Extensive Analysis by Noah Gervais

???????????

It's not my paraphrasing though?????

It was someone else's??????

You clearly cannot comprehend the context of our own exchange, let alone the context of this thread. I have told you why you have no comprehension of this discussion and your only retort is condescending nonsense that doesn't even manage to address my concerns.

A paraphrasing is a more concise rewording of something a statement previously made, usually by another. It makes ideas easier to digest but deprives them of thier context. If I say "The Kett suck, they're basically the Reapers" do I mean "The Kett suck, because on a conceptual and lore-based level, they are exactly the same as the Reapers, because they, too, harvest civilizations and transform their denezins into members of their own race" or "The Kett are poorly developed and executed as antagonists, on such a level that they come across as hollow imitations of the Reapers"?

You have little to no context for this discussion. This is not debatable. It is a fact. I don't think I can explain any more fundamental concepts to you. I agree that this should end.

Yes, because taking someone's opinion out of context is a wonderful way to appear honest and start a healthy debate.

Yeah, he liked Homefront: The Revolution because in spite of the bugs (which he said had been largely patched by the time he played) and the lame mechanics, he sensed a genuine heart at the center of the game. He found the premise weird yet intriguing and the characters wacky yet interesting. Unlike many reviewers, Noah is the kind of guy to give a game a little slack. He finds what works and engages with it. This is what make his "reviews" critique; he'll admit a game's failure as a product, but he won't condemn it purely on that basis. He did it with Inquisition and he does it with Homefront.

Here's the video for those who want see his actual opinions on the game. As well as his follow-up on its DLC.

If anything, it damns Andromeda more that Noah could find a kernel of pleasure in such a rough product like The Revolution and not the most recent Mass Effect. 

Thanks for the response.

I've also called MEA the "The Force Awakens" of Mass Effect, and I say it as a compliment. I love TFA, everybody I know and have spoken to personally loves it. They agree with me that it's an homage to the original more than a rehash. And that's exactly how I feel about MEA. If that's playing it safe, then I guess I can only agree with their choice of direction and not feel that doing so was a detriment. This is one of my favorite games, what they did just works for me on nearly every level.

TFA works the first 90 minutes or so. The set up of Rey and Finn is well done. Its when they get to the rebel base you get the entire A New Hope thing smashed over your head repeatedly. TFA is obviously a higher quality production then Andromeda. Disney with unlimited budget tends to work that way, but the way it plays it safe and familiar without taking risk is right on point with many of Andromeda's problems.

Agreed that the comparison can be made to Rogue One aswell. Which was dull and lifeless. How people are rating it as one of the best Star Wars movies is beyond me.

But thats the ultimate irony. Iakus mentions in his post above yours that BioWare needed to go back to what worked in the past, and build from there.

But that is exactly what Andromeda did. Consider the following: the Whedon-style banter, character focused interactions, loyalty missions tied to personal character strife's (That aren't at all daddy issues for once) and the push for exploration as the core concept, as it was in the original Mass Effect. Not to mention, an ending that ties the main part of the plot up neatly, while showcasing decisions throughout the game in its conclusion as a bonus. 

All of the above, plus the desire for more RP systems, more romances that are both meaningful and down right sexual, and most critically, brightening up the world after it went extremely dark in Mass Effect 3; that is what people wanted, that is what people expected. That is BioWare doubling down on what worked in the past and attempting to deliver it once more. 

The question is why it failed. We can argue implementation for sure, and I am sure that is part of the culprit, but is it really the only issue here? After all, implementation is ultimately subjective too: when a "bad" game like Ghost Recon re-hashes a lot of the common tropes of an open world stealth action shooter in a big open space, but sells well and is given a good reputation by it's fanbase, it's a bit of a head scratcher because Ubisoft, in their giant machine of printing effectively the same fucking game every six months with different skins and scenarios, doubles down on what their fanbase wants and still succeeds. 

Implementation can only go so far in this case as being the culprit. It also has to do with the "gunshiness" I mentioned as well. I suspect BioWare chose to play it safe this time around, fell back on what they thought made their games work and what kept people engaged, and it bit them in the butt on a game that I personally think is ok, but is deeply problematic. BioWare lost it's heart in caring here, and I think the reason for that is BioWare itself not sure what their audience wants anymore because we are so fractured to begin with.

You are right, they will always be criticized, but I believe it was one of the doctors who said that they were taken aback by the criticism they get sometimes because of how disgusting and disheartening it can be, and this was during the Mass Effect 3 stuff. There is plenty of evidence to throw around that is counter-productive to constructive criticism, hell, all the stuff some people, without naming names, on this very board do is a perfect example of that in action. But what is most damaging is how that shines through more than the constructive critiques. For every good video like the one that Gervais has, we get shit from the likes of others out there, simply making fun of the company or re-hashing conspiracy theory BS because it behooves them to do so. 

It's why the current conversation regarding Star Wars is fascinating to me here too. I thought both movies were ok, but I liked Rogue One a lot more than The Force Awakens, by the simple fact that it took risks in the small keyhole space it had. That movie, more than anything else, would be a good video game or TV series, give it time to flesh out the characters a bit more to make the connections stronger. At least Rogue One dared to be a bit different, and the results are a dark story with a hopeful outcome...

Yet, on the surface it's the same sort of analysis. It's easy to write it off as having no value because the characters have no traits or motivations. I it easier still to say it's bland by virtue of that...but a lot of things are more complex than that. Rogue One had heart, in the same way all the Star Wars movies did...but Rogue One wore it on the sleeve a lot more and was willing to do something unconventional from other Star Wars movies, despite being a side-story. 

BioWare used to be like that. Jade Empire was the zag to the Knights of the Old Republic Zig. Dragon Age 2 was a dark and complex, grounded tale of a rise to power in a world that is filled with fantasy tropes, Mass Effect as a trilogy took Role playing into the 21st century and gave us a flawed but fantastic sci-fi tale that is, frankly, one of the most important game series of it's generation. It is why Andromeda pales so much to these examples...this is BioWare going through the motions instead of being cocksure in their product, and we all caught wiff of it and hope they don't do that again. 

Force Awakens was safe, predictable, and inoffensive. It was enjoyable too, much like how I find Andromeda enjoyable, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter that it still played it very safe...and Iakus is right where things are better when they take risks.

Thank you for sharing this OP i found this reviewer amazing. I will make sure to support his future content.

I think this is a must watch and i hope that Bioware employees stumble across this video.

This 60 minute video could very much lead to a better MEA 2.

All true.


Implementation is absolutely part of the problem. Open world is something Bioware hasn't done much in recent years. It will take time to really get it down.

One weakness for open world (or semi-open world) games is pacing. Personal quests, romances, main storylines, often take a back seat as the glut of side quests get managed.

But what (besides the Reapers) did Bioware abandon?

Character classes? In a sense. I don't think it's the classes themselves so much as the three power limit. The profile system seems to help a bit, but simply cannot replace having the full range of your character's abilities at their fingertips. Interestingly, this was a complaint in DAI as well. MEA took that problem, and actually made it WORSE!

And for the lore nerds (like me) they pulled another space magic trick in getting to Andromeda in the first place. I won't go into details, as I've done that in other threads. But the tech that made the AI possible also should have made the cycle completely unwinnable for the Reapers.




People get angry when they feel they are being blown off. Not an excuse, but it is a natural raction. And when people get angry, they tend to use "angry words"



Kyle Katarn/Jan Ors 4EVAH!

sigh...finally! Thank you. signing off

Not necessary to watch a video you have no intention of debating over. I'm out of here, and will not reply to any more posts in this thread. Feel free to keep berating me in my absence if you will. I'll cover my ears to the sounds of a child's fists in here beating fruitlessly agains the wall.

I don't know, honestly. I would bet the game is ultimately successful, as evidenced by the meager info we have on units sold. 

I think the game could be a lot better, but it can always be a lot worse. But there does feel like something missing in Andromeda that was not missing in other titles.

Still doesn't stop enjoyment, but it does stop it from being a game like the original trilogy, a must play experience, I feel. 

Nice ad hominem. Talk about hypocrisy