Mass Effect: Andromeda [PC]
- Thread starter Jupiter
- Start date
I suppose I am not really in touch with what's popular. I don't play any online games other than Supreme Commander. I just watch for interesting single player horror and sci-fi games.
I've actually been exploring the Xbox 360 and PS3 libraries lately. I haven't played some of the exclusives there. It's all super cheap now.
Yes, many of the online games are fantasy video games.
Now where many make fun of the game and there are bad reviews, allegedly employees come out and say the development was torture.
Now where many make fun of the game and there are bad reviews, allegedly employees come out and say the development was torture.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Now where many make fun of the game and there are bad reviews, allegedly employees come out and say the development was torture.
The one I quoted was from July 2016.
Here are all the reviews (you must login either through the site directly or through facebook or google):
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Bi...tus=PART_TIME&filter.employmentStatus=UNKNOWN
I see only one mock review as a reaction to the game's release. Looking at the timeline, the site seems to be pretty good at filtering non-serious stuff.
Another from July but from Edmonton (the other was from Montreal):
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's not even really the old guard, although they probably represent the oldest remaining Bioware employees. The heart and soul of the company basically left when the founders all quit the company.
EA has pushed hard to transform Bioware from a RPG focused company to an action/FPS focused company. I imagine there's a lot of resentment and infighting between people that support that and people that wish they still created quality RPGs. Without the guiding vision of the founders of the company, it's become a mess.
Meh, not like I care anymore though. Bioware has been a dead company to me for many years now.
Regards,
SB
EA has pushed hard to transform Bioware from a RPG focused company to an action/FPS focused company. I imagine there's a lot of resentment and infighting between people that support that and people that wish they still created quality RPGs. Without the guiding vision of the founders of the company, it's become a mess.
Meh, not like I care anymore though. Bioware has been a dead company to me for many years now.
Regards,
SB
No idea. I am only interested in Bioware because of the Mass Effect series. Dragon Age for example, is indifferent to me.
_
[No Spoilers] Here is why the eyes look wrong in Andromeda (artist opinion)
_
[No Spoilers] Here is why the eyes look wrong in Andromeda (artist opinion)
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Eh, the complaints about Bioware don't seem any different than the complaints I've heard about just about every game development studio. Seems like the hours, deadlines and pressure sucks in the industry across the board.
I'm not one to let Bioware off the hook, or let their developers off the hook and focus on Bioware's Management staff as the excuse the game is substandard.
ME1 was a fantastic game with amazing graphics for a console game with an expansive universe and mythos. It would be hard for anybody to match that level of success this far after the original.
I'm not one to let Bioware off the hook, or let their developers off the hook and focus on Bioware's Management staff as the excuse the game is substandard.
ME1 was a fantastic game with amazing graphics for a console game with an expansive universe and mythos. It would be hard for anybody to match that level of success this far after the original.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Mass Effect was affected as well. The first ME was a point and click RPG with an over the shoulder view (hence complaints from Shooter fans that it was a bad shooter since if you aimed at an enemies head you might not actually hit the enemies head since an RPG die roll taking your character skills into account determined whether you actually hit something you clicked on with the mouse or controller in the case of consoles). Starting with the second it's basically just been your average 3rd person shooter with the more and more of the RPG aspects and rich character driven dialogue (and dialogue consequences) being reduced.
Regards,
SB
Thanks for the explanation.
I do not know the first Mass Effect but I personally find the departure of RPG elements good. It bothers me when I always have to shoot too many bullets at an opponent.
The last RPGs I have played some time with the exception of Mass Effect were FALLOUT 3 and The Division. In itself I try to avoid this genre.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Both of those games are also just shooters with some RPG trappings draped over them very very loosely.
Classic RPGs are those where character skills and development are more important than player skills.
For example, if you are good at sniping in a shooter (1st or 3rd person) you'll be an ace sniper no matter what shooter you play, even if it's one supposedly about a character that knows nothing about guns. Player (you) skill is the only thing that matters. Even if there's a skill tree, everything in the game revolves around your skill as a player vs. the skills of the character you are controlling. FO3 and the Division are shooters in that combat is dependent on player skill with character skills adding flavor and little else to character development. FO3, at least has RPG elements in non-combat scenarios. So while I hate Bethesda for what they did to the Fallout franchise, I don't hate them as much as I hate EA for what they did to ME and DA (ME1 and DA:O were fantastic RPGs) after they took over Bioware.
However, in an RPG if you roleplay a character with no knowledge of guns, you aren't ever going to hit anything with a sniping rifle. Character skill (in game) is the main factor and it's up to you to play the role of an unskilled person gradually becoming more skilled over time.
In modern gaming, many people have really really loosened the application of the term RPG to where it is meaningless in many cases.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Nobody in their right mind could call Fallout 3 "a shooter". You can shoot things, but a bloody shooter it ain't.
Fallout 4 is a shooter with NV somewhere in between. NV had iron sights but did not have shooting mechanics of console games unless you thought original PlayStation FPS games had reached the pinnacle of the genre.
Fallout 4 is a shooter with NV somewhere in between. NV had iron sights but did not have shooting mechanics of console games unless you thought original PlayStation FPS games had reached the pinnacle of the genre.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I considered it a shooter as other than VATs, you basically hit what you shot at. IE - you could proceed through the entire game without upgrading your weapon related skills and not really suffer if you were good at shooters as you could consistently hit what you were aiming at even if it was for reduced damage, but I do agree that it was more of a nod towards RPGs than the follow ups. Although with your disagreement perhaps I'm mixing things up with Fallout NV. Meh, I dislike the game enough that I can't be arsed to go back and check. So the point is yours.
The same can't be said of a point and click RPG system like ME1, even if it did use a 3rd person over the shoulder view point.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yeah, you could use VATS to line up a perfect shot and manually pull the trigger and hit every time unless your target moved. That's when it became a janky mess: trying to hit a moving target. You looked like you should be able to strafe easily and aim but you couldn't really.
To be fair to Bethesda, they did clearly say at every opportunity that although FO3 looked like a shooter it wasn't. It must have been a conscious game decision because the bow mechanics in Oblivion weren't too bad!
As I wrote somewhere else I thought the decision to have dice rolls tied to the key combat mechanics in ME1 was terrible. I was supposed to be an elite sniper but couldn't hold my weapon still for many levels. If I was role playing, I was role playing a drunk!
To be fair to Bethesda, they did clearly say at every opportunity that although FO3 looked like a shooter it wasn't. It must have been a conscious game decision because the bow mechanics in Oblivion weren't too bad!
As I wrote somewhere else I thought the decision to have dice rolls tied to the key combat mechanics in ME1 was terrible. I was supposed to be an elite sniper but couldn't hold my weapon still for many levels. If I was role playing, I was role playing a drunk!
Depending on the scene Mass Effect: Andromeda (ME:A) is so far only good/okay in my opinion. But this is not a final assessment yet. It's just my first impression after 15 hours of playtime.
What for example bothers me is that much resources can be collected with whom too much can be crafted. In story based games I'm not a fan of this. The system seems to be exhausting and I prefer when I simply find this stuff as in ME3. In the other hand I like weapons accessories as found in Wildlands. But I dislike collecting of raw materials in story games like ME. In my point of view this is more for other genres.
I do not like the menu and the HUD too.
Why does ME: Andromeda has endless boring secondary tasks? I have never experienced something like that. You have the feeling that you will never finish it. Therefore I estimate the game will take about 100 hours. They should have concentraded at the main story as they had in ME 3 and shorten the game. I played ME: A already as long where I would be almost through in ME 2 and feel that I am still at the beginning of the game. I played ME 2 in Decmeber/ January again where I was also often bored. This consisted almost entirely of secondary tasks, in which I collected characters. But they were not endlessly many tasks and they were better than many from ME: A. Unlike Wildlands and The Division, I feel forced to do the secondary Tasks in ME: A.
Probably because it is a story single player game.
I have nothing against the open sections. What disturbs me is the fact that I can talk with so many boring characters which can also distribute tasks. There are too many characters to talk with. I you'd prefer less, more interesting and better animated characters. Bioware could easily halve the number of these characters.
In view of my high graphical standards ME: A is evaluated below Battlefront (in itself it looks good because Battlefront on the PC is not bad). Nevertheless, I wonder where the whole performance of the GPU "disappears" in ME: A. Especially after Wildlands, which defined a new standard for video game graphics, my graphics scale changed fundamentally. Before I would have rated the graphics in Mass Effect: Andromeda very good (08/10) but after Wildlands the evaluation changed for me. In itself Mass Effect looks good on the PC and much better than the other Mass Effect titles in relation to other games from their time. I could list only a few video games which look better than the PC version of ME: A.
What bothers me about all Frostbite games are the Pop Ups. As vegetation appears even on the PC. In Wildlands there are even in dense vegetation areas almost no Pop Ups while in Mass Effect or Battlefield 1, however, even in dry areas that have only a few bushes I can see them. For me Pop Ups are still a big annoyance in most video games. I am only satisfied in my modified Alien: Isolation, The Division and Wildlands. I think Crysis 3 was good too. In GTA V / Watchdogs 2 it was very difficult to maintain 60fps at the highest draw distance settings.
At least ME: A uses my SVS subwoofer a lot and in general the dynamic range is excellent. There are even moments with extreme low bass (20Hz) what only a few video games have to offer. The sound is better in comparison to the graphics.
By the way I can not understand the whole depreciation of the game. If the often horrible facial animations of humans in this game are not considered then the animations when walking etc. are not noticeably worse than in other games. The hate towards this game is exaggerated. I could not find as many bugs as the videos made us belive there are. Of course Biowares B team worked on it and some elements are not good or even bad. In the whole the witch hunt and the disparagement of the product make me feel a bit sorry for the developers.
I know there are some mistakes in the text but I wanted to share my thoughts with you without wasting hours to wrire it. ^^
___
Silent_Buddha, I will answer you later.
What for example bothers me is that much resources can be collected with whom too much can be crafted. In story based games I'm not a fan of this. The system seems to be exhausting and I prefer when I simply find this stuff as in ME3. In the other hand I like weapons accessories as found in Wildlands. But I dislike collecting of raw materials in story games like ME. In my point of view this is more for other genres.
I do not like the menu and the HUD too.
Why does ME: Andromeda has endless boring secondary tasks? I have never experienced something like that. You have the feeling that you will never finish it. Therefore I estimate the game will take about 100 hours. They should have concentraded at the main story as they had in ME 3 and shorten the game. I played ME: A already as long where I would be almost through in ME 2 and feel that I am still at the beginning of the game. I played ME 2 in Decmeber/ January again where I was also often bored. This consisted almost entirely of secondary tasks, in which I collected characters. But they were not endlessly many tasks and they were better than many from ME: A. Unlike Wildlands and The Division, I feel forced to do the secondary Tasks in ME: A.
Probably because it is a story single player game.
I have nothing against the open sections. What disturbs me is the fact that I can talk with so many boring characters which can also distribute tasks. There are too many characters to talk with. I you'd prefer less, more interesting and better animated characters. Bioware could easily halve the number of these characters.
In view of my high graphical standards ME: A is evaluated below Battlefront (in itself it looks good because Battlefront on the PC is not bad). Nevertheless, I wonder where the whole performance of the GPU "disappears" in ME: A. Especially after Wildlands, which defined a new standard for video game graphics, my graphics scale changed fundamentally. Before I would have rated the graphics in Mass Effect: Andromeda very good (08/10) but after Wildlands the evaluation changed for me. In itself Mass Effect looks good on the PC and much better than the other Mass Effect titles in relation to other games from their time. I could list only a few video games which look better than the PC version of ME: A.
What bothers me about all Frostbite games are the Pop Ups. As vegetation appears even on the PC. In Wildlands there are even in dense vegetation areas almost no Pop Ups while in Mass Effect or Battlefield 1, however, even in dry areas that have only a few bushes I can see them. For me Pop Ups are still a big annoyance in most video games. I am only satisfied in my modified Alien: Isolation, The Division and Wildlands. I think Crysis 3 was good too. In GTA V / Watchdogs 2 it was very difficult to maintain 60fps at the highest draw distance settings.
At least ME: A uses my SVS subwoofer a lot and in general the dynamic range is excellent. There are even moments with extreme low bass (20Hz) what only a few video games have to offer. The sound is better in comparison to the graphics.
By the way I can not understand the whole depreciation of the game. If the often horrible facial animations of humans in this game are not considered then the animations when walking etc. are not noticeably worse than in other games. The hate towards this game is exaggerated. I could not find as many bugs as the videos made us belive there are. Of course Biowares B team worked on it and some elements are not good or even bad. In the whole the witch hunt and the disparagement of the product make me feel a bit sorry for the developers.
I know there are some mistakes in the text but I wanted to share my thoughts with you without wasting hours to wrire it. ^^
___
Silent_Buddha, I will answer you later.
Last edited:
So in general it feels like a fun game but boring?
Positive points of ME: Andromeda
-male Ryder is better
-million of combat possibilities because of the many skills and weapons
-Nomad (land vehicle) is better than any vehicle of the other ME titles
-good music which mostly remains in the background
-spectacular main story
-maleric and atmospheric areas
-very good implementation of alien planets
-jump pack fits very well into the game
-very good sound
-good German speakers but they use too often colloquial terms
-very good galaxy map and suitable travel animations
-aliens look better than humans
-open world sections fit well into such a exploration game
-scanning is suitable
_____
I have created two characters and recorded videos and I do not know which one to choose.
The first build has a mixture of technology and biotics. The second is only biotics and both use singularity. I have only enough points for one build.
Tech/Biotics:
Biotics:
This is the second highest difficulty level. I can not imagine playing such a fast game with 30fps.
At first the character extracts energy for the shields from the opponents. At the second he has a shild which he holds infrnt of him. I do not know what is better? Which one would you choose?
I aimed so badly because each build was tested just for a short amount of time before I started to record it.
By the way I doubt that the press played the game like this. For them it was probably mostly a cover shooter.
These classic RPGs would clearly not be games which I would consume. From my point view they made the right gameplay decision and going from ME2 every title improved gameplaywise.
Thank you for the information. I did not know that roll games were like this before because I usually do not play them.
-male Ryder is better
-million of combat possibilities because of the many skills and weapons
-Nomad (land vehicle) is better than any vehicle of the other ME titles
-good music which mostly remains in the background
-spectacular main story
-maleric and atmospheric areas
-very good implementation of alien planets
-jump pack fits very well into the game
-very good sound
-good German speakers but they use too often colloquial terms
-very good galaxy map and suitable travel animations
-aliens look better than humans
-open world sections fit well into such a exploration game
-scanning is suitable
_____
I have created two characters and recorded videos and I do not know which one to choose.
The first build has a mixture of technology and biotics. The second is only biotics and both use singularity. I have only enough points for one build.
Tech/Biotics:
Biotics:
This is the second highest difficulty level. I can not imagine playing such a fast game with 30fps.
At first the character extracts energy for the shields from the opponents. At the second he has a shild which he holds infrnt of him. I do not know what is better? Which one would you choose?
I aimed so badly because each build was tested just for a short amount of time before I started to record it.
By the way I doubt that the press played the game like this. For them it was probably mostly a cover shooter.
These classic RPGs would clearly not be games which I would consume. From my point view they made the right gameplay decision and going from ME2 every title improved gameplaywise.
Thank you for the information. I did not know that roll games were like this before because I usually do not play them.
Last edited:
FYI: There's a spin-off thread for discussing Game and Model Design Decisions over here, feel free to participate even if it is currently in the console section: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/me-a-game-and-model-design-decisions-gone-awry-spinoff.59997/