EA says that Mass Effect: Andromeda was deeply flawed, but still didn't get a fair shake.

Lethal

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Forum Administrator
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
35,057
Reaction score
15,445
Anthem executive producer Mark Darrah took to Twitter to explain his recent comments about Andromeda’s failure. He admitted that Andromeda was a deeply flawed game but at the same time he believes reviewers were a bit harsh.

Word of mouth and many technical issues with Mass Effect Andromeda caused a ripple effect. In fact, the situation got so bad even properly implemented systems were overly scrutinized by the media, he believes. It was a busy release window with Zero Dawn, Nioh, Wildlands and others releasing with better RPG elements.

His comments on GameInformer sparked a heated debate over the last two days so a clarification was required. It is a fact EA’s Mass Effect Andromeda did some things right; such as its fluid combat system and amazing visual quality, textures etc. However, the game’s horrendous facial animations, performance issues, and other factors led to EA abandoning the game.

Anthem is the next major RPG from BioWare and already many concerns are making rounds on the internet. BioWare is once again being forced to use the Frostbite Engine which is in no way suited for an open world RPG game. Tweaking and tuning it for Anthem is alone putting the title at risk of major post-release issues.

After the failure of Andromeda, stakes are high for all BioWare employees. It is their first original IP in eight years and developing a persistent online experience like Anthem is a daunting task, it has been since 2012.



Full article:

https://segmentnext.com/2018/06/28/mark-darrah-admits-mass-effect-andromeda/
 
Personally, it was the writing that did the game in. It isn't even overtly bad; it just doesn't have the highs from ME 2 and 3, and the story beats are too similar to the previous trilogy. The premise behind the conflict felt worn out, and the few characters who I liked felt as if they had been done better in past games.

It felt like they either ran out of sci-fi themes to explore or just couldn't think of new ways to address them.
 
Agreed. I was just talking to a coworker today about that game. We both agreed that if it was just a game that came out without the mass effect name it would have done much better. Fallout\Skyrim games are riddled with bugs, I literally can't finish fallout 4 right now because of the bugs and yet ME was torn to shred over some small bugs that weren't even close to what Fallout\Skyrim get away with.

It's always been like that though some devs\games series just get a huge pass on shit while other series get torn to shreds over it.
 
The first 3 games are some of my all time favorite games especially ME2. With that said i never even finished ME:A (dont think i even gave it 3 or 4 hours) and i dont see myself going back to try again anytime soon. EA isnt getting anymore money out of me.
 
Personally, it was the writing that did the game in. It isn't even overtly bad; it just doesn't have the highs from ME 2 and 3, and the story beats are too similar to the previous trilogy. The premise behind the conflict felt worn out, and the few characters who I liked felt as if they had been done better in past games.

It felt like they either ran out of sci-fi themes to explore or just couldn't think of new ways to address them.

This was my actual one true complaint. The story was to close to something that they themselves had already done. They should have done something new and more interesting but I get it not every game can have block buster writing attached to it.
 
This was my actual one true complaint. The story was to close to something that they themselves had already done. They should have done something new and more interesting but I get it not every game can have block buster writing attached to it.
I would have been happy if they had focused solely on a smaller conflict like just getting settled, but I think they were worried that it wouldn't feel grand enough. Over the past few years I've really come to appreciate stories that happen on a smaller scale because it seems to allow writers more freedom.

There are only so many ways to approach saving the world/galaxy/universe/reality. Unfortunately if they'd gone that route a lot of people would have criticized the game for not having high enough stakes.
 
I also felt that the Antagonists (The Kett) were simply too bland. Even though we only had access to part of the Galaxy, I wish we could have seen more Species in Andromeda.
 
I would have been happy if they had focused solely on a smaller conflict like just getting settled, but I think they were worried that it wouldn't feel grand enough. Over the past few years I've really come to appreciate stories that happen on a smaller scale because it seems to allow writers more freedom.

There are only so many ways to approach saving the world/galaxy/universe/reality. Unfortunately if they'd gone that route a lot of people would have criticized the game for not having high enough stakes.

Yea that wouldn't have bothered me either. Like you said though they were probably worried about not setting up some grand story that the fans are used to.
 
What's the final verdict from the people that played it?
Is it a good game? Was the story good?

I get the sentit didn't live up to expectations, but compared to other games not named mass effect, does MEA still have a better story than most RPGs?
 
I do agree they got slammed harder than most for bugs that they fixed fairly quickly.

Bethesda games, kingdom come, deus ex...etc have some technical issues that EA would get reemed over.

But then again, EA has earned the negative attitude towards them.
 
Agreed. I was just talking to a coworker today about that game. We both agreed that if it was just a game that came out without the mass effect name it would have done much better. Fallout\Skyrim games are riddled with bugs, I literally can't finish fallout 4 right now because of the bugs and yet ME was torn to shred over some small bugs that weren't even close to what Fallout\Skyrim get away with.

It's always been like that though some devs\games series just get a huge pass on shit while other series get torn to shreds over it.
it wasn't just the bugs that was the problem it was the devs abandoned the game instead of sticking with it until it was done. It would be like if bungie told all the fans to go eat a dick and killed off Destiny 2 before any dlc came out.
 
I thought overall it was a really good game. I believe the issues were blown out of proportion. Some things like the weird facial animations/graphics were very odd and the story was lacking compared to the original games. The combat is the best in the series imo and the graphics aside from the facial animations were really good. The exploration/open-world was good enough, it wasn't amazing and there were lots of fetch quest type of stuff but overall I thought the open-world was good. I liked the squad mates too.

I don't recall running into any bugs/glitches aside from a Construct dying but the model stayed in place and I couldn't loot it and had to reset.
 
The story was garbage compared to the first three... but I really loved the level design and the fighting mechanics were better than the first three.
 
What's the final verdict from the people that played it?
Is it a good game? Was the story good?

I get the sentit didn't live up to expectations, but compared to other games not named mass effect, does MEA still have a better story than most RPGs?

8/10 after the patches.

I liked the story. Not amazing but decent. The gameplay is the best in the series. The characters are actually superior to the original Mass Effect imo. My main issue was all the fetch quests and not enough unique enemies.
 
8/10 after the patches.

I liked the story. Not amazing but decent. The gameplay is the best in the series. The characters are actually superior to the original Mass Effect imo. My main issue was all the fetch quests and not enough unique enemies.
I should give it another try.

It really does seem like a little overreaction, but with EA I understand.
 
they hired a bunch of trigglypuffs to make a video game. and then they're surprised when it was a shitty game. as if being a cosplay whore magically means you can animate.
 
They just got lazy. Pumped out a bland copy of something that was already wearing thin in the 3rd installment.

These developers need to take a hint from Sony Santa Monica and what they did with GoW. Honor the past and reinvent it.
 
Personally, it was the writing that did the game in. It isn't even overtly bad; it just doesn't have the highs from ME 2 and 3, and the story beats are too similar to the previous trilogy. The premise behind the conflict felt worn out, and the few characters who I liked felt as if they had been done better in past games.

It felt like they either ran out of sci-fi themes to explore or just couldn't think of new ways to address them.

This is exactly it. It’s not like it was a bad game. It was just so mediocre that I didn’t want to play after a couple hours. I would still go back and play all the previous Mass Effects again if my XBox worked. But I just could not keep playing Andromeda.
 
Finally played this and finished it recently. Visually it was great for a sci fi game... i just didn't give a fuck about any character and skipped dialogue more as game went on. Gameplay was pretty good though
 
The first 3 games are some of my all time favorite games especially ME2. With that said i never even finished ME:A (dont think i even gave it 3 or 4 hours) and i dont see myself going back to try again anytime soon. EA isnt getting anymore money out of me.

Not trying to convince you to replay it (I've never played any ME games actually) but 3-4 hours is hardly enough gaming time to properly evaluate any RPGs. I think you should give it another shot. you might like it. You already own and it's a waste not to give it another proper shot at it. just sayin'...
 
Back
Top