Topic: Mass Effect: Andromeda

I all ready have the digital version installed. Just waiting for it to get unlocked...

@KratosMD You do know that the dev team that made Andromeda was Bioware Montreal there first real game, as Bioware Edmoton [the original Bioware development team] is working on something else.

@themcnoisy
I got it. We'll see how it ends up. Bioware hasn't exactly been hitting home runs lately but despite the mixed reviews, the positives that some writers have pointed out has me feeling confident I'll at least enjoy the game. Probably won't be among my top 5 but that's tough to crack anyway when this year has seen games like Horizon, Yakuza Zero, Zelda, Resident Evil VII, NeiR: Automata and Nioh and Red Dead Redemption 2 and Super Mario Odyssey are yet to be released. Heck of a year 2017 is turning into.

Second preorder in 4 months not here on release date.

Yay for preorders.

@Splat @Gamer83 hope its good, I will be playing catch up now friggin preorders grrrrrr.

@themcnoisy
I played close to 4 hours yesterday. Not nearly enough time to form an opinion but I like how it controls.

@themcnoisy UK release date is the 23rd March so you can't expect it until Thursday....

@BAMozzy Lmao sorry @themcnoisy that's a bit funny though. To be fair I thought it was out in the UK today as well :')

Yeah, way too early to judge story for me but the combat is the best of the series.

Too many other better titles out atm, I'll get it eventually in the sales.

@BAMozzy @kyleforrester87 hahaha well Persona it is tonight.

@Splat
Really like the movement as well. Sure the animations look a bit wonky and, lets face it, overall the graphics are not up to par with something like Horizon: Zero Dawn, but I can't complain too much about what I've played so far. Just hope once the story starts picking up steam that it can somewhat live up to the original trilogy.

I'm about 6 or 7 hours in and enjoying it for the most part. Is it on Horizon's level? I would say no but I do feel reviews were overly harsh with it because it has "Mass Effect" in the title.

@Splat I do think the weight of expectation for a new game in a big franchise is always going to play its part. Its not helped by the fact that we also have a new cast of characters this time out so now you have people that want the game to be Mass Effect but to either re-invent the game or keep it the same, take risks but not at the expense of 'their' core ME expectations etc etc.

The game is generally criticised for not taking too many risks yet the whole story, cast and concept is a 'risk'. Leaving behind the established cast and moving to a new galaxy with a different 'vibe' to the trilogy. Visually the game is criticised too but its not 'radically' different to the first game.

Doesn't it look as if they ported in the characters from last gen...

Of course compared to games like Witcher 3, Horizon, Uncharted etc, maybe people expected more evolution or been 'spoiled' by these recent games and whilst the Worlds are obviously improved, the character animations still seem to be similar to the last gen era.

Fixing all those animations, all those Lip Synch issues is not easy - if possible at all. Over 1200 speaking NPCs! Its no wonder they aren't being fixed for Day 1 - I think they probably won't be fixed - ever! Not unless they remake the game. Maybe though they could do something about the eyes... Bugs and Glitches are most important fixes required.

Critic reviews can be somewhat tight and also can be somewhat generous too. According to Metacritic, Tony Hawkes 2 is one of the greatest games of all time - above Zelda: Breath of the Wild. At one point in time a 7 was regarded as a good game and well worth playing, now unless it gets 9 or above its awful. 8 is regarded as a the cut-off point between a good and bad game these days. 10's were so rare and only awarded to games that not only performed perfectly, they also had to almost re-invent what 'gaming' is, what people believed could ever be possible in that era. Now it seems that max scores can be awarded for any game. Its not helped that a lot of reviews use a 5pt scoring system and old reviews used to have a breakdown - like graphics, game-play etc which often meant that it was virtually impossible to score maximum points. I do miss that style of review - it helped to show where the strength and weaknesses are at a glance and helped understand where the reviewer derived their score from. Nowadays, you can read a reiew and they can seem very critical, sometimes praise aspects that were criticised in other games and come up with a score that doesn't seem to reflect their written opinion. The latest Zelda is a case in point with reviewers talking about the story being weak, the cast, dialogue, music (in places) etc being weak, performance issues (dropping frame rate and the odd crash or two), weapons breaking and how it breaks the moment, having to go into your menu to pick another etc and then give it maximum scores. As far as I am concerned, a perfect score should be a perfect game (for that time of course) and that includes frame-rate, no bugs/glitches/crashes etcI know you can argue that things like 'frame-rate' are more indicative of the 'hardware' - most games run perfectly well on PC's at decent (60fps+) frame-rates but on console struggle to maintain a 30fps throughout. What annoys me though, is that games that don't have locked frame rates (particularly at 30fps) can still get 9s and 10s which then sends a message to developers that this is OK. The odd dropped frame here or there is acceptable, not perfect but acceptable but wouldn't give a 'perfect 10' in my review.

Anyway, I am getting a little off topic...

@BAMozzy The main point with 'scoring' games is impossible, the conversation always descends into why it did or didn't get an x score when its usually (but not always) included in the review wording. Its probably why Eurogamer changed their review policy. I would grade FF15 as an 8/10 - but it was also my GOTY and its Essential in my eyes. That in itself is a contradiction when I would score other games from 2016 higher.

I agree that the old scoring systems of Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, overall were brilliant. Maybe they should make a comeback!

Tony Hawks Pro Skater was a behemoth when it released, Skate boarding was popular and in came a relatively novel game with tons of gameplay variations and a great flow. So yes I can understand it being rated so highly. One if the best games ever now in 2017? No of course its not, but back then it was a unique franchise with tons of content.

But how can you compare THPS2 to FF15? How? You cant. The scores are meaningless.

How can we compare metacritic album scores? That's even more pointless.

@themcnoisy Of course you can't compare scores of older generation games with modern games or games from one genre to another and their scores. Point I was making is that if you look at Metacritic, THPS2 is rated higher than all but Ocarina of Time. Therefore if you purely look at the scores, this can be misleading as to how 'great' a game is now.

It does annoy me though that when you read a review, it can come across as 'negative' yet get a high score or vice versa. The old system, although not without its own issues, at least gave an overview of where a games strengths and weaknesses lie as well as a good indication of how that overall score was derived. I know things like Graphics, game-play, sound, replayability etc are still objective and certain aspects (like Game-play for example) may be more important than other aspects (like Graphics) - Minecraft being a prime example at one end of the spectrum and the Order 1886 being at the other end - but at least you could understand where games are 'strong' or weak and even whether or not the weaknesses were overall impacting on the game. Again to use Minecraft, its unlikely to score high on the 'graphics' but the overall score would be enough to show that it didn't impact on the reviewers overall experience. Like I said, I read some reviews and really struggle to see how they came up with their score. Even in their conclusion, you wonder how they derived their score.

Reviews , I thought, were supposed to be helpful to prospective buyers of the product but sometimes the wording can be contradictory to the score or indicative of how that score was determined.

As for your score on FFxv and maybe lower than other 2016 games but still your GotY, I understand that. I also know that for some, seeing an 8 would indicate the game wasn't 'good' at all - only 9's or above are worth buying. and 7's or under are not worth touching at all. I think though that comes down to the reviewers themselves and how they score games - a great game can get a 10, 5/5 etc yet its far from 'perfect' or the 'best game ever'. Therefore a game that scores 8 must therefore be significantly worse. Years ago that game would have scored an 8 - maybe a 9 at most and 7's were still 'great' games.

A case in point - look at Horizon:ZD - is that the 'perfect' game? I don't think so. Its absolutely incredible but it certainly has areas in which it could have done more, could improve and or expand on. Weapons are fairly limited - there is literally 1 type of each in various rarity. Once you have the 'Shadow' (purple) Hunter Bow, there isn't an alternative hunter bow with maybe slightly different base specs or the opportunity to craft your own. Same with Armour too - its quite limited, can't craft your own or customise these more than putting Mods into them. Its not quite an RPG to the same degree as the Witcher, Fallout or Skyrim. Choices/decisions etc don't have the same impact. Not saying these are detrimental but these are areas that could be improved and/or expanded on. Compared to some games that get 8 or 9's then yes it is a 10 but that's my point. I think a good game should get a 7 and anything more is where it exceeds expectation, where it pushes what we have come to expect from a game etc and anything less is where it doesn't, falls short in some aspect/area. A 10 should be 'game changing' and 'perfect' - reserved for one of those games that maybe comes once a decade that its legacy will live on long after the generation and have a big impact on the industry. A game so special it will be a defining game, one that sets the standards and that others will try to emulate - not just a good/great game but something truly remarkable and special, one that has no equal or one that doesn't have aspects that are better/stronger in another game - that's what 10's should be reserved for!

@BAMozzy I used to be a quality monitor in a call Centre. I used to listen to calls and would have to derive a score based on criteria usually including Tone, language, objection handling etc. From that job alone no one has the same opinion when it comes to something like Tone, trust me I tried my hardest to standardize levels but it was mission impossible, let alone if a games great or unique or what not.

I understand what you mean, the top accolade (in your case a 10) should be distributed sparingly, and rightly so. But the reality is everyone views these categories differently, ff8 to me was a clear 10/10 as it was unique, amazing, great graphics, deep systems etc but to another person it was bloated, cumbersome and a step back in the series.

Scoring games isnt the way to critique them. Maybe writing a value in £'s is the way to do it

I just wish my Ryder didn't look like her eyes were always wide open. The pupils are all too small and we see way too much white. She's in a constant state of surprise!

Woo-hoo got my copy this morning, unfortunately works hampered my quest to Andromeda. Hopefully I will get a quick blast in later.

Wish I never had that quick blast. Mass Effect is ruined forever. Avoid.

The whole tone of the game is wrong, the fighting is awful, the collision detection is wonky, the setup is bad.....

It's Dragon age inquisition in space.