You didn't hear about the infamous 'Day 1 DLC'. Heya, here is an awesome character that we deliberately cut from the game to sell it to you for 5 dollars in the launch day!Yeebus, this is literally the first time I've heard that there was a Prothean squadmateI do not pay as much attention as I should.
Gaming Mass Effect: Andromeda (PC, PS4, Xbox One)
- Thread starter Shane88
- Start date
awesome? He might be awesome - but he is no Garrus
Of course he is not Garrus, none is. But he was a very interesting character, in addition to not shutting up at all in the Asari world. From that mission it was clear that they cut it to get some extra money. Wankers!awesome? He might be awesome - but he is no Garrus
Because it's not the first time this has happened with EA. And it's not going to be the last.
It's not really speculation. Don't you think it's odd that a lot of key people leaving during development? Casey Hudson hyping up the next Mass Effect at E3 saying it's half way through development and then leaving like 3 months later. It's not like MS offered him a better salary or something. He joined them a year later, I believe. So it wasn't like he had a better job lined up. He just left suddenly. So something must have pissed him off.
Yep, Hudson very likely left because of management. He was very excited for Andromeda (and the Mass Effect movie which seems to be forgotten) and the new IP, just to suddenly decide to leave.
I think that Karpyshyn left on his own, tried his best as author, sold like 7 copies of his trilogy and so returned later.
Javik was a cool character in terms of his lore-dumping role. It always felt like half his content was missing though. Yes, he had a great presence on the Normandy in terms of crew convos, and his interactions with Liara (and on Thessia? the Asari world) were great but you lost nothing really story-wise, if you didn't get him.
What's speculation is that EA is the sole reason the game has turned out as it has. Perhaps development had been going well off the rails long before then, we don't know this. Perhaps there were internal issues within Bioware that EA had little effect on. There's so little we know about all of it.
He's a good video game writer but a very mediocre author. His books - the ones that I read - have quite interesting plots but the actual writing is average, at best.
Oh, I have no doubt that EA went full EA and screwed over people! But let's be fair all of the problems of a game can't be blamed solely on the developer or the publisher. And all we're all really doing is speculating, no matter how obvious things may appear.
For all I know it'll turn out that the crappy animations and flaws in Andromeda are intentional, and it's because the crew have all been indoctrinated to infiltrate another galaxy and prepare it for a Reaper invasion......*writes ideas down in diary and calls Bioware*
Darth Bane trilogy was alright, as was Revan book, but yep, the writing there was average. In addition, there was already a platform built there, he just had to complete it.
Saying that, despite that I liked those books, I never had an urge to check his Children of Fire or whatever is called trilogy. The first book has 700 ratings in goodreads, which likely means around 5000 copies sold (Mark Lawrence made a study some time ago that for fantasy books, the number of sales is around 7 times as much as the number of ratings in Goodreads) and so he had to return to do the job he's good at.
Of course, being a writer for novels and a writer for video games are different things.
No. If anything, Witcher 3 is underrated.
Witcher 3 can't be underrated really though can it? It's the best of all time, or among them for a lot of people. Pre- and Post-W3 worlds are even identifiable and understandable phrases.
The term "overrated" is overrated. Certainly overused as well. If many people genuinly like something as much as they claim to like it, is that thing overrated because another group of people happens to not like it very much? It's such a pointless statement.
IGN gave it a 9.3 if I'm not mistaken and it was generally not reviewed anywhere near the greatest games of all time and for me it's close to being there or thereabouts.
It's still in an elite group of AAA games this generation that have scored 90+.
That's because Vince Ingenito is extremely harsh on reviews. It won IGN's game of the year awars, and won over 200 other awards, being universally accepted as the best game in this console generation.
I did read about some of the top guys walking away, but I didn't realise it had gotten that bad. So they left because they didn't like EA's methods?
It did win loads of awards but I'm speaking purely about reviews. In that sense it could be considered underrated. Someone posted a list of best revised games ever and GTA 4 was there with Witcher 3 nowhere close. Not that it's the only such game of course.
it's only been less than two years, though, it takes time for games to be considered 'best ever'. It will definitely go down as one of them.
If I sex with alien can I get pragnan?
Kinell.
No way. Shoddy combat and fetch quests galore.
Beautiful to look at but boring as feck and too many long, boring scenes of Geralt talking to pointless women.
no cus ailiein tadpoles cant swim up humin chuff tunnels
They were not pointless to me dammit!
Seriously though the women in the witcher games are some of the best video game characters I have seen
There are nearly zero fetch quests in TW3.
I cant wate to put some white peepee in aiiliein chuff tunnels lol ok I'm done
To be fair, it had some annoying mechanics at the start, but those got patched out. Good guy CD Red actually listening to its players.
Because of this
And this ('chuff tunnels'
)I read this as 'felch quests'. Horrifying.
Bar the vast majority of them. Go there, use your witcher senses to track something, find something /kill something, get back and profit. The character quests were cracking in addition to awesome civil war quests but other than that the side quests were as boring as in any other game.
Oh i could go off on a tagent about how so very wrong you are but i dont wanna go off topic.
VERY WRONG!
I read fetch quest as "random quest giver: 'I'm desperately in need of amount x of macguffin y, go to z and bring them back to me asap' " - no further story or explanation given. That is never the case with TW3. All quests do have some unique dialogue lines at least.
I understand him though. As a huge Dark Souls fan myself any other gameplay or combat system just feels so so boring and wrong.
If you use that definition then every quest in every game is a fetch quest. TW3's quests all had context and mostly their own story. There may have been a few where you had to go and get something for someone, but they tended to open up new mechanics or higher level merchants. Like being sent to get the armourer tools or Kiera's lamp. They were rarely filler as fetch quests tend to be.
Not really. The vast majority of side quests had absolutely no implication on the main story, or in the other quests. Go there, press a button to use witcher senses, go and kill a monster return is hardly different from Inquisition's go there, look for a bit until you find a flower, return. It is the same thing that is fun the first three times, and boring as hell later. In Act 2 I stopped doing the side quests (bar the character and war ones which were awesome) and didn't even think to return to them in the 2 DLCs.
The problem with having 1 billion quests in the modern games is that they feel totally pointless to me. Would much prefer shorter games if they are fulled with actual original content, then playing a game for 100 hours with 70 of them being repeating the same thing ad infinitum.
That doesn't make them fetch quests though. Most of them are tied into Geralt's actual profession. He's on the road, he might have a goal, but he still needs money so has to do Witcher work. Like helping find a missing woman, that turns into an investigation into a werewolf or clearing out some Nekkers. If you've stopped doing them then you're missing out on some of the best bits of the game and parts of them get tied back in to important parts of the story with characters not being there at all if the quests aren't done or the wrong thing said. I dunno how you can compare them to the borefest MMO that was DA:I.
Obviously monster nests and the like are there to help you level up and get higher level items. They tend to just be things that you can do as you're passing them in the world though, no one sends you to deal with them.
No, I didn't miss on the best part of the game. That 'best part of the game' was boring me to death, and the options were either stop doing them, or stop playing the game. For me, it was close to a game-breaker (after I did the first million of them).
I didn't miss anything important in terms of story. All the characters, including Leto were there. As I said before, I did the character quests and they were great, but go and kill the millionth monster after you have been doing it for the last 20 hours stops being fun after you do that 3 times.
And yep, Geralt is a witcher who kills monsters for money. He kills like a monster for book or so. He kills more in the first five hours of the game than in his life. And you actually stop getting XP for those 'brilliant quests' after a while.
As someone absolutely adores the Souls franchise, completed them multiple times, got the platinum in Bloodborne etc, I disagree! I also disagree about about it being boring and full of typical fetch quests. That's just mental talk, man.