. Where suddenly everything needs to have good multiplayer combat.
That comment atleast is pretty dominant in this thread and describes for honor pretty well too. There are free 2 play games with similar and more polished combat mechanics. And microtransactions are in the b2p title too. (It's EA ... the multiplayer screams, we had microtransactions post launch)
TL-DR: Setting and Combat are the big selling points atm. (because there will only be complains about a weak story anyway, because its no game of thrones story where everyone dies ... wow what a good story lol)
Am I the only one who has always enjoyed the ME lore and just wants more of it?
I mean I'm playing ME3 for the first time now, but I really enjoyed ME2 and the world building of ME1 had me playing it at least 10 times through on my 360 years and years ago along with reading every entry.
Even if ME:A isn't as good as the best ME game, it looks like fun and the little I've seen is what I want. Sure the animations are janky but it seems good.
On March 21 2017 03:28 ZeromuS wrote: Am I the only one who has always enjoyed the ME lore and just wants more of it?
I mean I'm playing ME3 for the first time now, but I really enjoyed ME2 and the world building of ME1 had me playing it at least 10 times through on my 360 years and years ago along with reading every entry.
Even if ME:A isn't as good as the best ME game, it looks like fun and the little I've seen is what I want. Sure the animations are janky but it seems good.
Well, technically all the lore is gone because they've left the Milky Way. Which probably isn't what you meant, but still, all the world building from ME1-3 has basically started from square one, aside from the handful of squad members that are familiar races.
On March 21 2017 03:28 ZeromuS wrote: Am I the only one who has always enjoyed the ME lore and just wants more of it?
I mean I'm playing ME3 for the first time now, but I really enjoyed ME2 and the world building of ME1 had me playing it at least 10 times through on my 360 years and years ago along with reading every entry.
Even if ME:A isn't as good as the best ME game, it looks like fun and the little I've seen is what I want. Sure the animations are janky but it seems good.
Well, technically all the lore is gone because they've left the Milky Way. Which probably isn't what you meant, but still, all the world building from ME1-3 has basically started from square one, aside from the handful of squad members that are familiar races.
Yeah but, bioware did a good job of it before, so I can only assume they'll do a decent job here. I mean ME1 was far from the greatest thing ever since its aged kinda poorly in terms of gameplay. I'm glad ME:A is different hopefully it means they aren't getting horribly complacent. I dont want ME to turn into Assassins Creed from Ubisoft where it becomes way to cut and paste.
I wished the mass effect game actually took place during the first contact wars. I thought that would be a much more interesting way to go, but we'll see what story this game tells.
On March 21 2017 07:19 semantics wrote: I wished the mass effect game actually took place during the first contact wars. I thought that would be a much more interesting way to go, but we'll see what story this game tells.
I think the sad part is Andromeda basically is first contact. But it looks like they're going with the fairly standard "fish out of water saves the natives" storyline instead.
But that's just assumptions based on the trailers.
I don't understand why such a limited character creator, sure it's alot harder to make monsters by mistake but essentially the base face you choose pretty much decides 70% of what the face will look like.
The animations have got their share of the critique already, but does anyone feel the timing and rhythm of the cutscenes is equally big culprit? A lof of the more awkward stuff seems to happen because the dialogue seems like someone clipped it together from multiple sound samples rather than having the thing flow naturally.The more I see awkward clips, the more it feels like some of the scenes were put together by Tommy Wiseau somehow.
It's likely a very different experience when you're playing yourself and the rhythm aligns more naturally to your own choises in dialogue, but the disconnect and odd pacing of the dialogue seems to linger still even when there's no player interaction going on.
I kind of wonder if they'd be willing to have a director's cut kind of a thing altogether. Regardless whether anyone is enjoying the game right now, there seems to be potential for much better game if they just aligned the pieces a little different.
hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
On March 21 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote: Yeah, that was the point. They needed to pick. Space Opera where the galaxy is at risk and you are the chosen one/flagship/super leaer. Or smaller story about survival on the fringe of space where everything is broken, calling people is hard and shit gets weird.
I think I said it before, but I would have loved a ME game where you just solved crimes on the Citadel. Some detective story with light shooting and smaller scale. No one would ever make that with the ME license of course. But god it would be amazing if they did. Fuck saving the galaxy.
They seem to want to push space travel and galaxy exploration in a dedicated sleek FTL ship. It's really not the best trait of the ME series imo, but it is kind of the point of the "mass effect" technology after all. It would be pretty useless if you kept the story on the Citadel.
I could see a detective story all across the galaxy though :D.
Minor spoiler of first hours of the game, prior to open world exploration. + Show Spoiler +
I found two investigation stories in the big central for the effort. One to investigate who is sabotaging the station and the other to see if a person really did kill their friend.
So they do know the potential the story mode has, just don't think anybody has tried to pitch it to EA as a smaller game.
I played for like one and a half effective hours so far and I can feel myself getting pulled into the excitement. I think I'll probably have a lot of fun once the whole game comes out.
On March 21 2017 20:53 Heartland wrote: I played for like one and a half effective hours so far and I can feel myself getting pulled into the excitement. I think I'll probably have a lot of fun once the whole game comes out.
You can use a VPN to unlock it and then play it without using the VPN after that.
I've played now up until getting the Tempest. After coming from the extremely crisp Overwatch and Shepard's trilogy I can say the game feel somewhat very "soft and watery" with no other terms to put it. Everything has a strange delay on it. The combat is mostly on point, but the cover system doesn't snap that well and at all times I feel taking damage. The writing in the Nexus was at times pretty bad and that shocked me as a long time ME fan. My machine is sub-par for running this so I didn't enjoy the full extent of the graphics, but they are good. I thought I would like Cora and Liam but they come off as pretty generic at first, hopefully there is more depth to them both. I liked Vetra from the little I saw from her. The story doesn't do it for me yet, it's like the Salarian governor said: "go to those 6 planets, plant outpost and get to 40% viability!". The Kett doesn't seem anywhere close as compelling to the Reapers. I do like that there are many mysteries in there, so it is something to pull me in.
All in all, I'm conflicted if I will get this game or not, I guess my experience with Eos will improve upon the 1st mission and the Nexus. Sometimes it feels like Mass Effect, sometimes it feels like a half baked mod. I'm sad and disappointed, but I'm still willing to give it a chance. As for the future of the franchise? It's bleak. I don't see it continues past this game.
Also the seemingly troubled development is showing. Alot of people left Bioware in the last 2 years. The empty promises of info after the 2015 reveal now shows that they didn't have much to show at all, they didn't hold back because they tried to emulate FO4. The closing of BSN also makes sense in that regard, they didn't want the second coming of ME3's ending shitstorm.
On March 21 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote: Yeah, that was the point. They needed to pick. Space Opera where the galaxy is at risk and you are the chosen one/flagship/super leaer. Or smaller story about survival on the fringe of space where everything is broken, calling people is hard and shit gets weird.
I think I said it before, but I would have loved a ME game where you just solved crimes on the Citadel. Some detective story with light shooting and smaller scale. No one would ever make that with the ME license of course. But god it would be amazing if they did. Fuck saving the galaxy.
They seem to want to push space travel and galaxy exploration in a dedicated sleek FTL ship. It's really not the best trait of the ME series imo, but it is kind of the point of the "mass effect" technology after all. It would be pretty useless if you kept the story on the Citadel.
I could see a detective story all across the galaxy though :D.
Everyone loves the Expanse. Just make it a missing person’s story across space. You are on the quest to find out what happened to this one person during the reaper war 10 years later. Did they die and where did that happen? And of course you solve other mysteries along the way.
On March 21 2017 21:27 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: As for the future of the franchise? It's bleak. I don't see it continues past this game.
I've got mixed feelings about this.
The world and lore from ME trilogy is still pretty damn strong base for any game. Since this is supposed to be a standalone in different galaxy, maybe they can call this a misstep (assuming the response stays as mixed and disappointed as it has been so far) and release another game with some different twist. It shouldn't be too hard to see where to improve. As long as there's a few years of cooling down and the new game is clearly taking a different approach, I think it'll still be welcomed with some interest.
The bigger question to me is what's going on with Bioware itself. It seems pretty clear their craft isn't consistently improving at the very least.
On March 21 2017 21:27 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: As for the future of the franchise? It's bleak. I don't see it continues past this game.
I've got mixed feelings about this.
The world and lore from ME trilogy is still pretty damn strong base for any game. Since this is supposed to be a standalone in different galaxy, maybe they can call this a misstep (assuming the response stays as mixed and disappointed as it has been so far) and release another game with some different twist. It shouldn't be too hard to see where to improve. As long as there's a few years of cooling down and the new game is clearly taking a different approach, I think it'll still be welcomed with some interest.
The bigger question to me is what's going on with Bioware itself. It seems pretty clear their craft isn't consistently improving at the very least.
This is a new Bioware studio doing this. They were responsible for parts of previous titles doing technical stuff in them. Now they got a full game. The main Bioware team is working on an undisclosed title. It is well known but not pushed out since the name still sells copies. Of course the main studio was involved, just as this studio was when Bioware main did DA:I (as far as I know).
My biggest problem with the game thus far is having to use Origin. Trying to enter the settings on Origin takes so long that one gives up and lives with the popups in the bottom right.
On March 21 2017 21:27 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: As for the future of the franchise? It's bleak. I don't see it continues past this game.
I've got mixed feelings about this.
The world and lore from ME trilogy is still pretty damn strong base for any game. Since this is supposed to be a standalone in different galaxy, maybe they can call this a misstep (assuming the response stays as mixed and disappointed as it has been so far) and release another game with some different twist. It shouldn't be too hard to see where to improve. As long as there's a few years of cooling down and the new game is clearly taking a different approach, I think it'll still be welcomed with some interest.
The bigger question to me is what's going on with Bioware itself. It seems pretty clear their craft isn't consistently improving at the very least.
I imagine wild panic in BW's offices. EA will be breathing down their necks I'm sure.
Keep in mind that also the C&C franchise has a strong base, many games behind them and a loyal following, this didn't stop EA from killing that entirely. The return to the long development cycles is welcome, but Bioware suffers from incompetent programmers, bad forced in-house engine, and a penchant for quantity over quality. Bioware HAS to return to the style of 30-40 hour games that don't offer alot of exploration but do offer a tightly polished experience with excellent presentation and characters like ME2 and DA:O.
On March 21 2017 21:27 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: As for the future of the franchise? It's bleak. I don't see it continues past this game.
I've got mixed feelings about this.
The world and lore from ME trilogy is still pretty damn strong base for any game. Since this is supposed to be a standalone in different galaxy, maybe they can call this a misstep (assuming the response stays as mixed and disappointed as it has been so far) and release another game with some different twist. It shouldn't be too hard to see where to improve. As long as there's a few years of cooling down and the new game is clearly taking a different approach, I think it'll still be welcomed with some interest.
The bigger question to me is what's going on with Bioware itself. It seems pretty clear their craft isn't consistently improving at the very least.
I imagine wild panic in BW's offices. EA will be breathing down their necks I'm sure.
Keep in mind that also the C&C franchise has a strong base, many games behind them and a loyal following, this didn't stop EA from killing that entirely. The return to the long development cycles is welcome, but Bioware suffers from incompetent programmers, bad forced in-house engine, and a penchant for quantity over quality. Bioware HAS to return to the style of 30-40 hour games that don't offer alot of exploration but do offer a tightly polished experience with excellent presentation and characters like ME2 and DA:O.
I think that is the problem with the new games. I liked DA:I, but not for the side missions. Some of the regions with directed story lines(the flooded region for instance) were pretty good. But some were empty and dull. But that is the mandate of EA to design games now, volume and hour counts. People love hour counts for reasons beyond my understanding. If they took the DA:I design and chopped out about 30% of that game content, it would be fine. And it would help their story writing and pacing.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Because they killed the plot of the old galaxy and wrapped up all the long term conflicts. They would have needed to go +100 years into the future for a new story.
Will probably be getting this, regardless of what reviews are saying, and what gifs I've seen.
Played entire ME series for first time 5 months ago after a friend swore it was amazing. Was never a huge sci-fi fan, but gave it a shot, and Jesus, it was one of my most memorable gaming experiences ever.
Just one question (possible spoilers?), I'm well aware this take place in a different galaxy from the Original ME, but are these guys just not afraid of the Reapers? I know there are some small instances of the original here, but I imagine there's not much stopping Reapers from traveling to this galaxy.
On March 22 2017 01:42 sung_moon wrote: Will probably be getting this, regardless of what reviews are saying, and what gifs I've seen.
Played entire ME series for first time 5 months ago after a friend swore it was amazing. Was never a huge sci-fi fan, but gave it a shot, and Jesus, it was one of my most memorable gaming experiences ever.
Just one question (possible spoilers?), I'm well aware this take place in a different galaxy from the Original ME, but are these guys just not afraid of the Reapers? I know there are some small instances of the original here, but I imagine there's not much stopping Reapers from traveling to this galaxy.
I heard somewhere that apparently the Cycle doesn't happen in Andromeda so Reapers are a non-issue.
On March 22 2017 01:42 sung_moon wrote: Will probably be getting this, regardless of what reviews are saying, and what gifs I've seen.
Played entire ME series for first time 5 months ago after a friend swore it was amazing. Was never a huge sci-fi fan, but gave it a shot, and Jesus, it was one of my most memorable gaming experiences ever.
Just one question (possible spoilers?), I'm well aware this take place in a different galaxy from the Original ME, but are these guys just not afraid of the Reapers? I know there are some small instances of the original here, but I imagine there's not much stopping Reapers from traveling to this galaxy.
I heard somewhere that apparently the Cycle doesn't happen in Andromeda so Reapers are a non-issue.
The Reapers are a big deal, but galaxies are super far apart and they got a good thing going in the milky-way. Also the "cycle" is based on a lot of infrastructure.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
On March 22 2017 01:42 sung_moon wrote: Will probably be getting this, regardless of what reviews are saying, and what gifs I've seen.
Played entire ME series for first time 5 months ago after a friend swore it was amazing. Was never a huge sci-fi fan, but gave it a shot, and Jesus, it was one of my most memorable gaming experiences ever.
Just one question (possible spoilers?), I'm well aware this take place in a different galaxy from the Original ME, but are these guys just not afraid of the Reapers? I know there are some small instances of the original here, but I imagine there's not much stopping Reapers from traveling to this galaxy.
Reapers kept themselves to the Milky Way.
Honestly if you think about ME:A in relation to anything concerning the Reapers it will make no sense, best to ignore them.
Where does Andromeda actually sit chronologically compared to the original? I've understood there are some references to the events of the original trilogy in Andromeda, but I guess the long cryosleep bit also makes it quite disconnected from the actual trilogy timeline.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
On March 22 2017 01:58 Bacillus wrote: Where does Andromeda actually sit chronologically compared to the original? I've understood there are some references to the events of the original trilogy in Andromeda, but I guess the long cryosleep bit also makes it quite disconnected from the actual trilogy timeline.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
On March 22 2017 01:58 Bacillus wrote: Where does Andromeda actually sit chronologically compared to the original? I've understood there are some references to the events of the original trilogy in Andromeda, but I guess the long cryosleep bit also makes it quite disconnected from the actual trilogy timeline.
I believe they depart between ME 1 and 2.
They depart in 2185, which would most likely mean at some point during ME2.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
Do they actually talk about this in detail?
During ME2 the council seems to pretend Sovereign never happened and all is fine. Did they still commit to a sizeable back up plan and send great number of their citizens towards the unknown while publicly pretending all is fine?
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
The Initiative was founded years before Sovereign attacked the Citadel and thus years before any significant amount of people had any idea Reapers were an actual thread. By the time the expedition sets out, the number of people in the galaxy aware of Reapers as a legitimate galactic menace would have been miniscule. Escaping the reapers couldn't have been more than an afterthought.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
The Initiative was founded years before Sovereign attacked the Citadel and thus years before any significant amount of people had any idea Reapers were an actual thread. By the time the expedition sets out, the number of people in the galaxy aware of Reapers as a legitimate galactic menace would have been miniscule. Escaping the reapers couldn't have been more than an afterthought.
Agreed. Nobody says their reason for leaving is to escape the Reapers when you talk to them. It isn't a factor for the common person at least.
If they do a ME:A 2 they could use arcs coming behind when they really know about the Reapers. A few governments sponsor follow up ships to a neighbouring sector or different part of the galaxy using roughly the same plan that was already made.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
The Initiative was founded years before Sovereign attacked the Citadel and thus years before any significant amount of people had any idea Reapers were an actual thread. By the time the expedition sets out, the number of people in the galaxy aware of Reapers as a legitimate galactic menace would have been miniscule. Escaping the reapers couldn't have been more than an afterthought.
Agreed. Nobody says their reason for leaving is to escape the Reapers when you talk to them. It isn't a factor for the common person at least.
If they do a ME:A 2 they could use arcs coming behind when they really know about the Reapers. A few governments sponsor follow up ships to a neighbouring sector or different part of the galaxy using roughly the same plan that was already made.
There might be some interesting dialogue opportunities in case you end up explaining the Reaper situation to someone who left for Andromeda before the situation was properly understood.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
The Initiative was founded years before Sovereign attacked the Citadel and thus years before any significant amount of people had any idea Reapers were an actual thread. By the time the expedition sets out, the number of people in the galaxy aware of Reapers as a legitimate galactic menace would have been miniscule. Escaping the reapers couldn't have been more than an afterthought.
Agreed. Nobody says their reason for leaving is to escape the Reapers when you talk to them. It isn't a factor for the common person at least.
If they do a ME:A 2 they could use arcs coming behind when they really know about the Reapers. A few governments sponsor follow up ships to a neighbouring sector or different part of the galaxy using roughly the same plan that was already made.
There might be some interesting dialogue opportunities in case you end up explaining the Reaper situation to someone who left for Andromeda before the situation was properly understood.
I was not aware of that. I always assumed it was some project they dumped support into once they realized the Reapers were a real thing.
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
The Initiative was founded years before Sovereign attacked the Citadel and thus years before any significant amount of people had any idea Reapers were an actual thread. By the time the expedition sets out, the number of people in the galaxy aware of Reapers as a legitimate galactic menace would have been miniscule. Escaping the reapers couldn't have been more than an afterthought.
Agreed. Nobody says their reason for leaving is to escape the Reapers when you talk to them. It isn't a factor for the common person at least.
If they do a ME:A 2 they could use arcs coming behind when they really know about the Reapers. A few governments sponsor follow up ships to a neighbouring sector or different part of the galaxy using roughly the same plan that was already made.
There might be some interesting dialogue opportunities in case you end up explaining the Reaper situation to someone who left for Andromeda before the situation was properly understood.
I was not aware of that. I always assumed it was some project they dumped support into once they realized the Reapers were a real thing.
The leadership could have known I guess. I am not far enough into the game (first planet fall after getting your ship) to know one way or the other. Considering they use quantum entanglement to talk to each other in different solar systems they should have set one up for Earth as well and know about it that way. Strange silence regarding that topic.
Regardless, assuming the ship has quantum-entanglement communication with the Milky Way (do they?), the Reaper threat was over in 2186. They would have left before the Reapers were acknowledged and publicized, and woken up long after the war was finished (barring a Refusal ending), and learned about everything after-the-fact.
(also sucks to be them if the other end of the entanglement was blown up by a squid laser)
On March 21 2017 19:29 FeyFey wrote: hm Andromade is one of those new type of open world games for me, where they put alot of effort into the world. In return everything else suffers, because they were not given enough time to create such a game. So its no Horizon or Witcher 3, but those two actually had the time you would need for an open world game.
I would have prefered a ME over an open world game. But the new trend seems to be generic open world game now with extra story flavor. The revisited open world formular is much more enjoyable then the old one Imo. I enjoy the exploration bit alot, but the genre mechanics are always so samey that I get bored fast when playing multiple open world games in a short period.
Unless I'm mistaken, Andromeda has been in development for approximately 5 years.
Can anyone tell me why they needed to explore a new galaxy?
Honestly I don't see any problem with the premise. The idea of needing to explore a new galaxy for the PathFinder(TM) blahblahblah is fine (although, I don't know if they realize how big a fucking galaxy is... you can use new star systems ad infinitum...100–400 billion stars estimated in the Milky Way, with probably millions or even billions of Earthlike planets). But then they (probably, I haven't played the game :D) had to make it about a Big Bad that you have to beat to save the locals.
The problem is that the new characters seem to straight-up suck compared to the old ones.
I have no real issue with the premise. I was just confused since the Codex in previous games stated that less than 1% of those 100-400 billion stars had been explored.
Oh. They are running from the Reapers. The project is started to escape the Reapers with some section of the galaxy. They assume a new galaxy will be to much effort for the Reapers chase them to, who are pretty set on doing their thing.
The Initiative was founded years before Sovereign attacked the Citadel and thus years before any significant amount of people had any idea Reapers were an actual thread. By the time the expedition sets out, the number of people in the galaxy aware of Reapers as a legitimate galactic menace would have been miniscule. Escaping the reapers couldn't have been more than an afterthought.
Agreed. Nobody says their reason for leaving is to escape the Reapers when you talk to them. It isn't a factor for the common person at least.
If they do a ME:A 2 they could use arcs coming behind when they really know about the Reapers. A few governments sponsor follow up ships to a neighbouring sector or different part of the galaxy using roughly the same plan that was already made.
There might be some interesting dialogue opportunities in case you end up explaining the Reaper situation to someone who left for Andromeda before the situation was properly understood.
I was not aware of that. I always assumed it was some project they dumped support into once they realized the Reapers were a real thing.
The leadership could have known I guess. I am not far enough into the game (first planet fall after getting your ship) to know one way or the other. Considering they use quantum entanglement to talk to each other in different solar systems they should have set one up for Earth as well and know about it that way. Strange silence regarding that topic.
Pretty sure that the (possible) daughter of the Illusive Man being on board is not a coincidence.
I'm already drawn in and want to continue playing. Game ain't no Witcher 3 and has some weird performance issues in + Show Spoiler +
the tram (lmao smallest room, worst performance)
but is very much fun! One or two additional facial expressions + Show Spoiler +
(and less weird animations and less of a hunchback (female) main protagonist
would be nice. Though I found the voice acting during the mission I played to be quite nice. The odd ME3-style conversations translated into ME:A so far.
Fixing the face is a step in the right direction. The face looking like it did made it way easier to see animation problems, even for someone like me who doesn't usually pay attention to that.
The change of eye color makes me wonder if it's a real thing though.
Why would they downgrade the face tho? can't be performance issues, it's too minor a part of the game :/
On a brief look, I think the cartoony character may still work better with the facial animations they've got. Even though some of the animations look pretty awkward, they're not as much in the uncanny valley area as they're with the older model. Where the cartoony model may look silly, the old model feels off in a very discomforting way. That's just my initial guess though.
It's interesting to see if modders can actually dig up the alternative model and make it playable for everyone.
E: In general, I've got really mixed feelings about the official FemRyder. I think she could be an amazing NPC on some other game, but not so sure if she fits as the playable character of a Mass Effect game where you're supposed to project yourself to the character much more. At times the cartoony face really helps in giving the sense that there are all loads of thoughts going on in her head, but it's also kind of messed up if you have only vague idea of what those thoughts are at given time.
To be honest, the "default" character looking like crap isn't even a deal to me if the character generator is somewhat decent. I had some real troubles with MA3 and DAI to get a character to my taste there, while i never had that problem on DAO or MA1-2.
Well, tomorrow i will see it by myself, but to me it was never about the default character, but rather the animations.
friend said I should play Borderlands Pre Sequel after a bit of multiplayer Andromeda. Gave me a good lol. High jump check, air dash check, air slam check.
As a PSA, if you can help it, don't go for the "Pinpoint Shot" achievement. 250 scoped headshots. Unlocking it basically ruins the gunplay because after you unlock it, every scoped headshot will microfreeze the game.
Haha, I get what everyone means about the face animations now. They did actually retract from the experience a few times. I did quite enjoy exploring the first big dungeon and I haven't gotten sick of the scanning system yet. Yay! Maybe that will be an interesting way to lay a new layer on RPGs beyond making combat the most exciting part. I like combat a lot, it's so much smoother and dynamic with the jet packs and the fact that you don't have to click space to start crouching behind stuff. I'm gonna have a fun weekend I think.
Edit: oh yeah, one thing that bothers me is that everyone looks so damn young. I can buy that we do the young hero thing with the Pathfinder but does everyone have to look as if they're fresh out of high school?
On March 24 2017 16:24 Heartland wrote: Haha, I get what everyone means about the face animations now. They did actually retract from the experience a few times. I did quite enjoy exploring the first big dungeon and I haven't gotten sick of the scanning system yet. Yay! Maybe that will be an interesting way to lay a new layer on RPGs beyond making combat the most exciting part. I like combat a lot, it's so much smoother and dynamic with the jet packs and the fact that you don't have to click space to start crouching behind stuff. I'm gonna have a fun weekend I think.
Edit: oh yeah, one thing that bothers me is that everyone looks so damn young. I can buy that we do the young hero thing with the Pathfinder but does everyone have to look as if they're fresh out of high school?
Well if your going to colonise a new galaxy you wouldn't want people to start dropping dead from age after a decade or 2.
On March 24 2017 16:24 Heartland wrote: Haha, I get what everyone means about the face animations now. They did actually retract from the experience a few times. I did quite enjoy exploring the first big dungeon and I haven't gotten sick of the scanning system yet. Yay! Maybe that will be an interesting way to lay a new layer on RPGs beyond making combat the most exciting part. I like combat a lot, it's so much smoother and dynamic with the jet packs and the fact that you don't have to click space to start crouching behind stuff. I'm gonna have a fun weekend I think.
Edit: oh yeah, one thing that bothers me is that everyone looks so damn young. I can buy that we do the young hero thing with the Pathfinder but does everyone have to look as if they're fresh out of high school?
Well if your going to colonise a new galaxy you wouldn't want people to start dropping dead from age after a decade or 2.
but maybe it would be good if they had a college degree and some experience if they were going to be part of the Pathfinder team? ; ) I like that they created characters who look more like real people rather than the usual superbuff/superpretty hero/heroine but why do they have to look like teenagers? Don't they know that all teenagers are filth?
On March 24 2017 16:24 Heartland wrote: Haha, I get what everyone means about the face animations now. They did actually retract from the experience a few times. I did quite enjoy exploring the first big dungeon and I haven't gotten sick of the scanning system yet. Yay! Maybe that will be an interesting way to lay a new layer on RPGs beyond making combat the most exciting part. I like combat a lot, it's so much smoother and dynamic with the jet packs and the fact that you don't have to click space to start crouching behind stuff. I'm gonna have a fun weekend I think.
Edit: oh yeah, one thing that bothers me is that everyone looks so damn young. I can buy that we do the young hero thing with the Pathfinder but does everyone have to look as if they're fresh out of high school?
Well if your going to colonise a new galaxy you wouldn't want people to start dropping dead from age after a decade or 2.
but maybe it would be good if they had a college degree and some experience if they were going to be part of the Pathfinder team? ; ) I like that they created characters who look more like real people rather than the usual superbuff/superpretty hero/heroine but why do they have to look like teenagers? Don't they know that all teenagers are filth?
Liam has served in law enforcement, Drack idk much about yet but he sure doesn't look young and has lots of combat exp, Cora doesn't look young either, Could be around Ryder's age but is an Asari and could be so much older due to that. I could go on with the other characters but you get the point that I disagree with your stance on the matter
Characters looking young is not weird if you know the lore of the ME universe. ME wiki states that: "Humans can live to about 150 years, and recent medical advances have eradicated almost all known diseases that afflict them" which iirc is based on in-game lexicons. Also throughout the games it is mentioned several times humans undergo gene therapy for various reasons. So the characters should look younger for their age because they don't age as fast as we do. I don't know how it relates to actual age of the characters, but it should explain at least a part of this.
So after playing a few more days in the full game I still stand by my earlier posts. Yes the game has faults but I enjoy spending my time in it regardless. Some design decisions make me question Bioware's sanity though. Leaving aside the animations (those are mostly a byproduct of the scope of the game, they simply don't have the resources to animate every conversation by hand so they relied on automation which obviously sucks) who exactly thought that the way to travel in the stars was a good idea? Why can't I skip landing sequences or the boring as fuck hyperspace "animation". It didn't bother me at the start but since i had to return to a planet for the 5th time due to a quest honestly it is boring me to tears. And yes I know that the landing sequences are basically loadscreens but they are repetitive.
So next point, multiplayer netcode. Honestly it is 2017 how exactly do you design a multiplayer function without any reconnect mechanic? Yes the game is host based (also a bad decision imho but meh) but my connection often has stutters of about 2-3 seconds. Normally those annoy me (and have been the subject of numerous phonecalls to my provider...) but in ME multiplayer they are game breaking because it means I look at the dreaded "connection to server lost" screen and am back in the main menu. Doesn't matter if your match is on wave 7 of a gold map your gone no rewards no exp.
Next up VoIP: Either this game has the shittiest quality possible or everyone and their donkey on the internet has the worst mikes available on the market (possible, haven't played with many IRL friends and if we do we use our TS servers). Also the mute function in the UI would be far more usefull if we had a speaking indicator (matches where i have to listen to other people breathe into the mike because they don't use Push to talk end up with my entire team muted nowadays).
Last point and I'm only tentatively including this because I have no idea if my unstable connection is somewhat to blame but for some reason every 2-3 games I crash to desktop from MP. No rhyme or reason but it happens semi-regulary. Haven't read any huge outcries over unstable MP so it might be isolated to my machine for whatever reason.
So I still like the game both in SP and MP but some patches and polish really couldn't hurt. Frankly I am rather disappointed with Bioware and EA and their QA. This game might have been much better if someone had cut the scope down by a size or two a year ago and focused on polishing the remaining stuff a lot more. All in all I'd say it simply is too ambitious and big with not enough polish to go along with it.
Yep, i pretty much agree with Tula, It's enjoyable regardless all the problems, but yeah, it has a lot of issues, specially the UI. Combat is good fun, but not being able to use your companions sucks for me, since on insanity difficulty they are pretty much cannon fodder that you ress to gain time. I don't mind so much the landing screens, but how long it takes to actually select a new location to fly to.
Scanning is another feature i heavily dislike, specially if it's overused, it's like on DAI spamming that button every now and then.
Also,am i the only one that got Josh Brolin as his father ?
On March 24 2017 21:38 Tula wrote: Next up VoIP: Either this game has the shittiest quality possible or everyone and their donkey on the internet has the worst mikes available on the market (possible, haven't played with many IRL friends and if we do we use our TS servers). Also the mute function in the UI would be far more usefull if we had a speaking indicator (matches where i have to listen to other people breathe into the mike because they don't use Push to talk end up with my entire team muted nowadays).
Last point and I'm only tentatively including this because I have no idea if my unstable connection is somewhat to blame but for some reason every 2-3 games I crash to desktop from MP. No rhyme or reason but it happens semi-regulary. Haven't read any huge outcries over unstable MP so it might be isolated to my machine for whatever reason.
In MP on PC there is a bug where if you in game set it to not use VOIP (standard setting) it uses open mic. The only way to stop it is to set it to key bind to talk or changing to wrong input device. So isn't strange they don't know they are breathing into mic.
I don't have crashes that often so think it might be due to some connection issue crashing the game. I do still have crashes though. As somebody on another forum put it, this doesn't have a 95% fault free experience in multiplayer (19/20 games without problems). Which will mean the game can't sustain long term multiplayer on PC unless they fix the issues.
I now have 55 hours played, the vast majority in multiplayer so the game has been worth the money already. I am enjoying it, though the Kett is much much harder on silver/gold than Outlaw or Remnant factions. I would recommend starting out as a vanguard or infiltrator type, the other classes are much more reliant on their weapons from buying packs due to a worse skill set, even if they are a lot of fun (assume it will be balanced later on).
tbh ME3 multi had all sorts of bugs, crashes, desynscs and connectivity issues (getting into a game with friends was a nightmare, at least on PC) and it was pretty popular all the way until the launch of Andromeda (and I'm sure there still be a number of people still playing it for the months and years to come). Of course I hope they fix the abovementioned issues, but if the gameplay is robust enough people will grit their teeth and play the game despite all the problems.
On Voeld, once you've build the outpost, you immediately get a sidequest from the mayor to find a mining team that she sent "a couple of days ago". Eh? Gurrl you just arrived here. Another thing is on Aya, i didn't talk to anyone after the trader-sidemission except straight to the trader, and i get greeted with "your credits are as good as anyones" - .. eh? You're not supposed to know what credits are bitch, i just explained it to that one dude who's still standing where i left him.
Other than that, it's a solid game. I enjoy it. Certainly not game of the year, not even material for it once they fix things. I feel like the biggest problem so far simply is that i have trouble "believing" Andromeda.
Kett. They suck as the antagonist. In the OT, you had reapers. Huge fucking monster machines, harvesting people. There always was a sense of impending doom. Kett? I murdered hundreds at this point. Didn't even break a sweat. Yet they somehow managed to basically enslave the whole galaxy, "transforming" other races into Kett by having a lengthy ceremony with church n shit. Like.. Come on. Granted, i'm not through the game yet, not even close, but if there's not coming anything on top, this is awful compared to former MEs. And i do realise that ME3 had more plot holes than a swiss cheese with a shitty ending, but in regards to "tension", it was still more than this now. I'm not scared of Kett. I'm curious about Remnants, but that's about it. Kett are more like a mild annoyance than a serious threat.
Had to be said, don't read if you're not at least 37% into the game.
On Voeld, once you've build the outpost, you immediately get a sidequest from the mayor to find a mining team that she sent "a couple of days ago". Eh? Gurrl you just arrived here. Another thing is on Aya, i didn't talk to anyone after the trader-sidemission except straight to the trader, and i get greeted with "your credits are as good as anyones" - .. eh? You're not supposed to know what credits are bitch, i just explained it to that one dude who's still standing where i left him.
Other than that, it's a solid game. I enjoy it. Certainly not game of the year, not even material for it once they fix things. I feel like the biggest problem so far simply is that i have trouble "believing" Andromeda.
Kett. They suck as the antagonist. In the OT, you had reapers. Huge fucking monster machines, harvesting people. There always was a sense of impending doom. Kett? I murdered hundreds at this point. Didn't even break a sweat. Yet they somehow managed to basically enslave the whole galaxy, "transforming" other races into Kett by having a lengthy ceremony with church n shit. Like.. Come on. Granted, i'm not through the game yet, not even close, but if there's not coming anything on top, this is awful compared to former MEs. And i do realise that ME3 had more plot holes than a swiss cheese with a shitty ending, but in regards to "tension", it was still more than this now. I'm not scared of Kett. I'm curious about Remnants, but that's about it. Kett are more like a mild annoyance than a serious threat.
Had to be said, don't read if you're not at least 37% into the game.
Interesting, you make a good point. My issue with the Kett is that we just had the Reapers in the previous trilogy turn the Protheans into Collectors, and repeating that already seems rather uninspired.
What I find funny is that the team you can interact with has grown so much that I don't really care about them. GIL with his stupid Poker game. fuck for god's sake I don't give a shit and want to finally romance peebee.
It seems the trial version I still had installed is supposed to be connected to the CtD problems I've had. Basically it is supposed to show me the "please buy now popup" but since i am playing the fully bought version that is kinda hard.
Removing the trial also removed the main game so I have no clue how to solve this. Currently reinstalling only the game but I don't think that gets the trial out of my origin account...
On March 25 2017 03:48 Zinnwaldite wrote: This game was a huge let down. I think it is time to realize that i am old now, and not the target audience for the new BioWare.
Games got huge. Bioware has a huge audience that goes well beyond hardcore RPG fans. They have pulled in people who like visual novels and dating sims. My twitter feed is filled with folks having a blast with this game, warts and all. It is a bummer for folks who loved old Bioware, because no one likes it when the fanbase and focus of their favorite thing shifts around them. But there are other companies making in the style Bioware used to.
On March 25 2017 03:48 Zinnwaldite wrote: This game was a huge let down. I think it is time to realize that i am old now, and not the target audience for the new BioWare.
Games got huge. Bioware has a huge audience that goes well beyond hardcore RPG fans. They have pulled in people who like visual novels and dating sims. My twitter feed is filled with folks having a blast with this game, warts and all. It is a bummer for folks who loved old Bioware, because no one likes it when the fanbase and focus of their favorite thing shifts around them. But there are other companies making in the style Bioware used to.
I'll be interested to see if this game will also be a success like DA:I was. For all the bitching and negative feedback that game sold well. In this case the bad PR and Metacritic bombing started very very soon. Not sure if that makes a huge difference in the end, but coupled with the ME3 "ending" I'm not sure if their PR isn't starting to hurt their bottom line.
I guess we all saw where this was going when EA bought out Bioware, so far everything they have gotten their hands on has taken a turn for the worse within a few years at the most.
On March 25 2017 03:48 Zinnwaldite wrote: This game was a huge let down. I think it is time to realize that i am old now, and not the target audience for the new BioWare.
Games got huge. Bioware has a huge audience that goes well beyond hardcore RPG fans. They have pulled in people who like visual novels and dating sims. My twitter feed is filled with folks having a blast with this game, warts and all. It is a bummer for folks who loved old Bioware, because no one likes it when the fanbase and focus of their favorite thing shifts around them. But there are other companies making in the style Bioware used to.
Kinda pointless to live in the past though. Not to mention that the original trilogy already had big problems, with the third instalment having an entirely different set of writers. And it showed big time, constant plotholes and of course, the "ending".
I wish people would take off their rose tinted glasses. Yes, ME OT was good. To act like it was the second coming (it wasn't) and everything after is just bad because it isn't A: as quirky as ME1 or B: is on the same level as ME3 (yes, ME3 was objectively by far the worst one of the OT) is just weird. You can see that when people quote the OT as having "good facial impressions". That's objectively not true. The witcher, LA Noire, they do. Mass Effect never had.
ME OT was a trilogy that scratched the itch/void left after Knights of the Old Republic, that's how i see it.
Btw, what it looks like if you get stuck in the past as a developer was pretty obvious with the Torment series.
I'll be interested to see if this game will also be a success like DA:I was. For all the bitching and negative feedback that game sold well. In this case the bad PR and Metacritic bombing started very very soon.
I actually enjoyed DA:I for what it was. Wasn't really a Dragon Age, but as an RPG, it wasn't half bad. But Metacritic shows the picture in both games: reviewers who at least try to be partially objective give decent reviews (ME:A 76%), or actually good ones (DA:I 85%), where as "fans" bomb with spite-reviews. Omg, isn't DA anymore, bla - yeah, it isn't. Doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. Once you pull the stick out, it's a game that has problems, like most games (funny enough, the games being referred to like ME/DA leading the list) - but certainly enjoyable once you ignore that it's DA.
PS: i would never, EVER even give a penny about the user reviews on Metacritic.
I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Can't you turn off notifications for achievements in the origin menu if those annoy you?
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
ME3 is better in alot of ways but the story is not one of them. ME1's story is the best in the series but its gameplay is the worst. There are quite a few gems in ME3 like Tuchanka and Citadel, and a few others but those aren't enough to save it, story wise.
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
The same world in which "facial animations destroy the game completely" is an argument. The story is incoherent and peppered with plotholes because the writers changed and didn't follow up on things that happened in ME1/2. The ending was not only "not good", it was insulting - especially considering that the ME3 end had to be the best one, it ended the trilogy. Which again is down to not having the original writers. Yeah, the gameplay was more polished which is to be fucking expected in the third instalment of a trilogy, but that doesn't make it a better game. Not to mention that "others don't have good endings" is really not an argument or excuse for doing the same lazy thing. And i certainly haven't forgotten the KotOR2 ending. Which sucked too.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Because it didn't feel like Dragon Age. First of all, it's an entirely different subgenre (like ME:A), secondly, i don't know where that "bland story" comes from - DA:I is as bland and stereotypical as it gets. Still was good fun, as i said i enjoyed it - but a lot of people didn't because "it's not Dragon Age". Don't argue with me, argue with Metacritic reviews, reddit and god knows where they blew the game up.
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
The same world in which "facial animations destroy the game completely" is an argument. The story is incoherent and peppered with plotholes because the writers changed and didn't follow up on things that happened in ME1/2. The ending was not only "not good", it was insulting - especially considering that the ME3 end had to be the best one, it ended the trilogy. Which again is down to not having the original writers. Yeah, the gameplay was more polished which is to be fucking expected in the third instalment of a trilogy, but that doesn't make it a better game. Not to mention that "others don't have good endings" is really not an argument or excuse for doing the same lazy thing. And i certainly haven't forgotten the KotOR2 ending. Which sucked too.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Because it didn't feel like Dragon Age. First of all, it's an entirely different subgenre (like ME:A), secondly, i don't know where that "bland story" comes from - DA:I is as bland and stereotypical as it gets. Still was good fun, as i said i enjoyed it - but a lot of people didn't because "it's not Dragon Age". Don't argue with me, argue with Metacritic reviews, reddit and god knows where they blew the game up.
The way you somehow dismiss the basic things you argue about a game for misitfys me. first you say objectivly and then you start sliceing the argument up and adding these werid conditions about it. It doesn't matter if its the third one the combat is simply better. not just on a polish level but on a conceptual level. The first ME had much worse low points. Noveria was a cramped mess of an alien ripoff and the rachni are a werid mess of venomorph from dota. Liaras planet is an empty rock world where you can get her. The geth are used far too many times as the only enemy you fight and the story is clearly leading onto something bigger then just saren from the first world. what does a protheian vision and a protheian becon have anything to do with a renegade specter agent whos buddying with the geth to fight the human colonies? I don't know where the low stories are in ME3 but even the ending where you're fighting on earth again is a pretty decent world. The only bad parts of the game are an hour or so at the most? Granted its what you're left with after everything but objectivly ME3 has a lot better story then ME1. Reapers and cerberus are better then geth. the weapon selection and customization is better and the powers are just better.
I'll give you the hinterlands kills a ton of the game and they pushed way too many open world things on it but the story is way more then bland. Starting out with what happenes as you start the game and then the whole seige + Show Spoiler +
serious horus vibes comeing from the guy "I saw the throne of the gods and found it empty" then you actualy lose and everyone has to evacuate into the blizzard
People starting singing the sun will rise had to do more for your feels then anything that happened in DA:O. the Harlequins making a random appearance without explanation saved even the aristocratic episode. Compare with this DA:O "go to everyone who can help but oh no they need you to do something before they'll send their people to help you" gimmick that goes on for most of the game. Sure the stories within this are pretty good but its not baluders gate in its structure.
ME3 was a massive fanselfjerk for the most part. There was almost no story to dig in and it's pretty much what you are criticizing DAO for (gathering armies/allies), but rather you running around doing fanservice events (some of them pretty good i must say, playing ME2 forte, the characters and how emotionally invested most players already were with them, i mean, Garrus is a bro, you can feed me whatever with a Garrus in there, and i will shallow it with a smile), That you enjoyed it more than ME1 doesn't make it objectively better. You have to give it credit for what it did, and it was making a setting interesting enough for you to care for. That's the story.
DAI, great for you, I didn't give me any vibes whatsoever, it was all a "oh yeah, i saw that coming. And that one. And that one. Oh look now i am raising a sword while looking amazing for being the best make errand boy of all times." But i will be honest, i was very negative towards that game for many of their decissions, so i guess its only the natural response.
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Objectively? Both games have combat. The first game has the mako to explore planets with. The third game had planetscanning and multiplayer.
There's no Kai Leng in me1 throwing up the plot shield doing anime flips while making everyone else look like an idiot while he's flailing around with a sword.
Cerberus is more realistic and scaled down in me1. The cerberus you get in me3 is stupidly evil, stupidly rich and stupidly incompetent.
The villains aren't reading the script in me1 or at least they don't appear to as blatantly.
The science at least tries to make sense.
So objectively as a story to be experienced. An interactive novel if you will. Because both games had very easy combat mechanics and a low difficulty ceiling with obvious ways to be overpowered or cheese the encounters even on the highest difficulty.
On March 25 2017 22:31 Sermokala wrote: Granted its what you're left with after everything but objectivly ME3 has a lot better story then ME1.
You called him out for saying objectively and you keep saying objectively lol.
ME3 is probably a better game overall than ME1, with the combat and polish and multiplayer and everything, but I have more fond memories of ME1 and could tell you more about the story arcs (main and side missions) off the top of my head than I could about either 2 or 3. Combat is trash and I've never been able to replay it with a new character, but my first playthrough of ME1 was definitely the most memorable and special of the series.
It's dangerous to throw around the word objectively when you're comparing games.
ME1 is my favourite for sentimental reasons, but its gameplay did not age well (combat is clunky and side quests on uncharted planets are a fucking chore). However comparing it to ME2 or 3 is an exercise in futility, they are too different from each other on several levels.
After 13 hours of Andromeda I can say I like this game. It has its share of problems but none are severe enough for me to call it a failure. And PeeBee is so cute holy shit <3
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
ME3 is better in alot of ways but the story is not one of them. ME1's story is the best in the series but its gameplay is the worst. There are quite a few gems in ME3 like Tuchanka and Citadel, and a few others but those aren't enough to save it, story wise.
ME:A has the same gameplay as ME1 terribly buggy it's sometimes funny.
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Objectively? Both games have combat. The first game has the mako to explore planets with. The third game had planetscanning and multiplayer.
There's no Kai Leng in me1 throwing up the plot shield doing anime flips while making everyone else look like an idiot while he's flailing around with a sword.
Cerberus is more realistic and scaled down in me1. The cerberus you get in me3 is stupidly evil, stupidly rich and stupidly incompetent.
The villains aren't reading the script in me1 or at least they don't appear to as blatantly.
The science at least tries to make sense.
So objectively as a story to be experienced. An interactive novel if you will. Because both games had very easy combat mechanics and a low difficulty ceiling with obvious ways to be overpowered or cheese the encounters even on the highest difficulty.
Me1 beats Me3 any day of the week.
The Mako was terrible and all the planet side side quests were worse. The third game having multiplayer that wasn't half bad is a huge advantage. Saren in ME1 not doing anything apparently after eden prime is much worse then Kai leng being a letigimate representation of Cerberus that ME1's faceless geth never had. Cerberus didn't really exist in ME1 and in 3 shows how much they prepared but with the preparation of the fully mechanical illusive man and the manpower of the refugees. I don't see how Cerberus was incompetent in ME3 at all. They had spys and infiltrators everywhere human like indoctinated kidnapping would allow you and they were able to do a lot of damage without completely ending the thin string humanity was trying to be on throughout the game. The science made sense in a scifi sense of just trying to explain anything. Nothing makes sense under enough scrutiny. Saren apparently was indoctrinated but later had to get implants beacuse he wasn't fully taking to it but then had enough self will to possibly kill himself in the final scene?
Anything that includes something as dumb as the mako for as long as ME1 did loses automaticaly to ME3.
On March 25 2017 22:31 Sermokala wrote: Granted its what you're left with after everything but objectivly ME3 has a lot better story then ME1.
You called him out for saying objectively and you keep saying objectively lol.
ME3 is probably a better game overall than ME1, with the combat and polish and multiplayer and everything, but I have more fond memories of ME1 and could tell you more about the story arcs (main and side missions) off the top of my head than I could about either 2 or 3. Combat is trash and I've never been able to replay it with a new character, but my first playthrough of ME1 was definitely the most memorable and special of the series.
It's dangerous to throw around the word objectively when you're comparing games.
I called him out for saying objectively and then making arbitrary declarations that made no sense.
Heathen ME2 was the best scifi property of the modern age fight me irl 1v1 pvp. Suffer not a heretic to live.
But real I have better memories of ME1 but I'm never going to go back to it like I'm never playing FF7 or KH1. I objectivly belive ME3 gets way too much of a bad rap for the ending when the majority of the game was fantastic.
ME:A isn't really digging me in yet the planet scanning is worse then ME2 with how tedious the warping around is. My kingdom for some vandium.
Man, vanguard is so freaking overpowered in this game once you max it with the 75 defense for 5 second buff. Played 3 classes through Eos (soldier, agent and vanguard) and it was definitly the best (and the faster). Soldier is on a weird spot, not having adrenaline really makes it awkward to play, and barricade doesn't really make up for it with how drawn out combats tend to be with him and that enemies in this game have a tendency to attempt to melee you, and agent, well, it's a beast at cheesing encounters, but too slow for me.
Would like to try technician aswell, but i am digging hard the vanguard ;D
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote: I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
ME3 is better in alot of ways but the story is not one of them. ME1's story is the best in the series but its gameplay is the worst. There are quite a few gems in ME3 like Tuchanka and Citadel, and a few others but those aren't enough to save it, story wise.
ME:A has the same gameplay as ME1 terribly buggy it's sometimes funny.
Same gameplay?
Highly disagree. Just because it has a few bugs doesn't make it the same. Andromeda's gameplay is far more fluid and responsive and overall feels so much better. The only thing I hate is the automatic cover. I hated it in ME1 and I hate it in Andromeda.
In my opinion, Andromeda is a much better version of ME1, it does mostly everything better, but sadly the story isn't one of them.
On March 26 2017 10:15 Godwrath wrote: Man, vanguard is so freaking overpowered in this game once you max it with the 75 defense for 5 second buff. Played 3 classes through Eos (soldier, agent and vanguard) and it was definitly the best (and the faster). Soldier is on a weird spot, not having adrenaline really makes it awkward to play, and barricade doesn't really make up for it with how drawn out combats tend to be with him and that enemies in this game have a tendency to attempt to melee you, and agent, well, it's a beast at cheesing encounters, but too slow for me.
Would like to try technician aswell, but i am digging hard the vanguard ;D
I'm unhappy with technician in my game at least. I 123 things I'm not sniping with overload incinerate and then lance. Usually it kills anything big near me that needs to die.
Gun verity is pretty good but the powers are worse then ME3 I havn't upgraded skills in 8 levels and I don't really notice any issue.
For anyone who plays with the shield like I do. In the options you can set it to be toggled on and off instead of push (and hold) to be activated. I found it a huge improvement for my movement and orientation during the battle.
Also which melee weapon do you enjoy the most? I'm currently hitting hard with the burning sword. Has some synergy with a talent that makes burning do more dmg but idk if it really works that way. ~~
There's a nice variety of guns but frankly, I'm a bit disappointed with their lack of oomph so to speak. Especially for Assault Rifles (my go-to for every ME game). I tried to use the Sandstorm and it took like a minute to kill basic kett enemies. So I've mostly been sticking with using the P.A.W.
On March 27 2017 20:40 Artisreal wrote: For anyone who plays with the shield like I do. In the options you can set it to be toggled on and off instead of push (and hold) to be activated. I found it a huge improvement for my movement and orientation during the battle.
Also which melee weapon do you enjoy the most? I'm currently hitting hard with the burning sword. Has some synergy with a talent that makes burning do more dmg but idk if it really works that way. ~~
The only thing as a vanguard that makes you stop is when you were too reckless and some of your health gets chipped away, so i am using the kett sword which steals health. That way i am completely inmortal outside of mobs who can catch you at melee and oneshot you. I want to try the frost weapon aswell to see if it freezes enemies, but that hasn't been really required thus far.
On March 26 2017 10:15 Godwrath wrote: Man, vanguard is so freaking overpowered in this game once you max it with the 75 defense for 5 second buff. Played 3 classes through Eos (soldier, agent and vanguard) and it was definitly the best (and the faster). Soldier is on a weird spot, not having adrenaline really makes it awkward to play, and barricade doesn't really make up for it with how drawn out combats tend to be with him and that enemies in this game have a tendency to attempt to melee you, and agent, well, it's a beast at cheesing encounters, but too slow for me.
Would like to try technician aswell, but i am digging hard the vanguard ;D
I'm unhappy with technician in my game at least. I 123 things I'm not sniping with overload incinerate and then lance. Usually it kills anything big near me that needs to die.
Gun verity is pretty good but the powers are worse then ME3 I havn't upgraded skills in 8 levels and I don't really notice any issue.
Yeah, got that feeling with the infiltrator, so i stopped playing him. Also, with how the skill system works, classes who could use a myriad of abilities are not that hot.
On March 27 2017 20:40 Artisreal wrote: For anyone who plays with the shield like I do. In the options you can set it to be toggled on and off instead of push (and hold) to be activated. I found it a huge improvement for my movement and orientation during the battle.
Also which melee weapon do you enjoy the most? I'm currently hitting hard with the burning sword. Has some synergy with a talent that makes burning do more dmg but idk if it really works that way. ~~
The only thing as a vanguard that makes you stop is when you were too reckless and some of your health gets chipped away, so i am using the kett sword which steals health. That way i am completely inmortal outside of mobs who can catch you at melee and oneshot you. I want to try the frost weapon aswell to see if it freezes enemies, but that hasn't been really required thus far.
The remnant gauntlet? Yeah that freezes opponents for a short time.
I just fought two architects back to back they make the grind to improve the viability of the planet worth it. I wish there was more visible changes past when you unlock the vaults but its alright.
Does anyone know what the big ring things are suppose to do in a settlement? I can't' really get my mind around what they're for.
I think I remember that when I was investigating site 1 on Eos and walked into those things Ryder said something about them having to do with water. I just don't quite remember what exactly they do.
The new combat is indeed more fluid and indeed much more dumber. In 2 and 3 you felt that your team mates had some impact on the game and you could control them and trigger combos. Here they are just bullet sponges to ignore or revive for the most parts ...
How have you guys been doing on the romance front? I've been enjoying the Peebee romance. Granted it has a bunch of similarities to Jack's romance (way less insults though), but watching her develop as a character like that was really nice.
Also the fact that now every time I approach her to have a chat, she opens the conversation with "Yes. Whatever it is." is very sweet. That level of commitment from her actually touched my heart a little.
Also I got 100% viability across all planets super easy and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before finishing the game. And my only reward was the game trying to spoil that + Show Spoiler +
On March 28 2017 02:44 Holy_AT wrote: The new combat is indeed more fluid and indeed much more dumber. In 2 and 3 you felt that your team mates had some impact on the game and you could control them and trigger combos. Here they are just bullet sponges to ignore or revive for the most parts ...
I can agree with that the companions are bullet sponges to ignore. I don't agree with it being dumber though.
Previously it played a lot like a tactics game such as Valkyria Chronicles. Now it plays as a shooter, they are different genres with different focuses. The open world makes deciding approach vectors and set ups much more important. Then you hit one of the vaults and have a door with enemies behind where you can't really kite or set up well. Then it feels like a Mass Effect shooter again and you ALT + F4 the game for a while (only happened once and I was just looking for a spot to stop since I needed to go).
On March 28 2017 08:17 Elentos wrote: How have you guys been doing on the romance front? I've been enjoying the Peebee romance. Granted it has a bunch of similarities to Jack's romance (way less insults though), but watching her develop as a character like that was really nice.
Also the fact that now every time I approach her to have a chat, she opens the conversation with "Yes. Whatever it is." is very sweet. That level of commitment from her actually touched my heart a little.
Also I got 100% viability across all planets super easy and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before finishing the game. And my only reward was the game trying to spoil that + Show Spoiler +
Meridian would be settled
I don't know who to romance, no-one really interests me so far.
On March 28 2017 08:17 Elentos wrote: How have you guys been doing on the romance front? I've been enjoying the Peebee romance. Granted it has a bunch of similarities to Jack's romance (way less insults though), but watching her develop as a character like that was really nice.
Also the fact that now every time I approach her to have a chat, she opens the conversation with "Yes. Whatever it is." is very sweet. That level of commitment from her actually touched my heart a little.
Also I got 100% viability across all planets super easy and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before finishing the game. And my only reward was the game trying to spoil that + Show Spoiler +
Meridian would be settled
I don't know who to romance, no-one really interests me so far.
I probably would have romanced Suvi if she was available for male Ryder. I ended up going with Peebee because I wanted to see where it goes because her attitude doesn't really fit a relationship. More like a fling. Which makes sense considering her age. But it was nice to watch her come around and change.
Overall I'm actually pretty satisfied with how the crew ended up story wise. A krogan grandpa companion is like the best thing that's happened in Mass Effect ever. Not really a fan of Liam though to be honest. But as much as I like the companions in story, in gameplay it's off-putting. No weapon/appearance customization? Pretty much no control over them in fights? Surely Bioware could have done better.
TotalBiscuit did a WTF video on single player. Despite saying he hates breaking a game's rating down to a number, he said he would call ME:A "the most 7 out of 10 game ever". Good, but with flaws. Many flaws in fact. But nothing to justify all the venom the game gets.
On March 28 2017 08:17 Elentos wrote: How have you guys been doing on the romance front? I've been enjoying the Peebee romance. Granted it has a bunch of similarities to Jack's romance (way less insults though), but watching her develop as a character like that was really nice.
Also the fact that now every time I approach her to have a chat, she opens the conversation with "Yes. Whatever it is." is very sweet. That level of commitment from her actually touched my heart a little.
Also I got 100% viability across all planets super easy and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before finishing the game. And my only reward was the game trying to spoil that + Show Spoiler +
Meridian would be settled
I don't know who to romance, no-one really interests me so far.
I probably would have romanced Suvi if she was available for male Ryder. I ended up going with Peebee because I wanted to see where it goes because her attitude doesn't really fit a relationship. More like a fling. Which makes sense considering her age. But it was nice to watch her come around and change.
Overall I'm actually pretty satisfied with how the crew ended up story wise. A krogan grandpa companion is like the best thing that's happened in Mass Effect ever. Not really a fan of Liam though to be honest. But as much as I like the companions in story, in gameplay it's off-putting. No weapon/appearance customization? Pretty much no control over them in fights? Surely Bioware could have done better.
TotalBiscuit did a WTF video on single player. Despite saying he hates breaking a game's rating down to a number, he said he would call ME:A "the most 7 out of 10 game ever". Good, but with flaws. Many flaws in fact. But nothing to justify all the venom the game gets.
I really like the crew character wise and story wise even Jaal who gets a lot of flack on the internet was interesting and had a great personal quest (even if nothing in this game reaches the magnificence of Iron Bull) but you (and TB) are absolutely correct that the squad controls are a massive step back.
Yes they likely had data internally that almost no one used their squadmates properly in ME3 (fact is I only bothered on Insanity) but we still had that option on insanity. Coupled with the fact that in the current state of balance powers are next to useless (overload doesn't even strip the shield from a simple sniper, in MP a proper biotic combo doesn't kill a mook on silver difficulty) the combat boils down to a shooter with some magic skills.
That might be nice (and for multiplayer at least i expect major balance changes in the coming months) but I am absolutely astounded that this didn't get adjusted during internal testing. I don't expect great balance from launch titles but they had 5 years worth of data from ME3 multiplayer so how could they get it this wrong?
Some more words on MP now that i have played that for nearly 3 days straight: The current "meta" is really stale mostly because only sniper rifles are worth a damn damage wise. It's not uncommon to enter a gold lobby and have 3 infiltrators and a soldier who has a sniper equipped as weapon. The "good" shotgun is ultra rare (and also cannot really compete with a decent sniper rifle because you have to be right in their face or the pellet spread wrecks the dps again) the only halfway decent assault rifle I have found so far is the old revenant. Pistols are good if you include the SMGs (which they did) and the Talon but all others are mediocre at best. The carnifex need 3 headshots to kill a mook on gold (compared to 1 in ME3).
As i said they will likely adjust the balance significantly but currently its mediocre. Since it's still only horde mode it doesn't matter that much but it hurts inside when I cannot really play my technical classes on gold because they have no reason at all to be there.
Yeah getting two Destroyers is a nightmare. So. Much. HP.
As for weapons I've found the Raptor (which was in ME3 as a semi-auto) to be very decent and I use the N7 Valkyrie as my other weapon. Both don't require that much weight. Valkyrie hits hard but has hefty recoil. This is in singleplayer, though I was lucky and got the Raptor in MP as well. The difference between that thing and say the M8 Avenger is night and day.
On March 28 2017 23:13 Thezzy wrote: Yeah getting two Destroyers is a nightmare. So. Much. HP.
As for weapons I've found the Raptor (which was in ME3 as a semi-auto) to be very decent and I use the N7 Valkyrie as my other weapon. Both don't require that much weight. Valkyrie hits hard but has hefty recoil. This is in singleplayer, though I was lucky and got the Raptor in MP as well. The difference between that thing and say the M8 Avenger is night and day.
If you don't want to double/triple cobra the destroyers then kill their turrets. Then slowly grind them down or wait until they channel their Haduken. The glowing area they shoot from on their front takes a lot of damage when they do. Using a Vanquisher 1 does like 1/9 HP per shot when that is up. (Remember that you will die if you get hit by the shots, so be careful if you are the target.)
On March 29 2017 01:01 FeyFey wrote: variable difficulty in MP and bullet sponges go hand in hand.
Didn't know it was the dev teams first game, Explains alot though. I can't get over all the Borderlands influence this game has though xD.
They could also go the route of mass, mass amounts of enemies instead of making them tougher. Boosting all AOE skills and weapons at once. Combos would also improve since most create an explosion.
Hope they don't make the enemies even harder to kill once they add Platinum. Doing something else would be more fun.
I think this game would have been better if it followed an APEX team and was more of a first/third person shooter then trying to continue the unholy hybrid that is this werid rpg shooter concept they keep streching.
warhammer 40k has reasoned enough that melle would be back in vouge in space future tech and would be a lot more interesting to see DA:40k then space shooter amalgimation.
I am enjoying the family plot, I think that feels quite close to home without needing an epic backdrop. I'm slightly annoyed that we're seeing another case of + Show Spoiler +
"oh shit, they're remaking us!" with the kett and the angara, just like with darkspawn in DA and with reapers in ME.
Btw if you run into problems scanning something change the FOV to be smaller. Seems like the aim ridicule and the script for scanning were not both attached to the FOV slider properly, i thought i couldn't progress on a quest because i couldn't scan a console, lowered FOV did it.
So after a day free of work and my still unstable internet connection I've now finished the SP campaign for the first time. I'll spoiler the story parts I want to talk about later in the post don't worry. First of the game is "worse" than DA:I regarding too much shit to do for little payout. Once i stopped worrying about tasks and started mainlining the story and companion quests it got much much better. Still I wonder who thinks its a good idea to include about 50 "tasks" sidequests without any effort or real payoff (story wise) instead of 10 sidequests?
On that note some of the companion "quests" once you have reached loyalty are similar to the citadel DLC meaning added fluff that shape the characters and try to add meaning and emotional connection. That is a bit hit and miss but i'll get to that in the spoiler section.
Length wise without the useless padding (aka Tasks) it is about 50 hours for a full length leisure style playthrough. Someone obviously will speedrun that at a much faster time simply by hitting skip on every conversation and cutscene but I'd say I was fairly fast so it is a good length game. The final quarter picks up the pace a lot if you have actually done the companion quests when they appear (meaning your crew is loyal at that point and you don't have to or should interrupt the story from that point onwards unless you want to). I didn't play on insanity so I won't comment on how hard the game truly is at that level but at the difficulty below that it wasn't challenging for a veteran of the series.
I don't quite understand why everyone hates the Kett and the Archon so much as bad guys. They seemed fairly believable if stereotypical to me. Obviously Bioware hasn't explained the details of exaltation but they seem a fairly serviceable borg style Sci-Fi enemy (we absorb you, take what makes you strong and discard the rest). The part that made the story good for me was the remnant and the "mystery" surrounding it. The small relevation that the entire cluster was created by them including the Angara was great and there is enough hinted at for a sequel or two concerning the Scourge and the "Antagonist" mentioned on the Space Station.
The companion arcs were pretty well done with almost all party characters developing a real personality and in most cases you even get attached to them within a single game. There are two exceptions for me personally: Gil and Liam are useless and a waste of space. But that is to be expected not everyone likes every character archetype and Liam in particular is a person who would rub me absolutely the wrong way in real life as well. So great job Bioware designing him, he was real enough that i disliked his attitude :p
On the positive side Peebee, Jarl and Drack are amazing. Funnily enough their animations are much better as well (mostly because they are alien enough that they don't trigger uncanny valley effects). Drack is the perfect grumpy Krogan this series needs, like having Wrex back but older and meaner.
The politics of the nexus were the only truly disappointing thing for me, I really hoped there would be a quest where you could effect some real change in that ineffective pile of shit they call leadership. Seriously you have a thousand Krogans out of Cryo but you can't create and secure an outpost? What the hell is wrong with you people... They managed just fine after you made them leave... That there was no real way to investigate into the "mutiny" and "Krogan exile" is the only story thread where Bioware really dropped the ball. Some questline that ended with the pathfinder shooting Tann in the face would have been glorious (hate that prick).
The DLC hooks (2 obvious ones, the "benefactor and Gian Garson's (sp?) death and the quarian arc, are a tad obvious though... Most likely won't stop me from playing those, if they patch some stuff and service the MP a bit until then though. So closing thoughts on the Story character development: Krogans are awesome, the bar fight made me laugh out in real life and it is a real bummer that I did not get to shoot either the Archon or Tann in the face.
Btw: whoever decided to include the Addison "my face is tired" line deserves to be fired. Feeding the trolls that much of a line is simply idiotic
The finale on Meridian worked a lot better than the attack on Earth in ME 3, I loved the whole section with all your allies showing up and actually doing stuff. Shame about no actual fight against the Archon though.
Yeah the Jien Garson/benefactor story and the other missing arcs are quite clear. I also believe that the Primus might be a DLC hook instead of a sequel hook. She doesn't seem significant enough of a threat to warrant her own game.
I'd be happier with the game if my companions were more interesting, i mean drack is the only one i find interesting. I also don't know if the dialogue changes responses much, I've redone parts of dialogue once and awhile to check things out and responses don't seem to very much sorta making it not matter. Also feel a lack of cohesive universe with the background story stringing together, rather just story lines are self contained. It's not bad just not great to me just meh. I'll probably replay the game a couple months from now, hoping for patches and or fandom to change the experience. Put in 60 hours going though the whole game as much as possible and don't feel like a repeat will do anything atm. I also feel the music is a bit stale, most of it sounds like it's trying to copy sounds but not the tone of "uncharted worlds" from the main franchise, the space music for exploring planets.
As far as I know conversations choices are accumulative and doesn't really change based on a single choice most of the time. If you pick logical the entire game your conversations will start being logical on all choices since that is how your character acts and others knows about you. I havn't played through it twice so I am just taking others words for it.
Basically you effect your personality by the choices you make and your character then gets different dialogue choices based on that. Meaning a full logical person won't get a wacky choice in the conversation. While a fully happy go lucky type won't get a very logical choice even on the logical option. As previously mentioned, that is just what others say and I don't have two runs to be able to verify it.
On March 31 2017 10:33 Yurie wrote: As far as I know conversations choices are accumulative and doesn't really change based on a single choice most of the time. If you pick logical the entire game your conversations will start being logical on all choices since that is how your character acts and others knows about you. I havn't played through it twice so I am just taking others words for it.
Basically you effect your personality by the choices you make and your character then gets different dialogue choices based on that. Meaning a full logical person won't get a wacky choice in the conversation. While a fully happy go lucky type won't get a very logical choice even on the logical option. As previously mentioned, that is just what others say and I don't have two runs to be able to verify it.
So is it kind of like a hidden renegade/paragon system where you score points towards certain branches and those then unlock better or different dialogue options for those branches?
On March 31 2017 10:33 Yurie wrote: As far as I know conversations choices are accumulative and doesn't really change based on a single choice most of the time. If you pick logical the entire game your conversations will start being logical on all choices since that is how your character acts and others knows about you. I havn't played through it twice so I am just taking others words for it.
Basically you effect your personality by the choices you make and your character then gets different dialogue choices based on that. Meaning a full logical person won't get a wacky choice in the conversation. While a fully happy go lucky type won't get a very logical choice even on the logical option. As previously mentioned, that is just what others say and I don't have two runs to be able to verify it.
So is it kind of like a hidden renegade/paragon system where you score points towards certain branches and those then unlock better or different dialogue options for those branches?
As I understand it, more the second case than the first. Same conversation end point/information given but with different dialogue from the NPC and you.
On March 31 2017 10:33 Yurie wrote: As far as I know conversations choices are accumulative and doesn't really change based on a single choice most of the time. If you pick logical the entire game your conversations will start being logical on all choices since that is how your character acts and others knows about you. I havn't played through it twice so I am just taking others words for it.
Basically you effect your personality by the choices you make and your character then gets different dialogue choices based on that. Meaning a full logical person won't get a wacky choice in the conversation. While a fully happy go lucky type won't get a very logical choice even on the logical option. As previously mentioned, that is just what others say and I don't have two runs to be able to verify it.
So is it kind of like a hidden renegade/paragon system where you score points towards certain branches and those then unlock better or different dialogue options for those branches?
As I understand it, more the second case than the first. Same conversation end point/information given but with different dialogue from the NPC and you.
Interesting. I'd imagine that kind of system makes dialogue trees damn bloated sometimes. Just imagine the amount of written and acted dialogue, no surprises if there are some lapses in the quality here and there.
On March 28 2017 22:53 Elentos wrote: Absolutely needs adjustments, good god enemies in MP are complete bullet sponges on higher difficulties.
That isn't new to the Mass Effect series on higher difficulties.
More like abysmal balancing in MP. Vanquisher is 1.5times better than the second best weapon in the game. Then it just gets worse, some of the weapons there is no reason at all to actually use. It is simple to fix the most glaring issues though, just buff the worst weapons to twice their current damage and they will be just bad instead of horrible.
If you want people to use abilities to kill stuff they need roughly a 100% damage increase to start being viable on gold. Else you are better served to shoot more instead of using most abilities.
Playing using the Vanquisher and hitting weak spots the enemies in MP aren't that big of bullet sponges, even on gold. For example the Outlaw Sharpshooter dies to two head shots while the normal Outlaw Raiders dies to one weak spot shot or three body shots. Vanquisher normally has a four shot clip, so against outlaws you often kill 2 enemies per clip even when off host with the iffy hit detection. The Outlaw semi boss, Berserker dies in 4 scoped weak point shots if you manage to hit them all. More often in 6 shots or so.
The horrible gun balance in MP is just so strange. It is very simple to check actual damage output of a weapon for rough balance to then fine tune. Multiply damage per shot with amount of shots you can get off in 1 minute (including reloading) multiplied with a 0.X score for bullet spread. Then after all weapons are within 200% of each other you can start making them unique. (I know this is overly simplistic but they havn't even done something as basic as this when you actually try using the weapons.)
I have so much fun on Veold. Driving around in my snowmobile and ramming kett all day erryday. It's also quite beautiful and some of the plots are interesting. I can't say that I've gotten addicted to the game in the way I generally get addicted to big new releases when it's all I think about and all I do for three-four days straight.
On March 31 2017 21:15 Thezzy wrote: I've been using the Inferno sniper rifle (in SP) and it melts things pretty fast. Having infinity ammo is also great.
Haven't played a lot of MP yet but are Remnant weapons available there?
Also of questionable worth. Some people swear by the shotgun (forgot the name sorry) but so far the only remnant weapon i have used in MP was the SMG (equalizer i think). Anything else simply gets outdone a lot by the vanquisher sniper.
On March 28 2017 20:08 Elentos wrote:TotalBiscuit did a WTF video on single player. Despite saying he hates breaking a game's rating down to a number, he said he would call ME:A "the most 7 out of 10 game ever". Good, but with flaws. Many flaws in fact. But nothing to justify all the venom the game gets.
That's probably how I'd describe it too, but I'd probably be a bit harsher because I didn't like a lot of the characters/general direction of the story. Gameplay was pretty good though, and I think the fact that it made me feel like completing the entire story is a sign that at least there's an addicting aspect to the general atmo of the game.
At the end of the day everything was just fine. It just reeked of mediocrity in a lot of places and didn't have a lot of standout moments that really showed potential to be a great game. But where it showed potential, I really hope they capitalize if they end up making another game in the near future.
Also the loyalty missions for some of the characters were really dry and uninteresting. Liam's was really atrocious imo. Definitely wanted to throw him out the airlock.
On March 31 2017 22:15 Tula wrote: Also of questionable worth. Some people swear by the shotgun (forgot the name sorry) but so far the only remnant weapon i have used in MP was the SMG (equalizer i think). Anything else simply gets outdone a lot by the vanquisher sniper.
What is so good about the Vanquisher? According to a quick stat lookup it does about 270 damage, has a rate of fire of 125 and a clip of 4. By comparison, the Inferno I use does about 200 damage, rate of fire of 180 and a clip of 5 but it has infinite reloads. Haven't used the Vanquisher yet so maybe it reloads very fast but the only strong point I see is that it has more damage per single clip.
On March 31 2017 22:15 Tula wrote: Also of questionable worth. Some people swear by the shotgun (forgot the name sorry) but so far the only remnant weapon i have used in MP was the SMG (equalizer i think). Anything else simply gets outdone a lot by the vanquisher sniper.
What is so good about the Vanquisher? According to a quick stat lookup it does about 270 damage, has a rate of fire of 125 and a clip of 4. By comparison, the Inferno I use does about 200 damage, rate of fire of 180 and a clip of 5 but it has infinite reloads. Haven't used the Vanquisher yet so maybe it reloads very fast but the only strong point I see is that it has more damage per single clip.
All stats are changed in multiplayer. Vanquisher 2 does 883 damage. Vanquisher 1 is enough to one shot the Chosen/Raiders/Assemblers on Gold (hardest difficulty). Then there are no sniper rifles that normally one shots things it two shots (with some buffs they do but then it is easier to double tap). Vanquisher has 4 ammo normally, they have 1 ammo.
On March 31 2017 22:15 Tula wrote: Also of questionable worth. Some people swear by the shotgun (forgot the name sorry) but so far the only remnant weapon i have used in MP was the SMG (equalizer i think). Anything else simply gets outdone a lot by the vanquisher sniper.
What is so good about the Vanquisher? According to a quick stat lookup it does about 270 damage, has a rate of fire of 125 and a clip of 4. By comparison, the Inferno I use does about 200 damage, rate of fire of 180 and a clip of 5 but it has infinite reloads. Haven't used the Vanquisher yet so maybe it reloads very fast but the only strong point I see is that it has more damage per single clip.
Simply put my benchmark for multiplayer is "does this weapon kill a mook in 3 seconds max" by that standard almost all assault rifles are out. My Turbocharge specced Soldier with a revenant X in hand (damn you loot boxes) has a hard time killing 3 raiders before their counterfire kills me. The vanquisher on the other hand does with a single headshot/weakpoint or 3 body shots (depends on your character level actually. My level 1 salarian infiltrator which i am currently leveling has a sliver left over after 3. That would likely change once the gun levels up or I add some weapon damage bonus).
The N7 Valiant (the upgrade to the Vanquisher) on the other hand needs 2 headshots and at least 4 bodyshots. For a sniper rifle that is simply not good enough to be up to par on Gold.
The Isharay (also a commonly seen sniper same rarity as the Vanquisher) does more damage but only has a single shot. So you need to be very confident in your aim to use it.
After a few more days of playing (and reading boards) my biggest gripe with MP is that some core functions simply don't work currently. Receivers (one of the big factors in making AR good in ME3) don't work, Smart chokes for shotguns don't seem to work (at least the aiming doesn't change and eyeball comparisons shot against the wall at reasonable distances don't show a difference either) and I am fairly iffy on the pistol meele bonus. Those things aren't balancing issues they are core functions of the loot/weapon system and currently they seem to be straight out missing. Moving a point or two around in a table to balance damage rates should be fairly fast, but if those things are broken (as they are) it will take months to fix.
On March 31 2017 22:15 Tula wrote: Also of questionable worth. Some people swear by the shotgun (forgot the name sorry) but so far the only remnant weapon i have used in MP was the SMG (equalizer i think). Anything else simply gets outdone a lot by the vanquisher sniper.
What is so good about the Vanquisher? According to a quick stat lookup it does about 270 damage, has a rate of fire of 125 and a clip of 4. By comparison, the Inferno I use does about 200 damage, rate of fire of 180 and a clip of 5 but it has infinite reloads. Haven't used the Vanquisher yet so maybe it reloads very fast but the only strong point I see is that it has more damage per single clip.
Simply put my benchmark for multiplayer is "does this weapon kill a mook in 3 seconds max" by that standard almost all assault rifles are out. My Turbocharge specced Soldier with a revenant X in hand (damn you loot boxes) has a hard time killing 3 raiders before their counterfire kills me. The vanquisher on the other hand does with a single headshot/weakpoint or 3 body shots (depends on your character level actually. My level 1 salarian infiltrator which i am currently leveling has a sliver left over after 3. That would likely change once the gun levels up or I add some weapon damage bonus).
The N7 Valiant (the upgrade to the Vanquisher) on the other hand needs 2 headshots and at least 4 bodyshots. For a sniper rifle that is simply not good enough to be up to par on Gold.
The Isharay (also a commonly seen sniper same rarity as the Vanquisher) does more damage but only has a single shot. So you need to be very confident in your aim to use it.
After a few more days of playing (and reading boards) my biggest gripe with MP is that some core functions simply don't work currently. Receivers (one of the big factors in making AR good in ME3) don't work, Smart chokes for shotguns don't seem to work (at least the aiming doesn't change and eyeball comparisons shot against the wall at reasonable distances don't show a difference either) and I am fairly iffy on the pistol meele bonus. Those things aren't balancing issues they are core functions of the loot/weapon system and currently they seem to be straight out missing. Moving a point or two around in a table to balance damage rates should be fairly fast, but if those things are broken (as they are) it will take months to fix.
The best thing they can do if they are broken is to state they are then change weapon's base line stats to account for that. Once they do manage to get them working they just change to numbers that are suitable at that point.
Doesn't really matter, currently all you need is a Vanquisher I and you are done for weapons since nothing else competes and the higher levels aren't needed, even on gold. Makes it easier on the loot tables for players. Though if you don't like sniping or play with a gamepad (console) you need to run harder strats.
edit
Played the gold APEX mission with -50% sniper damage and +50% assault weapon damage. First time I went with Falcon II and Cyclone X and it went decently. Second time I went with Vanquisher II and Cyclone X and was much more happy with the game. This is with a MASSIVE damage differential to normally and the Vanquisher felt balanced compared to Assault Rifles. It likely was more likeable to me since I was used to the Vanquisher, not that it was better at this point, it was about even.
A huge qol improvement would be to skip the transitioning scenes after the first time they've been shown in the current session. So everyone sees them at least once but is bit annoyed by 30 sec transitions between planets and even more from surface to surface.
Or are they in accordance with the individual PC's loading times?
On April 02 2017 01:05 Artisreal wrote: A huge qol improvement would be to skip the transitioning scenes after the first time they've been shown in the current session. So everyone sees them at least once but is bit annoyed by 30 sec transitions between planets and even more from surface to surface.
Or are they in accordance with the individual PC's loading times?
fuck no this is my biggest grip with the game so far. I read a book while exploring different planets.
On April 02 2017 01:05 Artisreal wrote: A huge qol improvement would be to skip the transitioning scenes after the first time they've been shown in the current session. So everyone sees them at least once but is bit annoyed by 30 sec transitions between planets and even more from surface to surface.
Or are they in accordance with the individual PC's loading times?
fuck no this is my biggest grip with the game so far. I read a book while exploring different planets.
I did the exact same thing. Explored 30 planets, read 30 pages (maybe, didn't actually check).
The time is always the same as far as I know. When landing on a planet it would be logical you can't skip it until it has loaded since the load times there should be pretty big.
Those transitions are really annoying. They're 20 seconds long for planet to planet every time. So much wasted time in a system with 7 planets with like 1 anomaly one a planet. And since there's absolutely nothing planet-side for most systems, it's even more bewildering - not like there's anything to load on the planets that warrants the time.
I don't know how many planets and anomalies there are in total, but I imagine it's well over 100. Over 30 minutes stuck in transitional scenes. For me this actually detracted more from the game than any facial animation.
I agree about the planet transitions being more annoying than facial animations. They were nice the first two-three times. Then they were just more of the same and I want to skip them. I assume that is something that will be added within the next 6 months, worst case with the first paid DLC if it is more work than we think.
Maybe loading the planets takes more than we think but we should still be able to skip once it is loaded.
Or just show me an old fashioned load screen. At least that way I know why I am bored (personally I doubt its loading time, since the true load screens only appear for about 2 seconds).
On Multiplayer balance: Today I spent 4 hours trying to finish the Apex mission with the rifle bonuses against Kett Gold. After getting sync killed from 3 rooms away (and my team falling apart completely because no one picks the appropriate chars/loadout for apex missions...) and getting upload as final objective for the 6th time in a row (which is flat out impossible with rifles you simply can't kill the enemies fast enough to keep up) I gave up on this mission (and Multiplayer for a day or two).
Simply put until they re-balance the MP I am done with it. I don't need to farm Gold with an infiltrator (even if i can do that in my sleep) if the best AR in the game at a high level and on an appropriate char cannot finish a Gold mission. There is no incentive to keep playing or to try out different stuff if nothing except Sniper is viable.
On April 02 2017 04:50 Tula wrote: Or just show me an old fashioned load screen. At least that way I know why I am bored (personally I doubt its loading time, since the true load screens only appear for about 2 seconds).
On Multiplayer balance: Today I spent 4 hours trying to finish the Apex mission with the rifle bonuses against Kett Gold. After getting sync killed from 3 rooms away (and my team falling apart completely because no one picks the appropriate chars/loadout for apex missions...) and getting upload as final objective for the 6th time in a row (which is flat out impossible with rifles you simply can't kill the enemies fast enough to keep up) I gave up on this mission (and Multiplayer for a day or two).
Simply put until they re-balance the MP I am done with it. I don't need to farm Gold with an infiltrator (even if i can do that in my sleep) if the best AR in the game at a high level and on an appropriate char cannot finish a Gold mission. There is no incentive to keep playing or to try out different stuff if nothing except Sniper is viable.
I played that three times to complete it.
First time we wiped on wave three since I didn't want to use revive packs or cobras after seeing the team coordination we had.
Second time we wiped on wave 6 since we could not kill the stuff fast enough.
Third time a person using the Assault Rifle Revenant carried us hard. We used ~7 cobras on wave 6 to complete it. Considering you can enter the mission with 20 of them that seems reasonable. I didn't think that rifle was any good but that person carried us super hard.
A thing to note. You always get the same missions in the same apex mission, even if you repeat it. They are part of the set. So if you get Kett upload on wave 6 it is very hard to complete and requires cobra spam to take down fiends and Ascendant enemies. Secondly you can't do all 4 on one spot since you will keep getting wraiths and similar coming in and stopping it. Doing two at once seems best, even if one has to be abandoned it spreads the enemy.
Sync kills are a bit sad when considering that lag can make them warp a short distance on your screen, only thing to do is to keep the distance and assume they will gap close you. Especially the Fiends are annoying that way since they shouldn't have a gap close but suddenly end up close to you and has a huge grab range.
So I finished the story just now and enjoyed the game tremendously. Finished at lvl 50 + Show Spoiler +
lvl up after returning to the tempest
First time playing with a gamepad so turining around in fights was kinda slow and clunky but after a bit of adaptation and fininfinding out about profiles (lmao) the progress was fluent. Could've been a broader variety in opponents but that diddn't really bother me much.
As someone said here earlier, the game picks up later on story-wise and I agree. + Show Spoiler +
the Angara's faces could even show a hint of emotion! No tbh the animations were funny (like people hopping over crates and up walls after talking to you on the Tempest), could've been more sophisticated (displaying something different to a stoic face, when talking to people you'd magically be placed where you were supposed to stand during the cutscene instead of the person adjusting to you, minor I know but both kinda hurting the immersion). Moreover I really liked Peebee, Jaal (later on he gets more interesting) and Drack! What a gramps! Suvi and Kallo could've gotten a crew-mission (minigame space shooter with the Tempest? Woohoo) and I totally missed everything about Gil. Would also have hoped for a possibility to dethrone Tallo (or whats his name again)
On April 02 2017 05:33 Artisreal wrote: So I finished the story just now and enjoyed the game tremendously. Finished at lvl 50 + Show Spoiler +
lvl up after returning to the tempest
First time playing with a gamepad so turining around in fights was kinda slow and clunky but after a bit of adaptation and fininfinding out about profiles (lmao) the progress was fluent. Could've been a broader variety in opponents but that diddn't really bother me much.
As someone said here earlier, the game picks up later on story-wise and I agree. + Show Spoiler +
the Angara's faces could even show a hint of emotion! No tbh the animations were funny (like people hopping over crates and up walls after talking to you on the Tempest), could've been more sophisticated (displaying something different to a stoic face, when talking to people you'd magically be placed where you were supposed to stand during the cutscene instead of the person adjusting to you, minor I know but both kinda hurting the immersion). Moreover I really liked Peebee, Jaal (later on he gets more interesting) and Drack! What a gramps! Suvi and Kallo could've gotten a crew-mission (minigame space shooter with the Tempest? Woohoo) and I totally missed everything about Gil. Would also have hoped for a possibility to dethrone Tallo (or whats his name again)
now im rambling time well used
The Angara have some great voice acting though.
All in all, I haven't finished the game yet but it feels so much like ME1. The only thing that really kills Andromeda is the fact Witcher 3 and the Original Trilogy came out to compare it to. Witcher 3 did everything better than Andromeda regarding character interactions and talking cutscenes. OT is 3 games and people compare ME:A to the entire OT it feels like.
ME1 was a strong but flawed game. Same with Andromeda.
Flawed in slightly different ways, but flawed all the same.
Facial animations a bit stiff at times in ME:A? ME1 had some stoic as hell characters in its non set piece conversations.
Similar enemies? ME1 had a bunch of pure recycled enemies too.
Long load times between planets? Hi ME1, how are those elevator load screens on modern machines feeling nowadays?
Spending a lot of time to get a single unneccessary collectible? Hi ME1.
Some of the battle environments feel copy pasted at times? ME1 .... Was literally 4 indoor fight zones copy pasted across most planets
The bar is higher for ME:A than it was for ME1, so it definitely suffers from the time it came out. But its a strong game, even for all its flaws. What makes it mediocre is the fact we have so many other games to compare it to. ME1 had fewer contemporaries so people focused on the sci-fi world building and writing.
One thing I really wish they didn't do was copy paste the face models so much. If theres one thing I hope they fix in a patch its to make the asari have more than 1 face model. Please. Just patch in a 2nd face model at least.
And animate the fingers. Everyone has paralyzed hands on the ends of their stick arms. Just move your fingers a little to give the illusion of being alive lol
Gameplay, gunplay, and customization for Ryder: all top notch (even if the UI is clunky, again, like ME1)
And to people who say they want to customize their allies - lets be honest with ourselves. The AI in the OT in ME2/3 had perfect aim, and unlimited ammo so all we did was give them the highest damage weapon in our inventory anyway (maybe a high clip size.
On April 02 2017 23:12 ZeromuS wrote: And to people who say they want to customize their allies - lets be honest with ourselves. The AI in the OT in ME2/3 had perfect aim, and unlimited ammo so all we did was give them the highest damage weapon in our inventory anyway (maybe a high clip size.
The strongest weapon to equip for companions in ME2 is the Incisor sniper, for some odd reason the companions do full damage with it (compared to the normal 33% I believe) and never miss, it makes Zaeed, Garrus, Thane, and Legion very powerful, those who can't, equip them with the Tempest SMG, the companions always hit even if the spread is very large.
In ME3 you equip the companions with high damage wide spread assault rifles, there is the Typhoon DLC gun, it makes every companion who carries it unstoppable, especially James once he has maxed out Incendiary Ammo.
Most of the augmentations are crap and the good ones can only be researched once. Most of the armor is very specific to a playstyle (combat, biotic or tech) so there's only really one set that will match and I've gotten most of it from vendors or as drops anyway.
As for the guns, the one I have decimates everything and just upgrading that doesn't burn through my research at all, not to mention I have research for 3 factions, all sitting at 1.5k+.
Do have some questions that I can't really get an answer for in the game:
Do regular attacks (just shooting with regular ammo) trigger combos if you fire enough on a target? There is a tech skill that states it increases the combo priming rate. Does that affect regular fire or only with special ammo?
Is there anything that reduces the waiting time on Remnant weapons for when they refill their ammo?
Also, do weapon augmentations work when equipped or only when used? As in, if I put a tech recharge augmentation on my pistol but never use it (other than putting it in my loadout) will I still benefit from the augmentations on it?
On April 03 2017 02:48 Thezzy wrote: I'm not sure what to do with all my research.
Most of the augmentations are crap and the good ones can only be researched once. Most of the armor is very specific to a playstyle (combat, biotic or tech) so there's only really one set that will match and I've gotten most of it from vendors or as drops anyway.
As for the guns, the one I have decimates everything and just upgrading that doesn't burn through my research at all, not to mention I have research for 3 factions, all sitting at 1.5k+.
Do have some questions that I can't really get an answer for in the game:
Do regular attacks (just shooting with regular ammo) trigger combos if you fire enough on a target? There is a tech skill that states it increases the combo priming rate. Does that affect regular fire or only with special ammo?
Is there anything that reduces the waiting time on Remnant weapons for when they refill their ammo?
Also, do weapon augmentations work when equipped or only when used? As in, if I put a tech recharge augmentation on my pistol but never use it (other than putting it in my loadout) will I still benefit from the augmentations on it?
In the other games, if I remember properly, you get bonuses from weapon bonuses with them holstered so I assume same is here
On April 02 2017 23:12 ZeromuS wrote: And to people who say they want to customize their allies - lets be honest with ourselves. The AI in the OT in ME2/3 had perfect aim, and unlimited ammo so all we did was give them the highest damage weapon in our inventory anyway (maybe a high clip size.
The strongest weapon to equip for companions in ME2 is the Incisor sniper, for some odd reason the companions do full damage with it (compared to the normal 33% I believe) and never miss, it makes Zaeed, Garrus, Thane, and Legion very powerful, those who can't, equip them with the Tempest SMG, the companions always hit even if the spread is very large.
In ME3 you equip the companions with high damage wide spread assault rifles, there is the Typhoon DLC gun, it makes every companion who carries it unstoppable, especially James once he has maxed out Incendiary Ammo.
Yep ME1 was probably the only one where the stats actually mattered for what you gave your allies. People complaining they can't give their teammates a bonus biotic armor or bonus acc must be forgetting those did nothing before.
On April 03 2017 02:48 Thezzy wrote: I'm not sure what to do with all my research.
Most of the augmentations are crap and the good ones can only be researched once. Most of the armor is very specific to a playstyle (combat, biotic or tech) so there's only really one set that will match and I've gotten most of it from vendors or as drops anyway.
As for the guns, the one I have decimates everything and just upgrading that doesn't burn through my research at all, not to mention I have research for 3 factions, all sitting at 1.5k+.
Do have some questions that I can't really get an answer for in the game:
Do regular attacks (just shooting with regular ammo) trigger combos if you fire enough on a target? There is a tech skill that states it increases the combo priming rate. Does that affect regular fire or only with special ammo?
Is there anything that reduces the waiting time on Remnant weapons for when they refill their ammo?
Also, do weapon augmentations work when equipped or only when used? As in, if I put a tech recharge augmentation on my pistol but never use it (other than putting it in my loadout) will I still benefit from the augmentations on it?
I use the remnant revival or whatever its called armor but what weapons do you use? I've got fire sword but I keep switching between the duran and a krogan shotgun while leaning on the black widow to carry me most of the way.
Augments are pretty badly done I agree but the weapon veriety isn't as black and white I don't think. The soned is good for arcitect hunting as its spread stays within the hitboxs and dumps damage
On April 03 2017 02:48 Thezzy wrote: I'm not sure what to do with all my research.
Most of the augmentations are crap and the good ones can only be researched once. Most of the armor is very specific to a playstyle (combat, biotic or tech) so there's only really one set that will match and I've gotten most of it from vendors or as drops anyway.
As for the guns, the one I have decimates everything and just upgrading that doesn't burn through my research at all, not to mention I have research for 3 factions, all sitting at 1.5k+.
Do have some questions that I can't really get an answer for in the game:
Do regular attacks (just shooting with regular ammo) trigger combos if you fire enough on a target? There is a tech skill that states it increases the combo priming rate. Does that affect regular fire or only with special ammo?
Is there anything that reduces the waiting time on Remnant weapons for when they refill their ammo?
Also, do weapon augmentations work when equipped or only when used? As in, if I put a tech recharge augmentation on my pistol but never use it (other than putting it in my loadout) will I still benefit from the augmentations on it?
I use the remnant revival or whatever its called armor but what weapons do you use? I've got fire sword but I keep switching between the duran and a krogan shotgun while leaning on the black widow to carry me most of the way.
Augments are pretty badly done I agree but the weapon veriety isn't as black and white I don't think. The soned is good for arcitect hunting as its spread stays within the hitboxs and dumps damage
The equalizer smg is amazing for snipers. It chews through shields like no other then you just pop the head and they die.
Not ME:A, but recently, I finished my 2nd all-ME playthrough career (first time was male Paragon Shep, this time, Renegade Femshep), now on ME3, and playing on Insanity for first time.
LOL the Grissom Academy fight. Holy fuck that was brutal.
After talking to more ppl about ME:A, sounds like you at the very least, get your moneys worth in terms of content in this game.
On April 04 2017 03:33 sung_moon wrote: Not ME:A, but recently, I finished my 2nd all-ME playthrough career (first time was male Paragon Shep, this time, Renegade Femshep), now on ME3, and playing on Insanity for first time.
LOL the Grissom Academy fight. Holy fuck that was brutal.
After talking to more ppl about ME:A, sounds like you at the very least, get your moneys worth in terms of content in this game.
I like it a lot.
Its not without its flaws, and it does take a little while to REALLY open up, but I enjoy it.
A couple QoL things in a patch would go a long way but I generally enjoy it.
I agree, it's not a perfect game, but it is enjoyable. The foundation for a good game is there and some bug fixes and glitch fixing along with cutting the time to investigate planets and the game would be so much less rage inducing. I don't mind the facial expressions or the teleporting teammates as much as the bad storytelling and time wasted exploring planets.
I think we all expected ME2-quality after 5 years of development and feel disappointed now. The game might not be worth 60$ in its current state, but I still get a feeling of fulfillment and fun playing through it, I dunno.
I finished my first completionist playthrough on Insanity, stalled out at 99% because of two broken tasks. Loved most of the characters and the ending + epilogue was great. Time played was 86:21:19. I really hope they close out the game with a Trespasser-like DLC.
Out of interest what story thread do you think deserves a Trespasser-like DLC. To be honest DA:I and it's ending pissed me off a lot until Trespasser came out, but I'm still divided if I actually like the place where Trespasser left the franchise either
The Sequel hook is so friggin obvious in Trespasser (heck they explicitly mention it) that I feel somewhat annoyed. I prefer my games to be at least somewhat standalone (and yes that critique might also fit the original ME games, but I feel they got worse with DA:I).
Me:A on the other hand finishes it's major plot (as stereotypical as it is) the threads left undone (refer to my previous spoiler post if you have doubts what I mean) are sidestories. Meaning ideal for a DLC but not truly necessary for the game itself. Personally I am looking forward to the DLCs mostly because Bioware actually did those right in their last few games, both Omega and Citadel DLC were a delight and most of the DA:I DLC packs were also worth their money (possible exception being that Deep Road expedition, that didn't really blow me away). I guess I'll decide on how well they actually patch their game before I make any buying decisions for DLC.
While I'll say this game was worth my money I must admit some disappointment of how far they have fallen cannot be denied.
I mean the sequel hook for ME:A to me - although it may as well be a hook for a full trilogy - seems like + Show Spoiler +
it's the Kett Empire that has only brought a fraction of its full strength to bear on the Heleus Cluster in the name of Exaltation.
I haven't played any of the DA games so I don't know what the Trespasser DLC really is. But I reckon the ideal plot thread to make a DLC that plays into the next game would be + Show Spoiler +
On April 04 2017 21:16 Elentos wrote: I mean the sequel hook for ME:A to me - although it may as well be a hook for a full trilogy - seems like + Show Spoiler +
it's the Kett Empire that has only brought a fraction of its full strength to bear on the Heleus Cluster in the name of Exaltation.
I haven't played any of the DA games so I don't know what the Trespasser DLC really is. But I reckon the ideal plot thread to make a DLC that plays into the next game would be + Show Spoiler +
the Kett empire and whatever else is outside of the Heleus Cluster is ample room for a full trilogy. Heck there is loads of stuff with the remnant and the scourge left to explore as well
but to me most of those issues scream "full game release" instead of "8 hour DLC".
Trespasser as an example was about 5-6 hours worth of gametime which answered one of the burning questions left by the Inquisition ending and posed 2-3 new ones for a sequel :D
To use another example from Bioware the ME 3 DLCs: Citadel was basically a fanservice DLC to really cap off the trilogy. It didn't really add anything storywise but it gave you another few hours to dick around with your favorite party members (including characters which were not originally included in ME3). Frankly if they try to sell something like that for Andromeda I'd be very surprised (we aren't really that invested in our party/playable characters yet to be honest).
Omega and Leviathan DLC on the other hand explored sidestories connected to the main story or simply left open in the Universe (it really doesn't matter for the reapers who exactly rules Omega, but it was an obvious DLC hook when suddenly Aria shows up on the Citadel. If she had not been part of the main game I simply wouldn't have spent a second thinking about Omega). So I expect similar DLCs for this game. Maybe something with the mentioned + Show Spoiler +
salvage what is left of the Kett expeditionary force (or whatever you want to call it) in Heleus
edit: I seldom link to outside stuff because I prefer to express myself in my own words, but this: really hits the nail on the head regarding my feelings for the game currently. It seems I am in the "well at least it's more Mass Effect" category of gamers
In the new patch (1.05) for Mass Effect: Andromeda, our focus was on bug fixes and improvements to the player experience.
We’ve introduced a number of balance changes to single player and multiplayer, and resolved some issues with saves not working properly. We’ve also improved lip-sync and facial acting during some conversations, and have implemented a much-requested change that allows players to skip the autopilot sequences in the galaxy map.
Patch 1.05 will begin to roll out on Thursday, April 6th.
"Exact" notes in the link. Seems to address many of the biggest complaints in some way.
Fixed an issue with Ryder’s movements when running in a zig zag pattern. (My personally biggest annoyance after the enemy that got stuck in a room I couldn't get into during a kill all enemies segment.)
Increased inventory limits --> nice Added option to skip autopilot sequences in the galaxy map --> fuck yes, that even makes me wanna play again although I already finished the game with like 90% or so Improved logic, timing, and continuity for relationships and story arcs --> I found it weird when I skipped some conversations that I would have to talk to someone twice to actually get the current story conversation. You can't build an open world game and expect people to follow the progression linearly. I wonder if that's included or just the Tempest's crew. Improved lip-sync and facial acting during some conversations, including localized VO --> let's see how that pans out
Also the promise to improve the eyes is quite nice. Those dreary, dead stares were horrible.
Still alot to go to make it an amazing game, but these are steps in the right direction.
Increased inventory limits --> nice Added option to skip autopilot sequences in the galaxy map --> fuck yes, that even makes me wanna play again although I already finished the game with like 90% or so Improved logic, timing, and continuity for relationships and story arcs --> I found it weird when I skipped some conversations that I would have to talk to someone twice to actually get the current story conversation. You can't build an open world game and expect people to follow the progression linearly. I wonder if that's included or just the Tempest's crew. Improved lip-sync and facial acting during some conversations, including localized VO --> let's see how that pans out
Also the promise to improve the eyes is quite nice. Those dreary, dead stares were horrible.
Still alot to go to make it an amazing game, but these are steps in the right direction.
The promise of a first balance pass for multiplayer is also very important. To be honest I am still surprised that they did that bad of a job on first try since they did have quite a bit of data from a very similar system to fall back upon (for all intents and purposes ME3 MP is very similar regarding weapons and powers some gameplay stuff has changed regarding movement and wave spawns but how could they do such a bad job with 80% of the weapons and all power combos?).
Anyway, it looks as if they are working hard to salvage what they can, but I think this will leave a mark on biowares reputation. So far all they have promised sounds at least good, but let's see what they can deliver (and how fast)
Faces seems better now, eyes were mentioned especially though old ones didn't really bother me much. General improvement for most characters according to reddit. Still havn't found the full patch notes including balance changes for both singleplayer and multiplayer anywhere.
Quick question, on higher difficulties is it just that AI has more HP/dmg/armor or do they actually behave differently too (or do they throw 99999999 grenades). if I finish Nier automata I might look into this game.
On April 07 2017 01:07 Kipsate wrote: Quick question, on higher difficulties is it just that AI has more HP/dmg/armor or do they actually behave differently too (or do they throw 99999999 grenades). if I finish Nier automata I might look into this game.
As far as I know. More HP/dmg/armor. Don't know if more spawn in singleplayer. In multiplayer higher tiers spawn when you go up in difficulty.
Just played a bit of multiplayer and they did tons of stuff that wasn't documented. Minor UI improvements. APEX missions having a ton of more bosses than they used to. Probably other stuff I didn't even notice yet.
The patch imho was only a very minor improovement. I just finished the game and wanted to start a new playthrough with a new character, but still managed to make it look cringeworthy despite my best efforts ... and the running animation now just looks stupid in another way ...
There are severe and imersion breaking bugs... You can basically romance and fuck around with everyone your character can, although there is just one nude sequence if you pick female ryder and that wouldn't even make a 14 year old blush ... although they announced it would get spicey it was just meeeeeh not yeahhh ...
I also experienced issues in the movie night sequence, where all my lovers were placed on the same spot clipping as hell and an invisible ryder layed his arm around the shoulders ... There are so many bugs espescially when it comes to the dialogs on the tempest its just horrific.
When I finished the game I was expecting a long video or something great but it was very .... short ... and ... not very greaat ... at first I thought maybe it didn't play right or I accidently skipped something and googled for endings on you tube only to find out, that all the endings are basically the same regardless of your choices and habitat status you worked all game long and that I didn't skipp anything ... the mass effect 3 ending even felt better than this ...
The worlds just look, great combat is very fluent for the character although less strategical unfortunatly, but the characters and the story are a mess and riddled with bugs. also the main villain is so bland and uninteresting.... Its just a random alien with no explanation of his background story or explanations for his motiviations. He is just evil because he is evil and therefore we have to stopp him and the evil Kett empire ...
To the crew: - Corra is uninteresting and stoic as fuck and cries "I am assari huntress" every 5 minutes. - Liam has a very funny Loyality mission, but otherwise is just babbeling and uniteresting. - PB is annoying as fuck and her passionate, wild character seems very forced ... - Drak is cool as hell, you really feel like he is an old soldier and merc that has seen it all. I love him and he is the only usefull side kick on missions, the others are just bullet catchers besides vetra maybe .. - Vetra, the female Garrus, ... feels like Garrus but Garros is more a bro than her - Jaal, is ... not really annoying or bad but also not very... idk remarkable.
The other characters on the tempest are okay side characters, besides Gil who is just plain dumb. Also the new character system for me does not seem to have any impact on the game at all compared to the renegade system.
On April 07 2017 04:13 Artisreal wrote: You still can't skip landing and takeoff sequences as far as I can tell. Between galaxies a skip isn't possible either
The sytem jumps are really the worst, they literally make my eyes hurt. Without joking, I close them everytime ...
On April 07 2017 03:49 Yurie wrote: Just played a bit of multiplayer and they did tons of stuff that wasn't documented. Minor UI improvements. APEX missions having a ton of more bosses than they used to. Probably other stuff I didn't even notice yet.
I enjoy that part (even if it means my team failed a silver apex mission today because the assassination boss was an ascendant) frankly some variety doesn't hurt. What does hurt me is that their "balance" improvements are frankly astounding. Hurting meele is a great thing tbh, it feels stupid to punch robots for 2 minutes unless you are a Krogan, but why in the blazes are the weapon changes so small. Even looking at the stats screen (never mind gameplay) the fucking predator pistol beats the just now adjusted Mattock rifle. Never mind that they didn't do anything (or even comment) on the broken smart chokes/receivers or adjust a single automatic weapon. The silver AR they did adjust is beaten by the very first pistol you start with. If that isn't a joke it is the single most absurd balance decision I have ever seen in my life.
Frankly there can't be a single item in a loot crate that is worse than what you started with if you want the system to make sense. Already the pool of items i actually want to get is far too small, but there simply cannot be an item that says "fuck you idiot for spending your time/money"
On April 07 2017 03:49 Yurie wrote: Just played a bit of multiplayer and they did tons of stuff that wasn't documented. Minor UI improvements. APEX missions having a ton of more bosses than they used to. Probably other stuff I didn't even notice yet.
I enjoy that part (even if it means my team failed a silver apex mission today because the assassination boss was an ascendant) frankly some variety doesn't hurt. What does hurt me is that their "balance" improvements are frankly astounding. Hurting meele is a great thing tbh, it feels stupid to punch robots for 2 minutes unless you are a Krogan, but why in the blazes are the weapon changes so small. Even looking at the stats screen (never mind gameplay) the fucking predator pistol beats the just now adjusted Mattock rifle. Never mind that they didn't do anything (or even comment) on the broken smart chokes/receivers or adjust a single automatic weapon. The silver AR they did adjust is beaten by the very first pistol you start with. If that isn't a joke it is the single most absurd balance decision I have ever seen in my life.
Frankly there can't be a single item in a loot crate that is worse than what you started with if you want the system to make sense. Already the pool of items i actually want to get is far too small, but there simply cannot be an item that says "fuck you idiot for spending your time/money"
That doesn't take into account reloading so it doesn't show the correct DPS but it is a decent indicator. Doesn't do shotguns either since how they work is kind of unknown.
Based on that thread half the weapons are worse than the starting ones. Though it doesn't take into account how much they scale with the X card as far as I know. So better weapons might scale more (don't think they do).
I agree with the notice that they might have nerfed weak point damage on Vanquisher. It did feel a bit worse after the patch. Generally speaking half the changes they did to MP aren't in notes.
We need a SirBelvedere just as Dota has to get actual patch notes.
My point remains that I can somewhat live (or rather survive) stupid balance at a launch, but when two weapons who literally just got adjusted (meaning someone actually paid attention to them) end up counter-intuitive (thats the PC version of what I'd like to say) I start to loose hope
Just finished the game. Personally think it's pretty solid, combat feels better than ever, had no problems with bugs or major glitches other than the game crashing on the last mission and 2 minor bugs with side mission completion. Companion wise I think Peebee, Jaal and Drak are well done, the rest is more or less forgetable. But so was most of the ME3 squad for me as well. Garrus still the best though.
As someone already said, story picks up near the end. So comparing the overall story to ME1, it starts slow, but keeps you going, which is fine I guess. The only thing I absolutely despised are some of the side quests. In particular side quests, which only exist to keep you playing longer, without any character progression, background information or whatever. I rather play 50 hours instead of 60 and stop doing those stupid quests. And also what is up with having to change planets like every 2 minute for a simple side quest chain? go to Eos, pick up item, go to Havarl and talk to Guy X, guess what you need to go to the Nexus, pick up item Y and then head straight for Aya. It's like 5 minutes playing and 30 minutes traveling.
Also, I'd prefer a rather linear experience with well crafted missions like ME2/3 rather than open world, but that is just my personal preference.
Multiplayer is amazing and I really like it so far. Combat is amazing. Infiltrator is stupidly overpowered but thats fine for me since it's only PvE.
Overall, I'd recommend this game to everyone who likes ME. It surely isn't game of the year, but it's a solid experience and I don't understand all the hate it gets apart from the technical aspects. Guess it's the same with ME3. Awesome game with an ending that sucked big time, but seems like most ppl only judged it for it's ending and forgot that the first 50 hours were amazing.
But I also liked Inquisition, so I guess that disqualifies my opinion :D
On April 08 2017 12:47 hootsushi wrote: Multiplayer is amazing and I really like it so far. Combat is amazing. Infiltrator is stupidly overpowered but thats fine for me since it's only PvE.
But I also liked Inquisition, so I guess that disqualifies my opinion :D
Vanguards work well in multiplayer as well. They nerfed it in the recent patch though. :/
Soldier is also fine for multiplayer. Use a multi shot sniper rifle such as Vanquisher and turbo charge it for a large clip, taking down Berserker's in a clip. Using it when you have 1 shot remaining you can get off 14 shots in a row without reloading on the Vanquisher (with clip size +25% passive).
Asari Adept has also received a lot of love due to their damage buff. Though I agree Infiltrators are very strong due to being able to do revives, objectives and run away while invis. Did the 1 life per wave APEX mission with 2 infiltrators killing everything since the other two players kept wiping.
I think both this game and Inquisition has the same problem. Interesting overall plot and some great side quests and characters that gets bogged down in too much pointless stuff. Finishing the game doesn't feel like it matters, much like in Skyrim where I played 50h or so and never got further than 10% into the plot.
Overall Andromeda isn't as grindy as Inquisition was and the quests actually feel like they matter more even when they are gather or go there quests.
What I liked about the ending in particular was all of my allies coming in from above and supporting the common quest of sovereignty. It almost felt like I was aided during every second scene or so, pretty awesome.
Edit: ME:A that is and rather the buildup to the ending than the conclusion of the story
I've been in love with the Turian Soldier (non-Havoc) so far for MP. He can take hits and dish out a ton of damage.
What has me quite upset is the Krogan Mercenary. He feels so unbelievably squishy. And the shotgun situation in this game is not great either so playing this character overall just doesn't feel right.
The skip option on travel between planets in one system is a godsend. For someone like me who likes to check everything in this type of game at least. It takes so much less time to explore a system.
On April 10 2017 06:04 Elentos wrote: The skip option on travel between planets in one system is a godsend. For someone like me who likes to check everything in this type of game at least. It takes so much less time to explore a system.
I did it by watching tv while using a xb1 controller and looking over to the side periodically to search every planet. It really does take forever but there isn't much of a detriment not doing it early on like it was in ME2 there isn't nearly as much missed minerals.
On April 04 2017 03:33 sung_moon wrote: After talking to more ppl about ME:A, sounds like you at the very least, get your moneys worth in terms of content in this game.
After 1 play through I'm at less than £1 / hr, and will be playing through again on NG+ once DLC drops (and I get a new GPU). For all its faults - especially unmarked tasks, and planet hopping getting tiresome near the end - I quite enjoyed it. Would definitely recommend to any fan of the series. (Also, <3 PB)
But really though, that character creator ;\ Sara makes me think they modeled her face from a photo of William Lane Craig... I just can't, preset 9 all the way.
The game becomes unresponsive to commad inputs on me whenever I open up a completed strike team mission that I started a session ago. Anyone else experience that? Forgot to try out the console last time tho.
On April 14 2017 03:46 Artisreal wrote: The game becomes unresponsive to commad inputs on me whenever I open up a completed strike team mission that I started a session ago. Anyone else experience that? Forgot to try out the console last time tho.
Yeah that happens. What I do to get rid of it is switch from the mission tab to the rewards tab (via mouse) and back, then it usually gets a grip after a second.
On April 14 2017 03:46 Artisreal wrote: The game becomes unresponsive to commad inputs on me whenever I open up a completed strike team mission that I started a session ago. Anyone else experience that? Forgot to try out the console last time tho.
I assume it sends a request to the server for the result. It is not local. So it takes however long it takes for the server to generate the result and send it to you. Sadly that is longer than it should be and the menu system locks up... I often get stuck on the splash for completed or failed mission. Can't get rid of it without logging out of the multiplayer interface.
On April 22 2017 20:05 PoulsenB wrote: I've just had my first fight with + Show Spoiler +
a Remnant Architect
and holy shit, was that intense o_O the more I play, the better the game gets
On insanity those fights were a pain in the ass. Quite many times the fight stuck meaning the Architect sometimes became invulnerable because it didnt open any of the conduits. Had to restart those fights many times.
For a person waiting for a sale and who has been trying to keep an eye on the complaints and praises, the new patch changelog seems pretty underwhelming. Some nice fixes, but considering all the complaints and passed time it still seems quite minimal.
Also, finding a bit weird that they're apparently putting in additional homosexual romance option for male Ryder. The whole time people have been complaining about significant issues with the existing content and its presentation, adding even more content seems sort of counterintuitivie at this point.
Edit: Apparently not the final patch according to Michael Gamble's twitter.
I think it's kinda amazing that with such a clusterfuck of a development process, the game still came out pretty decent (barring the obvious issues at release).
I'm having trouble understanding the obsession with procedurally generated worlds. As far as I can tell, any person who understands game design should understand how limiting it is. You can surely build a game - even a good one - around it, but it's a game that doesn't play to the expected strengths of a Mass Effect game in any possible way.
Obviously these decisions were made before No Man's Sky crashed and burned, but even before that it was very clear how many problems the approach has. It's definitely not something you want to gamble with a franchise build on reputation for strong scifi storytelling and memorable characters.
So I finished andromeda I didn't hate it but I didn't love it as well
Pros : the gun play was one of the best in the series Graphics were good Few good decision moments Didn't hate the world and overall story
Now my cons : Biggest issue is the good moments drown in a big brown meh, Each planet have 3 monolith and a vault which are long and feel very similar Fetch quests tasks , busy work missions. for each something i wanted to do I had 2 hours of stuff I just didn't Why ? This is no subscription model ? It got to a point I just didn't want to take quests anymore Never happened to me in me universe , and I thinks it's the major thing they went wrong It's like adding 10 hours to a movie with boring unrelated stuff , why ?
Too few good moments where your hard decisions matter Too few missions I can say that are at a story level similar to the loyalty missions on the previous episodes
I didn't feel connected and related to my companions as before
Cora was decent , but I would love another big mission for her to evolve Pheebe started aweful , I hated some of her mission Which was wasting my time, In the end she was endearing , with some good lines Rest , meh not enough happens One related mission , and not a lot of story in it
I didn't mind the animation and bugs as were posted so much The antagonist was boring but had hoped for the future
It just wasn't my me experience , It was a fun game.
But I just want more moments and less fluff Make me care again
Hope it help some of you to make an informed decision on playing or not. It's of course my opinion , and the statement I make doesn't try to be objective in any way
Singleplayer has received quite some quality of life improvements and personally I have 110 hrs in the game. For definitely worth the 60€ I spent on it.
On a different note, ANTHEM also uses the FROSTBITE engine and has decent facial animations. Though I could see the same "Ryder-wakeup-grimace" in the guy providing the first quest of the E3 trailer.
On June 12 2017 10:21 rebuffering wrote: so the game is 50% off on PS Store right now, is it worth? Have the patches made the game better in any way?
Patches have made the game much better but it's just an okay game if you loved Mass Effect i'd get it else it's story is pretty lackluster and it's core gameplay isn't exactly new and exciting.
If you never completed a mass effect game i wouldn't buy it you'd probably abandon the game half way though. Unless you like rpgs.
On June 12 2017 10:21 rebuffering wrote: so the game is 50% off on PS Store right now, is it worth? Have the patches made the game better in any way?
Read Haflo's post just above yours.
Honestly its a 'good' game and has been since day 1 before any of the patches, it just doesn't live up to the quality of the mass effect franchise.
Its combat is A+, and that combined with all other elements being passable is enough to make the game fun to play from beginning to end if you don't let yourself get obsessed with completing every side quest before you finish the main plot. At its worst this game is 'ok' and at its high points it briefly feels like the glory that was ME2 for a short spurts. Overall though, the plot, aesthetic, and characters aren't as unforgettable as the other three games in the series. At least it doesn't end with your choice of mono chromatic explosions though.
If you are only interested in playing the game if it is as good as or better than previous Mass Effect games, do not buy Andromeda
If you are interested in playing a Mass Effect style game with an improved combat system and don't mind that the story won't match up to previous titles, then you'll be very happy with Andromeda
Well seeing as how the Mass Effect trilogy is one my favorite gaming experiences from the passed 10 years, i feel like i need to play Andromeda because i am a huge fan of the original games. Seems like a good time to jump with patches and 50% off. Ill be buying tonight, I just started playing Persona 5 though, so it might be a few weeks before i even get to play Andromeda lol.
"Our last update, 1.10, was the final update for Mass Effect: Andromeda. There are no planned future patches for single-player or in-game story content."
I wish they had implemented ship accessibility WHILE landed with that patch. Leaving a planet (i.e. going home) to check your e-mails. How 1990 is that?!
On August 25 2017 05:17 Artisreal wrote: I wish they had implemented ship accessibility WHILE landed with that patch. Leaving a planet (i.e. going home) to check your e-mails. How 1990 is that?!
Agreed that they should have allowed you loading into the ship on the planet.
On August 25 2017 05:17 Artisreal wrote: I wish they had implemented ship accessibility WHILE landed with that patch. Leaving a planet (i.e. going home) to check your e-mails. How 1990 is that?!
Agreed that they should have allowed you loading into the ship on the planet.
I just finished it after taking another shot at it after the 1.10 patch. Its a significant improvement but it doesn't change the fundamental issues with the game itself. The core game play system that is combat is good maybe even great. The issue is the further away from shooting you get the worse the game is. The craftsmanship is good. the drawn assets were drawn well. The sound is cool and spacy. The music has decent riffs at times. The problem is that everything that went into the game before things got made was such utter garbage that its Prequil star wars level of damage to the mass effect universe and credibility. Angara are shit. The Kett are shit. Their names are dumb their designs are dumb the twists about them get dumb and dumber the more I think about them. The Racism themes in the game are laughable past the point of being taken seriously enough to be offended by them. (I'm 100% sure that the slarians are treated as asians and the Krogan are treated as black people) The lack of the diversity of the races from the milky way galaxy just so inferiating. Where is the salarian team member? We get a female bird girl and a black man but we can't get a Lizard on the team? The Krogan character is really old. Thats the extent of his character. Hes really old but its never clear what his position of authority in the krogan world is and he care little to nothing about his clan in any reality. Hes really old but hes the same basic krogan as every other krogan. he has no pressure or experience or dignity as a really old person might have. Hes just old for flavor to make any sort of difference between him and the other stock Krogan in the universe. He whole fucking character arc is him getting over how replaceable and ilrelevent he is to the game and people trying to convince him otherwise. But he is entirely replaceable and ilrelevent both in his world and in the game. Wrex has this huge ass burden on his shoulders and gets to the level were you might need to kill him for legitimate reasons that make you feel for the hard charging turtle man. only the Krogan get modified out of the milky way races and that only happens once. I just finished the game with im in my squad for the majority of the last week and I can't remember the name of the guy's name. only that he bitched and moaned about some kid trying to catch a bullet for him in the most ham fisted jellious father cliche that i've ever seen. and this carrys on so much to other characters and quests. No direction to any story decision as if everything was made in isolation to another in order to create content instead of trying to create something good. The ending level was so bad I can't even. The remnant architects are good bosses throughout the game and when the game introduce one at the end its completely ilrelevent and you end up with a pair of "stay in the circle and defend" directions that pop up in the worse parts of the rest of the game. The non Milky way weapons are bad. They look cool sometimes but they're ilrelevent to the degree that the Milky way weapons are all better objectively and creatively. Bullets are good who knew?
The worst things about the story are the things that they leave open at the end. The multi racial ark is confused and are in a crisis with no explanation or info past a single line of dialogue. The benefactor and the initiative founding conspiracy founding story has no payoff and just gets dropped after a while. The main kett race and government is just a dumb explanation for why they're still around in the next game. SAM basically makes the protagonist ilrelevent until the "power of will" solves that issue but this is ever seriously approached past a "I don't want to be racist against an AI". At the same beat were the game unironicaly tell the player that their character doesn't really matter they suddenly matter a ton more now as you're litearly able to deus ex machina a whole fucking fleet out your ass. Even this fleet is worthless because space smoke monster is the thing that actually stops the archons fleet. The Mom is brought up as a nice emotional point but then immediately drooped ignored and you never even see her face. Finally after getting every planet to 100% viability the end game reward is to rename the planet your parent died on to "Ryder-1" except the game doesn't actually do this.
TLDR ME:A is the star wars prequels of Video games and i'm now done with this.