After the release of BioWare the final installment from Mass effect of the 2012 trilogy, fans were breathlessly anticipating what might follow. Eager players were desperate to find out where the studio would take the franchise. The game they got –Mass Effect: Andromeda– it was, to put it mildly, a great disappointment. Instead of a direct sequel, Andromeda, formed five years after its predecessor, is located in a completely different galaxy. The aliens were familiar, but the environment and story were completely foreign. No one, to borrow a phrase, asked for it.
Looking back, it is easy to understand anger. But, honestly, the disappointment had everything to do with what the legions of buttons wanted and had nothing to do with whether the game developers managed to make the game they wanted to make. There were absolutely legitimate complaints –Andromeda was broken as hell when he came out, which made it difficult to enjoy. But the central argument seemed to be against it Mass Effect: Andromeda it was bad because it was not what people expected. Fans ’reaction to the game was so universally poor that BioWare canceled its plans to release downloadable additional content and diverted their attention to debugging. Frustration mounted; the players got caught or simply gave up.
Versions of this scenario have been played dozens of times, and not just in games. When something – a movie franchise, a band, a YA trilogy – is loved, fans are always looking for more. But they often do so with preconceived notions of what, in fact, “more” looks like, and it generally translates as “more of the same”. It is natural to wish for extra time with your favorite characters or to dance to a familiar rhythm, but lightning does not strike twice in the same place and the creators cannot help but grow and change. Second year students, Star Wars prequels, Andromeda– all these things become victims of the impossibility of anything to repeat the past, when it was fresh and new. There is a difference between finding entertainment disappointing and objectively bad. It’s okay to decide that something isn’t what you wanted and therefore isn’t for you; it is quite another to tell a person that he is wrong because he loves what has not met your personal expectations. Being a lover of something does not give you the right to dictate the course of your life forever.
For those who don’t know or haven’t played, Andromeda it is located approximately 600 years after the completion of the original trilogy in another galaxy. Between events in Mass Effect 2 i 3, a group of people left the Milky Way in cryostasis and embarked on a centuries-long journey to the Andromeda Galaxy. Of course, things went wrong and now it’s up to your character, Ryder, to help your troubled people find a way to survive. It’s not a terrible premise, but it was hard for the players who stuck to the original saga to forgive Andromeda because it is not a sequel Mass Effect 3. Everyone seemed to be still attached to their ex.
After publication Mass Effect: Legendary Edition, and on the trail of news that the next sequel to the series could be a sequel to the original trilogy along with Andromeda, I decided to visit that unfortunate title again. It turned out to be pretty fantastic.
Part of that, of course, is due to the fact that BioWare ironed out many of the game’s first moves. There are still mistakes, but the gameplay is enjoyable. The actors are amazing (Natalie Dormer and Kumail Nanjiani!), And the crew you hire during the game is solid, from Jaala, who is part of the alien species you have to conquer, to Vetra, the Turian mercenary who raised her sister. (Let’s not talk about Cora, whose fantastic hairstyle promises a lot, but it turned out to be a horror story about the appropriation of Asari.)
If you didn’t give the game a chance the first time you played, it’s worth visiting again. When you do, try to remember why Andromeda was so offensive. Was it objectively bad or just wasn’t what some fans wanted?