Yeah, one of the best opening sequences in gaming, easily. Jokes aside, ME2 was pretty good. It had many flaws (including my pet peeve of reintroducing ammo and all) but I liked it quite a bit.
Yeah, now that was a real drag. I hope that’s fixable? Hard to believe they intended all asari to have the same face. It’s even the case on the iPhone app, you’ve got the same faces on the strike team.
I guess I will say that the things ME2 does badly (and I think there are a lot of things ME2 does badly) are things that really bother me, and the things that people claim Andromeda does badly are for the most part not even a blip on my radar. I do have a few complaints (most notably, I hate both boss types I’ve encountered so far), but like, the much vaunted eye problem…I’ve seen side by side screenshots of the launch version and the patch that supposedly fixed them and would be hard pressed to tell the difference in almost all of them. I have had nothing to complain about for visuals in general - in fact it’s one of the best looking games I’ve played in some time- and while the writing isn’t quite as dramatic or heightened as 2’s, it’s at worst functional 99% of the time and sometimes quite good. It also really helps that the premise isn’t nearly as stupid and counter to previously established story direction and worldbuilding as ME2’s.
But it’s true there’s no character quite as great as Mordin in Andromeda.
…until you sit down and think about the consequences of it later.
Exciting for sure, but dumb as a box of rocks. Which can be said of most of the main plot really.
Still, once you break from the narrative, it has one of the best Seven Samurai gaming adventures ever, and some of the most brilliant loyalty quests.
the dialogue camera this time around was lame.
… but it was ok, cuz you could move it.
it was fixed to your character position instead of being cinematic.
Sorry, you lost me - what would cinematic mean in this context? Dutch angles, that kind of thing?
Well, no. I’m talking about the overall cinematography, which certainly includes things like angles, but also includes framing, shot distance (establishing → long → medium → close up → extreme close up), lighting, pacing of action in scenes, pacing of dialogue in scenes, the whole nine yards. There was a film-maker, or someone who really wanted to be a filmmaker, directing ME2’s scenes.
The stuff in Andromeda is set up like the first visual novel of some kid who’s just discovered Ren’py. Flat angles, desperate attempts to get everyone in the scene every time(as if we’d forget they were there if we can’t see them), constant use of long and medium shots, no framing, the "well, screw it, just give them a camera that rotates around Shep^H^H^H^H^H^H Ryder in every scene amateur hour crap. Much like everything else in the game that didn’t involve combat, which was pretty meaty.
(As was Miranda’s ass in ME2, MIRITE)
I mean, I’m not to Roger Ebert all over Andromeda and kill it solely because it offended my inner auteur, but this is just one sign, among others, that the crews behind this game had bitten off far more than they could chew. They should have started the reboot with something ME1-sized, and given us the open-world game in ME5 or 6. But then again, I don’t think the New BW has the chops any more to come up with the content to fill a ME1-style game, so we get endless Kett bases.
As for the Kett: what are they but re-skinned Collectors? Discuss.
I’m sure you meant Zaaed, although Mordin was cool, too.
Times like this, I wish someone had put together a YouTube video of the kind of things you’re talking about. A comparison of the kind of visuals you’re describing. I’d be interested in seeing that because I just can’t call it to mind (unlike Miranda’s ass which I TOTALLY CAN) and clearly lots of you are bothered by it.
Ok, ignore the dialoge, and watch this scene.
and
to get a sense. Watch how the camera moves, sets up. The Illusive man stars off, when you meet him, with a mid range shot that slowly zooms in, with a few close ups. The scene is positioned to be as dynamic as possible. When he is talking it shows only him, yet when Shepard talks, it shows over his shoulder. At the end of the conversation it starts close, then zooms out to that mid range shot. This is important. This emphasizes that the important person here is not Shepard, but rather TIM. How TIM is driving things here, and Shepard is not the one in charge right now.
All this conveys things, and sets the mood. The composition conveys that he is in charge, that he is someone you are designed to be impressed by. The choice of background is a statement on his character. And while the animations are somewhat janky with his cigarette, they do impersonate the types of movements you’d see in something of a boardroom scene in a Glengary Glen Ross type film, he playing the role of supreme leader.
And Aria, the shadows, the framing, theover the shoulder, the fact she starts with her back to you? All convey something about her. That she is in her element, that she doesn’t even need to fully acknowledge you. Her back to you, framed against the light, is a striking image that underlines her words. Turning your back to someone who has a reputation for power and violence states as clearly as words that she feels nothing can touch her here.
There is more to discuss, and I’m not well versed enough in cinematography to really fully convey everything they do. But these were done so well, and so intentionally, that they stuck with me enough that I could remember the exact framing 7 years after last playing it.
All right, I’ll watch 'me later tonight - don’t think I’d get the full impact from my phone.
But I get the impression you’re talking about more than cinematography, also a sense of place and the characters that inhabit them, and the way the interact. Which is also fine, I can see how those differed.
Well I make no claim to what @scharmers is talking about, other than we are both broadly touching on the same things. Perhaps they have a different thing in mind, but for my part that’s where I go.
look at the different camera angles that switch in ME1 when your shepherd meets Conrad Verner:
MEA has an ugly zoom-in on your Ryder and then a camera you can swing around your fixed position.
I finished it. Overall i think reviews were accurate about giving this a 7/10. Mass Effect Andromeda captures the feel of a mediocre open world game where they didn’t have the budget to really personalize the world. I don’t mind that they tried to make this an open world game (nor am i a huge fan of it), but they did not do a good job of it.
In many ways the game reminds me of dragon age 2. It is a sequel that made companions dumber and broke the ability to micromanage them at the same time. It is a sequel that infamously reuses massive amounts of content in a poorly done way that makes the game seem like a budget title. It is a very disappointing sequel to a much beloved series.
Story:
Although it clearly borrows a ton from the writing of previous games, It never gets near previous games in the series. It is almost like a fan fiction of mass effect.
Many elements in the story are never explained or expanded on at all. Chances are if you’re expecting to learn about the details of some event in the story, you are going to be disappointed.
The story is also hurt by the low budget, repetitive feel of the game. I found it hard to stay interested in a “new area” the game was showing me when it looked exactly the same as areas i had seen dozens of times already. Same deal with being confronted by bosses that are just generic enemies with a bit more health.
The story is also SEVERELY hurt by a lack of proper animations, even after the patch. It will be an insanity mission in itself to take some of the super serious scenes seriously when your character is making a wacky face and random body movements.
Combat:
Fun. It is more mobile than previous games which is kind of nice. This is even true on insanity, although it might depend on your build i suppose. If you play a build that doesn’t use charge, you probably stay behind cover or die in 2 seconds like normal/
Skill System
Bad. It feels like zero effort was taken to balance skills or make them all useful. There also is not that much synergy between different skills, which limits what works well.
As mentioned in an earlier post, if you want a GOOD build, you’re going to be limited to 2-3 archetypes which define most of your abilities. These are shield powered lance and bio converter weapon with turbocharge and tech ability heal. There is a little variety in customizing these, but not a ton.
This is a huge disappointment from the previous game where there are many more choices that were not dumb choices. The only really dumb choice in previous games was vanguard because it was super buggy and the game had instant kill melee abilities (which return in this game). I still enjoyed it though.
Inventory/weapons
Bad.
First of all, the mod system should not be in the game. They don’t add anything as there are no choices to be made and they are just boring. The aug system is fine but could probably use expanding.
Drops are boring. The research system is boring. The research system just results in you getting a very small upgrade ever 5-10 levels.
About 2/3 of the way in to the game, i stopped even picking items up as the only thing that drops is money and resources.
Companions
None of them are memorable or likable compared to previous games. The loyalty missions are better than the rest of the game, but not as good as previous games.
The AI is worse than previous games, or indeed any bioware game. On insanity your companions do almost nothing except distract the enemy. I recommend getting ones that give you buffs/support and ones that are tough to kill. Don’t get abilities triggered off of companion kills (unless they dont actually need the killing blow).
Exploration
2/10.
Only a few times i felt like there was ANY exploration. All of the remnant areas look almost exactly the same. You will see the same areas copy and pasted across planets. Seemingly MAJOR quests/boss battles across planets are copy and pasted on to every planet, removing any sense of exploration or excitement. Why wonder what is over that dune when you have seen that same kett base 5 times before?
Bioware should have known better after DA2.
I did say Good builds though, not viable. Even though you can use (what is in my opinion) a less than optimal build on normal, does not mean it is a good build that makes sense.
You could do insanity with no skills if you were crazy enough, but going full construct build and then using unskilled guns to kill everything doesn’t make constructs good. On normal, i imagine skill choice basically does not matter, but better is still better.
If you’re playing on a higher difficulty, the game can be pretty hard sometimes and then your choices matter more.
I want to be clear that i’m not talking about min maxing to the extreme. I am talking about building the core of an effective build. I define effective by a build that can do the three things i mentioned (survive well, do burst damage against hordes of minions and do high sustained damage against single target boss types) well.
Similar to ME2/ME3, but more mobile with some builds. Both builds i played heavily (Charge/annihilation/Lance and Charge/Turbo charge/incinerate) used mobility, charging forward to regenerate shields and dodging back. You still die just as fast as previous games though so it is VERY high octane and the death count is not low.
Bosses can be interesting. They all have a crap ton of health, taking forever to kill. Some bosses have Abilities which can nearly instantly kill you, so you could spend 5 minutes fighting a boss only to be instantly killed because you got stuck in the open for a second (or stopped paying attention because they were so bland and repetitive).
There are some very large scale horde mode encounters with lots of enemies coming at you from multiple angles. These are very hard with insanity level damage.
[quote=“Murbella, post:1842, topic:76729, full:true”]
I did say Good builds though, not viable. Even though you can use (what is in my opinion) a less than optimal build on normal, does not mean it is a good build that makes sense.[/quote]
One, the definition of a “good build” is highly subjective subjective. I think my cloak/pull/throw build is a “good” build. In addition, I don’t think in a RPG all builds have to be equal, they just have to be viable. Pull/throw are lots of fun, even if in your opinion, using them is not a “good” build. The fact that they are “viable” enough to that I can play with a cloaked biotic is good enough more me. I’m not in a SP competition with you to see who can kill everyone the fastest. Sometimes you just want to roleplay, or play what you think is fun. If it’s possible, that’s all that matters, not whether I can kill as fast as another build. You say you’re not but you are too focused on min/maxing.
I have no doubt about that.
And I have no trouble at normal doing all three with my build. Cloak allows me to survive well, biotics allow me to crush mobs, and my assault rifle and sniper rifle with cloak allow me to take out bosses. There is far more than the two builds you favor to playing this game, at least on normal.
I disagree, a good build is objective, to a degree. For example, the reason i don’t think Cloak/pull/throw is a good build in my opinion is that you have no sustained dps. Pull and throw both have decent timers on them and don’t do high damage anyway. They would be decent enough against swarms of minions but poor against stronger enemies. Cloaking is a strong ability, especially paired with turbo charge, but on its own survival is not stellar in my opinion, decent enough though. If you use the fusion mod that resets cooldowns when you kill something, it would be a decent enough build, but i still think cloaking is too lonely without any high damage shooting power to pair it with. You would have issues with tougher enemies on higher difficulties most likely. Obviously this is my opinion and even if the head of bioware said i was 100% right, you should still play whatever you enjoy, especially on normal.
That doesn’t mean you need to play a build that makes sense from a power/synergy point of view. Obviously nobody can stop yoiu from playing any build that you enjoy, nor should they. I greatly enjoyed playing vanguard in me3 for example even though it was clearly not a class the developers supported.
And no, i strongly disagree that trying to make a build that has skills that work together is being super focused on min maxing.
The game has bad skill balance and poorly designed skill synergy. I do not think that the fact you can do whatever you want on normal or even insanity means that is not true. Some things are still WAY better at playing the game than others.
At level 23, I think, I have 3 abilities maxed out. There’s no point in doing a fourth ability right? Since you can only assign three skills to hotkeys so that you can actually use them? So I guess the rest of my points should go into skills that are passive. And if I want to put points into another skill, I should respec, and take points away from one of the maxed out skills, since I won’t be able to use it anyway if I won’t have it as one of the three shortcut skills.
Or am I missing something? Do you guys go into the menu in the heat of battle and swap out skills?