Mass Effect: Andromeda - Shamus Young Analysis

[Silver]

Shamus Young has dived into Mass Effect: Andromeda to work out what happened. Check out Part 1 and Part 2.

Hard to Swallow

While not technically impossible, the Andromeda Initiative does seem like a pretty big stretch for this setting. In just nine years they supposedly built this gargantuan vessel that’s “Almost as big as the Citadel”. Keep in mind that the Citadel itself was the largest spaceborne object ever constructed. It was created by the Reapers, and it was beyond the understanding of any of the Council races. Just one of the arms of the station was about the size of Manhattan. Imagine building five Manhattans in nine years! In space! And not just a stationary vessel, but one that can zoom through the cosmos at max warp!

And somehow NOBODY in the original Mass Effect trilogy ever talked about this spectacular feat of engineering?

Heck, who paid for this thing[1]? Where did the resources come from? The Council races, wary of military build-ups, have always been very picky about how many ships everyone has. How did they ever allow this?

In the space of just one year they got 80,000 people to sign up?

Having said all that…

[...]

More information.

 

[rjshae]

There are concepts of megascale engineering and self-replicating machines to get it built. Plus 80,000 people is a drop in the bucket, population-wise. It is an advanced star-faring civilization so I don't see an issue here.

 

[Hexprone]

I don't think a few implausible details in the setting would cause any science fiction game to fail.

The game was dull. That's what happened.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

We have a few similar examples right here on earth : Teotihuacan, for example. A Massive thing. Or the Pyramids of Egypt. Still today, it is not 100 % (although 90-95 % ) clear in detail how they were built.

 

[JDR13]

It doesn't seem like he actually played through the entire game or he wouldn't be asking some of those questions.

As for the game itself, I thought it was ok, but it was way longer than it needed to be. While the main story was decent, the vast majority of the side content was generic and unimaginative.

 

[Couchpotato]

Never thought I'd agree with JDR but I still loved playing the game. Especially after a few patches were BioWare fixed the faces, and crab walk. Shame the DLC was cancelled.

Seems you have to buy a book to find out what happened after the ending.

 

[ChaosTheory]

The story fell apart, at least for me, with the space tendril thing. I struggled trying to understand its purpose as there were a thousand other, more plausible reasons for the ships to fail or the social structure to break down prior to arrival.

…and the Protheans (cough), or whatever they were called in that game. It wasn't a bad game, just unfinished. Unpolished. Non-remarkable, compared to the original trilogy.

 

[joxer]

The story didn't fall apart for me except for the ancient AI postend bug plothole if you kept it.

JDR already mentioned what was ME4's biggest sin - it's sidecontent. Main story, good, crew sidequests, good, but the rest of it? Booooooooooooooooooooorin'!
Additionally, humor. Almost nonexisting and what's in is mostly cringy. Remind me, who were writers for ME4?
Call 'em, ask 'em "heya what's shakin'?" a dozen times then sack 'em all. Then they'll learn what's not fun.

 

[lostforever]

Can you simply play the main quest and skip all the side content? Any negatives if you did that?

 

[joxer]

I can't. I'm not a professional reviewer and just can't speedrun a game, I never eat only cream from a cake and throw the rest of it away.
Negatives… I guess would be missing on sidekicks personal stories which are good, sometimes great. Also, fighting architects that appear in a few sidequests is fun - these are hard(ish) trashmobs that don't respawn endlessly and drop very nice equipment upgrades.

What you can and should is ignoring quests from the journal part called "tasks". These are horrible mmolike grinds, there are too many of them and you gain absolutely nothing from it except in some cases map pointer to a ruin you can find, visit and "loot" regardless just by exploration.

 

[ilm]

Also, fighting architects that appear in a few sidequests is fun - these are hard(ish) trashmobs that don't respawn endlessly and drop very nice equipment upgrades.

Hard? Haha, please Joxer. I expected better from you. The biggest flaw was the game was too easy and equipment did not matter.

I did mostly the main content until the end, then rushed through some companion quests (forgot about them) and found there was not much too them. So I had a good time doing only the main content.

 

[joxer]

Hard? Haha, please Joxer. I expected better from you. The biggest flaw was the game was too easy and equipment did not matter.

Hard(ish) architects I said. Sorry but I can't call them easy. Hard if you're underleveled, trivial if you used HP regeneration on tech skill paired with vampiric ammo refill.

The biggest flaw of the game was not it's "difficulty" setup, the original trilogy was already clear about combat difficulty (un)importance.
Exactly because of the original trilogy designs, ME4 was expected to be a game with rich (sub)stories, numerous "alien" romance possibilities and no grind. In all those parts it didn't deliver.
Noone, but perhaps you, cared if combat against trashmobs that respawn endlessly is easy or hard.

 

[Morrandir]

The game was ok and I could live with the flaws. It just wasn't anywhere as memorable as the original trilogy.

I'd still be hyped for a sequel.

 

[joxer]

If the sequel will be singleplayer, I'll buy it. But it's EA. Wouldn't surprise me ME5 is mmo with silly few hours long rubbish "solo campaign" advertised falsely as "SP with different multiplayer options".
What will happen with ME5 depends on Anthem sales.

 

[Couchpotato]

If the sequel will be singleplayer, I'll buy it. But it's EA. Wouldn't surprise me ME5 is mmo with silly few hours long rubbish "solo campaign" advertised falsely as "SP with different multiplayer options".
What will happen with ME5 depends on Anthem sales.

Yep have the same opinion that SP offline RPGs from Bioware might be dead. As EA the owner of BioWare hates single-player games, and based on recent interviews.

So yeah it depends on whether Anthem is a success or a failure. All I know is I'm not looking forward to playing solo on a online server with every new BioWare game.

 

[Morrandir]

If the sequel will be singleplayer, I'll buy it. But it's EA. Wouldn't surprise me ME5 is mmo with silly few hours long rubbish "solo campaign" advertised falsely as "SP with different multiplayer options".

Yep, I wouldn't even regard a following MP game as a "sequel".

 

[JDR13]

I disagree that it was bad compared to the original trilogy. Andromeda was actually better in some ways and worse in others. I think some people are remembering ME 1-3 through a rose tint. To be honest, the series was never that great to begin with.

 

[Zogar Sag]

To be honest, the series was never that great to begin with.

For me ME-1 was one of the best games I ever played. Im absolutely not into sci fi stuff , but I played game 3 times in row! I loved story and main character as well as all other stuff (except Mako maybe). Game grabbed me right from the start - i even don't remember why out of blue I tried it first time ha ha! Glad I did !

 

[joxer]

I think some people are remembering ME 1-3 through a rose tint. To be honest, the series was never that great to begin with.

Someone hated bump around Mako.
Well, I loved every second spent in it! Yes, me, the resident racing games hater.

Unlike ME4 Mako which was a letdown.

 

[Ripper]

Yeah, I really enjoyed the original trilogy. It couldn't find its way to a satisfying conclusion, which is a often a problem with epics, and the gameplay was nothing special. But, overall, it sucked me into its world and i had a great time with it.

I haven't tried Andromeda. It seemed to be buggy at release, and some of the trailers looked a bit cringey, so I just never quite got around to it.