Angaran AI

Why qualify that with 'in ME:A' as opposed to 'pretty much all Bioware games ever'?

'Substantial' is a weasel word, but it's kind of hard to argue that Bioware has ever engaged in genuinely branching narrative structure design. Virtually all choice reflections are purely an immediate short-term rhetorical change of dialogue and a line, and nothing else. Sometimes, if someone dies, they don't show up later... but they're also narratively irrelevant for the core plot after the moment of potential death. Which leaves the impact being, well, dialogue changes.

MEA actually does more in-game reflections than most Bioware games of the era, as it actually has in-game reflections not just via email or immediate response dialogue, but in gameplay impact. Choosing to save the Krogan or the Salarians can give you more minibosses in the finale. Various alliances or Big Decisions give you in-game support from NPC allies.  There's more impacts on the final battle in MEA than the entire trilogy had on Priority: Earth.

MEA doesn't have a cumulative impact equivalent to EMS, but EMS was pretty heavily criticized. It doesn't have overall comapion approval points like Dragon Age, but ME has never had overall companion approval. MEA does have points where you can be on legitimately bad terms with your teammates for reasonable choices to the point that they don't want to talk to you, which is more than the previous ME trilogy game did.

So what, mechancially, do the other ME games have in terms of Choices and Consequences that MEA doesn't?

Substiantially, I mean. Like, in-game consequences. ME1 and ME2 were pretty notorious for kicking off consequences without forward planning for how they'd be resolved.

Unless it lies about everything (which could very well be the case) it tells you the Angara didn't create it and that it doesn't know who they are.  First PT I spared it and granted its wish to be near SAM which does lead to some giggles from their conversations and I figured it would have a use latter on.  If this was an actual real life choice I would have to make I would kill it 100% of the time.

...but so what? About Tucchanka and Rannoch, I mean. What in them actually 'changed' based on the in-game decisions, as opposed to the out of game carry-over? And how does ME3's use of carry-over mitigate ME1 and ME2's constant running away from their own choices? ME3 making use of ME1 and ME2 impacts for this cameo or placefiller for that line does nothing to address how ME1 and ME2 choices did (not) impact their own games. If you're going to criticize Andromeda for insufficient consequence vis-a-vis the original trilogy, you need to judge the original trilogy- all three games- by the same standard.

Now, there is an answer to this regarding ME3- that admitting the Dalatrass's deal makes it impossible to secretly betray the Krogan, that in-game choices affect the availability of Geth-Quarian peace- but this isn't a particularly strong argument for in-game consequences, because those outcomes don't actually change the game afterwards. It doesn't matter who you side with or who you betray- outside of dialogue, nothing changes, and you disqualified that as sufficient for Andromeda. The other ME games- 1 and 2- can't even claim that much, because there wasn't even that in-game cut-off/enabling of options based on prior decisions. There were reputation persuade limits, but the game narrative was identical after your post-mission reflection.



I mean, I get the standard you're trying to use- that the character substitutions was significant for you- but that's a separate issue, a validation of carry-over, and not a fair standard of Andromeda which doesn't really have a basis for carry-over in the first place. Structurally it's a soft reboot to create a new iteration of the series. Mechanically, it's not even compatible with the original series- new engine, new console base, new save system.

They have to restart somewhere. The fact that they seem to be setting up a quasi-Dragon Age Keep system- where future imports will be tied to account-uploads of saves rather than notoriously buggy memory save transfers- should be something to celebrate.

(Well, I suppose they COULD have created the keep system in advance, let you dictate some choices back from ME1 and ME2, and used those for 'carryover' in MEA... but that strikes me as a bad cost investment that defeats most of the point of a rebeoot.)




Besides game carryover, how? How did the MET- ME1 and ME2 especially- reflect choices in their own game besides dialogue tweaks and emails?

ME1 didn't even have emails, of course, but it's Consequences were purely dialogue after the fact, without impacting future missions. ME2 introduced the email as a way of avoiding even dialogue. The only way Big Decisions mattered in that game was the suicide mission checks, but even that was more of a completion check than a narrative consequence (which could easily be avoided by Picking Right). Even ME2's reflections from ME1 were fundamentally dialogue tweaks- a few cameos if you didn't kill people, but no narrative impact. Wreave gives you the same quests as Wrex, just with a different tone- which isn't enough. The same options and gameplay are available in ME3- again, just with different tone. The games don't change.

I'm all for you saying 'I don't like ME:A because it didn't have import carry-over.' Sure- got it. The game made a decision for a fresh start. It's clearly setting up the mechanics for carryover going forward. Problem already being resolved.

But don't make an argument that ME:A fails because it does the stuff that the MET was built upon- marginal reflections of past choices primarily through dialogue and emails that don't change the narrative of the story going forward. That's not a unique flaw to Andromeda. Andromeda has more in-game reflections of previous choices then most of the previous games by both the number of references and the role of allies in the final battle.






Fair enough, but a question.

Would it have been better had it did what the MET did, and wait to lump most of the consequences into the third game of the series?

Is reflecting decisions better in the last mission of the game they're made in, or the last game of the trilogy they're in?

I keep pointing to the whole Genophage storyline in the OT as the basis of comparison. Wildly divergent choices come through to create a coherent story (or multiple coherent stories) in the end. For me, its a masterpiece of RPG story telling. I never felt that my choices were insignificant and it tied together different threads for an amazing finale.

That being said, no one expects Ryder to be this super influential butterfly with every wing flap leading to an earthquake on the other side of the cluster. I don't expect Ryder's choices to alter the story in a huge way, but the game is severely lacking in its ability to tell a coherent story! You say that if the friction I mentioned does not lead to meaningful consequences, it is useless. To me, acknowledging the added friction by making Podromos a military facility or by stealing the Angaran AI is a meaningful consequence in itself. How many times do you have SAM talk about the acid content of the water when you already activated the vault and can swim in the water? How many times do squad mates ignore plot flags in their banter. A simple acknowledgement of your minor choices in the subsequent dialogs, an extra line of speech here on how the treacherous Initiative people stole our ancient AI, makes me believe my playthrough is special, even if its something very minor.

I played through the game twice, and quit in the middle of the third because nothing felt different. Everyone can compare that to the OT or to DAO. How many times people replay those?

And I keep pointing to the actual mechanics of the genophage storyline- that consequences of in-game decisions only showed up in the last game rather than be reflected in-game, which was your criticism of Andromeda. And that the story didn't change. Continually pointing to ME3 doesn't make the previous two games different from the sins you paint of Andromeda- especially when the premise you claim to be liking isn't actually present in ME3. It als


We're in a discussion about mechanics, so whether you felt something was better isn't particularly relevant outside of a purely subjective argument. You like the genophage arc? Cool. So do I. I think it's one of the best parts of the series to- but not because it reflected previous in-game choices or had non-dialogue impacts on the story afterwards.

An opinion is fine- but a supporting argument to justify that opinion isn't particularly valid if it applies to the alternative.




Then why are you saying Andromeda lacks meaningful consequences unlike the trilogy? Positive and negative feed back is plentiful- and sometimes even in two/three forms (dialogue, email, and final mission) rather than one like most of the trilogy.

ME3, it should be pointed out, was an entire separate league from ME's one and two- and so the standard for the trilogy really should be the trilogy as a whole, and not just the last one which sank the most resources in via companion cameo rolls and the war assets system.




In order- never, just as often as in the ME trilogy, and already exists in-game.

Mass Effect Andromeda and Mass Effect 3 both follow the same companion reflection banter formula, in which companions get one on-ship post-mission dialogue reflection of the critical path missions, and usually none on minor side-quests or side-missions. Andromeda actually increases the numbers in some respects by offering additional post-mission ambient dialogue in companion interactions on the Nomad- like Cora talking to Peebee after the Asari ark, or romance-reflection banter. ME3 didn't have that (though did have more companion-specific banter for story missions), and ME2 almost never had in-mission companion banter.

Andromeda has signifiantly more plot flag banter than ME2 did, as the ME2 companion word budget was overwhelmingly dominated by the companion conversation arcs. IIRC, most companions actually didn't have core plot dialogue per see- Mordin was kind of an exception to the rule.


There is reflection banter on you stealing the mad-AI, so that... kidna meets your standard?


Most people never completed them in the first first place, so... by median and mode averaging, 0.

Again MEA plot flags are largely ignored planet to planet. I go to an outpost and I hear "This is a good location for an outpost", or "There is acid in the water"except there isn't. Or you completed the corpse identification mission on Eos and everytime you walk over one of those corpses you get the same prompt. You can 'claim' the banter or prompt codes did not work any better in ME123 but they definitely not stick out like a sore thumb here. Saying that its only more obvious because there is more plot related banter is just poor excuse.

I dont know anyone who abandoned ME1 or DAO without completing it, but hey I will stand by the numbers of those games against MEA anyday when it comes to replayability.

Then let me reframe it for you.

You're no longer talking about a reflection of choice within a game- you're talking about a reflection of choices between games, which is a standard that can't be applied to Andromeda because Andromeda is, at this time, a single game. You'd be comparing apples to a single orange if you did that.

Until Andromeda has a sequel to examine how it and its sequel conduct carry-over, you can't criticize Andromeda for not having carry over. Or rather, you can, but it's an unfair and meaningless criticism because Andromeda has yet to have the opportunity for carryover. All you can reasonably compare and contrast is how Andromeda reflects it's choices within the game the choice itself is made in- which is something that can only be applied to ME1, or ME2, or ME3 in the singular.

ME1 had a Krogan decision- how did that Krogan decision change the story of ME1 after it was made?
ME2 had a Krogan decision- how did that Krogan decision change the story of ME2 after it was made?
ME3 had a Krogan decision- how did that Krogan decision change the story of ME3 after it was made?

Remember that the criticism that MEA's decisions do not affect the story depend on a standard that modest dialogue changes aren't sufficient.

The answer to ME1 is- it didn't. Wrex's only role in the story is companion banter/commentary, which are not plot-central. After the choice to kill Wrex, there are no major in-game reflections beyond his absence, which is not noted or central to the plot in any way. It neither created or took away major content outside of the character's presence, which itself was not tied to the plot.

The answer to ME2 is- it didn't. No matter what you decided with Mordin, there was no change to the game or the story beyond minor reflective dialogue post-mission, which is not different from what MEA did. Both choices in Mordin's loyalty mission provide for the exact same narrative outcomes in the core plot (mostly because the core plot doesn't even mention Mordin's work at all, leaving it to an optional sideplot status irrelevant to every other part of the game).

The answer to ME3 is... very modestly on two points, where unique content was added or taken away. If Shepard reveals the Dalatrasses offer, you can't trick the Krogan, which denies a gameplay option for role playing. That's one case where the plot is affected, as the player is trapped within a certain part of it. If Shepard tricks Wrex, then there is a mandatory confrontation scene where Wrex declares an end to the alliance and is killed by Shepard. That scene- mandatory as it is- is two. Note that it's not 'breaking the alliance' that changes the game's plot- that (and the previous choice) are irrelevant to the rest of the core plot. The Citadel Coups, Rannoch, Illium, Cerberus, and Crucible, and end-game plots all occur exactly the same way regardless. But you do get a unique story scene, which is thus part of the plot.


So, in the OT across the entire Krogan arc, only one game of three could- potentially- have a change to the plot based on a previous choice made within that game.

And those changes amounted to losing a decision option, and an extra scene that wouldn't get mentioned again in the plot afterwards.


Note also that the Wrex decision all the way back in ME1 doesn't actually change the story, no matter what happens to him. The story of Mass Effect 1 doesn't depend on Wrex, and doesn't change without him- all you lose is companion banter or commentary, not plot changes. In Mass Effect 2, the story again remains the same whether it's Wrex or Wreave: the same loyalty missions, with the same themes, and the same choice options, still occur. All Wrex and Wreave change is ambient dialogue and world-building tones that aren't relevant to others outside the immediate context spoken. The only difference to the story is the tone/opinion of your quest giver, which is not a major change to the story.

Come ME3, the Wrex/Wreave difference amounts to... tone and dialogue changes by outsiders, but the exact same key decisions. They don't affect any of the other major plots.

Ha, didn't remember that at all, so I'll gladly give it to you. I never even knew it for the longest time myself, since it was basically a completion check- all you have to do is buy the gifts/visit/don't be an ass- but then, the entire game's persuasion system as a completion check.

Still a valid point, though. Kudos.





Draak's scouts vs. Salarian pathfinder was about as Virmire as it get, in my view. High-stakes mission with unexpected development? Sympathetic character interests pushed against eachother? Only time to save one, before the other inevitably falls?


Though if you're talking about killing a companion...

Eh, I'm mostly glad they've avoided that. Killing companions was the epitome of the problems of the original trilogy- choices that seemed cool at the time, but poorly planned without consideration for what they meant going forward. Any companion who can die is, after all, will be relatively insignificant to the plot going forward- and that led to a host of higher cost reflections where there was almost always a handy NPC on standby for whatever the plan ended up being.

The Virmire Dier avoided this just slightly by the fact there was a Virmire Survivor, but at that point Ash and Kaiden served identical narrative roles, and lost their own individuality/character uniqueness as a result.


Now, that's all separate from whether there's too much plot-armor- and I'd agree there could stand to be less- but my opinion after the trilogy is that when a companion dies, it should usually be deliberatly and unavoidable- unless there's a clear intent/plan to put them on a bus regardless. Characters that could/would stick around cause planning issues while being increasingly redundant. Mordin's disappearance in ME3- either dead or in hiding- rather than the Suicide Mission scenario.

Possibly the best 'Virmire-like' choie I can recall is the (male) Republic Trooper path in Star Wars: The Old Republic. In the early game there's a very sympathetic/even Love Interest NPC ally. Eventually there's a Virmire scenario of either-or certain death, and she cracks and beg you to save her over a lot of other people. Either you don't- and so she dies- or you do, and she's so broken by guilt that she can't stand to see or talk to you anymore.

Either way, she's gone for the rest of the game- but in different ways.

I am exactly at this stage now with MEA and have been spending more time on this forum than actually playing for that reason.

I replayed all of the MET and DAO games so much I had to track characters and actions on a spreadsheet. I must have played each of the individual games in both those series at the very least 5 times each.

On my first playthrough I put the Angaran AI in SAM Node, only because I imagined her going nuts and killing a bunch of Angara. The discussions between the two are pretty funny, at least, but I think in the future I'll give her to the Angara.

Yeah I got that impression as well. But SAM doesn't want any of that craziness.

From what I understand, it's a glitch and hopefully they will fix it in the future.