Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Voss wrote:
Yeah, that's disappointing. It was the best ME game (the other good one being 2).

I still haven't figured out what the point of the multiplayer stuff is, so supporting that over the game is a bit baffling. There was a lot to work with - this just strikes me as an out-of-touch management decision somewhere along the line, either in Bio or EA (or both).

It's a horde mode that gives some additional replayability to the game.

That said, the multiplayer won't be getting any future patches either. One of the big changes from ME3 to Andromeda was that they can now add new characters and maps without needing a patch.

They've staggered out the releases for Andromeda's characters in comparison to ME3. ME3 would be once every quarter, a new DLC pack would drop for free with 4-5 new characters, 4-5 new guns, and three new maps.

Since Andromeda dropped we've gotten one new character every three or four weeks, a new map every other two weeks, and a new gun or two with the character. It's the same amount of content just staggered out with a new Strike Team mission to tie in the new map and character(the Batarians, for example, were able to escape from the wreckage of one of the Salarian Arks in the fluff).

Voss wrote:
Yeah, that's disappointing. It was the best ME game (the other good one being 2).

I still haven't figured out what the point of the multiplayer stuff is, so supporting that over the game is a bit baffling. There was a lot to work with - this just strikes me as an out-of-touch management decision somewhere along the line, either in Bio or EA (or both).

It makes me wonder if they're going to bail on RPGs entirely.

The odds of them just dropping the Dragon Age series seem really low...but then again this is the first RPG of the last 7 that they didn't release multiple DLCs for...

I think Dragon Age is safe. ME always seems to have had more mass market appeal, whereas DA seems a bit more niche and able to cater to its player base a bit better.

It's possible that Andromeda tried too hard to cater to the shooter/action game crowd as well as the traditional RPG fans and left a lot of people from both camps disappointed. While DA2/Inq are also more actiony than Origins (pretty much the last old-school Bioware RPG), they're still RPGs at their core. To a certain extent, you could see a sci-fi shooter fan picking up Mass Effect, but without a vested interest in RPGs, an action game fan wouldn't be as likely to go for DA, even the more recent ones.

DA has always been a bit more complex and traditional than ME, so I think they're relatively safe; they found the balance between old and new style RPG in DA2, refined it in Inquisition, and now have the template that means they don't have to risk reinventing anything any time soon.

 Paradigm wrote:
It's possible that Andromeda tried too hard to cater to the shooter/action game crowd as well as the traditional RPG fans and left a lot of people from both camps disappointed. While DA2/Inq are also more actiony than Origins (pretty much the last old-school Bioware RPG), they're still RPGs at their core. To a certain extent, you could see a sci-fi shooter fan picking up Mass Effect, but without a vested interest in RPGs, an action game fan wouldn't be as likely to go for DA, even the more recent ones.

If one thing got relatively universal praise in the dozens of reviews I read/watched, it was the action in this game. The most common sentiment was that it was the most refined and enjoyable out of all four Mass Effect games. The problem was that it was pretty much the only thing that got close to universal praise in my experience. I'd also add that (at least for me) the RPG elements were separate from the combat and don't conflict in any way. The clunky ME1 drunken sailor combat mechanics didn't add to the immersion of the first game and I didn't see any complaints about the refined action of MEA detracting from it either; it's not necessarily a binary choice between them.

All true. All I mean to say is that ME has appeal as both a shooter and an RPG and while a lot of people will appreciate that, there's still going to be the those who feel there's too much combat or RPG elements depending on their taste. While on the whole I think the series balances them well enough (and I'll always take improvements in actual gameplay mechanics when they're on offer! MEA's combat is great) it is an inherent risk and there was a fair bit of complaining about MEA (and anything since ME2 really) 'dumbing down' the RPG stuff and not giving it equal attention to the shooting. While those are in my opinion unfounded complaints, they do exist and that doubtless disappoints some players.

Meanwhile, Dragon Age doesn't really cross genre to anywhere near the same extent, so it's safe to keep doing what it's doing without alienating it's player base. People will only ever expect it to be an RPG, and thus there's less of a risk that it'll attract a lot of the criticisms about that balance that plagued Andromeda.

Voss wrote:
I still haven't figured out what the point of the multiplayer stuff is, so supporting that over the game is a bit baffling.

There are a significant number of people that will refuse to buy a game solely because it lacks some sort of multiplayer/coop aspect. I've seen this in the Steam forums for Agents of Mayhem and Subnautica.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I still haven't figured out what the point of the multiplayer stuff is, so supporting that over the game is a bit baffling.

There are a significant number of people that will refuse to buy a game solely because it lacks some sort of multiplayer/coop aspect. I've seen this in the Steam forums for Agents of Mayhem and Subnautica.

Plus, it's a nice little cash bonus for EA, as you have the option to pay real money to purchase stuff instead of using in-game currency. A player who doesn't spend real money will still get all of the exact same stuff eventually. But paying real money is a shortcut. And there are plenty of people willing to utilize the option.

I thoroughly enjoyed playing Andromeda's multiplayer (like people have said, the combat in the game is good, so why not play the combat some more). I played the daily missions pretty much, well, daily.

Since that announcement though, it's completely lost my mojo for the game.

And I'm not one of the people who play for the multiplayer bonuses. But, imagine if I'm not the only one feeling that and some of the multiplayer whales are feeling it too...

Eumerin wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Voss wrote:
I still haven't figured out what the point of the multiplayer stuff is, so supporting that over the game is a bit baffling.

There are a significant number of people that will refuse to buy a game solely because it lacks some sort of multiplayer/coop aspect. I've seen this in the Steam forums for Agents of Mayhem and Subnautica.

Plus, it's a nice little cash bonus for EA, as you have the option to pay real money to purchase stuff instead of using in-game currency. A player who doesn't spend real money will still get all of the exact same stuff eventually. But paying real money is a shortcut. And there are plenty of people willing to utilize the option.

Shortcut implies that there was a way to get specific items. There isn't.

Most people refused to pay real money for the loot boxes because they're blind boxes, whether you pay real money or not. They just added a thing to make it a bit more "friendly" in this regards as you can buy a one-off themed pack with a specific Uncommon character, a specific Rare weapon, a specific Uncommon weapon, 600 Andromeda Credits(the currency you have to buy with real money to buy packs), and a slew of boosters/consumables.

I can't speak to MEA but all of my friends spent real money on ME3 loot boxes during that game's first year despite all of us disliking the ending. Some spent alot ($20-50) each expansion, others like me a little ($5-10)... but all spent something during that first year. Ymmv. If that changed with MEA then it was likely at least in part due to the tepid reaction the game overall got.

 warboss wrote:
I can't speak to MEA but all of my friends spent real money on ME3 loot boxes during that game's first year despite all of us disliking the ending. Some spent alot ($20-50) each expansion, others like me a little ($5-10)... but all spent something during that first year. Ymmv. If that changed with MEA then it was likely at least in part due to the tepid reaction the game overall got.

Are you sure it was actually on the loot boxes and not on the weapons packs that got released for SP?

Might sound like a silly question, but there was a problem with people buying the Resistance Ground Pack and thinking it would unlock the guns for them instantly in MP.

Additionally, there was (as far as I saw) a correlation between players who were on the BSN and considered themselves a part of the 'movement' that suggested you spend an amount on packs equal to what you felt the DLC was worth. Didn't help either that with ME3, packs were sold individually for anywhere from $1.99 to $4.99 rather than like they are with MEA where people buy a currency("Andromeda Credits") and can then get multiple packs with their currency purchases.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I can't speak to MEA but all of my friends spent real money on ME3 loot boxes during that game's first year despite all of us disliking the ending. Some spent alot ($20-50) each expansion, others like me a little ($5-10)... but all spent something during that first year. Ymmv. If that changed with MEA then it was likely at least in part due to the tepid reaction the game overall got.

Are you sure it was actually on the loot boxes and not on the weapons packs that got released for SP?

Might sound like a silly question, but there was a problem with people buying the Resistance Ground Pack and thinking it would unlock the guns for them instantly in MP.

The packs (like spectre) was what I was referring to as loot boxes in me3.