Mass Effect: Andromeda | Official Thread

[Scruffington]

Bloody hell, even IGN gave it a 7.7. IGN. For a triple A game that's basically a 2/10 from them.

Just read this bit from Venture Beat which gave it a 55/100:

Games have to fit into our lives, and that’s not always fair. Mass Effect: Andromeda might’ve worked a decade ago on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, but it doesn’t work in a world that is delivering games like Horizon: Zero Dawn, Nier: Automata, and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. In this reality, BioWare’s latest role-playing game is old, broken, and often boring.

Brutal.

[Psychotic]

wait a smurfing minute

no hanar and no elcor?

pre-order cancelled fu bioware

[Formalhaut]

Quite a shame that after five years they couldn't really manage greatness. Annoying thing is many of these flaws seem like they could be easily corrected with more time to iron out the kinks.

[Slothy]

Time to iron out kinks is not something that triple A publishers believe in. Why fix before release what you can promise to fix with a patch a month later then never bother delivering on?

[Formalhaut]

Maybe they think fans will hate it if a game is released too late? I don't know, but personally I'd rather developers took the time to make a game right than try to rush it, yes after five years of development. As long as they vocalise why they're delaying a game to fix technical issues or brush up a mechanic, I'm perfectly happy.

[Slothy]

Honestly, I'd guess their only concern is money. Missing a launch date can hurt sales, taking the time to fix these things will cost a ton of money the longer they go without releasing, and since it's March I wouldn't be surprised if some executive somewhere was pushing to get it out the door so they don't miss their quarterly revenue targets.

Just thinking back to Half-Life and Half-Life 2, both games ended up delayed and heavily reworked before they released, and unless I'm mistaken, Half-Life 2 was actually costing $1 million a month to work on for the year it was delayed to make it not suck. And that was a game released almost 13 years ago and with a team that had to be substantially smaller than the team making Andromeda. Most companies would look at costs running into the millions each month you delay and unless the thing is literally unplayably broken they won't bother. Unless you're Ubisoft of course, then you just release the unplayable game anyway because fans love it when you release broken games and never fix them.

[Formalhaut]

I suppose there's a balance between running costs and the cost of reputation for releasing a less-than-stellar game.

From where I'm standing with reviews hammering it and fan reaction sadly predictable (let's blame a woman!) I'm not sure they made the right call with pushing forward and releasing it in March.

[Scruffington]

Quite a shame that after five years they couldn't really manage greatness. Annoying thing is many of these flaws seem like they could be easily corrected with more time to iron out the kinks.

Except a lot of people seem divided about the story, writing and gameplay. You can't really patch those issues.

[DMKA]

Mass Effect: Andromeda might’ve worked a decade ago on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3

So what's the argument here? That new games that aren't different enough are bad?

Honestly that quote makes me want to buy the game a lot more.

[Scruffington]

Mass Effect: Andromeda might’ve worked a decade ago on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3

So what's the argument here? That new games that aren't different enough are bad?

Honestly that quote makes me want to buy the game a lot more.

Uh..I thought the point was pretty straightforward and obvious.

It's an outdated game that doesn't hold up to today's standards. In a world where Breath of the Wild, Nier: Automata and Horizon: Zero Dawn exist, Andromeda just seems old and nowhere near the level of a good game released in 2017.

Especially not in regards to open-world aspects.

[Bubba]

I'm still excited. Can't wait for Thursday

[Slothy]

Mass Effect: Andromeda might’ve worked a decade ago on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3

So what's the argument here? That new games that aren't different enough are bad?

Honestly that quote makes me want to buy the game a lot more.

Uh..I thought the point was pretty straightforward and obvious.

It's an outdated game that doesn't hold up to today's standards. In a world where Breath of the Wild, Nier: Automata and Horizon: Zero Dawn exist, Andromeda just seems old and nowhere near the level of a good game released in 2017.

Especially not in regards to open-world aspects.

If I'm being perfectly honest I don't actually buy into the notion that games this generation are that much different than games from last generation. Same stuff with better graphics for the most part. I just can't take a criticism like that one very seriously.

[Madame Adequate]

wait a smurfing minute

no hanar and no elcor?

pre-order cancelled fu bioware

what in the smurf is this are you kidding me

what next no volus?

[Del Murder]

Some mixed reviews but even that itself is disappointing considering the reception to the rest of the series. I liked that quote Scruff posted as it lays out the harsh reality regarding the evolving standard games are measured against. If you are making the next entry in a big name open world RPG then you can't simply just beef up your combat and create bigger worlds to explore and expect aspects like characterization, quest design, and storytelling to be looked over.

Looks like I'll be playing Horizon and Zelda first!

[Psychotic]

wait a smurfing minute

no hanar and no elcor?

pre-order cancelled fu bioware

what in the smurf is this are you kidding me

what next no volus?

no vorcha no drell no quarians no lib dems it's a bloody disgrace