Mass Effect Andromeda: To Boldly Go

[warty goblin]

Fair, but driving up and down hills is already a really crappy game. Adding busy work to it doesn't make it better.

It isn't the most exciting mechanic of all time, but it doesn't irritate me enormously. Compared to unlocking the ability to cook grenades in Far Cry 3 - sort of the apotheosis of terrible unlock BS getting in the way of gameplay for me - or starting Mass Effect 1 as a highly trained soldier somehow unable to hit the broadside of a barn at ten meters, it's really pretty minor. That was irritating for the first while; it's a shooter, I should be able to goddamn shoot things!

[Dienekes]

It isn't the most exciting mechanic of all time, but it doesn't irritate me enormously. Compared to unlocking the ability to cook grenades in Far Cry 3 - sort of the apotheosis of terrible unlock BS getting in the way of gameplay for me - or starting Mass Effect 1 as a highly trained soldier somehow unable to hit the broadside of a barn at ten meters, it's really pretty minor. That was irritating for the first while; it's a shooter, I should be able to goddamn shoot things!

My irritation is mostly based around my disdain for driving and open worlds in general. I fully intend to, when I get the game, do what I did in ME1; set markers and read a book until I get to my destination. Trying to make me engage with the boring game to set when and how I can go over terrain is just taking me away from what I want to do (play the story) and simultaneously making it impossible for me to ignore the crappy parts of their game. Something I have been learning to do with basically every Bioware game ever. I love them but there is a lot of crap.

Totally agreed on ME1s shooting bullcrap. That definitely lists on the Bioware stupid decision chart.

[Avilan the Grey]

Oh don't worry, that statement goes for the guns too. I was the guy rocking an Avenger, Scimitar, Tempest, and Mattock on Gold difficulty after all.

...Oh, you're talking multiplayer. Nevermind then.

[Morty]

I don't think beating single player with those basic weapons would be terribly challenging, either.

[Psyren]

My irritation is mostly based around my disdain for driving and open worlds in general.

*looks at recent AAA rpg releases*

You might be a bit screwed there chum.

About the same reason they don't have a robot do all the shooting for you. Watching an AI do stuff may be a realistic view of the future, but it's a really crappy game.

This.

And why are we spoilering all the driving stuff? It's pure gameplay, not plot-related.

...Oh, you're talking multiplayer. Nevermind then.

No, actually I meant both. The overall point was that gun choice matters little to overall performance. You can clear Insanity / Gold with just the basic/common guns if you want.

[Avilan the Grey]

No, actually I meant both. The overall point was that gun choice matters little to overall performance. You can clear Insanity / Gold with just the basic/common guns if you want.

I find it makes a huge difference. Especially, of course, for Soldier and Infiltrator. You might be correct that for any other class it really doesn't matter.

[Psyren]

I find it makes a huge difference. Especially, of course, for Soldier and Infiltrator. You might be correct that for any other class it really doesn't matter.

They do, but they're still not required (provided you upgrade the base guns all the way.)

Well okay, the Shuriken is garbage, but the rest can indeed work.

[Dienekes]

*looks at recent AAA rpg releases*

You might be a bit screwed there chum.

Don't I know it. First Zelda game I'm not going to bother even playing.

Seriously, the only good "open world" games I've enjoyed for their explorative experience was Dark Souls 1 and Arkham City. Because the open worlds were contained and the part of the game I was actually interested in happened every few steps.

I find it makes a huge difference. Especially, of course, for Soldier and Infiltrator. You might be correct that for any other class it really doesn't matter.

Eh, on a whim I went through ME3 soldier with base equipment and got reasonably far on whatever the hard mode is called Insanity I think? You can do it. It's just kind of dull.

[Siosilvar]

I'll be playing on PC. I don't really enjoy console gaming except for local multiplayer, and I haven't owned one since the Wii came out.

And re: guns; The Mattock is a bad example. It's literally just a semiautomatic version of the best assault rifle in the game (the Harrier). It deals exactly the same damage and everything.

But yeah, even without using powers and with only the base guns, you can clear all of singleplayer and all of Gold solo if you know what you're doing. It'll be slow, and dealing with armor without the Mantis or Predator will be a pain, but smart use of cover and positioning makes up for a lot of sins.

[Psyren]

Don't I know it. First Zelda game I'm not going to bother even playing.

Seriously, the only good "open world" games I've enjoyed for their explorative experience was Dark Souls 1 and Arkham City. Because the open worlds were contained and the part of the game I was actually interested in happened every few steps.

Sorry for your loss, I guess...

Eh, on a whim I went through ME3 soldier with base equipment and got reasonably far on whatever the hard mode is called Insanity I think? You can do it. It's just kind of dull.

It's even better if you open it up to uncommon guns (medium rarity). Then you get stuff like the Viper, Scimitar, Phalanx and Mattock. I actually used all of those more than the rare and UR guns overall, at least until I got finally found the really tasty stuff like Harrier and Acolyte.

And re: guns; The Mattock is a bad example. It's literally just a semiautomatic version of the best assault rifle in the game (the Harrier). It deals exactly the same damage and everything.

Agreed but you have this backwards. Mattock existed first (it was introduced in ME2), so it's more accurate to say the Harrier is an automatic version of the Mattock. Even fluffwise, that's how it is described - Cerberus taking the Mattock and modding it to be full-auto. The Argus is also a modded version of the Mattock.

[Dienekes]

Sorry for your loss, I guess...

If I may pose a question. What do you guys find so engaging about driving up and down ****ing hills?

Everyone agrees that the planet scanning in ME2 sucked. Why is the exact same concept suddenly welcomed with open arms just because instead of doing it in a fast way you're doing it much slower, and now you have to do it with worse controls?

Is it because the planet is pretty? Because that's the only reason I can think of. But if I wanted to admire a planet a 20 second panel shot upon landing would have the same effect and be much quicker.

[5ColouredWalker]

Spoiler: New Trailer

Show

What do you know? Looking at planets with a 2.5 Million year delay can be somewhat inaccurate.

Also been enjoying the song they used recently, which made me enjoy the trailer.

And finally, the Kett might be visitors as well with a... Less friendly plan for expansion. If I understood the trailer right.

[Squark]

Spoiler: New Trailer

Show

What do you know? Looking at planets with a 2.5 Million year delay can be somewhat inaccurate.

I had a similar reaction to the briefings, but analysis videos spotted a passage in them explaining the situation. I'll try to find the exact quote.

Right, transcribing from the video,

Spoiler: Explanation

Show

"Charting the Andromeda Galaxy for habitable planets presents a unique challenge. Observation is limited by light, and given Andromeda's distance, any observations from the Milky Way would are 2.5 million years out of date- enough time for a planet to have been altered irrevocably.

Initial attempts to identify settlement sites were made by obtaining asari astronomical surveys and running them through predictive models. But Jien Garson was unwilling to risk thousands of colonists without solid information.

Eventually, the initiative obtained promising data from quarian explorers who claimed to have found a geth array on the fringes on the Perseus Veil. This array was supposedly built from three mass relays, using sensors in the combined relay corridor as a form of FTL "telescope" to observe dark space beyond the galactic rim. Why the geth expended so much effort to study dark space is not known.

Amongst these observations where near-contemporary surveys of Andromeda. When our predictive models confirmed them within an acceptable margin, the initiative was able to begin indentifying "golden worlds.""

[Avilan the Grey]

And re: guns; The Mattock is a bad example. It's literally just a semiautomatic version of the best assault rifle in the game (the Harrier). It deals exactly the same damage and everything.

I don't use the Harrier because of roleplaying reasons.
I don't use the Mattock in ME3 because it's so severely nerfed.

My two favorite options for Soldier are either the Mattock 2.0 (the "true" Mattock of the game): The Sabre, or the Typhoon. The Typhoon is only viable if you are a soldier because it's so damn heavy, but you are basically playing in Easy Mode on every mode with it. If you don't have the DLC for it my second option would be Revenant, which is Typhoon JR.

[Siosilvar]

If I may pose a question. What do you guys find so engaging about driving up and down ****ing hills?

Everyone agrees that the planet scanning in ME2 sucked. Why is the exact same concept suddenly welcomed with open arms just because instead of doing it in a fast way you're doing it much slower, and now you have to do it with worse controls?

Is it because the planet is pretty? Because that's the only reason I can think of. But if I wanted to admire a planet a 20 second panel shot upon landing would have the same effect and be much quicker.

If ME1 had better Mako physics, fewer goddamn mountains, and denser content, I would have appreciated the exploration sections.

Finding **** laying around outside gave me the impression of a universe that was larger than my own actions. Outdoor spaces with multiple angles of approach gave sniper rifles their time to shine and provided more combat variety than the largely cramped, cover-littered maps in ME2 and ME3. And that view is so much more satisfying if you have to actually work your way to the overlook.

It's a tone difference. ME1 felt like a universe. ME2 and ME3 felt like a story. Both are good, but I'm hoping to get the same feel I got while playing ME1 for the first time.

[Psyren]

If I may pose a question. What do you guys find so engaging about driving up and down ****ing hills?

Everyone agrees that the planet scanning in ME2 sucked. Why is the exact same concept suddenly welcomed with open arms just because instead of doing it in a fast way you're doing it much slower, and now you have to do it with worse controls?

Is it because the planet is pretty? Because that's the only reason I can think of. But if I wanted to admire a planet a 20 second panel shot upon landing would have the same effect and be much quicker.

All right - before I say anything else, please note that I'm merely answering a question you asked, so hopefully you won't try and tell me my preferences are wrong.

First off, I like it better because of all the benefits that come from actually being in the world. With scanning I couldn't hear any banter from my squad, which is one of my favorite aspects of any Bioware game. I also couldn't come across any combat encounters - no enemy outposts that can be approached from a variety of angles, no tripping over a thresher maw or having a Colossus drop on my head and suddenly get thrown into a life-or-death fight. There are always monsters that reach near-legendary/memetic status for this - e.g. the High Dragon fights in DAI or the Giants in Skyrim. I also couldn't find any sidequests, secrets, easter eggs etc. At best scanning can give you brief gags like "probing Uranus" - but nothing substantial, nothing that your (or you) party can comment on.

Second, traversal can be inherently engaging. The Hammerhead for instance was just fun to blaze around in, and even had things like ramping challenges, or racing through an ice planet before you froze to death, or escaping from an erupting volcano. And finally, yes, the aesthetics of our surroundings do play a role; I don't think at all that a 20 second panel shot would have the same effect. Again, that might suffice for you, but it would not for me.

What I hated about the Mako was not the need for exploration itself; many of the worlds were gorgeous (Casbin <3 <3 <3 ) and having even the tiny maps we got there made the galaxy feel far larger than any amount of running a scanner slowly over different-colored balls did. What I hated about the Mako was how it handled, and the Nomad is set to change that - albeit with some of its functionality gated behind in-game paywalls. What I expect is that a fully-upgraded Nomad will feel like a blast to drive - scaling steep cliffs, turbo-boosting down valleys, and able to range far and wide with minimal outposts.

Ninja'd by Siosilvar.

I don't use the Harrier because of roleplaying reasons.
I don't use the Mattock in ME3 because it's so severely nerfed.

My two favorite options for Soldier are either the Mattock 2.0 (the "true" Mattock of the game): The Sabre, or the Typhoon. The Typhoon is only viable if you are a soldier because it's so damn heavy, but you are basically playing in Easy Mode on every mode with it. If you don't have the DLC for it my second option would be Revenant, which is Typhoon JR.

I assume that RP is to not repurpose anything made by Cerberus. (Despite having a Cerberus-developed AI on your Cerberus-built ship, that is.) To each his own of course

Saber was my favorite too. Single-player was the only place I could really enjoy it though. (Stupid ultra-rares...)

I had a similar reaction to the briefings, but analysis videos spotted a passage in them explaining the situation. I'll try to find the exact quote.

Right, transcribing from the video,

Spoiler: Explanation

Show

"Charting the Andromeda Galaxy for habitable planets presents a unique challenge. Observation is limited by light, and given Andromeda's distance, any observations from the Milky Way would are 2.5 million years out of date- enough time for a planet to have been altered irrevocably.

Initial attempts to identify settlement sites were made by obtaining asari astronomical surveys and running them through predictive models. But Jien Garson was unwilling to risk thousands of colonists without solid information.

Eventually, the initiative obtained promising data from quarian explorers who claimed to have found a geth array on the fringes on the Perseus Veil. This array was supposedly built from three mass relays, using sensors in the combined relay corridor as a form of FTL "telescope" to observe dark space beyond the galactic rim. Why the geth expended so much effort to study dark space is not known.

Amongst these observations where near-contemporary surveys of Andromeda. When our predictive models confirmed them within an acceptable margin, the initiative was able to begin indentifying "golden worlds.""

Is there any physics problem the Mass Effect doesn't solve?

And now we can see how the Quarians ended up getting a spot on the initiative despite all the racism.

[warty goblin]

If I may pose a question. What do you guys find so engaging about driving up and down ****ing hills?

Everyone agrees that the planet scanning in ME2 sucked. Why is the exact same concept suddenly welcomed with open arms just because instead of doing it in a fast way you're doing it much slower, and now you have to do it with worse controls?

Is it because the planet is pretty? Because that's the only reason I can think of. But if I wanted to admire a planet a 20 second panel shot upon landing would have the same effect and be much quicker.

I don't know for sure that I will find driving around in Andromeda engaging, haven't played it yet. And I don't generally find traveling in games to be the best part. It does however offer a few advantages:

1. Pacing. Traveling between things to do offers a bit of a breather between murdering faces, talking to people, etc, while being (generally) slightly less boring than a cutscene.
2. Continuity. Driving from A to B means I know how A and B relate to each other and fits them into a continuous whole, rather than two different sound stages floating in the aether you travel between via loading screen.
3. Approach vector. This admittedly depends heavily on how the game plays and how the level is designed, but if I'm attacking a location, choosing how best to move in on it can matter. It can also force a need for some planning of routes in order to acquire resources for a particular mission.
4. Random stuff happening. Space + dynamic systems = things you didn't plan on and are difficult to anticipate because they aren't scripted.

All of which, if done well, can both make a game a lot more freeform, and considerably more immersive. Far Cry 2 does this very well for one example. Driving about gives you a rest between the constant murder, situates locations in a larger landscape that over the course of the game you come to know and understand, which feeds into how you choose routes and plan missions. Occasional random attacks mean that things can go pear shaped in weird ways, and the steadily increasing lethality of the combat forces you to evolve your own tactics to match. It's not that driving around is super-fun taken in isolation, it's that it acts as a glue that holds a whole lot of other things together, all of which make for a good game.

The downside for me is that games tend to be so paranoid about having empty space that they pack them full of stupid mapclutter nonsense - like, say, crafting materials. It's not that I want to spend fifteen minutes driving around with nothing happening, it's that throwing loads of collectables out there isn't something happening, it's just added busywork and cheap 'content'. Worse, it usually ties into this weird obsession modern games seem to have with making everything an unlockable, rather than just making a game I want to play in the first place.

[Squark]

I had a couple of problems with ME1's world design;

1) Visuals. Some planets were a bit better than others, but a lot of them were merely bland melanges of two or three colors.

2) Topography. Aside from the story planets, ME1's topography seemed very phoned in. Trying to scale mountain after mountain to get where you wanted to go was not enjoyable, and you don't even have the absurdity of doing it via equine that made it somewhat novel in Skyrim.

3) The Mako itself. An all terrain vehicle it was not, no matter what the codex said. It was difficult to tell what it could climb and what it couldn't, it turned poorly, and if you played on higher difficulties, it was made of paper mache, to the point of being more fragile than the player if they were using immunity or barrier. Plus, it had lousy physics, leading to long falling times and the feeling that you were driving a top heavy golf cart on the moon, not an IFV.

4) There were very few things to do on each world. Now if you just dropped us nearby the world quest, that wouldn't have been a big deal, but you frequently had to drive long distances with nothing to do or see.

As for ME:A addressing these features

1) The worlds now have actual terrain, which will make traversal more visually engaging.

2) While we'll have to wait for the game to be certain, by the looks of things Bioware has learned the merits of flatter topography. As long as Mountains have intuitive paths to be climbed, we should be good.

3) How the Nomad handles is going to make or break exploration. Bioware has to realize this, so hopefully they brought in somebody who knew how to make a good in game vehicle. Being owned by EA actually helps here, since I imagine they could borrow people from DICE, or at least shoot them an e-mail as needed. Switching to an Armored Personnel Carrier that the squad uses for cover instead of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that has to clumsily dodge every last rocket while aiming a poorly tracking turret should also help.

4) Making the worlds look better will and the vehicle drive better will help make getting from point A to point B more enjoyable, and it looks like the worlds are denser than ME1's "Square Kilometer with three points of interest". I've also seen claims that Bioware has tried to remove filler quests in favor of more engaging stories, but without playing the game its hard to say whether that's true or not.

So I guess I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic. The Nomad could turn out to be the spawn of Arkham Knight's Batmobile and the Mako, but from what we've seen Bioware has learned at least something from their mistakes.

Is there any physics problem the Mass Effect doesn't solve?

And now we can see how the Quarians ended up getting a spot on the initiative despite all the racism.

Assuming the array wasn't a Reaper creation that was misattributed (like the Relays themselves), it also gives them a way to bring the Geth back, either in this or future stories.

[Psyren]

3) How the Nomad handles is going to make or break exploration. Bioware has to realize this, so hopefully they brought in somebody who knew how to make a good in game vehicle. Being owned by EA actually helps here, since I imagine they could borrow people from DICE, or at least shoot them an e-mail as needed. Switching to an Armored Personnel Carrier that the squad uses for cover instead of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that has to clumsily dodge every last rocket while aiming a poorly tracking turret should also help.

They brought in the Need For Speed folks to help with the Nomad IIRC.

[LibraryOgre]

So, any bets on how they're gonna gouge us on DLC?

[Anteros]

So, any bets on how they're gonna gouge us on DLC?

At least one squad member and one weapon pack. Probably some sort of alternate vehicle.

At least 3 plot related DLCs. I'll have to see what the plot is before deciding on what they will be.

[Avilan the Grey]

I assume that RP is to not repurpose anything made by Cerberus. (Despite having a Cerberus-developed AI on your Cerberus-built ship, that is.) To each his own of course

Saber was my favorite too. Single-player was the only place I could really enjoy it though. (Stupid ultra-rares...).

Almost correct - Not using anything with Cerberus colors on it.
Which is why I never use that sexy DLC armor. Because Bioware couldn't be assed to recolor it.

[ImperiousLeader]

I think my go to weapon in ME3 was the M-77 Paladin, but I played an Engineer and was too busy firing off Overloads and laying down drones to bother with firing my gun much. Which is also why my Paragon Engineer looked liked a frickin' knight in shining armour, because he was. The Blood Dragon was the best for my class and for aesthetics.

[Psyren]

DAI had no DLC party members though. Not that I really care either way, but there's evidence that they don't need that particular carrot to make a sale.

I think my go to weapon in ME3 was the M-77 Paladin, but I played an Engineer and was too busy firing off Overloads and laying down drones to bother with firing my gun much. Which is also why my Paragon Engineer looked liked a frickin' knight in shining armour, because he was. The Blood Dragon was the best for my class and for aesthetics.

I used it on my Adept; I believe it was designed to be a biotiball uniform anyway.

[tonberrian]

I honestly have no idea what I was using. Some shotgun and... I wanna say an early sub machine gun that came from ME2. Had a clip size of 20. I dunno I was more about charging people and smacking them with biotic explosions.

[5ColouredWalker]

Spoiler: Explanation

Show

"Charting the Andromeda Galaxy for habitable planets presents a unique challenge. Observation is limited by light, and given Andromeda's distance, any observations from the Milky Way would are 2.5 million years out of date- enough time for a planet to have been altered irrevocably.

Initial attempts to identify settlement sites were made by obtaining asari astronomical surveys and running them through predictive models. But Jien Garson was unwilling to risk thousands of colonists without solid information.

Eventually, the initiative obtained promising data from quarian explorers who claimed to have found a geth array on the fringes on the Perseus Veil. This array was supposedly built from three mass relays, using sensors in the combined relay corridor as a form of FTL "telescope" to observe dark space beyond the galactic rim. Why the geth expended so much effort to study dark space is not known.

Amongst these observations where near-contemporary surveys of Andromeda. When our predictive models confirmed them within an acceptable margin, the initiative was able to begin indentifying "golden worlds.""

On one hand, we know why. They were looking for reapers.

On the other hand, it's now possible for the Geth and the Quarians to both be in Andromeda.

[Dienekes]

All right - before I say anything else, please note that I'm merely answering a question you asked, so hopefully you won't try and tell me my preferences are wrong.

Eh, I only really feel the need to point out something is wrong when it's about incorrect data, or, if we're arguing morality.

So don't worry, I won't try to tell you that you're dumb, and the video games you like are dumb, and you should feel dumb for having such dumb opinions. You dummy.

So the big reasonings given have been:

1) What I said, they like looking at the scenery.

2) The freedom to initiate combat encounters in varying ways.

3) Free time to listen to dialogue

4) The feeling of an expanded universe

5) Random Encounters

6) Driving challenges

And that's fair. If I may give my opinion on them.

1) Scenery: I really don't. For example, I have played through ME1 at least 6 times now, I could not tell you which planet was Casbin if you put a gun to my head. I vaguely liked the lava one, because I'm a child and think lava is cool. Same is said for every open world game I've played.

2) Combat Freedom: Now this is interesting, because I do also enjoy the freedom to plan out combat encounters. But for me that's the difference between starting 1 mile away from the combat encounter, and starting 20 miles away from the combat encounter. I'm ok starting a mile away, get the layout of the encounter, and plan out where I'm going to attack. I am not ok starting 20 miles away and waiting to get there.

3) Dialogue: That's fair, Bioware companion dialogue is a huge selling point. Now interestingly, we can theoretically get that with the scanning planets thing, as shown by DA:I's orders map where you heard Lelliana, Collen, and Josephine bickering. You could in theory do the same, but, I agree it is less conducive to that than sitting in a car together. Personally, I'd rather just have more points of conversation within any given mission.

4) Expanded Universe: You have me here. Open worlds definitely feel like a bigger universe. It's just not something that actually appeals to me. If I'm told we're on a planet, I can safely assume that we're on a planet.

5) Random Encounters: Now, this is a mixed bag for me, since going back to DA:I the single most exciting combat encounter I had in the entire game was because of random crap piling up. First I was fighting bandits, then wolves showed up midfight, then a freaking bear charged in. It was hectic. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happened exactly once, and could have been done by having patroling enemies during a normal mission to have the same effect. Other than that, I don't really see much a difference between a random encounter and a mission encounter.

6) Driving Challenges: Hate them. So, not much to say on that one. They're usually some variation of a Mario jump challenge or block puzzle but with less responsive controls to make it feel like you're driving a vehicle.

But, at least I have my answer. Thanks folks.

So, any bets on how they're gonna gouge us on DLC?

It's Bioware, so, probably a companion that is vital for understanding the plot. The True Ending DLC that links the game to the next one. And the undisputed best mission/planet DLC that has everything the players obviously wanted in a mission but was only actually done in this 1 DLC.

I think my go to weapon in ME3 was the M-77 Paladin, but I played an Engineer and was too busy firing off Overloads and laying down drones to bother with firing my gun much. Which is also why my Paragon Engineer looked liked a frickin' knight in shining armour, because he was. The Blood Dragon was the best for my class and for aesthetics.

I'm pretty sure I used every weapon in the campaign at some point. But honestly, there was always something just fun with The Revenant. I'm a simple man, and there was a lot of dakka in that gun.

Unfortunately, because of the weight system and because I wanted to use abilities from time to time, I usually limited myself to only 1 or 2 of the cool guns with each loadout. Which is a pity, I'd totally have had my soldier decked out in every high powered gun imaginable, only that made my Adrenaline Rush take a minute to get off cooldown or something ridiculous.

[Squark]

It's Bioware, so, probably a companion that is vital for understanding the plot. The True Ending DLC that links the game to the next one. And the undisputed best mission/planet DLC that has everything the players obviously wanted in a mission but was only actually done in this 1 DLC.

1) Javik is the only companion who vaguely fits that description (Shale, Kasumi, and Zaeed, not so much), and while he adds a sense of scale to the conflict, most of his dialogue comes down to Ultra Renegade meets "In my day" old man. Not to say he's bad, but the way you describe it seems more like if Solas in DA:I was dlc.

2) Trespasser and Arrival, okay. Granted, although design choices and time cramp retroactively removed that status from Arrival. On the other hand, are we saying we don't want post-game DLC ever? Because I don't see that much difference between Trespasser and Throne of Bhaal aside from the latter being on a cd-rom.

3) uh, you've lost me here. I mean, good DLC generally feels better tuned than the original game, but I think that's the development team learning from feedback on release.

[Dienekes]

1) Javier is the only companion who vaguely fits that description (Shale, Kasumi, and Zaeed, not so much), and while he adds a sense of scale to the conflict, most of his dialogue comes down to Ultra Renegade meets "In my day" old man. Not to say he's bad, but the way you describe it seems more like if Solas in DA:I was dlc.

2) Trespasser and Arrival, okay. Granted, although design choices and time cramp retroactively removed that status from Arrival. On the other hand, are we saying we don't want post-game DLC ever? Because I don't see that much difference between Trespasser and Throne of Bhaal aside from the latter being on a cd-rom.

3) uh, you've lost me here.

1) Was meaning Javik. Though, I definitely like Javier better. Now I feel that the Prothean should speak with a deep Spanish accent, and call my Shepard senior. I also should have said companion or mission that is vital for understanding the plot, which brings in Return to Ostagar and Leviathan.

2) Trepasser for DAI, Arrival for ME2, and Legacy for DA2. You could make an argument that Citadel was a true ending for ME3, but I won't push that one. It fits much better in the next category.

3) Best mission DLC: Lair of the Shadow Broker (best combat mission by far), Citadel (best character mission, finally saying goodbye to your companions which every player wanted), Jaws of Hakkon (easily the most interesting map of DAI).

[Zevox]

@ six-wheel drive: It allows them to organically gate off certain areas. They can put more difficult baddies or challenges on top of steep cliffs, and then you can choose how quickly or slowly you upgrade your tank to get up there.

That would make a lot of sense if this were, say, a platformer like Mario or Yooka-Laylee. In a sci-fi game where you routinely travel in spaceships and wear a jetpack as standard equipment? Not so much. And if this vehicle is going to get nearly as much use as they make it seem, forcing you to unlock features that make it actually work decently with the areas they've designed is going to be very annoying.

Spoiler

Show

About the same reason they don't have a robot do all the shooting for you. Watching an AI do stuff may be a realistic view of the future, but it's a really crappy game.

Spoiler

Show

And toggling a mode on once and then never having a reason to switch it off is a better game somehow? Or heck, even if they included a reason why you would switch it off, I don't see how that makes anything better - what the heck is the point to including basically shifting gears in something that isn't a racing game or the like completely built around driving? It just seems thoroughly pointless.

Don't I know it. First Zelda game I'm not going to bother even playing.

I feel you there. I'll try it (as a rental) anyway, but having watched some footage of it on Youtube, my pessimism knows no bounds.

Seriously, the only good "open world" games I've enjoyed for their explorative experience was Dark Souls 1 and Arkham City. Because the open worlds were contained and the part of the game I was actually interested in happened every few steps.

I don't even think of Dark Souls as an open-world game, honestly. It's basically a series of stages connected together. There's relatively little that you won't have to go to for the purpose of completing the game (barring one area I can think of with a back-door shortcut), and not much of that is too much off the required paths.

But yeah, the Batman: Arkham games have largely done this pretty well too. Soaring above the city via cape-glide plus the zipline grapple Batman gets makes things pretty bearable in those. Especially in Arkham Knight, where the Batmobile can be called at any time and can catapult you into the sky to get you going pretty dang quick.