My best friend, who's arguably a bigger Mass Effect fan than I am, is completely against Andromeda. Feels it's a cash grab game and that Bioware's going the way of Ubisoft, just milking the franchise.
I'm being considerably more generous than that, myself. I'm not sold on this game by a long shot, but I'm keeping an open mind.
To be fair, the original trilogy is so entirely self-contained that just about any Mass Effect game is going to feel like that to some people.
My best friend, who's arguably a bigger Mass Effect fan than I am, is completely against Andromeda. Feels it's a cash grab game and that Bioware's going the way of Ubisoft, just milking the franchise.
I'm being considerably more generous than that, myself. I'm not sold on this game by a long shot, but I'm keeping an open mind.
I'm pretty sure that was the sentiment when the first few trailers of ME:2 came out as well.
I think it would have played out better if instead of having Corypheus on a consistent decline after his victory at Haven (which is a pyrrhic victory at best), the middle of the game would have been with the Inquisition ascendant and countering Corypheus' plans, with the end game being Corypheus striking back and doing some damage before his downfall. The final battle probably should have been set during an attack on Skyhold.
Of any game developer out there, I think the BioWare has the closest relationship with their fans and they honestly want to make something we all enjoy.
Well, they did. Not anymore.
Most companies are close enough to their fans that they don't cut off DLC for some of them, unlike Bioware.
To be fair, the original trilogy is so entirely self-contained that just about any Mass Effect game is going to feel like that to some people.
Honestly I don't think it's an entirely unfair stance to take. Just me, personally, I see the potential for more stories to be told here.
Hence, Götterdämmerung. Which is kind of what happened in Inquisition! Corypheus saw his plans thwarted one by one and his army ground down to nothing, so as a last-ditch act of "screw you" he tried to destroy the world and the Inquisition with it.
Obviously, that last bit doesn't make any sense in settings without magic. But Mass Effect has always had space magic, so I'm sure it'd work just fine.
I think while it makes sense to play out the way it did it wasn't a satisfying conclusion. Cory was playing a losing hand like a typical megalomaniacal villain so it wasn't a desperate play on our part nor a look at a desperate man's world crumbling around him.
If we're talking about Mass Effect then I'd hope they play with different ways of building to a conclusion than just giving the villain a space magic twilight device. Not that it's easy to make (realistic) conflicts follow good narrative pacing.
If EA were treating the next Mass Effect game as a cash grab wouldn't it make more sense to quickly churn it out on the old UE3 engine instead of building up a new studio to make the game on a new engine with years in development?
Me, I'm not the least bit surprised that people here already hate MEA. The BSN proved long ago that it can draw negative conclusions without the presence of actual facts.
Except there are actual facts about MEA known.
Except there are actual facts about MEA known.
My best friend, who's arguably a bigger Mass Effect fan than I am, is completely against Andromeda. Feels it's a cash grab game and that Bioware's going the way of Ubisoft, just milking the franchise.
I'm being considerably more generous than that, myself. I'm not sold on this game by a long shot, but I'm keeping an open mind.
Had AC stopped with 3, we wouldn't have gotten arguably the best game in the series, Black Flag.
He's of the opinion they should have stopped at Black Flag.
He's of the opinion they should have stopped at Black Flag.
Not until we get Japan or China
Rather optimistic of you.
Except there are actual facts about MEA known.
Yeah, like the N7 in the trailer is NOT the protagonist, the game takes place hundreds of years after Shepard's story and is taking place in Andromeda.
That's really all that's been confirmed.
Oh, and the game has space ships.
OP you are suprised about it? I was not, after the mess with ME3 and DA2, people don't trust Bioware because they sold thier souls to EA which several times got an title. "Worst American Company"
But i going give an chance for ME:A through, since i still love ME after the mess.
Btw. I think more DA:I players on Xbox360 and PS3 might be annoyed, when Bioware decieded to shut down support there.
OP you are suprised about it? I was not, after the mess with ME3 and DA2, people don't trust Bioware because they sold thier souls to EA which several times got an title. "Worst American Company"
I just thought I'd spell out a little better what I was talking about a couple of pages back when I said said ME3 should've had Shep winning not the crucible/catalyst - I was in a bit of a rush yesterday so didn't have time for more than a couple of lines.
When I said that the entire series was about us beating the Reapers, I didn't mean it was literally about Shep blowing up hundreds of them single handedly, but that the overall story has always been about Shepard beating them. Not alone, not without help, but it's Shepard who defeats the Reapers in ME1. It's Shepard who defeats the Reapers in ME2 (you don't destroy any Reapers, but you do defeat them). For much of ME3, its Shepard who defeats them. That is the essence of Shepard - standing up to the immposibly powerful, fighting them and winning. And then, come the ending, it's the Catalyst who defeats the Reapers. To me, it's as if BW suddenly decided to deconstruct the image they'd built up of Shepard, by ultimately making her powerless. And while I love a good deconstruction, you don't suddenly shift to one in the last 15 minutes of a 100+ hour story.
Now, of course, even with the united resources of the galaxy, a straight up engagement with the Reapers at Earth would've not gone well. Which is there The Crucible should've come in - it should've been a MacGuffin that gave us the ability to fight. A weapon. A power source. Something that meant, at least temporarily, the Organics had a chance to fight the Reapers. As an example of how to do a MacGuffin well in the type of story ME was prior to the very end, well, look at ME1. The Conduit was needed, without it we couldn't've have won. But it didn't beat Soverign for us, it merely put us in a position in which we had a chance of winning. We still had to fight. Shepard still had to take down Saren. The human fleet still had to destroy Sovereign. That is how the Crucible should've worked (obviously I'm not saying it should've literally been another mini-mass relay, but in terms of its place in the story). That would've been in keeping with the rest of ME. That would've given us, the players, the chance to act, to feel that we'd accomplished something - core to the experience of a game like ME - rather than just picking a colour and letting the creepy kid do it all.
Instead, we got something that just ended the entire war just like that. It trivialised everything we'd done over the entire game. All the fighting, all the victories we won, all the friends we'd lost and it just comes down to a MacGuffin ending everything with a colour.
In a completely different story, one where we were powerless from the start, this would've worked. But in Mass Effect, where, from the word go, we were standing up to the impossible and proving we weren't powerless, it was utterly the wrong ending.
To take this one step further, I don't think the ME3, that the Battle of Earth, should've been the end of the Reaper War. It should've been the end of Shepard's story, it should've been the turning point of the conflict, but it shouldn't've been the end. The Organics win a massive victory, the Reapers are forced to retreat, but they retain significant forces. The war continues for years, decades maybe. Billions more across the galaxy die. But after Earth, the Organics are winning. The Reapers certainly have local triumphs, they win battles in the future, but Earth was their high water mark. Never again would they come so close to overall victory. Ending such a massive war in a single battle, let alone a single instant like the Catalyst does, is to me, an utter waste. Wars, especially those fought over such irreconcilable positions as those held by the Reapers and the Organics, don't just stop because one side wins a battle.
Now, of course, even with the united resources of the galaxy, a straight up engagement with the Reapers at Earth would've not gone well. Which is there The Crucible should've come in - it should've been a MacGuffin that gave us the ability to fight. A weapon. A power source. Something that meant, at least temporarily, the Organics had a chance to fight the Reapers. As an example of how to do a MacGuffin well in the type of story ME was prior to the very end, well, look at ME1. The Conduit was needed, without it we couldn't've have won. But it didn't beat Soverign for us, it merely put us in a position in which we had a chance of winning. We still had to fight. Shepard still had to take down Saren. The human fleet still had to destroy Sovereign. That is how the Crucible should've worked (obviously I'm not saying it should've literally been another mini-mass relay, but in terms of its place in the story). That would've been in keeping with the rest of ME. That would've given us, the players, the chance to act, to feel that we'd accomplished something - core to the experience of a game like ME - rather than just picking a colour and letting the creepy kid do it all.
I think this is an important point.
ME3 was so hung up on Reapers being unstoppable that it didn't create rules for why they win, rules which could then be countered by the Crucible to turn the tables. So the Crucible pulls a win out of hat and it feels hollow. Back in ME1 Vigil told us that the Reapers weren't just tough and numerous, but that they used indoctrinated forces and spies, and that they controlled the gate network to isolate enemy forces and attack them in greater strength. If those had been some of the reasons given for the Reapers rampaging across the galaxy in ME3 - rather than them just having plot armor and numbers - then the Crucible could have turned one of them off, giving the Citadel forces the level playing field needed to mass railgun the cuttlefish to death.
To take this one step further, I don't think the ME3, that the Battle of Earth, should've been the end of the Reaper War. It should've been the end of Shepard's story, it should've been the turning point of the conflict, but it shouldn't've been the end. The Organics win a massive victory, the Reapers are forced to retreat, but they retain significant forces. The war continues for years, decades maybe.
I really like this idea.
Snip
the problem with your whole "Catalyst defeats the Reapers" quip is the fact that the Catalyst concedes defeat by literally acknowledging that Shepard has rendered it (i.e. the Catalyst and its harvests) obsolete.
COD BEATS ALL IN FRANCHISE LIFESPAN !!!! GET REKT NEWBS 360 quickscope FTW! /extreme sarcasm and pukes in disgust
the problem with your whole "Catalyst defeats the Reapers" quip is the fact that the Catalyst concedes defeat by literally acknowledging that Shepard has rendered it (i.e. the Catalyst and its harvests) obsolete.
Does Shepard make space magic fly around and destroy all the Reapers? No. The Catalyst does. There's no conflict, there's no struggle, there's no fight, there's no standing up to the impossible, doing what Shep had done the entire game. There's just picking a colour and bam, it's over.
The the creepy kid has explanations and justifications doesn't change anything with regards my objection to the ending: that is it utterly inconsistent with the style of story (and game) that Mass Effect had been up to the final 15 minutes.
If EA were treating the next Mass Effect game as a cash grab wouldn't it make more sense to quickly churn it out on the old UE3 engine instead of building up a new studio to make the game on a new engine with years in development?
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
New studio?
Anyway, a common graphic rendering engine is worth more than using the old one. EA is thinking long term here. Meaning, that game programmers can be pulled from anywhere to assist elsewhere.
Why are people so keen to dismiss MEA so early on? It it because of DAI(a completely different kind of game), or are they still sore over an ending to a game that came out 3 years ago. It just doesn't make sense. People should just grow up, let go of past slights & give this brand new game in a much beloved franchise a break.
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Once burned, twice shy. makes perfect sense. True, dismissing MEA at this point is .. eh.. non-sensical. However, those that allow themselves to gush with pure excitement is premature. at this point. I'd say wait until more is known.
OP you are suprised about it? I was not, after the mess with ME3 and DA2, people don't trust Bioware because they sold thier souls to EA which several times got an title. "Worst American Company"
But i going give an chance for ME:A through, since i still love ME after the mess.
Btw. I think more DA:I players on Xbox360 and PS3 might be annoyed, when Bioware decieded to shut down support there.
I don't know if "surprised" is the right word. But for a while now every time I have thought "There's no way they'd be stupid enough to go with that" they have somehow managed to disappoint me.
At this point I am left to wonder just how many "chances" I should give them.
And yeah, between the last-gen consoles being cast aside mid-cycle and now hiding SP content behind MP in DAI, I'm left to wonder why anyone should believe any claims they make about their products anymore. Thy might say there's a lore-friendly method of getting to Andromeda that makes perfect sense. ANd it might just be words to convince us to buy a copy.
Retour en haut