Kotaku: The Story Behind ME:A's Troubled Five-Year Development

My sources indicate that this story is click bait. 

There's a thread that is already 11 pages deep talking about this.... ...but eh, i too felt kinda bad the Bioware team that seemed like they truly wanted to make something special.

ME:A isn't medicore.

Fascinating, plausible, and deeply upsetting article. A few random reactions I've had since reading it...

I definitely see why some might have skepticism regarding the integrity of this piece—the language Jason uses to describe Andromeda's reception isn't particularly impartial—but the narrative here is consistent with what we've heard in the past, such as the Reddit leak which sold Andromeda as having "hundreds of worlds," and then later leaks claiming there would be "dozens." We also heard about the troublesome development last year, especially when Schlerf left his Lead Writer position along with several other development leads.

As others have said, kudos to the developers who worked hard to get the game released at all. I'm thrilled Mac Walters was able to right the ship. I hope that's enough for some to regain his trust—the work he's done for Mass Effect, particularly the first two, is sometimes under-appreciated because of the Mass Effect 3 ending. But a year-and-a-half development cycle? That's insane, especially for a game of this size. It's a complete miracle they pushed it out at all.

I remember traveling on Voeld a while back, doing the "Know Your Enemy" quest chain. I went to a stronghold which then sent me to another fortress a few miles away on the same planet, and yet when I approached a companion yelled out "that must be the listening post we heard about back on Voeld!" I thought to myself, huh, this must have led to some other planet, but then they scrapped it, moved the listening post to Voeld, and didn't change the dialogue. Now I wonder when the move to reduce thirty worlds to seven was made, because aside from that quest I can't find any trace of the original planets, which is pretty astounding in itself.

When I heard Andromeda was based on fulfilling ME1-style exploration, I have to admit, I was pretty excited. I loved Mass Effect 1, and I thought the approach that game had was interesting, if in need of refinement. Exploring vast, empty wastelands isn't very fun, but ME1 did you a favor by marking what was on the planet right away, and by giving each planet a single planetary story with a combat sequence, a story bit, and maybe even a conversation and choice at the end. Essentially, you go to lots of planets, and each has a mission in the midst of an empty map. Some people called it exploration, but there wasn't anything to explore that wasn't already on your map (aside from medallions, minerals, and the like that were clearly unpopular and unnecessary additions). A refined ME1 system, to me, would be to have lots of planets with smaller, non-linear but guided maps that led to wherever the mission was. Exploration as in Andromeda—a handful of planets with giant maps populated with enemy encampments—were never in the ME1 vision to begin with.

Actually, I think H-047c was great because it works as a proof-of-concept for a current-gen ME1 planet: if you remove the Remnant vault, you have a planet with one or two missions that form that planet's story. Because you can't get out of the Nomad unless you get to the mission domes, and the domes are all that's on the planet, you get what is essentially a linear planet! Yeah, the map is huge, but since there's nothing in it, it's really just beautiful scenery for a mission that is pretty straightforward. The world is just non-linear enough to allow you to choose which dome you go to first, but is otherwise a linear mission, as was the case in ME1 (even then, the planet could be smaller).

Why they thought an experience like the one above might involve going to hundreds of randomly generated planets to, presumably, mine for resources or fight kett outposts is beyond me. A hybrid of ME1 UNC planets and ME2 N7 missions might be closer to what people liked about side content in the original games.

I can't help but think what might have been if BioWare didn't ask when we wanted the next Mass Effect to be set, or if they didn't listen, or if we voted to go to the past. I think when people said they wanted to move forward, they were also voting for a way to circumvent the endings in some way that somehow didn't renege the trilogy's conclusion but also saved the setting, to which there is no solution. I mean, yeah, every scenario I could think of to move Mass Effect forward involved some heavy cost to the setting, but I voted to move forward anyway under the delusion that there must be some solution I wasn't thinking of. Nobody wants the franchise to be pigeon-holed into a narrow timeline between the First Contact War and the trilogy, but there's no solution to the ending BioWare wrote without leaving the Milky Way.

If they go back to Mass Effect, I would be happy to receive an Andromeda sequel (I actually like Andromeda!) but I'm surprised there isn't more clamor for the First Contact War concept they mentioned in the article. I guess after ME3 it didn't seem very exciting, but given what we received in Andromeda, I would give anything for a game set in the Milky Way.

I'd also like to add I think the GIFs and reactions to Andromeda fed directly into the reviews a week later, and that's what tilted the Metacritic score below what was expected (though 85 Metacritic is certainly an overestimation on their part). These reviewers remember the uproar over Mass Effect 3, and remember their review sites were seen as complicit to this controversy by giving glowing reviews to ME3. Consciously or not, I think the reaction of gamers told reviewers that this was a game they should dislike or lowball in their scores. The written reviews, I recall, sometimes didn't match the score. It's as if many reviewers had rounded down what score they gave while keeping the review the same.

I worry about BioWare going forward. I fear their reputation is irreparably tarnished, especially given how important Mass Effect is to the company. I don't think putting Mass Effect on ice is the solution, either, because there is no way the next BioWare game will be able to escape the scrutiny and cynicism Andromeda's reception has brought on, especially when EA and BioWare surrender their flagship instead of rebounding. I'm hoping things work out for them, but the internet's opinion seems unbreakable.

Kotaku your source for "reliable" gaming "journalism"

Now that we've learned top people leaving is bad, I wonder what Casey Hudson leaving 2 years after starting the new IP means.

I fear it will be another mess.

I really liked the game after patch 1.05. If I had waited and bought a copy after this patch, you would only read a few posts about how great the game turned out. All of the games in the trilogy had cringe-worthy moments and it would never have bothered me at all. However, seeing the game as it was released, feeling "burned" once again at launch, it angers me that BioWare took such a risk to meet the fiscal year deadline. EA didn't say anything but used that 10 hour preview to make sales while killing everyone's reputation that was involved. 

Yeah, I bought the game after patch 1.05, so my perception of it is generally positive tbh.  I can't say how I'd feel if I had actually played through the game with all the bugs I've heard about at release.

I read the article.  I don't know much about game development so I can't really comment too much.

I know... right. He's a gifted character writer. However, his one stint at saving a franchise, wasn't too bad considering the toxic atmosphere in the studio, the EA suits making the dumbest PR and marketing decisions and of course the lack of any real communication. 

Either way, BioWare drew a line. You're either with them in blind loyalty or you're not. That's my perspective at least.

I'm feeling the same way as you do. I still want to give Dylan a chance, but if it's a micro-transaction fest and buying a full-priced game on top of that (EA, remember Plants vs Zombies 2) then I'm out. Also, there is a very telling article about how EA thinks of the customer base. We're divided up into three categories based on our spending trends. They don't care about us as fans at all. We're just cows for milking. You can say that every company does that, but that's not true. This takes hubris to another level and EA is really good at doing that.

Yah, the only time I don't like AJ's stuff is when he's talking about horror. He loves horror, I couldn't play that shit to save my life.