Thats a fair comment — best combat in terms of what you personally can do as the main character and ways you can prime and combo off of what you can do and other characters can do. But no you can't control which power they use specifically. You also have the most options in terms of verticality of movement/ cover etc of any of the games.
And not releasing a single dlc mission with it is a travesty in itself. Not one! They could have done 1 dlc mission to cap it all, and end some story threads.
Would you rather him on the new game? I mean he's been on the writing team since the start, I'd have him oversee a remaster too.
They are not doing any writing for this remaster, man.
I don't see them touching the writing at all. Maybe just patching up some inconsistencies here and there.
The Mass Effect cast reunion had many of them hearing news of the remaster at the same time as the rest of us.
While I wouldn't be opposed to more lines, I feel very confident it's not happening. BOTH Shepard VAs were there for the reunion panel and Jennifer Hale was even saying she'd LIKE to do more Shepard in the future if the opportunity arose, so neither of them have been contacted about it yet.
This, the planet Kadara especially annoyed me for it (the Outcast thing in general I didn't like because it felt like a very weak attempt to recreate the pirates and gangs for ME1 and ME2 despite being a new galaxy and felt cliche and tired), it didn't help that the main story for the planet wasn't that good and the "twist" could be seen from a mile away but didn't allow you to say anything or forced you into things (like getting drunk and make a fool of yourself at the party) that you're own character wouldn't do just to tell it's generic story.
Exactly same, but a whole lot worse and less developed/interesting. It felt abundantly clear that they wanted to keep the status quo, but avoid dealing with the mess of having to address the ME3 ending situation and have to actually pick one. So just hop on a ship and sail 700 years to another galaxy where it's basically just the same, but not even close to being as well crafted or developed.
I've thought of them using some multiverse/infinite realities stuff as just some BS framing device they could use at the start of the game to try and quell stupid fans over the endings and how a new game would have to pick set choices. Basically just saying this is but one outcome of many that could and has occurred. Actual multiverse mechanics and switching realities is a whole other ballgame though. Kind changes the core identity of the series entirely. That's a completely different kind of sci-fi. And personally the last thing I need is yet another BioWare game where the player character is some super special person with a unique ability or special role.
I felt that way at first, but after a while she grew on me a lot. She is probably my favorite Andromeda character alongside Drack.
I felt that way at first too then I stopped using her in my party and I started to not like her at all and forget about her!
You can't ignore the tech issues. They're literally half the reason why the game was slapped together in 18 months, which is why every single one of your problems exists.
From what I understood of the Jason Schrier article on Andromeda, the writing never got out of the initial concept stages until the final 18 months because the scale of the game kept changing and they were banging their head against the wall of "procedural generated, but high quality" quests. Which again ties into the tech and project management problems, because the only reason they didn't just go back to the trilogy style hub worlds or commit to a set number of handcrafted open worlds earlier in the project was because the director wanted to do No Man's Sky when the engine couldn't handle procedural generation and no one in Bioware studio management told them to knock it off until it was too late.
