The Pyjack's Den! The ME News Discussion Thread

It is true hubris got the better of CD Projekt Red with the success of Witcher leading to the failure of Cyberpunk, but between their support and Edgerunners, they did not abandon their flagship like Bioware ultimately did. (And more importantly have revamped their workplace situation.)

As for Andromeda boasting the best "of anything" beyond the open combat? Not according to user and critic aggregate metrics.

It did not resonate with people at large, it is a fact, one you can look up and prove with the numbers and whether it gets talked about in a positive light, years after the fact like the first three do or Dragon Age Origins does.

In my experience whether here or elsewhere it does not aside from within a fringe group.

I just think people are too eager to forgive CDPR. You would think after years of seeing devs underdelivering, scandals and such that people would be a bit skeptical. Cyberpunk was genuinely unplayable and I'm the type who loves Bethesda games at least they're playable bugs and all. Cyberpunk crashed my Xbox so many times, I've quit out frustration. I'm still wary about CDPR even if 2.0 successful. It just raises questions as to why wasn't this game pushed back at 2021. But sometimes I just feel frustrated nobody else is raising questions like this.

If you ask people which has better combat, Andromeda or Destiny 2 (MMOlite with raids and plenty of health bars), most people will say Destiny 2 (because Bungie is Bungie). People will say Destiny 2 has some of the best gunplay in the industry despite being hampered by some RPG type limitations (like the obvious bullet sponginess of enemies). It's why I'm a little wary of Bioware really trying to lean into the shooter thing, they have fine gameplay but if you compare it to Bungie it's going to come out lacking. Destiny 2 is often said to have some of the best gunplay going around, Bioware's gunplay is just fine. Obviously an improvement over ME:1 which was probably some of the worst in the industry.

As for CDPR being in the doghouse I don't think you were a fan of theirs to begin with, so you don't have the accumulated goodwill toward CDPR that much of the gaming industry has. It's like Bethesda, they have accumulated goodwill to lose so people will cut them some slack for Fallout 76 and goodness knows what else ... like the obvious favouring of AMD graphics cards on Starfield so people with Nvidia 4090s have their game running like garbage and Todd Howard just comes out and says "maybe you need to upgrade your PCs". Bethesda's accumulated goodwill will let people gloss over that. If you're not a fan of Bethesda though you'll wonder why because if Blizzard had come out and said the same thing ...

I dunno, some fans on Youtube have been treating Starfield like its mediocre garbage. Mark Kern compared Starfield to BG3 and said that Bethesda lacks passion (okay maybe we shouldn't be using Mark Kern as an example. ). Point is, Starfield has been taken a beating by sects of the internet though I want to put it out there, I've seen some criticism that's rooted by their bias.

Why fix what it isn't broke? Bethesda expanded their strengths and covered their weaknesses and made a great game. Even though Zelda, RDR2, and Elden Ring bought something new to the table, Bethesda still shows through Starfield why their games are played even today. It's because they have the game allows you to do whatever you want and for Starfield there's actually a story for most playstyles. You don't want to move away too much for what makes you successful, even though FF16 sold well, personally I didn't like the direction they took with the game with it's GOT esque tone and it placed too much focus on Devil May Cry combat. I didn't buy the game because it lost it's identity for me. I mean Bioware started experimenting with different tones and playstyles with DA2 and onwards and there were people on this very site wanting to go back to DA: O after playing BG3. So, innovation is a double-edged sword with some gamers wanting to stick to what's familiar.

In short, while yes there are more games that offer something different, In my view none of them offer the amount of freedom like Starfield, Skyrim, and even Fallout 4 provide and that's without mods. Why move on from that especially when It's bought nothing but success?

That being said, you can find flaws in any game without effort. What game is perfect?

Baldur's Gate 3 ;-)

The secret sauce here is seemingly making an actually good game. Final Fantasy games became bland and stale a long time ago.

I don't need that Garrus rubber duck, but at the same time I need that Garrus rubber duck.

FF could have done a lot more with their combat that wouldn't have been just hard shifts into action. FFVII Remake's Classic Mode is a great example of a sort of direction they could have went, but didn't, intentionally. Not saying that mode is great because it isn't (its made for its Normal Mode), but there's a lot of ways FF could do turnbased and they instead decided it was their old-old way (ATB standing in a row) or push as hard into action as they can design/fans will tolerate. This basically meant a Kingdom Hearts direction and then even further, with XV and XVI.

There's a chance they'll see fantastic Rebirth sales and more evidently lacking tail end XVI sales and that's be the push to get a better clue that 'improving' what they're good at doesn't mean just one destined path that must be followed (=90s JRPG turn based) and if that fails then it should be as abandoned as possible (=move into action), but it can mean wider experimentation than they assumed, while keeping in touch with their past better than before.

I hope the same for Mass Effect really. I felt ME2, ME3, MEA were all losing something, a bit more and more, as they went on. Did they greatly improve in ways? All of them did, in *ways*. In fact ME3 as an overall experience and forgetting the story edges, is the most comfortably enjoyable ME game for me. But I also think Bioware's very happy sometimes to throw the baby out with the bathwater, when the business case is made. But that's also what may entrap them into disasters like pursuing open world, devolving RPG systems/choices, significant shifts in tone and context during a shorter-term trilogy, etc. The best I can say is that I'll currently interpret the ME5 teases so far, as less nostalgia milking (though also that) but a communication that these devs have come back down to Earth about their series and are intentionally revisiting it all in a much more holistic manner then they did during their race to finish the trilogy and the haphazard designs for a sequel-spinoff. I have little to go on there, but its how I choose to see what's been shown. As trilogy-connected as things appear, I'm anticipating a true soft reboot (more than anything MEA tried).

I don't want my favorite series to be eternally nearly-stagnant Dragon Quests, but I also don't like the sense that a series is nearly fumbling around in the search for ever higher profit instead of respected quality. Its several years now since its release and FFXV is, in my opinion, one of the least loved mainline FF games especially in contrast to the marketing heft put behind it. I'm sure a purely turn based classic design would be seen worse reactions and would sell much worse, but I'm really not liking the 'make it action and open world/zone and the kids will like it' approach either - not that these designs can't be included, but it often comes at cost. Gamers can take all sorts of designs, as long as it isn't boring. There isn't a single, easily created recipe for that. I don't think FFXVI will be one of the most loved FFs either, for several reasons. That sort of higher respect ends at the XII-XIV times (XII aging weirdly well, XIII being disappointing but more kindly regarded in time, XIV being a wreck but ARR redeeming; but even all these having their issues and many gamers deciding VIII-X are the last 'great ones' at time of release). Its not about turn based or action in itself, unless you're exclusively marketing to preteens that can only stand constant visual and tactile stimulation in games, or middle-aged that have come to be quite the opposite. Its about knowing what you're good at, excelling at it, THEN including more and more things, experimental things, alternate approaches to designs, etc. That's what sequels are great for! The familiar that then gets its twists. (And to be clear, MET never went completely off the wall or anything.) If you want to make drastic design shifts, that's usually more appropriate for new IPs - but ironically the risk with (AAA) new IPs makes them the most safely designed games of all.

Witcher is a great example of a series that made big strides with every game, but didn't seem to just forget what came before. It made mistakes, sure, and that's why it may be a good thing to do the rumored Witcher 1 remake, but it also knew when it was appropriate to take additional approaches and it really knew it had to do the new approaches exceptionally well (like open world). MEA just put out something that worked, kept some atmosphere, didn't glitch the hell out, and seemed expensive enough to be worth a purchase - again, haphazard. I'm not saying I didn't want to drive around Eos, but I'm very much saying that my mind can imagine a 10x better Eos, whether an open zone done much better... or a closed-ish area again that stuck more to quality and not size.

There's evolution, and then there's attempted evolution that at least doesn't meet the mark, and at most was just a giant waste that a franchise now has to dig itself out of. Sometimes 'innovating' less is a VERY good and consistently valued product by audiences. Sometimes it should be less about doing the opposite of 'stale', and instead just doing enough so something doesn't become/stay stale. Wild swings can work, but they're usually a mistake if you don't hit the ball out of the ballpark. Lets see a Dragon Age that doesn't try to MMO itself before realizing that doesn't work so they scale back as best they can. Lets see a Mass Effect that doesn't try to be a MP shooter or open world collectathon before realizing that doesn't quite work well enough so they also scale back as best they can. Can we just see something that's 'ME1' but modern and freakin amazing at it? Enough that when they see what they have, they know they can also add all sorts of positive innovations and new story elements on top instead of reserved for expansions? That'd be fantastic.

We are thinking of N7 Day too ...

How many more N7 days until we can finally play the next Mass Effect? 

Admittedly, the focus should be on Dragon Age Dreadwolf, since that one should (??) come out next year.

I wonder if we'll get another teaser on ME5, or maybe just a celebration of Mass Effect art/community.

Is tom teasing again? I hope we see something more this year. Maybe a tease about the protagonist

Even though I'm late to the field, but Bethesda did improve upon their formulas. People felt the marriage system was bland in Skyrim so they improved it on Fallout 4 with characters and quests relating to them. People didn't like the gun play of Fallout 4, so they improved it on Starfield with a cover system and various ways such as a jetpack to fight back against your opponents. I mean Bethesda FINALLY added ladder climbing sections to the game lol. But again you don't want to derive too much from what made you successful because even 13 and 15 games that were heavily divisive, I enjoyed because they stuck close to what made Final Fantasy great for me. 16 especially after looking at story and gameplay was fairly bland to men.

Thinking back though, It's hard to take people's desire for innovation seriously when the best games of the year involve a CRPG and a sequel to an open world Zelda (and of course Starfield. ). There are double standards whenever people apply the term innovation to games especially ones they don't like.

yeah the Garrus duck does look fucking sweet... who would have guess that my life was missing a Garrus duck toy (!!), of all things?