are you going to buy mass effect andromeda?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Why, in this day and age, does there exist separate launch dates for a digital product? Such a pile of wank.

Never played on Early Access, but from what I have seen and heard, nothing about this game is blowing wind up my skirt. So at this point in time, I'm not interested. Maybe I might get it, depends on if the animations and bugs are patched. The reviews pointing out the dullness of the fetch quests is not heart-warming news, but I suppose without them, ME:A would go from a 40 hour game to an 8 hour game.

Wrex Brogan:
Ehh, gonna give it a week or two after release, that'll give me a good look at the full reviews and all that.

This is my stock standard response for a couple of years after being burnt by purchasing on release.

Dalisclock:
First reviews are dropping and so far it's still pretty mixed. Generally postive but one thing that bothers me is that most of them say that a lot of the content seems like filler. Hell, a couple are saying that the main missions are kinda boring. Both of those are making me feel like this isn't something I'm really gonna care for. Maybe once it drops down to like 20 or 30 bucks, I might give it a shot but the "Lots O'Filler" thing is exactly why I don't like to play open world games much these days.

ME2 was basically all filler. It only had 4 missions. Witcher 3 was a bunch of filler too. But then I'm the one who thought that game would have been so much better if it was only 2/3rd the size. Filler is just what you get with open world game since at least Daggerfall.

008Zulu:
Never played on Early Access, but from what I have seen and heard, nothing about this game is blowing wind up my skirt.

I like your metaphor, sir.

Darth Rosenberg:
It denies the player choice, and I don't see a single character in BioWare's SP line-up (from KotOR on) whose story necessitates a fixed orientation of any kind.

They tried the whole "everyone is bi" thing in DA:2 and it just...didn't work. Characters need fixed and defined traits to be convincing, and they need to be distinct from other characters to be compelling.

If they just kinda went "You know what, everyone's bisexual now! Player choice!", then a) everyone's the same, and b) their orientation is effectively determined by the player, not by the people writing the character or (in-universe) by the character themselves.

So I don't think it's weird to have characters with a fixed orientation in a certain work. I think there ought to be fair representation of homosexual orientations in video games, because it's something that is still pretty rarely done, but I think that this representation ought to present the characters as individuals, rather than agents of the player's choice.

I liked what DA:I did. Inquisition's character lineup was actually one of its best parts. Iron Bull was unconcernedly bisexual, having come from a culture where that wasn't weird. Dorian was gay and it had affected his relationship with his father. Sera was gay and, weirdly, into Qunari women. Cassandra was butch but still very heterosexual, because having short hair and muscles doesn't mean you're a dyke. Solas is only interested in elves. Leliana is canonically bi, but too busy for a relationship. Vivienne will never bang you, because she's too professional for it.

They all felt like real people, with real hang-ups and preferences and dislikes and priorities, and not just agents for the player character to get their jollies off with. I think that's important, and it's probably why - the quality of the game aside - I think it's a little ridiculous for people to complain that Cora isn't gay on the basis of "they really, really hoped she was." I mean, imagine if it was the other way around - fans pleading that a confirmed and solidly homosexual character be made bisexual or heterosexual just so that their character can bang them. That'd be stupidly offensive.

Anyway, the game looks like a turd so I'm dodging it for the time being, but it's hard for me to pass up an opportunity to bash DA:2.

IT WAS TERRIBLE

Dr. McD:

And dear god, the fucking models...
image

No. For additional reasons.

The shape of her face is fine, hell I like it against that yet-another-delicate-flower re-design. The way that face moves though... Yikes.

bastardofmelbourne:
They tried the whole "everyone is bi" thing in DA:2 and it just...didn't work. Characters need fixed and defined traits to be convincing, and they need to be distinct from other characters to be compelling.

I think using the term bi for DAII's available characters is meaningless, as they - for the most part - do not have any orientation until the player reacts/acts.

As for needing "defined traits to be convincing"? Make Isabela straight or gay, and do the same for Anders. Fine, they have 'defined' orientations.

...and how are they different, in a truly meaningful, relevant way? In a videogame world and for the player, what does that add to their characterisations? Perhaps to people who view romantic and sexual orientation as notable, it represents some kind of seismic, essential difference. But to people who see orientations as little more than, say, colour preferences (love and sex are, ultimately, identical regardless of combination of genders), it is simply an arbitrary limitation on the players range of RP choices.

If they just kinda went "You know what, everyone's bisexual now! Player choice!", then a) everyone's the same, and b) their orientation is effectively determined by the player, not by the people writing the character or (in-universe) by the character themselves.

Again, 'everyone's bisexual now' is a misleading concept - that's not what I'm arguing for at all. You don't need to assert some kind of conscious liberal utopia in the created world where all the characters discuss their openness to any gender. In DAII I remember Isabela, Anders, and I think Fenris discussing past infatuations, and - someone correct me if I'm wrong - all three primarily or exclusively referenced heterosexual experiences. Only Isabela can really be considered canonically bi/pan, given she (or a crappier version of the character) can be slept with in DA:O with a male or female Warden.

Their willingness to respond to a same sex Hawke doesn't contradict or break their "defined" identity. Well, again, perhaps it does for people who have a peculiarly strong view of exclusive orientations.

I think there ought to be fair representation of homosexual orientations in video games, because it's something that is still pretty rarely done, but I think that this representation ought to present the characters as individuals, rather than agents of the player's choice.

I'm a filthy feminist/progressive, so I certainly believe in better representation and more diverse voices/perspectives, particularly in the mainstream.

However, it's all relative and contextual. In a fixed linear narrative, yes, authorial intent is the be all and end all. But that is a completely different issue to the dynamics in a role-playing game.

"Agents of the player's choice": precisely. Gaming is often an incredibly egoistic medium, for better and sometimes worse. Per different genres and styles, the player's sphere of influence, if you will, changes. There is an expectation that we have more control over the overall story and/or events than in a wholly fixed narrative. What does or does not technically constitute 'RPG mechanics' is complex and highly debatable given any and all games can be said to now include such systems... but for the sake of this conversation, it's fair to assume BioWare's output is very much biased towards creating different kind of characters and shoving them into their created worlds, be it fantasy or sci-fi.

Player agency and their sphere of influence - i.e. projection of a role - includes stuff like cosmetic customisation, simple dialogue choices, what order certain tasks/quests are done in, which characters you talk to, which characters you talk to and like/dislike, key plot decisions, sometimes who lives/dies, and so on. It's a given romance arcs are a part of that, take Bull in DA:I: a player may have their character avoid him for a few reasons that greatly impact their RP - they may be prejudiced against the Qun, they may be a little bit racist, they might shun his hedonism, they may simply be attracted to a different gender, and so on.

RPG's are more egoistic than other genres, as they allow us to reshape entire worlds as well as the fate - and often disposition - of the party characters surrounding the PC. For me, it's entirely justified to see the party characters as--- well, puppets for the nefarious puppet master that is the player... The factions, the story, the world, the enemies, etc, they are all there for the player's enjoyment. Romance arcs are simply another part of that.

And so: the negatives of fixed/canon orientations outweigh the positives of empowering the player with more choice.

Ultimately, can I deny authorial intent to explore a specifically straight, gay, or whatever outlook of a character? Clearly not. But the above sentence sums up my position with RPG's. Both approaches objectively represent compromises, however: fixed = less player freedom [in a genre about player freedom], and player-defined = less room for authorial intent.

I liked what DA:I did. Inquisition's character lineup was actually one of its best parts. Iron Bull was unconcernedly bisexual, having come from a culture where that wasn't weird. Dorian was gay and it had affected his relationship with his father. Sera was gay and, weirdly, into Qunari women. Cassandra was butch but still very heterosexual, because having short hair and muscles doesn't mean you're a dyke. Solas is only interested in elves. Leliana is canonically bi, but too busy for a relationship. Vivienne will never bang you, because she's too professional for it.

They all felt like real people, with real hang-ups and preferences and dislikes and priorities, and not just agents for the player character to get their jollies off with.

Agreed, I feel DA:I's depiction of romance arcs across its characters was the best they've ever done, but for me the defined natures of their orientations didn't have much impact on that, as again, those characters would still be those characters had they been open to an Inquisitor of either gender.

As I said before, even Dorian's arc would still work as it does if he was bi/pan, but had a preference for - or past experiences with - men. The bloodline element that's tethered to Tevinter's wacky eugenics culture would still work, as his father would still have the same exact reason to change/manipulate him.

To change that arc now (to rewrite a gay character into bi/pan) would be ruinously idiotic, of course, but that tweak wouldn't have been controversial in the slightest had BioWare created Dorian with it in mind from the off. Net result? More player freedom [in a genre about player freedom].

I think that's important, and it's probably why - the quality of the game aside - I think it's a little ridiculous for people to complain that Cora isn't gay...

Again, perhaps semantics to some, but an important distinction for my point: I'm not complaining she isn't gay at all, I'm disappointed it's a character who's not available for the gender of leads I tend to play. This isn't about identity politics or representation - it's about giving the player as broad a set of building blocks to cohere their own story.

Anyway, the game looks like a turd so I'm dodging it for the time being, but it's hard for me to pass up an opportunity to bash DA:2.

IT WAS TERRIBLE

Subjective is as subjective does: DAII is probably my favourite BioWare game, and therefore one of my favourite RPG's of all time. ;-) Loved the setting (if not the actual use of it throughout), the tone, the writing, and Hawke's [impressively tragic] three act story. Jo Wyatt's droll/sarcastic Hawke was sublime, too.

Zenja:
I am pretty sure Bioware is going to allow you to be gay or bi just not with Cora. and that is simply world-building which is important because allowing the player to mold the world however they see fit also destroys the concept of "meaningful choices".

See above for an elaboration (as I'd just be repeating the same points). Essentially whilst I respect authorial intent, in a genre about player agency this design approach (with regards to sexuality) has a net loss, not a net gain.

Dr. McD:

And dear god, the fucking models...
image

No. For additional reasons.

Because making a 3D model from scratch with full rigging and animation in a cutting edge game engine is completely the same thing as airbrushing existing models in a 10+ years old engine that's far less potent and has less potential for animation and rigging...

Yes, Bioware dropped the ball on the animations, but let's not pretend as if their job is easy. Also, as Cowabungaa pointed out: Whether you prefer Anon's Ryder is completely down to personal preference. I think both look kind of iffy, but Anon's feels far more like a barbie doll then an actual trailblazer who's former military. Bioware's face has its' own problems, but at least it looks more the part to me. It also looks less like creepy male pandering fanservice.

No.
the graphics and animations are a bad joke
The combat looks samey
Voice acting is wooden
Story fails to intrigue

It's just plain awful looking

Ha, no. Unlike most people I was never in love with The series; The only game that I own is ME2 and I thought it was kind of... Boring.

This one certainly isn't winning me over, it looks like hot garbage designed to pander to a certain demographic that I'm obviously not a part of, so I'll just spend my money into something that panders to me.

Gethsemani:

Dr. McD:

And dear god, the fucking models...
image

No. For additional reasons.

Because making a 3D model from scratch with full rigging and animation in a cutting edge game engine is completely the same thing as airbrushing existing models in a 10+ years old engine that's far less potent and has less potential for animation and rigging...

I think the images point was more about aesthetics than technical aspects.
Neither looks particularly "military" to me. The original looks like an overly optimistic high schooler and the other is an anime character. I will say, the eyes on the left one are objectivly superior to the creepy zombie eyes of the right.

Gethsemani:

Dr. McD:

And dear god, the fucking models...
image

No. For additional reasons.

Because making a 3D model from scratch with full rigging and animation in a cutting edge game engine is completely the same thing as airbrushing existing models in a 10+ years old engine that's far less potent and has less potential for animation and rigging...

Yes, Bioware dropped the ball on the animations, but let's not pretend as if their job is easy. Also, as Cowabungaa pointed out: Whether you prefer Anon's Ryder is completely down to personal preference. I think both look kind of iffy, but Anon's feels far more like a barbie doll then an actual trailblazer who's former military. Bioware's face has its' own problems, but at least it looks more the part to me. It also looks less like creepy male pandering fanservice.

The face is based on a very attractive photomodel. Same with the dude face. The ugliness comes from poor modeling and weirdness caused by the lighting&skin shaders (+laughable animation).

The image macro literally says who it was based on, with the adjective "gorgeous". That's not them being generous.

Also, a woman looking attractive is 'creepy male pandering fanservice'? That's a leap or 12. Wonder what verbiage you have reserved for those fucked up weirdoes who buy body pillows.

Gethsemani:
Yes, Bioware dropped the ball on the animations, but let's not pretend as if their job is easy.

Well, it's hard, but it's also their job. And they're a reputable company with a long history releasing the fourth installment of a major franchise. I would expect them to get this shit right. Other studios do, after all. Witcher 3 and DX:MD had much better facial animation. Hell, even Fallout 4 was better.

It may be because their budget got strangled, but we won't know that until later on when the developers start talking about it. Honestly, I feel like Andromeda ought to have been an original IP. They should've just gone full space Western with a new setting, ideally one where revolvers make sense from a technological perspective. It's the same feeling I get from God of War 4. It's like, this thing is so different from its predecessor, so why bother connecting them? People are more likely to get hyped over a new IP from a reputable developer (c.f. Destiny) than they are for a fourth dose of the same old shit.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

...I will say, the eyes on the left one are objectivly superior to the creepy zombie eyes of the right.

...You what? The left one looks like she just snorted an 8-ball, her pupils are enormous. Her iris is way too big and looks completely flat, like it's painted on. Her eyelids don't cast a small/subtle shadow, so the eyeballs look like they're lit from point blank. It's as if her eyeballs are pushing out of her eye socket.

The right one has the correct proportions, depth and shading you'd expect from a human eye, despite it looking photoshop-y. The left one looks like someone who is in the middle of dying.

MC1980:
The face is based on a very attractive photomodel. Same with the dude face. The ugliness comes from poor modeling and weirdness caused by the lighting&skin shaders (+laughable animation).

The image macro literally says who it was based on, with the adjective "gorgeous". That's not them being generous.

Well, if you look at comparison shots (like the one found here and this photo) you'll notice that the actual shape of the face is pretty close. Ryder might be having slightly bigger eyes, but that's about it in terms of shape.

What people are reacting too is more down to three other things:
1. Ryder is without make-up, like completely, and in rather neutral lightning. In all the photos I've currently watched of Jayde Rossi she's both in flattering lightning and wearing enough make-up to push me into 8/10-territory too. In any comparison between a person without make-up, in lightning not set up to flatter, to someone in lots of make-up with tailored lightning the first person is much worse off.
2. Ryder is not posed in a way that flatters any face. Ryder is either photographed from a straight on angle or a slight frog angle, both of which will make the face seem larger and slightly more bloated. Comparing to Rossi, she's doing the age old model trick of almost always tilting her head forward slightly if the camera isn't already above her, this make the face seem slimmer and the nose smaller. It is especially noticeable in the Sun article.
3. Ryder is way into the uncanny valley, especially with those dead, dull eyes. Put them in any face and it will immediately lose all appeal.

MC1980:
Also, a woman looking attractive is 'creepy male pandering fanservice'? That's a leap or 12. Wonder what verbiage you have reserved for those fucked up weirdoes who buy body pillows.

The Anon model? Yes, that's definitely creepy male pandering fanservice (with the entire face being much closer to anime then real woman). Do note that I was explicitly referring to that and not Rossi or anyone else.

Eh? i'll wait for a 75% off sale, when its only like $15. Its not worth more than that from what I've seen.

Gethsemani:

MC1980:
The face is based on a very attractive photomodel. Same with the dude face. The ugliness comes from poor modeling and weirdness caused by the lighting&skin shaders (+laughable animation).

The image macro literally says who it was based on, with the adjective "gorgeous". That's not them being generous.

Well, if you look at comparison shots (like the one found here and this photo) you'll notice that the actual shape of the face is pretty close. Ryder might be having slightly bigger eyes, but that's about it in terms of shape.

What people are reacting too is more down to three other things:
1. Ryder is without make-up, like completely, and in rather neutral lightning. In all the photos I've currently watched of Jayde Rossi she's both in flattering lightning and wearing enough make-up to push me into 8/10-territory too. In any comparison between a person without make-up, in lightning not set up to flatter, to someone in lots of make-up with tailored lightning the first person is much worse off.
2. Ryder is not posed in a way that flatters any face. Ryder is either photographed from a straight on angle or a slight frog angle, both of which will make the face seem larger and slightly more bloated. Comparing to Rossi, she's doing the age old model trick of almost always tilting her head forward slightly if the camera isn't already above her, this make the face seem slimmer and the nose smaller. It is especially noticeable in the Sun article.
3. Ryder is way into the uncanny valley, especially with those dead, dull eyes. Put them in any face and it will immediately lose all appeal.

Yeah, came to the same conclusions myself when it comes to the model. Seen enough "with makeup, without makeup" comparisons the get that. I'm also in agreement with the bad angles and whatnot.

However, the shape of her head is about the only thing they got right I'd say. Her main facial features, eyes, lips, nose are all off. They're all slightly wider/thicker, which coupled with the way PBR lighting interacts with the model, makes rounded shapes seem bigger than they are while also being flat in certain areas, like the bridge of the nose.

I'm also pretty sure there's still some eyeshadow, and a slight blush on the cheeks too.

Gotta agree though, the eyes are thing that fucks up the stationary image. In motion though, the facial animations, whoof, they fuck you up dog.

bastardofmelbourne:

Gethsemani:
Yes, Bioware dropped the ball on the animations, but let's not pretend as if their job is easy.

Well, it's hard, but it's also their job. And they're a reputable company with a long history releasing the fourth installment of a major franchise. I would expect them to get this shit right. Other studios do, after all. Witcher 3 and DX:MD had much better facial animation. Hell, even Fallout 4 was better.

It may be because their budget got strangled, but we won't know that until later on when the developers start talking about it. Honestly, I feel like Andromeda ought to have been an original IP. They should've just gone full space Western with a new setting, ideally one where revolvers make sense from a technological perspective. It's the same feeling I get from God of War 4. It's like, this thing is so different from its predecessor, so why bother connecting them? People are more likely to get hyped over a new IP from a reputable developer (c.f. Destiny) than they are for a fourth dose of the same old shit.

As far as facial animation goes, the educated guess making the rounds currently is that they changed the way they animate faces late in development, which borked a lot of existing animations and they didn't have time to do a proper animation pass on the faces again to bring them up to snuff.

Remember the portfolio that got leaked a while ago? Yeah, that thing has far better facial animations than the end product. (The cutscene with the krogans) It's shocking. The guy coughs, winces and whatnot. In the game he is stonefaced. (Also, a lot of effects that were in that demo reel got downgraded to shite.)

MC1980:
Yeah, came to the same conclusions myself when it comes to the model. Seen enough "with makeup, without makeup" comparisons the get that. I'm also in agreement with the bad angles and whatnot.

However, the shape of her head is about the only thing they got right I'd say. Her main facial features, eyes, lips, nose are all off. They're all slightly wider/thicker, which coupled with the way PBR lighting interacts with the model, makes rounded shapes seem bigger than they are while also being flat in certain areas, like the bridge of the nose.

Yeah, that's the "based on" part, I guess. Though I came across at least one Rossi picture where her lips are arguably larger and much more botoxy (that's a real word dammit!) then Ryder's. Her nose is probably right as far as I can tell, but it is very hard to gauge accurately when Rossi is so professional that you never see her tilt her nose upwards in any picture.

MC1980:
I'm also pretty sure there's still some eyeshadow, and a slight blush on the cheeks too.

You might be right. The shitty lightning in most pictures of Ryder makes it really hard for me to tell. At any rate it is far less then your average model would wear during a shoot.

MC1980:
Gotta agree though, the eyes are thing that fucks up the stationary image. In motion though, the facial animations, whoof, they fuck you up dog.

I was very amused by the fact that Ryder was obviously supposed to smile when first entering the bridge on the Tempest. For me it looked more like she was having a seizure or a stroke, which was made even better by the camera panning upwards from a massive frog perspective. The entire scene, from facial animation to camera movement made it seem as if Ryder was about to fall backwards in epileptic seizures. It was hilarious, but definitely not in a way that Bioware intended.

I honestly don't know. I want to like it, because I find the whole "exploring a new galaxy" concept really intriguing. I can look past the odd graphical fuck-up, I remember the times where games had colour singular rather than plural.

But from what I've seen the gameplay is just kinda eh, and I'd be experiencing gameplay a lot more than I would be experiencing a concept. That said I only saw the first "planet", so maybe the gameplay picks up after that.

When the price drops I will. The core combat gameplay with the jetpacks looks great. Also hope the mods will add some better hairs.

Bioware games have been more or less an insta-buy for me since I started buying games myself with KOTOR. The ending of ME3 was disappointing, sure, but it was a great overall game and got even more great with every DLC (except Omega, really... which is relevant to ME:A). I even enjoyed DA2 quite a bit, because for all its obvious, glaring problems, it still had that little spark of humanity, it still had interesting characters, and a setting that was really brought to life. It just delivered on pretty much everything other than gameplay. DAI, for all the maligning, I have 500 hours into and I love.

Bioware games have always been janky with questionable models, animation, and other mechanical features, but they always had great characters and great lore to back up their stories. They also had great opportunity for roleplay in its truest sense, the variety of which you can make your characters has always been wide, and made the game something you can sink an ungodly amount of time into in multiple playthroughs, rather than just a one-off experience.

Andromeda is the first game I'm probably not going to buy for a while, if at all. Sweeping away the deep and rich galaxy that we all came to love in exchange for a completely new one was the worst way to write themselves out of a corner. It doesn't appear any of the characters have the same sort of depth and interest as the original cast had. Even completely new characters in ME3 like James seemed like believable and interesting characters. The jankiness is a problem, but it only becomes a big problem when the game has no other redeeming features. Everything about the game seems like a pale imitation and a largely bad idea from conception. It's rather disappointing to me. I say it not as a hater who just wants them to go back to dice rolls and I'm not perpetually angry about the SJews. I'm genuinely disappointed that it appears Bioware has finally lost its spark, and doesn't hold itself to the same standards it used to.

Once the PC version drops in price. I'm somewhat unsurprised that ME:A is very underwhelming, and the writing does look spotty, but BioWare games have been troubled since Dragon Age 2. DA:I and ME3 basically confirmed that BioWare would never top ME2 and DA:O.

Alongside upcoming patches being pushed out by BioWare to fix some of the game's problems, I think in a year's time, Andromeda will be seen as an OK BioWare game. Not perfect, but just OK.

I did. Its not perfect, it could use a good bit of polishing, but... its reminiscent of the fun of ME2 enough to justify my purchase. Could it be better? Absolutely and Bioware has fallen far from the KOTOR/Jade Empire days.

I might have gotten it....but it seems to be Origin-exclusive. And that is one requirement I will not install. Such a shame they will not work with GOG...

I stopped buying Bioware games after Dragon Age 2.

bastardofmelbourne:

Gethsemani:
Yes, Bioware dropped the ball on the animations, but let's not pretend as if their job is easy.

Well, it's hard, but it's also their job. And they're a reputable company with a long history releasing the fourth installment of a major franchise. I would expect them to get this shit right. Other studios do, after all. Witcher 3 and DX:MD had much better facial animation. Hell, even Fallout 4 was better.

It may be because their budget got strangled, but we won't know that until later on when the developers start talking about it. Honestly, I feel like Andromeda ought to have been an original IP. They should've just gone full space Western with a new setting, ideally one where revolvers make sense from a technological perspective. It's the same feeling I get from God of War 4. It's like, this thing is so different from its predecessor, so why bother connecting them? People are more likely to get hyped over a new IP from a reputable developer (c.f. Destiny) than they are for a fourth dose of the same old shit.

Shit, just look at Horizon Zero Dawn (really feels like that title needs a colon) - brand new IP that did things completely differently to the company's previous success and people ate it right the fuck up. Lord knows if ME:A was a new IP (even if it was the same game just without the Mass Effect elements) I'd be way more keen for it, but as it stands it keeps getting pushed back in my purchase-queue for other games because... well, Mass Effect 3 did a good enough job of finishing things, I don't really get all warm and fuzzy for a game that's going 'OH BY THE WAY THIS WAS ALSO HAPPENING'.

I was planning to but after it became apparent that the game has a bunch of quality issues, namely poor animation and writing, no, I'm not.

In fact I bought Horizon Zero Dawn instead. No regrets. First game I've bought in ages that I've really loved. Doesn't do anything new for a sandbox, but it takes all the old ideas, mixes them together and executes it near perfectly. Here's hoping I enjoy Persona 5 just as much.

Generalissimo:
No.
the graphics and animations are a bad joke
The combat looks samey
Voice acting is wooden
Story fails to intrigue

It's just plain awful looking

You need to get some glasses, buddy.

No, never. Launch issues aside, Mass Effect 3 killed any interest in the series for me. No, not just the ending, I had many issues with the game as a whole. The pick a colour ending was just the icing.
It was much like a sponge cake from Woolworths; looked okay but was dry, bland and more disappointing than you thought.

Looks like a bland third person shooter with a story nailed on. I have Ghost Recon: Wildlands for that. The ONLY thing that had me vaguely interested was the female Turian companion and a Youtube video later and I was thoroughly disappointed at the lack of potential.
I'd play it if somebody just randomly gave me a copy for PS4. I ain't installing Origin on my PC and I still need another Hard Drive for it.

They got the Mass Effect Archive online: https://masseffectarchives.com/en_US/

So its now possible to share custom Ryders.

Mine is this: https://masseffectarchives.com/#user/2250454534/playthrough/1968214614/gender/female

Used preset 9 to get close to Lara Croft from Tomb Raider reboot:
image

Ingame:
image

Considering the limits of the creator I think I got pretty close. So far seems to work alright. Can't fix animations of course but seems less noticeable.

Kinda silly that a preset with IMO caucasian bone structure results in a Samuel L Jackson father despite white as toast bread twin/son and daughter skin colour.
I guess they are adopeted or his wife cheated on him xD

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

Generalissimo:
No.
the graphics and animations are a bad joke
The combat looks samey
Voice acting is wooden
Story fails to intrigue

It's just plain awful looking

You need to get some glasses, buddy.

wow, that sure showed me.

Generalissimo:

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

Generalissimo:
No.
the graphics and animations are a bad joke
The combat looks samey
Voice acting is wooden
Story fails to intrigue

It's just plain awful looking

You need to get some glasses, buddy.

wow, that sure showed me.

Yep I sure was trying :^)

Sure.
Can't wait.
This is my can't wait face.
image

I already did, and it's fucking incredible. I have seen exactly one goofy animation in 10-12 hours, and exactly two quick lines of dialogue that were dumb.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here