Originally posted by NephthysYou're right. If you really had to you'd choose Mass Effect Andromeda, because Persona is a shit series.
I think this is a game its smart to wait on for a few months. Hopefully they'll either patch some of the stuff or some saint will create a mod to tighten up the textures and animations.Also I have to choose between this and Persona 5 and lol theres no choice there.
Gotta say I'm really enjoying this game so far. The combat is outstanding and I really like the characters so far. The character writing is somewhat inconsistent but it's good more often than it's bad. The sidequests are generally pretty interesting, though the objectives are usually pretty generic, the little storylines and world building bits that go along with them are pretty cool. The environments are gorgeous and I've not encountered any bugs at all. And it definitely feels like a Mass Effect game to me.
Well no wonder I got it wrong.
http://cdn-press-start.scadigital.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Sudoku-Capture-01.jpg
It's really four rows across and down you have to make. I kept thinking there was four boxes with two rows in each. Can you blame me? The friggin lines drawn in there made it look like that was the case 😐
Originally posted by BackFire
Gotta say I'm really enjoying this game so far. The combat is outstanding and I really like the characters so far. The character writing is somewhat inconsistent but it's good more often than it's bad. The sidequests are generally pretty interesting, though the objectives are usually pretty generic, the little storylines and world building bits that go along with them are pretty cool. The environments are gorgeous and I've not encountered any bugs at all. And it definitely feels like a Mass Effect game to me.
I only played a couple of hours and they are roughly comparable to the first Mass Effect. I'm intrigued by what the story is going to offer.
The animations are bad (but there is a ton of speaking parts so they couldn't really animate the movements like Naughty Dog does) but it's really only the weird eyes that throw me off. However, if I went into this game without the Internet blowing themselves up over it, I would probably be like, "meh" and discard it.
I have to agree with what was said earlier about Witcher III. That game raised the bar significantly, and companies like Bioware, which have more money AND more manpower to throw at games like this, need to step up.
They've been surpassed as the best creators of western RPGs, and if they don't adapt soon, they could be left behind.
How could Witcher III have raised the bar significant when Mass Effect 2 was better?
You guys are really going out of your way to justify this game being bad.
This game isn't "bad compared to the standard Witcher III set up", it's just not very good, at least in a few very important aspects for a game like this. 👇
Most importantly, it is apparently much worse than previous games in the series. Those are what it should really be compared to.
In terms of animations and graphical polish? Lolno, Witcher 3 was better in those aspects than ME2.
Also Witcher 3 actually had a large budget and the production costs (and costs in general) are lower in Poland. Andromeda had a smaller budget plus they had to deal with EA meddling and a loss of talent. The idea of CD Projekt Red being this tiny european company that outshone the lazy westerners is just a silly assumption.
I don't think it's much worse. I think it's better than the first game in most ways - better combat, better characters, better exploration, better RPG mechanics and character building. I don't think it's as good as ME2 or 3, but it's not much worse.
And you're seeing comparisons to W3 because structurally the game has more in common with that than ME2. It's a linear open world game like W3 and Inquisition, not a tight corridor shooter like ME2.
Originally posted by BackFire
I don't think it's much worse. I think it's better than the first game in most ways - better combat,
Gee I'd sure like to hope so.
better characters,
With the sole exception of Jaal, who introduces his species, how do any of these new characters expand the setting's lore in new or interesting ways? Literally every single other character is a retread of shit that's been done before. We have an ex-police officer boring black man (combination of Jacob and Garrus), we have the old Krogan battlemaster (like Wrex), we have an Alliance biotic soldier (we have had one of these in literally ever ME game), we have an asari explorer (so like a really ugly Liara), and we have a Turian mercenary (ME2 Garrus with metaphorical ****).
What interesting new lore or mythos do any of these characters bring? ME1's squad all established a great deal about the setting, even Kaidan's boring ass developed the mythos behind human biotics and the Alliance military. ME2 did this even further with characters like Mordin, who expanded upon the Krogan Rebellions and the genophage, and raised interesting moral questions.
What does this squad bring to the table in this regard?
I'm guessing you're saying that you just subjectively like their personalities and hey man, that's cool. They're still worse characters than ME1's squad from what I can tell.
better exploration,
Yeah probably.
better RPG mechanics and character building.
Like what my son?
I don't think it's as good as ME2 or 3, but it's not much worse.
Can't comment on 3 since I haven't played it yet, though it is funny that you would put it on par with 2 when it is almost universally considered inferior.
And you're seeing comparisons to W3 because structurally the game has more in common with that than ME2. It's a linear open world game like W3 and Inquisition, not a tight corridor shooter like ME2.
If you want to say it's worse than W3 by all means do so.
But people are using W3's existence as a way to explain this game's poor reception, instead of considering that, maybe, it's just not a particularly good game?
Originally posted by Nephthys
In terms of animations and graphical polish? Lolno, Witcher 3 was better in those aspects than ME2.
You are literally comparing a 2010 game's graphics to a 2015 game. This only works as a valid criticism if the newer game somehow looks even worse than the older game's, which is the case with Andromeda's horrible character models and animations compared to previous entries in the series.
Also Witcher 3 actually had a large budget and the production costs (and costs in general) are lower in Poland. Andromeda had a smaller budget plus they had to deal with EA meddling and a loss of talent. The idea of CD Projekt Red being this tiny european company that outshone the lazy westerners is just a silly assumption.I am aware.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Gee I'd sure like to hope so.With the sole exception of Jaal, who introduces his species, how do any of these new characters expand the setting's lore in new or interesting ways? Literally every single other character is a retread of shit that's been done before. We have an ex-police officer boring black man (combination of Jacob and Garrus), we have the old Krogan battlemaster (like Wrex), we have an Alliance biotic soldier (we have had one of these in literally ever ME game), we have an asari explorer (so like a really ugly Liara), and we have a Turian mercenary (ME2 Garrus with metaphorical ****).
What interesting new lore or mythos do any of these characters bring? ME1's squad all established a great deal about the setting, even Kaidan's boring ass developed the mythos behind human biotics and the Alliance military. ME2 did this even further with characters like Mordin, who expanded upon the Krogan Rebellions and the genophage, and raised interesting moral questions.
What does this squad bring to the table in this regard?
I'm guessing you're saying that you just subjectively like their personalities and hey man, that's cool. They're still worse characters than ME1's squad from what I can tell.
Yeah probably.
Like what my son?
Can't comment on 3 since I haven't played it yet, though it is funny that you would put it on par with 2 when it is almost universally considered inferior.
If you want to say it's worse than W3 by all means do so.
But people are using W3's existence as a way to explain this game's poor reception, instead of considering that, maybe, it's just not a particularly good game?
I don't agree that they're all retreads, I think that's an oversimplification of them, boiling them down to stereotypes and than attacking those stereotypes. While it is definitely true that they don't really bring anything new to the lore, I don't think that's a necessity to being a good or interesting character. Like, is that why Garrus, Liara and Tali are so popular? I don't think so. People liked their personalities. And that's what I'm talking about here.
The characters in ME1 are all pretty bland and actually much more stereotypical than the characters in Andromeda. There's much more depth to them here, and they feel like people. I do think there is some uniqueness to them in their personalites, though. PeeBee acts really unique for an Asari, you compare her to Liara, but she really doesn't act like her at all. Much more irreverent and spunky, and kinda slutty. Drack does have some of Wrex in him, but he's much more playful from the start, much more grandfatherly than Wrex was. Vetra is also much softer than she seems at the start. Doesn't really have Garrus' personality at all. And not really a mercenary in the same way as Garrus, just got used to doing what she needed to do for money.
So if your benchmark for character quality is simply reflecting something wholly different in the Mass Effect universe, then these characters won't do it for you, but as far as depth, nuance and personality goes, they offer a lot more than the original squad in ME.
As far as RPG mechanics and character building, I'm much more engaged in growing and strengthening my character than I ever have been in the series before. I really like the freedom you have in leveling and developing the character, how you can change your playstyle whenever you want. It makes the already excellent combat even better because if you get bored of one playstyle you can change it without having to make a new character. Keeps it very fresh, and makes gaining a level more exciting and rewarding than it has been before in ME because you always have something new and interesting to put those points into when you level up.
I think it's perfectly fair to use Witcher 3 as a benchmark here because it upped the ante for this type of game. The disparity in review scores between this and Dragon Age Inquisition I feel is an example of this. Inquisition currently has a +15 score to this game on Metacritic, and I have real trouble believing that that's because this game is worse than Inq. I think it's better, but it's in the same ballpark. I think Witcher 3 coming out between both of their releases and changing people's expectations for games like this is what accounts for that discrepancy.
Originally posted by Zack Fair
So....I was big on ME trilogy....is this a buy or a pass?
It seems to be kind of rough but it looks to be a pretty good game overall as long as you can ignore some glaring issues.
Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
[b]So what happened to the Reapers at the end of Mass Effect 3? [/B]
They either died, ****ed off or Shepard assumed direct control.
