[Megathread] Mass Effect Andromeda

[rhorle]

https://www.masseffect.com/news/apex-mission-brief-01

The first multiplayer event weekend is here. (It started on the 23rd and goes to the 27th).

[Mistame]

I've not experienced ANY of those bugs. <snip>

I'm sure it's different for different setups/people. Given that I've background in game development and testing, I'm likely to notice things others wouldn't. The collision issue I noticed while fighting the architect on Voeld. I was taking cover in the second building (second phase) and as you're facing the mob, the doorway to the outside on the left glitches out (could be a lighting transition bug) and causes your screen to flicker. As far as terrain, etc, this is easily observed on Voeld at the Angaran Resistance base forward station. Just look up. There's a section of mountain just hanging out over the rest of the mountain. Not to mention monoliths hanging above terrain (poor mesh placement) and holes. Then there's the quests bugs, etc. It just wasn't quite ready for release.

Other than that, this game has been entirely bug-free for me, very well polished and optimized. I dunno what's my FPS count (I don't really care about the differences between 60 or 30 FPS as some purists said. So long as the game doesn't look like a slideshow, I'm happy) but I've never experienced any freezes, stuttering, or slowdowns of any kind.

All of my games are on a SSD, I've 32g of system RAM with a 1070 8gb graphics card @ 1440p. I shouldn't have to play on "Medium" to maintain 60 FPS. And while some people are OK with sub 60-FPS, others can actually tell the difference. For me, anything below ~55 FPS makes the game feel sluggish and choppy. Obviously, a consistent frame rate is more valuable, but you simply can't get that on this game without sacrificing most of the quality and it doesn't really look that much better than ME3. It was not optimized, as anyone who's played Battlefield 4 (same engine) can attest to. To be honest, it's starting to feel like the game was developed by a rookie team who "Did Their Best" in order to meet the deadline. Given the history of the series and the expectation the company built up for it, it's pretty disappointing thus far.

[rhorle]

All of my games are on a SSD, I've 32g of system RAM with a 1070 8gb graphics card @ 1440p. I shouldn't have to play on "Medium" to maintain 60 FPS.

But it isn't as simple as a hardware issue though. I just landed on Voeld and I am getting 47 to 60 fps walking to the base. I am on high settings and running a evga 780 3g SC (https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/...?ie=UTF8&psc=1), 16 gigs ram, on a HDD, and at 1680x 1050 1080p. Oh and I have a i5-3570k 3.4ghz. I am below the system requirements and still able to run on high. I could lower my settings but the trade off for more consistent FPS isn't worth it to me. I also run dual monitor with stuff going on my second screen.

So with your hardware you would think you would be able to run it better. So yes the game isn't optimized but there is more going on if the game seems to run the same on both our systems.

[Derah]

All of my games are on a SSD, I've 32g of system RAM with a 1070 8gb graphics card @ 1440p. I shouldn't have to play on "Medium" to maintain 60 FPS. And while some people are OK with sub 60-FPS, others can actually tell the difference. For me, anything below ~55 FPS makes the game feel sluggish and choppy.

I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I just don't care.

Obviously, if I'm given a choice between running the game at 30 or 60, I'm gonna choose 60, because it feels smoother. But if I have to choose between sacrificing graphical fidelity for 60 FPS, or running 30 FPS with everything on High, I'm gonna choose the fidelity. FPS isn't as important to me that I'd be willing to sacrifice visuals. Unless the FPS gets into slide-show territory (sub 20). That's more or less the only scenario where I'll willingly lower settings to achieve a smoother framerate. Its useless to have a game that looks gorgeous if the framerate is gonna be below 20.

Every head is a different world, every person has a different taste, yadda-yadda, I still don't get why people prioritize FPS so much above all else, including graphical detail and fidelity. I can see the differences, and I agree 60 is better, but its not like I consider games unplayable if the FPS is below 60. Unplayable is anything below 20.

It was not optimized, as anyone who's played Battlefield 4 (same engine) can attest to.

I think it is. A friend of mine has the systems requirements below the minimum required, and she can still play the game with everything on medium. That's optimization for me. That your machine isn't meeting the required specs, yet not only can you play the game, you can even put the settings above the minimum and still have a playable framerate.

Wanna know what I consider poorly optimized? A game where you meet or even exceed the recommended specs, yet it still runs like shit (Note that my definition of "Run like shit" is: "I disabled every option, cranked everything as low as it can go, and it still has sub-20 framerates")

Arkham Knight comes to mind when it comes to poor optimization.

[NoiseTank13]

https://www.masseffect.com/news/apex-mission-brief-01

The first multiplayer event weekend is here. (It started on the 23rd and goes to the 27th).

... they released a new multiplayer map... but its for a limited time?

are they pulling a fucking diablo 3 anniversary event here?

[Mistame]

So with your hardware you would think you would be able to run it better. So yes the game isn't optimized but there is more going on if the game seems to run the same on both our systems.

Right, which lends to the "not optimized" point.

Every head is a different world, every person has a different taste, yadda-yadda, I still don't get why people prioritize FPS so much above all else, including graphical detail and fidelity. I can see the differences, and I agree 60 is better, but its not like I consider games unplayable if the FPS is below 60. Unplayable is anything below 20.

As I mentioned, it's not the sub-60 FPS that's the problem. It's the instability of the frame rate. Being able to sit in Ryder's quarters and look at window @ 60 FPS is great until you turn around and it dips to 35.

[nekobaka]

Frame rate drops have almost killed me a few times.

[rhorle]

As I mentioned, it's not the sub-60 FPS that's the problem. It's the instability of the frame rate. Being able to sit in Ryder's quarters and look at window @ 60 FPS is great until you turn around and it dips to 35.

I know but what I'm saying is that if your system is getting that when mine is not then there is something more going on then just the game or something deeper. Because my system is below the minimum requirements (the graphics card) and I don't drop to 35 in a situation like that. The lowest I dropped on the ship while spinning my camera was 45 on High at 1080. It is more then just basic optimization since a low end graphics card is apparently performing similar to yours.

I am not even using the settings that Nvidia recommends for my card but the default the game picked. This does highlight the problem with the naming scheme and editions of graphics cards. My 780 not meeting the minimum requirements can so far run the game on high with no issues. Voeld so far has seen the lowest FPS dips but still in the 40+.

[Mistame]

I know but what I'm saying is that if your system is getting that when mine is not then there is something more going on then just the game or something deeper.

Well, I am running @ 2560x1440, so there is that. The game's performance also degrades over time. /shrug

[Tenjen]

This, amongst many other things, is why cover combat is absolutely trash in ME:A. They actually made it worse than both ME2 and ME3. "Yay I have a jetpack", "yay I have dash". Combat is actually much worse than ME:3. I can't control my squad and their CC and the moment I pop up out of cover I have everyone turn 180 to shoot me, even if a bigass Krogan is right infront of them.

Combat feels like an improvement over ME3. Its less rigid and mroe organic. The enemy position and yourself arent fixed to point A and B as the enemy tries to attack you from multiple fronts (which you can do too). You're much more meneuvarable. I haven't seen this "everyone turns to shoot me", just the guys who are already on me if i'm stupid enough to go out into the open for too long.

Also who ever actively used the melee grab kill outside of the start or ever had the oppurtunity to use it often enough to refer to it as a feature on the same standing as everything else you could do?

saying "yay i have a jetpack/dash" does not constitute a significant enough argument to discount these features btw. Outside of the schoolyard atleast.

MEA has much more dynamic combat open to a variety of styles but still limited (in a positive manner) by different circumstances. Which is why the profile switching works out so well, you can adapt to fit the changing situations. While I do wish they'd kept squadmate ability usage under our control, i tend to not have many problems with it as assigning a specific target to a squadie tends to make them cast the required ability + they seem to independently handle themselves quite well.

I can use cover combat, open combat, shifting around, high risk/high reward close range charges with weapons and casts. its available to me like never before.

the over the cover shooting is a nice though when its not safe to just stand out cover.

[rhorle]

Well, I am running @ 2560x1440, so there is that. The game's performance also degrades over time. /shrug

If by time you mean further into the story then I don't know yet since I am on my the first two after Eos still. If you mean hours playing then I haven't noticed that. I've literally left my game open, or alt-tabbed, and haven't seen any performance drop between when I first started hours ago and when I finally exited the game. It isn't just simply optimization as the game runs well for minimum or below minimum specs as my computer seems to demonstrate.

I was expecting to have to play the game at low, so with the default setting most to high I'm pretty happy.

[Sunseeker]

If by time you mean further into the story then I don't know yet since I am on my the first two after Eos still. If you mean hours playing then I haven't noticed that. I've literally left my game open, or alt-tabbed, and haven't seen any performance drop between when I first started hours ago and when I finally exited the game. It isn't just simply optimization as the game runs well for minimum or below minimum specs as my computer seems to demonstrate.

I was expecting to have to play the game at low, so with the default setting most to high I'm pretty happy.

Because it doesn't happen, that's why, because that's not how graphics work, that's why. Computers are machines, they're not people. They don't get tired after running something for a long time. Sending 10 bits of data the first time is the same as sending 10 bits of data the last time. The only way performance would degrade would be if A: your system is degrading or B: the game is sending more data.

The complaints about MEA's "glitches" are just plain silly at this point and are IMO, either people purposefully trying to break the game so they can complain about it, people not actually playing to play the game but playing it to look for issues so they can complain about it or people with terrible systems (or total ignorance on how to operate one).

Because game bugs aren't an issue of "I have healthcare, fuck everyone else!" If they exist then over time everyone will experience them. Computers are machines. If there's bugs, there's bugs in every copy of the game. So when I'm sitting here experiencing NONE of the problems other people are, I naturally beg the question of "Are they telling the truth?" and when comments like "performance degrades over time" come up, I get my answer.

[Deleted]

i don´t have any of the glitches, bugs or crashes some of you are desrcibing. still surprised game is running smoothly constant @3440x1140 100fps.

[zealo]

Combat feels like an improvement over ME3. Its less rigid and mroe organic. The enemy position and yourself arent fixed to point A and B as the enemy tries to attack you from multiple fronts (which you can do too). You're much more meneuvarable. I haven't seen this "everyone turns to shoot me", just the guys who are already on me if i'm stupid enough to go out into the open for too long.

Also who ever actively used the melee grab kill outside of the start or ever had the oppurtunity to use it often enough to refer to it as a feature on the same standing as everything else you could do?

saying "yay i have a jetpack/dash" does not constitute a significant enough argument to discount these features btw. Outside of the schoolyard atleast.

MEA has much more dynamic combat open to a variety of styles but still limited (in a positive manner) by different circumstances. Which is why the profile switching works out so well, you can adapt to fit the changing situations. While I do wish they'd kept squadmate ability usage under our control, i tend to not have many problems with it as assigning a specific target to a squadie tends to make them cast the required ability + they seem to independently handle themselves quite well.

I can use cover combat, open combat, shifting around, high risk/high reward close range charges with weapons and casts. its available to me like never before.

the over the cover shooting is a nice though when its not safe to just stand out cover.

The game also has actual proper blind fire this time. Could just shoot him in the face if it gets into such a situation with an enemy on the other side of a cover you're in.

[Mistame]

Because it doesn't happen, that's why, because that's not how graphics work, that's why. Computers are machines, they're not people. They don't get tired after running something for a long time. Sending 10 bits of data the first time is the same as sending 10 bits of data the last time. The only way performance would degrade would be if A: your system is degrading or B: the game is sending more data.

The complaints about MEA's "glitches" are just plain silly at this point and are IMO, either people purposefully trying to break the game so they can complain about it, people not actually playing to play the game but playing it to look for issues so they can complain about it or people with terrible systems (or total ignorance on how to operate one).

Because game bugs aren't an issue of "I have healthcare, fuck everyone else!" If they exist then over time everyone will experience them. Computers are machines. If there's bugs, there's bugs in every copy of the game. So when I'm sitting here experiencing NONE of the problems other people are, I naturally beg the question of "Are they telling the truth?" and when comments like "performance degrades over time" come up, I get my answer.

That's a lot of text for what's effectively a shit post. First, a game's performance can degrade over time due to issues with the game (memory leaks, etc). Claiming that can't happen is just blatantly ignorant.

Secondly, complaints about "glitches" or "bugs" are usually based on people actually experiencing them. You not experiencing them does not mean they don't exist. I'm typically the last to jump on the "this game is broken" bandwagon (hell, I didn't even bitch about Arkham Knight, which for most people, ran like shit), but after having to repeatedly reload saves due to issues that left me unable to continue and half the time, the save not even loading due to corruption, I've more than reason enough to "bitch". Not to mention the buggy quests, NPCs not loading properly, etc. All of which, by the way, have been reported to EA.

Lastly, the assumption that a bug will exist, surface and expose itself to players in every copy of the game is at best, nonsense. One can easily look to Fallout 4's settlement system to see just how ridiculous this claim is. So before you start dismissing people's claims of issues with a game, perhaps actually know what you're talking about first.

[GennGreymane]

No one answered my question

Are the sex scenes good?

[Mistame]

No one answered my question

Are the sex scenes good?

You can view them all on YouTube. Some of them are good, some are just... cheesy. Also, only a few are "explicit".

[GennGreymane]

You can view them all on YouTube. Some of them are good, some are just... cheesy.

perfect
/10char

[Deleted]

This terminal on Eos says that it has a new quest for me, but when I check it there are no messages.

Anyone else have this happen?

have the same issue

[Mistame]

have the same issue

This is related to the task "Supply Loss and Recovery". After scanning a single spot, the terminal will allow you to turn it in due to each element of the chain being flagged as "optional". If you turn it in, everything after the point you've completed will be marked as "failed" but the mission itself will be moved to your completed missions section. In order to "fix" it, I believe you have to finish the rest of the objectives. I don't remember all of the locations you need to scan but a few pages back, I mention where to turn it in since there are no map markers because of the quest being marked as "finished". Note that I have not done the last part as I haven't returned to Eos yet, so I'm not sure if the ! will disappear after finishing it. I plant to do that tonight.