GamePlanet Interview with Mike Gamble Dec 22'16

Merry★* 。 • ˚ ˚ ˛ ˚ ˛ •
•。★Christmas★ 。* 。
° 。 ° ˛˚˛ * _Π_____*。*˚
˚ ˛ •˛•˚ */______/~＼。˚ ˚ ˛
˚ ˛ •˛• ˚ ｜ 田田 ｜門｜ ˚And a happy new year!

---

Bio did say more than once that Andromeda is a new story, new characters, in a new galaxy and it's a story they always wanted to tell. It is not ME Shep 4. Drawing comparisons with  the little information we have about Andromeda vs the old "ME trilogy" and then formulating conclusions will simply go nowhere but into erroneous territory.

I think people are taking the "always have combat" response out of context. You will always have to fight your way through a mission, but this does not preclude being able to make a choice that avoids combat within that mission. For example, you had to fight your way to Balak, but a choice allowed you to either kill him or save the hostages.

Also people are being too critical of the skill system. You start off with basic skills in all departments, and then can choose to develop each department as you see fit. The argument that this is immersion-breaking extends so far as the assumption that Ryder is ignorant about the basics of the classes (illogical given the story) and can only develop one "class" at a time, which has functionally never been the case in ME, as the hybrid classes (Vanguard, Infiltrator, Sentinel) are based on the idea of multi-classing off the three basic classes (Adept, Soldier, Engineer). Bonus powers provided additional functionality to your class.

Think of the current system as an expansion on all that, where if you were playing a Vanguard for example, you can lean more towards the physical or biotic gameplay depending on the situation, so you can play as a Soldier, Vanguard, or Adept in response to the situation. If Biotics are ineffective against a particular enemy, you'd want to lean on weaponry. If you are fighting an enemy that is particularly powerful in melee (huge boss), perhaps forgoing weaponry for an Adept is wise. If you are playing in close quarters situation, Vanguard may be your best bet.

I think it is far more sensible to have a character that is somewhat versed in all departments (some knowledge of Biotics, Tech, and combat), and who can develop the skills as they see fit. This is in fact FAR more immersive than having a character who is completely ignorant of the basic idea of Tech, Biotics, or weaponry.

This has the added benefit of allowing more flexibility with squadmate choices, as you are no longer limited.

The argument against replayability is also absurd, as you have MORE possibilities when you can combine several classes than when you can only play an individual class. You only have 6 classes in the ME trilogy, and each class played out more or less the same across playthroughs (given the limited number of skills) with some variations through bonus powers, which gave an additional active, and specializations which gave some passive bonuses. You could progress differently in that class, but you could do so only within that class.

If we take the fair assumption that you can invest fully in five skill trees out of seven (I think 4 is more likely), with one of them being the Pathfinder skill tree, you'd have 7C5 = 21 different combinations of presets that you can take. If you always invest in the Pathfinder tree, you have 6C4 = 15 different combinations of classes you can make. Not only that, but you can progress through each skill tree in a different way in each playthrough, as I'm sure you'll have mutually exclusive choices like in ME3.

You don't forget those skills. You just don't use them. 

We don't even know the depth of the system just yet. There is no mention of the inability to make a custom preset for example, in which you can combine different abilities from different classes.

Even if we couldn't, there's nothing to say that the skill trees won't involve a mix of styles. An Engineer for example can probably use some biotic capabilities with their tech (say.. lob a grenade using biotic force), or improve their weapon-handling capabilities.

Your omnitool may be different if you were a soldier (mostly for physical altercations) than if you were an Engineer (more software oriented) to justify not using advanced tech abilities, etc...

If this is all too offensive for you, then by all means, stick to one class or class style. If you always want to use Biotics, then play Adept, Vanguard, and Sentinel exclusively. You can play any way you want, and someone who wants to play all classes can do that too.

In fact, I find it highly ironic that you want there to be artificial limitations to classes while complaining about artificial limitations to skills.

Now if you're concerned about the limitation on the number of skills you can use, that's an entirely different argument. I too believe that 3 is too little, but isn't that the number you could always use on consoles due to technical limitations? I have never played on one. Perhaps we're less limited on PC. Even then, you could never use more than 8 or so abilities in Mass Effect (in ME1 really) so this is a complaint that lacks precedent, at least as far as Mass Effect is concerned.

You just don't use Lift. You need to stop saying you are forgetting how to do something. You are simply not using it. This is a limitation imposed by the fact that this is a game. To quote another game, if you switch to Frost Mage specialization in WoW, you don't forget how to use Fire spells. You just don't use Fire spells.

A justification for all this is that you use the abilities that your gear is currently calibrated for.

The key factor is that you are ABLE to switch on a whim. You don't have to. This is a choice that's presented to you, as the player, to adapt to a certain situation.

If someone wants to adapt to the specifications of every mission, then they can do that. You can blaze through the game using one class only if you wish, using squad mates to make up for your deficiencies. You did this in every ME game before. Now you aren't as reliant on squadmates, but you can be if you want.

You can be highly trained in every skill if you wanted to given enough time and experience. In fact, given the requirements of the Andromeda mission, it would make very little sense if you weren't trained in the basics of each class. As you progress, you can invest in one particular set of skills, then branch out to other skills once you are experienced enough.

As I said earlier, there is nothing to say that we can't create custom presets too.

"lol writers making things complicated. Why can't we just design the levels first and have the writer patch something together on top of the REAL game? Everybody skips the conversations anyway."

-- 75% of game devs

I understand what you are saying.  From your perspective, how the game works from what you read from the game dev quote you are unhappy with.  However, I'm just not sure that the class swapping system in MEA is like what you think it will be.  I find no indication that the system works by having an engineer switching to a biotic adept mid-battle and basically being a biotic/engineering/infiltrator/soldier god.  If that were the case then that would be confusing in the lore and would seem to be lazy game design.

However, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that this is how the system works.  All that was said was you could switch between a Vanguard profile to an Infiltrator profile mid-battle.  I think you are inferring that the class system of the OT is the same as what they are describing these "profiles" to be.  My guess is that within each profile is a set of powers that is better suited for that description of the profile.  At it's base, there are descriptive properties of each profile that makes that profile unique.  Infiltrator:  ranged support and cloaking for infiltration.  Adept: Heavy biotic attacks and only biotics.  Engineer: Tech-based attacks best used against drones, mech's and Atlases.  Etc.  So I postulate that in each of these "profiles" are powers that you have selected to level up that exemplify the traits of that profile, but by no means restrict the actual knowledge/abilities of the PC.  Don't think of it as "Infiltrator class", more like "Stealth kit".  Don't think of it as "Adept class", more like "Heavy Biotics kit" or "Biotic crowd control kit".  Don't think of it as "Engineer class", think of it as "Anti-Tech Kit".  I think they have used familiar names of things (the class names) from the OT to smooth the transition and make ME players feel at home, but the true meaning of what the classes do is NOT the same as the OT.

Now, I don't have any actual evidence to suggest this, any more than you do that each class change activates different parts of the PC's brain and removes biotics temporarily from their body.  All I am suggesting is there is an explanation of what the dev's mean that could (potentially) please you and could be true.

As far as I understand how it works, you don't really 'start' as a soldier, but decide yourself where to put the skill points. So it's your decision at the level up screen to make a soldier or another class/profile.

Bioware doesn't have a great record at reading concerns or taking them seriously.

Well, it sounds like we're all just going to be in the Pathfinder class whether we want to be or not.  I'm not sure there will even be a soldier tree...or vanguard, engineer, infiltrator for that matter.  It might just be reduced to weapons training and proficiencies along with biotic and tech ability trees.  I'm sure the naming will be more elaborate and extensive than that.  We may just have to head cannon names like vanguard based on our chosen play style.  Not at all crazy about this, but I guess I have little choice but to take the wait and see approach.  Can't see this as a great thing for coop MP though since it would seemingly diminish the need to cooperate to complete a mission...or series of missions.

The extended cut and the entirety of DA Is design philosophy were pretty much tied right into fans concerns about the end of ME 3 and the relatively small area of DA 2s landmass.  And while we do not know for sure but it looks like they are trying to take the criticisms for Inquisition in consideration when designing Mass Effect Andromeda.   Hence all this talk about 'making sure the content density is right' for the maps and the brief, presumably side quest, we have seen from the game already look much better then your typical quest from DA I.  Sure we have to find out for sure when the game launches, but BioWare tends to take its fan base very very seriously, so much so they tend to make mistakes through over compensation.  

Heck this whole thread might be a testement to their willingness to listen to fan feedback because I have seen, and have often wished for myself, for classes not to exisist in the game.  In point of fact BioWare might be one of the last companies who still uses 'classes' in their games.  Witcher 3 didn't, Skyrim didn't, FO 4 didn't.  They seem to be a relic of a bygone age which simply holds back the most important element of RPGs: Player choice.