I kind of wish they'd taken that big planet / galaxy generation system they'd had (a la No Man's Sky), plopped some kind of simulation game on top of it (building the initial set of outposts), and released that as a spin-off title to fund an additional year or two of development for the "real" game (that would take place in the timeline after those outposts are constructed and functional, though with minimal importing since it'd still need to be a game based on specific sites hand-crafted in certain locations; maybe all the other outposts you built can contribute occasional bonuses or something as you go through the game).
As happy as I am with the final product of Andromeda, I'm decidedly not happy with its broader reception and the consequences of that for the series and the studio. I'd rather have gotten a different game, even one maybe I wouldn't personally have enjoyed quite as much, if other people liked it more and we'd still be getting more Mass Effect titles.
See I kinda wish this, but almost MMO like.
My ideal Andromeda, which is probably technically impossible and wouldn't have had a good enough story to be a real Mass Effect experience, goes like this.
Human ship arrives in the cluster. Gets damaged (maybe through running into the scourge, maybe just random space stuff, asteroids happen). Manages to limp into contact with Nexus. This part is played as an instanced story and you are just a pathfinder. Not Ryder, just another pathfinder on the generic team. Ryder and the two Ryder kids could be NPC quest-givers.
Then when you get to the Nexus, you hook up with the persistent online star cluster. And at launch the Nexus is still fucked and low on supplies and the other arks are still out of contact with the Nexus.
And as a Pathfinder you are supposed to explore planets, find locations for colonies, gather resources, help construct the colonies and expand them, buff the Nexus and explore. You team up with other pathfinders to do it. There is no infinite army of bandits and exiles to fight. Your biggest dangers are nasty wildlife and Remnant traps and robots. No Kett either. Angara handled as NPCs already existing on some planets.
See I picture them using that planet/galaxy generator and just coming up with random planets and systems for Pathfinders to settle. And that is the job. Team up or solo explore the planet. Buff the colonies you create there. Maybe team up with larger groups of pathfinders to open up a completely unexplored planet (first Pathfinder presence and dibs on juicy colonization spots, also first Pathfinder presence and their actions would determine if that planet's Angara are flagged as hostile or allies, not all planets have Angara, but those that do could be either enemies or allies depending on permanent quest choices by the first team). Plow those resources into a bigger better Nexus, bigger better colonies and actually fabbing more ships for more exploration for more colonies for more, etc.
Leveling up and getting better gear handled like in MMO but based more on resource acquisition and colony size. Managed to find a habitable world with lots of minerals? Built up a shit ton of manufacturing/science buildings on that world and managed to get enough ground converted to farming to feed enough colonists to stock all those buildings? Then that's a good place to buy better armor and guns. (Travel between worlds would make this an interesting thing. One place might specialize in getting resources to buff the Nexus, which could result in say better ships, while another might specialize in better personal gear, while another might specialize in resources to feed the other colonies. Pay should probably be handled by completing Pathfinder objectives rather than what the individual colony produces. That way if you opened up a farming world (because the ground and weather were perfect for farming) and are sending food products to 5 different colonies and the Nexus, you are still being rewarded for doing quite a lot for the initiative. And you can go spend that pay in a gear city rather than in your food city).
I would give two incentives for Players to expand, explore and grow as quick and as thoroughly as they could.
1) the other Arks are out there. They are damaged but they are still functional and if they can be found, and repaired, then you can take them back the Nexus. A) It will improve the Nexus's capabilities and maybe add additional tech and the like. It enables you to create an alt from whatever race had the Ark. Find the Turian Ark, make a Turian pathfinder (with Turian flavored abilities). Note: Everybody gets access to the Turians, not just the people who find them. We are not playing mine the Turian flashpoint.
2) On launch day set a timer to count down from 365 days. When that hits 0, the Kett invade. (Keep the biological theme of their technology, drop the stupid "We make you a Kett through genetic magic" storyline). Don't tell the players it is the Kett. I would just say "You might want to develop your colonies, and your tech and your gear and the Nexus as far as you can before that hits zero. Just maybe." Throw in some random Kett events through the year (like a Kett ambush party placed near a colony on one of the worlds, once it's been killed a few dozen times, remove it from the game).
Have the Pathfinders defend the Nexus and all the colonies from assaults of varying intensities. Fail to beat back the Kett and there goes that colony. Burnt down to the ground. Have Kett colonies for the Pathfinders to assault.
You could easily have a war event last you 6 months to a year. In the mean time come up with a new event. Maybe civil war?
Just my rambling idea. But I always thought that would have been cool.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That sounds like a cool game, but Bioware does storyline and character stuff. If there are no aliens to bang, I imagine some people who are totally not me would be disappointed
That sounds like a cool game, but Bioware does storyline and character stuff. If there are no aliens to bang, I imagine some people who are totally not me would be disappointed
Oh yes *cough* Other *cough* people would have been disappointed by the lack of banging.
I was disappointed I couldn't Kirk my way through the cluster.
I think the only ending that would make for a good sequel is the deny ending.
Isn't Deny just
"everyone dies and the Reapers win"? The game makes it pretty clear that your conventional forces have no chance.
Sort of.
Devs say that we can't win conventionally. Characters in-game say we probably can't win conventionally. Then the War Assets Gauge, if it's at 100% Usage says that the Reapers are losing conflicts and are being pushed back.
But as far as the actual Reject Choice ending, everyone dies and the next cycle kills the Reapers.
Yeah, and I think it's the only format where a story could be told that isn't touched by too much of the ending bullshit. It also leads to a compelling resistance type setting.
Mass Effect with none of the races is not Mass Effect. The premise of Deny is that the Reapers wipe out humans, Turians, Asari, Salarians, Krogans, etc. Then in the next cycle, a new race discovers detailed information about the Reapers and isn't destroyed by them. It's not even clear if they use the Crucible to avoid destruction, which would make the previous cycle's refusal to use it farcical if they do. Deny is a ridiculous choice of ending to try to go off of.
I know I'm late to the party here, buuuuut...
With the Deny ending:
It is explicitly stated (with a decently high enough War Assets rating) that Liara's data cache is FAR more stable than the Prothean beacon. The next cycle finds the data cache, actually understands the warning, all the races ally up (because they aren't taking the word of a single Earth Alliance N7-turned-test-case-Spectre), and they defeat the Reapers using non-Crucible means. Remember, none of the other races took the threat (or existence) of Reapers seriously until they had one kicking the shit out of them...just imagine what would have happened if all the races (both Council and non-Council) were working together to 1) share weapon/ship tech, 2) focus all their tech to gearing up for anti-Reaper efforts, and 3) spent who knows how many years (as opposed to a few months) in preparation for the Reaper cycle fleet to show up.
That's all why I never got the hate and derision for the Deny ending. Is it satisfying? Hell no...because we don't get to save the galaxy, so I can kind of understand the frustration with it from that angle.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
The deny ending felt like sour grapes from Bioware when a million customers got in line and said "your 11:58 mystery character that ruined the game was dumb."
+6
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
The deny ending felt like sour grapes from Bioware when a million customers got in line and said "your 11:58 mystery character that ruined the game was dumb."
It's not an insult. It's the result they've talked about for 3 games if there is no ace in the hole. The Council is too disorganized to resist.
Obviously the answer is to play as a small ragtag band of space mercs who get caught up in something big during a pre-ME1 time period. Gives you a reason to have a multi-species crew at a time where the Alliance didn't seem to be integrating much, and you don't have a tell a world ending threat of a story. There's an essentially infinite amount of stories you could tell in this fashion.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
The deny ending felt like sour grapes from Bioware when a million customers got in line and said "your 11:58 mystery character that ruined the game was dumb."
It's not an insult. It's the result they've talked about for 3 games if there is no ace in the hole. The Council is too disorganized to resist.
Then the consensus was that they told a bad story and should feel bad.
I think the only ending that would make for a good sequel is the deny ending.
Isn't Deny just
"everyone dies and the Reapers win"? The game makes it pretty clear that your conventional forces have no chance.
Sort of.
Devs say that we can't win conventionally. Characters in-game say we probably can't win conventionally. Then the War Assets Gauge, if it's at 100% Usage says that the Reapers are losing conflicts and are being pushed back.
But as far as the actual Reject Choice ending, everyone dies and the next cycle kills the Reapers.
Yeah, and I think it's the only format where a story could be told that isn't touched by too much of the ending bullshit. It also leads to a compelling resistance type setting.
Mass Effect with none of the races is not Mass Effect. The premise of Deny is that the Reapers wipe out humans, Turians, Asari, Salarians, Krogans, etc. Then in the next cycle, a new race discovers detailed information about the Reapers and isn't destroyed by them. It's not even clear if they use the Crucible to avoid destruction, which would make the previous cycle's refusal to use it farcical if they do. Deny is a ridiculous choice of ending to try to go off of.
I know I'm late to the party here, buuuuut...
With the Deny ending:
It is explicitly stated (with a decently high enough War Assets rating) that Liara's data cache is FAR more stable than the Prothean beacon. The next cycle finds the data cache, actually understands the warning, all the races ally up (because they aren't taking the word of a single Earth Alliance N7-turned-test-case-Spectre), and they defeat the Reapers using non-Crucible means. Remember, none of the other races took the threat (or existence) of Reapers seriously until they had one kicking the shit out of them...just imagine what would have happened if all the races (both Council and non-Council) were working together to 1) share weapon/ship tech, 2) focus all their tech to gearing up for anti-Reaper efforts, and 3) spent who knows how many years (as opposed to a few months) in preparation for the Reaper cycle fleet to show up.
That's all why I never got the hate and derision for the Deny ending. Is it satisfying? Hell no...because we don't get to save the galaxy, so I can kind of understand the frustration with it from that angle.
You have a vid of this? I don't think it states ANYTHING this explicitly.
I think the only ending that would make for a good sequel is the deny ending.
Isn't Deny just
"everyone dies and the Reapers win"? The game makes it pretty clear that your conventional forces have no chance.
Sort of.
Devs say that we can't win conventionally. Characters in-game say we probably can't win conventionally. Then the War Assets Gauge, if it's at 100% Usage says that the Reapers are losing conflicts and are being pushed back.
But as far as the actual Reject Choice ending, everyone dies and the next cycle kills the Reapers.
Yeah, and I think it's the only format where a story could be told that isn't touched by too much of the ending bullshit. It also leads to a compelling resistance type setting.
Mass Effect with none of the races is not Mass Effect. The premise of Deny is that the Reapers wipe out humans, Turians, Asari, Salarians, Krogans, etc. Then in the next cycle, a new race discovers detailed information about the Reapers and isn't destroyed by them. It's not even clear if they use the Crucible to avoid destruction, which would make the previous cycle's refusal to use it farcical if they do. Deny is a ridiculous choice of ending to try to go off of.
I know I'm late to the party here, buuuuut...
With the Deny ending:
It is explicitly stated (with a decently high enough War Assets rating) that Liara's data cache is FAR more stable than the Prothean beacon. The next cycle finds the data cache, actually understands the warning, all the races ally up (because they aren't taking the word of a single Earth Alliance N7-turned-test-case-Spectre), and they defeat the Reapers using non-Crucible means. Remember, none of the other races took the threat (or existence) of Reapers seriously until they had one kicking the shit out of them...just imagine what would have happened if all the races (both Council and non-Council) were working together to 1) share weapon/ship tech, 2) focus all their tech to gearing up for anti-Reaper efforts, and 3) spent who knows how many years (as opposed to a few months) in preparation for the Reaper cycle fleet to show up.
That's all why I never got the hate and derision for the Deny ending. Is it satisfying? Hell no...because we don't get to save the galaxy, so I can kind of understand the frustration with it from that angle.
You have a vid of this? I don't think it states ANYTHING this explicitly.
Sounds like you skipped the added dialogue in the Stargazer segment after a Deny ending.
The video that I found is encoded at a shit quality setting, so here's a transcription of the conversation.
(Post-Liara's holo-recording detailing the Reapers, how the Crucible wasn't the anti-Reaper weapon they thought it was, and how the galaxy united still couldn't stop the Reapers (she didn't specifically state that it was too late...but that's player knowledge after the first two games))
Child: Did that all really happen?
Stargazer: We'll never know exactly what it was like, but yes, the archives tell the true story of those who came before us. They fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to.
Child: And that's why we have peace?
Stargazer: Yes. Without everything they accomplished, without the information they passed down, we too would be threatened.
Then the dialogue returns to the normal "What else do we know about the Shepard?" part
The deny ending felt like sour grapes from Bioware when a million customers got in line and said "your 11:58 mystery character that ruined the game was dumb."
It's not an insult. It's the result they've talked about for 3 games if there is no ace in the hole. The Council is too disorganized to resist.
Then the consensus was that they told a bad story and should feel bad.
Yes, that is the consensus absent the Extended Cut, and that the Catalyst doesn't work as a narrative device even with the Extended Cut (though it spells out enough that most folks felt satisfied by the ending). Framing it as a personal attack from the same studio that gave us Citadel less than a year later isn't just uncharitable, it's factually incorrect by way of direct evidence delivered as part of the game.
Deny is the ending where you choose to live by the principle that all of the Reaper's constructs are systems of control, and then sacrificing this entire cycle on the altar of your principals. It's "I reject your reality and impose my own." Yes, this cycle dies; how could it not, built as it is on top of the Reaper tech and then dismembered by the Reapers? And given how overwrought the new endings are, Deny is still nicely punchy, and haunting. You couldn't stop the Reapers, but you laid the groundwork for the people who could. Why is that so bad?
I didn't say it was my opinion, I said it was the observation in aggregate.
I'd say it's the vocal opinion.
I'm far from sold that it's the aggregate or popular opinion.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Let's agree the execution was poor, but at the 50,000 foot view maybe there were some reasonable ideas as far as resolving the Reaper war:
I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum. (Destroy the Reapers)
The only person fit to rule the galaxy is me. (Control the Reapers)
Some people like their computers. I like like my computer. (Synthesis; merge with the machines)
Fuck you and the horse you rode on. (Refuse; "I disbelieve the dragon." "The dragon eats you.")
Chances are one of those will make the most sense for you and your Shepard. Recalling old threads, someone was willing to call out each and every one of the endings as best fitting their vision of Shepard.
I was firmly in the refuse camp. My Shepard routinely did the impossible. Helped cure the genophage. Brokered peace between the Geth and Quarians. Turned Ashley away from space Naziism. So, when the final choice came, I was angry that my Shepard was railroaded into choosing from just three options, none of which fit the tone of the campaign he had experienced over the course of three games. Especially since the final choices were presented by an entity that could have very well been unreliable.
I'm happy they added the option, and I'm happy it triggers if you shoot Starkid. Because that was the only correct choice for my Shepard.
Let's agree the execution was poor, but at the 50,000 foot view maybe there were some reasonable ideas as far as resolving the Reaper war:
I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum. (Destroy the Reapers)
The only person fit to rule the galaxy is me. (Control the Reapers)
Some people like their computers. I like like my computer. (Synthesis; merge with the machines)
Fuck you and the horse you rode on. (Refuse; "I disbelieve the dragon." "The dragon eats you.")
Chances are one of those will make the most sense for you and your Shepard. Recalling old threads, someone was willing to call out each and every one of the endings as best fitting their vision of Shepard.
This is basically what I did. I had one Shepard for every ending except Synthesis, because my fifth/last run was basically the "whatever's in the trailers happens" and I figured Synthesis was fitting for that.
Let's agree the execution was poor, but at the 50,000 foot view maybe there were some reasonable ideas as far as resolving the Reaper war:
I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum. (Destroy the Reapers)
The only person fit to rule the galaxy is me. (Control the Reapers)
Some people like their computers. I like like my computer. (Synthesis; merge with the machines)
Fuck you and the horse you rode on. (Refuse; "I disbelieve the dragon." "The dragon eats you.")
Chances are one of those will make the most sense for you and your Shepard. Recalling old threads, someone was willing to call out each and every one of the endings as best fitting their vision of Shepard.
If it were me, it would have been the choices made throughout the game that determined the ending, no pick your color 2 minutes before the credits, and no starchild ridiculousness. For example, low war assets would be the "failure" scenario. Too many parts of the final battle plan fail and so like the Refuse ending, all current species are wiped out, but your efforts throughout the game were enough to ensure the next cycle is stopped.
Siding with TIM at the end of ME2 and if you can be fully convinced of his approach in ME3 gives something like the Control ending. But this is a trap ending where the Reapers upload your mind with the promise of control, but it just allows them to not only wipe out all species using your operational knowledge but destroy Liara's message too and thus the cycles continue. This could alternatively be written as the more interesting "Shepard was indoctrinated" idea with the same bad results.
Finally, full war assets would have enough of your companions successfully completing their parts of the final battle to get you the "successful" Destroy ending, both the Reapers and Mass Relays are destroyed, so current civilizations may be crippled for a time but they will survive as a species and the galaxy is no longer under threat of the reapers.
There is no Synthesis ending because it's dumb.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't necessarily agree with your endings, but the ending absolutely should have hinged on certain outcomes throughout the series
+8
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Man, after all these years I didn’t even know Deny was an actual ending.
Anyway, Ol’ Casey Hudson has said that Andromeda’s failure has made them refocus over at Bioware. Stating that Anthem will be a “proper” Bioware game.
Given the nature of quasi-mmo looter-shooters I very much doubt that. Though I do want the game to be a success because I’ve got a strong feeling Anthem is make or break for Bioware.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Sounds like marketing spin to me. Andromeda WAS a "proper" Bioware game. It had lots of running around, strong characters, and lots o' banging. It failed for other reasons, if you even consider it a failure in the first place. Anthem is a thing because EA wanted a Destiny clone and assigned Bioware to do it, simple as that.
+26
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Oh I've no doubts it is PR speak. What is funny/sad (depending on who ya are) is that the more they try to talk up Anthem the more concerned I become. It's like anti-hype or something.
Though it is true my love of Bioware has been greatly diminished over the years I've no desire to see the studio go the way of the Dodo. I would prefer they survived long enough to redeem themselves.
And while I am positive that Anthem only exists because EA wants it to I hope Bioware is pulling out all the stops for it because I do believe Anthem to be do or die for Bioware.
On the plus side (again depending on who ya are) with D2 being pretty blargh there is room for a scifi looter-shooter. So I suppose they got that going for them.
And man, I don't think there has been a game in the works where I'd be just so happy to have my concerns be proven unwarranted.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I'll belive there's another bioware game when I see another bioware game.
I'm still so salty about them squandering the mass effect universe... I fucking love that universe... The ship designs, many of the alien races are so damn good. What a waste if we never see them again
Given what Destiny 2 has become, I'm surprised that EA is still apparently all hands on deck re: Anthem. I have no hope that it will be anything more than a terribly repetitive multiplayer glossy shooter with a treadmill loot system and a dearth of endgame content.
Andromeda makes me sad because the entire thing felt like an exercise in missed opportunities. I wanted to build up space colonies, defend them, and see them evolve and change over time, like a 1st person space Sim City, but with quests and missions that allow you to unlock things or build things or are otherwise reflected in the game's environment as well as story. I wanted more aliens than just the Angara (who never really felt consistently portrayed/represented to me) and Kett. I wanted planets that weren't just another Tatooine (radioactive this time), Arrakis (still hot), Hoth (still cold), and Dagobah (still plant-y). Seriously, the little asteroid you visit once was the most compelling environment in the entire game. I wanted to feel like I was actually making a difference... not just securing planets for colonization, but settling disputes and mediating differences between people whom I would remember down the line.
The idea behind the premise was, for my tastes, perfect. But Andromeda fell so, so short in terms of execution. And it's sad, because I can see glimpses of, perhaps, the best science fiction game ever created in the cracks. But, it needed a better engine, and more time in the oven regardless.
I will say, the Tempest is my favorite sci-fi ship ever. Whoever designed that needs a bonus/raise/whatever. I spent far too much of my time in the game just walking around, looking at stuff inside the ship... seeing if the view out the windows of the conference area actually matched the physical dimensions of the ship. Same with Ryder's window.
But, yeah, it's sad to see what's happened to the franchise. It really does deserve better. As disappointing as Andromeda was to me personally, I'm definitely willing to give Ryder and company another shot. The series shouldn't be shelved completely or rebooted. It just needs to have a few tweaks.
On the plus side (again depending on who ya are) with D2 being pretty blargh there is room for a scifi looter-shooter. So I suppose they got that going for them.
Given what Destiny 2 has become, I'm surprised that EA is still apparently all hands on deck re: Anthem. I have no hope that it will be anything more than a terribly repetitive multiplayer glossy shooter with a treadmill loot system and a dearth of endgame content.
It's fashionable to gripe about it, but Destiny 2 is actually a pretty good game! It's low on endgame content right now, but Anthem won't be competing with base Destiny 2. By the time Anthem launches, we'll be pretty close to Destiny 2's first big expansion. The Taken King's overhaul of the game is more or less why people loved Destiny 1; Bungie is going to try to repeat that success. I don't envy Bioware's position here.
Let's agree the execution was poor, but at the 50,000 foot view maybe there were some reasonable ideas as far as resolving the Reaper war:
I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum. (Destroy the Reapers)
The only person fit to rule the galaxy is me. (Control the Reapers)
Some people like their computers. I like like my computer. (Synthesis; merge with the machines)
Fuck you and the horse you rode on. (Refuse; "I disbelieve the dragon." "The dragon eats you.")
Chances are one of those will make the most sense for you and your Shepard. Recalling old threads, someone was willing to call out each and every one of the endings as best fitting their vision of Shepard.
I ran through all the choices at some point or another so I could see them all. But generally for my own canon, I use the edited Destroy ending where it cuts out the Star Child completely and just kills all the reapers (no geth or EDI). There are a couple custom videos that are basically the same thing. One example:
Posts
See I kinda wish this, but almost MMO like.
My ideal Andromeda, which is probably technically impossible and wouldn't have had a good enough story to be a real Mass Effect experience, goes like this.
Human ship arrives in the cluster. Gets damaged (maybe through running into the scourge, maybe just random space stuff, asteroids happen). Manages to limp into contact with Nexus. This part is played as an instanced story and you are just a pathfinder. Not Ryder, just another pathfinder on the generic team. Ryder and the two Ryder kids could be NPC quest-givers.
Then when you get to the Nexus, you hook up with the persistent online star cluster. And at launch the Nexus is still fucked and low on supplies and the other arks are still out of contact with the Nexus.
And as a Pathfinder you are supposed to explore planets, find locations for colonies, gather resources, help construct the colonies and expand them, buff the Nexus and explore. You team up with other pathfinders to do it. There is no infinite army of bandits and exiles to fight. Your biggest dangers are nasty wildlife and Remnant traps and robots. No Kett either. Angara handled as NPCs already existing on some planets.
See I picture them using that planet/galaxy generator and just coming up with random planets and systems for Pathfinders to settle. And that is the job. Team up or solo explore the planet. Buff the colonies you create there. Maybe team up with larger groups of pathfinders to open up a completely unexplored planet (first Pathfinder presence and dibs on juicy colonization spots, also first Pathfinder presence and their actions would determine if that planet's Angara are flagged as hostile or allies, not all planets have Angara, but those that do could be either enemies or allies depending on permanent quest choices by the first team). Plow those resources into a bigger better Nexus, bigger better colonies and actually fabbing more ships for more exploration for more colonies for more, etc.
Leveling up and getting better gear handled like in MMO but based more on resource acquisition and colony size. Managed to find a habitable world with lots of minerals? Built up a shit ton of manufacturing/science buildings on that world and managed to get enough ground converted to farming to feed enough colonists to stock all those buildings? Then that's a good place to buy better armor and guns. (Travel between worlds would make this an interesting thing. One place might specialize in getting resources to buff the Nexus, which could result in say better ships, while another might specialize in better personal gear, while another might specialize in resources to feed the other colonies. Pay should probably be handled by completing Pathfinder objectives rather than what the individual colony produces. That way if you opened up a farming world (because the ground and weather were perfect for farming) and are sending food products to 5 different colonies and the Nexus, you are still being rewarded for doing quite a lot for the initiative. And you can go spend that pay in a gear city rather than in your food city).
I would give two incentives for Players to expand, explore and grow as quick and as thoroughly as they could.
1) the other Arks are out there. They are damaged but they are still functional and if they can be found, and repaired, then you can take them back the Nexus. A) It will improve the Nexus's capabilities and maybe add additional tech and the like.
2) On launch day set a timer to count down from 365 days. When that hits 0, the Kett invade. (Keep the biological theme of their technology, drop the stupid "We make you a Kett through genetic magic" storyline). Don't tell the players it is the Kett. I would just say "You might want to develop your colonies, and your tech and your gear and the Nexus as far as you can before that hits zero. Just maybe." Throw in some random Kett events through the year (like a Kett ambush party placed near a colony on one of the worlds, once it's been killed a few dozen times, remove it from the game).
Have the Pathfinders defend the Nexus and all the colonies from assaults of varying intensities. Fail to beat back the Kett and there goes that colony. Burnt down to the ground. Have Kett colonies for the Pathfinders to assault.
You could easily have a war event last you 6 months to a year. In the mean time come up with a new event. Maybe civil war?
Just my rambling idea. But I always thought that would have been cool.
Oh yes *cough* Other *cough* people would have been disappointed by the lack of banging.
I was disappointed I couldn't Kirk my way through the cluster.
fuk u i do wut i want
I know I'm late to the party here, buuuuut...
With the Deny ending:
That's all why I never got the hate and derision for the Deny ending. Is it satisfying? Hell no...because we don't get to save the galaxy, so I can kind of understand the frustration with it from that angle.
It's not an insult. It's the result they've talked about for 3 games if there is no ace in the hole. The Council is too disorganized to resist.
Then the consensus was that they told a bad story and should feel bad.
You have a vid of this? I don't think it states ANYTHING this explicitly.
Sounds like you skipped the added dialogue in the Stargazer segment after a Deny ending.
The video that I found is encoded at a shit quality setting, so here's a transcription of the conversation.
Child: Did that all really happen?
Stargazer: We'll never know exactly what it was like, but yes, the archives tell the true story of those who came before us. They fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to.
Child: And that's why we have peace?
Stargazer: Yes. Without everything they accomplished, without the information they passed down, we too would be threatened.
Then the dialogue returns to the normal "What else do we know about the Shepard?" part
EDIT - ah ha! found a halfway decent quality one:
Yes, that is the consensus absent the Extended Cut, and that the Catalyst doesn't work as a narrative device even with the Extended Cut (though it spells out enough that most folks felt satisfied by the ending). Framing it as a personal attack from the same studio that gave us Citadel less than a year later isn't just uncharitable, it's factually incorrect by way of direct evidence delivered as part of the game.
Deny is the ending where you choose to live by the principle that all of the Reaper's constructs are systems of control, and then sacrificing this entire cycle on the altar of your principals. It's "I reject your reality and impose my own." Yes, this cycle dies; how could it not, built as it is on top of the Reaper tech and then dismembered by the Reapers? And given how overwrought the new endings are, Deny is still nicely punchy, and haunting. You couldn't stop the Reapers, but you laid the groundwork for the people who could. Why is that so bad?
I suppose it offers no catharsis? And even with the extended cut, their game series has died for being in the hands of EA.
It's a tough break for Bioware.
I did.
Because it was what my character said he was going to do.
It was the plan all along.
Yeah, when the boss of the Reapers says that killing all the Reapers is a bad idea... you kill all the Reapers.
I'd say it's the vocal opinion.
I'm far from sold that it's the aggregate or popular opinion.
Chances are one of those will make the most sense for you and your Shepard. Recalling old threads, someone was willing to call out each and every one of the endings as best fitting their vision of Shepard.
I'm happy they added the option, and I'm happy it triggers if you shoot Starkid. Because that was the only correct choice for my Shepard.
If it were me, it would have been the choices made throughout the game that determined the ending, no pick your color 2 minutes before the credits, and no starchild ridiculousness. For example, low war assets would be the "failure" scenario. Too many parts of the final battle plan fail and so like the Refuse ending, all current species are wiped out, but your efforts throughout the game were enough to ensure the next cycle is stopped.
Siding with TIM at the end of ME2 and if you can be fully convinced of his approach in ME3 gives something like the Control ending. But this is a trap ending where the Reapers upload your mind with the promise of control, but it just allows them to not only wipe out all species using your operational knowledge but destroy Liara's message too and thus the cycles continue. This could alternatively be written as the more interesting "Shepard was indoctrinated" idea with the same bad results.
Finally, full war assets would have enough of your companions successfully completing their parts of the final battle to get you the "successful" Destroy ending, both the Reapers and Mass Relays are destroyed, so current civilizations may be crippled for a time but they will survive as a species and the galaxy is no longer under threat of the reapers.
There is no Synthesis ending because it's dumb.
Anyway, Ol’ Casey Hudson has said that Andromeda’s failure has made them refocus over at Bioware. Stating that Anthem will be a “proper” Bioware game.
Given the nature of quasi-mmo looter-shooters I very much doubt that. Though I do want the game to be a success because I’ve got a strong feeling Anthem is make or break for Bioware.
Though it is true my love of Bioware has been greatly diminished over the years I've no desire to see the studio go the way of the Dodo. I would prefer they survived long enough to redeem themselves.
And while I am positive that Anthem only exists because EA wants it to I hope Bioware is pulling out all the stops for it because I do believe Anthem to be do or die for Bioware.
On the plus side (again depending on who ya are) with D2 being pretty blargh there is room for a scifi looter-shooter. So I suppose they got that going for them.
And man, I don't think there has been a game in the works where I'd be just so happy to have my concerns be proven unwarranted.
I'm still so salty about them squandering the mass effect universe... I fucking love that universe... The ship designs, many of the alien races are so damn good. What a waste if we never see them again
Andromeda makes me sad because the entire thing felt like an exercise in missed opportunities. I wanted to build up space colonies, defend them, and see them evolve and change over time, like a 1st person space Sim City, but with quests and missions that allow you to unlock things or build things or are otherwise reflected in the game's environment as well as story. I wanted more aliens than just the Angara (who never really felt consistently portrayed/represented to me) and Kett. I wanted planets that weren't just another Tatooine (radioactive this time), Arrakis (still hot), Hoth (still cold), and Dagobah (still plant-y). Seriously, the little asteroid you visit once was the most compelling environment in the entire game. I wanted to feel like I was actually making a difference... not just securing planets for colonization, but settling disputes and mediating differences between people whom I would remember down the line.
The idea behind the premise was, for my tastes, perfect. But Andromeda fell so, so short in terms of execution. And it's sad, because I can see glimpses of, perhaps, the best science fiction game ever created in the cracks. But, it needed a better engine, and more time in the oven regardless.
I will say, the Tempest is my favorite sci-fi ship ever. Whoever designed that needs a bonus/raise/whatever. I spent far too much of my time in the game just walking around, looking at stuff inside the ship... seeing if the view out the windows of the conference area actually matched the physical dimensions of the ship. Same with Ryder's window.
But, yeah, it's sad to see what's happened to the franchise. It really does deserve better. As disappointing as Andromeda was to me personally, I'm definitely willing to give Ryder and company another shot. The series shouldn't be shelved completely or rebooted. It just needs to have a few tweaks.
It's fashionable to gripe about it, but Destiny 2 is actually a pretty good game! It's low on endgame content right now, but Anthem won't be competing with base Destiny 2. By the time Anthem launches, we'll be pretty close to Destiny 2's first big expansion. The Taken King's overhaul of the game is more or less why people loved Destiny 1; Bungie is going to try to repeat that success. I don't envy Bioware's position here.
I ran through all the choices at some point or another so I could see them all. But generally for my own canon, I use the edited Destroy ending where it cuts out the Star Child completely and just kills all the reapers (no geth or EDI). There are a couple custom videos that are basically the same thing. One example:
How exactly are you "pretty sure" about this? Anthem has shown NOTHING but an Ubisoft style hype trailer so far.
Because that's what Bioware does? Their characrer work and story stuff are basically why they are known.
And Destiny's bar is not exactly high