Yes. Like DAI. It wakes you to a rather large map where "the action" is, and you find your way to it.
Or go look at other stuff that's also there.
Eh, fetchquests ruined the large maps - although riding horses is awesome though. In Me:A they should allow you to drive around in a HMV or etc.
Mass Effect was a trilogy. So people were eager to continue Shepard story. With Andromeda we're in the unknown.
OK, fine.. but for starters? What else?
I'm playing through ME1 as we speak actually... and I like it, don't get me wrong.. but exploration was a slog. The idea is cool, but the planets were never interesting.
Yeah and even if they do manage to initially make it interesting, how much fun will it be after we slaughter our 100th Andromedan equivalent to the Thedas bear or locate the 30th "secret stash" (of lame loot - Bioware sucks at loot too) scattered across 30 worlds to unlock the "World Explorer" achievement. I don't really have any expectations of the exploration beyond a prettier version of ME1 with more opportunities to find/kill stuff. You can bet most of the worlds will lack much if any story content (sadly DAI on steroids) - which is the only thing that will prompt me to visit a world outside a mandated visit to complete the primary quest(s). I just hope exploration is purely optional and the journal system (another thing Bioware hasn't really excelled at) is well designed enough to keep to the story.
Eh, fetchquests ruined the large maps - although riding horses is awesome though. In Me:A they should allow you to drive around in a HMV or etc.
Agree on the 1st...disagree on the 2nd. The horses were barely faster than running, the companions "poofing in and out of existence" was poorly executed, and you couldn't fight from horseback (another thing TW3 bested DAI in.) Although I appreciate the "shortcut" horses provided to accessing the bottom of canyons. 
Yeah and even if they do manage to initially make it interesting, how much fun will it be after we slaughter our 100th Andromedan equivalent to the Thedas bear or locate the 30th "secret stash" (of lame loot - Bioware sucks at loot too) scattered across 30 worlds to unlock the "World Explorer" achievement. I don't really have any expectations of the exploration beyond a prettier version of ME1 with more opportunities to find/kill stuff. You can bet most of the worlds will lack much if any story content (sadly DAI on steroids) - which is the only thing that will prompt me to visit a world outside a mandated visit to complete the primary quest(s). I just hope exploration is purely optional and the journal system (another thing Bioware hasn't really excelled at) is well designed enough to keep to the story.
Yeah, if it's optional like ME1, I probably won't complain. I'm kind of finding right now in my current playthrough of ME1 that I don't even want to touch any of this.. but the good thing is, it's no big loss. Other than not getting a good result with Conrad in ME3. Heh.
Mass Effect was a trilogy. So people were eager to continue Shepard story. With Andromeda we're in the unknown.
Eh if Shepard could have ended in a good place, that would have been one thing.
But given ME3 pretty much cr*pped all over Shep...why bother to get invested in a new character?
You definitely aren't. I'm not only perfectly fine with fantastical elements in my fantasy stories, I find all the hard prejudice against them a little irritating.
That was actually my point, sort of. The ME series is nonsensical in almost every possible way, and as such I believe it should be enjoyed for what it is rather than for what it isn't. And what it isn't is hard sci fi, or a rock solid story with a perfectly constructed plot and complex characters. More like escapist action pulp, which some people might consider an insult, but I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with pulp, as long as it's fun.
However, it also means that I'm not expecting MEA to excel where the trilogy didn't. I foresee the science will be bad and inconsistent, the plot will make no sense and the player character will at least straddle the line into Mary Suedom while the followers become a glorified harem and cheerleader squad. I can't help but think that people who expect those things to change are setting themselves up for disappointment and are likely looking at the trilogy with rose-tinted glasses.
Yeah, if it's optional like ME1, I probably won't complain. I'm kind of finding right now in my current playthrough of ME1 that I don't even want to touch any of this.. but the good thing is, it's no big loss. Other than not getting a good result with Conrad in ME3. Heh.
I'm in this camp as well. Even if the exploration itself is a tedium like in DAI or ME1, I might get the game anyway if 1. it's easily skippable and 2. there's enough other stuff to enjoy. What makes ME1 playable and DAI insufferable, for me anyway, is that in the latter you are forced to grind if you want to continue the main story and progress with the companions. Very, very bad call.
That was actually my point, sort of. The ME series is nonsensical in almost every possible way, and as such I believe it should be enjoyed for what it is rather than for what it isn't. And what it isn't is hard sci fi, or a rock solid story with a perfectly constructed plot and complex characters. More like escapist action pulp, which some people might consider an insult, but I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with pulp, as long as it's fun.
This is perhaps part of the problem with the ending, it simply isn't possible to take a pulp-fiction story with shaky foundations when it comes to plot and internal logic, and then slam a half-baked "artistic" mind-screw ending on top of it and expect fans to gasp in astonishment over the sheer genius of it all. It's just too inconsistent.
This is perhaps part of the problem with the ending, it simply isn't possible to take a pulp-fiction story with shaky foundations when it comes to plot and internal logic, and then slam a half-baked "artistic" mind-screw ending on top of it and expect fans to gasp in astonishment over the sheer genius of it all. It's just too inconsistent.
I think it's a tad more complicated than that, but I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying. Hudson and Walters tried to make an ending that was deep and profound, but they failed to notice that you can't just have an ending like that slapped onto the end of a story. It has to be set up and be consistent with everything that has happened up to that point. The structure of the ME series (which amounted to "we'll just make it up as we go along") just doesn't favor that kind of story.
There's always a level of improvisation going on when designing a story; how much depends on the particular writer's style. But if you want solid plot, I think you better start it knowing how it will end (or at least having a vague idea of it).
I think it's a tad more complicated than that, but I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying. Hudson and Walters tried to make an ending that was deep and profound, but they failed to notice that you can't just have an ending like that slapped onto the end of a story. It has to be set up and be consistent with everything that has happened up to that point. The structure of the ME series (which amounted to "we'll just make it up as we go along") just doesn't favor that kind of story.
There's always a level of improvisation going on when designing a story; how much depends on the particular writer's style. But if you want solid plot, I think you better start it knowing how it will end (or at least having a vague idea of it).
I think it's a tad more complicated than that, but I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying. Hudson and Walters tried to make an ending that was deep and profound, but they failed to notice that you can't just have an ending like that slapped onto the end of a story. It has to be set up and be consistent with everything that has happened up to that point. The structure of the ME series (which amounted to "we'll just make it up as we go along") just doesn't favor that kind of story.
There's always a level of improvisation going on when designing a story; how much depends on the particular writer's style. But if you want solid plot, I think you better start it knowing how it will end (or at least having a vague idea of it).
I am definitely not an apologist for Mssrs Hudson et Walters, but in their defense, I wonder how much ME3 suffered from downward pressure to launch from EA.
I have seen threads, can't remember where, but probably searchable, about significant amounts that were cut, which probably had a major impact.
My hope is Andromeda doesn't suffer this same fate.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but at least give us good.
The biggest issue with ME3 is that it's a sequel to ME2, the middle entry that not only didn't advance the plot, but actually derailed it, with how the reapers are at the galactic gates at the end with the galaxy no better prepared than it was at the end of ME1. If ME3 was true to the lore, the game would've last an hour with a reaper victory after they take control of the citadel and by extension the relays.
As a result, ME3 was doomed from the start, with not only having to handwave things, but having to be both the real ME2(uniting the galaxy against reapers and finding a means to stop them) and the second sequel(the war), and naturally it ended up being lackluster in both.
I am definitely not an apologist for Mssrs Hudson et Walters, but in their defense, I wonder how much ME3 suffered from downward pressure to launch from EA.
I have seen threads, can't remember where, but probably searchable, about significant amounts that were cut, which probably had a major impact.
I'm not sure I'd call it an EA issue. Sure, having a bit more money/time to throw around can help certain stories be told better, but ME3's ending is flawed on a fundamental level, that extends far beyond "EA made us do it", if that even was the case.
It's a problem that began in ME1, was extended through ME2, and hit its peak in ME3: lack of planning, too many divergent variables, tone/thematic shifts, introduction of world-changing characters in the final ten minutes, etc. ME2, despite being one of my favorite games of all time, especially killed the deal by not moving the main story forward + making the entire cast killable.
I have seen threads, can't remember where, but probably searchable, about significant amounts that were cut, which probably had a major impact.
ME2, despite being one of my favorite games of all time, especially killed the deal by not moving the main story forward + making the entire cast killable.
I've said a few times that, regardless of what one thinks of ME2 as an individual game, it was a terrible sequel and an awful middle entry in a trilogy. Beyond what has already been said, it also represents a drastic shift in tone, theme and even in the direction of the plot from ME1. It's like they decided that continuing what they had already set up was too much work and too boring, said "**** it" and did all but reboot the franchise. ME2 would have been better off as a spin-off or even a reboot, since that's what it comes across as.
EDIT: On the other hand, this tendency also means MEA is likely to be a significant shift from ME3, so hopefully it'll be for the better.
Only major change I remember was Javik being the Catalyst and the Catalyst being called the Guardian. Ending seemed fairly close to what we got.
I'm not sure I'd call it an EA issue. Sure, having a bit more money/time to throw around can help certain stories be told better, but ME3's ending is flawed on a fundamental level, that extends far beyond "EA made us do it", if that even was the case.
It's a problem that began in ME1, was extended through ME2, and hit its peak in ME3: lack of planning, too many divergent variables, tone/thematic shifts, introduction of world-changing characters in the final ten minutes, etc. ME2, despite being one of my favorite games of all time, especially killed the deal by not moving the main story forward + making the entire cast killable.
I don't think ME2 was the best game of all time (I think it's not better than ME1 and ME3), but I agree with the overall sentiment of this post.
Only major change I remember was Javik being the Catalyst and the Catalyst being called the Guardian. Ending seemed fairly close to what we got.
There was also stuff about Shepard actually being indoctrinated during the TIM scene and having to fight it off. But they couldn't get the mechanics to work right.
That's why there's all the weird visuals and sounds during the confrontation.
The leaked outline shows that the cuts had no real impact. Some of the cut stuff was worse than what we got.
I seem to remember the entire entire sequence of the story was changed to cut out missions, Javik being much more integral, and more Kai-Lent content. Could be wrong though, been quite a while since I read that stuff.
I do not recall any changes to the endings, other than the discarded dark energy idea.
Yeah, you remember right. It impacted all of the Thessia and Citadel stuff.. or rather, they were completely different.
I have seen threads, can't remember where, but probably searchable, about significant amounts that were cut, which probably had a major impact.
I read a post from someone that mentioned that less than 25% of the folks that worked on ME1, worked on ME3.
I have read posts from folks of the stuff that was cut. Too bad none of that was in the game
I read a post from someone that mentioned that less than 25% of the folks that worked on ME1, worked on ME3.
I have read posts from folks of the stuff that was cut. Too bad none of that was in the game
Can't give the overall numbers for the entire staff, but...
Writers on ME1:
Drew Karpyshyn (lead writer)
Luke Kristjanson
Chris L'Etoile
Mike Laidlaw
Mac Walters
Patrick Weekes
Writers on ME3
John Dombrow
Sylvia Feketekuty
Chris Hepler
Ann Lemay
Neil Pollner
Cathleen Rootsaert
Jay Turner
Mac Walters (lead writer)
Jay Watamaniuk
Patrick Weekes
So yeah, there was significant turnover as far as writing goes
Its more on how the writing for the game is. The last few games have had generally bad writing and sometimes decent. Problem is they expect us to enjoy the story but its absolutely shoddily written. I personally enjoyed ME1 a lot more than the next two games as it also was better written and tried to follow the rules the setting established for it self. The other two not so much.
So if its well/decently written then i will enjoy it. If its trash but still forces me to care then im not interested example the brat in start of me3 sad music feel sad idiocy.
So yeah its all about the writing and it something they lack quality in. A story can be simple or even similar to another tale, what matters is how it is told. Bio in their quest to prove they can be different actually make it worse. The studio has the resources from money tech etc but they lack writing to pull it all together. One can have the resources but not the skill and this can be rectified by getting the skill hire better writers who know how to write and not terrible comic book crap.
Finally i also have to see if their writers collaborate with their cinematics department. Mass effect suffered badly from lack of collaboration where the cinematics contradicted the established rules of the setting itself. It was terrible.
If the game addresses these issues i will very much enjoy it but i fear bio is not interested in proper groundwork laying, exposition, establishing rules and following it.
In short I HOPE ITS A PROPER RPG with the work put in. But going by history the game will start of with a giant explosion/action from the get go DA2, ME2, ME3, DAI.
Can't give the overall numbers for the entire staff, but...
Writers on ME1:
Drew Karpyshyn (lead writer)
Luke Kristjanson
Chris L'Etoile
Mike Laidlaw
Mac Walters
Patrick Weekes
Writers on ME3
John Dombrow
Sylvia Feketekuty
Chris Hepler
Ann Lemay
Neil Pollner
Cathleen Rootsaert
Jay Turner
Mac Walters (lead writer)
Jay Watamaniuk
Patrick Weekes
So yeah, there was significant turnover as far as writing goes
A constantly revolving door of writers, each with their own idea of how to do things, certainly didn't do any good. It's no coincidence that the writing got worse and worse the more writers worked on ME either.
ME turned out to be more like a wikipedia page than any kind of coherent story.
Retour en haut
