[ad_1]
After the release of BioWare the last installment of the Mass Effect trilogy in 2012, fans were breathlessly anticipating what might come next. Eager gamers were desperate to find out where the studio would take the franchise. The game they got—Mass Effect: Andromeda– was, to say the least, a huge disappointment. Instead of a direct sequel, Andromeda, which occurred five years after its predecessor, was set in an entirely different galaxy. The aliens were familiar, but the setting and the story were totally alien. No one, to borrow a phrase, asked for that.
Looking back, it’s easy to understand anger. But, frankly, the disappointment had everything to do with what legions of button presses wanted and nothing to do with whether or not the game developers were successful in making the game they wanted to make. There were quite legitimate complaints …Andromeda was bugged like hell when it came out, which made it hard to appreciate. But the central argument against this seemed to be that Mass Effect: Andromeda was bad because it wasn’t what people expected. Fan reaction to the game has been so universally bad that BioWare has canceled plans to release additional DLC and turned its attention to fixing the bugs. Mounted frustrations; players complained or just gave up.
Versions of this storyline have played out dozens of times, and not just in games. When something – a movie franchise, a band, a YA trilogy – is loved, fans are always clamoring for more. But they often do it with preconceived notions of what exactly “more” looks like, and usually it translates to “more of the same”. It’s natural to want more time with your favorite characters or to dance to a familiar beat, but lightning doesn’t strike twice in the same place and creators can’t help but grow and change. Year two albums, Star Wars prequels, Andromeda– these things are all victims of anything inability to repeat the past, when it was fresh and new. There is a difference between finding entertainment that is personally disappointing and having it objectively bad. It’s okay to decide that something is not what you wanted and therefore not for you; it is quite another thing to tell someone that they are wrong to love something that has not met your personal expectations. Being a fan of something doesn’t allow you to dictate the course of its life forever.
For those who do not know or have not played, Andromeda takes place approximately 600 years after the original trilogy was concluded in Another Galaxy. Between the events of Mass effect 2 and 3, a group of people left the Milky Way in cryostasis and made the centuries-long journey to the Andromeda galaxy. Of course, things have gone wrong and now it’s up to your character, Ryder, to help your struggling people find a way to survive. It’s not a terrible premise, but for players clinging to the original saga, it was hard to forgive. Andromeda so as not to be the result of Mass effect 3. Everyone, it seemed, was still hooked on their ex.
Following the release of Mass Effect: Legendary Edition, and in the wake of the announcement that the next episode of the series could be a sequel to the original trilogy with Andromeda, I decided to revisit this unfortunate title. Turns out it’s pretty fantastic.
Part of that, of course, is because BioWare ironed out many of the game’s early issues. There are still some bugs, sure, but the gameplay is enjoyable. The voice cast is amazing (Natalie Dormer and Kumail Nanjiani!), And the crew you recruit over the course of the game is solid, from Jaal, who is part of an alien species you must conquer, to Vetra, a Turian mercenary. who raised his sister. (Let’s not talk about Cora, whose fantastic haircut is very promising, but it turns out to be an Asari appropriation horror story.)
If you didn’t give the game a fair chance when you first played it, it’s worth returning to. When you do, try to remember why Andromeda was so vilified in the first place. Was it objectively bad, or was it just not what some fans wanted?
[ad_2]
Source link