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
Andromeda vs ME1: ME1 is better because story and writing are so brilliant that it more than makes up for the somewhat clunky combat mechanics. Combat is much better in Andromeda, but story/writing is pretty poor, which gives ME1 the edge.
vs ME2: not so sure about this one. ME2 has better writing for sure, but it's not stellar like ME1's. Combat is better in Andromeda. These are very different games, but if asked anyway which I prefer, which I have more fun with, I'll have to say they're close.
vs ME3: Andromeda is the clear winner on almost every level. ME3 has the best combat of the trilogy but Andromeda's is better. ME3's writing is so bad that even Andromeda's seems great in comparison.
Far too many early critics not giving enough time before burning it to the stake.
Gameplay : ME Andromeda
But, they should spend the budget to remake ME trilogy with better gameplay, fix plothole and better mako/open world system, then ME trilogy would be loved by almost everyone.
Gameplay: ME:A
They really pulled something off with the gameplay, it combines the strengths of ME1 and 3 and adds more. I love this game for that.
A remade trilogy would be great, but they're not going to take ME1 and make it a new game, that would mean mostly rebuilding it from scratch.
they are lazy and "repair" is not in their vocabulary