Mass Effect Andromeda: Our thoughts

Did Open World Obsession kill Mass Effect: Andromeda?

At some point whilst playing through Mass Effect’s latest instalment in April I tweeted: “Disappointed with Andromeda, but it may be too soon to judge - ME1 was flawed, but provided important foundation for the trilogy.” A month later I walked away from the game still feeling massively let down by the team behind Andromeda and their lack of passion towards this project.

Before beginning to point out the many reasons why Bioware should not have made the game at all, I should probably make the disclaimer that this review is coming from someone who thoroughly enjoyed the original Mass Effect trilogy - Shepard is my all-time favourite character in a video game, and saving the galaxy in ME3 undoubtedly counts towards one of my proudest moments in gaming. My disappointment towards Andromeda was admittedly amplified by high expectations, and I do acknowledge that by an objective game standard Mass Effect: Andromeda is an average-to-good open world RPG, with impressive graphics and decent character building. I would be lying if I say I did not enjoy the game at all - there is a definite sense of accomplishment when you establish your first outpost, and I still found myself talking to crew members whenever I can, growing fond of some and becoming attached to a few.

Graphics are a big plus to the game. All five planets you land on are stunning, the only grievance I had is that there is no obvious change to the physical environment after completing the vault missions, which supposedly boosts viability of the planets by neutralising acidity in the water, or lowering radiation level, or levelling ground temperature. Only on the first planet, Eos, can you see a clear difference - the sky clears up and plants appear on what would otherwise be a barren desert landscape.

That aside, however, it is initially hard to find a downside to having five different planets - all reasonably sized maps - to traverse and explore. This is, after all, an open-world RPG. The problem is that the Mass Effect series is heavily plot-oriented, as Bioware is famous for creating dilemmas, forcing the player to make choices and decisions in both main missions and side quests. Unlike most Ubisoft games which consumers buy for pure gameplay and thus have no need of plot, the premise of Mass Effect is literally saving the universe. Having a map - or 10 maps - peppered with symbols is not only frustrating, but counterintuitive when there should be a sense of an urgency to rescuing the galaxy from a certain doom. Instead, the player lands on a planet and spends a solid 4 hours completing fetch quest after fetch quest, at which point you feel more like an errand boy than the Pathfinder who’s supposed to bring stability to this new galaxy.

Compare this to the original trilogy, where Shepard receives a side mission, lands on a planet and is given a linear path, allowing the player to get the sense that the Commander cares about this lost ship in space, or this rogue AI at an Alliance base, rather than the player simply sweeping up missions as you go through an open world map. Besides diminishing the significance of side missions, the open world system also somewhat severs the connection between the player and the character, causing the comparatively shallow characterisation of Ryder in Andromeda.

The missions themselves are extremely poor. The sheer amount of fetch quests is genuinely shocking, and the laziness with which they’ve been scripted - if at all - does not help with my frustration. On every planet there are at least three separate questlines that are started by the player stumbling across something in the open world, usually a datapad or a cannister. SAM, your AI aid, then tells Ryder to scan it or destroy it, and informs them that the data is incomplete, meaning you have to find more in order to scan or destroy them. The locations of these are not given on the map, and at the end of these questlines there may or may not be a resolution. More often than not the data points to the location of an enemy camp, which Ryder then clears out. There are several such fetch quests that are not even given a reason, you simply must find these 4 satellites, or medical kits, and when you have done so there is no speech or dialogue from anyone. It is quite clear that the team simply could not be bothered to write a good plot to the many side missions, and they exist solely to fill up the map.

Should they have even made ME:A in the first place?

It isn’t only the poor quality and excess in quantity of the side missions which seem to point towards a general laziness towards this game. A laziness which does beg the question; if they were going to put so little effort in, why bother even making the game? It emerged after release that the much maligned facial animations- the infamous “my face is tired” line was rather embarrassing- were a part of the game which BioWare actually outsourced to EA Bucharest in the interest of saving time. This, despite the fact that EA did offer them a deadline extension at the start of 2017; an offer which BioWare refused. Furthermore, the “exaltation” method that the Kett use to mutate different species into their own warriors is ripped straight from the original trilogy: it is far too similar to the reapers turning Turians into Marauders, Asari’s to Banshees and of course the Protheans into Collectors. BioWare didn’t give a name to the process which the Reapers used for this but it may as well be exultation too.

Another example of laziness include writing out so many of the complex and delicate issues which were dealt with right through the original trilogy. The genophage, the Geth-Quarian conundrum and the issue of the Rachni are all swept under the carpet as Bioware chose to have the characters blast off to this new galaxy before the events of Mass Effect 3 meaning they have no knowledge and Shepard’s actions or choices have no impact. This does appear very lazy although I do understand that writing different scripts to account for all of Shepard’s possible decisions would be a herculean feat.

This problem for me could have been somewhat offset if I felt that I, as Ryder, had been given new and substantial choices to make in shaping this new galaxy. It is true that throughout the game it certainly feels as if you are making a few important decisions but by the end they are left seeming very hollow as it becomes obvious the only real effect is which side characters turn up in the final mission (and by turn up I just mean say something about helping you over the comms). When I put down the controller at the end of the game I really didn't feel like my choices had made any substantial difference to the narrative.

BioWare does have a history of laziness and releasing rushed, unfinished games. Many critics of Dragon Age 2 point to a lot of parts where they feel corners were cut. Before release BioWare were already saying they aren’t sure whether or not this will kick off a new trilogy, since release they have already stated that they have no plans to release DLC and will now turn all their attention to a new IP which they have had in the works for a while now all of which just tells me that their heart was never really in it from the beginning. With a new IP already in mind and a completed Mass Effect trilogy which ranks alongside the greatest gaming accomplishments of all time why sully such a great name with such a half-asked and mediocre instalment?

#masseffect #masseffectandromeda #meandromeda