[Megathread] Mass Effect Andromeda

[Derah]

Not really.

Yes it is. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by shelfing it. Specially when the game still managed to be profitable.

- - - Updated - - -

*sighs* This is not a good year for my favorite franchises. Its like one by one they're all being lined up against a wall and shot. Most of them for no fucking reason whatsoever.

First it was Konami with Metal Gear (And Silent Hill, and basically every franchise they own), then it was Square Enix with Deus Ex, then EA with Mass Effect, and then Square Enix again with Hitman.

What's next? Elder Scrolls? Fallout?....... damned corporate assholes.

[Jastall]

Normal post-launch downsizings don't come with "Yeah we won't be making games to this IP in the future anymore."

And EA actually didn't say that, if I read the statements right. Neither have they said Dragon Age is on hold, given that the Edmonton studio seems to be busy and we know people like Patrick Weekes are working on it. After the success of Inquisition (no matter what some people might think of it), I strongly doubt EA has put Dragon Age on hold.

I doubt we'll see another Mass Effect game for 4-5 years, that's for certain. But if Bioware could survive DA2 and ME3, it's not Andromeda that will kill them.

[Edge-]

Ya, because they're greedy cunts.

No, because they're a major AAA publisher working with major AAA IP's with major AAA budgets and major AAA expectations.

The same as Activision, Ubisoft, 2K and every other major publisher. They all have their smaller/mid sized projects as well, but this is no different than any other publisher, dude.

[Derah]

No, because they're a major AAA publisher working with major AAA IP's with major AAA budgets and major AAA expectations.

The same as Activision, Ubisoft, 2K and every other major publisher. They all have their smaller/mid sized projects as well, but this is no different than any other publisher, dude.

Not really. I already cited a few pages back how Watch Dogs, another AAA game that was hyped to hell and back again, failed to meet every single expectation of the hype train. It got lukewarm reviews, and managed to sell decent but not outstanding amounts of copies. It performed about as well as Andromeda. It wasn't the powerhouse killer app Ubisoft was expecting it to be. Did they took the game out the back and shot it to death? no, the game, while underperforming, still managed to turn profit, and they began working on a sequel.

Said sequel has had about the same reception as the first game. Not too good, but not too bad either. It managed to make money, which is ultimately what's important.

This model you're advocating for, that you're championing and defending with such fervor is a BAD business model. That only the products that make extraordinary amounts of money should be preserved. Anything else that has decent but not extraordinary performances should be put to sleep.

If every company in every media followed that shitty model, we would never see exciting new things, and everything would just be copies of the tried&true formulas out there. Is that what you want?

[Tech614]

Yes it is. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by shelfing it. Specially when the game still managed to be profitable.

Why are you replying to me again after claiming KoA didn't top the charts when I linked you saying it did? To which you dodged and never replied. Reply to that before you reply to anything else. Until then you're just cherry picking your arguments and running away when someone proves you wrong.

[Tenjen]

Hmmm H-169 in the Rohvir system would be great for elcor. Liveable area with high gravity.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you replying to me again after claiming KoA didn't top the charts when I linked you saying it did? To which you dodged and never replied. Reply to that before you reply to anything else. Until then you're just cherry picking your arguments and running away when someone proves you wrong.

much like you are yourself right here using a meaningless counter that did nothing to the previous posters actual point or the discussion at hand. Hell the correction even supports the points they've been making further.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to test the affect of having an isharay with the vintage heat sink and whether its affected by the Killing Spree talent from the sniping combat tree. Bit hard to see the results properly. the other talent is flat damage etc. I gues sthe real question is, does reload time affect the vintage heat sink

[DesoPL]

This is only my guess but, the reason why mainly ME:A failed is that fans got high exceptations and hopes toward Andromeda to be new begining, after ME3 ending fiasco. And sadly people get again dissapointed, but it is not full fault of Bioware, but also EA who rushed them to release unfinished game. The same thing happend with Gothic 3 and now Piranha Bytes got copyrights for Gothic again, but have no intrest back there.

Also literally the people who worked on ME:A had no idea how to do it, because it was the same people who worked on Omega DLC for ME3, so you know what's happend.

[callipygoustp]

Really disappointed to hear about how lack luster the story/rpg ended up being. What drew me into me1/2/3 wasn't combat or multiplayer, it was the story. That the combat was decent in each case was a bonus, but it was by far the story that made ME great.

I'll end up checking this out once it hits <$20.

-one man's opinion

[Elim Garak]

This is only my guess but, the reason why mainly ME:A failed is that fans got high exceptations and hopes toward Andromeda to be new begining, after ME3 ending fiasco. And sadly people get again dissapointed, but it is not full fault of Bioware, but also EA who rushed them to release unfinished game.

EA didn't rush them. Quite the opposite, EA gave them MORE time to finish the game by delaying the release. It is really the fault of the developers, who tried to bite more than they could chew and then were cutting corners when it became apparent they wouldn't make it for the already delayed deadline. The game was supposed to be way bigger than what we got - there are left overs of it in the game, and we all remember what they promised years ago. For instance "choose what kind of outposts you want and have major repercussions for your choices" - we ended up choosing it just once on Eos, to no noticeable consequences.

[Sarevokcz]

EA didn't rush them. Quite the opposite, EA gave them MORE time to finish the game by delaying the release. It is really the fault of the developers, who tried to bite more than they could chew and then were cutting corners when it became apparent they wouldn't make it for the already delayed deadline. The game was supposed to be way bigger than what we got - there are left overs of it in the game, and we all remember what they promised years ago. For instance "choose what kind of outposts you want and have major repercussions for your choices" - we ended up choosing it just once on Eos, to no noticeable consequences.

thats probably true, I expected some forking with the Eos outpost. then again, I dont remember the last time EA actually had an actual 8/10 game, regardless of what webs like IGN say, for me, Andromeda was a good EA game after a long time and I enjoyed it, shame if its not gonna have sequels, or even DLCs

[Mormolyce]

Really disappointed to hear about how lack luster the story/rpg ended up being. What drew me into me1/2/3 wasn't combat or multiplayer, it was the story. That the combat was decent in each case was a bonus, but it was by far the story that made ME great.

I'll end up checking this out once it hits <$20.

-one man's opinion

Pretty much the same. Waiting for bargain bin.

Honestly, I'd written off the series after ME3. Disappointments with the ending aside, the story finished.

[Aeula]

So Andromeda ended up killing the entire Mass Effect Franchise.

Disappointing and has me worried about Bioware's other RPG's and the company as a whole.

[Shiny212]

Well this is irony. You're telling me that "I" am the one spinning shit, when you're the one doing it. Do you know what "Projection" is? Just because Andromeda sold less than ME3, doesn't mean it sold poorly. It was the top selling game in the week it came out. That's a point of evidence of GOOD sales.

I've used this example plenty of times, and I'll continue to use it until someone can successfully counter it: Do you honestly think Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi was a flop as a movie? it made less money than Episode 5: Empire Strikes Back. So from your weird logic, that means it was a bad movie, that flopped hard and was a failure at the box office. Just because it couldn't surpass, or even match its predecessor.

So tell me, do YOU think Return of the Jedi is a flop? If the answer is no, but then you say that Andromeda is a flop because it couldn't surpass or match its predecessor, then something's clearly wrong with you.

- - - Updated - - -



And yet not all of them do. Ask poor poor Kingdoms of Amalur, a game that failed to recoup its budget even after 2 months of sales (of course, its budget was bloated to fuck and back due to poor financial management, but that's another thing entirely) despite being a AAA game, that released in a dead month with zero competition whatsoever.

Being a AAA game backed by a big boy pants publisher is not a guarantee of successful sales. It helps of course, but its not a guarantee.

for gods sake, stop using the star wars analogy, it's fallacious and you (should) know it. Movies are very different from games. Games generally take twice as long to make and the financial investment is, despite hefty growth in recent years, still a shadow of what film works with.

Think of it this way instead, if a film tanks, or even falls short of hitting it's projected numbers a rookie director or actor is likely to take a hit, regardless of mediocre financial success or lukewarm, but not downright horrible reception.

ME:A has glaring issues, anyone can see that, and it's silly to blame anyone but the studio that made it for that when they clearly had a long development cycle and plenty of funds.

[minteK917]

Thank fucking god. Let ME rest in peace.

[tehealadin]

I am starting to get into Andromeda more, Ryder is starting to grow on me. I am looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Though it didn't hook me like the original trilogy did. I knew within 10 minutes of ME1 that I was going to love it. I am a few hours in to ME:A and I am only starting to think that I might enjoy it.

[Smitzelplix]

thats probably true, I expected some forking with the Eos outpost. then again, I dont remember the last time EA actually had an actual 8/10 game, regardless of what webs like IGN say, for me, Andromeda was a good EA game after a long time and I enjoyed it, shame if its not gonna have sequels, or even DLCs

I would honestly wait till June and July to pass us by before writing off dlc just yet. Just look how dlc was handled in Inquisition, it took 3 to 4 months for them to start coming out and each one, besides Tresspasser, came out the same month it was announced. Remember just because Bioware Montreal has been demoted to support doesn't mean they still can't make dlc, in fact the Montreal studio got its start as a support studio making dlc for Mass Effect 2 and 3. Also I'm sure they've been working on dlc since the game launched if not before and I doubt EA or Bioware would be willing to can that work when time and money have already been spent making it. I'm sure they're aware there are people that would be willing to buy Andromeda dlc and would not let that chance of more money go to waste. The dlc situation with Andromeda will probably mirror Dragon Age 2 though. Dragon Age 2 got 2 dlc but a planned expansion was scrapped, hypothetically let's say that Andromeda was going to have 4 dlc, but now there might only be 1 or 2.

Of course I could be completely wrong and there will be none, but I hope for a more concrete answer then what's been given thus far.

[Andeus]

The game had a relatively low budget for a AAA production, 40 million dollars is not that much of a budget, considering most AAA games usually have between 70 to 100 million bucks in budget.

Ok, you keep mentioning the "40 million dollar dev cost", but what's your source on that? I tried googling it and came up with nothing, so if you have a link to a credible source please link it. One poster in the ME sub-reddit said that the cause of that misinformation is Pewdiepie reading incorrectly ME3's 40M budget as ME:A's budget in one of his videos.

ME3 was a game with a development of 3.5 years ( ? ) with an established engine and able to reuse assets from ME1 and ME2. Andromeda on the other hand was in development for 5 years with development transitioning to Frostbite from the Unreal Engine, with support from other Bioware studios plus other EA studios (eg. DICE helped with the transition to Frostbite, Need For Speed team is rumored to have helped with the driving parts in Frostbite etc.). All that cost money.

So: more development time, need for starting in a new engine with asset import and trying to transition all the old game core mechanics, even more people working on the game this time + we've all heard about the troubled development ME:A had. There's no way the game cost only 40 million to make, it sounds more like it cost 70M minimum.

*edit* 1 more thing: Besides Dev cost, sales have to cover the Marketing cost and believe it or not the Marketing budget in AAA titles can be around the same as the dev budget. In some cases it's even more. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...mes_to_develop

[Mirishka]

I am starting to get into Andromeda more, Ryder is starting to grow on me. I am looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Though it didn't hook me like the original trilogy did. I knew within 10 minutes of ME1 that I was going to love it. I am a few hours in to ME:A and I am only starting to think that I might enjoy it.

Andromeda is definitely weakest in the opening 2-3 hours. It ramps up steadily after that.

[Orby]

Another big problem I had with the game was how all the races seemed to act the same, there's no distinct behaviour or personality that separates them from humans outside of what they look like.

(Other than the Krogan and the Solarians) the Asari and the Angara acts like humans. There's no identity Everyone is treated the same.

And least in other fantasy and Sci-Fi games (even Mass Effects previous games), there was a sense of wonder or a sense of mystery. But in ME:A they are basically humans in alien skin. There is no immersion at all between the races.

I feel this is what this to be one of the weakest in terms of storytelling. I do like the fact that all Angara all have south African and Australian accents though, thats pretty good but its not enough.


I still think the best thing about this game over the original is the combat and the companions (Bioware never fault on making good characters when it comes to your party) . The dialogue, the storytelling the pacing, the pointless side quests all feel like a chore and are not enjoyable, it feels bad to hate a franchise I love so much. As far as open world goes this is a presentation on how to not do one. Dragon Age: Inquisition did a better job, and even though I had problems with that game also there were still more things to like about that game than this.

[zealo]

Ok, you keep mentioning the "40 million dollar dev cost", but what's your source on that? I tried googling it and came up with nothing, so if you have a link to a credible source please link it. One poster in the ME sub-reddit said that the cause of that misinformation is Pewdiepie reading incorrectly ME3's 40M budget as ME:A's budget in one of his videos.

ME3 was a game with a development of 3.5 years ( ? ) with an established engine and able to reuse assets from ME1 and ME2. Andromeda on the other hand was in development for 5 years with development transitioning to Frostbite from the Unreal Engine, with support from other Bioware studios plus other EA studios (eg. DICE helped with the transition to Frostbite, Need For Speed team is rumored to have helped with the driving parts in Frostbite etc.). All that cost money.

So: more development time, need for starting in a new engine with asset import and trying to transition all the old game core mechanics, even more people working on the game this time + we've all heard about the troubled development ME:A had. There's no way the game cost only 40 million to make, it sounds more like it cost 70M minimum.

*edit* 1 more thing: Besides Dev cost, sales have to cover the Marketing cost and believe it or not the Marketing budget in AAA titles can be around the same as the dev budget. In some cases it's even more. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...mes_to_develop

Afaik, The 40 million figure is an extrapolation upon what is known about ME3s development budget applied to ME:A. Given that the game was in development for longer than ME3 was, It isn't unreasonable to assume it cost them more than 40 to develop, especially given how dev costs have been increasing over the years with more detailed game assets and graphics.

The actual number to how much it cost to make ME:A is so far not public knowledge.