The merits of Sequels

Question

Another random topic from me today, was listening to a video from a youtuber called HiddenXperia and he put out a good point about changes made across sequels in his video about Elden Ring being a wake up call to the industry.

In short, he draws attention to the idea that games that stick to their core gameplay and build upon it can often achieve great success by honing their skillset and bringing their game closer to perfection with each sequel. Specifically noting how Bloodborne, dark souls and elden ring were all succesful but you could see the success rising with each improved iteration from the developer.

Comparing this to games where a sequel is significantly different from previous entries because it is trying to keep up with the current trends in games rather than perfecting what it already has.

This has me considering what Sid Meier has said numerous times about the civilization franchise, they dont completely overhaul it with each sequel, they change just enjough for it to be unique but retain enough to be familiar. The 33/33/33 rule, 33% of the game should be established systems, 33% should feature improved systems and 33% brand new mechanics.... i guess the missing 1% is the bugs they iron out and the features they delete? point is, 33/33/33 rule.

Ok disclaimer before this next part, I liked the 2nd half of Andromeda, just took some getting used to, so this isn't meant to be a hate session!

Now to draw this all back to Mass Effect. The first 3 games i personally believe nailed this, a few improvements, a few completely new features and a few things basically untouched. Then i bring up Andromeda, it was SO DIFFERENT. Could feel it immediately. They brought in the new and improved vehicle, they tried to make a enormous galaxy with dozens of worlds, they removed the combat wheel (still the biggest mistake, BRING IT BACK (or at least optional), they added jumping which sounds minor but it completely changed the dynamic of combat and reduced the importance of cover. Then in dialogue they added the emotions to responses, setting up outposts on planets, a whole new set of enemies, the removal of class selection and how acquiring abilities worked.

You can see just from the things i've listed that the vast majority of the original trilogy was changed in some way. It made it hard to enter this game and say "ahhh mass effect, ive missed you". Instead it felt more like a new IP space exploration game with the ME logo slapped on it and the aliens carried across for dialogue. Basically entered Andromeda "oh I can jump, where TF is my combat wheel? What the, i dont have a class system?"

For ME5 which is early in development I personally hope some devs see this and consider Sid Meier's 33/33/33 rule. you know the saying, if it aint broke, dont fix it

1) I'm curious what other people think, did andromeda just change too much and it didnt pull together well? SHould it have changed more? Was it just fine but needed more time (for the love of god please no "crunch" or "rushed too early" comments).

2) Do you think ME5 should keep building on andromeda and try new things? Or try find a happy medium between new and old where Bioware can use their experience to craft a masterpiece?

sofajockeyuk · Answer

@freault&nbsp;wrote:
The biggest mistake of Andromeda was not allowing mass effect 3 save game,

What 'save position' would be required? They're in a different galaxy?&nbsp;🤔

sofajockeyuk · Answer

As loved as Mass Effect 3 is, a clone of it for Mass Effect 5 would not be welcomed.

Andromeda had the best gameplay of the series. The plot was solid if not ground-breaking.

The best sequels are a blend of old and new and I trust that will also apply to ME5.

fred_vdp · Answer

@SofaJockeyUK&nbsp;wrote:
Andromeda had the best gameplay of the series. The plot was solid if not ground-breaking.

I personally think that gameplay-wise it didn't improve as much as it got wrong. Jump jets are a point of discussion, and while I personally wasn't a fan, I see why others loved them. I think gunplay is an improvement. I do think there are a lot of minor issues that add up to make it a less enjoyable experience, such as "hold to interact" for everything, the ability limit, lack of squadmate commands, having the scan button on controllers be A/X when you're already using that thumb to move the camera, and so on. Just a lot of minor things, but ME3 had none of those problems. It felt much more polished.

mcsupersport · Answer

To me the combat of ME3 was janky compared to Andromeda, but the one thing ME3 got much better was skill number and classes.&nbsp; To me the fluid combat of Andromeda, the fast pace, the skill combos just really made a better combat system over any of the earlier games.&nbsp; What hurt Andromeda was the restriction of only 3 usable skills at a time and the lack of a class system.&nbsp; Having only three skill slots is fine for MP, where you play a round or 5 and then can change your class to another character, but to hocus pocus poof, you can be any class just hit a button kinda takes away from the character building element and also restricts story choices by class a bit.&nbsp; Having the ability to have 6+ usable skills but limit them to your class would in my opinion make a better game, it would also let you balance the skills a bit better and make combat more fun.&nbsp; I generally play Andromeda characters as their base classes from the original trilogy, ie Soldier, Adept, Infiltrator, and so on, as that feels more like Mass Effect to me.

To me the biggest issue of Andromeda is they forgot scale and progression.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I mean by this is the devs looked at the ME trilogy and said we have to go bigger to meet expectations and have more and more and more, totally forgetting that they were starting something NEW, in the ME worldset, but still NEW.&nbsp; Thus they really needed to compare the story and world building more to ME1 and not the trilogy.&nbsp; They needed less love interests, fewer teammates, a more concise story, and made something more on the scale of ME1 instead of trying to compete with characters developed over 3 games.&nbsp; Andromeda SHOULD have been set as the Nexus arrival in Andromeda and the subsequent actions including the failed colonization and uprising revolts, allowing you to influence those events and to be introduced to the new galaxy in a more restrained manor.&nbsp; The second game then could have been the current Andromeda with characters you already knew from the first rolled into the game and allowing less world building to have to happen since it was already done.&nbsp; Instead the devs tried to compete with the entire 1-3 trilogy, with all the various teammates and love interests developed over those games in a single game and it showed in the lack of development and too much stuff.

Mind you I have almost 900 hours in Andromeda and less than 200 in ME3....so take that for what it is worth.&nbsp;&nbsp;

freault · Answer

The biggest mistake of Andromeda was not allowing mass effect 3 save game,

Forum Discussion

The merits of Sequels

5 Replies

About Mass Effect Franchise Discussion

Recent Discussions

Possible Hidden Message in N7 Day Blog

Achievments not unlocked

Why removed hungarian language from mass effect 2?

Controller on Steam PC for Mass Effect Legendary

In ME3, I get the Communications Hub mission, but not the Fighter Base mission