Learning from Andromeda, Lessons for the Future.

I haven't posted in a while, but having read a number of these critiques, I still can't agree with the basis for many of your points. I can can barely even consider the validity of these critiques because they so consistently glorify the average. I feel like you often just say things like "Andromeda has sidequests with narratives that cover topics, therefore it is good," without really justifying whether or not the narratives or topics are especially complex or, more importantly, insightful. BioWare isn't a highschool student: we don't need to shower them in accolades because the managed to craft a story that simply "has a climax that actually functions as a climax" or "has characters with a backstory and a personality that changes a bit." It shouldn't be enough that sidequests have dialog and a perceivable narrative arc; just about every action adventure game has this now. BioWare is only providing more of the same exact experiences with new (though not necessarily improved) faces and their games are suffering for it.

Within the five years between ME3 and Andromeda I've delved further into science fiction literature and discovered that Mass Effect, though Andromeda more than the rest, is retreading Pulp and Golden Age SF concepts that have been expounded upon nearly to the point of exhaustion, and they've not often provided any emotionally or ethically challenging concepts that haven't been more acutely portrayed in short stories. Maybe start by making story with a moral center that pushes beyond "work together and don't be a racist." Aye, and Gomorrah... was written in 67 and has a more nuanced and compelling portrayal of gender and sexuality than anything BioWare has likely ever conceived. With the rest of the games industry setting a pretty decent baseline for narrative, that short story is the kind of narrative I'd hope for in my RPG. The genre isn't as unique as it used to be, its games need to work harder to stay above the crowd.

To be more pointed with my argument: yes Ryder has more personality options, but, as Pearl noted, this change evidently resulted in a protagonist with even less functional agency than Shepard. Moreover, the increased number of personality options isn't even much of a benefit in and of itself when the "character study" you create via these options isn't that much more compelling than any other bland videogame protagonist. By contrast, even though Geralt is fairly tropey as a protagonist, the choices you made with him could easily cast him as anyone from a flawed father figure to a smug, disinterested nihilist. Point is, the game leveraged its lack of strong character choice to strengthen the types of characters you could be.

Andromeda is painfully and almost meticulously average, so unfortunately, The lesson to learn here is not so simple as tightening some screws. I suppose that could work with the combat mechanics (though, for Mass Effect I think I would prefer a game with more interesting combat mechanics than merely fluid), but the creative core just needs more people with vision. BioWare have been treading water with "characters that have backstories and a personality that changes a bit" for a while now. That's not enough. People get the climactic battle, and the quest structure, and the talking with crew members, and that whole dynamic. They need to either disrupt it or apply it to a scenario we've not yet seen.

I thought that game was going to be Andromeda. How many RPG actually deal with first contact or BSG-style politics? How many of those could even dream of having that "BioWare production value?" We see how that turned out. So I guess I agree about the "be bold" of your argument, but bigger? More species? More planets? No. That's not bold, that's more. Bold means different, and I don't think the Mass Effect team is creatively capable of that right now.

First of all abaris , what does metacritic score has to do with "taking fan feedback"?

Also taking fan feedback DOES NOT MEAN fans develop the game with developers. That's now what it means! Also most crowdfunded games, as in 99% of them, are NOT developed along with people who paid for the game's development. It's usually very independent and those same indie devs only listen to fan feedback, just like major studios that develop AAA titles.

You're mixing up terms here.

First of all abaris, what does metacritic score has to do with "taking fan feedback"?

Also taking fan feedback DOES NOT MEAN fans develop the game with developers. That's now what it means! Also most crowdfunded games, as in 99% of them, are NOT developed along with people who paid for the game's development. It's usually very independent and those same indie devs only listen to fan feedback, just like major studios that develop AAA titles.

You're mixing up terms here.

Those words you are using, they don't mean what you think they mean.

I would point out that probably part of the problem is BioWare came out and said that they weren't going to kill off major characters in the marketing campaign. That and the fact is killing off major characters in the first installment of your new RPG series is probably a bad idea. For reasons that it risks making the narrative too complicated later on. See what happened to ME 3.