Gaming Mass Effect: Andromeda (PC, PS4, Xbox One)

[Code-CX]

Think I'll be getting horizon instead of this which is a shame since I absolutely love the ME franchise.

Oh, and on the topic of horribly overated games, Fallout 4 definitely takes the prize. What a horrendous game that was.

 

[shaggy]

I've re-preordered. Read a lot of feedback online and confident it will be an enjoyable game. Not the 9/10 I was hoping for / expecting, but I'm over it. Plus, the actual gameplay looks to be very good, and personally I'd rather have very good gameplay and an average storyline/writing/characters rather than vice versa. Probably those who are the other way would do well to stay clear until a price drop.

It's a damn shame about the story, but it is what it is.

 

[Redlambs]

I've re-preordered. Read a lot of feedback online and confident it will be an enjoyable game. Not the 9/10 I was hoping for / expecting, but I'm over it. Plus, the actual gameplay looks to be very good, and personally I'd rather have very good gameplay and an average storyline/writing/characters rather than vice versa. Probably those who are the other way would do well to stay clear until a price drop.

It's a damn shame about the story, but it is what it is.

I'm with you on the gameplay aspect. However, with 3 in mind and the EA/Bioware aspect, I'm struggling to justify even thinking about getting this just yet.


Btw, there is a few things posted online last year and throughout development of this from apparantly disgruntled employees. I happen to know, for a fact, that at least some of them are true...changing of crunch time rules being one...It goes a long way to explain the poisonous atmosphere making this game and why the results are mixed at best. After all this is still an artform and you can't be creative when you are worried about stuff like stupidly strict performance reviews which mean they can lay you off at any time, particularily around those times they need you far less. EA really are a curse, and though their little monthly scheme seems to have appeased some and stemmed the tide a little, what actually goes on behind the scenes is still a disgrace and the cnuts shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

It's no wonder why the top guys walked away. A bit like the original Rare lads, just a whole lot worse.

 

[shaggy]

I'm with you on the gameplay aspect. However, with 3 in mind and the EA/Bioware aspect, I'm struggling to justify even thinking about getting this just yet.


Btw, there is a few things posted online last year and throughout development of this from apparantly disgruntled employees. I happen to know, for a fact, that at least some of them are true...changing of crunch time rules being one...It goes a long way to explain the poisonous atmosphere making this game and why the results are mixed at best. After all this is still an artform and you can't be creative when you are worried about stuff like stupidly strict performance reviews which mean they can lay you off at any time, particularily around those times they need you far less. EA really are a curse, and though their little monthly scheme seems to have appeased some and stemmed the tide a little, what actually goes on behind the scenes is still a disgrace and the cnuts shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

It's no wonder why the top guys walked away. A bit like the original Rare lads, just a whole lot worse.

This is probably a large part of why the game is getting such terrible scores. I mean look at this metro review extract (I know it's the metro, but it sums up perfectly the general feel about the game):

Pros: Top notch action, with great third person combat and enjoyable open world exploration. Expanded role-playing elements are pitched just right.

Cons: The script is often extremely poor, the plot rarely makes any sense, and the characters are not endearing. Too many dull missions. Some terrible animation, plus notable bugs and frame rate issues.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/20/mass-effect-andromeda-review-galaxy-of-issues-6520722/#ixzz4bzv4LG2q

Score: 6/10.

This seems super harsh when the actual gameplay is described as 'great'. Script / plot / characters can all essentially be bunged under the same roof as they're all interlinked. Then you've got dull missions - a fair point, terrible animation - a fair point, plus notable bugs and frame rate issues - almost always going to the case with these types of games and can be patched (before someone screams 'The Witcher 3' that to me is the best game of all time so it would be unfair to hold every game to that standard). I just think a lot of these 6/10 scores are coming because it's EA and it's Bioware. I could be wrong of course and I might play it and find it very average as well.

On a different note and going back to Uncharted 4 - there was a game with brilliant characters / script / animation but lets be honest the gameplay was nothing amazing. 9s / 10s across the board. I loved the game as well btw and had no problem with the review scores.

 

[Redlambs]

This is probably a large part of why the game is getting such terrible scores. I mean look at this metro review extract (I know it's the metro, but it sums up perfectly the general feel about the game):


Score: 6/10.

This seems super harsh when the actual gameplay is described as 'great'. Script / plot / characters can all essentially be bunged under the same roof as they're all interlinked. Then you've got dull missions - a fair point, terrible animation - a fair point, plus notable bugs and frame rate issues - almost always going to the case with these types of games and can be patched (before someone screams 'The Witcher 3' that to me is the best game of all time so it would be unfair to hold every game to that standard). I just think a lot of these 6/10 scores are coming because it's EA and it's Bioware. I could be wrong of course and I might play it and find it very average as well.

On a different note and going back to Uncharted 4 - there was a game with brilliant characters / script / animation but lets be honest the gameplay was nothing amazing. 9s / 10s across the board. I loved the game as well btw and had no problem with the review scores.

Probably.

However the game is 5 years in development, had loads of problems and releases in a typically unfinished state. Can you blame them? I don't.

Gameplay is king for me, always will be. That doesn't mean I overlook the other aspects though, in this day and age where we have games like Souls, Witcher, Zelda released in the last couple of years and the games a tier below include the likes of Horizon, all games that excel at most things (though obviously not all), why should people bow down and accept such a shoddy release just because of the name of the franchise? I mean it speaks volumes when the guys who made series what it was all walk away. And yeah, review scores should reflect actual opinions on the game and nothing more, but they haven't since the 90's anyway. I don't care about them, I just want to play a good game. However, I can't help but see it like those reviewers in the sense that what goes on behind the scenes isn't right and so can't help but factor that in.

I'll no doubt get this, and I hope I enjoy it. If I do, I'll say. If I don't, I'll say. EA's name on it doesn't change that aspect for me, I've enjoyed loads of those over the years, but I'm glad people still see it and wonder.

 

[Revan]

Probably.

However the game is 5 years in development, had loads of problems and releases in a typically unfinished state. Can you blame them? I don't.

Gameplay is king for me, always will be. That doesn't mean I overlook the other aspects though, in this day and age where we have games like Souls, Witcher, Zelda released in the last couple of years and the games a tier below include the likes of Horizon, all games that excel at most things (though obviously not all), why should people bow down and accept such a shoddy release just because of the name of the franchise? I mean it speaks volumes when the guys who made series what it was all walk away. And yeah, review scores should reflect actual opinions on the game and nothing more, but they haven't since the 90's anyway. I don't care about them, I just want to play a good game. However, I can't help but see it like those reviewers in the sense that what goes on behind the scenes isn't right and so can't help but factor that in.

I'll no doubt get this, and I hope I enjoy it. If I do, I'll say. If I don't, I'll say. EA's name on it doesn't change that aspect for me, I've enjoyed loads of those over the years, but I'm glad people still see it and wonder.

Indeed. The only thing I would add, is that this game being BioWare's means that the story/characters must be good in order to be accepted as a great game. BioWare was always about that. If Nintendo in the next Zelda makes a game with great story but with mediocre gameplay, people will moan about it as much, because Nintendo has always been about gameplay. BW has always been about the plot, setting and characters, full stop.

On a side note, instead of moaning here, do you think that it is better for me to get the new Deus Ex and the new Tomb Raider (for 35 EUR combined in Square's sale) and then probably come back to this when it is half the prize? I am weak so I have to play this some day, but probably later (on other words, are those 2 games worthy?).

 

[shaggy]

Indeed. The only thing I would add, is that this game being BioWare's means that the story/characters must be good in order to be accepted as a great game. BioWare was always about that. If Nintendo in the next Zelda makes a game with great story but with mediocre gameplay, people will moan about it as much, because Nintendo has always been about gameplay. BW has always been about the plot, setting and characters, full stop.

On a side note, instead of moaning here, do you think that it is better for me to get the new Deus Ex and the new Tomb Raider (for 35 EUR combined in Square's sale) and then probably come back to this when it is half the prize? I am weak so I have to play this some day, but probably later (on other words, are those 2 games worthy?).

Ultimately that's just an opinion. It's probably not a great game because of those things - but doesn't mean the game isn't enjoyable / worth playing and should just be thrown to the trash pile because of some disappointing aspects.

Both Deus Ex and Tomb Raider are very good games. Slightly disappointed with Mankind Divided as it wasn't as good as Human Revolution, but HR was one of the best last gen games so to be expected.

 

[DixieDean]

I've put in a fair amount of time with it today and it seems bigger than the other Mass Effects. I've been doing a side mission for what feels like ages.

I don't like any of the characters so far though. All very flat.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Indeed. The only thing I would add, is that this game being BioWare's means that the story/characters must be good in order to be accepted as a great game. BioWare was always about that. If Nintendo in the next Zelda makes a game with great story but with mediocre gameplay, people will moan about it as much, because Nintendo has always been about gameplay. BW has always been about the plot, setting and characters, full stop.

On a side note, instead of moaning here, do you think that it is better for me to get the new Deus Ex and the new Tomb Raider (for 35 EUR combined in Square's sale) and then probably come back to this when it is half the prize? I am weak so I have to play this some day, but probably later (on other words, are those 2 games worthy?).

Both the latest deus ex and tomb raider are pretty good. But I prefered both the previous instalments

I think many big fans of the deus ex series were a little underwhelmed and for me I was more invested in the side missions than the actual game.

But most seem to think latest tomb raider was an improment so I might be in the minority for preferring the one previous

 

[Massive Spanner]

Both the latest deus ex and tomb raider are pretty good. But I prefered both the previous instalments

I think many big fans of the deus ex series were a little underwhelmed and for me I was more invested in the side missions than the actual game.

But most seem to think latest tomb raider was an improment so I might be in the minority for preferring the one previous

I think the opposite, the new Deus Ex was much better than the previous one but the new TR, whilst still being a really good game, wasn't a patch on the first.

 

[JTW95]

Really gutted about the reception this game is getting. I love the ME trilogy so was really excited about this.

I'm still going to buy it tomorrow as I still think I am going to enjoy it but 5 years waiting for this shitty animations is really annoying

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Really gutted about the reception this game is getting. I love the ME trilogy so was really excited about this.

I'm still going to buy it tomorrow as I still think I am going to enjoy it but 5 years waiting for this shitty animations is really annoying

They look like a rather young team overall so it's a learning curve for them. Hopefully next time they go into the project with an idea of what problems to look out for. You can't fault EA for giving the team five years, instead of making the old Bioware rush out ME3 in 20 months, but I doubt they'll get that much time for the sequel (if there is one) so these lessons need to be learned quickly. I can't help but shake the feeling that if they had more of the old guard there for the transition then things would have gone better. Imagine if Casey Hudson had been given those five years to direct the game?

 

[Massive Spanner]

I'm going to wait a few months for the patches to come out. I reckon it'll be a much better game then.

 

[Ainu]

Both the latest deus ex and tomb raider are pretty good. But I prefered both the previous instalments

I think many big fans of the deus ex series were a little underwhelmed and for me I was more invested in the side missions than the actual game.

But most seem to think latest tomb raider was an improment so I might be in the minority for preferring the one previous

I thought both were relatively uninspired 7/10 games. Tomb Raider perhaps a little lower even. I've developed an intolerance for formulaic games full of collectibles and the latest Tomb Raider was certainly that. Plus the story elements and dialogues were pathetic.

 

[Art Vandelay]

They look like a rather young team overall so it's a learning curve for them. Hopefully next time they go into the project with an idea of what problems to look out for. You can't fault EA for giving the team five years, instead of making the old Bioware rush out ME3 in 20 months, but I doubt they'll get that much time for the sequel (if there is one) so these lessons need to be learned quickly. I can't help but shake the feeling that if they had more of the old guard there for the transition then things would have gone better. Imagine if Casey Hudson had been given those five years to direct the game?

Last time they let him direct we got ME3's ending. Walters gets all the blame for it, but Hudson let him do it and if reports are true played a huge part in it by locking the other writers out of the writing process for the ending.

 

[Bojan11]

They look like a rather young team overall so it's a learning curve for them. Hopefully next time they go into the project with an idea of what problems to look out for. You can't fault EA for giving the team five years, instead of making the old Bioware rush out ME3 in 20 months, but I doubt they'll get that much time for the sequel (if there is one) so these lessons need to be learned quickly. I can't help but shake the feeling that if they had more of the old guard there for the transition then things would have gone better. Imagine if Casey Hudson had been given those five years to direct the game?

So why you having a go at them that it took 5 years?

How many of those 5 years did they spend developing the game?

They lost a host of people during those 5 years, which probably led to direction changes and story changes. It's not like everybody decided that they off after Mass Effect 3 in 2012, which would have made things easier for them. People left year by year or few years later which meant they probably had to scrap stuff as new people who took over wanted to go another direction. They lost about 12-15 lead guys.

It's funny how people not on here but quite a few were cheering when Hudson left Bioware. But now he's the messiah. They should never have let him go. But these same people were insulting him non stop after Mass Effect 3.

Again, Fallout 4 took 5 years and even worse used the same shitty engine. Atleast Andromeda used a different engine compared to the past games.

This isn't a Polyphony situation where they were just sat on their arse and laughing how Sony are closing down all these other studios whilst they are taking the piss. The studio was going through massive staff changes and that's going to hurt development.

 

[Massive Spanner]

So why you having a go at them that it took 5 years?

How many of those 5 years did they spend developing the game?

They lost a host of people during those 5 years, which probably led to direction changes and story changes. It's not like everybody decided that they off after Mass Effect 3 in 2012, which would have made things easier for them. People left year by year or few years later which meant they probably had to scrap stuff as new people who took over wanted to go another direction. They lost about 12-15 lead guys.

It's funny how people not on here but quite a few were cheering when Hudson left Bioware. But now he's the messiah. They should never have let him go. But these same people were insulting him non stop after Mass Effect 3.

Again, Fallout 4 took 5 years and even worse used the same shitty engine. Atleast Andromeda used a different engine compared to the past games.

This isn't a Polyphony situation where they were just sat on their arse and laughing how Sony are closing down all these other studios whilst they are taking the piss. The studio was going through massive staff changes and that's going to hurt development.

You're weirdly aggressive when it comes to arguing about video games.

Did video games kill your family?

 

[Bojan11]

You're weirdly aggressive when it comes to arguing about video games.

Did video games kill your family?

Spanner, where was I aggressive?

I was making the point that the studio was going through massive changes. And EA shouldn't be given a free pass for it. They forced most those people to leave.

 

[Peanut Butter]

You're weirdly aggressive when it comes to arguing about video games.

I was just thinking the same about him.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

So why you having a go at them that it took 5 years?

I'm not having a go at them for taking 5 years to make the game I'm actually applauding EA for giving such a young team the time to learn the craft, which therefore makes your following rant null and void. Will you get over yourself and stop being so bloody defensive all of the time? Just because I have some negative things to say about the game doesn't mean I hate it. I also said that I think the team will learn from the mistakes of this game next time, but I doubt you saw that because for some reason you see the slightest bit of criticism as somehow being an attack on your character.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Spanner, where was I aggressive?

.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Last time they let him direct we got ME3's ending. Walters gets all the blame for it, but Hudson let him do it and if reports are true played a huge part in it by locking the other writers out of the writing process for the ending.

Oh I know what you mean, I'm not saying that Hudson was perfect but there seemed to be a lot of problems with the development of the game that no one person, even the lead, can be blamed for the failings. There's also reports that the problems arose from there not being a planned story when they made ME2 either, so when Mac took lead writing duties for ME3 no one knew what was meant to happen. The locking out of the writers is definitely crappy, but they were also panicking to get the game finished on time. That final mission just screams "rush job". Ultimately they had been given less than two years to complete arguably the biggest game in the series that had to close so many different storylines, and that team were working 90 hour weeks to get the job done and it must have hurt them to see the project go to print looking the way that it did.

 

[Bojan11]

I'm not having a go at them for taking 5 years to make the game I'm actually applauding EA for giving such a young team the time to learn the craft, which therefore makes your following rant null and void. Will you get over yourself and stop being so bloody defensive all of the time? Just because I have some negative things to say about the game doesn't mean I hate it. I also said that I think the team will learn from the mistakes of this game next time, but I doubt you saw that because for some reason you see the slightest bit of criticism as somehow being an attack on your character.

You made the point that you can't fault EA for giving them five years.

Erm if EA weren't such interfering idiots then most of the original team would have stayed. And we don't know how many of those 5 years they actually spent developing the game. The animations issues were there to see during the game awards in December, so those should have been fixed. But EA probably told them to get it out as it is or they'd freeze the games budget. So yes we can fault EA a lot of things about this game.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

You made the point that you can't fault EA for giving them five years.

Erm if EA weren't such interfering idiots then most of the original team would have stayed. And we don't know how many of those 5 years they actually spent developing the game. The animations issues were there to see during the game awards in December, so those should have been fixed. But EA probably told them to get it out as it is or they'd freeze the games budget. So yes we can fault EA a lot of things about this game.

"You can't fault EA for giving the team five years, instead of making the old Bioware rush out ME3 in 20 months"

You seem to be constantly missing the point just so you can have a moan. I was comparing EA giving this team five years instead of trying to rush them like they did previously. It wasn't to take blame off of them for what they probably did behind the scenes (because EA are, after all, EA and they always find a way of screwing over developers). I'm struggling to see why you're trying to start such a pathetic argument and I'm done talking to you because you're either being intentionally obtuse or someone just peed in your coffee this morning and you're looking for someone to rant at. Either way you can feck off.

 

[Bojan11]

"You can't fault EA for giving the team five years, instead of making the old Bioware rush out ME3 in 20 months"

You seem to be constantly missing the point just so you can have a moan. I was comparing EA giving this team five years instead of trying to rush them like they did previously. It wasn't to take blame off of them for what they probably did behind the scenes (because EA are, after all, EA and they always find a way of screwing over developers). I'm struggling to see why you're trying to start such a pathetic argument and I'm done talking to you because you're either being intentionally obtuse or someone just peed in your coffee this morning and you're looking for someone to rant at. Either way you can feck off.

And I'm the aggressive one?

I'm asking you how do you know they spent all that five years developing the game. When half your team goes to Bungie or Microsoft then you gotta basically restart the game. Especially as they lost a few lead writers. Which is crucial for a RPG. If you are the lead script writer then the last thing you wanna do is use somebody elses story. So they probably had to scrap a lot of stuff during development.

And your missing the point too. If you actually watched the trailer from December then you'd see the animation issues were there. EA could have given them a month extra. Sony delayed Uncharted by a month and delayed Horizon a few weeks. But yeah let's not fault EA right. 5 years was plenty of time.

And most of the story for ME 3 was completed before ME 2 was even out. The initial release for ME 3 was fall 2011. Hudson wanted the game to end that way because he wanted his Sopranos moment. It may have been rushed to you and me, but it's either get a mass effect game or no mass effect. Unless you pulling sales figures like Rockstar games then no sane publisher is going to give you 15 years to release three games.

The first Mass Effect started development in late 2003 and took four years to develop. The others didn't need that much time as the story was pretty much set for them as they did bill it as a trilogy. And it will be the same case here. The next game will probably be out in two years time.

Were you there at the studio though? The side window pigeon

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I think the opposite, the new Deus Ex was much better than the previous one but the new TR, whilst still being a really good game, wasn't a patch on the first.

I agree, I was hovering over the buy button again today but I want to give them time to fix the dodgy parts and also I want to time it after the release of the AMD GPU "Vega". Hopefully, AMD doesn't balls it up and start a price war. I will either end up with a much "cheaper" GTX 1080 TI or the Vega depending on the game benches.

 

[Revan]

They look like a rather young team overall so it's a learning curve for them. Hopefully next time they go into the project with an idea of what problems to look out for. You can't fault EA for giving the team five years, instead of making the old Bioware rush out ME3 in 20 months, but I doubt they'll get that much time for the sequel (if there is one) so these lessons need to be learned quickly. I can't help but shake the feeling that if they had more of the old guard there for the transition then things would have gone better. Imagine if Casey Hudson had been given those five years to direct the game?

Put Karpyshyn as lead writer there, and you get a game that puts Witcher 3 to shame.

Last time they let him direct we got ME3's ending. Walters gets all the blame for it, but Hudson let him do it and if reports are true played a huge part in it by locking the other writers out of the writing process for the ending.

Casey locking the other writers for the ending was a big mistake from him. But all things considering, Mass Effect 3 was a very good game (up to the end). It also needs to be said that was Casey's first failure (which was still received well both on reviews and sales), and you need to remember that he is the guy who game us Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 too, all stellar games.

On the other side, Mac Walters gave us the worst DLC in Mass Effect, to continue by making a mess of the ending of Mass Effect 3 (with the other part of the plot being essentially Dragon Age: Origins), and then getting promoted to the main man for Andromeda which in turn was the worst received (on reviews) Mass Effect game ever.

One did a mistake, the other makes failures after failures.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

And I'm the aggressive one?

I'm asking you how do you know they spent all that five years developing the game. When half your team goes to Bungie or Microsoft then you gotta basically restart the game. Especially as they lost a few lead writers. Which is crucial for a RPG. If you are the lead script writer then the last thing you wanna do is use somebody elses story. So they probably had to scrap a lot of stuff during development.

And your missing the point too. If you actually watched the trailer from December then you'd see the animation issues were there. EA could have given them a month extra. Sony delayed Uncharted by a month and delayed Horizon a few weeks. But yeah let's not fault EA right. 5 years was plenty of time.

And most of the story for ME 3 was completed before ME 2 was even out. The initial release for ME 3 was fall 2011. Hudson wanted the game to end that way because he wanted his Sopranos moment. It may have been rushed to you and me, but it's either get a mass effect game or no mass effect. Unless you pulling sales figures like Rockstar games then no sane publisher is going to give you 15 years to release three games.

The first Mass Effect started development in late 2003 and took four years to develop. The others didn't need that much time as the story was pretty much set for them as they did bill it as a trilogy. And it will be the same case here. The next game will probably be out in two years time.

Were you there at the studio though? The side window pigeon

You know those pigeons you see in the background of an episode of Parks and Recreation? One of them is usually me.

 

[Blind]

How long do we reckon it will be until this is in EA Access? Dragon Age Inquisition took less than a year so I'm hoping for something similar.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Put Karpyshyn as lead writer there, and you get a game that puts Witcher 3 to shame.


Casey locking the other writers for the ending was a big mistake from him. But all things considering, Mass Effect 3 was a very good game (up to the end). It also needs to be said that was Casey's first failure (which was still received well both on reviews and sales), and you need to remember that he is the guy who game us Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 too, all stellar games.

On the other side, Mac Walters gave us the worst DLC in Mass Effect, to continue by making a mess of the ending of Mass Effect 3 (with the other part of the plot being essentially Dragon Age: Origins), and then getting promoted to the main man for Andromeda which in turn was the worst received (on reviews) Mass Effect game ever.

One did a mistake, the other makes failures after failures.

I feel bad for Walters as well just having the game dumped on him, not even Karpyshyn knew entirely what he wanted and has said as much in interviews. It was maybe too much too fast for Walters to go from character writer to lead to director. He can create some great characters though; Garrus and Wrex were both his.

But, yes, bring back a Hudson/Karpyshyn combo, add Walters as a character creator and I can't help but feel this young team would have had the management to really shine (based entirely on me sitting outside of the Bioware window and pooping).

 

[Ainu]

And I'm the aggressive one?

I'm asking you how do you know they spent all that five years developing the game. When half your team goes to Bungie or Microsoft then you gotta basically restart the game. Especially as they lost a few lead writers. Which is crucial for a RPG. If you are the lead script writer then the last thing you wanna do is use somebody elses story. So they probably had to scrap a lot of stuff during development.

And your missing the point too. If you actually watched the trailer from December then you'd see the animation issues were there. EA could have given them a month extra. Sony delayed Uncharted by a month and delayed Horizon a few weeks. But yeah let's not fault EA right. 5 years was plenty of time.

And most of the story for ME 3 was completed before ME 2 was even out. The initial release for ME 3 was fall 2011. Hudson wanted the game to end that way because he wanted his Sopranos moment. It may have been rushed to you and me, but it's either get a mass effect game or no mass effect. Unless you pulling sales figures like Rockstar games then no sane publisher is going to give you 15 years to release three games.

The first Mass Effect started development in late 2003 and took four years to develop. The others didn't need that much time as the story was pretty much set for them as they did bill it as a trilogy. And it will be the same case here. The next game will probably be out in two years time.

Were you there at the studio though? The side window pigeon

I seriously doubt they could fix that in an extra month. Either way, much of your reasoning against EA and in favour of the dev team is based on pure speculation.

 

[Siorac]

Put Karpyshyn as lead writer there, and you get a game that puts Witcher 3 to shame.


Casey locking the other writers for the ending was a big mistake from him. But all things considering, Mass Effect 3 was a very good game (up to the end). It also needs to be said that was Casey's first failure (which was still received well both on reviews and sales), and you need to remember that he is the guy who game us Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 too, all stellar games.

On the other side, Mac Walters gave us the worst DLC in Mass Effect, to continue by making a mess of the ending of Mass Effect 3 (with the other part of the plot being essentially Dragon Age: Origins), and then getting promoted to the main man for Andromeda which in turn was the worst received (on reviews) Mass Effect game ever.

One did a mistake, the other makes failures after failures.

Blimey, I never expected to read that from you. I thought you hated just about everything about it.

 

[Coxy]

How long do we reckon it will be until this is in EA Access? Dragon Age Inquisition took less than a year so I'm hoping for something similar.

hang on mate, let me fetch my crystal ball

 

[Coxy]

Put Karpyshyn as lead writer there, and you get a game that puts Witcher 3 to shame.


Casey locking the other writers for the ending was a big mistake from him. But all things considering, Mass Effect 3 was a very good game (up to the end). It also needs to be said that was Casey's first failure (which was still received well both on reviews and sales), and you need to remember that he is the guy who game us Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 too, all stellar games.

On the other side, Mac Walters gave us the worst DLC in Mass Effect, to continue by making a mess of the ending of Mass Effect 3 (with the other part of the plot being essentially Dragon Age: Origins), and then getting promoted to the main man for Andromeda which in turn was the worst received (on reviews) Mass Effect game ever.

One did a mistake, the other makes failures after failures.

Good post - and spot on.

 

[Blind]

hang on mate, let me fetch my crystal ball

Cheers pal.

 

[Revan]

Blimey, I never expected to read that from you. I thought you hated just about everything about it.

I hated it with a passion, because the ending is so nonsense that makes everything in the trilogy (story-wise) look totally pointless and stupid.

However, I remember enjoying it quite a lot up to the end. It was dumbed down, the characters were those of other games (bar Vega which was awful and the 'we sell Protheans for 5 dollars' which was awesome), the plot was good but unoriginal, but still, it was quite a good game. But the end, destroyed everything. It is like in a football game when your team plays well and is leading, but concedes 3 goals in extra time and loses. You're not gonna like that match.

 

[Ubik]

I hated it with a passion, because the ending is so nonsense that makes everything in the trilogy (story-wise) look totally pointless and stupid.

However, I remember enjoying it quite a lot up to the end. It was dumbed down, the characters were those of other games (bar Vega which was awful and the 'we sell Protheans for 5 dollars' which was awesome), the plot was good but unoriginal, but still, it was quite a good game. But the end, destroyed everything. It is like in a football game when your team plays well and is leading, but concedes 3 goals in extra time and loses. You're not gonna like that match.

Yeebus, this is literally the first time I've heard that there was a Prothean squadmate I do not pay as much attention as I should.

 

[Bojan11]

I seriously doubt they could fix that in an extra month. Either way, much of your reasoning against EA and in favour of the dev team is based on pure speculation.

Yes because all those people leaving Bioware half way through a project had nothing to do with EA.

 

[ADJUDICATOR]

Mass Effect should never have gotten a successor of any sort tbh.

Yeebus, this is literally the first time I've heard that there was a Prothean squadmate I do not pay as much attention as I should.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Yes because all those people leaving Bioware half way through a project had nothing to do with EA.

Why is it okay for you to accuse others of speculating yet you expect people to take what you say as being the complete truth? I don't think anyone has said that EA are great and at the same time the developers are awful so why are you trying to preach the opposite in the first place? The only thing that's been stated relating to those two is the cartoon representing EA basically screwing over yet another developer.