I COULDNT agree more! I was getting ready to respond similarly. A good rpg for me is about the story and ME3 gave up telling a compelling one at the end (and abandoned themes from the 2 previous games), and ME:A never even tried to tell a good story.
I think Andromeda has issues in terms of its writing, for sure - places where you can tell things were rushed or cut, opportunities left on the table, etc. That’s really the only thing that makes me doubt ranking it over the first game, which was better on that front. But I don’t think people give it nearly enough credit for what is there, and IMO it’s never nearly as bad as the worst affronts in 2 and 3.
I bought Andromeda on sale but am unlikely in my lifetime to get around to playing it. It really is on the bottom of the pile, probably because Inquisition horrified me with its “here is a hundred hours of grinding and 5 hours of story that you apparently want” gameplay which, I myself, did not and still do not want.
If and when i do play ME:A though, i will rank it!
Gotta admit, they started losing me with “my face is tired.”
Jokey placeholder? English as a second language? Just plain shitty writing? I have no idea, but it told me that the story was half-baked and not to be taken seriously.
But then, Jetpack!! I’m torn.
Just look at the bad guys in Mass effect, Saren’s back story would take multiple paragraphs to explain, a specter who saw the threat of the reapers and is taking the only action he thinks will help humanity to survive, and much more. In ME2 you somehow working for a bad guy from ME1, and who are the collectors, interesting information trickles in as you explore. ME3 the Reaper were destroying the galaxy and it looked hopless, how do you save humanity without a Deus ex Machina moment (which they could have avoided)… in ME:A though the kett don’t have any interesting depth to discover, they are just in your way for building your colonies…
How far into the game did you play? There’s stuff to discover about the Kett that I found interesting.
Finished it, that they are
Summary
angarans?
that’s a fine tidbit but doesn’t really make them interesting and thought provoking enemies.
The being railroaded into working for the bad guys (and they never really come off as anything but the bad guys) part of ME2’s plot is one of my least favorite things in the entire series, right up there with ME3’s ending. So I wouldn’t hold it up as an example of good writing in the series, personally.
I get that, but the point was there was nuance, you built common ground with a enemy you would otherwise despise…and he wasn’t a villain cut out bad, he had some good intentions for all his faults…
I agree that there’s a lot to criticize MEA for, but I am in the camp that liked the game.
The Kett not having “any interesting depth” is not high on my list of things to criticize, though. One issue with them is that there’s so few enemy types which makes you see them a lot in the too-large maps, but I think the overall story of the Kett and the Archon is about on par with some of the enemies in the other games as far as being “interesting and thought provoking”.
I think the story of MEA lays a good groundwork for a lot of interesting stuff that could have happened in MEA2 and MEA3, but without the sequels it is not as much to compare to as the fully fleshed out ME1-3 lore.
They pretended there was nuance, sure. But you straight up can’t believe a word the Illusive Man says. (And it really doesn’t help that the third game immediately eliminated any putative nuance, although I suppose it’s not really fair to the writers on 2 to blame them for that.)
It’s about as interesting as any one thing going on in the other games, but the problem is, it is the only thing going on in Andromeda.
One of the major problems with that game is you arrive at a whole new galaxy, with all the possibilities in the universe, and it’s so fucking boring compared to the Milky Way.
I actully really enjoy the combat in Mass Effect 2. Once I crank it up to the highest difficulties.
I see where you’re coming from, but there are other things going on beside the Kett: The Remnant, the Angaran, the Outlaws and the Ark itself. Saying the Kett is the only thing going on is an exaggeration.
I also feel that there’s a disconnect between the broad idea of a “new galaxy” coupled with “open world approach”, and while I find the in-game reasoning for it to be interesting it is very deeply buried and doesn’t really manage to work since the game is spread to thin. It comes too late 60-80 hours in. Had the game been just a bit more focused and paced differently I think it wouldn’t have bored away many people. In the long run it doesn’t help that there’s a lot of excellent groundwork laid down when it takes to long to get to the payoff.
Besides the story, the gameplay is excellent and the multiplayer is a good place to jump in just to experience it. It is a bit too grindy, sadly, but a really good horde mode. The balance patches also made powers better, even though it is still a bit heavy on shooting being best.
I don’t see the the Kett and Angarans as separate - without the conflict between them they’re just tedious nothings. The Remnant - ugh. More ancient aliens. And the citadel races are just recreating the old dynamics. Which could be interesting if they’d have to grow beyond them, but no, the end basically re-establishes the staus quo with the Angarans suborned by the citadel races. Which is just staggeringly tone deaf when the antagonists are evil because they’re avatars of imperialism to the point that they overtake conquered peoples’ bodies.
I…don’t think much of the overall writing in Andromeda. There are some fun characters though, and if, as you say, it had been paced better it probably could havce skated by on characters and combat.
Andromeda is an ok 20 hour game spread out over 60 hours by sub-ubisoft open world design. The setpiece missions, particularly the endgame and loyalty missions are the best parts of the game by a country mile. Problem so much of it is gated by really tedious open world gameplay.
Now there’s a thought-out criticism, thank you for taking the time to write it. Of course, my opinion differs, but I can see where you’re coming from. If the worlds and environments and characters and story aren’t grabbing you, then time spent in them is going to feel like time wasted in a game unnecessarily drawn out.
My main problem is that ME3 seemed to retcon ME1 (I forget the specifics now, Krogan I think), but in ME 2 it was the Illisuve man motivations, the Leviathans, and in ME3 the game even retcons itself!
I mean if you managed to get a peaceful result between the geth and the quarian peace, why wouldn’t you throw that at the reapers saying their logic no longer applies. and after all isn’t the purpose of life to adapt and learn, by achieving peace with artificial life isn’t that a reason to consider their mission no longer valid? I mean that isn’t the answer flat out, but to explore that would have been far more interesting that what they did.
I think you and I agree in broadstrokes, we agree that the MEA wasn’t great on the story front and we both liked the game play, despite being grindy. I think were we really diverge is the importance of story in a RPG.
I guess we’ve been led to believe by decades of Star Trek episodes that showing a computer’s logic to be flawed will result in immediate shutdown and win!
“WHAT. Quarians and gets getting along. Does not compute!” Bzzt bzzt BOOM!
Lol, I guess you missed the last part…so I’ll repeat it for your benefit
“I mean that isn’t the answer flat out, but to explore that would have been far more interesting that what they did”
Thank you, I love reading things twice!