Mass Effect Andromeda Cinematic Trailer Shows Off New Enemies, Including Giant Space Worm

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Mass Effect Andromeda Cinematic Trailer Shows Off New Enemies, Including Giant Space Worm

Today is N7 Day, and to celebrate, Bioware has released the cinematic trailer for Mass Effect Andromeda.

Bioware is celebrating N7 Day with a new cinematic trailer for Mass Effect Andromeda, as well as more information on the game's main characters. Also of interest in the trailer is the first look we've seen at the game's new enemy alien race, which has been named in leaks as the Kett (or Khet).

Andromeda will give players the choice of playing as one of two siblings - either Sarah or Scott Ryder. Sarah is voiced by Fryda Wolff, who previously provided the voice of the narrator in Civilization: Beyond Earth. Scott is voiced by Tom Taylorson, who you might recognize as the voice of Octodad in Octodad: Dadliest Catch.

Your father, Alec Ryder, will be voiced by Clancy Brown. If you didn't recognize his voice in last week's teaser, you might remember him as Hades in God of War III, among other roles.

Loyalty missions are back as well. Bioware's Mac Walters told Game Informer that all of the loyalty missions will be optional, and won't affect the ending.

"The big difference between this and ME2, where you did a loyalty mission and that all impacted the ending, is that they're much more optional in this case. If you don't want to engage with them, you don't have to. If you want engage with them after the critical path is done, you can do that."

If this trailer isn't enough to tide you over until the game arrives in the Spring of 2017, you can expect a full gameplay trailer to be shown off at the Video Game Awards on December 1.

Permalink

How about showing us some god damn gameplay, Bioware?

Alright; now I'm officially intrigued. I'd forgotten that Bioware can actually pull shit off. I loved KOTOR, Dragon Age and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Mass Effect 3 was good up until you realised none of the choices you made in 1 and 2 counted for anything.

Oh dear Bioware


I really don't have much hope for it. Hopefully this marketing shit is just for the blind masses.

RJ 17:
How about showing us some god damn gameplay, Bioware?

Each Mass Effect game has stripped out a couple of gameplay elements from the previous one, I almost expect this to be a 20 hour series of quick time events.

I'm still not sure about this, it looks gorgeous, but it also looks very Gears of War, I was hoping for a sense of exploration and wonder and a bit less BBWWWAAAARRRRRRMMMM. Mass Effect used up it's entire allotment of BWWWAAAARRRRRRMMMM and then some with the Reaper invasion.

I don't care. The bit of gameplay that we saw a few months ago looked bland and generic. A typical modern AAA RPG from a shitty publisher who doesn't give a fuck and wants to cater to the wide audience.

It looks (between the fades) and sound (what can be heard between the BOOOMS) to me like a Mass Effect made by a secondary game studio branch at the side and below original Bioware, similar to Borderlands the Pre-Sequel.

I'll just make the obvious reference

That is all

"Loyalty missions won't affect the ending"

And just like that, I'm done.

So you can do them, they're there, but they have no effect whatsoever on the world at large?

We got another Inquisition boys. You heard it here first.

Andromeda? It's 2,500,000 light-years from my front porch, I can care less for what happens in that mote of light In the ME trilogy my atoms somewhere where small part of an semi-important planet.

Blah blah, BioWare aren't what they 'used to be', blah... Spiritual betrayal, blah, the last 15mins probably killed my dog and called me names, blah etc.

Has that covered the whinging adequately? Doubt it, but one can hope...

Trailer: seems--- action-y. Another Big Bad and/or cosmic mystery-threat looks dull, sure, but I care about characters and writing far more than plot or story (or gameplay, and none of ME's core combat was anything special), so as long as the quality on those two counts is around the equal of ME3 and DA:I, I'll no doubt enjoy it regardless of what it isn't.

As for designs; I definitely appreciate the more scuffed feel they're going for with some of the suit designs. A triple-A budget guarantees time and money, sure, but it still needs hard working talented people to make something of both of those resources, and so far - for the characters and suits, at least - it's looking promising. Ditto the ships, but they've not really been shown in enough detail yet.

fix-the-spade:
Each Mass Effect game has stripped out a couple of gameplay elements from the previous one, I almost expect this to be a 20 hour series of quick time events.

How did ME3 represent a reductive follow-up from ME2? ME3's loadout customisation was superb, and cannily created all kinds of hybrid builds that neither of the two previous games could match.

I'm still not sure about this, it looks gorgeous, but it also looks very Gears of War, I was hoping for a sense of exploration and wonder and a bit less BBWWWAAAARRRRRRMMMM.

Yeah, agreed on the sense of wonder and awe - the idea of hopping between galaxies and finding new worlds segues nicely with Interstellar, and I'd have loved ME:A to be far closer to that from the outset. However, we've not seen any characters being shown off, nor core gameplay, and so it's still possible a sense of awe and wonder's there but not in this flashy action focused promo.

JamesStone:
"Loyalty missions won't affect the ending"

And just like that, I'm done.

So you can do them, they're there, but they have no effect whatsoever on the world at large?

We got another Inquisition boys. You heard it here first.

If anything, that sounds appealing to me. Optional content that remains optional.

Darth Rosenberg:

Trailer: seems--- action-y.

Has there ever been a Mass Effect trailer that didn't show action, apart from the "many choices" trailer in the first one? I'm not giving the trailer any props, but it's not exactly an oddity.

Darth Rosenberg:
the idea of hopping between galaxies and finding new worlds segues nicely with Interstellar, and I'd have loved ME:A to be far closer to that from the outset.

Preferably it should stay as far away from Interstellar as possible.

Ironically, hopping between galaxies is more in Andromeda's territory (i.e. the show, not the game). Andromeda isn't necessarily a show I'd recommend emulating, but it's certainly a better fit for the game than the mess that Interstellar was.

Anyway, it's a moot point. It takes them 600 years to reach Andromeda, they're hardly going to be hopping back to the Milky Way anytime soon.

I don't like the cut of the trailer.
Too much fade in and fade out without much cohesion. Then it's another of those "bwoooooong" trailers... it's just overused.

Had to google Fryda Wolff to hear her voice. Regrettable that they opted solely for male Ryder in this trailer.
Apparently she was also in Octodad, so it's a reunion?
In any case the voices of the Ryder family seem pretty good.

I tend to disagree that the marketing fails to address exploration and wonder. The first gameplay reveal was exploration only basically.

I recognise that more gameplay is revealed later at this award show thing. Hopefully we get to see all kinds of different gameplay elements and not only combat.

The aesthetics are nice as usual.

Please tell me we can customize their faces, because male hero looks like every other bland, brown hair action hero. I mean, at least he's not bald, but seriously...that could almost be Nathan Drake there.

So if the loyalty missions don't have anything to do with what happens in the end, isn't that kind of...gutting one of the main draws of Mass Effect? Choices matter and all that? I mean, I know they gutted that for the end of the original trilogy, but you'd think they'd learn, seeing how pissed off their fans were about all of that.

And that was a Salarian running at the end there, I believe. If that is the case, he is by FAR the oldest member of his species to ever live. I wonder what that's going to be like for him.

Why does this do absolutely nothing for me and feel like a completely generic Sci-Fi game that was already in development when Bioware decided to rename it Mass Effect and change a few words and character models around to retroactively fit in the Mass Effect canon?

Darth Rosenberg:

fix-the-spade:
Each Mass Effect game has stripped out a couple of gameplay elements from the previous one, I almost expect this to be a 20 hour series of quick time events.

How did ME3 represent a reductive follow-up from ME2? ME3's loadout customisation was superb, and cannily created all kinds of hybrid builds that neither of the two previous games could match.

I felt the turret sections and total lack of vehicle or exploration based segments was a big step backwards in ME3. Granted in ME2 these were added in the Firewalker and Overlord expansions but they were still present. ME3 only had infantry shooting or talking. Weapon customisation doesn't add anything unless it changes a weapon's behaviour drastically (as in Doom), the stat alterations present in ME3 weren't terribly meaningful beyond ability recharge, but that meant I just took one gun and went for power spam with every class. Didn't really do it for me.

I hope Andromeda moves to a closer mission structure to the first game though. I enjoyed dropping onto planets and then having to find your way to the mission in the Mako, then find out what's going once you get there. I know the Mako could be glitchy but I still enjoyed it enormously.

I seem to be in the minority with this, but this trailer actually sparked my interest. After the bullshit ending of ME3, this seems so far removed tonally that the only thing remaining is the solid lore and gameplay. People complain about ME becoming too shootery, but IMO, they did it well enough to get a pass on that. I enjoyed the actual gameplay of ME3 way more than most other action shooters.

Anyway, I'm loving the truly alien vibe of this trailer. "We are the aliens" is cheesy, but it sets up an interesting idea of us being treated as invaders and I hope the choices throughout the game allow us to either go towards confirming that suspicion or alleviating the fears. Also, from the rather brief looks and dialog, I get the feeling that we'll have a real villain again. The problem with the Reapers was that when they were mysterious, it was sort of like going up against a Lovecraftian horror. Once they were truly revealed in ME3, they lost most of what made them compelling.

So ya. Colour me somewhat intrigued.

Edit: and my hype is dead http://ca.ign.com/articles/2016/11/08/first-mass-effect-andromeda-story-details-revealed?read
Pause and play gone
Class system is gone
Honestly sounds like they're turning it into a generic shooter. I liked ME3 because it married solid shooting with interesting class loadouts and the strategic pausing to assess your next move.

I don't think the gameplay trailer will even decide whether or not I get this game at launch (though it will decide if I get the game at all), what will decide if I get it at launch or not, will be the Pre-Order Hype.

Hawki:
If anything, that sounds appealing to me. Optional content that remains optional.

I can see the merits of both design paths, at least in theory. I think I prefer how ME2 did its loyalty missions, because I get the feeling any truly optional content simply won't be very substantial (then again I suppose ME2's actual missions took just an hour or so, if that?).

DA:I's core design was mostly highly questionable, but at the moment it kinda sounds as if ME:A's character missions will be closer to it than ME2, and that might be quite good, i.e. what with the mention of being able to pursue character arcs after the [at release] story's been resolved.

Has there ever been a Mass Effect trailer that didn't show action, apart from the "many choices" trailer in the first one? I'm not giving the trailer any props, but it's not exactly an oddity.

Yeah, that's a fair point, actually. Just watched 1 and 2's first full trailers (as far as I can tell) and they were mostly just the usual epic-action-plot nonsense. ME:A's is just more action and far less actual story, however, so it feels--- well, overly stylised and a little dumb.

Preferably it should stay as far away from Interstellar as possible.

Ironically, hopping between galaxies is more in Andromeda's territory (i.e. the show, not the game). Andromeda isn't necessarily a show I'd recommend emulating, but it's certainly a better fit for the game than the mess that Interstellar was.

Well, to each their own; as my pic suggests, I adored Interstellar, and think it's a singular contemporary sci-fi film in a genre of very slim pickings, and arguably Nolan's best yet (certainly on a technical level of tradecraft it's going to be hard for him to beat). Kip Thorne's superb book on its science/theoretical physics definitely enhances its impact and my respect for it, too - all sci-fi films - and games - could look to it as an example of how to push what's mostly theoretically possible (even the corners it cut for narrative/cinematic convenience are fascinating) to the edge and visualise it on the screen. As a spectacle and experience I can't think of anything quite its equal. Incredible sound design and one of Zimmer's finest scores, too.

I really hope BioWare at least nick some visual cues from the film, because none of the ME's so far have really explored just how freaky the cosmos is/can be.

fix-the-spade:
I felt the turret sections and total lack of vehicle or exploration based segments was a big step backwards in ME3. Granted in ME2 these were added in the Firewalker and Overlord expansions but they were still present. ME3 only had infantry shooting or talking.

Eh, ME was always terrible at trying to do exploration - window wiping maps for POI's on 50 palette swapped worlds of variously frustrating terrain ain't 'exploration', at least not to me. We have games simulating entire galaxies right now, so anything an action adventure lite-RPG tries to do on that note will just seem quaint, frankly.

I think it was a mistake to just axe the Mako in 2, sure - that was a kneejerk reaction from BioWare, cutting instead of refining. But 3 was so packed with consequential content that it'd have needed another year or two in development to appease anyone wanting some 'exploration' as well. ME3's focus was a little different, sure, but I think it's very unfair to say it was a reductive design shift.

Weapon customisation doesn't add anything unless it changes a weapon's behaviour drastically (as in Doom), the stat alterations present in ME3 weren't terribly meaningful beyond ability recharge, but that meant I just took one gun and went for power spam with every class. Didn't really do it for me.

Well, with the full suit of weapons and the cooldown system you could tailor very different playstyles, so the variation is in the range as well as what the player wishes to do. I fail to see how that's a negative evolution from 1 and 2; the former was painfully clumsy, ill suited to an 'RPG' and frankly bordering on immersion breaking at times (Shepard's an N7 and a Spectre candidate right out the gate - and s/he can't control recoil on the pea-shooter weapons you start with? pft... ), whilst 2 at least refined the core combat mechanics to be something less absurd but had a pitiful range of weapons, ergo variations in playstyle/class hybrids.

ME's combat was always underwhelming to me, but 3's was very impressive given BioWare's games always try to wear multiple genre hats at once. I liked the more percussive, ballistic feel to many of 3's weapons, as well.

I hope Andromeda moves to a closer mission structure to the first game though. I enjoyed dropping onto planets and then having to find your way to the mission in the Mako, then find out what's going once you get there. I know the Mako could be glitchy but I still enjoyed it enormously.

I liked the idea of the Mako, but mostly loathed how it was implemented - on multiple runs it was like some kind of prolonged torture as opposed to a gameplay mechanic...

I'd agree it'd be nice to have those vehicle drop sections before key missions, but that alone wouldn't appease those looking for 'exploration of worlds', and I don't believe anything BioWare do will satisfy half the vocal playerbase let alone everyone. If they introduce larger spaces then those are meaningless without worthwhile things to do in them (I eventually came to enjoy DA:I, but the majority of its content and zones are, genuinely, utterly inessential and inconsequential and I really don't see that as a constructive design choice).

If they focus on smaller, contained areas then people will complain you can't 'explore'. Where's the middle ground? Firewalker? I'm not sure that is particularly fondly remembered - I always found those areas a nuisance in between actual on-foot story content, especially on higher diffs playing peek-a-boo with those turrets shredding the paper thin Hammerhead.

fix-the-spade:

Darth Rosenberg:

fix-the-spade:
Each Mass Effect game has stripped out a couple of gameplay elements from the previous one, I almost expect this to be a 20 hour series of quick time events.

How did ME3 represent a reductive follow-up from ME2? ME3's loadout customisation was superb, and cannily created all kinds of hybrid builds that neither of the two previous games could match.

I felt the turret sections and total lack of vehicle or exploration based segments was a big step backwards in ME3. Granted in ME2 these were added in the Firewalker and Overlord expansions but they were still present. ME3 only had infantry shooting or talking. Weapon customisation doesn't add anything unless it changes a weapon's behaviour drastically (as in Doom), the stat alterations present in ME3 weren't terribly meaningful beyond ability recharge, but that meant I just took one gun and went for power spam with every class. Didn't really do it for me.

I hope Andromeda moves to a closer mission structure to the first game though. I enjoyed dropping onto planets and then having to find your way to the mission in the Mako, then find out what's going once you get there. I know the Mako could be glitchy but I still enjoyed it enormously.

Mako was totally the bees knees, and when they brought it back in ME2 I was soooo happy. Even though the side world's were barren and kinda bland, just jumping around with that leapfrog was a blast.

Sniper Team 4:
So if the loyalty missions don't have anything to do with what happens in the end, isn't that kind of...gutting one of the main draws of Mass Effect? Choices matter and all that? I mean, I know they gutted that for the end of the original trilogy, but you'd think they'd learn, seeing how pissed off their fans were about all of that.

To put a rather cynical view on this...

Executive: "Our customers absolutely hated the fact that we just ignored most of their decisions for Mass Effect 3. So how are we going to avoid this becoming an issue with future games?"
Worker A: "We could make it so that we don't have any real decisions to be made?"
Executive: "Maybe...maybe..."
Worker B: "How about making it so that side quests have zero impact on the story? That way it doesn't matter what we put in."
Executive: "Now there's a good idea."
Worker C: "...why not just actually put the work in and keep it tight enough for everything to work properly?"
Everyone stares at Worker C.
Executive: "SECURITY!"
Worker C dragged off to worker reconditioning.

On topic: ME3 thoroughly, thoroughly poisoned that well for me now. No matter how much I always liked the Mass Effect universe I have zero confidence that Bioware has the competence to put together a decent game anymore after the poor performance of roughly a solid third of the ME3 narrative. Couple that with huge amounts of games I have yet to finish or even start and I find it very doubtful I'll be buying this on launch.

Which is a shame really. Because I really do like the ME setting.

fix-the-spade:

Darth Rosenberg:

fix-the-spade:
Each Mass Effect game has stripped out a couple of gameplay elements from the previous one, I almost expect this to be a 20 hour series of quick time events.

How did ME3 represent a reductive follow-up from ME2? ME3's loadout customisation was superb, and cannily created all kinds of hybrid builds that neither of the two previous games could match.

I felt the turret sections and total lack of vehicle or exploration based segments was a big step backwards in ME3. Granted in ME2 these were added in the Firewalker and Overlord expansions but they were still present. ME3 only had infantry shooting or talking. Weapon customisation doesn't add anything unless it changes a weapon's behaviour drastically (as in Doom), the stat alterations present in ME3 weren't terribly meaningful beyond ability recharge, but that meant I just took one gun and went for power spam with every class. Didn't really do it for me.

I hope Andromeda moves to a closer mission structure to the first game though. I enjoyed dropping onto planets and then having to find your way to the mission in the Mako, then find out what's going once you get there. I know the Mako could be glitchy but I still enjoyed it enormously.

Well lets be fair: for Mass Effect 3 the galaxy was on fire, the Reapers were here and exploration was off the table unless it had a direct, provable outcome that would make shooting the Reapers easier. It baffles me that people wanted the exploration for the closing chapter where it would totally inappropriate.

However, Andromeda is the opposite of that: exploration of planets and other celestial bodies is arguably the point of the expedition. So really this game's primary mechanic should be it's player and vehicle movement to allow better exploration. In fact I would hope that this game has a 60/40, if not 70/30 split of exploration to direct combat - I don't count fighting wildlife as direct combat - with enemy NPCs.

All I need to know is whether or not Bioware learned from Dragon Age: Inquisition and gave us interesting, entertaining characters.

Garrus, Liara and Tali are gonna be really hard to replace, and I'm not sure I like Liara's new counterpart.

SlumlordThanatos:
All I need to know is whether or not Bioware learned from Dragon Age: Inquisition and gave us interesting, entertaining characters.

Welll that's an eternal struggle for which there is no end because mileage varies. I personally rather liked all the companions you got in Inquisition other than Sera and Solas, which is the same hit miss ratio I had for DragonAge 2 so I had no complaints.

SlumlordThanatos:
Garrus, Liara and Tali are gonna be really hard to replace, and I'm not sure I like Liara's new counterpart.

This much is true, although the Asari in the trailers and such is only Liara's replacement in that they're both Asari when character wise she could be more like Garrus or Tali. But I agree, replacing the Normandy's old faces is going to be a huge task.

Well, at least it looks decent (visually), but that trailer didn't exactly leave me quivering in anticipation, and I'm getting a strong DAI vibe from it (could be the engine). At this point, my confidence in Bioware is pretty much zero, so I'll definitely be holding off for the reviews.

Story wise I definitely preferred the second one, but gameplay wise, with a few things, the first one was really quite good. But as the series progressed it went less from "RPG game with shooting elements" to "shooting game with RPG elements" and what gameplay I have seen doesn't make me thing they've backtracked to more of an RPG formula. Hopefully I'm wrong because I would love to have another awesome Mass Effect game.

Bioware has spend every last bit of goodwill they built up over the years. They may be able to get it back, but if DA:I is anything to go by, I highly doubt it.

That being said, while my expectations are low, I will still get ME:A, eventually.

ME1 was a Space Opera RPG, pushing boundaries and trying new things
ME2, while sporting undeniable mechanical and gameplay improvements, scrapped the Space Opera in favour of generic 3rd person shooter. It pushed no bounds and it, along with ME3, are prime examples of how focus groups and committees can gut a good idea.

Focus groups cannot give you "new", "innovative", "genre defining" or even just "good" ideas, you need artists for that.
Focus groups and committees give you "middle of the road", "generic", "safe" and "tried and tested" ideas, which just become more and more stale as time passes.

Bioware and EA had no idea what a "Mass Effect" game was after the first game, so went "safe" and "generic" with a cast of memorable characters being the only defining feature.

To use a food analogy: ME1 was fresh new dish served by a young upcoming chef, with hints of interesting flavour combinations, refreshing but in need of refinement to be truly great. EA and Bioware decided that the part of most interest to the customer was the serving plate.

This looks to be more of the same.
I had hoped it might swing back, even just a little, to the big bombastic Space Opera roots of the original.
Nothing in the trailer reassures me.

...You guys know the 'loyalty' missions from ME1 didn't have an effect on the ending either, right? And the 'effect' they had on the ending of ME2 was pretty minimal too - shit, all you got was a different end-credit scene for doing a perfect run without anyone dying, and you can achieve that with 3 loyalty missions (Mordin, Jack, someone who isn't Grunt) depending on how much DLC you had. All the Big Effects of doing the loyalty missions came from ME3, really.

So, uhhh... kinda a dumb reason to hate on this, all things considered. Then again, this is Bioware, they could start handing out gold bars and blowjob machines and gamers would probably scream 'WHAT ABOUT THE ENDING!' at them.

I'm going to throw my opinion into the smaller pile of "am interested in where this is going," however worthless that is here. Can't think of anything useful to say right now, stupid broken head. But at least the pile is one larger.

Oh, if I can't romance that giant space worm in any way, shape or form, then it's a deal-breaker for me. This is a damn space fantasy and it should be MY damn space fantasy. Damnit!

I don't remember the combat gameplay in ME1 being anything but awful and the last time I played it was last year. It also had a massive amount of time wastage in the exploration elements. ME2 & 3 were refinements but they were still massively problematic.

People get hemped up about the ending (something I've never taken umbridge with) but the real draw was the storytelling and unique IP universe. And that sustained people through 3 games as long Bioware take that through into this I'm sure most rational people will enjoy is.

RedDeadFred:

Edit: and my hype is dead http://ca.ign.com/articles/2016/11/08/first-mass-effect-andromeda-story-details-revealed?read
Pause and play gone
Class system is gone
Honestly sounds like they're turning it into a generic shooter. I liked ME3 because it married solid shooting with interesting class loadouts and the strategic pausing to assess your next move.

"-Powers are instead hotkeyed for quick use, no longer pausing to bring up a wheel and aim (you can still pause the combat but it's not how BioWare intends combat to function)"

Pausing combat is still in the game if you want to, though Bioware is probably design combat without it in mind so it's probably no longer the optimal way to engage in combat.

As for the removal of classes... I have mixed feelings about it. At one hand, it means you are no longer constrained into one or two ways of fighting for class, that means you can come up with more varied builds (like Cloaking+Shotgun or Tech Armor+Biotic Charge+Detonation of Tech Armor) but at the same it also means that you can break the game beyond any resemblance of balance completely trivializing any combat you might encounter even on higher dificulties.

OT: The trailer itself it's pretty underwhelming to be honest, but the game informer information ( http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1309671 ) was pretty good and reveal a lot of good information about the game. Hopefully The Game Awards (December) will have gameplay on it... However considering how many times I expected gameplay only to get blue balls instead I am not holding my breath however.

image
Because fuck haters.

I am ready for more Mass Effect...

Programmed_For_Damage:
Alright; now I'm officially intrigued. I'd forgotten that Bioware can actually pull shit off. I loved KOTOR, Dragon Age and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Mass Effect 3 was good up until you realised none of the choices you made in 1 and 2 counted for anything.

The BioWare that made the games you loved contracted a terminal illness about 8 years ago and died in 2012 when the doctors left. If you are expecting KotOR, DA:O or ME, you'll be disappointed.

Wrex Brogan:
...You guys know the 'loyalty' missions from ME1 didn't have an effect on the ending either, right? And the 'effect' they had on the ending of ME2 was pretty minimal too - shit, all you got was a different end-credit scene for doing a perfect run without anyone dying, and you can achieve that with 3 loyalty missions (Mordin, Jack, someone who isn't Grunt) depending on how much DLC you had. All the Big Effects of doing the loyalty missions came from ME3, really.

There was no real tangible difference in ME3 whatever choices or loyalties were made in ME2. The biggest choice, that of Collector Base, was a number on a the war tally, as were any surviving NPCs (Zaeed, Grunt, etc). The rest that appeared in missions put paid to even the illusion of choice.

Whether Jack lived or died, rescuing the students in the biotic school was the same. Whether or not Miranda lived, the player did the same mission that resulted in the same consequence. Regardless of if the player ejected Grunt from the airlock AND killed the Rachni queen, that mission was identical. Regardless of whether the player never activated Legion and in fact, gave it to Tali, a Legion hologram appeared and filled the same role. And the biggest farce of all was that the player could kill Mordin, kill Maelon, destroy his research, kill Eve and STILL have the option of curing the genophage, and it didn't matter if Wrex was alive or dead either.

ME3 was when the bill came due to pay the IOUs to the fans expecting to see their Shepard's choices matter and it was the biggest joke of all when EA Canada came up so short.

Just to remind you folks, BioWare Montreal (ME3 Mp, Omega DLC) =/= BioWare Edmonton (Everything else).

Also, most of the key people left the company.

Please board the hype train responsibly.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.