Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Honestly, re-playing it just makes me sad.
Indeed
But i digress.
While Starfield had me go to NG+10 and enjoying 3 full runs, Andromeda is better.
The Andromeda team had an idea (very similar to Starfield but with a greater focus on creating settlements for advancement) but had no clue how to do it in Frostbite (and likely no clue how to do it in any engine, but they also had no experience in Frostbite). Despite that there were developed systems for RPG and cinematic elements created by the Inquisition team (where Darrah was), the Andromeda team tried to start all over with zip-all on an Engine that, at its core, was created specifically for FPS.
Within a year of the intended release date, the Andromeda team was still trying to figure out what to make as they couldn't figure out the whole procedural thing that their original plan hinged upon. They didn't have even one line of code ready. EA had its demands which compounded the issue, but the Andromeda team just flat-out failed. As always, modders came to the rescue to fix the showstoppers and missing content, but the game the Andromeda team released was nothing like they originally intended (which woulda been more like Starfield).
Yet... somehow, the community-fixed Andromeda still feels more complete from a game made in less than a year versus Starfield that was in development... how long?
Going by a baseline of Andromeda, Starfield musta been made in weeks with some more QA than what Andromeda received. Of course, given that Bethsoft was using their own engine and the Andromeda team was using an unfamiliar engine, the comparison is difficult to make on how much time was really wasted used.
Still... the amount of bugs in Andromeda's release versus Starfield's made Starfield more playable at their respective launches.
the "bugs" were minimal... "textures" were the biggest complaint... in addition to "learning on the fly" with Frostbite, they were struggling to keep up with the advances in graphics tech which took a significant leap during this time... considering the landscape, it's no small feat that they tabled a game as promising as 'Andromeda' is...:-)
Frostbite was a plague on Bioware. They already had everything ready to go for another ME game with the Unreal Engine. But no, let's force them to learn an entirely new engine and try to make it do things it was never intended for. Just so they can rebuild from scratch what they already had before.
(except Andromeda)
Then I bought ME 1, 2 & 3 on PC and enjoyed them some more.
Then I bought the Legendary Edition (which of course did not include Andromeda)
and enjoyed it.
I finally decided to play Andromeda - couldn't get into it.
But Starfield I've now played for 900+ hours and going strong.
Unreal is great only when you play by its rules. It won't stop developers from doing things their own way if it doesn't align with how Unreal works best. We'll just end up with a mess (as evidenced by so many Unreal games that are great and so many that are terrible). Unreal gives you a blank canvas and a billion paintbrushes and colors and types of paint and dyes on hand. I've seen developers pick only what they need (the best way) but seen far more developers grab everything they can and just start dumping it all into their projects (the worst way).
The gameplay was honestly vastly superior to Mass Effect 1 and 2, not so much better than Mass Effect 3.
But Andromeda's other features sucked a huge deal. You had some good skill and gunplay, Leveling was a little boring since you no longer had set classes, but peace be with that.
Andromeda's story was also bad compared to previous Mass Effect titles. Hell, I would dare say that the entirety of Andromeda's story was worse than Mass Effect 3's ending alone.
BGS and Starfield plays on an entirely different field than Mass Effect. While the Mass Effect titles are known for the awesome story, that is just Bioware, BGS and their titles are known for their immense freedom, which BGS manages to live up to with Starfield. But there are parts they have executed terribly.
Andromeda...
...
...
Ok, so I enjoyed playing the game. But I found it lacking in a number of ways. like completely lacking Hanar, and I loved the Hanar.
But there were other elements of it that just didn't quite measure up to the first 3 game, and yes, I said "first 3 game" because let's be honest, ME 1-3 were really just one big game that wouldn't have fit on a single blue-ray back then.
Exactly, the only good thing that came out of Andromeda was the gameplay.
The pewpew was good, but everything else just sucked. Such a shame too. Still got my moneys worth from it though, so eh.
But unlike Starfield, it did make me lose faith in the studio and their capabilities of actually providing a game that the fans want and expect from them.
Starfield actually makes me hopeful for the future of BGS games.