Viewed in a certain light, Bioware's history is one of over-corrections to various ways people dunked on the previous game: ME1 was dragged for its poor inventory UI and vehicle controls; ME2 has no inventory and the Mako's gone. DA2 was dragged for its copy-pasted environments and small-scale story; DAI is insanely huge and your character is chosen by God. ME3's ending sparked one of the biggest fan revolts in gaming history; in response, Bioware straight-up patched in a new ending, then set the next game in a completely different galaxy.

Given that Andromeda's reception has been kind of rocky, I expect the next ME game will address that in the most pointed, self-conscious way possible. What do you think we can expect the next game to look like then? Does Ryder come back, or do we get a new MC? Does it stick with Inquisition's open-world template, or do they pull it back in line with the OT? Is it a direct sequel to Andromeda, or do we go back to the Milky Way?

I guess the real question here is: what lessons do you expect Bioware to learn from Andromeda's reception? Not necessarily what you think they should do--though that's an interesting question too--but rather what Bioware, in your judgment, is likely to do in the face of criticism to Andromeda.

By not rushing it out for the end of a fiscal quarter hopefully

Haven't played Andromeda yet, but I have a feeling ME5's marketing is gonna lean more heavily on the general praise Andromeda's combat garnered than on promising a better story. Not that the actual game will be more shooter than RPG, but PR talking about Andromeda like a dev's learning opportunity doesn't sound confident enough.

A better story plus actual well written dialogues and accompanying voices to go with it would probably the best start.

I honestly don't know what I expect Bioware Montreal to learn. I'm sure EA and Bioware Edmonton aren't thrilled about how their AAA IP was handled, but what that leads to in terms of Bioware Montreal turnover and / or performance is anyone's guess. *shrug* I'm going to resist making a joke about how Montreal has "got this," out of sympathy.

Hearing the devs talk about this game made them seem pretty cocky. I remember in an interview when asked if this was going to take some aspects of DA:I, they just answered by saying "Well DA:I was game of the year and it's the same people working, so there's nothing wrong with that." Which makes sense, but also feels like they aren't willing to try anything new because they're comfortable with where they are.

If anything, I think some of the poor sales will translate to them that Andromeda didn't work unless they truly are arrogant and force an Andromeda sequel onto us. But I'd be really surprised if we get another game in Andromeda and I wouldn't put it passed them to just make a prequel to the original Mass Effect trilogy that is a squad based co-op shooter that builds from the combat mechanics of Andromeda since that seems to be the only thing that has been praised highly about this game.

That's a great question! Going along with what you said though about "over-correcting", I wonder if the biggest change will be taking the development of the next Mass Effect out of Montreal? Or, my personal hope, they hire, Drew Karpyshyn, to write the next one.

They heard how much people hate travelling between planets so it will be set in one place. (planet Ryder) And how the voice acting and facial animations arent great so the story will be told via item descriptions souls style. I honestly wouldnt be surpised if they did a Destiny and made a faux MMO. (RIP KOTOR)

I enjoyed Andromeda despite it's obvious flaws but like you said Bioware wont learn the right things from it's failure or they will but thanks to EA wont be able to execute on them.

I believe we will see Andromeda 2 and we will play as Ryder again.

The best thing BioWare did was not spill all Andromeda galaxy's secrets in one game, they've left a lot of questions up in the air that need(?/would be interesting to learn) answering and hopefully they can use that to build a more engaging story.

Plus there's still more for the initiative to build before Andromeda is in line with the Milky Way, a Citadel Council etc.

The most obvious thing to use as an experiment before they start work on the sequel is DLC, namely finding the Quarian arc and bringing the Quarians, Volus, Hanar, Drell & Elcor to Andromeda

Make sure there sequel is handled by there A team next and hire some better writers there last couple of games haven't had the best writing...

My guess? Cancel it.

Did Andromeda actually sell? (Will there even be a sequel?)

The Pathfinder's armor will be color coded according to the ending you picked. Blue, red or green.

By making a better game, hopefully.

@dgtlty: We'll never know actual numbers outside of sales figures released by EA themselves. Anyway, that we're getting another Mass Effect game, probably within the next 2-3 years, is just something I'm taking for granted. There's no way EA lets the IP go dormant after one divisive game.

I expect that they'll learn to not make another ME game. That franchise is pretty toxic now.

While I see why you, as an outside observer, would see those 3 instances as a pattern of BioWare's behaviour, I suspect a BioWare insider would have a very different view of each of those scenarios. At the very least, I think there were probably very different factors that led to each of those sequels being different from its predecessors, and I don't think those three paint a picture of BioWare being this company that backpedals on game ideas when they are received negatively. The Mass Effect 3 ending does give that impression of backpedaling, but I don't see the other examples as being the same.

ME1 was a very new type of game for them. Their two prior games, KotOR and Jade Empire, were much closer to traditional RPGs, with some concessions to make them playable on consoles. ME1 was the big experiment for them, between the focus on realtime third person shooting, having environments big enough to explore with a vehicle, having a branching storyline/character development that was going to stretch into future games in a way that was more complicated than KotOR. They tried a lot of stuff in a weird new RPG shooter genre that was still being defined, so it was inevitable that some stuff was going to work, and some stuff wasn't going to work and wasn't going to make it into the sequel. Various devs on Giant Bomb streams and podcasts have said something along the lines of "any feature that gets criticized by the press/fans as not totally working or being half-baked, trust me, the dev team is probably well aware that it wasn't super great when they shipped the game but they had good intentions for the feature in preproduction and that was the best they could do with it by the time it shipped." So the part where upon the release of ME2 they had stripped down the inventory bloat and Mako from ME1, I don't see it as a reactionary move on BioWare's part; they probably knew that those features were clunky and not great without having to hear it from the press, but they were too far along in production to strip them out entirely without the game seeming odd. In making ME2, one would assume they decided to just focus on what did work from ME1 and double down on it.

DA2 seems like a case where I suspect a bunch of EA management got shuffled around between DA2 and DA:I, leading to those projects getting greenlit under very different circumstances. Dragon Age: Origins was in development semi-hell forever, but it had a long time to gestate and came out the other end as a pretty big game. DA2 had a much shorter dev cycle, and everything about the recycling of wilderness environments and conveniently setting most of the story in this one city that you just see over and over at different periods of time (remind you of Majora's Mask much?) smacks of "this project had not enough time and not enough money", and the devs had to cut corners significantly when it came to generating environment art for the game. DA2 seemed like a product of EA trying to push BioWare to produce a DA game with a short turnaround time and somewhat smaller scope/scale, and it was just a bad idea from the beginning. I can't imagine that the fantasy nerds who work at BioWare (which I mean very affectionately), who were inspired by The Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire, wanted the numbered sequel to DA:O to be this very constrained, unepic tale of politics within this one fantasy city. Everything about DA2 seems like business got in the way of BioWare creating a good Dragon Age game. So I don't see that one as being an overcorrection, so much as it is the publisher realizing that DA2's style of DA game was a bad idea, and giving BioWare a longer leash to make DA:I more in the vein of DA:O but with slightly more of an open world bent, as that has continued to be very popular in a post-Fallout 3, post-Skyrim game industry.

I will agree that ME3's patched ending is an unprecedented bowing to fan pressure. I think it damaged BioWare's image considerable, because it makes it look like they didn't really believe in the creative vision of what they originally shipped. It's one thing to significantly patch bugs or rebalance gameplay, but patching a story so shortly after release is still an incredibly rare move. That one definitely goes along with your thesis that BioWare is quick to respond to fan reactions, but I don't think the other examples you gave are really the same thing.

Bioware: "And we're excited to announce Mass Effect: Sombrero, an all new adventure in a new galaxy set 600 years after the Pathfinder mission in Andromeda!"

I want a new Dev team to make the sequel I haven't played the game yet but the characters seems so lame they remind of awkward teens.

The characters are kind of the best thing the game has going for it, apart from good bits nearer the end

Mass Effect: Voyager, with the deluxe version being "Andromeda and The Ending to 3 Never Happened" Edition.

But seriously, like a said in a thread similar to this, just actually put the work in and not rush things with automated tools and a possible sequel should be fine. Though at this point looking at what everyone else is saying, I'm getting the feeling that the biggest compliment that a Mass Effect to come after this will be "At least it's better than Andromeda."

I believe they could stick with and improve the existing crew and galaxy. It would be cool if they focused on the colonization a little more and created a lot more choices based around dealing with the different environments and settlements. I suppose you still need a grand threat to lean the combat side of Mass Effect on so perhaps there's no escaping that fact. But maybe something smaller scale could prove more interesting. It would be nice to see a more concise approach to interactions and quests like the first trilogy. Spend less time making dozens of throw a way quests(looking at you Dragon Age Inquisition) and create fewer but deeper and more engaging stories. Maybe the biggest problem lies in the scale of the Andromeda Initiative itself. Its not just Shepard and his crew vs. the Reapers, its a whole galaxy of problems and people with problems. Now that the framework is in place it will hopefully give Bioware a chance to sit back and really flesh it all out.

exactly, take your damn time. i'm totally willing to wait until it's ready.

Most of the dialogue about that game has been about the bugs and weird animation, because that's a very easy thing to pick on without playing that game. I think it's safe to assume that's probably what they'll focus on when developing the next one.

What I'd like them to do is work on the pacing more than anything, and maybe find a way to highlight the more important side quests. There's some genuinely cool stuff in that game buried under so many layers of menial shit. Like I fought a giant sand worm robot thing that was completely optional, and not required for beating that game at all, but it was a totally rad boss fight. I would not have known that boss fight existed unless I went in there trying to knock out every objective in my mission log, and I only got to it after 30 missions of 'go find this guy on the other end of the map and talk to him for 30 seconds'. It's a bummer that there's just so much filler ass stuff, surrounding some actual great, poignant Mass Effect moments, that most people probably will not see.

I don't really hate the story as much as other people, so I'd definitely like to see Ryder and the crew back in some capacity. I think a lot of people look back at the original Mass Effect with rose tinted glasses, because I barely feel like you get any more of a sense of who those characters are in that first game than in Andromeda. Comparing the new characters to characters they've had 3 games to develop is kind of unfair, and I'm genuinely interested to see what they end up doing with those guys. The story seems pretty cool to me too? Like it seemed like a long episode of one of the spinoff Star Trek series, which I was down for. I understand that people don't really get an impression of either, because the pacing is not great.

@loamlife: Andromeda just kinda stops, in a way a tv show episode might. It has a small conclusion, but most all the big mysteries are left hanging. The ending isn't even season finale level.

Man I just had a very depressing lecture about game industry jobs and, I'll be honest here, it doesn't sound like consumers willing to wait longer would make a lick of difference to the investors/people in charge. They'll probably just make everyone crunch twice as hard to fix this stuff next time, if there is indeed a "next time" for Mass Effect.

Give me a game set back in the Milky Way, where the only reference to Andromeda is a party being thrown because those losers are finally out of the galaxy.

My one wish is that they return to the nitty-gritty socio-political detail that permeated the original trilogy. If you tried to describe the universe of the original trilogy in a single sentence, it's pretty hard, if not impossible to do because of the sheer volume of information and detail that was added. That stuff really helped sell the universe they were creating.

By comparison, there's such a lack of detail in Andromeda that you can sum up the game world in a single sentence: "A bunch of hipsters go on a 600-year road trip to Space Tibet."

Fair enough. Although if the game is going to get pushed out no matter what, then I might restate the problem as "more effectively manage the scope of your project." When you think about things, it's sort of amazing this game got made the way it did. I mean, BioWare basically told a team making their first full game:

"Here's this universe beloved by fans. Now make a massive, sprawling, open-world space opera with compelling characters and tons of stuff to do, using an engine the series has never used before. And you have to set it in another galaxy. By the way - include multiplayer. Oh, and sorry we sort of poisoned the well with the ending of the last game. Some people might still be pissed about that. Have fun! And don't fuck up!"

By turning it into a multiplayer only franchise. Or a MMO like old republic.

People seem to forget that this game is developed by the Bioware C-team. Can't really see a future where we get a new Mass Effect game within the next decade. However, if I'm wrong, I'd be pretty impressed if they went from a ME1 to ME2 situation. Considering how poor a lot of aspects of ME1 were, it's pretty astonishing that they built one of the best games ever on top of that.

i think the reality is that Bioware has their lessons learned in terms of technical chops and working with frostbite...the animations, scripting, and performance will likely be improved. but i imagine the writing and story will remain mediocre- that's an aspect of the game you can't really sell in youtube clips.

EA should be licensing the IP out- conflicts and industry relations notwithstanding, i would love to see what a firaxis (turn-based), paradox (grand strategy) or a competent RTS (think something like dawn of war) dev would do. but that will never happen.

Oh yeah, video games have always been a shit industry to work in as a developer. It's gotten worse over time, if anything. Apart from companies seeing you as disposable once whatever project they hired you for is done, you can toss any semblance of work-life balance out the window along with dreams of being paid a competitive wage.

I'm very interested to see if they hire some new animators.

Re-unite team Bondi and have them do faces. Hire Alastair Reynolds to write them some decent sci-fi. Teach their programmers to script cutscenes properly. Hmm. Maybe just hand the franchise off to competent developers entirely.

Even though this one was rough, I still enjoyed parts of it; which makes me hope that we do get an andromeda 2. As much as the last two Me games garnered negative word of mouth, I still want the series to stick around. Please get your shit together Bioware. I want to love again.

What sequel? Do you really think they would make another one after what happened to 3 and Andromeda?

Same shit, different day.

I heard that EA Edmonton is busy making Star Wars KOTR Reboot thing, so that's why this one was done by Montreal. Le sigh.

Let's see if it gets a sequel. Wouldn't be surprised if they shed the Andromeda branding and baggage unless their post-release support really colors the perception of the game by the end of it.

From what it seems, they had the time. The use of it wasn't the best.

Team Bondi's face tech was super limited and at this point, outdated when it comes to full body animation.

@vonocourt: maybe i shouldn't go back to that game as i remember the facial animation was stunning.

it's sad we don't live in a perfect world where people are willing to wait, both on the business and consumer side of things. coupled with poor management this seemed doomed from the start. i think it will get closer to where it should have been in the end. maybe not DA:I level of good, but close. no amount of patching would really fix the seemingly drab characters (one of the things that bolstered DA:I imo). EAV/Bioware seem to be listening, but i think this game may be successful enough anyway that they won't care too much in the end, or apply the lessons to the next game.

Brad seemed pretty adamant that he was told Mass Effect Andromeda was a self-contained story and wouldn't be getting a sequel long before any of this bad press. The main Bioware teams (i.e. Edmonton who did the original trilogy) are working on a completely new IP (and have been since 2012).

The only "Bioware" you'll see make another Mass Effect game is whoever EA feels like slapping the moniker on.

Having gotten further in the game over the past couple days... I really hope this is a one-off thing that gets a fitting conclusion via DLC. I've only experienced a sizeable litany of minor, immersion breaking glitches and bugs (no hard crashes or utterly broken scenes... yet), but even if all of these things were fixed and patched out of the game... the story is so bland, the characters so uninteresting, the majority of quests so uninspired and insipid, the writing so bad, and the jank so persistent (on even minor things that you couldn't possibly foresee as being janky. Press M to view the map, and then escape twice to get out of the map and back to the game. Why? Why not just press M a second time to leave the map? Did you press the window key to go over to Edge/ Firefox / Chrome and read a wiki about what skill mod to take? Now the game is in windowed mode unless you go to settings, select video output, switch a variable from fullscreen to windowed back to fullscreen, and then accept the changes. Why? What the heck happened to this game?) that I still wouldn't recommend this game unless you're playing it, like I am, to grumble about at schadenfreude "watercooler" office chats.

Don't try to build a trilogy on a subpar, mediocre, poorly conceived and implemented foundation. That's a recipe for failure. If anything, I think EA should pull an Assassin's Creed: Unity here. Specifically, that game was supposed to be the start of a new trilogy, came out as a buggy mediocre mess, and guess what... no trilogy. Instead they shifted gears to Assassin's Creed: Syndicate (which I personally thought was an infinitely better game with a better combat system, much improved stealth, and much better characters / writing) and made AC: Unity a one-off. Granted, Syndicate didn't do as well as expected sales-wise, but that was less a mark against the game's quality and more an indicator of the lingering damage AC: Unity had done to the franchise and consumer good will.

They won't get to. At least for a while.

By killing off the series just like how they ceased Jade Empire. Even though Jade Empire was much better than Andromeda.

People act like this thing would've been great if they just had more time to polish it. Some of the biggest Mass Effect fans around struggled to find anything interesting to say about Andromeda. It seems so uninspired, bland and boring. Honestly, I would've bought this game if people only had issues with the bugs and faces. I can stomach a rough game if the story and gameplay are any good. The problem is, the story, characters, gameplay and world building sound aggressively mediocre.

They had years and a huge team to make this game. All Mass Effect games were rushed on a deadline and they all had something great going for them. Andromeda doesn't.

The desire to end the series in Andromeda's wake I can mostly understand. But I'm surprised at anyone who believes in even the remote possibility that will actually happen. Bruised though it may be, Mass Effect is a valuable IP that EA will not be eager to abandon, certainly not after one bad game. Two, maybe.

We are absolutely getting another Mass Effect, guys. I'd even expect it to be a direct sequel to Andromeda. Any comments Bioware has made about it being planned as a self-contained story is nonsense purely based on the lack of forward moment on the game's big mysteries: the kett, the Shroud, the Remnant. Most likely, Andromeda becomes like this generation's DA2, and in a few years the franchise gets an Inquisition-style redemption (whatever your personal feelings on DAI, it racked up critical praise and seemed to do fairly well sales-wise).

@encephalon: I'm not sure the lack of forward momentum is intentional. I'm pretty sure the writing and pacing are just subpar and they didn't manage to progress anything out of lack of ability. *cynical shrug*

I take it you haven't played the game to the plot's conclusion? They very much leave almost everything hanging, in a Halo 5 kind of way. If this game was intended to stand alone, then they're holding back the narrative payoff for DLC, or never figured out where they were going in the first place. Either way you look at it, that's bad.

@freedom4556: Yeah, I haven't played it. I was just reiterating what I remember Brad saying. He was in chat during GBEast's play date of Andromeda and answered some questions as he had just finished the review at the time. It seemed really disappointed in the ending but not in a way that lead him to believe they were planning a sequel.

They did the exact same thing with Inquisition, though. Teased a sequel, but then they resolved that stuff in the DLC... and then they teased a sequel again. I can see Andromeda just flatout resolving everything in DLC if they decide it's not worth making a sequel anymore.