Mass Effect Andromeda first impressions?

[BloatedGuppy]

Oh ho, buckle up Old Man Canada.

All this is largely true (if occasionally hyperbolic). I disagree on character quality to some degree...a handful of the characters are solid, a handful weak. Animations, bugs and weird design decisions cannot be debated...the truth of those problems is evident.

Pacing is nowhere near as bad as Inquisition, for the simple fact that there is no baked-in urgency in the primary narrative. Pacing has fallen apart in EVERY SINGLE BIOWARE GAME since ME1 due to that urgency with the possible exception of DA2, because DA2 had no content to disturb pacing with. This is the first game I can recall of this nature where dorking around on planets, exploring, hob nobbing with random aliens and earning their trust, etc, etc, is actually your job and what you're meant to be doing. Whether this is intentional design or a happy accident, the ludonarrative dissonance that normally haunts open world games or overstuffed RPGs is absent here. I've been relatively completionist with it, and at no point have I ever stopped and thought "it is absolutely ridiculous that my character is agreeing to do this with X hanging over their head".

Unlike Inquisition the actual GAMEPLAY is good. Quite fun, even. Combat is kinetic and pacey, responsive, and has satisfying feedback in the form of sounds and animations. "Driving a buggy around" is only pointless and tedious if the actual act of driving the buggy is pointless and tedious, and the buggy is actually kind of fun. There are entire genres designed around the simple act of driving vehicles around. The only real rotten pillar here is the dialogue/conversations, and that's largely down to animations. The dialogue is pedestrian and occasionally awful, but it's closer to "CRPG-standard drivel" than anything particularly noteworthy at either end of the quality scale. I'd argue, perhaps uncharitably to Bioware, that this is not that far from their usual form and actually a significant upgrade on the bizarre tonal mishap that was DA:I.

I don't have any sluggishness or performance issues (and with my PC I shouldn't). The game likely underperforms for its age and engine though.

There is NO QUESTION the game is unfinished, underbaked, and presents a litany of small-moderate annoyances and bugs. These distort and damage a fundamentally sound core experience. It is EASILY the most ambitious game Bioware ever made from a technical standpoint (if not a narrative one) and had it been given 8-16 months of pre-release polishing including passes on their animation/shading and storyboarding would likely be an extremely well received game. As it stands, it's an ambitious/rickety mess, and (IMO) bears a lot in common with games like FO:NV and Alpha Protocol...games that were derided as bug infested disasters at launch and...through time, polish and hindsight...came to be admired/elevated to the position of cult classics. I'd much rather an ambitious/messy disaster than a safe turd. Yes, they went the open world route, which has become exasperatingly commonplace, but the scope of this thing is hilarious. I feel like there was a genuine swing for the fences at play, but an inexperienced studio came up short.

One thing seems pretty clear though, and this is that Bioware can no longer be considered a good "Writing" developer. They're Ubisoft level now. They might accidentally deliver some strong characters or an interesting sidequest, but one should approach them with appropriately moderated expectations.

 

[Zhukov]

Pacing is nowhere near as bad as Inquisition, for the simple fact that there is no baked-in urgency in the primary narrative. [...] I've been relatively completionist with it, and at no point have I ever stopped and thought "it is absolutely ridiculous that my character is agreeing to do this with X hanging over their head".

It seems we each mean different things when we say "pacing".

I'm talking about the pattern of tension/engagement and relaxation/introspection that most stories follow. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

Spoiler: Y'know, this thing:

A graph for MEA (or virtually any open world game) would have the initial spike, then a long, loooong flatline with the occasional bump when a localized plot point is resolved or Ryder falls through the floor and, I presume, a climax of some sort at the end. Too many low points, so many in fact that "points" ceases to be an accurate term, and no sense of escalation.

"Driving a buggy around" is only pointless and tedious if the actual act of driving the buggy is pointless and tedious, and the buggy is actually kind of fun.

Agree to disagree I guess. To me it just feels like commuting between objectives.

The only real rotten pillar here is the dialogue/conversations, and that's largely down to animations. The dialogue is pedestrian and occasionally awful, but it's closer to "CRPG-standard drivel" than anything particularly noteworthy at either end of the quality scale. I'd argue, perhaps uncharitably to Bioware, that this is not that far from their usual form and actually a significant upgrade on the bizarre tonal mishap that was DA:I.

If this were Doom then that wouldn't bother me but in a game with as much dialogue as Andromeda I find that to be unforgivable.

Sure, Bioware could churn out some drivel in the past but there would reliably be some solid gold to make for it. (Presumably due to their method of separate writers working on the various arcs.) I am yet to stumble across any such gold in Andromeda.

I'd much rather an ambitious/messy disaster than a safe turd. Yes, they went the open world route, which has become exasperatingly commonplace, but the scope of this thing is hilarious. I feel like there was a genuine swing for the fences at play, but an inexperienced studio came up short.

I sympathize with that perspective but I don't think this game was in a baseline retail-worthy state.

If a chef were to serve you raw meat, unwashed vegetables and gooey pastries would you be inclined to praise their ambitious culinary vision?

One thing seems pretty clear though, and this is that Bioware can no longer be considered a good "Writing" developer. They're Ubisoft level now. They might accidentally deliver some strong characters or an interesting sidequest, but one should approach them with appropriately moderated expectations.

I agree with that judgement and comparison, but I suspect that you and I think slightly different things when we hear the word "Ubisoft".

I think, "Makers of painfully dull, open world dross drastically favouring content quantity over quality in whom the occasional hint of a soul is glimpsed for a few precious moments before it is immediately smothered by an avalanche of map icons." If that is indeed where Bioware is at then I for one would not mourn their demise.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It seems we each mean different things when we say "pacing".

I'm talking about the pattern of tension/engagement and relaxation/introspection that most stories follow. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

Spoiler: Y'know, this thing:

A graph for MEA (or virtually any open world game) would have the initial spike, then a long, loooong flatline with the occasional bump when a localized plot point is resolved or Ryder falls through the floor and, I presume, a climax of some sort at the end. Too many low points, so many in fact that "points" ceases to be an accurate term, and no sense of escalation.

Comparing any game, period, to a direct narrative arc (outside of completely narrative games, such as Telltale) is doing a disservice to the game in question. In an XCOM campaign I might play very similar seeming missions for 100 hours. Does that mean the game is utterly devoid of interest or pacing? CRPGs are more "story based", but the story has been a veneer draped over the game play since Richard Garriott pulled on his tights and birthed Akalabeth. The moment games even begin to eschew their chewy gaming center in the service of an actually functional narrative with (drumroll) pacing, they are met with a legion of braying young men in pony t-shirts shouting that they "aren't real games".

Does ME:A drown its pedestrian storyline in gobs and gobs of gameplay? Yes, it does. Is that gameplay fun? Obviously mileage varies, but I argue that it largely is. This isn't DA:I, where you might literally spend 25 minutes hitting rocks to get enough iron together to make a shitty sword for one of your weird, gormless companions. "Pacing" in a game of this nature is how much guff you're made to endure between actually moving around and interacting with things. I've played for hours on end where all I've done is shoot and drive and do stupid little quests that service the part of my brain that likes filling out checklists in MMOs. There are senseless timesinks like the beautiful but absurd galaxy map, but very little relative time is spent there.

I don't really think the game HAS a "pacing" problem. The narrative is immune to it, and it does a reasonably good job just pitching you from activity to activity.

If this were Doom then that wouldn't bother me but in a game with as much dialogue as Andromeda I find that to be unforgivable.

I dunno. I set the bar lower for "unforgivable". Maybe I've just played a lot of REALLY terribly written games to pretend that *this* is some atypical transgression. I honestly don't even know what most gamers think a GOOD story even is. Almost every story I can remember got thrown under the bus by someone. It's amateurish, but in a really excitable wide-eyed way.

I sympathize with that perspective but I don't think this game was in a baseline retail-worthy state.

It's baseline retail-worthy in that it's playable. It was not remotely polished the way it SHOULD have been for such a high priced launch, and the fact it needed intensive pre-launch attention is achingly evident. But EA lost patience with the protracted development and for once I'm having trouble blaming them. 5 years is a long goddam time.

My main debate over whether or not I enjoy a game is "how enjoyable is this". I've enjoyed some pretty fucking unpolished games in my time. Mount and Blade is hardly even A GAME in stretches, and I played that shit for 200 hours. This isn't Ultima IX. It didn't launch with 500 play killing bugs.

I agree with that judgement and comparison, but I suspect that you and I think slightly different things when we hear the word "Ubisoft".

You are correct. I liked Far Cry 3.

I do think Bioware needs to settle down with the open world shit though. I think they're starting to get a handle on how you need to do it if you're going to bother to do it, but I don't think it can co-exist with their more narrative focused outings. One or both suffer. Try to do too much, and you run out of time. If they were an independent developer and could take as long as they wanted on this shit, fine, but they have a publicly traded corporate master.

I just don't see the soulless, cynical cash in some people do. I saw an attempt to return to series roots with an expansive game celebrating exploration and alien coalition building that clearly had a bunch of inexperienced cooks knocking heads over design elements whose ambition clearly exceeded their grasp. DA:I seemed like a game designed by a developer who had taken all leave of their senses. ME:A seems like an overshoot that fell on its face. I know which one I prefer. The latter, at least, can be salvaged.

 

[sanquin]

---SNIP---

I agree with this review 100%. And yet, I'm still enjoying the game.

-I just turn on youtube on my second screen and watch a video or two while planet scanning and such. And I intentionally don't pay too much attention to the facial animations during dialogue.
-I also skip whenever I encounter those incredibly corny or out of place voice lines.
-Normal melee has no weight behind it whatsoever, and the auto-turn-towards-enemy while using it is REALLY annoying at times as it doesn't work that well. Though the jump melee is pretty fun.
-The guns...in every mass effect I generally just found 1 or 2 guns I liked and stuck with them through the rest of the game anyway, so eh.
-The multiplayer is just as repetitive as ME3's. Though I've already put a lot more hours into it than I initially thought I would. The boost jumps and dodges add that bit of extra mobility ME3 multiplayer sorely needed, and overall it feels a bit more fast paced than ME3's as well. Plus it's a bit more challenging as you get messed up pretty quickly by the big guys or if you get caught in a larger group. So it always keeps you on your toes. I personally like my melee specced vanguard a lot. As while melee is dull on it's own, using it against the big guys requires quite a bit of dodging and paying attention to their movements. But the pay off is that you do a LOT of damage with it.

Overall I'd say only die-hard mass effect fans should get this game. As in, the type that just wants more mass effect. (Like me) Otherwise...yea, all the (non rage-fest) complaints are completely valid.

I just don't see the soulless, cynical cash in some people do. I saw an attempt to return to series roots with an expansive game celebrating exploration and alien coalition building that clearly had a bunch of inexperienced cooks knocking heads over design elements whose ambition clearly exceeded their grasp. DA:I seemed like a game designed by a developer who had taken all leave of their senses. ME:A seems like an overshoot that fell on its face. I know which one I prefer. The latter, at least, can be salvaged.

Exactly... It's pretty damn noticeable that the only real thing this development team did before this was the ME3 multiplayer. (Or did they do more?) Either way, this project was too ambitious for such an inexperienced team. (And the very noticeable feminist/sjw undertones in the game don't help either for me...but I can mostly look past that part.)

 

[Zhukov]

Comparing any game, period, to a direct narrative arc (outside of completely narrative games, such as Telltale) is doing a disservice to the game in question. In an XCOM campaign I might play very similar seeming missions for 100 hours. Does that mean the game is utterly devoid of interest or pacing?

That's... a very odd choice of example. If this were the catty, confrontational kind of internet argument I would be licking my lips in anticipation of my devastating counterpoint.

Yes, I would say XCOM's story is rather devoid of interest or pacing. Of course, it isn't trying to deliver a story. However, the gameplay does follow that pattern of escalation. It just uses gameplay challenge instead of story tension. (Minus the initial spike since hitting the player with a difficult opening mission would obviously be a bad idea.) The spikes are the missions where things can get hairy. The valleys are the periods where you sit back in safety to build you base and do research.

In fact, one of XCOM's big problems occurs when it slips off the graph (I'm assuming we're talking the new XCOMs here, unmodded). In the late game the difficulty plateaus, the escalation ceases and player engagement flatlines as you curbstomp your way to the final challenge. I've seen you yourself complain about this very thing.

CRPGs are more "story based", but the story has been a veneer draped over the game play since Richard Garriott pulled on his tights and birthed Akalabeth. The moment games even begin to eschew their chewy gaming center in the service of an actually functional narrative with (drumroll) pacing, they are met with a legion of braying young men in pony t-shirts shouting that they "aren't real games".

Indeed. But, well, fuck those guys.

I would like to think there's a happy medium to be found. I may well be wrong to think so.

Does ME:A drown its pedestrian storyline in gobs and gobs of gameplay? Yes, it does. Is that gameplay fun? Obviously mileage varies, but I argue that it largely is. This isn't DA:I, where you might literally spend 25 minutes hitting rocks to get enough iron together to make a shitty sword for one of your weird, gormless companions. "Pacing" in a game of this nature is how much guff you're made to endure between actually moving around and interacting with things. I've played for hours on end where all I've done is shoot and drive and do stupid little quests that service the part of my brain that likes filling out checklists in MMOs. There are senseless timesinks like the beautiful but absurd galaxy map, but very little relative time is spent there.

Mileage does indeed vary because my brain categorizes filling out checklists in the same column as hitting rocks for iron for 25 minutes.

I don't really think the game HAS a "pacing" problem. The narrative is immune to it, and it does a reasonably good job just pitching you from activity to activity.

We're back to conflating pacing with ludanarrative dissonance. I do not accuse the game of having a problem with the latter.

I dunno. I set the bar lower for "unforgivable". Maybe I've just played a lot of REALLY terribly written games to pretend that *this* is some atypical transgression. I honestly don't even know what most gamers think a GOOD story even is. Almost every story I can remember got thrown under the bus by someone. It's amateurish, but in a really excitable wide-eyed way.

I try to hold games to a similar standard of storytelling that I do other mediums. Mild frustration frequently ensues.

That's not to say I expect a Tolstoy around every corner, but it would be nice if a few more developers could raise their sights above Back Door Sluts 9.

It's baseline retail-worthy in that it's playable.

The Slaughtering Grounds was "playable". Playable is a mighty low bar.

I just don't see the soulless, cynical cash in some people do. I saw an attempt to return to series roots with an expansive game celebrating exploration and alien coalition building that clearly had a bunch of inexperienced cooks knocking heads over design elements whose ambition clearly exceeded their grasp. DA:I seemed like a game designed by a developer who had taken all leave of their senses. ME:A seems like an overshoot that fell on its face. I know which one I prefer. The latter, at least, can be salvaged.

Oh, I don't see it as soulless or a cash in. (Well, perhaps the use of the Mass Effect brand was a bit of both. I think it would have been better as a new IP spiritual successor sort of deal. Oh well.) I just think it's shoddily made and laden with some baffling design decisions.

"Excitable, wide eyed" chef, raw meat.