Here you can find all forums, blogs and similar sections, that are meant for different types of communication.

Banner Hide banner



The problem with Mass Effect: Andromeda is that it's inconsistent. I mean, there were other issues when it got released, obviously (I had bugs and extremely bad animations, that forced me to refund), but at this point in time - inconsistencies.

They are mostly small ones like doors, map navpoints (and sometimes map markers), action prompts, scanner points, "homing" abilities and bullets... But there are more major ones as well. Even in lore and story: some things are explained relatively well, but others are "just there", or made as if they were designed by people having no technical knowledge or ability to view things "practically" (I am looking at you, galaxy map). Even the characters are inconsistent. The most consistent one is Pebee, but that's because she is meant to be somewhat chaotic. And for some reason the game decided, that I am romancing Cora and not her, because Cora's loyalty mission became available (and completed) sooner.

Ryder is also extremely inconsistent. I am used to choices saying not what the character will be saying when you choose them (this was the case in previous ME games as well), but here some replies felt so out of place and out of character. Or rather, it felt as if Ryder does not have a character at all. Maybe I am misremembering, but original trilogy still provided a more fleshed-out Shepard no matter the combination of choices you took. Perhaps it was because of a more simplified "Paragon" system, since he was either more brutal or more peace-loving, but still.

Does this make this game bad? No. But it does take a lot from it being good. While playing it, I was thinking of original ME: let's be honest, it also was a bit unpolished and rough on the edges. But it had a pretty good narrative for the time, thus it was a success. And then ME2 and ME3 raised the bar for quality even higher despite some questionable things there as well. And with Andromeda we expected same quality.

Sadly, it is roughly like ME1, but with narrative, that is slightly worse because of those inconsistences. Having planets, that you help to inhabit is an amazing thing, it can create an open world worth exploring, but the way it's presented does not fit the circumstances. It's simply not practical. Hvarl felt the most consistent in that regard: it was small and to the point. The way it would be, when you come to an unknown world. Long-distance travel (by ship or by car) when you have limited resources - just a dream and a waste, unless there is something to actually gain from the travel. But on the other hand - doing something for the communities in order to increase "viability" - that's logical.

And the scale overall becomes the problem in the end. When we are doing the final mission, we are shown a large construct, that should cause awe, but since we already seen similar structures, but just a bit smaller - the awe is not there. Because we are used to this scale. Since we've seen it from the very start.

But still, I would recommend it. It's not a bad a game. I did enjoy doing the quests, even though I've skipped quite a few dialogues during side-quests. They were ok, but simply did not have enough "character". Again, because of the scale, which was ill-fitted most of the time. If only they had more time to polish it. And implement pause during dialogues.