Mass Effect Andromeda 1 Year Later

focbde

Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
545
It got repetitive pretty quickly.. I never finished it. I really wanted to like it, as a sci fi fanatic. But... it just lacked the magic of the original game. Didn't play ME2 or ME3, so the original is my only basis for comparison.

Exactly my experience - really wanted to like it too as a huge ME fan, but it just wore off over time, despite me trying to keep interest in it...

I would love to see another game that captures my attention and with such a sense of fun like KOTOR...

I will say though, that as I hurtle towards being a grump old bastard, I find it hard to keep interest in a game... I'm guessing from reading other posts on here though that this is not an isolated situation.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
I'm willing to bet the problem Dan has with prequels is the fact that you already know exactly how it's going to end up. There's really very little they can do to make any decent surprises. Guess what? Neither the Turians nor the Humans won that "war". It was basically a stalemate until both sides realized the whole war was a damn mistake. We also know the Krogan effectively eradicated the Rachni and then later got their asses handed to them by the Council races.

There's a reason why people love the KOTOR games. They took place so long before anything we really knew in the Star Wars Universe that it was a new experience and we didn't know exactly how it was going to turn out.

Going the prequel route for Mass Effect would be a horrible idea if it's supposed to be anything even remotely close to an RPG. We're talking about an established universe with tons of codex entries telling us exactly what has already happened. Mass Effect has been about galaxy spanning issues and to break from that formula would be a huge issue but you'd have to stay far away from that formula to have any sort of halfway decent prequel game. The game would literally need to be about something completely unknown and/or insignificant. That's not what I look for in a Mass Effect game and I'm willing to bet not many other people are either.

That's exactly my issue. Also, prequels are often cash grabs for films, TV shows, and games which ended in such a way as to make continuation difficult, if not impossible to do well. Highlander 2: The Quickening is an example of that. In that films case they had to jump the shark to make it work from a narrative perspective and it although the story is cohesive, its so different in tone that it totally lost what made the original movie so good. Its the same thing with games and movies that are done this way. Andromeda's basic story is fine. It was a good move vs. trying to unfuck ME3's ending. However, the game's largest problem above all else is that its main protagonists aren't nearly as much fun to play as Commander Shepard was. You ended up with more dialog choices and all of them are so similar its impossible to remember what you chose on a replay, or if someone else asks you. The tone barely changes.

There are quests where you might find some shit bags looting corpses or something like that and tell you to fuck off if you tell them to stop. Shepard could intimidate, kill, beat up or convince people like that they were wrong. You may have generally only had three options, but they were all completely different choices. No matter what you do with Ryder, he or she will back away despite being the one in advanced armor with squadmates that can more than handle the situation. Effectively, all Mass Effect games give you the illusion of choice as the endings more or less end up being really close at the end. However, the choices you make can vary the tone for the character and your cut scenes considerably. Andromeda didn't really do that. There are some things Andromeda did right, such as the last mission. It was more like what Priority: Earth should have been like in ME3.

Despite its faults, Andromeda did set things up for potentially interesting sequels which could have been great. I think it was a better option than trying to fix what ME3 broke even though it could have been done better. Unfortunately, we will probably never know because I'm going to wager that additions to the ME franchise will be prequels. They almost have to do it that way now. BioWare could pick a canon ending and move on from ME3 in some way, but they'd have to ignore the "I'm going to pout and choose nothing" and the "synthesis" endings entirely. They would be incompatible with the other two endings and make progressing the story forward nearly impossible. Some people might actually like those endings and feel slighted, and take it personally even though those endings are both bullshit anyway.
 

wizdum

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
1,943
Exactly my experience - really wanted to like it too as a huge ME fan, but it just wore off over time, despite me trying to keep interest in it...

I would love to see another game that captures my attention and with such a sense of fun like KOTOR...

I will say though, that as I hurtle towards being a grump old bastard, I find it hard to keep interest in a game... I'm guessing from reading other posts on here though that this is not an isolated situation.

I may just be getting old, but I feel the same lately. It seems like more and more studios put 80% of their effort into making games pretty and only 20% into story and design. Mass Effect completely hooked me as a game. I got it as part of a Steam Sale pack with like 15 other games, and never intended to look at it. I don't play RPGs. I picked it up one day when I was bored and ended up playing until 7am. The story just made me not want to put it down. I look back at all the games that I love, and all of them were good despite their graphics, not because of them.
 
Last edited:

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,758
I had no problem with the issues Andromeda had - but what killed it was the lack of a decent storyline. I got bored halfway through and couldn’t be bothered to finish.
 

Dion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
3,775
The game was a victim of bandwagon hate for reasons that are so petty it's kinda pathetic but hey mob mentality.

Welcome to HardOCP forums. The reddit bandwagon mentality around here is ridiculous. You can't even enjoy a game without people telling you, you're wrong.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,183
Despite its faults, Andromeda did set things up for potentially interesting sequels which could have been great. I think it was a better option than trying to fix what ME3 broke even though it could have been done better. Unfortunately, we will probably never know because I'm going to wager that additions to the ME franchise will be prequels. They almost have to do it that way now. BioWare could pick a canon ending and move on from ME3 in some way, but they'd have to ignore the "I'm going to pout and choose nothing" and the "synthesis" endings entirely. They would be incompatible with the other two endings and make progressing the story forward nearly impossible. Some people might actually like those endings and feel slighted, and take it personally even though those endings are both bullshit anyway.

What amazes me is that the fans handed them a way out: The indoctrination theory. Sure it was based on extremely flimsy supposition, because it wasn't what was actually happening, but they could have used it. Release some DLC that starts to show it more, then release a DLC where at the end you see from the perspective of another character that Shepard has been indoctrinated. Now you've set up another game where a new hero has to either save or kill Shepard and resume the Reaper fight. Not the most elegant storytelling and not the way you'd write it if you did it properly from the start BUT it would be a good way to get yourself out of the stupid situation you'd created. Basically it would let them pull a "lol not really" in a reasonably satisfying way and get back on track.

It surprises me they didn't jump on it. However it sounds like Hudson/Walters were full on emo with their storyline, the rest of Bioware was busy with other shit and being mismanaged, and of course EA themselves is dumb as shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this

Vader1975

Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
820
While in the end I didn't mind my playthrough. I had fun playing through the game. I did hate the look of it and the characters almost all looked like garbage. The character generator was the worst I had seen in a long while. Trying to make someone not look like a horse with a shovel smashed into it was insainly difficult. I actually spent so much time trying to tweak into something looking decent I tricked myself into believing I had something "ok" and then I showed others who went omg that's horrible. Then they tried to make one better. They all failed and asked for mine. Which ended up being the most downloaded (at the time I haven't looked lately). This started the experience off negatively and took hours and hours to accomplish. After that much frustration. Listening to endlessly poor dialog with only extreme choices to make didn't help matters. The actual combat and exploration was pretty fun and I did finish on Hardcore. There were sudden wtf fights but it was a break in the monotony. It deserved much of the flack it received yet the actual combat game-play wasn't bad.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,033
What amazes me is that the fans handed them a way out: The indoctrination theory. Sure it was based on extremely flimsy supposition, because it wasn't what was actually happening, but they could have used it. Release some DLC that starts to show it more, then release a DLC where at the end you see from the perspective of another character that Shepard has been indoctrinated. Now you've set up another game where a new hero has to either save or kill Shepard and resume the Reaper fight. Not the most elegant storytelling and not the way you'd write it if you did it properly from the start BUT it would be a good way to get yourself out of the stupid situation you'd created. Basically it would let them pull a "lol not really" in a reasonably satisfying way and get back on track.

It surprises me they didn't jump on it. However it sounds like Hudson/Walters were full on emo with their storyline, the rest of Bioware was busy with other shit and being mismanaged, and of course EA themselves is dumb as shit.
I don't think the IT was flimsy at all, it made much more sense than the face value ending, that they doubled down on by putting out the extended cut. Which proves they weren't that busy, they could've easily confirm the IT instead of doing what they did with the extended cut. The flimsy supposition was the CW theory.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,468
I don't think the IT was flimsy at all, it made much more sense than the face value ending, that they doubled down on by putting out the extended cut. Which proves they weren't that busy, they could've easily confirm the IT instead of doing what they did with the extended cut. The flimsy supposition was the CW theory.

What's the CW theory?
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,033
What's the CW theory?
It's the Choose Wisely theory, it started out on some Mass Effect forum, it was really hush-hush, the "insiders" who were privy to the details were acting like they re-invented the wheel.

But they turned it into a 6 part documentary that runs over 4 hours, which is very well made, and still entertaining to watch, regardless of the fact that I think the theory on a whole is bunk.
A lot of it is pure conjecture or using obvious game design flaws or shortcuts as evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/user/choosewisely067/videos?disable_polymer=1
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,468
It's the Choose Wisely theory, it started out on some Mass Effect forum, it was really hush-hush, the "insiders" who were privy to the details were acting like they re-invented the wheel.

But they turned it into a 6 part documentary that runs over 4 hours, which is very well made, and still entertaining to watch, regardless of the fact that I think the theory on a whole is bunk.
A lot of it is pure conjecture or using obvious game design flaws or shortcuts as evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/user/choosewisely067/videos?disable_polymer=1


Oookay then. Indoctrination theory was widely known and a really good one but I have never heard of this one before. Maybe I'll check it out once I have some spare time.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
I picked it up the delux edition for $5 on Cyber Monday and I have to say I like it, Ita repetitive but not terribly much more than the others and they still have a bunch of large plot points left unresolved enough for a good sequel launching point. I don’t see why it got all the hate it did, I can honestly say I have paid more for worse games with less content that had a way better rating.

Its quite simple. You didn't see the game in its original state. At launch, the game was filled with facial animation bugs and other technical issues. In addition, people who played the early access beta a few days before official launch saw last minute changes to the game which either made no sense or were perceived to serve an SJW agenda. Things like Sara Ryder's default appearance being altered to make her look like retarded rather than like the model her appearance was initially based on. People couldn't create white characters initially. The character creator was absolutely terrible. It still is, although its been improved over time. There was additional back lash from the alphabet squad LGBTQRSTLE) about a trans character in the game and a whole host of other things.

Its important to note that the early preview we got from Origin was clearly based on an earlier build, but that's the version where the worst animation glitches were found and it was the version which was used to make all those viral videos. Some of the ham fisted dialog and poor voice acting in some cases only added to the problem. Mass Effect Andromeda was the basis for so many memes it was absurd.

The game isn't too bad, but when you combine all those issues with what's essentially a far more dull soft reboot of Mass Effect 1, the game earned allot of the flak it took during the early days of its release. I'm as big a fan of Mass Effect as anyone and even I couldn't look past all those issues. I've played the game all the way through a few times before and after the various fixes were applied to it. You simply can't compare the game we have now to the launch version. The game now is relatively polished and fairly solid. At launch, not so much.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,183
I don't think the IT was flimsy at all, it made much more sense than the face value ending, that they doubled down on by putting out the extended cut. Which proves they weren't that busy, they could've easily confirm the IT instead of doing what they did with the extended cut. The flimsy supposition was the CW theory.

What I mean by flimsy was people were really stretching for the "evidence" that supported it because there was, in fact, no evidence. They were seeing what they wanted to see (that this was leading to something great) rather than what was actually there (that this was a bad story). However while it was making stuff up after the fact, it could have been made to work just fine.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
What amazes me is that the fans handed them a way out: The indoctrination theory. Sure it was based on extremely flimsy supposition, because it wasn't what was actually happening, but they could have used it. Release some DLC that starts to show it more, then release a DLC where at the end you see from the perspective of another character that Shepard has been indoctrinated. Now you've set up another game where a new hero has to either save or kill Shepard and resume the Reaper fight. Not the most elegant storytelling and not the way you'd write it if you did it properly from the start BUT it would be a good way to get yourself out of the stupid situation you'd created. Basically it would let them pull a "lol not really" in a reasonably satisfying way and get back on track.

It surprises me they didn't jump on it. However it sounds like Hudson/Walters were full on emo with their storyline, the rest of Bioware was busy with other shit and being mismanaged, and of course EA themselves is dumb as shit.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that BioWare didn't jump on it. Part of the issue is that Shepard never showed any hint of indoctrination prior to ME3. A case could be made for being in proximity to the artifact in the Arrival DLC for Mass Effect 2, which is the last thing we see prior to Shepard's six month stay in Alliance hands. However, no further evidence of indoctrination can be seen in the six months prior. That is, the Alliance never saw any example of this and its something they should be able to observe given that there are plenty of examples of this throughout the series. Personally, I think Shepard's resistance to indoctrination was the singular reason why Harbinger was so interested in Shepard. This seems to be reinforced in Mass Effect 3's Leviathan DLC where he or she is examined by the Leviathan's and they knew immediately why Harbinger was interested in Shepard. It seems to me that Shepard was likely the first case of a biological life form that was totally resistant to Reaper control and has had some success at fighting them in any way shape or form.

I think Shepard should have gone into Harbinger's superstructure (as stated by EDI that this was possible), and fought that fucker from the inside in a satisfying one on one show down while your allies gathered over the trilogy fought the Reapers conventionally, without any Deus-Ex Machina device. In any event, they utterly blew it and I think doubling down on the bullshit ending was all about ego and Mac Walters and Casey Hudson sticking with it out of pride more than anything. The indoctrination theory may have felt like a way out, but it was a cluster fuck and the games had never shown any level of subtlety or depth of writing like that. People were reaching for it and mentally justifying all kinds of simple errors in a massive game to try and salvage something they were overly invested in. On one hand, BioWare could have totally gone with the "We meant to do that" approach, but at some point they may have been found out. Document leaks, etc. would eventually have shown up and BioWare again had to prevent something like that from happening.

The ending we got wasn't just about Mac Walters and Casey Hudson being hipster douches, but also a result of EA rushing the game to market thinking.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,033
What I mean by flimsy was people were really stretching for the "evidence" that supported it because there was, in fact, no evidence. They were seeing what they wanted to see (that this was leading to something great) rather than what was actually there (that this was a bad story). However while it was making stuff up after the fact, it could have been made to work just fine.
Of course there was no direct evidence for it, as they didn't intend it. But everything just worked. The visions, hearing strange sounds, the oily shadows bit. Shared memories. You didn't need to stretch for any of that. Some conspiracy theorist took it too far and started considering game design choices as evidence as well, but there were definitely things that weren't far fetched or imaginary.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
Of course there was no direct evidence for it, as they didn't intend it. But everything just worked. The visions, hearing strange sounds, the oily shadows bit. Shared memories. You didn't need to stretch for any of that. Some conspiracy theorist took it too far and started considering game design choices as evidence as well, but there were definitely things that weren't far fetched or imaginary.

Seeing the indoctrination theory "evidence" in Mass Effect 3 is about like seeing Jesus on toast. The game was full of visual errors due to bad textures. The shit with the stupid kid and the dream sequences seemed tacked on as an after thought to make the craptastic ending and Starbrat work in some fashion.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,033
Seeing the indoctrination theory "evidence" in Mass Effect 3 is about like seeing Jesus on toast. The game was full of visual errors due to bad textures. The shit with the stupid kid and the dream sequences seemed tacked on as an after thought to make the craptastic ending and Starbrat work in some fashion.
Were the dream sequences in the game or not? Yes they were, so stop moving the goalpost, they're in the game, so they're fair game for evidence of indoctrination whether you like it or not. And they're definitely not bad textures or visual errors. Plus the strange sounds and shared memories aren't even in the dream sequences.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
Were the dream sequences in the game or not? Yes they were, so stop moving the goalpost, they're in the game, so they're fair game for evidence of indoctrination whether you like it or not. And they're definitely not bad textures or visual errors. Plus the strange sounds and shared memories aren't even in the dream sequences.

Holy fuck reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? How the fuck am I moving the goal post? I simply said that they seemed tacked on after the fact. Call backs to something the Rachni Queen said doesn't really change that. The whole PTSD subplot added to the game felt forced and contrived because it was. I also never said the dreams were bad textures. Some people looked at mirrored textures in parts of the game as "evidence". Its not so much an error as much as a a side efffect of corner cutting done in the game's design. Like I said, people were reaching with much of the "evidence." Yes, there were some circumstantial bits and pieces that were interpreted as supporting evidence by people hoping the game wasn't as bad as it turned out to be, but there is no sense defending that fan fiction bullshit. BioWare said you were wrong and most of the "evidence" can be explained by a variety of means and content later put out slams the door on the "theory".

You also have to remember that many plot details of the game were changed because of the script leak. So, the game abounds with oddities and plot points that don't go anywhere. The dark energy plot, etc. are all part of that. It was truncated and culminates in getting more resources via Conrad Verner through his dark energy thesis. The point being is the game is full of things like that. People latched on to what they wanted to believe because they couldn't accept that Mass Effect 3's story line and ending could suck diseased whale dick. Again, arguing this is like telling me "God" is real because you saw "Jesus" in an iHOP waffle. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Nonsense repeated does not become truth.

Besides, the only way this relates to the topic at hand is due to the fact that these shit design decisions were responsible for BioWare being painted into a creative corner which forced them into Andromeda's story. Which conceptually was fine. Its the execution we are talking about here. So please, stay on topic. Getting butt hurt about indoctrination theory is what you do in just about every ME3 thread. Let it go or sit in your own world with your Liara or Tali Waifu pillow and dream of what could have been or not. I don't care, but take it to PM if you want to debate that further, because its straying away from the core topic which is Mass Effect Andromeda.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
917
What he said.

I didn't play Andromeda when it first came out. Just the nature of Parent-of-Toddler-Game-Time-Delay.

By the time I started it, they had pretty much fixed everything they were going to fix, and I enjoyed it a lot.

I felt it was a much closer "spiritual" successor to Mass Effect, than ME2/3. ME2/3 were great games, but ME really set the stage, and it felt like ME:A was trying to set the stage for another trilogy.

The story ME:A isn't as solid as Mass Effect's was, b/c I don't think Mass Effect was conceived of as a trilogy. Rather, it was such a good game, and so successful, that they turned it into a trilogy.

With ME:A, I think they were going for a proper 3 Act Story, where the ME:A was supposed to be the first act.

But, the initial release was soo horribly botched that it will never happen. Which makes me sad.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
What he said.

I didn't play Andromeda when it first came out. Just the nature of Parent-of-Toddler-Game-Time-Delay.

By the time I started it, they had pretty much fixed everything they were going to fix, and I enjoyed it a lot.

I felt it was a much closer "spiritual" successor to Mass Effect, than ME2/3. ME2/3 were great games, but ME really set the stage, and it felt like ME:A was trying to set the stage for another trilogy.

The story ME:A isn't as solid as Mass Effect's was, b/c I don't think Mass Effect was conceived of as a trilogy. Rather, it was such a good game, and so successful, that they turned it into a trilogy.

With ME:A, I think they were going for a proper 3 Act Story, where the ME:A was supposed to be the first act.

But, the initial release was soo horribly botched that it will never happen. Which makes me sad.

Pretty much echoes my thoughts on the matter.
 

Nebell

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
2,128
I loved the game! And I'm not being sarcastic here. But I love sci-fi. I was much more disappointed in Horizon, for which I even bought a PS4 Pro. I just couldn't understand fighting metal robots with stone spears. And every merchant selling the same thing. Overhyped console only crap. At least I got plenty of fun from Until Dawn, Battle Chasers and The Last of Us.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
I'm holding out hope that EA cycles back to Mass Effect after they're done with their dissappointing Battlefield/Battlefront and now Anthem* releases...


[this is a forecast]
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
I loved the game! And I'm not being sarcastic here. But I love sci-fi. I was much more disappointed in Horizon, for which I even bought a PS4 Pro. I just couldn't understand fighting metal robots with stone spears. And every merchant selling the same thing. Overhyped console only crap. At least I got plenty of fun from Until Dawn, Battle Chasers and The Last of Us.

Andromeda by itself isn't a bad game. One of its core problems is that it isn't as cinematic or exciting as the previous installments. Much of this comes from the fact that it is an open world game. Open world games tend to be a bit more generic given their non-linear nature. The trade off is game play that some people prefer, but the downside is that the story telling is never as tight or as well focused. In that regard, Andromeda is almost too big for its own good.

I enjoyed the game well enough. I think I got my money's worth out of it, but I have only played through it three times. I've played through the previous games multiple times. I've played through ME2 to completion 19 or 20 times and ME3 about 17 times. ME1 I've played the least for several of the reasons that plague Andromeda, but the story telling was better. I've played through it about 6 or 7 times at this point. I will probably play Andromeda again, but I don't see myself repeating it the way I have earlier installments. At the end of the day, I just don't enjoy it as much as the other games in the series.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,696
ME2 is the best. It can be had super cheap (I got it for $5 I think) and there are plenty of mods on Nexus to fix hud/gamepad/hi-res textures issues. Hell there are pages and pages of nothing but different outfits for people to wear on Nexus if you're that anal. (I did download a high rez slinky Miranda outfit :) :) )

What does suck is the DLC is still paywalled after all these years. DLC costs more than the game.

I pre-ordered Andromeda and it was the last game I will EVER EVER pre-order.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,033
Holy fuck reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? How the fuck am I moving the goal post? I simply said that they seemed tacked on after the fact. Call backs to something the Rachni Queen said doesn't really change that. The whole PTSD subplot added to the game felt forced and contrived because it was. I also never said the dreams were bad textures. Some people looked at mirrored textures in parts of the game as "evidence". Its not so much an error as much as a a side efffect of corner cutting done in the game's design. Like I said, people were reaching with much of the "evidence." Yes, there were some circumstantial bits and pieces that were interpreted as supporting evidence by people hoping the game wasn't as bad as it turned out to be, but there is no sense defending that fan fiction bullshit. BioWare said you were wrong and most of the "evidence" can be explained by a variety of means and content later put out slams the door on the "theory".

You also have to remember that many plot details of the game were changed because of the script leak. So, the game abounds with oddities and plot points that don't go anywhere. The dark energy plot, etc. are all part of that. It was truncated and culminates in getting more resources via Conrad Verner through his dark energy thesis. The point being is the game is full of things like that. People latched on to what they wanted to believe because they couldn't accept that Mass Effect 3's story line and ending could suck diseased whale dick. Again, arguing this is like telling me "God" is real because you saw "Jesus" in an iHOP waffle. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Nonsense repeated does not become truth.

Besides, the only way this relates to the topic at hand is due to the fact that these shit design decisions were responsible for BioWare being painted into a creative corner which forced them into Andromeda's story. Which conceptually was fine. Its the execution we are talking about here. So please, stay on topic. Getting butt hurt about indoctrination theory is what you do in just about every ME3 thread. Let it go or sit in your own world with your Liara or Tali Waifu pillow and dream of what could have been or not. I don't care, but take it to PM if you want to debate that further, because its straying away from the core topic which is Mass Effect Andromeda.
If you want to go to PMs then go, but don't tell me to reply in PM after your attempt to publicly humiliate me with the "reading comprehension" excuse again. That's like the Chewbacca defense for you, every time someone calls you out on something you use that little tidbit.

First you say there is no evidence for the IT just bad textures or game design issues. Then when things are mentioned that are definitely not texture issues or game design flaws, you say that's just tacked on bullshit. That's exactly moving the goalpost, whether you care to admit it or not. Unless someone concedes to your viewpoint 100% you won't let off. I didn't want you to concede that the IT is valid, I just wanted you to accept that there are things in the game that can be considered evidence of it without being an idiot. You keep circling back to this bad textures thing every time, I already said that I found that to be bullshit as well. In fact I was the first to call out the theorists on those back in 2012! Had they not deleted the originial IT videos from youtube since then I could point you to my comment dissecting these very issues.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
If you want to go to PMs then go, but don't tell me to reply in PM after your attempt to publicly humiliate me with the "reading comprehension" excuse again. That's like the Chewbacca defense for you, every time someone calls you out on something you use that little tidbit.

First you say there is no evidence for the IT just bad textures or game design issues. Then when things are mentioned that are definitely not texture issues or game design flaws, you say that's just tacked on bullshit. That's exactly moving the goalpost, whether you care to admit it or not. Unless someone concedes to your viewpoint 100% you won't let off. I didn't want you to concede that the IT is valid, I just wanted you to accept that there are things in the game that can be considered evidence of it without being an idiot. You keep circling back to this bad textures thing every time, I already said that I found that to be bullshit as well. In fact I was the first to call out the theorists on those back in 2012! Had they not deleted the originial IT videos from youtube since then I could point you to my comment dissecting these very issues.

I'm not trying to humiliate you. That isn't my goal. However, when you say I said shit that I didn't say, you won't generally get the nicest response out of me. You said this: "Were the dream sequences in the game or not? Yes they were, so stop moving the goalpost, they're in the game". When I see commentary that responds to something I didn't say, I can only conclude one of two things. 1.) I wasn't clear enough or 2.) There is a reading comprehension failure on the part of the person making the response, which is clearly based on some bizarre understanding of what I said. Your responses seemed to be the latter. So, evidently, you don't know what moving the goalpost is. Evidently, there is a reading comprehension failure in your reading of my post on this subject. I didn't deny that the dream sequences were in the game. I also didn't deny their content. I simply said the sequences and the whole PTSD subplot felt tacked on. I think it was done to make their shitty Starbrat nonsense at the end work to some degree. That's my opinion. Nothing more. Its not denial or moving the goal post.

I never said the dream sequences were "bad textures." Perhaps I didn't word that as well as I could have, but I don't think anyone else got the impression that I said that. Even if there are bad textures in the dream sequences (which there are), I wasn't calling that out specifically. It isn't what I wrote and certainly not what I meant. I further clarified the texture issues in case there was confusion about what I said. At least to you, that seems to be the case. The game mirrors textures which I know from making Mass Effect 3 mods. Many of the game's assets use mirrored textures. There are a handful of things that don't, or only use partial mirroring. People mentioned reverse lettering in the Citadel during the last mission where an injured Shepard walks to meet the Illusive man as evidence of IT. Again, its how the game works. Its how its built. Its a byproduct of textures being mirrored in the game. It isn't evidence, but rather an oversight or something that was "good enough", because the developers never envisioned something that's such a back ground detail being analyzed to death. Many game developers take shortcuts when creating game worlds to save on time and production costs. Those measures reduce the game's overall quality, but its an acceptable trade off for performance or time constraints. The game is full of shit like that. That's why there are characters at the club entrance on the Citadel in the background that do not move at all. Its about saving time and resources.

It's why I call people's bullshit when they try to say ME3 is better quality than Andromeda. Despite the animation errors at launch, the game has far fewer quality issues than ME3.

Next, let's examine this statement: "I just wanted you to accept that there are things in the game that can be considered evidence of it without being an idiot." Are you serious? I've already stated that there are things in the game that circumstantially supported IT as many people, including myself actually interpreted those elements that way at the time. However, when BioWare says that wasn't their intent and double down on their ending with an entire DLC that adds scenes which disprove IT and toss it out the window, its game over for the theory. Clinging to it the way you seem to is about like Flat Earther's cling to their bullshit despite overwhelming evidence that we live on a spheroid rather than a giant space pizza with a snow globe top because "muh bible" says so. You keep bringing up IT, and you keep talking about how there is evidence for it when that's clearly NOT the fucking case.

Evidence doesn't lie. However, it can lead to the wrong conclusion. I will (and have in the past) admitted there was evidence that circumstantially supported IT in the past. Not allot, but some. However, with further clarification from the people that made the game, this simply isn't the conclusion to be drawn from said evidence. I wish they had designed the game's last couple of missions and the ending to be more satisfying from a gameplay and narrative perspective, and in the absense of that, IT would have been nice with a DLC to resolve that. I think the public would have accepted that just fine given that the game felt rushed and unfinished. I think people understand that BioWare's EA overlords are a pain in the ass and we would have accepted another small chapter in Shepard's story for a more satisfying conclusion no matter how short it was. But we didn't get that.

Is what I'm saying clear enough now?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
I have owned but have not yet played the first two installments.

They are excellent games. However, ME1 has some repetitive gameplay elements which were dropped in later installments and then brought back in a similar form in Andromeda.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,161
IMO the original ME is still the best when it comes to story line, game play, audio lines and music



well, I think you're wrong :p

ME1 is certainly the best for story line. However, its the worst as far as gameplay goes. ME3 has them all beat. Dialog is a hard call. There is good stuff in all three games. Music is definitely a high point of the first game, though the entire trilogy has good music. I prefer ME1, ME2, and ME3's music in that order. That's another area where Andromeda suffered. Its music wasn't nearly as good as anything we saw in the trilogy.
 

HAL_404

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,240
You can't even enjoy a game without people telling you, you're wrong.

well,
ME1 is certainly the best for story line. However, its the worst as far as gameplay goes. ME3 has them all beat. Dialog is a hard call. There is good stuff in all three games. Music is definitely a high point of the first game, though the entire trilogy has good music. I prefer ME1, ME2, and ME3's music in that order. That's another area where Andromeda suffered. Its music wasn't nearly as good as anything we saw in the trilogy.

I agree that the AI in ME1 was primitive compared to ME Andromeda ... I guess it's that Andromeda was such a let down after waiting years for it that I'm a bit negative about Andromeda. I read somewhere not so long ago that Casey Hudson was back at the ME helm (even though it's said to be on hold for now?) so maybe in the near future, well, we'll have to wait and see.
 

Hakaba

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
1,016
Well game still has quite a few bugs... However I am still enjoying the game, definitely worth sub $7.

2018-12-30 (13).png
 
Top