[Megathread] Mass Effect Andromeda

[Vanyali]

Well, I suppose, Engineers are indeed good at supporting their teammates; the problem is, you cannot get a very high score this way, meaning you get less money and XP than other players, plus personally for me playing a class that can't take care of itself without the ally support feels a bit wrong.

Yesterday I started leveling Salarian Architect, and he (or she, I can't tell from the voice alone) has a lot of damage potential. The fully upgraded Remnant VI deals tremendous amount of damage with the beam, and working along with it, shooting the same targets and using its priming ability, your DPS can be very high. Salarian Architect annihilates bosses such as Fiends, and while he/she still seems a bit weaker against the regular enemies, there is definitely some untamed potential there.

Plz, I'm usually top or second damage. Setting up combos gets you points, and the turret will get kills on it's own while you get your own kills. Silver tech-kill is *standard* badge.

From what I've seen Salarian architect just... rips through everything. Had two of them on my team once and my god, those lil VIs were going insane over the battlefield (we were also fighting remnant so guess how many times I shot them....).

[Strangewayes]

Found this funny thing:

As most of you already know, when Sara Ryder was first revealed for Andromeda, there was a big controversy surrounding it.



People were wondering, how is it the Male main character turned out like the actor it was based on, and yet the Female model turned out different? To find out, we go back to Dragon Age Inquisition, where in an interview, Bioware stated:



Interestingly, not only had Bioware said they use a special development process to create characters, but the character also ended up looking like a videogame cosplayer who posted on Tumblr. Must be coincidence, right?
Then shortly after Andromedas release, someone discovers that Sara Ryder looks like another known Videogame cosplayer that posts on Tumblr, what are the odds?



But this can't be right, Andromeda had facial models that were supposed to look like their characters... right?



So is it an honest co-incidence, that twice, Bioware has "accidentally" modelled a Female character in-game on a known videogame cosplayer? Or is someone at Bioware wanting to put their favourite cosplayers in-game? Considering Biowares past history of using unlicensed likenesses for characters, it seems suspicious. Tinfoil hat theory? Or plausible?

[May90]

Plz, I'm usually top or second damage. Setting up combos gets you points, and the turret will get kills on it's own while you get your own kills. Silver tech-kill is *standard* badge.

From what I've seen Salarian architect just... rips through everything. Had two of them on my team once and my god, those lil VIs were going insane over the battlefield (we were also fighting remnant so guess how many times I shot them....).

I haven't been so lucky with the score. With Salarian Architect though, I tend to be at the 1st or the 2nd position. He/she, indeed, rips through everything; the only problem is the squishiness. Poke out of cover for a second - corpse. Need to revive your teammate that is 1 m away from your cover - corpse. Luckily, the VI provides a good distraction, and you can often get away with running out in this open, as the enemies are trying to shoot it.

And yes, against the remnant, everybody keeps shooting them accidentally. I'm not sure if they take damage from these shots, pretty sure there is no friendly damage in the game, including tech constructs.

[Vanyali]

I haven't been so lucky with the score. With Salarian Architect though, I tend to be at the 1st or the 2nd position. He/she, indeed, rips through everything; the only problem is the squishiness. Poke out of cover for a second - corpse. Need to revive your teammate that is 1 m away from your cover - corpse. Luckily, the VI provides a good distraction, and you can often get away with running out in this open, as the enemies are trying to shoot it.

And yes, against the remnant, everybody keeps shooting them accidentally. I'm not sure if they take damage from these shots, pretty sure there is no friendly damage in the game, including tech constructs.

Nah, no damage taken just... waste of ammo maaaaaaaaaaan.

That's probably why so many of them take up camp by my turret then. No matter the map they *always* seem to be squatting right over my turret, stealing the mobs that run toward it..

That aside, it's also an issue with engineer on higher difficulties. Silver is ripping me a new one because I'm used to being able to take enough shots to kill my shield before ducking and it becomes half my health instead. Kinda regretting going offensive tech over increased shields and such... but ah, not enough to respec. Just need to actually use cover.

[zealo]

"The end is night, Bioware is dead" has been going on since Neverwinter Nights, at least. Calm your tits, folks.

Funny thing about "bioware being dead" is that you'll find lots of people all claiming that very same thing as the reason of decline, but about different games as the starting point depending on what bioware era they happen to be a fan of.

E.g ME2 or DA2 is often regarded as taking the series into a too action driven direction by fans of the original game of the respective IP, but then there's the grognards that thinks ME1, or DA:O or even kotor took it too far to begin with too.

[May90]

Yeah, I think, with engineers, given that they already have a pretty low damage output, you probably want to go full offensive, to compensate for it, and utilize covers extensively. I think I'm starting to get the hang of the Krogan Engineer, just need to find the right weapon for her.

Tried out Angara Avenger, and she seemed veeeery underwhelming to me. The Avenger Strike damage is negligible, and, given the weakness of melee attacks as well and squishiness, the ability becomes almost unusable on Gold. I looked at some skill options, and it looks like investing into +% melee damage skills might turn the tides - but as it is, she is probably the weakest character I've played so far.

Also, anyone else been having severe performance issues today? In every game I played, there was stutter manifesting every few seconds, and two games crashed hard, crashing Windows along with Andromeda. I didn't see anything like this yesterday or any time before, and all other games I tried seem to be running fine.

Funny thing about "bioware being dead" is that you'll find lots of people all claiming that very same thing as the reason of decline, but about different games as the starting point depending on what bioware era they happen to be a fan of.

E.g ME2 or DA2 is often regarded as taking the series into a too action driven direction by fans of the original game of the respective IP, but then there's the grognards that thinks ME1, or DA:O or even kotor took it too far to begin with too.

When Neverwinter Nights was released 15 years ago, I remember all those people on forums complaining how that game was streamlined, compared to Baldur's Gate 1/2, and how Bioware is dead, since no one is ever going to buy anything from them again. I've heard similar thing happened upon release of Baldur's Gate 2, but I didn't have a stable Internet access back then to check it out.

[Jimmy Thick]

Don't know what people are bitching about, this game has been an absolute blast to play so far, I mean its fun as fuck. Only thing I can think of is either people are just bitching about the wonky facial animations, which you get over pretty quick btw, or they haven't played the game and just want to bitch just to bitch.

Give the game a chance, it pretty fun. Hopefully we get a true sequel.

[Derah]

EA were banking on the game not flopping.

Except their definition of "flopping" really stinks.

Come on, look at Destiny. That game had a budget of over 500 million dollars. FIVE HUNDRED MILLIONS. To say nothing on how much advertising budget they invested on it, considering it was advertised and hyped to fuck and back. You have any idea how many copies they'd have to sell just to break even? and the game got tepid review scores (around the same as Andromeda, 7/10s everywhere, when just about everyone was expecting it to be the next big hit), and even lacked the pre-existing fanbase of an already established franchise.

And yet look at it now. It still received expansions, and even a sequel now.

Why? because activision is not a bunch of fucking cunts. They didn't decide to just shoot a good franchise with good potential in the head just because it didn't manage to meet expected performances. In the months after its release, Destiny managed to fully reimburse their heavy investment in the game, and managed to turn a pretty hefty profit.

Andromeda managed to quadruple its budget in its first month. It managed to obtain about the same level of attention as Destiny did. It had an already large pre-existing fanbase from an established franchise. But because it didn't meet the expected performance of EA, they decided to shelf it.

Because they're fucking assholes, and retards.

[rhorle]

…or you know, they don’t feel the need to dismiss the game problems just because they enjoy it.

But if you enjoy something despite the problems then those problems can't be that big of a deal to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't decide to just shoot a good franchise with good potential in the head just because it didn't manage to meet expected performances. In the months after its release, Destiny managed to fully reimburse their heavy investment in the game, and managed to turn a pretty hefty profit.

Tony Hawk says hi! Seriously stop making this into an EA thing compared to other studios. Activision is no different. The big studios are no different. You have an unusual amount of rage toward something that isn't even a big deal. They are devoting all of their resources towards their new IP rather then starting development on a sequel (or new game in the franchise). Remember Andromeda was never billed as something they planned on doing a Trilogy for. It was planned as a single game with the potential for sequels or just a new stand alone game in the franchise after.

[Derah]

Tony Hawk says hi!

What about Tony Hawk? If they canned that franchise (I have no idea, I've stopped caring about it for years) its only because the last one I heard about, ended up on almost everyone's top 10 worst game of the year lists, and was a massive critical and commercial failure. That franchise had been an uninspired zombie for decades now, getting only a minor fraction of attention, and a shadow of its former glory (I still remember fondly Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 on the PS1).

Its not the same as shelfing a franchise that is still popular, and at the peak of its prime.

You have an unusual amount of rage toward something that isn't even a big deal.

It is a big deal to me. I like this franchise, I was really hoping to see what the adventure would bring out next. What transpires in ME:A is but the chapter 1 of a much larger story. They left SO MUCH LEFT to explore and do. The rest of the kett empire, the progenitor race that created the remnant, the enemies of those progenitors which created the scourge, the shadowy conspiracy behind the Andromeda Initiative, the missing ark, etc etc. Those were some pretty intense cliffhangers.

Cliffhangers that I will now have to wait the better part of a decade or more before I can finally see where they lead. And for no reason whatsoever.

Remember Andromeda was never billed as something they planned on doing a Trilogy for. It was planned as a single game with the potential for sequels or just a new stand alone game in the franchise after.

Nope. Their initial statement was that Andromeda would not be a trilogy, and that future games may not necessarily feature Ryder as the protagonist. And then they revised it to: The game is not currently planned to be a trilogy, Ryder may or may not be the protagonist of latter games. But from the start they did say that they would make multiple Mass Effect games. That's why they left so many plot threads open for exploration in future installments.

[I Push Buttons]

And for no reason whatsoever.

No... Because the game failed and you are simply too dense to accept that. The game was nowhere near as successful and your delusion seems to have imagined it was...

It failed in reviews, it failed in sales. And somehow EA are the assholes for not wanting to sacrifice their investors' and their own money to prop up a failed studio and their failed game.

[Derah]

No... Because the game failed and you are simply too dense to accept that. The game was nowhere near as successful and your delusion seems to have imagined it was...

It failed in reviews, it failed in sales. And somehow EA are the assholes for not wanting to sacrifice their investors' and their own money to prop up a failed studio and their failed game.

Destiny says hi.

It failed in reviews, it didn't do anywhere near enough sales in its first month to recoup its gargantuan 500 million dollar budget plus equally gargantuan advertising budget. They still didn't cancel it despite the mediocre reviews and persisted through.

result? the game eventually found success and now even a sequel was greenlit. You're just too dense to accept that a 7/10 is not a failure in anyone's eye except EAs. The game was nowhere near as much of a failure as your delusion seems to imagine it is.

[Edge-]

Destiny says hi.

It failed in reviews, it didn't do anywhere near enough sales in its first month to recoup its gargantuan 500 million dollar budget plus equally gargantuan advertising budget. They still didn't cancel it despite the mediocre reviews and persisted through.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/de.../1100-6422231/

Destiny generated $500M in 24 hours, and Activision was not shy to brag about it.

EA is still silent on any sales statistics for ME:A.

result? the game eventually found success and now even a sequel was greenlit. You're just too dense to accept that a 7/10 is not a failure in anyone's eye except EAs. The game was nowhere near as much of a failure as your delusion seems to imagine it is.

If the game had scored a 5/10 but sold boatloads, EA would have greenlit all the sequels in the world. Destiny didn't review super well either, it was more in-line with ME:A. The difference was that it sold more than enough copies that the lower than anticipated/desired review scores didn't matter a rats ass.

You're being kinda silly.

[I Push Buttons]

Destiny says hi.

It failed in reviews, it didn't do anywhere near enough sales in its first month to recoup its gargantuan 500 million dollar budget plus equally gargantuan advertising budget. They still didn't cancel it despite the mediocre reviews and persisted through.

result? the game eventually found success and now even a sequel was greenlit. You're just too dense to accept that a 7/10 is not a failure in anyone's eye except EAs. The game was nowhere near as much of a failure as your delusion seems to imagine it is.

You keep spouting this bullshit, which is entirely false.

""That number has been widely misinterpreted as a production number for the first game," Activision CEO Eric Hirshberg explained in an interview today at Gamescom. "That number is an all-inclusive number that's several years worth of investment, including marketing and several games, and a lot of up front investment in things like engines and tools that will be able to be used for years to come.""

That half a billion figure was the estimate of what the series will cost overall... They were talking about their "ten year plan" and sequels before the first game even launched.

Do you think Bobby Kotick would let them continue making a failed game? He is not only the president of Activision-Blizzard, he is also one of, if not their largest shareholder. So when it comes to wasting/making investors money, its literally his own money...

Also they had $500 million in just pre-orders/day one sales... So even if your bullshit argument were true, which it isn't even almost true, they recovered the investment on legitimately the first day the game came out.

[Lahis]

Except their definition of "flopping" really stinks.

When you project for 6-9M lifetime sales (and budget your marketing accordingly) and get barely 3M, it's a big fucking flop to anybody.

Destiny was MMO, they couldn't just abandon it right after the release, they had to keep trying for a while. Luckily, it paid off.

Mass Effect is not a MMO. They can kill of the series after big flop like this without worries.

[May90]

When you project for 6-9M lifetime sales (and budget your marketing accordingly) and get barely 3M, it's a big fucking flop to anybody.

I didn't know 2 months sales summed up to lifetime sales.

[I Push Buttons]

I didn't know 2 months sales summed up to lifetime sales.

Well most of the revenue is made at launch, when they are selling brand new games for full price. Within a few months games are marked down upwards of half off and they also need to compete with the secondhand market which is even cheaper AND they get no revenue from it, not to mention people wait for sales to get the games even cheaper. They would need to sell multiple times as many copies as sold at launch to make as just as much money as they made at launch.

Edging up from 3 to 5 million units post launch doesn't mean much when those extra 2 million sales came mostly from the holiday season for $10-$20 each, compared to the original 3 million at $60 each.

[rhorle]

Well most of the revenue is made at launch, when they are selling brand new games for full price. Within a few months games are marked down upwards of half off and they also need to compete with the secondhand market which is even cheaper AND they get no revenue from it, not to mention people wait for sales to get the games even cheaper. They would need to sell multiple times as many copies as sold at launch to make as just as much money as they made at launch.

For a traditional game sure. But Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda both have "cash shop" transactions. The revenue from loot boxes is dependent on initial sales though as the more playing means more potential customers. I don't think they ever released figures from ME3 but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they made more from loot boxes then sales.

Much of Andromeda could be the same way. You would be surprised at what people spend even if they are relatively easy to earn through a couple of Golds. People would also drop more after a MP expansion and we have yet to hear what their plans are for that with Andromeda. We have the small weekend APEX missions but nothing like the ME3 style weekend events or DLC's yet.

[corebit]

Edge is correct here, when publishers decide whether or not they want to continue a franchise, they don't a give a shit about reviews, they only care about cost and revenue. You can sell 100 million copies and get all the 10/10 reviews in the world, but if the publisher expected to sell 200 million, it's still a failure in their eyes.

And ME:A lacks any compelling multiplayer to warrant sales beyond the launch honeymoon period. I remember posters were deriding Angry Joe for criticizing ME:A's monotome Horde mode for being uninspired and repetitive. Other games like GTA 5 still sell like hotcakes due to their strong multiplayer component.

[rhorle]

And ME:A lacks any compelling multiplayer to warrant sales beyond the launch honeymoon period. I remember posters were deriding Angry Joe for criticizing ME:A's monotome Horde mode for being uninspired and repetitive. Other games like GTA 5 still sell like hotcakes due to their strong multiplayer component.

Right but GTA 5 is pretty much a seperate game for its online component rather then an extension. Andromeda's multiplayer is the same as ME3 with a few minor changes. Could they have done something different? Sure. But it worked for ME3 and it works for ME:A. They could have added a few different game modes beyond the APEX missions and their modifiers though. Those modifiers though can change a lot about a match.