Mass Effect: Andromeda


Video Games

51 to 100 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Martin wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

So now that everyone has given every possible answer to the question of "When does ME: Andromeda take place?", the actual answer is that it takes place some significant span of time after the original trilogy.

A single sentence on a Wikipedia page with no reference doesn't exactly sell it yet for me. The rest of the developer's portion is more explaining how "it won't be like Mass Effect 3." Still curious to have more details as to what they are going to do.

Here's the funny thing about ME3 for me. While the Extended Cut did a good job of resolving what your Shepard's actions did, how the whole ending process was handled kind of got ridiculous. What made me appreciate the series especially more was the Citadel DLC that came later. The lighter tone and the chance to interact with the whole group of characters in a different way seemed like more of a "farewell" piece by the developers than the actual ending(s). You know what's coming and how bad it might be in the conclusion, so it was a chance to celebrate the whole series in a good way. While the endings are kind of there, it was the DLCs that made me appreciate the game even more in hindsight (and willing to give it a go again and again).

I will also confess to an interest in seeing how the multi-player element is handled and how it will be different from ME3's. Honestly, I find ME3's multi-player combat zones to have been really well done mechanically and fit well into the storyline as a something extra without being tedious.

Yeah, I really liked the citadel dlc. Honestly, the citadel was the way I wanted the series to end. Still, I am very interested in the next Mass Effect. Mass Effect remains my favorite rpg series.


Personally, I never played Mass Effect 3 because the way 2 was turned into an action game severely disappointed me. It was a good game, but I couldn't help but keep thinking about how much better the original was. Yet another case of a great game being dumbed down.

I haven't supported Bioware for years because of the way they have turned everything into action games. I like action games, but not at the cost of losing my Neverwinter Nights style games! The talk about the bad ending on Mass Effect 3 didn't help matters of course. I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.


Loved 2 much more than 1. Maybe I just like TPS where you actually HIT where you shoot far more than aim...dead on their head...and miss by a mile...type dynamics.


Shisumo wrote:
On the other hand, if they choose a canon ending - and most especially if it's Destroy - that will feel like agency being stripped away and my choices didn't matter. Whether it would be enough to make me not buy it and play, I really doubt, but it would nonetheless piss me off.

Okay, so here's the thing about fictional universes - and specifically game fictional universes. They tend to give players the sense that, because they participated in that game, they somehow have ownership of that universe. That is, of course, ridiculous. You need to understand that just because you chose to partake in a particular kind of entertainment doesn't mean that you own the creative product wrapped around it. The game's creators own that universe, and what they say goes. It isn't really reasonable (or healthy, I'd argue) to insist that they cater to all possible player choice when building on their universe. That's incredibly constraining, from both a practical and creative standpoint. At a certain point, it becomes impossible to account for all the choices given to players in previous titles - as choices involving the same subject matter come up successively, the number of universe permutations around that subject matter increase exponentially. The end result is that you force the developer into one of two development models:

1) Discard the universe entirely (or set any new titles in a time or location so far removed that the choices in previous games have no impact).

or

2) Reduce the scope of player choice to such a degree that there is no significant impact on the universe, ensuring that new titles do not need to acknowledge the previous games as long as they do not directly build on that story.

Neither is a good choice. Both really limit what you can do with a franchise. Far better to design the game(s) to tell the story you want to tell and then, once that story is complete, pick a version of it as canon and move forward.


Shisumo wrote:
They managed it for Dragon Age. Not sure why they wouldn't do the same for Mass Effect.

Dragon Age is very clearly a direct extension of the events of each previous game. Mass Effect: Andromeda appears to be a concerted effort to avoid story connections to the previous games.


Alex Martin wrote:
A single sentence on a Wikipedia page with no reference doesn't exactly sell it yet for me.

Here's Forbes' contributor on the topic describing the same "in-the-future" setting.

EDIT: And heck, why not IGN as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Personally, I never played Mass Effect 3 because the way 2 was turned into an action game severely disappointed me. It was a good game, but I couldn't help but keep thinking about how much better the original was. Yet another case of a great game being dumbed down.

I haven't supported Bioware for years because of the way they have turned everything into action games. I like action games, but not at the cost of losing my Neverwinter Nights style games! The talk about the bad ending on Mass Effect 3 didn't help matters of course. I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.

I'm really struggling to figure out how someone can view the transition from ME1 to ME2 as the difference between Neverwinter Nights and an action game.

I mean, I'm not sure how you can play a cover-based, OTS shooter with regenerating shields and cool-down abilities and not see it as an action game in the first place.

Dark Archive

As a science fiction lover I always wanted to play Mass effect but as I bought the PS3 instead of xb, I figured I would wait a few years down the line and buy the other system when it was drasticallyheaper. thankfully I was instead able to just buy the series in one purchase on ps3. instead. I wad not all that thrilled with the action game play and felt me1 wad Bette than me2/3. none the less I played through it twice and to see both paragon and renegade play throughs. I do not like the series enough to play 3rd or 4th time to see a.neutral or mixed play through though

I do @ee myself giving it a try a few years down the line when the price drops drastically se way I bought the me123 trilogy together for $30 . untill then I have about 600 estimated game play hours of fallout 4 to get through first! maybe just 2 or 3 hundred, give myself a break from fallout between the regular game and dlc.


I wonder how the ship will get there, without the relay technology it would take so long it would be pointless, cause of Andromeda - Milky Way collision


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I still like the indoctrination theory ending


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hama wrote:
I must say that I'm not bitter about it as a lot of people.

I still am. Oh, am I ever. Just thinking about the whole thing too much has the danger of leaving fingernail furrows in my desk.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
*Yes, I wiped out the quarians on my first playthrough. That playthrough was, for various irrelevant reasons, one that did not have an imported game save, so someone had to bite it, and only one species was acting as an unrelenting aggressor.

I know, I know, it's not as if the Geth wiped out billions of Quarians in the Morning War. They are pure as the driven snow and totally, completely innocent in the whole thing and still baffled as to how all those dead Quarians suddenly appeared around them.

It's BS. BioWare chose to tell a really one-sided story to make the Geth look good. Doesn't mean that there are not unreasonable Quarians (oh, are there ever), but how the story was told was a smear job by BioWare, worthy of the Washington press corps.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
You need to understand that just because you chose to partake in a particular kind of entertainment doesn't mean that you own the creative product wrapped around it.

Given that such ownership was an explicit selling point of the series, I don't have to understand any such thing. I may not own the entire Mass Effect universe, but I do own my particular permutation of it. One of the most important pieces of the pitch Bioware offered us was that our Cmdr Shepard was unique and important, the driving force and decision maker for essentially the entire galaxy. Stripping that away is breaking the promise they made to me, and badly damaging the emotional investment I have in their world.

Scott Betts wrote:
At a certain point, it becomes impossible to account for all the choices given to players in previous titles - as choices involving the same subject matter come up successively, the number of universe permutations around that subject matter increase exponentially.

Yes, but we're not talking about all the choices players made in previous titles. We're talking about one choice with three relevant options. I really don't see how that is an unbearable set of writing constraints.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
*Yes, I wiped out the quarians on my first playthrough. That playthrough was, for various irrelevant reasons, one that did not have an imported game save, so someone had to bite it, and only one species was acting as an unrelenting aggressor.

I know, I know, it's not as if the Geth wiped out billions of Quarians in the Morning War. They are pure as the driven snow and totally, completely innocent in the whole thing and still baffled as to how all those dead Quarians suddenly appeared around them.

It's BS. BioWare chose to tell a really one-sided story to make the Geth look good. Doesn't mean that there are not unreasonable Quarians (oh, are there ever), but how the story was told was a smear job by BioWare, worthy of the Washington press corps.

The key word there is "unrelenting." The Morning War may or may not have had fault on both sides, but the undeniable facts are that the geth stopped fighting and the quarians didn't. This is especially true in the actual scene where you have to make the choice, because Shepard and Tali both warn Gerrel that they are about to commit auto-genocide-by-geth if they keep up the attack, but none of the quarian ships break off - even when they start getting blown thoroughly out of the sky.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hama wrote:
Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.

Well, I guess you gotta break a few billion innocent peoples eggs to make a sentient species likeable, after a faction of them is hellbent on wiping out every organic in the universe. Oh, and then they allied with the Reapers. Smooth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
The key word there is "unrelenting." The Morning War may or may not have had fault on both sides, but the undeniable facts are that the geth stopped fighting and the quarians didn't. This is especially true in the actual scene where you have to make the choice, because Shepard and Tali both warn Gerrel that they are about to commit auto-genocide-by-geth if they keep up the attack, but none of the quarian ships break off - even when they start getting blown thoroughly out of the sky.

Lest we forget, the Geth control an entire sector of space. The Quarians (the 28 million that are left of them of the population of several billion) are stuck like cattle in their decaying space ships for several hundred years.

I'm sorry, but I can feel little sympathy for the Geth playing "Oh, we are so innocent!" given the facts that they committed genocide. I am also unhappy about the Quarians deciding to try to wipe out the Geth again, make no mistake. But I am just still hacked off at the hit piece BioWare did on the Quarians to make the Geth look good and the Quarians look bad (so that the decision wasn't automatical to support the Quarians, is my best guess). It was bad, one-sided storytelling.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I can't wait to do donuts on the Mako on every alien planet I visit.

Everyone's arguments about how the trilogy ended are rendered void, by the fact that the other 300 hours were just rad as hell.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Hama wrote:
Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.
Well, I guess you gotta break a few billion innocent peoples eggs to make a sentient species likeable, after a faction of them is hellbent on wiping out every organic in the universe. Oh, and then they allied with the Reapers. Smooth.

I'd have done the same. Especially if I operated solely on logic.


magnuskn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
*Yes, I wiped out the quarians on my first playthrough. That playthrough was, for various irrelevant reasons, one that did not have an imported game save, so someone had to bite it, and only one species was acting as an unrelenting aggressor.

I know, I know, it's not as if the Geth wiped out billions of Quarians in the Morning War. They are pure as the driven snow and totally, completely innocent in the whole thing and still baffled as to how all those dead Quarians suddenly appeared around them.

It's BS. BioWare chose to tell a really one-sided story to make the Geth look good. Doesn't mean that there are not unreasonable Quarians (oh, are there ever), but how the story was told was a smear job by BioWare, worthy of the Washington press corps.

nice try,magnus. The history that the quarians desperately tried to hide displays who the true aggressor is.


magnuskn wrote:
Hama wrote:
Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.
Well, I guess you gotta break a few billion innocent peoples eggs to make a sentient species likeable, after a faction of them is hellbent on wiping out every organic in the universe. Oh, and then they allied with the Reapers. Smooth.

logically speaking, it's the only decision that is feasible especially since the quarians actively hid the truth.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:
A single sentence on a Wikipedia page with no reference doesn't exactly sell it yet for me.

Here's Forbes' contributor on the topic describing the same "in-the-future" setting.

EDIT: And heck, why not IGN as well.

Thank you. That info is better detailed that if it had been cited first I wouldn't have sounded skeptical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.

not to mention that they actively lied about it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Hama wrote:
Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.
not to mention that they actively lied about it.

I think part of the problem is that the history of the Geth/Quarian conflict comes out only much later in the series. When you spend most of ME1 with the Geth as one of your main villains and the Quarians portrayed as a broken people and you have empathetic Quarian NPC on your crew for the entire series, changing that viewpoint becomes a little more difficult. I liked Legion, but his story seems less about sympathy and more about utility to the greater plot. Turning that story around in what comes out as a big revelation in ME3 comes off as a little of a plot contrivance to me.

If your Babylon 5 watcher, the Quarian/Geth conflict reminds me of the Centari/Narn situation. It's easy to sympathize with Narn as the former slave race, but one of the central points was that both sides were headed for mutual annihilation.

Liberty's Edge

The history of the conflict comes out in 2 if you actually pay attention during Legion's missions and talk to them.

The Geth achieved sentience, the Quarians freak out and try to kill them all, the Geth defend themselves. The Quarians loose and flee. The Geth rebuild and restore the Quarian homeworld for when the Quarians decide to come home.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Krensky wrote:
The Geth rebuild and restore the Quarian homeworld for when the Quarians decide to come home.

...um, I don't think that's quite right. They are open to possible negotiation, but they weren't really rolling out the welcome mat. In fact, Legion heavily implies the (non-heretic) geths' plans as a species don't really automatically impinge on any organics at all.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I believe the Geth and Quarians were working towards co-exsistance if you choose that route.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
JakBlitz wrote:
I believe the Geth and Quarians were working towards co-exsistance if you choose that route.

*nod* But that's during the game timeline and as a result of Shepard's actions; it's not part of the history of the conflict, and it's not guaranteed to occur.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alex Martin wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Hama wrote:
Quarians ARE quite unreasonable. They tried to exterminate a sentient species. They got curbstomped for that. And instead of trying diplomacy they just went around and planned to wipe out the geth for about 300 years. Very healthy.
not to mention that they actively lied about it.

I think part of the problem is that the history of the Geth/Quarian conflict comes out only much later in the series. When you spend most of ME1 with the Geth as one of your main villains and the Quarians portrayed as a broken people and you have empathetic Quarian NPC on your crew for the entire series, changing that viewpoint becomes a little more difficult. I liked Legion, but his story seems less about sympathy and more about utility to the greater plot. Turning that story around in what comes out as a big revelation in ME3 comes off as a little of a plot contrivance to me.

If your Babylon 5 watcher, the Quarian/Geth conflict reminds me of the Centari/Narn situation. It's easy to sympathize with Narn as the former slave race, but one of the central points was that both sides were headed for mutual annihilation.

Basically this, only with more plot contrivance. BioWare chose to suddenly play the Quarians as the bad guys in ME3 and make the Geth oh-so-innocent (after murdering billions of organics). I'm sorry, but when I can clearly see the puppet strings with which I am to be pulled, I stop believing in the story that they are telling.

No one is saying that the Quarians are not at fault, but the "Oh, the poor Geth!" narrative doesn't hold water when examined any closer than the plot of the game wants you to allow.


Limnen_euron wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


It is very, very unlikely that the end of ME3 will be retconned. It is likely that one of the three endings will be considered canon. Safe money is on "Destroy", poor odds on "Control", and "Synthesis" gets a Certificate of Participation and a pat on the back.
I've got five bucks that says they import your save and modify dialogue for whichever ending you picked.

Pay up.

There won't be any save import. If there is a world state import it will be via a questionnaire.

My money is actually on the fact there'll be no need to import your ME3 finale's decision because it'll have no consequence on the new crew AT ALL.

Let me explain. The developers have repeatedly stated ME:A is going to take places hundreds of years after the original trilogy; yet, a Carnifex is clearly visible as well as an M40 Mako (a clear evolution of ME1 M35 Mako, superseded by the M44 Hammerhead in ME2 which was, however, a prototype). Add the fact the word ARK is visible during the transitions.

My guess? This is going to be a cryogenically frozen skeleton crew sent into a century long standard FTL trip (since portals were only for intra-galactic travel) toward the closest Galaxy at the time when the war against the Reapers seemed unwinnable, a Plan B should the Crucible project proved a failure. Probably escorting the genetic material (Interstellar-style) or even a whole sustainable population (Homeworld-style) of all the Citadel species in order to survive the extinction cycle by colonizing a new, Reaper-free galaxy.

That would be a really slick way to dodge the question, though I'll miss the standard Mass Effect universe and my old crew. Nice catch on the Ark bit.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

Personally, I never played Mass Effect 3 because the way 2 was turned into an action game severely disappointed me. It was a good game, but I couldn't help but keep thinking about how much better the original was. Yet another case of a great game being dumbed down.

I haven't supported Bioware for years because of the way they have turned everything into action games. I like action games, but not at the cost of losing my Neverwinter Nights style games! The talk about the bad ending on Mass Effect 3 didn't help matters of course. I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.

I enjoyed the more RPG elements of Mass Effect (gear, lots of exploration, etc), but simply because Mass Effect 2 was different did not mean it was dumbed down. Streamlined in many elements I might accept, and I'd argue that said streamlining was good for the series because it let me worry only about the plot and my party, rather than about looting the best gear and changing out armor all the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have liked a nice middle ground (I particularly missed that some armor for instance was resistant to toxic worlds and such), but I'm not convinced that the decision to narrow the gear choices was anything other than an attempt to reduce the break in storytelling.

And the Storytelling in the 2nd game was really good. Strong new direction for the series, very ambitious opening, and lots of very memorable characters. In many ways I consider it nearly as perfect a sequel as something like Empire Strikes Back, in that it really hanged the direction of the series a fair bit. The ambitiousness too of giving you a chance to let literally every single, or any single, member of your squad die because of your choices was incredible.

Numerian wrote:
I still like the indoctrination theory ending

Me too man, me too. I still hold out that some of the developers secretly put it in there as an Easter Egg, and definitely think they missed an opportunity to really provide a mindf*** to players with an indoctrination DLC after the fact, even if it wasn't the original vision.

Really, to continue my Empire Strikes Back analogy from above, I actually track Mass Effect 3 pretty closely to Return of the Jedi, in that it wasn't as ambitious as the previous entry.

In addition, the fact that they broke from the original story involving Dark Matter and the Mass Effect, then tried to rush the game out to meet an EA deadline (I hate you so much forever EA) really showed. Overall the 3rd game just felt... disjointed. Opening with the Reaper attack on Earth didn't work for me, because it through you into what seemed like it should have been nothing but a mad dash to save Earth. It makes it hard for me to reconcile stuff like the Citidal DLC (which I did love) and many of the side missions (the Grunt stuff for instance). Why am I loafing off when every second thousands are being exterminated?

It would have made for stronger and more coherent storytelling to open with you poking around and trying to find the Reapers / getting people on board, then discovering that the reapers were setting up the dominoes to fall, then having the war kick off.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Basically this, only with more plot contrivance. BioWare chose to suddenly play the Quarians as the bad guys in ME3 and make the Geth oh-so-innocent (after murdering billions of organics). I'm sorry, but when I can clearly see the puppet strings with which I am to be pulled, I stop believing in the story that they are telling.

No one is saying that the Quarians are not at fault, but the "Oh, the poor Geth!" narrative doesn't hold water when examined any closer than the plot of the game wants you to allow.

I actually looked at it as most analogues to the slave revolts, especially the darker ones in the Caribbean. Neither the Quarians (who had sentient slaves and tried to kill them off) nor the Geth (who did rise up and slaughter men, women, and children) came off looking roses in the historical record. They both looked pretty bad after the fact, in the present, as well.

I actually thought both were pretty sympathetic, as they were locked in a cycle of fear that neither could truly break free of. Ultimately the only 'good' answer was for the Geth to forgive their 'masters' transgressions and abandon their fear, and for the Quarians to accept the Geth as a legitimate equal and life form.


Peter Stewart wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Basically this, only with more plot contrivance. BioWare chose to suddenly play the Quarians as the bad guys in ME3 and make the Geth oh-so-innocent (after murdering billions of organics). I'm sorry, but when I can clearly see the puppet strings with which I am to be pulled, I stop believing in the story that they are telling.

No one is saying that the Quarians are not at fault, but the "Oh, the poor Geth!" narrative doesn't hold water when examined any closer than the plot of the game wants you to allow.

I actually looked at it as most analogues to the slave revolts, especially the darker ones in the Caribbean. Neither the Quarians (who had sentient slaves and tried to kill them off) nor the Geth (who did rise up and slaughter men, women, and children) came off looking roses in the historical record. They both looked pretty bad after the fact, in the present, as well.

I actually thought both were pretty sympathetic, as they were locked in a cycle of fear that neither could truly break free of. Ultimately the only 'good' answer was for the Geth to forgive their 'masters' transgressions and abandon their fear, and for the Quarians to accept the Geth as a legitimate equal and life form.

as I am of Caribbean descent, this is a good analogy.

Though you are wrong about the revolts. They were totally legitimate and okay! :-D

Liberty's Edge

Shisumo wrote:
Krensky wrote:
The Geth rebuild and restore the Quarian homeworld for when the Quarians decide to come home.
...um, I don't think that's quite right. They are open to possible negotiation, but they weren't really rolling out the welcome mat. In fact, Legion heavily implies the (non-heretic) geths' plans as a species don't really automatically impinge on any organics at all.

Legion explicitly says it in one of his conversations in 2. The Geth have restored the Quarian homeworld and kept it in trust for the Quarians, who he explicitly describes as creators and parental figures. Plus how the Geth regret the Dawn War and the deaths but they didn't know what else to do as infants.

Their plans for themselves don't necessarily involve organics, but they do want reconciliation at some level with their parents and view the Quarian homeworld as belonging to the Quarians, not to the Geth.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.

You're going to be waiting for a long time, as it still has not even been released on Steam.

I haven't played ME3 because I don't want to download EA's store client onto my computer.


Irontruth wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.

You're going to be waiting for a long time, as it still has not even been released on Steam.

I haven't played ME3 because I don't want to download EA's store client onto my computer.

Origin is pretty obnoxious. The most annoying thing for me is that ME3 has no controller support on the PC. Absolutely ridiculous. Plus the DLC is still full price.

Sovereign Court

Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?


Hama wrote:
Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?

Familiarity. I actually played the trilogy through on the Xbox 360 first, and picked it up on the PC mostly because I plan on playing it again in the future and 360s have a habit of dying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?

I second this. I can't stand the impossibility of aiming with a controller. It is hard enough getting mail slot shots with my mouse it would be impossible with a controller.

Liberty's Edge

Then maybe shooters aren't for you?

Mailslot shots were my speciality in MP.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aranna wrote:
Hama wrote:
Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?

I second this. I can't stand the impossibility of aiming with a controller. It is hard enough getting mail slot shots with my mouse it would be impossible with a controller.

This statement sounds exactly like "up is down and black is white" to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why some people feel the need to point out that those who use a controller are somehow doing it wrong or in an inferior way.

Let people play their games how they like to play them in peace.


Because....errrr....computers are just better at everything...I think right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I might buy it when I see it on sale on steam for $5 though.

You're going to be waiting for a long time, as it still has not even been released on Steam.

I haven't played ME3 because I don't want to download EA's store client onto my computer.

Origin is pretty obnoxious. The most annoying thing for me is that ME3 has no controller support on the PC. Absolutely ridiculous. Plus the DLC is still full price.

I can play it with a controller. I have to program the keys into it so that it will play, but once that's done, it plays just fine.

I thought most controllers these days could be done like that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Given that such ownership was an explicit selling point of the series,

Of your story, not of the freaking intellectual property!

Quote:
I don't have to understand any such thing. I may not own the entire Mass Effect universe, but I do own my particular permutation of it.

Sure, fine, whatever. You just need to accept that the permutation you "own" only exists in your head and in your save file, and that it's unreasonable to expect that the creators of the game constrain their IP for the sake of entertaining your personal head-canon.

Quote:
One of the most important pieces of the pitch Bioware offered us was that our Cmdr Shepard was unique and important, the driving force and decision maker for essentially the entire galaxy.

And he/she was!

Quote:
Stripping that away is breaking the promise they made to me, and badly damaging the emotional investment I have in their world.

No one is stripping that away. And, heck, from a literal standpoint, this isn't even the same galaxy, so Bioware hasn't even broken the imaginary contract you're convinced they signed with you.

Quote:
Yes, but we're not talking about all the choices players made in previous titles. We're talking about one choice with three relevant options. I really don't see how that is an unbearable set of writing constraints.

All three choices were written to be fundamentally universe-altering. Destroy removes the Reapers and all AI from the galaxy, removing all possibility of the cycle restarting and wiping out at least two intelligent races. Control puts what is essentially an all-powerful force in the hands of (arguably) the most noble mind in the galaxy, making any kind of widespread conflict fundamentally implausible. Synthesis dramatically alters the makeup of every creature in the galaxy, both in terms of how they work and their physical appearance, and makes the very concept of artificial intelligence redundant/meaningless.

These are enormous changes, any of which by themselves could define the flavor of an entire fictional universe. It isn't reasonable to try to write and produce the same video game story set in all three of these. It certainly isn't reasonable to act like it's owed to you.

Of course, none of this may end up mattering if the "Backup Plan" theory holds up. If the game is told from the standpoint of someone who left before the Crucible was turned on, and if Andromeda was immune to its effects, they could choose to simply ignore the endings entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to point out that those who use a controller are somehow doing it wrong or in an inferior way.

People should use whatever they like, but the accuracy afforded by a mouse definitely trumps that afforded by a thumbstick. It's the reason that automatic aiming assistance is standard in console games and non-standard in PC games. They're tools, and some tools are better suited for some things than others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Christ Scott I will never understand why you find it so hard to believe people didn't like the ending of ME 3. It was depressingly one note with no real influence from everything you'd done to that point. We've seen better, even from bioware themselves.

Course I didn't care much because I spent the entire time in the main story of ME2 going "this is stupid, every character is acting against established character and motivation and even against reason itself." until I got to the laughably idiotic FINAL BOSS and realized the fame had abandoned what made it even half decentin the first place.

I got two hours into ME3 before realizing it was dumbed down even further and that the story was even worse so... No real horse in this race beyond "not a fan of blindly defending things."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

ME 2 was a brilliant game... Excepting certain things. Like the very beginning. And then Shepard returning under a new flag and everyone acting like it doesn't matter. And the final boss, dear lord. These things aren't cringe-worthy, but awesomely stupid.

ME3 was better, but suffered from having to resolve everything from ME1 and 2. The ending was really an okay part of it all, both original and extended editions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to point out that those who use a controller are somehow doing it wrong or in an inferior way.
People should use whatever they like, but the accuracy afforded by a mouse definitely trumps that afforded by a thumbstick. It's the reason that automatic aiming assistance is standard in console games and non-standard in PC games. They're tools, and some tools are better suited for some things than others.

What was the multiplayer shooter that made it a selling point that they were mixing PC and console players on the same servers, and then found out that this meant the console players were horribly outclassed due to having inferior controls compared to the mouse/keyboard combination? Some years ago now. And one experiment with RTS games, abandoned while in beta, which was even more horribly biased in favour of the mouse/keyboard side.


Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'm not sure why some people feel the need to point out that those who use a controller are somehow doing it wrong or in an inferior way.
People should use whatever they like, but the accuracy afforded by a mouse definitely trumps that afforded by a thumbstick. It's the reason that automatic aiming assistance is standard in console games and non-standard in PC games. They're tools, and some tools are better suited for some things than others.

I'm sorry if my post implied that I didn't understand the difference between the two control sets. I completely understand the difference and am well versed in them. My post had nothing to do with that difference, but is rather directed at the common behavior that people exhibit. They prefer a thing, so they like to tell people who like the other thing that they're doing it wrong.


Sissyl wrote:

ME 2 was a brilliant game... Excepting certain things. Like the very beginning. And then Shepard returning under a new flag and everyone acting like it doesn't matter. And the final boss, dear lord. These things aren't cringe-worthy, but awesomely stupid.

ME3 was better, but suffered from having to resolve everything from ME1 and 2. The ending was really an okay part of it all, both original and extended editions. [/QUOTE

To each their own. Though you'll note I said the main quest. Every time the camera was off of Shepard, The Reapers, The Collectors and Cerberus, the game got better by an order of magnitude.

51 to 100 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Mass Effect: Andromeda All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.