The GameInformer article thread

I tend to agree with this.
I don't really mind the DA:I comparison too much. As long as they pick the right parts of DA:I as inspiration, it could work very well. DA:I was not really bad in terms of the concept, it just had a few very specific issues in its execution that souredeven the good parts of the experience. But in general, big areas to explore with smaller quests and things to discover might lend itself way better to the Mass Effect world than it does to the Dragon Age one. Also, I think the more long range real time shooter combat might work better then the tactical party based system in this environment (but that might just be me, as I like this style of combat much better anyway).

BUT: I completely agree with the sentiment that the planets should feel like episodes that we visit, do our thing there and then move on. Given the vastness of space, going back and forth between planets only makes sense in a well developed region with established hubs like the council space in the milky way. If they do want to give us the feeling of exploring and pushing forward into a new frontier (like they did in ME1 to large degree), then they should keep backtracking to a minimum IMO.
Therefore, I don't like the diea of those "Superbosses" that you might have to come back to. What could be the point of going back for them in terms of the story (not just gameplay)? If I am a pathfinder and say, I find a planet that has some resources or an interesting alien temple or something but I can't defeat the monster that guards this point of interest, wouldn't it make much more sense for Ryder to just move on with the Tempest but send a report to the larger force at your back to deal with it? S/he is supposed to be some sort of scout after all, not the main force.

Another thing I am a bit concerned about is the fact that the Nomad has no weapons. While driving is fun, having some real vehicular combat could add a lot of diversity to that sort of gameplay, especially if we end up spending a lot of time in the car. I'm a bit afraid it'll end up a bit like the horses in DA:I (and I hated those) or at best like the driving in the Mad Max game, which was ok but certainly wasn't something that kept me excited for long.

Anyway, we'll see how that turns out. There is a lot of good ideas in the Andromeda concept I feel but there are a few aspects to what's been revealed so far that could still make or break the entire thing.

Empty and dead is more fitting here though. Empty barren planets is not an uncommon thing out there, along with the occasional explored and civilized planets. The trick is for bioware to maintain this and still manage to make it interesting and exciting. Unlike DAI, which I agree was very empty and dead, and it felt like a totally unnecessary thing to implement in that franchise.

The mass effect franchise though, started with this in its first installment. And I feel there is great potential in exploring this, it just goes hand in hand with the setting, being out there in a strange and unfamiliar place.

It depends on how varied the planets will be. I don't think that all have to be full of quest or have the same aumont of content. Some could be more about exploration, but there should be some with a lot more of quantity content then compared to the areas in DAI.

I've been envisioning this ever since that 2014 survey leak, and since we basically started to confirme every bit of that information with the official footage. I've been saying it for a while now and I'm sure it's ME Inquisition moreso than it is ME1 2.0, and I have very muted expectations for it, but to be frank I've felt that especially since I saw the PS4pro footage. It's going to be fun, and if they manage the story right it could be excellent even, but I doubt it considering Mac said they "started with characters" and not in the "let's find out a plot from these characters" way, because much like Mike Laidlaw he seemed to brush story aside "yeah, yeah, there's the storytelling BioWare is known for... BUT THERE'S ALSO...!"

Sounds like they're excusing themselves, and it doesn't bode well because I don't want ME:A to be more a framework than an interactive story. At best it could feel like a season of a TV-show I guess, but even the Loyalty quests are said to be "shorter than the critical path levels" in the article and Mac confirms they don't impact the ending, so really, it sounds like the companion "inner circle" quests from DA:I which were essentially the same as the ME1 "loyalty missions". I really feel they're abusing the term considering ME2's loyalty quests were every bit as long and substantial as the main recruitment missions which were basically just critical path missions.

I'm not sure I really care for having a bunch of "likeable, endearing(TM)" characters I need to get to know and they each have their own tangent-stories to the main narrative, which isn't even subplots, and that's all good and well written but nothign contributes to the sense of whole in the narrative. I just want a BioWare story that can top KOTOR in terms of building up all its companions and reinforcing the main story through them, "wide-open areas" be damned. They can totally make the open-world area approach work but I think in the future they should stop the "you're the leader of x organization" crap. Bigger is rarely better and I don't want to be the Mary Sue Protagonist of Shepard ME3 or Inquisitor and possibly Ryder, where there's only snippets of good storytelling that I've roleplayed in between the crappy, bloated main narrative.

I honestly don't see the difference between ME and DAI's open world. ME had large empty areas with a few points of interest. It might've had some few interesting quests, but that's not something that can't happen for MEA. We have to say how thet worked on the ratio between the type of quests, as well a in the quality of the writing of them.
I'm pretty glad loyalty quests aren't as important as in ME2. Because while I enjoyed them, the downside was that the main plot was left to the side (with ME3 rendered completely useless in the end).

The critical difference for me between ME1 and DAI is that I could ignore all the (for me) awfully boring driving around in planets with nothing but rocks to get some minerals or whatever... Of course, that results in an 8-10 hours playthrought and feels a little but I still prefere that to be force to make a 15 hours playthrough where 5-7 of them are a little like going to work (a work you don't like, of course )
Ideally I'd have a maybe 20-30 hours playthrough with main and ployalty missions and a few side quest with their own cinematics and all that are actually interesting... And it might seem like asking too much, but I got that in ME2 and ME3 and DAO and DA2, I wish I could have it again

I would much rather have piss poor plot then piss poor characters. The ME game that i consider had the strongest plot was my least favorite where my two favorte bw games had strong casts. Even games like Witcher 3 suffered from a weak cast.

I think the problem is to look at those aspects seperately. There is no reason to have a trade-off between quality of plot and quality of characters.

On the contrary, I think they are synergistic. Of course I would like great characters but I can't really get into them if the universe around them stops making sense.

That is a matter of preference. I for one tend to lean the other way. But as I said, I already consider needing to choose a pretty bad scenario to start with.

Mac always seems to have this view of those aspects competing against each other, which makes me think hunder his direction, the writing team will be less likely to work towards an IMO much needed balance. That is it which makes me more skeptical towards the whole thing.

Besides, i heard once that Mac was a lot better at character writing then plots. If true then I would much rather him stick to what he knows then try and force himself into a writing box, which helps no one.

Everyone is overreacting to the DAI comparison. I've had this GI all along, and the comparison was not a major theme. Relax.

Honestly, I figured any who wanted to know what was in the article would've made the effort to find out by now. I guess I should've posted a thread like this last week. Thanks, Link"Guess"ski , for being the one to do so. I don't think I'd have emphasized the same points from the article. That said, my poor health limits my motivation in offering my own detailed take, at present. (The same reason I didn't start a thread, truthfully.)

The article is actually very heartening, in my opinion. I approached this game expecting loads of asspulls and retcons, and left this article with the impression of a well developed concept and story. The new gameplay mechanics sound promising, too. I really look forward to diving into this game.

Thanks. I'll check out that thread, also. The more discussion the merrier!