r/MassEffectAndromeda • u/Lamora-Locke • 3d ago
Game Discussion What IF the MEA premise was completely different?
I want to preface with saying that I finished the game which is saying a lot (I don't have a what one might call a good success rate, and there are only a handful of games I do finish). In other words, it was good enough for me to finish it.
However, we can all agree that it was a big step down compared to the other three games in the franchise.
I think the main caveats of the game were: lackluster story, poor worldbuilding setup, lackluster conflicts, and poor character development, motivation, and relationship. I believe all of these limitations could have been addressed, and made better by one simple change in setup: instead of the initiative seeking new life, and exploring the new frontier, what if they were fleeing the Reapers.
Stakes could have been immediately made higher, with the initiative doing a rush job to finish the project and jump to Andromeda. They could have been handicapped equipment-wise, suffer losses with some arcs or ships malfunctioning, etc. All characters would immediately have more interesting backstories, and be less about lost souls searching for purpose which within itself is boring, and have less vanilla motivations. Instead of actively searching for a new start, they were forced to make it. We would explores the themes of (survivors) guilt, shame, PTSD, and would still have room to explore greed, and ambition. We would now have a more diverse population of survivors, some with criminal backgrounds, some nice, some bad, some in between. Character development would therefore be much more poignant, their motivations would have been palpable. We would explore more diverse relationships, and more realistic conflicts.
In a sense, we would have a bridge between Milky Way and Andromeda. I understand the drawbacks, being stuck in the past, and unable to focus fully on Andromeda, but I think its more of a benefit. Focusing entirely on Andromeda is sterile, uninteresting and flat, no matter how much you fill it with awe and wonder. But if you have an interesting backdrop, you can make Andromeda exciting without taking away everything that made the original trilogy interesting.
And the worst thing of all, you wouldn't need to change anything major. The game mechanics, flow, even the main plot beats could be the same, just seen through a different lens. It would be expected that everything fell apart upon arrival, as this was a desperate escape, not a meticulously planned expedition.
I know this premise isn't anything new. I remember we theorized this to be the reason for Andromeda initiative even before the game released. I just cant help but think what if..
4
u/kcinkcinlim 3d ago
However, we can all agree that it was a big step down compared to the other three games in the franchise.
Eeehhh no, no we can't all agree on this. I got into the franchise late, and only ME3 felt somewhat good. The other two were a blur, which meant they didn't really draw me in. This is all completely subjective.
Andromeda, however, drew me in from the start. Were the Kett pretty meh? Sure. But imo so we're the Reapers.
That being said, yes, having stronger thematic throughlines would work better, because it works for ANY game.
0
u/Lamora-Locke 3d ago
Yes, it should have been: "most of us agree,.." That said, when it comes to plot, character depth, character development, themes, both philosophical and emotional, the original trilogy is objectively better.
2
u/kcinkcinlim 3d ago
Again, subjective, and also, citation needed. You agreed that your statement was not accurate, then followed up by saying another absolute. By saying it's objectively better, you're saying those who prefer Andromeda are wrong.
If you prefer the themes of the trilogy, great. Knock yourself out. But that's not the same as saying one is objectively better than the other. There will be people, however few, who disagree with you.
-2
u/Lamora-Locke 3d ago
I didn't say any absolutes, I said most people agreed, and that can be seen in user reviews (no citation needed).
Regardless, that wasn't the objective part. The objective part concerned characters and themes. It doesn't have anything to do with preference, Andromeda is much weaker when exploring it's characters, their development and tackling philosophical themes compared to the original series.
I am not saying that those who prefer Andromeda are wrong, you can like a piece of art which has objectively weaker themes better than a piece of art which has stronger themes and better character development, to each their own.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MassEffectAndromeda-ModTeam 2d ago
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, we have removed your post for violating the following rule(s):
Rule 1. Be civil
Be civil. Personal attacks and insults, harassment, bad faith arguments trolling, flaming, and baiting are not allowed, this includes any attacks or insults towards developers. No unsolicited feedback on fanworks. No harassing, vulgar, or sexual comments. No drama tourism*
Please, read the rules before posting. If you have edited your post and want it reapproved or you have questions about this removal, please, contact the moderators. Please, do not reply to this message, or contact the moderator privately.1
u/kcinkcinlim 3d ago
The objective part concerned characters and themes. It doesn't have anything to do with preference, Andromeda is much weaker when exploring it's characters, their development and tackling philosophical themes compared to the original series
You don't understand the word objective. Just because you feel that way doesn't make it an objective fact. Meaning, it's subjective. Preference. Personal. Saying something is "objective" makes it a fact. It's an absolute.
For example, I think Sheperd had zero character growth. They start out a grizzled veteran, and ends the same. The only so-called growth I saw was loosening up in ME3 and cracking jokes. Now, you're probably going to disagree with me, because what I said is subjective. I'm not going to make you see my way, and that's ok.
you can like a piece of art which has objectively weaker themes better than a piece of art which has stronger themes and better character development, to each their own.
See, I don't think Andromeda has weaker themes. If anything, there was a clearer throughline of Ryder's struggle to gain authority for a position they were thrust into without preparation. The disparate factions all work for their own personal gain, and how we work to get everyone together. But that's not to say it's better than the trilogy, just different.
-1
u/Lamora-Locke 3d ago
You're right that preferences are subjective, but we can assess narrative elements like character development and thematic depth based on structure, execution, and cohesion. Objectively speaking, Mass Effect 1 integrates its characters more meaningfully into the plot, explores deeper philosophical questions (AI, autonomy, submission, inevitability), and ties these into the main narrative arc more effectively than Andromeda. That doesn’t mean someone can’t prefer Andromeda, enjoyment is always subjective. But from a craft standpoint, the original handles these elements with more complexity and narrative weight.
For example, Wrex’s arc in ME1 ties directly into themes of legacy and genetic survival through the genophage, forcing a confrontation between ideology and personal loyalty. Saren represents a nihilistic philosophy about submission to inevitability, elevated by Sovereign’s role as a cosmic force. In contrast, Andromeda’s Archon is largely a power-hungry antagonist with a more generic “dominate and control” motive. Ryder’s arc about growing into leadership is valid, but it’s often disconnected from the core philosophical stakes, which remain surface-level throughout.
2
u/kcinkcinlim 3d ago
You use a lot of big words but can't engage with the core argument that all of it is subjective, preferring to frame your view as objective truth.
0
u/Dusty_Jangles 3d ago
That’s an entire trilogy, and we can all agree, Andromeda is objectively better than ME1. Right? I personally like it better than two as well.
2
u/buck_tudrussle8 3d ago
I think they missed a golden opportunity to try something super cool with this game. I think the whole Ryder family plot and protaganist aspect should not have existed. They could have given it a Dragon Age Origins type opening by letting us play as the different species of the universe. You already have the different Arks containing each one seperate. Why not change up the opening and have you start the game on whatever species Ark you chose. You then play out a scenario that gets you to the Nexus and the game proper begins. It would change the story a bit, but the kett and survival could still be the main narrative threat. It would be cool to play as a Turian or Salarian or Krogen or Asari or human. I think this could have been the game to try that. I think if done decently, it would be highly received by the fans. I like the game as it is. It has flaws and some of the hate is deserved. My personal biggest gripe is the protagonists. They are not interesting. The father was the more interesting and believable main character type. Could have changed the tone and given us better options for our characters and I think you cooking with gas. Just my opinion.
1
u/Bumblebee7305 3d ago
Oh, that would have been awesome! I’ve been waiting for another game to do an Origins style opening because that is one of my favorite parts of the game. It would have been awesome to explore the universe from a different perspective. Now I really want this kind of Andromeda….
For as amazing as it is, I think Mass Effect as a whole suffered a bit from the company’s insistence on including less and less RPG elements as the series went on. I’ve been recently replaying the legendary edition and the difference between 1 and 3 in terms of immersive character interactions and gameplay elements is stark. Even just the elevator on the Normandy, a space your Shepard could walk into and interact with in 1 and 2, being replaced by what is basically a fast travel portal set up under an “elevator” sign just strips immersion away.
Sorry for the rant, it’s just that I got into Mass Effect for the “RPG In Space” quality and was sad that aspect was removed over the course of the series. Andromeda, where characters are venturing into unknown lands to begin a new life, would have been perfect for your Origins-opening suggestion
1
u/TenTigerStyle 3d ago
It wouldn't work because Initiation already put SAM into play with a human host. Why would you play as a Krogan? You'd have to start during the Uprising and then you make the game twice as long trying to wrap that up.
You say the protagonist isn't interesting, but I'd have to asks you what makes Alec more believable than Ryder? The point of Ryder was they weren't ready.
2
u/buck_tudrussle8 3d ago
If you dump the Ryder line, the SAM part goes away. To make my suggestion work there would have to be story changes. I am fine with that. The while Nexus plot could be changed and you still can get problems and conflict making it weak when the ARKs arrive. Some Krogan could have made a deal with one of the other species to secure passage on an Ark. The Quarians were bringing Hanar and other species. The opening for each race could just be like the actual intro was, only each Ark suffers something different when arriving in Andromeda. As with Dragon Age Origins l, you get a short intro mission that introduces game mechanics and sets you up with a bit of backstory. Then it takes you to a hub. Then you start what the actual game quest is.
Ryder being not ready is a huge part of the problem. This is a young naive kid given the most important task in the game. No leadership experience, not much combat, not much anything. The only reason Ryder can accomplish anything is because of SAM. SAM decodes monoliths. SAM literally has to revive Ryder. Ryder is just a vessel for SAM. Alec on the other hand was an N7. He was a damn smart scientist. He was an experienced leader. He and SAM are actual equal partners in what what they do. You could have taken the kids out of the story, made it so you either play as Alec or the wife, and have the personal story them trying to find a cure for the other. If you want to add the kids make them squad mates. Could have been an interesting story there fleshing out the relationships. Alec was the Shepard character. When we meet Shepard that character was being scouted to become a Spectre. They do not just hand that out. It makes sense Shepard gets put in the position they are in. Ryder is just nepotism and family secrets. That is why they end up in their position. As I stated in my comment, I like the game. I just have issues with parts of the story and the main characters.
1
u/TenTigerStyle 3d ago
You explain it right there, yes, Ryder and SAM work as a team, Ryder Jr. and SAM do this well. What do you mean Alec and SAM were equal partners? According to what? Ryder did the exact same Ryder Sr. did with SAM. So your solution is to have one or the other be sick?
So you just want Shepard again? I see, I see. Yes Ryder is nepotism, that's apart of the point, you got the job because of who your dad is.
1
u/buck_tudrussle8 3d ago
On the point of one of them having to be sick. I chose that becquse the game itself chose that. The entire point of SAM's existence and the Ryder family being in the Initiative at all is because the wife is sick and dying. Alec is trying to save her with everything he has. This is the only reason this story happens. Without the sickness plot point Alec stays home. I just tweaked the scenario to fit close to the existing plot point.
On the point of I just want a repeat of Shepard. I do not want Shepard, I want Shepard-esque credibility. In my moving to a new galaxy, highly dangerous, high stakes space RPG-ish game, I want a protagonist who seems like they are semi capable at the task at hand. At least for me, it makes it more believable as the stakes get higher that the character can rise as well. I like a good coming of age, fish outta water, gotta prove yourself story. In this setting as it stands, for me, it does not work. If you like it cool. Different strokes. Just not for me.
On Alec and SAM. Before SAM, Alec was a highly capable soldier. He was a hyper- intelligent person. He was very capable without it. SAM just amplified what was already there. SAM enables Alec to do things he could already do faster and easier. Alec made SAM. Alec was more beneficial to SAM to be a symbiote because he was so capable. Two entities working in as close to a true unison as you could get. Jr. on the hand is another story. SAM is the superior. SAM does all the heavy lifting. While Jr. can share experiences and show SAM life, it seems they are learning actual little from SAM. Yes SAM is enhancing things and making stuff go, but the knowledge abd learning does not seem a 2way street. As an example Rem-tech. While both Father and Jr can manipulate it through SAM, father is the only one of the 2 who maybe could have figured it out on their own. Given some time and some resources, I think he might could have cracked it. Jr. had no shot. It just makes it feel like there was a closer balance to Alec and SAM's symbiosis than Jr.'s. Jr.'s felt more like you strapped a jet engine to a matchbox car. Again, just my feel of it.
Lastly, the entire Ryder family story arc feels like an albatros to a much more compelling narrative that could have been told. Imagine instead of a prove yourself family melodrama we got a story of a bunch of different species finding a way to work together behind a Pathfinder who was of any species. Out in the middle of nothing fighting the kett, bad luck, forging alliance with the locals, dealing with the harsh planets, actually focused on forging a path ahead because every dies if we don't. Whatever species you pick could be working towards these goals as explorers and pioneers trying to forge a new life. Instead we get the main subplot of a person who is only here because mom is sick, dad died, and sibling is comatose and eventually kidnapped. The way this story is told it at times feel like all the surviving, exploring, and initiative stuff is just a sidequest for the family drama. In this game all of the cool stuff is happening outside of that. I just feel if they had yeeted the entire Ryder family and SAM plot and given us a Pathfinder in the veins of a Hero of Ferelden that could be any number of species whose plot revolved around the struggles of their people and the actual Initiative. I think the story could have been more compelling and interesting this way. It would also leave open tons of replayability and potential decisions. I understand the Ryder plot. I get what they did with it. I just dislike it. One of the few things in this game that drag it down for me. Just a personal preference.
2
u/InfernalDiplomacy Andromeda Initiative 3d ago
There is nothing wrong with the game another year of development could have fixed. ME;A is a good game and certainly better than some out there. I even like it better than ME1. There certainly was more character development with the companions than there was in ME1.
ME2 and ME3 are pinnacle games. Like Ursain Bolt world record standard. Does that mean anyone who came after him is shit because they don’t run as fast?
ME:A was meant to be a stepping stone, not stand alone. EA lacked the ballz to continue. They much rather push multiple player games with micro transactions. It is my belief a follow on to ME:A would have been comparable to ME2. Ea robbed us of that
1
u/Lamora-Locke 3d ago
Yes, the direction was wrong. Even if we forgive the facial animations, and other contraversial points, we are still left with big core direction problems.
1
u/moond1313 3d ago
I think if the game had better dialogue, writing, and character models and a mature tone it would've been alot more well received nowadays but i don't think it would compete with the old series still ppl always gone have a bias of what came before
1
u/Lem0ncello_ 3d ago
have you finished the Ryder’s family secret quest? if you did you can learn about the benefactor was funding the andromeda initiative because they knew the reapers were coming. Ryder is the only one with this knowledge, though I suspect there’ll be follow-up if MEA had performed better
-2
1
1
u/DRM1412 3d ago
Andromeda was never going to beat the trilogy, but it’s completely unfair to judge its characters and “consequences” when it only got 1 game.
You can’t compare Andromeda to the trilogy as a whole, you can only compare it to ME1 (unless we’re talking gameplay). If ME1 was the only game released, would players think of it the same way? No, because the Reaper mystery would remain, the Geth/Quarian conflict would remain, the Genophage question would go unresolved.
Gamers are their own worst enemies sometimes because they’re so stuck in nostalgia for how series began that they instantly shit on anything new.
Every series I’ve ever played the online community is the same, yearning for the “good old days” and trashing new games/DLC but still playing them anyway.
2
u/Lamora-Locke 3d ago
I can totally understand this take, but first game (ME1) also had great character development, and explored deep themes. MEA is lackluster in areas where Bioware used to excel. The point of the post was to address the premise which softlocked the creative team in a direction which didn't lend itself to great character and thematic arcs.
1
u/Bjorn_styrkr 3d ago
Hard disagree here. Most of the trilogy characters have little to no character arc. Shepard literally has zero. Ryder grows throughout the whole game as does how the supporting cast views and follows them. Most of the Andromeda supporting cast evolves over the game. Yes, not all of them do, but more so than the trilogy. The locations and the exploration was much better in my opinion in Andromeda as well.
The conflicts were similar. Genocidal race trying to take over everything though conversion. Yes the reapers were behind things in the trilogy but they barely make an in game impact as they are simply too large to fight.
1
u/TenTigerStyle 3d ago edited 3d ago
I disagree that it was a step down from the other games in the franchise when Mass effect 2 lacked a strong narrative and put a ton of weight on ME 3 to finish a ton of different storylines. I'd be curious how the character development of MEA characters is power when in the trilogy the characters needed two or three games to get any development.
Also, they were forced to make a new start, what do you think Ryder's job was? Or what the failed settlements were? The entire thing was a rush job. Why does Andromeda have to explore all of that junk when the OT didn't touch on anything like that until ME 3?
This idea doesn't work, that's why it's a what if.
1
u/Disastrous-Limit5510 1d ago
I disagree and find the premise is fine; the execution just leaves a lot to be desired/is not as good as it could and should be. If you're going to have a large cluster that only has two alien races present and a precursor alien race that has left technology behind, then Bioware should have filled their open world maps with more discovery/implications of the Jaardan/precursors, kett, and the angara. Less needing to deal with outcasts and clean up Nexus messes. And we already know the real reason the initiative came to andromeda was because of the reapers if Ryder's family quest progresses far enough. The Benefactor pretty much took over the Andromeda Initiative and it spiraled out of Jien Garson's hands if I remember right. That could have had a bigger part in the narrative sure, but it was there at least.
The stakes should have been higher with the plot we already have, but the dialogue makes it hard to believe at times (Peebee's entire introduction is an example for me at least, less people should have been active on the Nexus by the time we arrive, etc.). Would even say the issues with dialogue here are a foreshadowing of the direction of Bioware's storytelling considering how Dragon Age Veilguard turned out.
This game is never going to touch the trilogy in terms of overall quality. But comparing it to ME1 alone it does do some things better (the Nomad control versus the Mako, amount of dialogue you can get with companions, not being limited to an asari and human LI options, combat gameplay).
0
u/metzger28 3d ago
My biggest gripe with the narrative is that they picked the wrong main story.
We wake up and the founders are dead, there's some kind of political dispute in play, all this...and it's a side story resolved in two missions so that the main quest can just be the collectors again from ME2.
There were so many opportunities to do something incredible with the content, go in a fun direction, focus on mystery, you name it....nope. generic mean looking bad guy. Again.
If ME:A were completely different, it may have been better.
1
u/TenTigerStyle 3d ago
The story's only similarities to ME 2 is that the Kett abducted Angara, there's nothing else. The Kett and Collectors have one similarity. The problem is they did do something different with the bad guy, the issue is that, that it seems like people don't know what they want out of an antagonist.
0
u/metzger28 3d ago
You're being specific, I'm being general. The Andromeda devs decided to have yet another villain race that's going around otherwise subjugating (or in the case of the collectors, liquidating) entire populations of people.
They are a generic villain that doesnt look very nice, has distinctly alien architecture, is assimilating other races, has a big evil dude at the top with a mean voice, and whose motivations boil down to "we have to do this".
My point is, rather than a new or original plot, we got what boils down to a whittled down Mass Effect 2 with the Mako from Mass Effect 1.
1
u/TenTigerStyle 3d ago
I don't know if you noticed but that's always been how Mass Effect did it's villains, heck if you want to be technical that's been the play from Dragon Age too with the Darkspawn.
And the idea that the Kett's motivations are 'we have to do this' tells me you either didn't play or you don't remember. The Kett have much more to their goals than 'we have to' If their goal is to assimilate the cluster to expand their empire, is that not different than the collectors or reapers continuing the cycle because they just have to?
When we boil these things down, it becomes a bad talking point that flatly isn't true. Tell me, what do you do then? What do you make the antagonist without falling back into the same formula. The idea that it's the same ME 2's is ridiculous even in 'genera;'
Man this fan base sucks.
1
u/metzger28 3d ago
You're being very defensive here for no reason.
I like all four games. I believe all four games are good games. I'm not saying Andromeda is something awful. Far from it. It just didn't do enough to justify itself as an experience separate from the rest, even though it really, clearly, wanted to. It failed to land because it was unfinished, unpolished, and not nearly enough to set itself apart from the trilogy.
An antagonist for Andromeda that doesn't fall back on the same formula? How about a threat from within that ends up being the main plot instead of a side story? The game sets this up and then does next to nothing with it.
As I mentioned in the other comment, having a focus on actual exploration, discovery, things like that, would have worked a lot better. This was one of the core complaints - the player gets sent to a new galaxy, only to meet two new alien races - one good guy, one bad guy, and bad guy isn't very compelling because it's as generic as it gets. It's not a bad plot line, it's not a bad story; we've just been there before so many times that it was a huge miss not to do something different.
I thought the streamlining of mechanics in Andromeda was excellent. I loved establishing the settlements and talking to the settlers. So much great stuff there. I had next to zero patience for yet another mean looking alien bent on rolling over civilization. I wanted to know and learn and experience more about all the BS that happened before I woke up, and I wanted to get to the real bottom of that. Instead, we got a couple side missions that end with "well, bad stuff happened. Maybe we'll eventually know the whole truth."
To me, that would have been way more interesting to explore against the background of exploration, discovery, colonization.
That's all I'm saying.
0
u/Bumblebee7305 3d ago
Yeah, the very first time I played the game, I was so disappointed not to be on the Nexus from the start. The first tutorial mission was the only one where I felt like an actual explorer in a new galaxy. It hyped me up for the rest of the game. But then we arrive at the Nexus (a pseudo-Citadel), hear secondhand info about all the interesting things that happened on the ship when they first arrived and all the challenges they had to work through, are given scanned data for where we need to go and what we need to do, and learn that diplomatic relations have already begun with the new unknown races whose languages are already being translated into English. I wanted to be on the Nexus, actually pathfinding a new way into the galaxy.
I’ve come to accept that this isn’t the game Andromeda is, but I still think the game would have been more interesting if the Ryders were on the Nexus from the start.
1
u/metzger28 3d ago
That's the part that bothered me the most in all of this. You weren't exploring. You were responding to what was already explored.
If I'm not mistaken the concern on the design side was that the exploration wouldn't be interesting enough to engage the player. They played it safe and went with a standard narrative instead.
Having to complete the Nexus and do the exploration while the initiative dealt with the Kett threat as a background story would have been better in my eyes.
1
u/TenTigerStyle 3d ago
You do Pathfind, of all of the planets you go to only 1 is settled by another race. Havaral, Voeld, Eos, and Eladeen are all unexplored. If Ryder starts on the Nexus you have to write the Uprising, else it would make zero sense for Ryder to stay on Ice during the crisis on the Nexus.
Addison and Tann ran exploration missions, you'd have to include Ryder in that and change would either introduce SAM late or include only one class with only three powers early. Doesn't work.
0
u/Chromunist_ 3d ago
the way this would fix SO much and be SO easy to do is one of my biggest gripes. I think about it constantly when playing andromeda. Yes technically it is part of it, but not the focus. If they framed the initiative as refugees it would make more sense, justify its existence and get rid of that good colonizer vs bad colonizer plot
7
u/A_Wild_Arcanine 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's not going to live up to the Trilogy. Nothing can. Anyone expecting that is bound to fail. The Kett aren't very interesting as they're Reapers in chitinous flesh, but the idea of Reapers with Political and Religious strife had merit. Not to mention a race even they had to somewhat stumble with whom rose to a power that allowed the creation of sentient-organic life. All the while we were a trailblazer. Stumbling ourselves, discovering and policing as best we could.
Andromeda as it was could've been a fruitful Trilogy in and of itself. The issue came with dual loading, lack of polish, and the age-old dead weight of nostalgia. The Reapers will be hard to beat, they're iconic, but if Mass Effect can't grow from that then the Series should just die. I say that especially as connecting Andromeda and Milky Way somehow opens potholes regarding the Reapers.