inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
36,120
colfoley
18,834
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on May 1, 2017 23:40:34 GMT
So yet another place where Andromeda draws a fair bit of criticism its how it handled its story. About half way through the game I even shared in a lot of complaints of it. But then I realized...BioWare was doing something brand new in how it constructed its narrative for MEA.
For most games that have a narrative the narrative is the entire point of the game. The side content in the game are usually just collection stuff, has nothing to do with the main story, or supports the main story from just someone else showing up at the end, to your actions controlling the fates of whole species from previous games through side quests...etc.
Dragon Age Inquisition, for instance, the entire point of the game was to 'stop Corypheus.' That was the main plot. That was a reason for going to most of the zones (though not all of them) and that was the reason why the Inquisitor did everything they did in the main plot. Was to stop Corypheus. Some of the side quests supported this, and some didn't.
But Andromeda is different. In Andromeda everything in the game, from the main plot to the smallest of side quests, serves something else. A master key if you will. This, is viability. The entire point of the game can be told to make Heleus livable. And everything, with one notable exception, serves this end. Almost all of the quests from the main plot to the side and sub plots serves to make Heleus, and indeed the Andromeda Galaxy, livable for the races of the Milky Way. Its just that 'viability' was the video gamey metric that one could measure our progress by. And that was the job of the pathfinder, solving the problems, making the planets livable, establishing outposts, negotating political and natural threats, dealing with the Kett, everything served this oer arching idea. Viability is what tied the narrative together which is why, if you put the hard work in, the ending is that much better.
|
|
erikson
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 704 Likes: 872
inherit
6153
0
Sept 14, 2019 19:54:32 GMT
872
erikson
704
Mar 26, 2017 13:56:54 GMT
March 2017
erik
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by erikson on May 1, 2017 23:52:25 GMT
One, if one was so inclined, could actually say that the "main plot" in Andromeda is not the main plot. Archon is really a side quest, what you really want is viability, and Meridian, the games big Mcguffin, is the means of obtaining that. Archon really doesn't even become a direct threat till later in the game, and then he is the obstacle to you reaching Meridian. As I said before, this game is not a military space adventure, it's an exploration, resettlement story. It's more Star Trek than Star Wars.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
36,120
colfoley
18,834
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on May 1, 2017 23:58:42 GMT
One, if one was so inclined, could actually say that the "main plot" in Andromeda is not the main plot. Archon is really a side quest, what you really want is viability, and Meridian, the games big Mcguffin, is the means of obtaining that. Archon really doesn't even become a direct threat till later in the game, and then he is the obstacle to you reaching Meridian. As I said before, this game is not a military space adventure, it's an exploration, resettlement story. It's more Star Trek than Star Wars. I'd say even more Doctor Who then Star Trek even. But I agree. The two main reasons why the 'Archon plot' was the 'main plot' was that Archon was the main obstacle in making Heleus viable because he was looking at the Remnant and trying to use Meridian, the main part of the Vault network, so to get there you had to stop the Archon and then ultimatley make Heleus viable. And the main plot was really Ryder's story. I keep waffling on who had the bigger/ better character arc between Hawk and Ryder...but the main plot was Ryder going from scared kid to competent hero. And it came together really, really, really nicely imo. |
|
malgus
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 959 Likes: 1,590
inherit
4126
0
Mar 21, 2023 21:20:35 GMT
1,590
malgus
959
March 2017
malgus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by malgus on May 2, 2017 0:24:37 GMT
100% agree on that, actually the viability is the evolution of the side quest being linked to the main quest since mass effect 3, where you get points for doing main quests or side quest that will affect some cinematic of the ending. But this played a small part in the actual game so it was not that useful.
That mechanics was improved in dragon age inquisition, where every quest gives you a small reward with influence points to make the inquisition more powerful, and those unlocked permanent bonus. Which is something I loved because the side quest were now way more rewarding than just xp and money, especially when you remember that like in every rpg, at the beginning you don't have much money but by the end you have so much you don't know what to do with it. I would rather get permanent bonus from the viability points rather than just a bit more money.
Here in mass effect andromeda, it has similar system where every side quest gives you viability points, which then unlock permanent bonus for inventory, ammunition reserves, more credits each 45 minutes etc. Not only it does that, but also each side quests are linked to the main plot. While in other rpg, every side quest are their own little story with little connection to each other, like in DAO where you do mercenary buisness or do antivan's crow jobs. These quest were not bad but their ending served no common purpose. Here in DAI or MEA, nearly each side quest makes the planet more viable, most of them are in the service of making the job of the initiative easier on any planet.
For me these are incentive to do them for both story and gameplay reasons. It does not mean that all the side quest are well written (like scanning minerals or scanning bodies) but the idea of side quest serving the same purpose of the main quest is something I love about the recent bioware games.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
36,120
colfoley
18,834
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on May 2, 2017 0:27:50 GMT
|
|
malgus
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 959 Likes: 1,590
inherit
4126
0
Mar 21, 2023 21:20:35 GMT
1,590
malgus
959
March 2017
malgus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by malgus on May 2, 2017 0:40:56 GMT
Sorry made a comments too fast and misclicked on it before having finished it, I edited it by now. |
|
RoboticWater
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR
Posts: 219 Likes: 552
inherit
1275
0
552
RoboticWater
219
August 2016
roboticwater
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR
|
Post by RoboticWater on May 2, 2017 0:43:20 GMT
I think the game would have been so much better if it just hadn't been a number. It's reductive, just like EMS, to the point of thematically ruining the phenomenon it attempts to convey. Show, don't tell, and maintain internal consistency where possible. Our progression should be as visual as possible, not abstracted to numbers. Numbers are flimsy and boring, and more importantly, they break the verisimilitude the open world is so desperately trying to construct. By what metric are we able to conclude that a planet is 36% viable to colonize? By what metric are we confident that 30000 EMS is enough to face the biggest threat ever in recorded history? It just doesn't make sense. Why not make these viability reports entirely qualitative, like they probably would be in real life? Just a simple adjective would have made the difference.
And no, Viability isn't new. I suppose it's a new name, but the mechanic is at least as old as Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood with its "liberation" mechanics, and I'm fairly confident it went further back. It was a novel concept back then: explore this vast world, take down the hostile incumbents, and install your new world order from the ashes. Frankly, I'm annoyed that it hasn't evolved past being the glorified progression meter it always has been. Andromeda's especially was too reductive to adequately support the colonization narrative it tried to push.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
36,120
colfoley
18,834
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on May 2, 2017 0:49:45 GMT
I think the game would have been so much better if it just hadn't been a number. It's reductive, just like EMS, to the point of thematically ruining the phenomenon it attempts to convey. Show, don't tell, and maintain internal consistency where possible. Our progression should be as visual as possible, not abstracted to numbers. Numbers are flimsy and boring, and more importantly, they break the verisimilitude the open world is so desperately trying to construct. By what metric are we able to conclude that a planet is 36% viable to colonize? By what metric are we confident that 30000 EMS is enough to face the biggest threat ever in recorded history? It just doesn't make sense. Why not make these viability reports entirely qualitative, like they probably would be in real life? Just a simple adjective would have made the difference. And no, Viability isn't new. I suppose it's a new name, but the mechanic is at least as old as Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood with its "liberation" mechanics, and I'm fairly confident it went further back. It was a novel concept back then: explore this vast world, take down the hostile incumbents, and install your new world order from the ashes. Frankly, I'm annoyed that it hasn't evolved past being the glorified progression meter it always has been. Andromeda's especially was too reductive to adequately support the colonization narrative it tried to push. I agree but Andromeda showed and told. The viability score was just the most recognizable part of actually being able to settle Heleus. It was the metric you judged yourself by and your actions in universe, a handy, video game way, of seeing how much progress you were making in the game. But it showed us in your actions, from the simple, to the spoilery. By seeing the effect you had on the planets and solving their environmental problems, from having a definite impact as you set up outposts and got to interact with them and introduce you to more quests. From some of the flavor and even important changes to the ending. IE if you took the time to put the work in the ending would reflect that, but if you didn't, well the ending reflected that to. And I can't know for one hundred percent certainty but I swear on some of the planets (like Kadara especially) the more choices you made and the more you made a planet a viable, the less threats there were out in the badlands, namely from enemy mercenaries. Granted it would have been friggin nice if you did that to Havarl and did Jaal's loyalty mission if the Roekar chilled the fuck out on Havarl, but beggars can't be choosers. |
|
