inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Jun 13, 2019 13:24:25 GMT
UpUpAgainWhat does your post have to do with what I posted? Nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 13:56:40 GMT
UpUpAgainWhat does your post have to do with what I posted? It has everything to do with what you posted. I'll even use your own sentence structure from your post to make the point clearer...
What made Bioware think that the people who initially didn't like Ashley and opted to tell her to "stay" would like her any better once she was forced upon us aboard Normandy? What made Bioware think that those players who told Anderson they didn't want her onboard would like her any better if they forced the player to keep her onboard until they could implement their "big decision" moment on Virmire... forcing the player to make Ashley a hero in the process of getting rid of her?
What made Bioware think that people who didn't like Tali and told Udina they didn't want her onboard would like her any better if forcibly brought back even for a single mission in ME2 (yet there she and the only way to complete that mission is to essentially work with her even hearing her telling the squad to "be careful, etc.") You've frequently mentioned how Garrus reappears even if you do decide he's the one that should be left behind on the Citadel in ME1. What made Bioware think that those who didn't like him initially and never recruited him would like him any better the second time around? Yet... some people did.
On a broader note... Bioware is the one who starts the story allowing the player to believe that it is possible for Shepard to generally dislike all aliens (to be racist like Ashley)... yet, ultimately, it is impossible to play through evne ME1 as a total alien-hating bastard. We have to recruit some aliens and we even have to have one fighting next to us when we take down Saren. It gets worse in ME2... we can't even get through act one without putting aliens on the squad even though we allegedly work for a human supremacist organization. What made Bioware think that people who wanted to RP Shepard as a staunchly pro-human would like the idea of working with any aliens any better by the end of ME1 and into ME2?
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
May 14, 2024 11:57:09 GMT
24,295
themikefest
14,824
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jun 13, 2019 14:22:27 GMT
You've frequently mentioned how Garrus reappears even if you do decide he's the one that should be left behind on the Citadel in ME1. Explain this reappears thing?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 13, 2019 14:34:08 GMT
You make an Andromeda related survey, by asking the fans that like Andromeda what they like about Andromeda and you come up with a lot of positive outcomes for the very same things that critics berated it for. How is that not biased? It's like setting out to make a cocaine survey and your sample pool are the local cocaine addicts. If they say they liked it, then it must be good, right? I mean, who are you going to believe? Some rando doctor who has never done a line in his life or the guy that ski jumps into powder mountain? The surveys you and Syv posted are not bad, if you want statistics that show you what the people that liked Andromeda, liked about it, but it doesn't gauge the overall gaming community's, or the critics reception of Andromeda. You are completely ignoring the fact that my response was to your posting about Metacritic reviews - which are, in the case of the data I posted about ME:A and the data you posted about ME1, BY CRITICS. You also flipped the alleged point you were trying to make since my posting of polls was in response to your statement specifically that Peebee was "one of the least well received" character in the game. Several of the polls I listed place BOTH Liam and Cora beneath her, several of the polls made outside this site and statements made by critics also do not place PeeBee as the least popular and place her higher than both Liam and Cora and a couple of them place her higher in the overall rankings of characters from Mass Effect overall.
So then you make this statement: ... which completely ignores the fact that more than half of the reviews by critics on Metacritic are rated as "positive" and on any platform the mixed reviews by critics are not more numerous than the positives ones AND that there were only 2 reviews by critics actually considered to be "negative." You also completely ignore that a number of the reviews (which I've been reading today) indicate positive things about the characters and specifically about PeeBee. Many of the reviews that mention issues about the characters do not mention PeeBee at all.
A mixed review is a mixed review, per Metacritic's definitions. A negative review is a negative review... and Andromeda received 2 of those. There were more critics that gave Andromeda a positive review as opposed to a mixed one and the overall Metascore falls into the "average" range for that site. Conversely, ME1 only received positive reviews.
I can also counter your "anecdotal" evidence because I've had numerous conversation with people who liked PeeBee... but according to you, those opinions shouldn't count because their bias is that they liked the game; whereas, according to you, the opinions of your contacts should matter more because their bias is that they didn't like the game. Since most of the polls don't cover any of the non-squadmate characters in Andromeda, I would say the "least well received" ones are not even being represented. My purely anecdotal impression is that Addison is probably the least well received character in Andromeda, followed rather closely by Director Tann. For all 4 games, my puerly anecdotal experience tells me that Kai Leng or perhaps The Catalyst still probably keeps top spot as the least well received character in any Mass Effect game overall.
Alright, alright, alright. Since you are either being willfully ignorant, intentionally obtuse or just plain antagonistic, let me take it from the top. You and Syv posted several surveys, all being answered by people that like Andromeda. That is great, that is splendid, that is magnificent. But that doesn't represent a valid metric for those that gave ME:A a 72 average PC review score on metacritic. Even so, Metacritic rates review scores of upward of 75%, if I recall correctly, as positive. So a 75% and up is positive, right? It's a great game, fantastic success, the studio should be proud, champagne bottles should be opened, let's shower Mac Walters with hookers and blow, right? Maybe, maybe not. Let's look into it a little bit further. If you average it out between PC, PS4 and XBONE, you'll find that the game averages 73% across all platforms and only on XBONE is Andromeda over a 75% average. Bottom line, its reception was, at best, mixed. Anthem, sitting at a 59% is also received as mixed, just an FYI.
Moving on from that, let's look at a ME1. Received positively, not mixed, with a 91% and 89% on XBOX 360 and PC, earning it a metacritic "must play" seal, as well. Without a doubt, for its time, ME1 was comparatively better received and by an order of magnitude. I don't think that anyone is going to argue against Positive being better than Mixed or a 89% being better than 76. Are we good this far? Have we established the difference between the reception of the two titles? Yes? Good. On to the next part.
Now, just barely bellow positive may not be that good, but it's not that bad a result either, right? Surely there are some extremely unfavourable reviews that bring it down, doesn't mean it's that bad, right? Lets assume there were a few, or several if you'd like, predisposed reviewers. These guys were never going to give Andromeda a good score. So lets kick it up a notch, from a 73% average across all platforms to 77%. Sounds good? 4 points across the board, I think, is a generous margin, right? I mean, that would raise the XBONE metacritic average to an 80, right were Bioware expected it to be. Let's see at another fairly recent, also released in 2017 title that got reviewed a 77% on metacritic: Dawn of War 3. Within 3 months of the game's release and reception, SEGA and subsequently Relic announced dropping all plans to further support and develop DoW3 and has potentially killed the DoW franchise. Interesting, interesting. An established and loved IP, within its genre, releases a sequel that is significantly worse received than its prequels and effectively put the franchise on ice. Interesting. Hmmm If only there could be a parallel drawn from AAA games that perform at the very least, on average, below the 80% mark.
To conclude, then, my point is that Andromeda, no matter how much you love it, no matter how much the people that love it, do love it, is not a well received game. Not viably, not for the level of development, budget, assets and time invested into it and similarly received titles. Even slightly better received ones, have also suffered the same fate. I'm not arguing your dedication, love and nurturing for Bioware and Andromeda, I'm arguing that in spite of it, its not enough. It's not enough that you like Liam, Peebee, Cora, Drax, Jaal and Vetra, they have to be found likeable by the people that review the games as well, or at least more likeable than they currently find them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 14:41:26 GMT
You've frequently mentioned how Garrus reappears even if you do decide he's the one that should be left behind on the Citadel in ME1. Explain this reappears thing? If you don't recruit him in ME1 and recruits Wrex instead, Garrus does not appear any further in ME1; but will "reappear" in ME2 as Archangel.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
May 14, 2024 11:57:09 GMT
24,295
themikefest
14,824
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jun 13, 2019 14:49:00 GMT
Explain this reappears thing? If you don't recruit him in ME1 and recruits Wrex instead, Garrus does not appear any further in ME1; but will "reappear" in ME2 as Archangel. Ok. I don't recall ever saying anything about him appearing in ME2 or have a problem with him appearing in ME2. Since you posted about me mentioning him appearing in ME2, can you give a link or two with me mentioning that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 14:49:02 GMT
You are completely ignoring the fact that my response was to your posting about Metacritic reviews - which are, in the case of the data I posted about ME:A and the data you posted about ME1, BY CRITICS. You also flipped the alleged point you were trying to make since my posting of polls was in response to your statement specifically that Peebee was "one of the least well received" character in the game. Several of the polls I listed place BOTH Liam and Cora beneath her, several of the polls made outside this site and statements made by critics also do not place PeeBee as the least popular and place her higher than both Liam and Cora and a couple of them place her higher in the overall rankings of characters from Mass Effect overall.
So then you make this statement: ... which completely ignores the fact that more than half of the reviews by critics on Metacritic are rated as "positive" and on any platform the mixed reviews by critics are not more numerous than the positives ones AND that there were only 2 reviews by critics actually considered to be "negative." You also completely ignore that a number of the reviews (which I've been reading today) indicate positive things about the characters and specifically about PeeBee. Many of the reviews that mention issues about the characters do not mention PeeBee at all.
A mixed review is a mixed review, per Metacritic's definitions. A negative review is a negative review... and Andromeda received 2 of those. There were more critics that gave Andromeda a positive review as opposed to a mixed one and the overall Metascore falls into the "average" range for that site. Conversely, ME1 only received positive reviews.
I can also counter your "anecdotal" evidence because I've had numerous conversation with people who liked PeeBee... but according to you, those opinions shouldn't count because their bias is that they liked the game; whereas, according to you, the opinions of your contacts should matter more because their bias is that they didn't like the game. Since most of the polls don't cover any of the non-squadmate characters in Andromeda, I would say the "least well received" ones are not even being represented. My purely anecdotal impression is that Addison is probably the least well received character in Andromeda, followed rather closely by Director Tann. For all 4 games, my puerly anecdotal experience tells me that Kai Leng or perhaps The Catalyst still probably keeps top spot as the least well received character in any Mass Effect game overall.
Alright, alright, alright. Since you are either being willfully ignorant, intentionally obtuse or just plain antagonistic, let me take it from the top. You and Syv posted several surveys, all being answered by people that like Andromeda. That is great, that is splendid, that is magnificent. But that doesn't represent a valid metric for those that gave ME:A a 72 average PC review score on metacritic. Even so, Metacritic rates review scores of upward of 75%, if I recall correctly, as positive. So a 75% and up is positive, right? It's a great game, fantastic success, the studio should be proud, champagne bottles should be opened, let's shower Mac Walters with hookers and blow, right? Maybe, maybe not. Let's look into it a little bit further. If you average it out between PC, PS4 and XBONE, you'll find that the game averages 73% across all platforms and only on XBONE is Andromeda over a 75% average. Bottom line, its reception was, at best, mixed. Anthem, sitting at a 59% is also received as mixed, just an FYI.
Moving on from that, let's look at a ME1. Received positively, not mixed, with a 91% and 89% on XBOX 360 and PC, earning it a metacritic "must play" seal, as well. Without a doubt, for its time, ME1 was comparatively better received and by an order of magnitude. I don't think that anyone is going to argue against Positive being better than Mixed or a 89% being better than 76. Are we good this far? Have we established the difference between the reception of the two titles? Yes? Good. On to the next part.
Now, just barely bellow positive may not be that good, but it's not that bad a result either, right? Surely there are some extremely unfavourable reviews that bring it down, doesn't mean it's that bad, right? Lets assume there were a few, or several if you'd like, predisposed reviewers. These guys were never going to give Andromeda a good score. So lets kick it up a notch, from a 73% average across all platforms to 77%. Sounds good? 4 points across the board, I think, is a generous margin, right? I mean, that would raise the XBONE metacritic average to an 80, right were Bioware expected it to be. Let's see at another fairly recent, also released in 2017 title that got reviewed a 77% on metacritic: Dawn of War 3. Within 3 months of the game's release and reception, SEGA and subsequently Relic announced dropping all plans to further support and develop DoW3 and has potentially killed the DoW franchise. Interesting, interesting. An established and loved IP, within its genre, releases a sequel that is significantly worse received than its prequels and effectively put the franchise on ice. Interesting. Hmmm If only there could be a parallel drawn from AAA games that perform at the very least, on average, below the 80% mark.
To conclude, then, my point is that Andromeda, no matter how much you love it, no matter how much the people that love it, do love it, is not a well received game. Not viably, not for the level of development, budget, assets and time invested into it and similarly received titles. Even slightly better received ones, have also suffered the same fate. I'm not arguing your dedication, love and nurturing for Bioware and Andromeda, I'm arguing that in spite of it, its not enough.
It's reception was mixed, period. It received two negative reviews out of a total of 133 (corrected - apologies for addition error) reviews by various critics compiled by Metacritic. These are factual statements... not obtuse or antagonistic or whatever spin you want to slap on them. They are fact, period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 14:55:48 GMT
If you don't recruit him in ME1 and recruits Wrex instead, Garrus does not appear any further in ME1; but will "reappear" in ME2 as Archangel. Ok. I don't recall ever saying anything about him appearing in ME2 or have a problem with him appearing in ME2. Since you posted about me mentioning him appearing in ME2, can you give a link or two with me mentioning that. Why? I'm saying that some people did not like him in ME1 and did not recruit him in ME1 and he "reappeared" on them in ME2. For some of those people who did not originally like Garrus, he became liked in ME2 and is now endeared by several fans here. In this case, my statements are based on anecdotal evidence of people I've talked with who, for them, that was the case. I'm not even remotely implying a majority or that all fans felt that way... just that some did. Some people like PeeBee now, some don't. Bioware may or may not continue with her even if they continue with an ME:A2. We simply don't know what they might have planned for her in the story going forward or what changes her personality might undergo going forward. Based on their past experience with Garrus, however, Bioware can legitimately expect that some fans may like her better in a second game.
The same holds true with Ashley... despite their having made some changes to her that a certain segment of the fandom objected to. You yourself have said you use her a lot in ME3, have you not?
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
May 14, 2024 11:57:09 GMT
24,295
themikefest
14,824
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jun 13, 2019 15:10:05 GMT
Ok. I don't recall ever saying anything about him appearing in ME2 or have a problem with him appearing in ME2. Since you posted about me mentioning him appearing in ME2, can you give a link or two with me mentioning that. Why? I'm saying that some people did not like him in ME1 and did not recruit him in ME1 and he "reappeared" on them in ME2.
you did say this, and yet you're asking why.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 13, 2019 15:10:42 GMT
It's reception was mixed, period. It received two negative reviews out of a total of 201 reviews by various critics compiled by Metacritic. These are factual statements... not obtuse or antagonistic or whatever spin you want to slap on them. They are fact, period. No argument there. I'm just arguing that a mixed reception is not good enough. What ME1 did, what ME2 did, that was enough, or even more than enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 15:25:10 GMT
Why? I'm saying that some people did not like him in ME1 and did not recruit him in ME1 and he "reappeared" on them in ME2.
you did say this, and yet you're asking why.
My apologies then. You never said in precisely in that way. It's still a fact though, and I'm certain you were aware of it since I know you're aware of how the dialogue with him changes in ME2 to reflect whether or not you did recruit him in ME. The basic point remains the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 15:28:42 GMT
It's reception was mixed, period. It received two negative reviews out of a total of 201 reviews by various critics compiled by Metacritic. These are factual statements... not obtuse or antagonistic or whatever spin you want to slap on them. They are fact, period. No argument there. I'm just arguing that a mixed reception is not good enough. What ME1 did, what ME2 did, that was enough, or even more than enough. A mixed reception, however, isn't bad enough to guarantee a backlash at the mere thought of a sequel to that game being made. It's not indicative of a bad enough receiption for a character like PeeBee to be unceremoniously dumped either.
If ME:A2 is a really good game, it could be positively received. The critics, if they are professionals, should be able to muster enough objectivity to see the game for what it is... even when it's better than a predecessor that received mixed reviews from them a few years before.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 13, 2019 16:27:09 GMT
A mixed reception, however, isn't bad enough to guarantee a backlash at the mere thought of a sequel to that game being made. You underestimate the meanness of the Internet and its ability to capitalize on memes. Especially ill-intended memes. Laymen Gaming have already expressed ridicule at the mere mention of the next Mass Effect title, in expectation of more "my face is tired" animations. Whether they will be right about it or not will be irrelevant when the gaming public will have already made up their opinion about the game, based on previous Bioware games reception, general hate towards EA and the general feeling of wanting to re-enact the clown show of past shitstorms for shits and giggles. No amount of flashy trailer is going to stop that. Schreier's report of the completely fabricated E3 2017 Anthem demo has made sure of that. And even if that hasn't, youtubers and article writers will make sure to remind people of that. And trust me when I say that this will weigh heavily on the side of the developers. Have you seen Ben and Jessie on the latest Anthem streams? They are depressed. I cannot begin to tell you how bad it feels to see Ben like that. I know a lot of people here might not share that sentiment, but I really get the feeling he loves his job, he wants to be there and he wants to do a good job, he wants to turn Anthem around. But man, he'll look ten years older by the time his work on it will bear fruit. Same goes for Jessie. And these two are just the guys Bioware has put forth to address the community. How many other employees must be in a similar, or possibly worse state, trying to fix that game. It has to be disheartening to say the least. But that psychology, beyond the personal effect, has the added effect of professional performance. How can you deliver without the needed clarity? You're going to have a harder time delivering on your assigned segment, in a timely fashion, which creates a domino effect on your overall productivity. Which leads to crunch, to cut corners and eventually to a product that releases to yet another mixed reception. Provided, even, that Bioware fixes the problems they are already facing internally in the meantime, so that scrutiny and negativity are the only things troubling them. So you can see what's wrong with Bioware now, you can see what's going to happen and where this all will lead. You know that going down a certain path will bring forth a very harsh and negative, possibly catastrophic sentiment. You have choices at your disposal to examine and the time to assess them. You also have to take into consideration the well-being of your employees and the future of the studio you are working for. What do you do from there? I've pondered for a while now what I would do. So, once again, here's my contingency plan, which, by the way, adheres to all your conditions of a return to the MW, while, possibly, also giving a way out of the endings without invalidating them, by adding a couple of completely optional extra ending options, happening only under special conditions. But it doesn't have to be this specifically. Using argumentum ad passiones to gain favour within the community, Bioware can, at least, contain the negativity to a manageable degree, which, while a bullshit tactic, can arguably be very effective, if used correctly i.e. marketed properly. So how do you appeal to someone's emotion, if they feel so betrayed, or if the media constantly reminds them how they should feel about Bioware? You dangle in front of them something they loved. And what did they love? What did they absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, fall in unquestionable love with? The OT and everything that came along with it. Just this once, perhaps. That's my plan, anyway, my train of thought has led me here and this was the final station, so this is where I get off. You can disagree with it and that's okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 16:37:33 GMT
A mixed reception, however, isn't bad enough to guarantee a backlash at the mere thought of a sequel to that game being made. You underestimate the meanness of the Internet and its ability to capitalize on memes. Especially ill-intended memes. No, I'm not... that why I added the "if they are professional" to my comment about how critics should review a sequel to ME:A. The status of the internet is a mess and I think I've made it pretty clear that I hold those who engage in such antics as rampant meming and overt exaggeration of facts to try to make their points pretty clear. That doesn't mean Bioware should reinforce their "power" by giving in to them. That is all.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 13, 2019 16:50:12 GMT
That doesn't mean Bioware should reinforce their "power" by giving in to them I'd argue they have power enough as it is. Sometimes it is better to play along, even momentarily, than being antagonistic. I think you and I have a very fundamentally different approach to diplomacy and human interactions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 16:58:33 GMT
That doesn't mean Bioware should reinforce their "power" by giving in to them I'd argue they have power enough as it is. Sometimes it is better to play along, even momentarily, than being antagonistic. I think you and I have a very fundamentally different approach to diplomacy and human interactions. ... and on that point we fundamentally disagree. I agree with AnDromedary's assessment, the internet meming has only gotten more malicious over the years. At first, we thought it was good natured, so we played along... but what has "playing along" achieved?
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
May 14, 2024 22:39:37 GMT
30,258
Hanako Ikezawa
22,365
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jun 13, 2019 16:59:30 GMT
That doesn't mean Bioware should reinforce their "power" by giving in to them I'd argue they have power enough as it is. Sometimes it is better to play along, even momentarily, than being antagonistic. I think you and I have a very fundamentally different approach to diplomacy and human interactions. History disagrees with you.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 13, 2019 17:04:20 GMT
History disagrees with you. As far as the topic at hands goes, with Bioware, Andromeda and Anthem, everything I've seen so far and have predicted, has unfolded, thus far, as I've said. So I'd argue this history at least for the time being, agrees with me. And that's the only part that I need and care to be proven wrong of.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,134
AnDromedary
4,393
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jun 13, 2019 17:43:05 GMT
I think the main point here is that BW needs to make a Mass Effect game again, that is just widely accepted as being a fantastic game. Whether that is an Andromeda sequel or a new milky way ME probably wouldn't even matter that much if the game is just great.
An Andromeda sequel might even come in stronger in that sense because the expectations might be lower at first and it might then surprise people. It's really tough to predict which way the pendulum of public opinion will swing on these things but IMO the alpha and omega of this is that whatever setting they use the game must be strong.
Because this was also Andromeda's problem. Yes, it's reception as a game was mixed, not really bad. However, it was not received as well as the previous games in the series (which set a fairly ridiculous standard, with every game around the 90% mark, sure but hey, they knew that before). Not holding up to expectations can be much worse for a products reputation than just being medicore without expectations. I am fairly sure, if Andromeda was set in a new IP and if they would have emphazied that it's a whole new team makiing it, etc., it would have been received much better than it was as a Mass Effect successor.
So who knows? If BW annouces a new Mass Effect in the Milky Way and they use marketing lingo like "back to the roots" and "sequel to the trilogy" or whatever and then they come out with a decent title but not a 90 title, people might be disappointed again but if they do make an Andromeda 2, when it's announced probably people will be saying "they are setting themselves up for another failure" but then, if they can deliver a decent game, they might be positively surprised. Crowd psychology is really a weird thing.
Personally, I am not really expecting them to go the Andromeda 2 route though. BW hasn't exactly shown a lot of balls in the last couple of years and generally tried to go the path of least resisitance of everything. While that hasn't exactly worked out too well for them, I am not expecting it to change suddenly now. However, I, too, will be happy if I am positively surprised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 18:06:14 GMT
I think the main point here is that BW needs to make a Mass Effect game again, that is just widely accepted as being a fantastic game. Whether that is an Andromeda sequel or a new milky way ME probably wouldn't even matter that much if the game is just great. An Andromeda sequel might even come in stronger in that sense because the expectations might be lower at first and it might then surprise people. It's really tough to predict which way the pendulum of public opinion will swing on these things but IMO the alpha and omega of this is that whatever setting they use the game must be strong. Because this was also Andromeda's problem. Yes, it's reception as a game was mixed, not really bad. However, it was not received as well as the previous games in the series (which set a fairly ridiculous standard, with every game around the 90% mark, sure but hey, they knew that before). Not holding up to expectations can be much worse for a products reputation than just being medicore without expectations. I am fairly sure, if Andromeda was set in a new IP and if they would have emphazied that it's a whole new team makiing it, etc., it would have been received much better than it was as a Mass Effect successor. So who knows? If BW annouces a new Mass Effect in the Milky Way and they use marketing lingo like "back to the roots" and "sequel to the trilogy" or whatever and then they come out with a decent title but not a 90 title, people might be disappointed again but if they do make an Andromeda 2, when it's announced probably people will be saying "they are setting themselves up for another failure" but then, if they can deliver a decent game, they might be positively surprised. Crowd psychology is really a weird thing. Personally, I am not really expecting them to go the Andromeda 2 route though. BW hasn't exactly shown a lot of balls in the last couple of years and generally tried to go the path of least resisitance of everything. While that hasn't exactly worked out too well for them, I am not expecting it to change suddenly now. However, I, too, will be happy if I am positively surprised. I agree. I also think there is a higher chance of failure with a Trilogy sequel than an Andromeda one because people have far more set expectations about what they personally want out such a move - like Shepard living, like being able to play the sort of Shepard they are expecting to be able to play, that the Milky Way will be basically as they left it (with only the possible absence of Reapers), etc. There are, IMO, simply more ways in which Bioware could piss people off than if they made similar changes in Andromeda in order to change the direction of the story or the personality of the protag. As you said, people's expectations about Andromeda are lower, but more importantly, they are also fewer and less specific than with a continuation of the OT. If they drop "Mass Effect" from the title to drive the differences between the two home, I'm OK with that. Even if they sell Andromeda outright or farm it out to another studio, I'm OK with that (if they don't plan to anything with it themselves anyways... since I personally want to see more of Andromeda regardless of what Bioware does with Mass Effect).
In the end, what's I think should be most important to Bioware in deciding this is a focus on deciding what story THEY WANT most to tell us because that's the creative base from which all their own best ideas will flow. If they are just checking off boxes they think will please "the majority" of us, we are going to get a lesser game overall than if they are doing something they themselves can get enthusiastic about again.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,134
AnDromedary
4,393
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jun 13, 2019 18:18:19 GMT
I agree. I also think there is a higher chance of failure with a Trilogy sequel than an Andromeda one because people have far more set expectations about what they personally want out such a move - like Shepard living, like being able to play the sort of Shepard they are expecting to be able to play, that the Milky Way will be basically as they left it (with only the possible absence of Reapers), etc. Yes. I was deliberately avoiding this point in my above post though. Because I think even if it was easy to make a sequel and even if they didn't have the issues with plot divergence (which we've discussed just recently anyway), just the expectations would probably still make it an uphill battle. But of course, all these technical issues would come in on top. This is true, it would be best if BW would tell their own story. I am not so sure if they will have self-confidence enough to stick with that though. The Montreal team at the very least showed that they really do want to tick boxes left and right (like "fixing" characters like Jaal and Hainly Abrams in patches). Also, I would put one constraint on this (and again, I am not optimistic on that). They should tell the story they want but when they do, they should also respect the IP that is already there and established lore. All of the ME games, starting right there with ME2 had issues with blatant continuity violations and Andromeda was IMO the worst offender in that regard. I'd hope that in a sequel - to whatever aspect of ME - they finally muster the respect what they (and people before them that might no longer be with BW) have created in the past. Within that framework, by all means, tell your own story. After all, we want to be surprised.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,622
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 13, 2019 18:21:51 GMT
I also think there is a higher chance of failure with a Trilogy sequel than an Andromeda one because people have far more set expectations They'll be too busy bawling at seeing their old friends back to notice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
Deleted
0
May 14, 2024 23:22:51 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 18:34:00 GMT
I agree. I also think there is a higher chance of failure with a Trilogy sequel than an Andromeda one because people have far more set expectations about what they personally want out such a move - like Shepard living, like being able to play the sort of Shepard they are expecting to be able to play, that the Milky Way will be basically as they left it (with only the possible absence of Reapers), etc. Yes. I was deliberately avoiding this point in my above post though. Because I think even if it was easy to make a sequel and even if they didn't have the issues with plot divergence (which we've discussed just recently anyway), just the expectations would probably still make it an uphill battle. But of course, all these technical issues would come in on top. This is true, it would be best if BW would tell their own story. I am not so sure if they will have self-confidence enough to stick with that though. The Montreal team at the very least showed that they really do want to tick boxes left and right (like "fixing" characters like Jaal and Hainly Abrams in patches). Also, I would put one constraint on this (and again, I am not optimistic on that). They should tell the story they want but when they do, they should also respect the IP that is already there and established lore. All of the ME games, starting right there with ME2 had issues with blatant continuity violations and Andromeda was IMO the worst offender in that regard. I'd hope that in a sequel - to whatever aspect of ME - they finally muster the respect what they (and people before them that might no longer be with BW) have created in the past. Within that framework, by all means, tell your own story. After all, we want to be surprised. I agree. I do see declaration of a canon ending to ME3 though as just another sort of "continuity violation" and one that I personally view as being worse than, say, introducing an Odsy Drive to the MEU that was being developed in secret by a civilian group. I also feel that they can more easily continue in Andromeda without adding any more continuity violations than if they opt to return to the Milky Way. Returning to the Milky Way requires adding at least one more continuity violation (ME3's ending canon) and likely a few more (e.g. the status of the Quarians and Geth, the Krogan genophage and political issues, and the status and perhaps even location of the Citadel itself). From that perspective if we were to isolate the issue of continuity, I think the best move is to continue in Andromeda (and I am deliberately and honestly setting aside my personal preference for Andromeda when I'm saying that).
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,134
AnDromedary
4,393
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jun 13, 2019 18:53:18 GMT
Yes, I think we've said this before as well but I do agree that, now that we are in Andromeda, there is a little more freedom for development there. And there are a lot of cool loose plot lines to explore as well. That said, personally, I wouldn't mind them choosing a canon ending and decisions at all either. In fact, I think the post destroy MW would make a fantastic setting for cool stories . I just don't see it go over very well with the entirety of the ME fanbase as everyone has their own perspective on it and will cry out if that perpective is not the one they go with.
They'll be too busy bawling at seeing their old friends back to notice. When the first trailers come out, maybe. But when the game comes out and those established characters (now written by new writers) say three wrong words, the backlash is on again.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,941 Likes: 17,670
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Apr 19, 2024 16:40:05 GMT
17,670
dmc1001
9,941
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Jun 13, 2019 21:46:01 GMT
Honestly, I liked being able to play a laid-back character. It's more like my personal style, and Shepard's histrionics were starting to grate on me. So did I. Ryder wasn't Shepard but that was never the intention. In the vein of a new beginning and spirit of adventure, we got a protagonist who fit that theme perfectly. Ryder outright wasn't the person for the job. Ryder had no ability to command. I don't think this is in dispute by anyone. Ryder needed SAM to survive, at least early on. Ryder was more forgiving than natural born leaders like Alec and Shepard. That's just how it is.
I honestly think that had MEA not been branded as the "next" ME game, it would have been better received. Lots of people, at least the ones who were more vocal, wanted Shepard 2.0. They didn't get it. Therefore, it was bad from the start, and would have been even without the graphics problems.
|
|