AD-Stu said:
Agree 100% with everything else you've said, and the story was the first thing I had in mind when it comes to the things Andromeda did worse. Which is a shame. Saren/Sovereign was obviously a great antagonist in the first ME game, and Andromeda is severely lacking something like that - I just don't get that same feeling from the kett and the Archon.
I wouldn't agree with that, in fact I feel ME:A's story and certainly premise is superior in terms of sci-fi to anything in the trilogy; crossing to another galaxy with new cultures and new mysteries, a human-AI symbiote, the fate of the other Arks, etc. The trilogy presented an established universe, and whilst the player was meeting these species and cultures for the first time, it was more or less old hat to Shepard and co. Its only mystery was 'how about dem Reapers!'.
In ME:A? Not only have they crossed an intergalactic expanse with, arguably, greater mysteries (spoiler territory: who were the Remnant and what caused them to bugger off? who created the Scourge and why? why did the Remnant create the angara, and/or did they give them a 'purpose'? do the kett really only come to conquer, or is there more to them? why is the hitherto lost quarian Ark warning people
away from its location?), but the first-contact experience is true for the player
and the characters, which leads me to another area I feel ME:A trumps the trilogy on; player character and player POV.
Shepard - particularly FemShep - became an icon, great. But I never liked Shep's rather frustrating halfway house between writer's character and our own; she wasn't a defined character in her own right, neither did I as a player have enough agency over who I wanted her to be. I found her ultimately stolid and quite inert. 'Cool', sure, but that's about it.
But Ryder? Not only are the siblings more defined characters, they have elements around them which expose this, i.e. they - like Hawke in DAII - have something vital to react to in family. Originally BioWare spoke about creating a more defined, linear character in Shepard for ME1, but only with ME:A do I feel they succeeded, and Ryder's POV is more fitting for ME:A's premise than Shepard ever was for the trilogy. As in; a family of explorers and thrillseekers being placed in a whole new galactic frontier. In terms of synergy of lead character and player POV through a narrative, ME:A trumps the trilogy with ease for me (as well as DA:I).
So no, I feel its actual story is better - it's just its writing is far less consistent.
And despite their painfully bland design, I've come to see the kett as one of BioWare's best cannon fodder enemies. The geth had great designs, and they eventually became an interesting species, but ME2 and 3 had utter dross providing your cannon fodder; no matter how much I love ME2, the Collectors were nothing but rote filler whilst the series took a break for some great character and world narrative. And the Reaper forces were just run of the mill mindless minions (the less said about the ridiculous Cerberus humans-but-not-humans the better). Also, to compare ME:A to its spiritual sibling; DA:I's Corypheus flavoured cannon fodder were tediously bland.
But the kett? Initially they do come across poorly, but like the geth they have an interesting origin story - and it's one we don't discover, giving them a unique sense of mystery. They are not mindless like the Collectors and Reaper forces (or the Illusive Man's shitty drone troopers) in that they have a demonstrable culture, and yet it's one which results - seemingly - from either extreme genetic self tampering, or perhaps tampering from other forces (perhaps other creators, like the Remnant). They are also very ritualistic, and their organisation/structure seems to be similar to Rome's Republic, which makes the Archon a distinctly believable distant campaigner overreaching for the sake of their own hubris and greed. Had the Initiative and the Pathfinder not prevailed, it's easy so assume the Archon could've built up a powerbase in the cluster, then turned his forces back home to cross a kett Rubicon.
...the Archon's boring as fuck, sure, but in cultural context he's at least a very believable despot, and it's clear the Senate do not approve of his actions in the cluster. To me, this gives the kett layers none of the other cannon fodder in the series have had (as great as the geth looked and sounded in ME1, they really were just tin cans with flashlights to endlessly shoot).
So yes, ME:A lacks a charismatic solo antagonist - but it clearly didn't try to match that design at all, and I feel what the Archon represented was ultimately more interesting contextually to Saren and his fairly ho-hum indoctrination arc.
Of course, it's a bit hard to judge since Andromeda clearly wasn't meant to be a stand-alone story, there were obviously plans to further develop the kett and wherever the hell the Scourge came from in future installments. The same was most definitely true of ME1 as well. But pacing was definitely an issue for Andromeda, there just wasn't enough to carry a 100-odd hour game.
I think we'll still see the story continue, and I think both ME1 and ME:A delivered superb endings whilst setting up some great plot points and mysteries. Although one could say ME:A's is more definitive, given Meridian is settled, and unlike ME1's impending Reapers there is really nothing guaranteed to cause a ruckus anytime soon.
Re the underlined, though: given ME:A's structure and gameflow was so different to ME1, I don't feel that's a fair assessment. And, again, I actually feel ME:A does what it does
superbly, in that it pretty much was DA:I In Space yet fixed pretty much all its issues; the plot and premise suited its semi-open world design - you're there to explore and settle worlds, but another plot runs concurrent. In DA:I the main story and all the other nonsense felt almost entirely removed at times. In ME:A? The player is never 'punished' for focusing on settling worlds, or focusing on the main story. In fact I'd say it's one of the very best balances I've seen in an A/RPG or RPG, particularly given how the post-credits experience is a seamless continuation of what's been established and justified by the whole premise.
Post-Corypheus, the Inquisitor is really just kicking her heels. The player can do 'stuff', but it all feels rather hollow given the grand threat's been dealt with. In ME:A? If the player didn't choose to max all the sidequests, loyalty missions, and viability tasks before the final story mission, then they likely have a scattering of engaging tasks to do, which fits the narrative hand-in-glove (establishing outposts on worlds clearly isn't the end of a Pathfinder's or the Initiative's role).
I think ME1 took me around 90hrs to clear for the first time, and ME:A wasn't even 'cleared' - given its DA:I-esque semi-open-world design and seamless narrative structuring - after 100hrs (though I had done most things). ME:A's main story could be burnt through very quickly, sure, just as with DA:I's. But to do so is rather to miss the point of the its entire design ethos, and so I don't feel a lack of story content is a justified criticism. If someone prefers rigid linearity and a greater focus on one arc in their A/RPG narrative? Then fair enough, that's obviously a legitimate subjective preference. In the series so far I'd say ME3's by far the best linear example they've done, and ME:A's an excellent semi-open-worlder.
(I'd say it gives more options for soft-RP, too; some Ryder's would focus on the threat, others would focus on building ties with the angara and the Exiles, others would simply explore, and so on. there is thus more RP'able freedom to the Pathfinder and their role than anything in the trilogy with Shepard's Spectre)
As for the combat I agree. At first I was weirded out by the absence of the pause and give commands to the squadmates mechanic, but now I feel like it'd be pretty clunky going back to the old games (I've been playing the original trilogy pretty much non-stop since I first played ME1, but I haven't gone back to any of them since getting Andromeda).
Frankly I'd much prefer XCOM style TB combat in Mass Effect, but that's not gonna happen anytime
soon ever...
However, in terms of overall design cohesion and mechanics ME:A's combat is probably the best in the series. If/when they do a sequel I hope they double down on the verticality of it all; I'd like to see more hang time with the jumppacks, some powers having unique or alt behaviours from the air, and so on, as well as more levels specifically designed with verticality in mind (e.g. more of Liam's loyalty mission inside the kett ship, with its shifting orientations and descents/ascents).
