Initial Impressions: ME: Andromeda (Spoilers Inside)

BigGuyCIA said:
Certainly, the Lord of the Rings is one of the most well-developed and intricate science fiction settings of all time

That's what I got from it.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, typo. I meant to say science fiction/fantasy settings.

I'm one of those dudes who links them.

Was interrupted in making that post by helping the wife out of the bed to get to the bathroom (she broke her leg two weeks ago).

My bad.

I acknowledge your superior posting skills and sacrifice a level to your altar.
 
CT Phipps said:
I'm one of those dudes who links them.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't.

*Edit
Besides, the fact how 'rich' and 'deep' a setting is, isn't necessarily a very good metric on its own as far as science fiction goes, because a lot of fantasy stories out there from Terry Prachet to G.G. Martin and Stephen King and also Tolkien include very intrigued and complex worlds/universes. Yet, no one with a sane mind would see those as 'science fiction'. So this alone can not be a very strong factor when it comes to science fiction, if at all. Not that there is a really clear definition for science fiction, but I think many people agree that it doesn't have to be just about the world building or how deep it is. Infact, some very interesting sci-fi stories, like The Man From Earth, contain no 'world building' or 'deep Universe' at all not even any kind of technology, and still count as very clever science fiction.
 
Crni Vuk said:
You shouldn't.

*Edit
Besides, the fact how 'rich' and 'deep' a setting is, isn't necessarily a very good metric on its own as far as science fiction goes, because a lot of fantasy stories out there from Terry Prachet to G.G. Martin and Stephen King and also Tolkien include very intrigued and complex worlds/universes. Yet, no one with a sane mind would see those as 'science fiction'. So this alone can not be a very strong factor when it comes to science fiction, if at all. Not that there is a really clear definition for science fiction, but I think many people agree that it doesn't have to be just about the world building or how deep it is. Infact, some very interesting sci-fi stories, like The Man From Earth, contain no 'world building' or 'deep Universe' at all not even any kind of technology, and still count as very clever science fiction.
Click to expand...

I think both fantasy and science fiction are both linked at imagination levels so that the two don't necessarily have to be different.

Star Wars
Babylon Five

And yes, Mass Effect are sci-fi fantasy novels.

But I understand your opinion and won't disagree on it. Forget I used LOTR as an example and pretend I just used Star Trek if that's okay.
 
THe issue is more that you're using something that's really 'generic' - how rich and deep a setting is - to describe a 'unique' trait. It's like if you would come to the conclussion that bicycles must be as awesome like cars, because they all feature some sort of 'wheel'.
Again, how rich a setting is, isn't linked to the fact if something is fantasy, science fiction or what ever. You, avove all as a writter should know this better than anyone else, considering the fact how damn many 'short science-fiction' stories are out there ...
 
Last edited:
You are assuming I like Star Trek and their other copycats.

Then the Batarians are different, and guess their usual alignment, they are more often than not Villains, Quarians are Space Gipsys, the concept alone is laughable. Again exemplifies the concept of "different = evil" for theMassEffect world. The Batarians even get mostly killed off offscreen.

Then again the fact you are bringing up that in the end they just sprinkle these races among combatant NPCs is further exemplifying of my point, they are all just the exact same shot with stereotypical traits thrown in for background flavor that never play into anything.
Wreav, Eve, Mordin and Legion are the only interesting characters on the whole series, altho ME3 did manage to fuck up Legion in the end by making him completely betray what he believed in ME2 because the writers thought the high functioning hive mind was not nice.
 
Last edited:
ME to me, fails as a successful sci fi, when you consider what's in it.

Nuclear weapons, orbital bombardment, and massive fleets of cruisers, and we never really feel like there's a real war going on.

We see the occassional cutscene, then it goes 'back to mindless third person shooting and tiny dialogue options you go!'.

The races are also pretty pathetic, they have lovely backstories and some nice anatomies which are written about them, but they all function ingame the same 'human with a shitty/nice behaviour and a new mesh'.

Krogans supposedly have redundant organs and other shit, and as far as I am aware of, there's never any scenes where a krogan survives otherwise lethal damage because of this.

In fact, every krogan in a cutscene is 1 hit killed by weak weapons like handguns...
 
CT Phipps said:
Krogans take a lot of bullets to put down so I'd say that's a good reason.
Click to expand...

Making enemies arbritrary bullet sponges aren't a good way of showing how 'tough' something is.

Making them need to get shot in X places, or making damage threshhold is, however.

ME, ironically, lacks an armour system.

Which is hilarious.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Making enemies arbritrary bullet sponges aren't a good way of showing how 'tough' something is.

Making them need to get shot in X places, or making damage threshhold is, however.

ME, ironically, lacks an armour system.

Which is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Andromeda has one.

I just finished the game if anyone wants any thoughts on anything.
 
I have to agree with @ThatZenoGuy. Shitout 3 and 4 both feature garbage damage system. A supermutant with a shotgun is a bigger threat than a missle laucher in 3.

Mass Effect Andromeda has got the same terrible system, which should have died decades ago. Both Fallout 1 and 2 had good armour system.

Mass Effect Andromeda is just more and more enemies that take 200 bullets to kill instead of 20.
 
Mhmm well I don't think F1/2s system was that great when it came to armor. It's better than F3 and F4 no doubts, but if I remember correctly higher amounts of armor also gave you more chances to avoid hits and shots, which never made much sense to me wearing power armor. But it has been like 10 years now that I played the old Fallout games ... so forgive me if I get this wrong.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Mhmm well I don't think F1/2s system was that great when it came to armor. It's better than F3 and F4 no doubts, but if I remember correctly higher amounts of armor also gave you more chances to avoid hits and shots, which never made much sense to me wearing power armor. But it has been like 10 years now that I played the old Fallout games ... so forgive me if I get this wrong.
Click to expand...

No doubt that the system was not flawless.

AC was not only 'dodge rate', it also basically simulated deflection (bullets deflect on hard armours like power armour, while leather armour allows you to dodge, etc), which causes confusion and messes stuff up.

DR and DT could get rather high, although damage was also quite high, and crits ignored armour entirely (which is another whole issue...)

But damn, its a good fucking system, especially with some tweaks.

I'd rather DR-DT, than fucking DR...
 
CT Phipps said:
2. I felt ME2 did the best job developing the Terminus systems because you really got a feel of not only the region through roleplaying but gaming. The fact you repeatedly fought the same three enemies but got a sense of how those enemies fit into the ecological niche of the place made it cooler. The Blood Pack are brutish thugs who use vorcha as cannon fodder, the Blue Suns are a PMC which is crooked but very advanced as well as corrupt, and the Eclipse are an example of why the Asari are so feared as well as hated--it's basically mercenary work for shit and giggles.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Having the same enemies pop up over and over again shows lack of creativity. Vorcha are treated like shit wherever they are and mercenaries are found everywhere, they're not unique to the Terminus. Hell the Blue Suns operate on the Citadel and Eclipse work all over the place as well.

Even with the different uniforms and races they're all basically the same: armed bullet sponge thugs who kill for pay. There's nothing really distinct about them apart from red, blue and yellow. We're supposed to believe Eclipse has the best tech and biotics, Blue Suns have the best soldiers and tactics and the Blood Pack are savage and tough, but their differences don't stick out that much and we fight them so many times that we don't care, they're just an annoyance.

Honestly if they were fought a lot less , were actually dangerous and each fought differently they'd stand out more.

My face is tired so let's get back to Andromeda.
 
I'd rather have enemies which are justified as opponents in-story and setting that I get to know and hate versus enemies which are just "unique" but I get the impression part of this is the fact I love Shooter RPGS and that's not a terribly popular opinion around here.

I'm currently considering an essay about Andromeda versus the original trilogy.

Overall, I think Andromeda doesn't have the same emotional connection that the trilogy did or overarching plot but I do think it has potential to be better in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top