Why Mass Effect Andromeda is Well written.

Having plot twists and lore-dumps (Hi ME1 Tali) in no way is a substitute for a coherent narrative.

MEA is full emotional shock moments, whose real implications are handwaved (ex. FTL jumping into the Archon's face, Archon getting to Hyperion, etc.). When the story doesn't hold up to any scrutiny then it means it failed what it was supposed to do - immerse the player on the universe.

You won't find very many people that think Andromeda has a better story than any of the trilogy episodes outside of this forum - outside of this thread probably. I think on average it's the exploration and combat that people prefer with Andromeda - that's really the only positive consensus that even the critical reviews mostly agree on.

You won't find very many people that think Andromeda has a better story than any of the trilogy episodes outside of this forum - outside of this thread probably. I think on average it's the exploration and combat that people prefer with Andromeda - that's really the only positive consensus that even the critical reviews mostly agree on.

....it's not about the good guy winning. It's called a Boring Protagonist. It's the challenge of writing Superman to be an interesting or relatable character. Sure, it worked in the 70's and 80's because that was a different era in storytelling, but it's the reason Batman has taken over DC comics. Because he is flawed. Because he isn't always winning and he isn't always right. He's not indestructible and it's put in front of us that he can and has lost.

A boring protagonist will often rely on the villain to drive the plot, which is a fundamental mistake when dealing with a character driven work because it forces the viewer to identify with the villain INSTEAD of the hero.

There's another equally relevant character in the MEOT that many players hated for the same reason though they might not realize it: Kai Leng. It's because, aside from his retreat from the Citadel, he doesn't lose and there's no explanation for it. He just ninja's his way around and uses plot convenience to survive until the writer is ready for him to die. We're given Shepard, who can take down Reapers, but can't take down this stealth ninja assassin? It felt like TIM could have just dispatched KL to go kill him some reapers and the whole mess of choosing red, blue or green could have been avoided.

And, before anyone says that Shep falls into this category, that's actually false. Shepard fails. The first act of ME: 1 is a mission that Shepard fails. Followed by a failure to convince the council of what actually happened on that mission. He fails and it humanizes him to the eyes of the viewer. In ME: 2 Shepard dies. Even though he is rebuilt, this works on a subconscious level to help the viewer to identify with Shepard.  Ryder doesn't lose or even fail...in the slightest bit.



But I think the real issue is with a change in storytelling. While the above stands true, that Ryder is given no chance to fail, I think that's just a symptom to the overall problem. The game is designed with a character driven narrative in mind, but the story itself is written with the plot driving it. Making it more comparable to a Michael Bay movie than the MEOT.  And Michael Bay Movies can be entertaining, but you can't go into one expecting a deep storyline and 3 dimensional characters.

This concept is, IMO, backed up by the divide.  You have fans of the trilogy that WANT ME:A to be good and, for whatever reason, refuse to admit the game has flaws as if wishing that it was a great game/story would make it so.  While other fans are put out by the change in storytelling, so much so that they pick the game's flaws apart.  Flaws that CAN be ignored if overall satisfaction is achieved (as proven by the MET).

It's...fun to observe.

That all depends on how heavily you scrutinize it. For example was the Geth recording convenient? Yeah a tad, but so would finding a secret recording, data etc in say his quarters (KOTOR had a similar thing on Koriban.) sometimes you just have to go with it.

Yes, Ryder is the boring one. To me Ryder was just a snarky, joking pushover. I think it boils down to humour and whether or not you like it in the writing. If you don't, then the writing in Andromeda is the worst thing ever, if you do, it's quality writing.

two big problems with ME 3. The ending and that line by hackett. 'There's no way we can win this conventionally'

Ugh. Gag me with a spoon.

I understand that some don't like the ending (I do) but that line makes sense to me at least.

you're probably right. But i don't trust people who don't have a sense of humor.

Suikoden doesn't have a sense of humor or much of a life for that matter.