Mass Effect 1 (2007) to Mass Effect Andromeda (2017)

[oRevanchisto]

I know, yet another Mass Effect Andromeda thread? But, I feel like this is important enough because while people like to get bogged down on the surface level problems of MEA they seem to miss the major issues with the game. It's not just the jank, ME1 was a janky mess with serious issues regarding pop-in textures and yet many people found the game to be their favorite in the series. I found this video which does a good job just quietly showing off the differences between the series over the decade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYxLC3FCzVU

You don't need to watch the whole thing but can skip around to get the idea. It's been a decade since ME1 and with the power of next-gen we have Hub Worlds that are smaller and less interactive than ME1, stiff characters, worse dialogue, worse writing, obnoxious loading times, and an all around lack of creativity. The first hour into ME1 and you were introduced to about seven different alien species. Ten hours into MEA and you get one (the enemy) only to later discover one more and that's it for the whole game. Every merchant in ME1 could be spoken to and had interesting lines of dialogue which fleshed out the world. In MEA you can't even speak to the merchants on the various worlds. Like, what? A new galaxy of literally infinite possibilities and what we get is a game that is completely creatively bankrupt and risk averse.

What do you say after watching that video?

 

[Kreett]

What I have to say? That Mass Effect has not had a single good Hub area since Mass Effect 1. And even after all the vitriol, the hatred, the raw sewage that some people call "opinions" I can still find it in my cold, cold heart to have love even for Andromeda. Even though she introduced herself on crutches complaining that her face was tired. 9/10. Was 8 until I heard Angry Joe said I would be full of shit if I ranked it above 8.

 

[sXeth]

The first hour into ME1 and you were introduced to about seven different alien species. Ten hours into MEA and you get one (the enemy) only to later discover one more and that's it for the whole game. Every merchant in ME1 could be spoken to and had interesting lines of dialogue which fleshed out the world. In MEA you can't even speak to the merchants on the various worlds. Like, what? A new galaxy of literally infinite possibilities and what we get is a game that is completely creatively bankrupt and risk averse.

What do you say after watching that video?

Thats kind of what stands out to me. Taking it into a new galaxy should be a good time to really broaden the horizon. But (and this may be the result of executive order from EA), they play mostly to the existing content of the franchise. Even re-using micro variations of some plots (like the Salarian using the Krogan as enforcers then screwing them over). Which gives the impression that the time/location skip was less an honest creative idea and more a half-assed way to get out of the corner they wrote themselves into with the apocalypse plotline.

There's other symptoms too. The simple existence of merchants, for instance. Early on you run into a guy who snuck off the Nexus and is scavening equipment to sell. But that equipment belongs to the Nexus? Who is he selling it to? There is the mutiny group, but how would they have money. Wouldn't the Nexus notice this guy suddenly has money from nowhere? Everyones on a joint mission living off shared supplies, how would there possibly even be the idea of an economy yet? Its a nitpick, sure, but the examples pile up of them not really adhering to the new setting concept beyond the basic idea of separating off from the old storyline.

 

[votemarvel]

I'm playing through ME1 again now and the influence on Andromeda is clear. But I'll hold my hands up and say I'll play the model from 2007.

When static Andromeda clearly looks better, skin textures, background etc and I do have the High Resolution Textures installed for the first game. It's when the games get into motion that the problems begin to make themselves apparent.

It's true that the first game doesn't match Andromeda's animations at their height, yet it also never goes near Andromeda's lows. Mass Effect is far more consistent and as such the problems never really jump out at you.

 

[Zhukov]

Y'know, I think if they stripped out the garbage filler quests and cleaned up the laggy interface then MEA would be about equal with ME1. Albeit in a apples and oranges kind of way.

And I say this as someone who mostly despises MEA and has basically given up on it at this point.

MEA's combat is vastly better.
MEA's skill system is vastly better.
MEA's weapons are better. (Although still a major step down from ME3.)
MEA's driving-around-planets is vastly better. (I mean, they're both turds, but if you're going to have that at least polish the turd.)
ME1's world building is vastly better.
ME1's story is a bit better, but suffers from being built entirely on a yawning plot hole.
ME1's dialogue is vastly better, if still painfully corny at times.
ME1's characters are better, although vastly inferior to ME2 and ME3.

Their animation is about equal, but animating as well as a ten year old Bioware game is hardly a compliment.
Oh, and of course MEA is buggy and unpolished as all hell.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Yes yes, we get it. Mass Effect Andromeda should never have been made, everyone involved in its development should be black-listed and everyone who bought it should be legally banned from ever smiling or playing games again.

Move on! Those of us with memories knew it was going to suck years ago. No need to fluff us!

 

[sanquin]

I like Andromeda. It's a decent game. Not absolute garbage as many people claim. However I LOVED ME1, liked ME2 (and LOVED the suicide mission), and LOVED ME3 up until the ending. (many, many plotholes aside.) So going from 'I like it' to "OMG I LOVE THIS" is still a huge step down.

It's just so obvious that Andromeda wasn't made with the same heart poured into it as with ME1 at least. And that the team behind it was inexperienced when it comes to making full AAA games is painfully clear. The very blatant sjw tones being shoved in your face don't help either, though they don't bother me too much.

Overall MEA is exactly what I expected when it was first announced and trailers came out, to be honest. Only a few planets to land on, barely any new alien races instead riding on the old favourites. The planets you CAN land on being your typical desert/jungle/ice ones. The antagonist not even having the impact of the collectors. The new alien race just being another humanoid with some extra physical features. The open world being very similar to how DA:I did it. The overall quality of the game being well below the original series... Well, okay, not exactly 100% how I predicted it. But pretty close.

Still, the combat is a lot of fun. And the worlds, albeit pretty standard, are beautiful. The story, while nothing close to the original series, does it's job well enough. Overall the game would be a 6-7/10 for me, compared to ME1's 8.5-9/10. (If ME1 had MEA's combat and tight and fluid controls it would have been a 10/10 for me.)

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

MEA's combat is vastly better.
MEA's skill system is vastly better.
MEA's weapons are better. (Although still a major step down from ME3.)
MEA's driving-around-planets is vastly better. (I mean, they're both turds, but if you're going to have that at least polish the turd.)
ME1's world building is vastly better.
ME1's story is a bit better, but suffers from being built entirely on a yawning plot hole.
ME1's dialogue is vastly better, if still painfully corny at times.
ME1's characters are better, although vastly inferior to ME2 and ME3.

Didn't play MEA, nor have I been keeping up to date on it, but what I'm taking away from this is that it plays better, but is told worse. So, basically, they improved everything except the things that drew so many people to the series in the first place.

 

[Zhukov]

Didn't play MEA, nor have I been keeping up to date on it, but what I'm taking away from this is that it plays better, but is told worse. So, basically, they improved everything except the things that drew so many people to the series in the first place.

Yeah, that's a fair judgement.

 

[votemarvel]

Jet pack aside I don't think Andromeda does play better.

I always feel restricted when playing Andromeda, even with the ability to change classes and I think that is down to only having three active powers at a time. You have these great abilities but can only have access to a trio of them at any time. Sure you can swap things about and have favourites but is that really a better system than just making use of all your number key row on the keyboard?

Edit: And Andromeda's cover system sucks.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

Didn't play MEA, nor have I been keeping up to date on it, but what I'm taking away from this is that it plays better, but is told worse. So, basically, they improved everything except the things that drew so many people to the series in the first place.

Yeah, pretty much. Another classic case of the developer missing the forest for the trees.

Sure, we do want the game to play better, but not at the expense of the things we came for. World and character building, story, and development. I'd gladly take another janky game like ME1 if it meant that I could get the entertaining and fun characters and interactions from previous games.

 

[distortedreality]

Didn't play MEA, nor have I been keeping up to date on it, but what I'm taking away from this is that it plays better, but is told worse. So, basically, they improved everything except the things that drew so many people to the series in the first place.

I'm 40 or 50 odd hours into it, and that's a fair call.

I think there's a decent game in there, and I hope that the team learn from this and improve with the next installment.

 

[Nick Cave]

ME1's world building is vastly better.
ME1's story is a bit better, but suffers from being built entirely on a yawning plot hole.
ME1's dialogue is vastly better, if still painfully corny at times.
ME1's characters are better, although vastly inferior to ME2 and ME3.

Funnily enough the reasons to play a Mass Effect game.

Tell me though, how bad is the dialogue exactly? Because the stuff I've seen makes it seem like someone took the absolutely worst part of the Citadel DLC (the first half, aka, Saints Row without an understanding of what made the humour in those games work), mixed it in with writing like sounded it came from someone writing webcomics, and added Biowares usual facial animations and awkward pauses.

It's a shame though, because they seem to have understood it's the character focus that makes the game fun, all the competent writers have ran away. Those are just my impressions from youtube clips and that Yahtzee stream.

 

[sanquin]

Edit: And Andromeda's cover system sucks.

Compared to ME2's and ME3's where sprint, interact and cover were on the same button it's quite an improvement. But you're right, it still kinda sucks. I've already had plenty of times where my character took cover while I didn't want to. It's obviously a mechanic that keeps consoles in mind. A plague which should be abolished from gaming already.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I was watching Total Biscuit's video on Andromeda and I was surprised to hear that you have limited inventory and that you can look at it whenever you want to like in most RPG's, yet you can only change weapons and armor at certain designated places. What's the point of having an inventory at that point? And what's the point of limiting how many items you can have?

 

[BlueRose64]

I probably enjoyed Andromeda more than most (it's roughly a 7/10 for me), but I definitely found it a chore to complete at times, and its a big step down from the original three games.

I've actually gone back to play ME1 after finishing Andromeda, so I can judge the differences between the two. Despite having the best story, characters, dialogue and world-building, ME1 feels like an absolute mess to play (people have been using the term "janky"?), and the cover shooting mechanics and Mako/Planet exploration feels terrible and dated. In some ways it makes me feel a bit more grateful for the some of the core gameplay improvements Andromeda made, even if its not what we really play Bioware RPGs for.

I like how Shepard feels a lot more like your own customizable character, and you have more control over what she says and the personality she conveys. At least it feels that way. In Andromeda, Ryder would always mouth off and chat away during missions with absolutely no input from me, which made it feel like I didn't have as much control over her.

That being said, after 70-odd hours I eventually found Sara Ryder's dorky awkward personality quite endearing. Heck, even her goofy face animations became part of the charm, a bit like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion's big stupid cartoon faces.

So, I don't think its a great game, but it's not terrible either. Is it as bad as the internet keeps saying it is? I don't think so. Can it hold a candle to the original trilogy? Heck no.

 

[Zhukov]

Tell me though, how bad is the dialogue exactly? Because the stuff I've seen makes it seem like someone took the absolutely worst part of the Citadel DLC (the first half, aka, Saints Row without an understanding of what made the humour in those games work), mixed it in with writing like sounded it came from someone writing webcomics, and added Biowares usual facial animations and awkward pauses.

Eh. It's not quite as bad as people on the internet are making it out to be. They're cherry picking the worst bits to make their point or get more clicks for their Youtube videos.

Mostly it's just... charmless and pedestrian. It's there. However, the especially bad bits that people are cherry picking are indeed in there and somehow made it through a mutli-year development process without anyone noticing. And I haven't come across any particularly good bits to make up for it.

Then again, I thoroughly enjoyed Citadel and was utterly bored out of my mind by the Saint's Row games, so your mileage may vary.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I was watching Total Biscuit's video on Andromeda and I was surprised to hear that you have limited inventory and that you can look at it whenever you want to like in most RPG's, yet you can only change weapons and armor at certain designated places. What's the point of having an inventory at that point? And what's the point of limiting how many items you can have?

The Witcher games kind of do the same thing and I actually think its great. It gives you freedom but you still have to put thought into what to take with you and what to use depending on the situation unlike games which give you a close to unlimited selection of items which are usable at all times (looking at you, Elder Scrolls and Breath of the Wild).

You can change your equipment anywhere in The Witcher games. Just like in most RPG's that I'm aware of. Sure you have a quantity limit or a weight limit, but you can access your inventory and use it whenever you want. Andromeda doesn't let you change equipment unless you're in front of a big loadout thingy.