D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Ooooh! You aré part of the problem! Alrighty.
The official "Where we review Mass Effect: Andromeda" thread *spoilers*
- Thread starter CT Phipps
- Start date
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Yeah and then you're done, you're done, which kind of sucks.
Of course, I find the idea of replaying video games weird.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Why would you want a slog of continued mediocrity instead of having multiple unique experiences that are also good?
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
So... You don't need games to, eh, BE GOOD GAMES while there are more with the franchise name half-hazardly stapled into it?
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Again, I like franchises. They don't have to great if they're entertaining. Better to have a long running consistent franchise than try to reinvent the wheel.
I also get pissed off when games change too much between editions.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Okay, okay, I'm dropping it. But that exact thinking in the consumer's side is a big part of what ruins franchises. ME:A? It's the same game! Fo4? The same game but with even less presonality! Call od Duty/Battlefield? Don't make me say it. DS3? Still balldroppingly amazing but could have used some more original stuff.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Okay, okay, I'm dropping it. But that exact thinking in the consumer's side is a big part of what ruins franchises. ME:A? It's the same game! Fo4? The same game but with even less presonality! Call od Duty/Battlefield? Don't make me say it. DS3? Still balldroppingly amazing but could have used some more original stuff.
I think Dead Space 3's problem is it changed and ruined itself by trying not to be an already great series successor. If they just did Dead Space 1 or 2 over again then it would have been great. Basically, no one wants to maintain fidelity to the original concepts and things degrade. Say what you will about AC but until Unity, it was a consistently good product.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
*Until half of Brotherhood
And Dead Space changed for the bad, duh. EA being greedy and some other fault from the devs, both appealing to market appeal and pandering to the masses' aparent interest.
Some games need to change at different extents, some don't.
So FIFA must be your favourite franchise then. One a year with only marginal changes between one another, It's perfect!
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Being an Appalachian American, soccer is a strange sport other countries play.
On a more serious note, I primarily play games for their story and started in the primarily textual RPGs of the past when everything seemed to be just a variation of Dungeons and Dragons. Those were my introduction to video games and I think the staggering need to change things and make each sequel BIGGER AND BETTER is really a huge hamper in the industry. If the story is good, I don't care if it's identical in terms of graphics or gameplay to the original or the same size.
I also think the need to make bigger games is one of the big problems with Triple A systems nowadays.
Obviously, some improvement is a good thing but a consistent release schedule of good solid games would be better, IMHO, than trying to make masterpieces or blockbusters each time.
It's part of the reason I cut Telltale so much slack.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
I can see that... I guess.
And Phipps, really. You can get like three discounted games for every ""chapter"" of a Telltale game. And those can last you from 1 to 1000 hours, and will be more varied by a 1000%
I'm going to try and ignore that.
And Phipps, really. You can get like three discounted games for every ""chapter"" of a Telltale game. And those can last you from 1 to 1000 hours, and will be more varied by a 1000%
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
That's actually another issue I have in the game world as the "gameplay length" is all over the place regardless of price or goals.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided? 10 hours.
Fallout 4? 80-100 hours, which is because I didn't want to play it more.
Mass Effect: Andromeda? 50 hours
Telltale gameplay when it's not the shitty Batman game (a few quirks aside), is 5 bucks for a decent 2-4 hour experience. Which is good money, entertainment wise.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
But why pay 5 bucks (weren't they 15?) for a barely interactive cutscene, ala Dragon's Lair, when you can get, right now:
A bite-sized metroidvania with one of the best pixelart asrt styles ever, for 7$: http://store.steampowered.com/app/428550/
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, for 5$
South Park: The stick of truth for 8$
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Okay, I think this is my review for THE UNITED FEDERATION OF CHARLES. I'd like to submit it to you guys for peer-review, though, in case I'm missing elements I should talk about.
MASS EFFECT: ANDROMEDA review
Well, that was definitely a Mass Effect game.
That's probably the best way to describe my experience with Andromeda, which is a game that I had mixed feelings going into. Like many fans of the series, I felt burned by the ending of Mass Effect 3. I wasn't one of the people who believed it was worth naming EA one of the worst companies in the world and it didn't kill my children or anything but it felt dissonant to have an uncertain ending when I'd put literally years of investment into my Shepard's relationships. I, really, felt like i was done with the series afterward and wasn't sure if I was ever going to look back.
Still, I had a lot of fun in the Mass Effect universe and was intrigued by the possibility of returning to it. Unfortunately, it felt like the newest game's premise was going to side-step the ending of the original trilogy rather than address it. Your character is going to be a colonist in a cryo-ship which has made a six-hundred-year journey across the void between galaxies until they reached Andromeda. When you awake, the events of the original trilogy are long in the past and you are surrounded by favorites of the original series without the third game to "sully" it.
At least, that's how I felt.
Really, I have to stress the game isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. It's a game I'm going to enjoy playing all fifty or so hours of content it provides and which gave me a satisfying, if slightly generic player experience. The characters were likable, if not especially memorable, and the graphics were lovely except for the faces. The gameplay was fun but mostly a return to its roots. This is a game which is fun and I highly recommend but it's also a game which is going to be perhaps a little disappointing if players were expecting something truly epic.
The premise of the game, as mentioned, is you are Sarah (Fryda Wolff) or Scott Ryder (Tom Taylorson doing a Nolan North impression) and you're the son of Alec Ryder (Clancy Brown) who is the Pathfinder a.k.a Chief Scout for the Andromeda Initiative. The Andromeda Initiative, despite being amazingly well-equipped for a private enterprise, ends up hitting dark matter pockets and scatters across the Helius Cluster. Many of the Initiative's leaders are killed and you discover the worlds you were going to settle have all been rendered uninhabitable by six-hundred-year-old alien tech. Worse, a hostile alien race called the Kett take umbrage to your presence. You are forced to step up and become the new Pathfinder who will find a way to colonize this cluster despite the fact it's a post-apocalypse hellhole.
Weirdly, this game feels like it's riffing from a bunch of other popular sci-fi video games. The Remnant's ruins feel very distinctly like the Forerunner ruins of Halo and the fact they're referred to as "Vaults" plus the fact much of the game takes place on desert scavenger worlds in a giant Mako-esque dune buggy evokes Borderlands. There's also the fact the Kett turn out to be what might charitably be called an "Evil Empire" which is opposed by a plucky resistance. Given the original Mass Effect trilogy was a fusion of Star Wars and Star Trek (which made it, effectively, Babylon Five), that's not surprising but the references are rather notable. The fact the majority of aliens you'll meet are ones from the Milky Way also feels somewhat cheap.
Despite this, I actually state I feel like the game succeeds in reminding me why I liked Mass Effect. Liam, Cora, Drack, Suvi, and the others don't have anything on Mass Effect 2's cast but they're all fun people I enjoyed hanging around with (as much as you can enjoy spending time with fictional people). They're sort of all blandly pleasant at worse (ala Kaiden and Ashley) and archetypically endearing at best. The romances feel a bit weak and I can't help but think fans will take them too personally. It strikes me Bioware may have been onto something just making everyone bisexual ala Dragon Age 2. Certainly, you just need to sacrifice realism sometimes for player enjoyment.
Gameplay wise, the game plays like, well, Mass Effect. It's a shooter with RPG elements as well as a return of the Mako (in all but name). The only real complaint I have about it is the absence of the Renegade and Paragon system which was really something I loved. The Ryder twins feel a little more generic without their option to be outstandingly noble or ruthlessly psychotic. Still, the writing is crisp on that end too with both of the siblings having a Nathan Drake-esque adventurous spirit, awkward dorkiness, or a cool professionalism depending on how you want to play them.
In conclusion, this is a fun game and I'm going to continue playing it until I've done just about everything but it's a very "safe" sort of game too. In terms of genre, I'd say this is the Star Wars: The Force Awakens of the franchise. There's a lot of the same beats of the original and very little risk taking but it washed a lot of the bad taste out of my mouth too.
8/10
MASS EFFECT: ANDROMEDA review
Well, that was definitely a Mass Effect game.
That's probably the best way to describe my experience with Andromeda, which is a game that I had mixed feelings going into. Like many fans of the series, I felt burned by the ending of Mass Effect 3. I wasn't one of the people who believed it was worth naming EA one of the worst companies in the world and it didn't kill my children or anything but it felt dissonant to have an uncertain ending when I'd put literally years of investment into my Shepard's relationships. I, really, felt like i was done with the series afterward and wasn't sure if I was ever going to look back.
Still, I had a lot of fun in the Mass Effect universe and was intrigued by the possibility of returning to it. Unfortunately, it felt like the newest game's premise was going to side-step the ending of the original trilogy rather than address it. Your character is going to be a colonist in a cryo-ship which has made a six-hundred-year journey across the void between galaxies until they reached Andromeda. When you awake, the events of the original trilogy are long in the past and you are surrounded by favorites of the original series without the third game to "sully" it.
At least, that's how I felt.
Really, I have to stress the game isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. It's a game I'm going to enjoy playing all fifty or so hours of content it provides and which gave me a satisfying, if slightly generic player experience. The characters were likable, if not especially memorable, and the graphics were lovely except for the faces. The gameplay was fun but mostly a return to its roots. This is a game which is fun and I highly recommend but it's also a game which is going to be perhaps a little disappointing if players were expecting something truly epic.
The premise of the game, as mentioned, is you are Sarah (Fryda Wolff) or Scott Ryder (Tom Taylorson doing a Nolan North impression) and you're the son of Alec Ryder (Clancy Brown) who is the Pathfinder a.k.a Chief Scout for the Andromeda Initiative. The Andromeda Initiative, despite being amazingly well-equipped for a private enterprise, ends up hitting dark matter pockets and scatters across the Helius Cluster. Many of the Initiative's leaders are killed and you discover the worlds you were going to settle have all been rendered uninhabitable by six-hundred-year-old alien tech. Worse, a hostile alien race called the Kett take umbrage to your presence. You are forced to step up and become the new Pathfinder who will find a way to colonize this cluster despite the fact it's a post-apocalypse hellhole.
Weirdly, this game feels like it's riffing from a bunch of other popular sci-fi video games. The Remnant's ruins feel very distinctly like the Forerunner ruins of Halo and the fact they're referred to as "Vaults" plus the fact much of the game takes place on desert scavenger worlds in a giant Mako-esque dune buggy evokes Borderlands. There's also the fact the Kett turn out to be what might charitably be called an "Evil Empire" which is opposed by a plucky resistance. Given the original Mass Effect trilogy was a fusion of Star Wars and Star Trek (which made it, effectively, Babylon Five), that's not surprising but the references are rather notable. The fact the majority of aliens you'll meet are ones from the Milky Way also feels somewhat cheap.
Despite this, I actually state I feel like the game succeeds in reminding me why I liked Mass Effect. Liam, Cora, Drack, Suvi, and the others don't have anything on Mass Effect 2's cast but they're all fun people I enjoyed hanging around with (as much as you can enjoy spending time with fictional people). They're sort of all blandly pleasant at worse (ala Kaiden and Ashley) and archetypically endearing at best. The romances feel a bit weak and I can't help but think fans will take them too personally. It strikes me Bioware may have been onto something just making everyone bisexual ala Dragon Age 2. Certainly, you just need to sacrifice realism sometimes for player enjoyment.
Gameplay wise, the game plays like, well, Mass Effect. It's a shooter with RPG elements as well as a return of the Mako (in all but name). The only real complaint I have about it is the absence of the Renegade and Paragon system which was really something I loved. The Ryder twins feel a little more generic without their option to be outstandingly noble or ruthlessly psychotic. Still, the writing is crisp on that end too with both of the siblings having a Nathan Drake-esque adventurous spirit, awkward dorkiness, or a cool professionalism depending on how you want to play them.
In conclusion, this is a fun game and I'm going to continue playing it until I've done just about everything but it's a very "safe" sort of game too. In terms of genre, I'd say this is the Star Wars: The Force Awakens of the franchise. There's a lot of the same beats of the original and very little risk taking but it washed a lot of the bad taste out of my mouth too.
8/10
I'd rather have one really good game than a bunch of mediocre titles.
I also don't know why you find the prospect of replaying games weird.
Do you find it weird when you watch the same movie twice?
Or read the same book twice?
Howabout the same song?
Games are a medium, and some are asked to play more than once.
There are franchises I like, but there has to come a time when it's best to move on.
The Halo series was a favorite of mine 10 years ago, now I couldn't care less what happens.
The Metal Gear series is still my favorite series, it just suffered heavily in the last few years.
A franchise is great even if there are bad games. But why would you want sub-par games?
I still consider the Fallout series to be one of the finest in modern gaming, even if two games are sub-par and a spin off which is mind numbingly awful.
I also don't know why you find the prospect of replaying games weird.
Do you find it weird when you watch the same movie twice?
Or read the same book twice?
Howabout the same song?
Games are a medium, and some are asked to play more than once.
There are franchises I like, but there has to come a time when it's best to move on.
The Halo series was a favorite of mine 10 years ago, now I couldn't care less what happens.
The Metal Gear series is still my favorite series, it just suffered heavily in the last few years.
A franchise is great even if there are bad games. But why would you want sub-par games?
I still consider the Fallout series to be one of the finest in modern gaming, even if two games are sub-par and a spin off which is mind numbingly awful.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I sometimes do but I mostly prefer moving on to new medium and story.
On my end, the Halo series stopped being relevant because of BAD games and because they kept trying to make the series bigger as well as different. Halo 5 was too far removed from what made the series great and Halo: Guardians was a multiplayer game with no actual need of multiplayer plus a character assassination.
Because I loathe the development cycle which games currently exist under that is ruining video games and have driven many franchises into the ground. When I say mediocore, I hope it's clear I mean the fact the constant need of bigger and larger as well as tearing the universe apart. Half-Life 3 never came out for the same reason Duke Nukem became the quagmire it was, the belief the game had to be the biggest thing ever that prevented a small ordinary sequel cranked out for fans.
Fallout: New Vegas is my favorite Fallout and it's basically just Fallout 3 with slight improvements. I feel like we need more of that attitude because too much is sunk into making bigger than what could just be better.
And yes, basically I think it's better to have a bunch of good games than one great. It's why I like yearly franchises that don't change because they're good purchases that are guarantees of quality because they don't shake up the formula.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
And WHY aim to make more mediocre titles, when they could make GOOD games and then make more of them?
(It's not against you directly) So you "tourists" ask for changes to the games, but then fuck off to the next thing. That's exactly what happened to Fo4. The people that was just passing had a blast. The fans, though, got to eat some shit. That game is unreplayable and it hurts every aspect of its lifespan, mod scene and fanbase.
That's the biggest ailment of New Vegas. Having to live in that garbage engine (it was Civ IV's, for god's sake), its short and rushed development. That was what stopped it from being, simply put, one of the best games ever.
Becouse a game that you want isn't coming out anytime soon, games have to come en masse as cheap filling?
The only good yearly franchise that I like is the Souls series, and that's becouse they are a huge (and japanese) studio with different teams still sharing as much quality and focus. And still, DSIII was getting a bit stale comparatively.
(It's not against you directly) So you "tourists" ask for changes to the games, but then fuck off to the next thing. That's exactly what happened to Fo4. The people that was just passing had a blast. The fans, though, got to eat some shit. That game is unreplayable and it hurts every aspect of its lifespan, mod scene and fanbase.
That's the biggest ailment of New Vegas. Having to live in that garbage engine (it was Civ IV's, for god's sake), its short and rushed development. That was what stopped it from being, simply put, one of the best games ever.
Becouse a game that you want isn't coming out anytime soon, games have to come en masse as cheap filling?
The only good yearly franchise that I like is the Souls series, and that's becouse they are a huge (and japanese) studio with different teams still sharing as much quality and focus. And still, DSIII was getting a bit stale comparatively.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
Slight improvements? If those are only slight I wonder what great improvements look like.
Also it's not basically Fallout 3, New Vegas is actually good
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
This is significantly more generous than the score I have in my mind for Andromeda.
The game is marred by many individual issues that detract from the overall experience. I'll submit a more detailed review when I'm done with the game.
The rating for Andromeda is higher than I rate most of my favourite games.
So you're not patient for good games to come out?
Or are you confusing Great with hype?
A great game doesn't have to crumble under the hype you know.
Again, New Vegas was a game most people were waiting for 12 years and it's considered by many to be the best of the series.
Look at the hype for any GTA game, in fact, make that a rockstar game. Most people tend to really enjoy them, and even if I admit I think they reached their peak with San Andreas, GTA V was far from a disappointment.
I honestly don't get why you want mediocre releases, especially considering you're a writer. I hate to get personal with people, but if you're okay with being okay with games because of the name attached to them, it doesn't give me a lot of hope for the quality of your work, and I'm very sorry to say that.
I look at what the creator was influenced by, what they read/watched/played/listen to as a reflection of their work, no one who makes a masterpiece was ever okay with okay, they strive to look for something worthwhile.
Again, I really hate to say it, but I think you need to understand that if you keep with okay, you're never going to get anything better, and why would you want something which is objectively worse than the previous release?
So you're not patient for good games to come out?
Or are you confusing Great with hype?
A great game doesn't have to crumble under the hype you know.
Again, New Vegas was a game most people were waiting for 12 years and it's considered by many to be the best of the series.
Look at the hype for any GTA game, in fact, make that a rockstar game. Most people tend to really enjoy them, and even if I admit I think they reached their peak with San Andreas, GTA V was far from a disappointment.
I honestly don't get why you want mediocre releases, especially considering you're a writer. I hate to get personal with people, but if you're okay with being okay with games because of the name attached to them, it doesn't give me a lot of hope for the quality of your work, and I'm very sorry to say that.
I look at what the creator was influenced by, what they read/watched/played/listen to as a reflection of their work, no one who makes a masterpiece was ever okay with okay, they strive to look for something worthwhile.
Again, I really hate to say it, but I think you need to understand that if you keep with okay, you're never going to get anything better, and why would you want something which is objectively worse than the previous release?
Well I think you can be an excelent chef and great cook and still enjoy Mc Donalds burgers - I mean his books are on Amazon no? Has someone read any of his works?
But to be honest I am not sure what to make of Phipps from some of the discussions we had ... and I can see where you're coming from.
But to be honest I am not sure what to make of Phipps from some of the discussions we had ... and I can see where you're coming from.