• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

BioWare Thinks Mass Effect Andromeda Was Better Game Than Reception Suggested; Learned Not to Put in Open World in RPGs for the Sake of It

Lunatic_Gamer

Gold Member
mass-effeect-andromeda-1536x864.jpeg.webp


Most pundits pointed out Andromeda’s various technical issues and lack of polish as some of the main issues people had with it. However, according to BioWare’s John Epler, Andromeda was a better game than its reception suggested, even if it did deserve the reception it got.

“I do think Andromeda was a better game than its reception suggested, but on the flip side, I don’t think the reception was unfair. At the time of launch, there were technical issues and things that didn’t work.”

Safe to say, Andromeda was not BioWare’s finest work, and the studio learned a lot from it, which included not shoehorning an open-world just to tick off a box from a checklist. This was something Epler mentioned that The Veilguard tried to avoid, and the learnings from Andromeda certainly helped with that decision.

“We had been doing Dragon Age pre-production on versions of Dragon Age 4, and we did have a version that was a lot more open-world. But again, we ran into the same problem of how do you make it compelling or narratively interesting? The reception to Andromeda definitely solidified that.”


Pop Tv Questioning GIF by Schitt's Creek
 

StereoVsn

Member
Well, that explains a lot about Veilguard. Good luck on that next ME game, it’s going to be just amazing!

And just to clarify, I disliked Andromeda from its lack of party control to its inane main plot story to its Saturday Morning Cartoon Big Bad to terrible character writing.

Not to mention it had awful UX, as one example, you had to go to orbit to read email. And let’s not forget dumb quests where you had to jump across multiple planets for inane shit and it all wasted time.

If BioWare thought the game was good aside from its technical issues, double oof.

7071657419_d4e5d14339_c.jpg
 
Last edited:

Topher

Identifies as young
Everyone screamed at how bad it was, then I played it for myself and really enjoyed it despite some tech flaws and huge parts of the story/DLC that never came..

Same. Wasn't on par with the original trilogy, but it was still pretty good overall after most of the early tech issues were sorted out. If it had been delayed six month then things would have been much different for the game, imo.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Dont put shit like this in the game and immediately people wont laugh.

An amateur graphics guy dabbling at home could do a better job. And Bioware employees are supposed to be nicely paid professional game makers. lol

And video game employees wonder why gamers are skeptical buying games at full price.

GIF by Giphy QA
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
thats a good lesson to take. Andromeda couldve been a great game if they hadnt wasted all that time adding in open world bloat.

and yes, it was better than its reception suggested. great combat system. great loyalty quests. good world building. the sequel wouldve been great but hey, the internet's gotta hate. I will never forgive the hate mob for what they did with AC Unity, Andromeda and Days Gone. they are a big reason why we never got sequels to those games.
 

Hero_Select

Member
Nah, the game sucked. There was nothing interesting about the story at all from what I recall. Everything felt amateurish about it too.
The movement and combat was great though.

I'm glad to hear about the lessons learned about open-world and I hope this means that the next Mass Effect is more akin to 2/3. Some of my fav. moments are just exploring a spaceship/part of a planet and then moving on elsewhere.
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
Dont put shit like this in the game and immediately people wont laugh.

An amateur graphics guy dabbling at home could do a better job. And Bioware employees are supposed to be nicely paid professional game makers. lol

And video game employees wonder why gamers are skeptical buying games at full price.

GIF by Giphy QA
They did the same with Veilguard, at this point their face motion tech is actively preventing them developing impactful characters.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
They did the same with Veilguard, at this point their face motion tech is actively preventing them developing impactful characters.
What doesnt make sense to me coming from someone who isnt a game maker is that I can understand not everything will look awesome. Facial tech and animations I dont even expect to be top notch with perfect lip syncing. For me, it's one part of gaming graphics I can give a gimme.

But how and why that female Shepard was approved to look like Anthony Robbins daughter with big bulgy eyes and jawline etc makes no sense. Male Shepard looks pretty cool. Female Shep looks really off and amateur looking. A boring ponytail doesn't help either.
 
Last edited:

fatmarco

Member
It's a shame the characters and writing were so weak in that game, because the combat was incredible at points in terms of just the ways you could beat the shit out of enemies.

It's not a good game but I think it's a bit underrated. Certainly better than Anthem at least.
 

Calico345

Gold Member
The writing is on the wall, folks. Bioware and Ubisoft are doubling down on their own eccentricity, ego, and clueless world perspectives. At a time when these companies should have honed and fine tuned their craft so that the crescendo of their works are launching in the most advanced age that PC and consoles has ever seen, they instead think their own farts don't stink and will continue driving these formerly awesome series into the dumpster. If you continue to buy these games, especially at full price, you are complicit in how dogshit gaming is becoming. Average and mediocre games are fine, but franchises that were once powerful and evocative are now nothing more than vessels for social politics and self-indulgent grandstanding and fantasy with bad design and writing that no one asked for. I mean no disrespect to anyone who has enjoyed these franchises, as I have enjoyed them as well. It is just time to draw a hard line and support it against this crap that is not of the same caliber as the games we used to get.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
The writing is on the wall, folks. Bioware and Ubisoft are doubling down on their own eccentricity, ego, and clueless world perspectives. At a time when these companies should have honed and fine tuned their craft so that the crescendo of their works are launching in the most advanced age that PC and consoles has ever seen, they instead think their own farts don't stink and will continue driving these formerly awesome series into the dumpster. If you continue to buy these games, especially at full price, you are complicit in how dogshit gaming is becoming. Average and mediocre games are fine, but franchises that were once powerful and evocative are now nothing more than vessels for social politics and self-indulgent grandstanding and fantasy with bad design and writing that no one asked for. I mean no disrespect to anyone who has enjoyed these franchises, as I have enjoyed them as well. It is just time to draw a hard line and support it against this crap that is not of the same caliber as the games we used to get.
That's video game companies for ya. There's always a sense of big time egos and if a game does poorly in sales or quality because there's something wrong with the gamers too dumb to understand it. Same goes for actors and movie directors too. So to be fair it's a media kind of attitude where something like art and gameplay is subjective.

On the other hand, if your internet goes down and your ISP is getting grilled for days for downtime, youre not going to get the CEO coming out and saying "Well, relax customers, most of the service around the country is fine. And for those houses with tech issues, maybe youre just not understanding it and all you got to do reboot your router".

In functional kinds of products, you cant really deflect blame like that. A bad product is a bad product and no ISP worker can deflect their servers are down for 48 hours for everyone in a district of town. You own up to it, fix it, and maybe even issue some modest refunds. Game companies rarely own up to that in a similar way.

As for the latter part of your post, I think gamers are pissed or troll for laughs extra hard when they notice a game maker is changing successful formula into modern day drama. No company in any other industry would rock the boat. Once you got a good thing going you kind of milk it and slightly adjust it, or make supplemental products while keeping the existing products. Gaming is different as you cant really sell the same game for 25 years like selling the same orange juice, so it makes sense you got to make a sequel or keep it around with tons of mtx. But the core game should still there.

Instead game companies (and movies) love to do a 180 and make a very different game, but similar in name only. It's their way of changing it up a lot but retaining the name for branding and awareness for easy day one sales. But if it's a bomb you just killed the IP. And redemption (assuming there is one) is 5 years away. So of course any gamer who likes the franchise would be pissed. A lot of people on the sidelines are laughing for laughs and happy they saved themselves buying it.

And somehow game companies dont understand that.

I find it amazing how nobody in business tries to avoid doing a Coke II. But history repeats itself. All they had to do if they really wanted more Coke variants is add Coke II (or whatever it'd be called) as an additional flavour like the million other variants. Not as a substitute.

So when it fails, gamers laugh. Do a bad job and lose your job? Thats your problem for goofing around making a crap game or turning a beloved favourite into something junky.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Never played Andromeda since the buzz was so poor, even though I'm a big fan of the ME trilogy. My understanding was that the writing lost its edge and quality, and it became a painting with primary colors in a padded room YA experience. That was my main concern, not the tech. I did pick it up for a few bucks the other day though since I'm curious to find out for myself at some point.
 
thats a good lesson to take. Andromeda couldve been a great game if they hadnt wasted all that time adding in open world bloat.

and yes, it was better than its reception suggested. great combat system. great loyalty quests. good world building. the sequel wouldve been great but hey, the internet's gotta hate. I will never forgive the hate mob for what they did with AC Unity, Andromeda and Days Gone. they are a big reason why we never got sequels to those games.
It wasn't really even open world it was just a bunch of hubs with nothing in them. They need to learn how to do open worlds properly if they want to do another one.
 

EDMIX

Writes a lot, says very little
Never played Andromeda since the buzz was so poor, even though I'm a big fan of the ME trilogy. My understanding was that the writing lost its edge and quality, and it became a painting with primary colors in a padded room YA experience. That was my main concern, not the tech. I did pick it up for a few bucks the other day though since I'm curious to find out for myself at some point.

Andromeda was ok, I liked it better then the first and 3 game, but I'm not the biggest Mass Effect fan in general so lol

I like them seeking to make a new story in a different part of the galaxy as I don't think the IP should be solely based on Shepard , it can offer much more and the world they crafted should be explored with different stories. I think I like the general concept of Andromeda much more then some of the other games and I felt the entire thing with its release was wildly blown out of proportion.
 

Dazraell

Member
I remember being intrigued about the premise of this game, but its execution was far from what I was hoping it could be. Andromeda was disappointing. Almost everything in this game was either very mid or simply bad. I think only thing I really liked was combat and even that had its problems
 

Elginer

Member
thats a good lesson to take. Andromeda couldve been a great game if they hadnt wasted all that time adding in open world bloat.

and yes, it was better than its reception suggested. great combat system. great loyalty quests. good world building. the sequel wouldve been great but hey, the internet's gotta hate. I will never forgive the hate mob for what they did with AC Unity, Andromeda and Days Gone. they are a big reason why we never got sequels to those games.
Add Advent Rising and The Order 1886 to that list.
 

BigLee74

Gold Member
I remember enjoying it, and couldn’t understand the absolute kicking it was receiving.

I did go to play it again a few years ago, but changed my mind as it was still running at 30fps.
 

SHA

Member
You can't hold the likes of pewdiepie accountable these days, but that wasn't the case back in 10s. When he says it's a shitty game, it's a shitty game, but later I understood that's sheep's mindset.
 
Last edited:
They did the same with Veilguard, at this point their face motion tech is actively preventing them developing impactful characters.
Yeah, facial animation and proper motion capture really is a fundamental pillar that had to look great for me, otherwise everything about the graphics just looks off and the immersion is instantly broken. It's definitely something I'm expecting 2024.
 

Phobos Base

Member
It wasn't a bad game, just very average and unmemorable. The characters were uninteresting, the baddies very generic and it felt like taking away squad commands and being able to switch classes on the fly removed a lot of the tactical aspects. I played through ME1-3 multiple times to see the different outcomes, I finished Andromeda once and never had a desire to go back to it.
 
Andromeda fucking sucked and the main character was such a fucking pussy ass bitch. New race was garbage too.

Great premise though. Gameplay felt decent enough as well, but the game was also a bit janky and unpolished.
 

Filben

Member
Developers should ahve to change their name if main people leave. This is not the same Bioware. Gaming peaked a while ago. There is no more grandfathered in developers unless you are named Nintendo.

There are aonly chanes for new developers,.
Yeah, the studio hype is mostly unjustified after a certain time. While in the music and film industry, especially the latter, it's usually about persons, like the new Tarantino film, the new Robert Eggers film, etc. And usually you get what you'd expect from those names. In video games, though, discussions seem to revolve more around a studio's name than its actual people.
 

The Cockatrice

Gold Member
I played it day one and 100%ed it. Technical issues aside which were fixed, the open world design hurt it, but the combat was the best in the series. He aint wrong tho, the reception outside gaf/huge fans was decent, not good but not as bad as some here make it out to be.

hYyTswM.png
 
Basically everyone, universally: “I did not enjoy this”
Developer: “Nah our game is fine”


What is it with these people?
This likely the exact same reason Concord failed as well.

These developers have zero self awareness. If they thought Andromeda was good, then oh boy, I have zero faith for the next ME title.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I played it day one and 100%ed it. Technical issues aside which were fixed, the open world design hurt it, but the combat was the best in the series. He aint wrong tho, the reception outside gaf/huge fans was decent, not good but not as bad as some here make it out to be.

hYyTswM.png
Steam reviews are 91% for Mass Effect Legendary Edition and 73% for Andromeda.
 

March Climber

Gold Member
thats a good lesson to take. Andromeda couldve been a great game if they hadnt wasted all that time adding in open world bloat.
Highly agreed. You know what is interesting to me? Seeing the amount of people who keep asking for linear-style games to be more open or open world. The whole ‘gather x amount of stuff’ and ‘kill x amount of enemies’ has been so beaten into and ingrained into gamers during the last two generations that they think this grindy nonsense is supposed to be normal. In narrative focused games.

30 hours being bloated into 60 hours for what? To justify money spent? Quantity valued over quality?

It’s all backwards.
 

The Cockatrice

Gold Member
Steam reviews are 91% for Mass Effect Legendary Edition and 73% for Andromeda.

I dont think 73% is that bad tbh. Depends on your standards. I know people expect Bioware to release 10 out 10 rpg's but I think that Bioware died 20 years ago and mid/decent games is all we're going to get from them. The new Mass Effect will be just as "bad" as their last games. I can guarantee that, which is why I wont be dissapointed in it.
 
Last edited:

pudel

Member
Highly agreed. You know what is interesting to me? Seeing the amount of people who keep asking for linear-style games to be more open or open world. The whole ‘gather x amount of stuff’ and ‘kill x amount of enemies’ has been so beaten into and ingrained into gamers during the last two generations that they think this grindy nonsense is supposed to be normal. In narrative focused games.

30 hours being bloated into 60 hours for what? To justify money spent? Quantity valued over quality?

It’s all backwards.
I am pretty sure we have currently more linear games than anything else. Open world can be very nice (see GTA for example)...but it needs skill ofc to make a good and believable open world.
 
I enjoyed Andromeda a lot, but I didn’t play it until I played it on Series X with all the patches.

I basically assume most games are garbage at launch nowadays and just play them after several patches. In some cases, I just wait for the game of the year edition.
 

whyman

Member
I know I am alone in this. But I did not hate Andromeda. The latest Dragon Age was the death of Bioware. Not Andromeda imo. (I did not play at launch, it was a mess then)
 

March Climber

Gold Member
I am pretty sure we have currently more linear games than anything else. Open world can be very nice (see GTA for example)...but it needs skill ofc to make a good and believable open world.
Exactly, your post is very helpful to my point. Most of these AAA devs who make open world games aren’t good at making open worlds. If those same devs simply scaled back just a bit instead of trying to get that ‘Our game is vast, 60 hours, money well spent’ quote then we would have better quality experiences that don’t overstay their welcome with a less than 10% completion rate.

It’s actually a good thing that 2020s Bioware just said this. Now all they have to do is improve their writing team and they will have enough of what they need.
 

MujkicHaris

Member
Lately I've noticed, in my own gaming habits, that I no longer can play new RPGs that aren't featuring a big, open, immersive world to get lost into. I don't care how good the story is, the graphics, characters or even roleplaying systems.

I would rather replay games from Gothic, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout series that did open-world decades ago (with great success) than pay full price for games that lack ambition.

Another terrible take from another AAA developer. It's like they all, as a group, lost ambition and courage to push the limits of video games. I want planets in my space opera RPG, not corridors.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom