Hnnnnnggggg!

I like everything I'm seeing. Flamer is still a thing. :)

I like everything I'm seeing.

Same. Just hearing the "pop" of a biotic combo gave me goosebumps :)

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

Cover looks less sticky but easy to get in and out of. Lots more movement options like a jetpack. Ammo still a thing, though with new alien races there will be weapons we've never seen before, at least some of which will use overheating instead of ammo. Weapons and skills are not restricted by class (since it has a more build your own class thing going on). Looks good.

I find it amusing that the cover system is being touted as a feature, when 3PS games have had this since 2005.

Their stated goal in the video is to create dynamic fast paced combat with movement options. That's existed since 2010: Vanquish :-) Let's hope they take inspiration from it.

I find it amusing that the cover system is being touted as a feature, when 3PS games have had this since 2005.

The cover system isn't being "touted". They're pointing out that cover works a little differently than it did in ME1-3. Not a bragging point, just a noteworthy change.

Their stated goal in the video is to create dynamic fast paced combat with movement options. That's existed since 2010: Vanquish :-) Let's hope they take inspiration from it.

Vanquish is the perfect example of how NOT to implement fast-paced movement within a 3rd person shooter, IMO (by tying it to the health system, you ostensibly punish the player for using their speed and agility. Completely ass-backwards design that ruined the whole game). The video touches on this, but unless you play ME2 or 3, this doesn't convey how layered the combat in Mass Effect is. There is a lot of matching up elemental weapons to different enemy shields, using certain powers or abilities in concert with the abilities of your squad to create powerful combos, with different combos being more or less useful against different enemy types. All classic RPG combat stuff, but they actually made it work within a fast-paced, real time 3rd person shooter (very similar to the balance that Destiny seems to be aiming for, but I think Bioware nailed it better). All this to say, you wouldn't want the combat to be too fast. The pacing needs to be a touch more deliberate than something like Titanfall or Vanquish. Twitch-reflexes alone are not enough in Mass Effect. You really need to think.

Vanquish does not tie your health to your ability meter. Did you play the game dude? Your health is 100% separate. Your meter is for dodging, dashing, melee, and bullet time. Completely independent of your health.

Vanquish does not tie your health to your ability meter. Did you play the game dude? Your health is 100% separate. Your meter is for dodging, dashing, melee, and bullet time. Completely independent of your health.

I did play it, but it was years ago so I'm probably getting the exact details wrong. But there is some relationship between taking damage and your ability meter, no? Is it that your ability meter drains faster when you take damage, or it recharges slower while taking damage... I can't remember exactly.

What I do remember is the frustrating gameplay loop that the health and ability meters created.

Playing on normal, the game offers almost no challenge. I could slide and bounce and zip around all over the place, but I never needed to. Everything just died so quickly, it became boring almost instantly. So I set the difficulty 1 level higher, and all of a sudden I needed to spend most of my time hiding behind cover, waiting for my health and/or ability meter to recharge. It became so punishing that I couldn't engage with the only mechanics that made the game any fun.

Vanquish does not tie your health to your ability meter. Did you play the game dude? Your health is 100% separate. Your meter is for dodging, dashing, melee, and bullet time. Completely independent of your health.

I did play it, but it was years ago so I'm probably getting the exact details wrong. But there is some relationship between taking damage and your ability meter, no? Is it that your ability meter drains faster when you take damage, or it recharges slower while taking damage... I can't remember exactly.

You take more damage when you are overheating. When your health drops to a certain point, you will automatically enter bullet time mode which will start draining your meter. Of course if you have no meter when you start taking damage, you will not enter bullet time. Thus, using meter is a tradeoff. But it is not linked to your health. You always have the same amount of recharging health.

Playing on normal, the game offers almost no challenge. I could slide and bounce and zip around all over the place, but I never needed to. Everything just died so quickly, it became boring almost instantly. So I set the difficulty 1 level higher, and all of a sudden I needed to spend most of my time hiding behind cover, waiting for my health and/or ability meter to recharge. It became so punishing that I couldn't engage with the only mechanics that made the game any fun.

God hard is the mode where you have to constantly take cover since you are very vulnerable (two shots will kill you). On Hard, you can't play the way you were playing. You absolutely need to use your meter to quickly and efficiently dispatch enemies. The key to success on Hard is precisely the opposite of what you were doing: you need to stay moving and always utilize your powerful moves. This also means using bullet time sparingly since it unnecessarily drains your meter. It also helps to know how guns work. Things like the LFE gun have little tricks that can make life easier. I glossed over the LFE gun on Normal, but it is an indispensable tool on Hard. Melee attacks are likewise vital, but they do instantly drain your meter. It's about finding the balance between flow and recovery. It's amazing.

God Hard is like a different game altogether.

Cool video - thanks for posting.

I know next to nothing about ME except that I enjoy its music (thanks, Pandora), and I hear it has a compelling story. I downloaded it when it was free on XBL, and I gave it a whirl in between Destiny expansions.

I did not get far before giving up. If I remember, I think the issue was that it felt I was on rails. The story seemed worthwhile, but I couldn't get past the gameplay.

Does the gameplay improve in the later games? What type of game should I be expecting? Will I be totally lost on the story if I jump in to the series with this new release?

Cool video - thanks for posting.

I know next to nothing about ME except that I enjoy its music (thanks, Pandora), and I hear it has a compelling story. I downloaded it when it was free on XBL, and I gave it a whirl in between Destiny expansions.

I did not get far before giving up. If I remember, I think the issue was that it felt I was on rails. The story seemed worthwhile, but I couldn't get past the gameplay.

Does the gameplay improve in the later games? What type of game should I be expecting? Will I be totally lost on the story if I jump in to the series with this new release?

The gameplay improves a ton! Mass Effect 1 is not really a good representation of the series. It has a certain charm to it in that it was sorta a cross between a numbers RPG and a bad 3rd person shooter. There were some interesting things you could do like have one squad member suppress a powerful enemy's ability to shoot, and another strip its shields, then hit it hard with one of your own powers or guns. But the gameplay simply is not smooth or really even fun. At best it was tolerable because it had a bunch of good story. Gameplay wise, it doesn't stand up well at all today.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 did a ton to clean up the gameplay. Playing them really is like playing an entire different game than ME1. Mass Effect 2 and 3 play much more like a Gear of War. They are both very much cover based shooters where there's always some chest high walls or desks or something to take cover behind. And the way you can use and combine powers between you and your squad works really well. In short, they are actually fun to play. The gameplay is just worlds more crisp and... playable.

As for jumping in on Andromeda, I'd say its actually the perfect time! Andromeda is almost completely disconnected from what happened in Mass Effect 1,2 & 3. Basically, you're part of a big colony expedition that left before things started getting really bad for our galaxy in Mass Effect 2 & 3. Andromeda starts 600 years later and it's likely that few if anybody around you know that anything about what happened to our galaxy at all. So, story wise, its almost going to be a clean slate and therefore much easier for players new to the series to jump in.

There will surely be the occasional humorous or subtle reference to ME 1,2,& 3, but the story is being purposely set up to stand on its own. And the gameplay looks better than ever. I have no qualms about suggesting you jump in to Andromeda day one, but if you want to wait a bit I'm very sure myself and others here will be giving reviews and impressions about it pretty quickly after release.

As someone who can handle the fast game play of a modern FPS, I watch this game play and think it's pretty cool.

However, I'm really saddened they made the change to speed up play and remove the stoptime mechanic because I know it will drastically affect my wife's ability to play the game and her enjoyment of the game.

She doesn't play fast, she doesn't do fast. She's not decisive. It's not a bad thing, she's just the sort that considers EVERYTHING. This is what she loved about the original series, all the stories, the choices. It's why she's played through all the MEs with multiple characters AND all the Dragon Ages with multiple characters.

In both those games, and especially Mass Effect, you had this pause mechanic, where you'd bring up your menu and have time to figure out the best course of action. This was really necessary for her. She might be a bit more capable now, but I can just see her being very frustrated with the combat as we saw it in there. It may be slow to those of us who play FPS, but I was perfectly fine with Mass Effect's combat being slower because that wasn't what made the series such a great game to play.

We still plan on buying it and hopefully playing it to death and loving it as we did the first series, but I have some apprehension now. My wife's struggled to find a game she wants to try out for the better part of a year and I think she's kind of bummed about it. If Mass Effect Andromeda doesn't prove to be a good game to her, I think she'll be really let down.

Mass Effect's gameplay has gotten more boring with each iteration. In contrast to Raga's post above, I still like the first Mass Effect's combat the best. ME2 and ME3 obviously feel better in terms of controls but both are way less interesting than the first. I don't want to play Gears of War, I don't want to play Mass Effect the action game. I desperately want to play Mass Effect the RPG, but that game died after the first one.

That said, ME2 and ME3 were both fun, compelling games to play. The combat was tight and fun. Just a whole lot less interesting. Andromeda looks totally fine too. I didn't expect them to go back to the old style or make any significant changes.

Mass Effect's gameplay has gotten more boring with each iteration. In contrast to Raga's post above, I still like the first Mass Effect's combat the best. ME2 and ME3 obviously feel better in terms of controls but both are way less interesting than the first. I don't want to play Gears of War, I don't want to play Mass Effect the action game. I desperately want to play Mass Effect the RPG, but that game died after the first one.

That said, ME2 and ME3 were both fun, compelling games to play. The combat was tight and fun. Just a whole lot less interesting. Andromeda looks totally fine too. I didn't expect them to go back to the old style or make any significant changes.

Just curious, but what difficulty did you play ME2 & 3 on? The issue I ran into with both games is that on "Normal" or below, the combat feels very basic because the effects of all the shields and damage types are reduced. You don't need to think much about what you're doing because you can just blow everything away with Amy weapon or ability.

But on Hard or above, that changes completely. Enemy shields, armo, and barriers are far more powerful. Combine that with how quickly you take damage, and it forces you to be way smarter and more efficient when it comes to chaining certain abilities and using different ammo types. I found it every bit as deep as ME1.

Mass Effect's gameplay has gotten more boring with each iteration. In contrast to Raga's post above, I still like the first Mass Effect's combat the best. ME2 and ME3 obviously feel better in terms of controls but both are way less interesting than the first. I don't want to play Gears of War, I don't want to play Mass Effect the action game. I desperately want to play Mass Effect the RPG, but that game died after the first one.

That said, ME2 and ME3 were both fun, compelling games to play. The combat was tight and fun. Just a whole lot less interesting. Andromeda looks totally fine too. I didn't expect them to go back to the old style or make any significant changes.

Just curious, but what difficulty did you play ME2 & 3 on? The issue I ran into with both games is that on "Normal" or below, the combat feels very basic because the effects of all the shields and damage types are reduced. You don't need to think much about what you're doing because you can just blow everything away with Amy weapon or ability.

But on Hard or above, that changes completely. Enemy shields, armo, and barriers are far more powerful. Combine that with how quickly you take damage, and it forces you to be way smarter and more efficient when it comes to chaining certain abilities and using different ammo types. I found it every bit as deep as ME1.

I played through 2 and 3 on Insanity difficulty, and then played ME1, and I can totally see where he's coming from. ME1 played more like a true RPG, where weapon stats and character skills matter. Line up a headshot perfectly with a sniper? If your sniping stat is too low, you might still miss. Stuff like that made the game more compelling for me than just being really good at aiming and squeezing the trigger; you had to become better at what you wanted to do, which is why you had a dozen things to level, and a lot of incentive to specialize in what fit your ideal playstyle.

ME2 and 3 are just cover shooters that let you combine your abilities and use them strategically. You were great at everything by default, and only leveled a handful of things.

I can't imagine many people agree with you here. Having twenty odd 1% increases that take 2/3rds the game to put points in before your sniper rifle stops swaying like you drunk at sea in the middle of a typhoon isn't that fun for most people. Especially when you were supposedly the best humanity had to offer and had been hand picked to be the very first of your race to be recognized galaxy wide as an elite and capable soldier.

Or, to put it another way, I don't think Mass Effect would have gotten a third and forth game if it had stuck to its very heavily RPG feel. Because that slow progression from absolutely sucking with every gun to being awesome with them makes the gameplay feel icky and murky and random and clunky until you're roughly half way through the game.

Mass Effect 1 is really had to go back and play mostly because the movement and cover system were terrible, but the RPGness of the weapon stats didn't help it any. Interestingly, I think Mass Effect 3 did a decent job bringing a little of that RPG flavor back. You could heavily tweak your powers and gun skills to master specific strategies without it being such a slog in the beginning.

Also, I'd love an isometric turn based Mass Effect strategy game.

Raga is spot on here. ME1 is an RPG where "optimal" play usually involves pausing the action, issuing commands to your party members, and then unpausing and seeing if that worked. Repeat repeat repeat. The guns all handle like poop, too. I did enjoy exploring the tons of worlds, but I gather lots of people found that tedious (and I get that).

The jump in gameplay from ME1 to 2 is so big as to make it almost a different game. Vast improvements on all fronts there, imo.

ME3 refines the action from ME2, and further streamlines player actions while adding complexity. You can combo certain types of abilities to make big explosions, or deal high damage to armor, etc.., which means party composition is important, but single player play is very straightforward and fun.

When I watch the andromeda video, I'm seeing that they've added a jump to your available verbs, and then modified the abilities to work while jumping, too. You can see them use Biotic Charge (or something that looks similar to it, since we don't actually know what they call the abilities in ME:A) a lot, which is that blue dash/charge into enemies. That's been a class ability in the past games and likely won't be something available to every player in this new one.

One note about ME3: The combat in the single player game kinda sucked compared to that of the PvP game in my opinion. The reason was that the single player game is pretty much long hallway after long hallway, and if you just slowly advance from cover to cover to easily dispatch every enemy. In multiplayer, you're in a large, squareish area, and the enemies can spawn pretty much anywhere around the area. The result is that everything is far more frenetic and you're constantly forced to flee your current cover and retreat or flank out to find new cover. I mention this because what I'm seeing in the videos of ME:A is that it seems to be more open world-ish, which also appears to make the combat more like the ME3 multiplayer than the single player experience. That's a WONDERFUL thing, imo, so I really hope that turns out to be the case.

It's good to hear a different perspective on this. I personally felt that ME1's combat was a clunky load of junk that turned what should have been an action shooter into a movie where someone pauses it to get up for a soda every four seconds.

That being said, have they actually announced that you can't pause the action to issue commands? I must have missed that.

Even if they have, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a narrative-focused setting where the combat was minimized so as to provide flavor without requiring twitch shooter skills. They've been really good about this in each of the past 3 games. They know the story is the real reason play the ME games, and I'd be sadly disappointed if they didn't offer a story > combat experience this time around as well.

That being said, the videos they're showing are clearly trying to make the action seem as frenetic and energetic as possible. You can see lots of biotic charge-type attacks where the player dashes forwards quickly to shoulder charge someone... In past games, as I'm sure you know, this was a class-based skill that you only used if you intentionally spec'd your guy out that way. Again, I'd be surprised if it isn't possible to play the game as a tactician instead of as a brawler. My guess is that they're just not showing that right now because videos of someone carefully considering their options aren't that interesting to watch.

Just curious, but what difficulty did you play ME2 & 3 on?

I honestly couldn't tell you. I typically bump up the difficulty on games to the "Heroic" equivalent if it has one, but there are also games I totally just play on Normal. I played ME2 multiple times, so I'm sure I played it on every difficulty at least a bit. It's been long enough that I honestly can't differentiate between the difficulty levels.

I think the combat in ME2 and ME3 is totally fine. It's good even, with some great moments sprinkled in. It's totally serviceable for the game, and it's fun to play. I think Andromeda looks great--it's a shame it coming out so soon after Horizon. I'm not sure I can make time for two huge games back to back (and I'm not even close to being done with my current play through of The Witcher 3, yet--I haven't even hit the DLC this time through yet!).

But I'm one of those weird people that enjoys true RPG style mechanics. I prefer Morrowind to every other Elder Scrolls game, and that game is a pain in the ass when it comes to leveling. It is entirely possible (and entirely too easy) to level your character in such a way that you'll be completely screwed by the end game. If you don't plan ahead, hit the +5 attribute bonuses for each character level, or try to spread your points around into too many disciplines, you'll be a level 50 chump that can't take on level appropriate encounters because you just screwed up. That's frustrating for a lot of people, probably for most people, but I love it.

Mass Effect is no more of an RPG than Destiny at this point. It hasn't been since the first game. That's totally fine, and they're great games still. But I would love to play another real Mass Effect RPG, and not an action game with some leveling and ability unlocks.

I think the best thing about Mass Effect's combat versus the later games is the ability cool down. Each ability or power had it's own cool down timer versus the global cool down of the latter games. Combining with your squadmates' abilities, it made for some really neat stringing of powers. I went through entire sections of that game without firing a shot, something that's not really possible in the same way in the latter games.

Horizon? I can think of a couple of games with the name Horizon in them? Which game are you talking about?

Anyway, I kinda wonder now what you think is and isn't an RPG? From what you've said it kinda feels like an RPG is any game that give you the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points. :p

For example, why is ME1 and RPG but ME3 isn't? On both of them I don't have enough upgrade points to go around. On both of them I can choose to improve a variety of things that make a real difference in gameplay... thing like what powers I have and how effective they are. Things like how much damage my guns do and how stable they are. Things like how many grenades I have and how effective they are. And I'd have to make those choices at the expense of other things.

Even in ME3's multiplayer I could build out my individual class characters in at least one of two ways. Like my standard Human Engineer could go for area of effect with multi target Overload and wider hitting Incinerate and close range exploding tech drone that combined to cause Fire and Tech explosions left right and center. Or, I could go max damage single target with my powers and kill a single armored / shielded enemy very quickly. For my Turian Sentinle I'd sometimes go with a big heavy inaccurate assault rifle but pile on the stability and damage upgrades unique to that class to get high accruacy and damage out of guns that few used. Other times I'd go for heavy damage resistance and powerful melee attacks and cut down enemies I had no business being near, like those evil sword wielding Phantoms.

Interestingly, I believe Andromeda shifts back to individual power cooldowns. But I think maybe the time pausing to select a power is gone and you might even be limited to three active powers at any given time but with the ability to swap them out as needed and without any real class restrictions.

Horizon? I can think of a couple of games with the name Horizon in them? Which game are you talking about?

Horizon: Zero Dawn on Playstation.

Anyway, I kinda wonder now what you think is and isn't an RPG? From what you've said it kinda feels like an RPG is any game that give you the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points. :p

I'm honestly not sure exactly how I'd define it. I just think the term has become much more fluid and lose than perhaps it should have. The Witcher 3 is a perfect example. Huge, open world RPG. But the leveling system and abilities are bad and barely worth screwing with.

Honestly, I think the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points speaks quite a bit towards what I consider real RPGs. Your character is drastically different at the end of the game from the beginning. I wouldn't necessarily say that's true of Mass Effect 2 or 3.

I think the difference for me comes in what you're actually leveling. In an RPG (Morrowind) you're upgrading your character through skills (Sneak, Long Blade, Mercantile, Speechcraft, Acrobatics, Short Blade, Destruction, Alchemy, etc). Uprgrading each of those skills allows you to use better and better gear (or weapons or spells or potions or whatever) as you go along. In Mass Effect 2 and 3, I don't think you're leveling up a character in quite the same way--instead, you're leveling up particular abilities and making those specific abilities better.

It's an odd, specific distinction to make, I'll admit, and I'm genuinely struggling to articulate the difference. All I can say is that it makes sense in my head.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 feel far more like action games with a leveling system tacked, rather than like RPGs from the ground up.

Interestingly, I believe Andromeda shifts back to individual power cooldowns. But I think maybe the time pausing to select a power is gone and you might even be limited to three active powers at any given time but with the ability to swap them out as needed and without any real class restrictions.

That all sounds fantastic. Like I said, I'm genuinely excited for Andromeda. Probably the most excited I've been for a video game since Destiny. I love me some Mass Effect.

Horizon? I can think of a couple of games with the name Horizon in them? Which game are you talking about?

Horizon: Zero Dawn on Playstation.

Cool. It looks intriguing, but I haven't looked all that closely because I don't have a PlayStation...

Anyway, I kinda wonder now what you think is and isn't an RPG? From what you've said it kinda feels like an RPG is any game that give you the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points. :p

I'm honestly not sure exactly how I'd define it. I just think the term has become much more fluid and lose than perhaps it should have. The Witcher 3 is a perfect example. Huge, open world RPG. But the leveling system and abilities are bad and barely worth screwing with.

They aren't? It takes a bit to really get moving in a direction. A good 15 or 20 levels before you really start seeing real results from specializing. But I enjoyed the variety of skills.

Honestly, I think the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points speaks quite a bit towards what I consider real RPGs. Your character is drastically different at the end of the game from the beginning. I wouldn't necessarily say that's true of Mass Effect 2 or 3.

I think the difference for me comes in what you're actually leveling. In an RPG (Morrowind) you're upgrading your character through skills (Sneak, Long Blade, Mercantile, Speechcraft, Acrobatics, Short Blade, Destruction, Alchemy, etc). Uprgrading each of those skills allows you to use better and better gear (or weapons or spells or potions or whatever) as you go along. In Mass Effect 2 and 3, I don't think you're leveling up a character in quite the same way--instead, you're leveling up particular abilities and making those specific abilities better.

It's an odd, specific distinction to make, I'll admit, and I'm genuinely struggling to articulate the difference. All I can say is that it makes sense in my head.

Mass Effect 2, for sure. They paired the RPGness back so far it practically vanished. ME3 brought a lot of stuff back, though. Just about everything you listed for Morrowind is something that can be improved in ME3. The big difference is Mass Effect doesn't really prevent you from holding a gun if you don't have that skill.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 feel far more like action games with a leveling system tacked, rather than like RPGs from the ground up.

But presumably you could have solid gameplay AND have the game be a real RPG? I'm thinking (guessing/puzzling out) that maybe your distinction might also have to deal with the way that Mass Effect is sorta only an action game. Aside from little cutscenes, there's not much use in non-combat skills. Basically Mass Effect only has combat skills and the renegade / paragon based persuasion skill. But that's also true of Mass Effect 1...

Anyway, I'm not trying to criticize at all here. I'm just curious about how you see the distinction. :)

Interestingly, I believe Andromeda shifts back to individual power cooldowns. But I think maybe the time pausing to select a power is gone and you might even be limited to three active powers at any given time but with the ability to swap them out as needed and without any real class restrictions.

That all sounds fantastic. Like I said, I'm genuinely excited for Andromeda. Probably the most excited I've been for a video game since Destiny. I love me some Mass Effect.

Just keep in mind, those are all things I think I've heard. Information about how Andromeda actually plays is still somewhat hard to come by... Even though I'm following it pretty closely...

Horizon? I can think of a couple of games with the name Horizon in them? Which game are you talking about?

Horizon: Zero Dawn on Playstation.

Cool. It looks intriguing, but I haven't looked all that closely because I don't have a PlayStation...

Anyway, I kinda wonder now what you think is and isn't an RPG? From what you've said it kinda feels like an RPG is any game that give you the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points. :p

I'm honestly not sure exactly how I'd define it. I just think the term has become much more fluid and lose than perhaps it should have. The Witcher 3 is a perfect example. Huge, open world RPG. But the leveling system and abilities are bad and barely worth screwing with.

They aren't? It takes a bit to really get moving in a direction. A good 15 or 20 levels before you really start seeing real results from specializing. But I enjoyed the variety of skills.

Yeah, that's definitely true. Even then, though, most of the abilities just end up being percentage increases for damage or healing or whatever that ability is linked to. There are cool things like Whirl and the alternate modes for signs, which are thankfully early unlocks. To be fair, I still haven't messed much with the alchemy tree. I always intend to, but you have to sink so many points into that path before anything even mildly interesting sounding opens up. Granted, I've always heard alchemy builds end up ridiculously OP in the late game, so it pays off, I guess. It's just not terribly interesting.

Honestly, I think the ability to hang yourself by misassigning upgrade points speaks quite a bit towards what I consider real RPGs. Your character is drastically different at the end of the game from the beginning. I wouldn't necessarily say that's true of Mass Effect 2 or 3.

I think the difference for me comes in what you're actually leveling. In an RPG (Morrowind) you're upgrading your character through skills (Sneak, Long Blade, Mercantile, Speechcraft, Acrobatics, Short Blade, Destruction, Alchemy, etc). Uprgrading each of those skills allows you to use better and better gear (or weapons or spells or potions or whatever) as you go along. In Mass Effect 2 and 3, I don't think you're leveling up a character in quite the same way--instead, you're leveling up particular abilities and making those specific abilities better.

It's an odd, specific distinction to make, I'll admit, and I'm genuinely struggling to articulate the difference. All I can say is that it makes sense in my head.

Mass Effect 2, for sure. They paired the RPGness back so far it practically vanished. ME3 brought a lot of stuff back, though. Just about everything you listed for Morrowind is something that can be improved in ME3. The big difference is Mass Effect doesn't really prevent you from holding a gun if you don't have that skill.

You might be right. I played Mass Effect 2 repeatedly and actually went back to it once after ME3 was out. I only played ME3 twice, and that was pretty close to back-to-back playthroughs. I don't remember it nearly as well as ME2.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 feel far more like action games with a leveling system tacked, rather than like RPGs from the ground up.

But presumably you could have solid gameplay AND have the game be a real RPG? I'm thinking (guessing/puzzling out) that maybe your distinction might also have to deal with the way that Mass Effect is sorta only an action game. Aside from little cutscenes, there's not much use in non-combat skills. Basically Mass Effect only has combat skills and the renegade / paragon based persuasion skill. But that's also true of Mass Effect 1...

Thanks for pointing that out. I do think that has a large part to do with it. It's the same reason I abandoned Fallout 4 after 30 hours, as opposed to the hundreds I put into every other Bethesda game. Combat was literally the only option in 99% of situations. Again, The Witcher 3 suffers from this too, I think. Other than having a few points in Axii and a few other specific dialogue chains, it's all revolved around combat. I don't think it really makes the game worse, it just mixes up my feelings about the game as a RPG.

Anyway, I'm not trying to criticize at all here. I'm just curious about how you see the distinction. :)

No worries, this has been a great discussion and has definitely given me things to think about. I frequently struggle to articulate my thoughts in these situations, and I frequently say things like "real RPG" and then only analyze what I really mean when questioned about it.

Interestingly, I believe Andromeda shifts back to individual power cooldowns. But I think maybe the time pausing to select a power is gone and you might even be limited to three active powers at any given time but with the ability to swap them out as needed and without any real class restrictions.

That all sounds fantastic. Like I said, I'm genuinely excited for Andromeda. Probably the most excited I've been for a video game since Destiny. I love me some Mass Effect.

Just keep in mind, those are all things I think I've heard. Information about how Andromeda actually plays is still somewhat hard to come by... Even though I'm following it pretty closely...

I'm not too concerned either way. I haven't followed the game much at all. It has "Mass Effect" in the title, and that's enough to get me to buy in.

You might be right. I played Mass Effect 2 repeatedly and actually went back to it once after ME3 was out. I only played ME3 twice, and that was pretty close to back-to-back playthroughs. I don't remember it nearly as well as ME2.

I was actually having a problem remembering the upgrades in ME2. After looking it up, hte difference between the two games is pretty substantial.

In ME2:
- There were only a handful of guns. For instance there were only 6 Assualt Rifles in the game.
- There were very few armor pieces. Certainly less than 20. Maybe less than 10.
- Powers upgraded from Rank 1 to Rank 4 with Rank 4 giving you a choice between two alternate paths for the power's final evolution. Ranks 2 and 3 generally boosted the power's various stats by maybe ten or twenty percent and did nothing to change the way the power worked.
- For instance Incinerate had two minor boosts to damage/recharge time and the final option was a choice between more damage and a wider impact.

In ME3:
- There were several guns of each type. For instance there were 20 Assault Rifles alone. And they were highly varied from pinpoint accurate to chaingun bullet hoses. The other gun types (sniper rifles, smgs, heavy pistols) had similar numbers with similar wide variety of uses.
- There are several different armor pieces for the head, arms, chest, and leg slots. Perhaps not quite as many as the for the different weapon types, but still ten or more for each slot!
- You had access to more powers per class. Not quite as many as the page full you had in ME1, but several more per class than ME2. Plus, instead of having just four ranks per power, you had six. The first three boosted one or more aspects of the power (damage or recharge time usually) but ranks four, five and six each had two choices.
- Incinerate in ME 3 had its initial three one choice boosts then it had the choices of more damage/impact radius, then ongoing burning damage/faster recharge, and finally double damage to frozen targets/or +50% damage to armor

So, while ME3 didn't completely go back to ME1's level of an overwhelming multitude of options, it did greatly improve on ME2. And, in my opinion at least, it did a good job of making the options more important than ME1's near infinite rows of tiny % boosts and occasional skill unlocks.

Andromeda looks like it will probably do away with the concept of the core classes and let you mix and match powers a lot more. It might also let you build three or so presets you can swap between on the fly so you don't have to rebuild your entire upgrade tree when the situation changes. The powers themselves looks to me ME3 style where there are three or four this/that choices to make as you upgrade each power.

Also, I'd love an isometric turn based Mass Effect strategy game.

This.

In a way it is weird that the Halo franchise gets a strategy game, and Mass Effect doesn't.

I hope you're right. My hope is that if there is no pause mechanic, that there is an easy setting.

To give you some perspective, in ME3 just before the ending, you make this full speed charge downhill, you get knocked out, you wake up with just a pistol a bunch of husk coming at you. It is near impossible to move the reticule in this scene, supposedly emulating the difficulty of the situation. I remember my wife being in nearly tears trying to do this scene over and over for an hour the first time. And I'm pretty certain this was just normal setting. She just couldn't move the guns that precisely. Hell, it took me a bunch of tries to get it and I'm relatively good at shooters. It was tough to see her that way, especially knowing how much she wanted to get to the ending after 80+ hours of work in the game.

I hope you're right. My hope is that if there is no pause mechanic, that there is an easy setting.

To give you some perspective, in ME3 just before the ending, you make this full speed charge downhill, you get knocked out, you wake up with just a pistol a bunch of husk coming at you. It is near impossible to move the reticule in this scene, supposedly emulating the difficulty of the situation. I remember my wife being in nearly tears trying to do this scene over and over for an hour the first time. And I'm pretty certain this was just normal setting. She just couldn't move the guns that precisely. Hell, it took me a bunch of tries to get it and I'm relatively good at shooters. It was tough to see her that way, especially knowing how much she wanted to get to the ending after 80+ hours of work in the game.

Yeah, that bit was tough. I think it's worth noting that when you make your character in ME3, you're given the option of choosing between "action" mode where all cutscenes just play like movies and you're basically only fighting, "Role-Playing" mode where you do all of the fighting, but also choose dialogue, and "story" mode where the combat is made to be extremely simple but the dialogue options remain fully fleshed out. I know because I made a new character just today (ME:A hype has inspired me to play a fem-shep run, which I've never done before). It's my guess that similar options will exist in ME:A.

So I watched the trailer a few more times, and as excited as I am for this game, I want to point out a few things that are shown in the video which don't match the hype or advertising:

First: The big one. A "Massive" galaxy to explore. People have fan-theorized this would be like no man's sky. I want to squash that right now. If you look at the galactic map shown in the video, this "massive" galaxy has only 5 waypoints displayed. Now, the clip is super short, and only about 70% of the galaxy is shown, but 5 is not the same as 5 quintillion. It's not even close. I assume they'll release more information about how many explorable locations there are in the future, but based on that clip, I'm going to expect something more like ME3 and less like NMS.

Other stuff: The combat clips do show at least one ranged sniper kill, but for the most part the engagements appear to be in relatively small areas (smaller than ME3's multiplayer maps). Combined with the earlier "playable" trailer, I'm no longer expecting a wide open, free roam world (or series of worlds) to explore. It seems more likely that it will be like Destiny's maps, with very controlled areas you can visit, and the advertising is trying to say that even though the map is a big circle, the fact that you can navigate it in either direction means it's "free roam." Again, we know very very little about the map design, so this is just speculation based on what little we've seen.

We do know that the mako (or a mako analogue) will return, which means the explorable areas are big enough to want a vehicle to navigate, but from what I've seen in videos, this appears to be more like the warthog sections of halo than like the open areas of ME1.

For weapons and abilities, we've seen quite a bit, actually. Snipers give a first person reticle, there are 3 overall classes of weapon (plasma, energy, and ballistic), at least the same five categories within those classes (shotgun, sniper, Assault rifle, pistol, SMG), and multiple guns for each category. There are also grenades, and we've seen many of the abilities from ME3 make a return (biotic charge, singularity, nova, shockwave, all make a return) as well as at least one new power (ground slam a'la strikers), and the ability to jump and hover which opens up new playstyles.

All in all I'm really curious to see the new footage, and it certainly looks like this game fits nicely into the ME series. I just want to make sure the hype train doesn't get totally out of control as it has for so many games in the past.

First: The big one. A "Massive" galaxy to explore. People have fan-theorized this would be like no man's sky. I want to squash that right now. If you look at the galactic map shown in the video, this "massive" galaxy has only 5 waypoints displayed. Now, the clip is super short, and only about 70% of the galaxy is shown, but 5 is not the same as 5 quintillion. It's not even close. I assume they'll release more information about how many explorable locations there are in the future, but based on that clip, I'm going to expect something more like ME3 and less like NMS.

I don't know where this idea even came from. It's no wonder people are so disappointed by games all the time. Anyone who thinks that Andromeda is going to be anywhere near the size of No Man's Sky legitimately has to be an idiot. I fully expect it to be in line with what we've seen from the series before.

So I watched the trailer a few more times, and as excited as I am for this game, I want to point out a few things that are shown in the video which don't match the hype or advertising:

First: The big one. A "Massive" galaxy to explore. People have fan-theorized this would be like no man's sky. I want to squash that right now. If you look at the galactic map shown in the video, this "massive" galaxy has only 5 waypoints displayed. Now, the clip is super short, and only about 70% of the galaxy is shown, but 5 is not the same as 5 quintillion. It's not even close. I assume they'll release more information about how many explorable locations there are in the future, but based on that clip, I'm going to expect something more like ME3 and less like NMS.

Are there really people expecting infinite worlds like in No Man's Sky?! On what grounds?? There's been no promise of a procedural universe or anything like that.

There seem to be at least seven possible habitat worlds based on a couple of the most recent videos. Habitat 7 is mentioned specifically and one of the Andromeda Galaxy overviews pointed out a few waypoints or star systems also named with "Habitat #". I'd say, baring more info, seven worlds will be an upper limit. It may be significantly higher if there are less important worlds to drive around and fight minor battles on. Mass Effect 1 & 2 had a few like that. But for core, plot significant worlds... I'd guess seven or less.

Other stuff: The combat clips do show at least one ranged sniper kill, but for the most part the engagements appear to be in relatively small areas (smaller than ME3's multiplayer maps). Combined with the earlier "playable" trailer, I'm no longer expecting a wide open, free roam world (or series of worlds) to explore. It seems more likely that it will be like Destiny's maps, with very controlled areas you can visit, and the advertising is trying to say that even though the map is a big circle, the fact that you can navigate it in either direction means it's "free roam." Again, we know very very little about the map design, so this is just speculation based on what little we've seen.

It's really hard to tell. We don't know if we're looking at key battle choke points similar to those in seen in longer Mass Effect missions. Or if we're seeing fairly big "open worlds" that have detailed place to explore and fight at. My guess is some of both. Some areas have lots of what seems to be custom structures, like up in the cliffs and stuff, while other scenes looks a bit more Mass Effect 1 ish with little bases of reused geometry and boxes and stuff.

We do know that the mako (or a mako analogue) will return, which means the explorable areas are big enough to want a vehicle to navigate, but from what I've seen in videos, this appears to be more like the warthog sections of halo than like the open areas of ME1.

Double really hard to tell. Most of the shots of the Nomad driving around have been close ups that show very little about the size of layouts of the worlds. My current gut feeling is to expect something like better versions of Mass Effect 1's world size and exploration. Perhaps even ME1 crossed over with Destiny. But I highly doubt we're being dropped into one or more Skyrim or Witcher 3 style vast, highly detailed, highly populated worlds. That simply has not been promised or even hinted at. I do expect something more than a vehicle section in a Halo level, though.

For weapons and abilities, we've seen quite a bit, actually. Snipers give a first person reticle, there are 3 overall classes of weapon (plasma, energy, and ballistic), at least the same five categories within those classes (shotgun, sniper, Assault rifle, pistol, SMG), and multiple guns for each category. There are also grenades, and we've seen many of the abilities from ME3 make a return (biotic charge, singularity, nova, shockwave, all make a return) as well as at least one new power (ground slam a'la strikers), and the ability to jump and hover which opens up new playstyles.

Yep. Powers and combat fluidity looks fine so far.

- No text -

First: The big one. A "Massive" galaxy to explore. People have fan-theorized this would be like no man's sky. I want to squash that right now. If you look at the galactic map shown in the video, this "massive" galaxy has only 5 waypoints displayed. Now, the clip is super short, and only about 70% of the galaxy is shown, but 5 is not the same as 5 quintillion. It's not even close. I assume they'll release more information about how many explorable locations there are in the future, but based on that clip, I'm going to expect something more like ME3 and less like NMS.

I don't know where this idea even came from. It's no wonder people are so disappointed by games all the time. Anyone who thinks that Andromeda is going to be anywhere near the size of No Man's Sky legitimately has to be an idiot. I fully expect it to be in line with what we've seen from the series before.

I agree that it's hogwash. Some people on reddit were going nuts about it when ME:A was first launched. If there's one thing we've learned from NMS, it's that people would rather have fewer, more distinct worlds than more, samey worlds, even when those same people keep clamouring for more more more worlds.

So I watched the trailer a few more times, and as excited as I am for this game, I want to point out a few things that are shown in the video which don't match the hype or advertising:

First: The big one. A "Massive" galaxy to explore. People have fan-theorized this would be like no man's sky. I want to squash that right now. If you look at the galactic map shown in the video, this "massive" galaxy has only 5 waypoints displayed. Now, the clip is super short, and only about 70% of the galaxy is shown, but 5 is not the same as 5 quintillion. It's not even close. I assume they'll release more information about how many explorable locations there are in the future, but based on that clip, I'm going to expect something more like ME3 and less like NMS.

Are there really people expecting infinite worlds like in No Man's Sky?! On what grounds?? There's been no promise of a procedural universe or anything like that.

Kids on the internet sounding off into the echo chamber of reddit, I figure.

There seem to be at least seven possible habitat worlds based on a couple of the most recent videos. Habitat 7 is mentioned specifically and one of the Andromeda Galaxy overviews pointed out a few waypoints or star systems also named with "Habitat #". I'd say, baring more info, seven worlds will be an upper limit. It may be significantly higher if there are less important worlds to drive around and fight minor battles on. Mass Effect 1 & 2 had a few like that. But for core, plot significant worlds... I'd guess seven or less.

This all sounds right to me.

So this video is where people got the idea that there would be untold worlds:

There are certainly lines that would lead you down that path, without explicitly giving anything away. "Whole worlds, teeming with alien creatures and civilizations" "We've created a new galaxy for you to explore" etc.. There are also a few shots (Nomad driving over desert dunes, player cresting a hill) that make the world look free-roamish and quite large. Of course, we have no way of knowing if those are cutscenes or actual gameplay (probably cutscenes, given how early this video was released).

Anyway, I believe most of the hype I read about came from wild and unsubstantiated speculation based purely on what was seen here.

Other stuff: The combat clips do show at least one ranged sniper kill, but for the most part the engagements appear to be in relatively small areas (smaller than ME3's multiplayer maps). Combined with the earlier "playable" trailer, I'm no longer expecting a wide open, free roam world (or series of worlds) to explore. It seems more likely that it will be like Destiny's maps, with very controlled areas you can visit, and the advertising is trying to say that even though the map is a big circle, the fact that you can navigate it in either direction means it's "free roam." Again, we know very very little about the map design, so this is just speculation based on what little we've seen.

It's really hard to tell. We don't know if we're looking at key battle choke points similar to those in seen in longer Mass Effect missions. Or if we're seeing fairly big "open worlds" that have detailed place to explore and fight at. My guess is some of both. Some areas have lots of what seems to be custom structures, like up in the cliffs and stuff, while other scenes looks a bit more Mass Effect 1 ish with little bases of reused geometry and boxes and stuff.

We do know that the mako (or a mako analogue) will return, which means the explorable areas are big enough to want a vehicle to navigate, but from what I've seen in videos, this appears to be more like the warthog sections of halo than like the open areas of ME1.

Double really hard to tell. Most of the shots of the Nomad driving around have been close ups that show very little about the size of layouts of the worlds. My current gut feeling is to expect something like better versions of Mass Effect 1's world size and exploration. Perhaps even ME1 crossed over with Destiny. But I highly doubt we're being dropped into one or more Skyrim or Witcher 3 style vast, highly detailed, highly populated worlds. That simply has not been promised or even hinted at. I do expect something more than a vehicle section in a Halo level, though.

This is a really good point. I can't recall if there have been any videos where the nomad is driving under player control. I feel like there was one, but I couldn't find it in a quick search. You definitely see the nomad as a set piece, used as cover in some of the combat clips just released.

For weapons and abilities, we've seen quite a bit, actually. Snipers give a first person reticle, there are 3 overall classes of weapon (plasma, energy, and ballistic), at least the same five categories within those classes (shotgun, sniper, Assault rifle, pistol, SMG), and multiple guns for each category. There are also grenades, and we've seen many of the abilities from ME3 make a return (biotic charge, singularity, nova, shockwave, all make a return) as well as at least one new power (ground slam a'la strikers), and the ability to jump and hover which opens up new playstyles.

Yep. Powers and combat fluidity looks fine so far.

So this video is where people got the idea that there would be untold worlds:

There are certainly lines that would lead you down that path, without explicitly giving anything away. "Whole worlds, teeming with alien creatures and civilizations" "We've created a new galaxy for you to explore" etc.. There are also a few shots (Nomad driving over desert dunes, player cresting a hill) that make the world look free-roamish and quite large. Of course, we have no way of knowing if those are cutscenes or actual gameplay (probably cutscenes, given how early this video was released).

I'll again say: no wonder people are always disappointed. Someone who saw that video and made the leap to anything approaching No Man's Sky must live a life of constant disappointment. Those lines you called out could be used to accurately describe every Mass Effect game. It's very obvious marketing language that doesn't actually mean a whole lot. .

- No text -

I hope you're right. My hope is that if there is no pause mechanic, that there is an easy setting.

To give you some perspective, in ME3 just before the ending, you make this full speed charge downhill, you get knocked out, you wake up with just a pistol a bunch of husk coming at you. It is near impossible to move the reticule in this scene, supposedly emulating the difficulty of the situation. I remember my wife being in nearly tears trying to do this scene over and over for an hour the first time. And I'm pretty certain this was just normal setting. She just couldn't move the guns that precisely. Hell, it took me a bunch of tries to get it and I'm relatively good at shooters. It was tough to see her that way, especially knowing how much she wanted to get to the ending after 80+ hours of work in the game.

Yeah, that bit was tough. I think it's worth noting that when you make your character in ME3, you're given the option of choosing between "action" mode where all cutscenes just play like movies and you're basically only fighting, "Role-Playing" mode where you do all of the fighting, but also choose dialogue, and "story" mode where the combat is made to be extremely simple but the dialogue options remain fully fleshed out. I know because I made a new character just today (ME:A hype has inspired me to play a fem-shep run, which I've never done before). It's my guess that similar options will exist in ME:A.

I fully expect this as well.

Also, Beard, I suspect in some way they will make "non-brawler" options viable. If they didn't, being a brawler wouldn't mean very much, would it?

Or, basically, why they still made the Engineer class for ME3 even though so few played it.

I'm playing femshep right now for the first time and decided to go full biotic charge. It's sooooo fun. And very different from my usual "hang back and snipe everyone" playstyle. Loving it!

So, while ME3 didn't completely go back to ME1's level of an overwhelming multitude of options, it did greatly improve on ME2. And, in my opinion at least, it did a good job of making the options more important than ME1's near infinite rows of tiny % boosts and occasional skill unlocks.

Yep. Personally, I felt like ME2 streamlined things a bit TOO much in some areas, and 3 brought it back to where it should be.

Andromeda looks like it will probably do away with the concept of the core classes and let you mix and match powers a lot more. It might also let you build three or so presets you can swap between on the fly so you don't have to rebuild your entire upgrade tree when the situation changes. The powers themselves looks to me ME3 style where there are three or four this/that choices to make as you upgrade each power.

This all seems correct based on what I've seen, at least for the single player mode. I suspect the multiplayer will still have set character kits/classes, although that's just a theory at the moment - I don't think they've really said anything yet.

A bit more clarification:

• The power wheel is gone. It sounds like you'll have three powers on hot key at all times similar to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer.
  
• You can piece together and quickly swap between up to four "favorites" that group powers and (I think) weapons. So you could make a sniping favorite with cloak and a sniper rifle and long range crowd control abilities equipped then switch to a close range favorite that would give you better close range abilities and weapons.
  
• You can no longer order your squad to lay down a specific power but appear to be able to order them to go to a place and order them to attack a specific enemy. It sounds like they are supposed to be smart enough to prime an enemy with the right biotic or tech power or to use one of their powers to detonate whatever you set up.
  
• You can still freeze gameplay anytime you want by bringing up the weapon wheel menu.

All in all, I really liked the look of the updated gameplay, but it sounds like it will be a little more difficult for someone who doesn't play as many games. You won't be able to freeze time and hit a target with just the right power, for instance.

I'm playing femshep right now for the first time and decided to go full biotic charge. It's sooooo fun. And very different from my usual "hang back and snipe everyone" playstyle. Loving it!

Good for you! Novaguard was my favorite thing ever. About to die? Better go kill something.

I'm playing femshep right now for the first time and decided to go full biotic charge. It's sooooo fun. And very different from my usual "hang back and snipe everyone" playstyle. Loving it!

Good for you! Novaguard was my favorite thing ever. About to die? Better go kill something.

Yessss... I do love a positive feedback loop.

At a couple of places in that video, the player fires blind over the top of his cover.

We also got to see at least one "larger" engagement arena during the brief clips at the start, which was good to see.