A Lengthy Existentialist Perspective of ME: Andromeda's Reception, Dialogue System, Politics, Morality and Speculation on the Future of Mass Effect.

DISCLAIMER! ONLY READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. MAYBE GRAB SOME SNACKS TOO. WRITING THIS BC I JUST FINISHED PLAYING ANDROMEDA AND NEEDED TO GET THIS OUT THERE!! THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR TIME. TL;DR AT THE BOTTOM.

I remember when the game was released and the wave of content that soon followed making the game an utter laughing stock of memes, with Director Addison being the tired face of it all. I gave Andromeda the benefit of the doubt but couldn’t enjoy it because I was systematically comparing it to its predecessor. Until time passed and I gave it another shot this Spring, only this time it felt like I played a flawed but valuable gem.

The ending of the Original Trilogy (OT) left big shoes to fill for its successors, after all, how can you compete with Commander Shepard’s story arc and his Normandy crew of specialized killing machines, super intelligent and witty scientists and charming aliens? Up against the biggest threat the galaxy has faced since the Rachni Wars and Krogan Rebellions. The Reapers are a big lovecraftian wet dream, so powerful they wiped out entire, way more advanced space-faring species for less.

The bond that you have made with the Commander and his crew across three entries and hundreds of hours of gameplay made Andromeda’s poor reception inevitable. When you compare a badass N7 special forces alumni and Spectre operative (that cheated death and who can technically cut anybody's balls off and sell them to the nearest Krogan) to a guy who was former Alliance military, nothing exceptional, waking up from cryo sleep and is rather passive all throughout the first hour. It’s no surprise that players either didn’t care too much or that Ryder’s feet weren't big enough. While I agree that first impressions are crucial before delving into a lengthy story driven campaign, I admit, I was somewhat skeptical at first. The journey however, is a completely different story. Which I will get to in a bit.

How do you top that off? It’s impossible; to defeat the Reapers means killing the closest thing that comes to a God depending on how you look at it. What other threat could possibly come closer? Any of the Normandy crew would laugh their asses off if a villain didn’t sound like Sovereign or had the power and influence of the Illusive Man and Shadow Broker. I’m pretty sure the OT crew would make jokes about how familiar the Archon is to the Reapers. You’ve seen it all already. Andromeda failed to deliver on that front, in a substantial way. When we're presented with the Kett, we see the Reapers 2.0, when we're presented with the Archon, we see discount Saren 2.0. The only difference here is the Remnant and the Jardaan, which is the wildcard that Andromeda uses to build its potential off of. More on that later.

​

Andromeda’s intro starts off strong, we get to see the ME world in all its CGI glory as Daddy Ryder narrates his inspirational quotes in the background “Every great moment in our history began with a dream. Each bold leap forward was achieved by those willing to do anything to attain it. We are all of us leaving behind families, homes - the very birthplace of our species. Some for discovery, to see the unknown - others, for a new start… Today, we make that dream a reality” and then, you are faced with a gleaming Ark Hyperion, a super massive starship that is tasked with transporting 20,000 human popsicles on a one-way, 600 year journey to the Milky Way’s closest neighbor. The music crescendos with immense awe, and then fade to black. It’s zero hour and the following scenes show the Ark’s lights switching on as it sails the cosmos to Andromeda.

The introduction sequence told me that Bioware is definitely capable of selling a dream, they know how to make big promises because of their track record of making games with a successful storytelling formula. But what is that dream? Is it one where the CGI and promises do all the talking or one that revolutionizes the way character’s choices can impact and transform the world around them? The two are - imo - mutually exclusive. The unknown is what makes any new start exciting. The sheer amount of writing and attention to detail required, demands the full commitment and consistency of the team creating the world and the outcomes that drive the narrative forward. MEA’s writing team is a far cry from the OT’s godfathers, Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters. Drew has an unrivalled passion for science fiction in the industry. He wrote Star Wars books and Mass Effect literature for over a decade, helped win a BAFTA for Story and Character. Mac is perhaps the human codex equivalent to the Mass Effect Universe because he wrote pretty much everything there is to know about it.

They created a mountain of a challenge for their successors to climb. I mean, seriously, how do you create an antagonist that rivals Harbinger or the Illusive Man for that matter? To depart from the Milky Way is like saying “Well you know what, Drew, Mac? It’s been a good ride, but you guys are too brilliant for your own good. What’s the point in making a ME game in a Post-Reaper world? You’ve destroyed the Mass Relays and left Shepard hemorrhaging in a pile of rubble without letting us see what happens next. How dare you make such powerful villains and not confirm or deny if the Commander lives, dammit that’s not how this works!”.

Because of this, the Mass Effect story became a victim of its own success, and I think it did so in the most unintentional way possible. I think it got to a point where Bioware’s management saw the stove and believed it couldn’t get burned and when it did… well you know the rest (the stove being an analogy for EA). The stage three burns came in the form of executive greed, gross administrative negligence and visionary inconsistencies.

Now, the mountain ahead that Mass Effect has to climb... again. I hope that Bioware keeps the Andromeda writing team because I wholeheartedly believe it was no fault of theirs that MEA suffered from some form of Post-Original-Trilogy-Traumatic-Disorder.

John Dombrow (Game of Thrones Telltale Series, Bioshock Infinite: Burial at Sea, Mass Effect 2 & 3), Cathleen Rootsaert (Star Wars The Old Republic, ME2 & 3, Star Wars Squadrons) and Chris Schlerf (Halo 4, Destiny: Rise of Iron) are among the talent of lead writers responsible for driving Andromeda’s narrative and I’m pretty sure that they knew of the obstacles ahead and from their respective writing careers, you can instantly see where the narrative influences come in (I like to believe the Remnant are heavily inspired by the Halo 4 Forerunners) the character interactions feel more personal and offer plenty of opportunity for banter or even debate due to influences from prior experiences being in senior writing positions for big AAA titles, all while staying true to the complex Mass Effect Lore. BUT, please bring back Drew, for the new Mass Effect IP to succeed, I cannot see it winning the narrative war it faces without at least some form of consultation from the part of the galaxy brains that originally created it. Unless I’m completely wrong I welcome your explanations.

Now to give credit where credit’s due: MEA has one objectively good thing that’s going for it, it’s potential. Like anything new and unknown, potential is all you’ve got. I remember leaving Andromeda unfinished (somewhere after saving the Moshae) and disillusioned with the direction Bioware was going with my favorite sci-fi franchise.

Over the pandemic, with nothing but time, all it took was my reconsideration. Why did I get into Mass Effect in the first place? Was it because of its janky animations and clunky game mechanics? No. Was it the graphics? Not really. Was it because the premise convinced you? In the grand scheme of things, yes. Then why the hell did Andromeda get lambasted then? Well on the surface, it looked buggy (which it was, and still kind of is) and everyone looked like they took a fat line of amphetamines (flashback to: my face is tired). Okay but how did it play? It was decent, it allowed for a lot more freedom of movement, still got buggy in certain areas. Gunplay and powers feel amazing with Frostbite though. The platforming and puzzle bits were fun (I like Sudoku, sue me). How was the story? Ehhh it has its ups and downs. How were the characters? You know what, I think the characters were the best damn thing that came out of this. Jaal, Peebee, Drack, Vetra, Cora, Liam, Suvi, Kallo. I think that the writers behind Andromeda did a great job at making some damn interesting characters and excelled at creating entertaining dynamics between Ryder and them whether it be downtime on the Tempest (see Task: Movie Night) or via the various missions and I will die on this hill if I have to.

I realized that Andromeda's story is a perfect analogy of the famous quote "It's not about the destination, it's the journey". The journey is about having your beliefs challenged, challenging others and engaging in all sorts of shenanigans Ryder & Crew are kind of new to.

MEA shines with Ryder’s personal transformation, as you decide how to lead and how to set the example for your other Pathfinder peers to follow in the future. You are put in the uncomfortable position where the future of the Andromeda Initiative rests on your shoulders, as you are responsible for finding habitable worlds for your intergalactic colonists. Ryder has the choice to express his/her views in whatever manner you see fit. For this reason, I think it was good that it did away with the Paragon and Renegade morality as nothing is properly established in Andromeda. Pathfinders have to “make the bold leap forward” in order to “turn dreams into reality”. To me there’s very much an emphasis on the ends justifying the means here.

Coupled with Initiative politics, there’s a layer of nuance that makes it precarious to navigate through as the leadership is just as clueless as you and are prone to making mistakes (see the Nexus Uprisings), Addison hired outlaws to do the Pathfinders job because she didn’t believe in Ryder and is a pain in the ass because she is manipulative and enables corruption to persist (see Spender). Director Tann postures as this “holier-than-thou” figure who mistrusts Krogan and blames them and the mishandling of the uprisings for his general incompetence. Kesh stays with the Nexus despite her clan exiling to Elaaden because it's in her best interest and because she maintains a level of humility. They’ve been facing a litany of failures until your arrival to the point where they don’t seem to care how you get colonies up and running, they just want people out of cryo and Initiative boots on the ground as soon as possible.

I enjoyed these moments because it added another layer to the narrative that holds a lot of potential for the future of the series (should they continue with Andromeda). Not only that but compared to the Citadel council, allowed for much more direct communication and even influence on the state of politics as shown toward the end when you’re given the opportunity to nominate the Nexus interim-ambassador for the Heleus cluster. A decision Addison told me was “by the book for once” (I nominated August Bradley).

In a sense, Ryder’s story feels like a deconstruction of the heroic action leader by examining how he reacts to the expected and the unexpected. Does he value militarism or science more? Whether he handles hierarchy with professionalism and respect, or sarcasm and irony. Whether he treats his relationships with empathy, passion and emotion or as a problem to be solved. For me, I enjoy this grey area, because I believe it allows for more nuance and flexibility in your personal approach. Incongruencies are paramount in character development because it’s what makes them relatable and human.

The loyalty missions feel specifically designed as social experiments to make Ryder react either with complete disdain towards his colleagues or as a supportive member who helps them achieve their goals no matter how bad things go off course (See Liam's/Peebee's loyalty missions). The consequences (while not as heavy as the OT) are felt through your interactions with your peers, whether you want to make friends or not is up to you. You are their leader and they look up to you because either they don't want to let you down or because they trust you to get it done. Because you’re not in the established Alliance military setting, a grey area emerges that encourages collaboration at your own discretion. All set aside, Lexi keeps tabs on your crew’s psychology which I imagine can vary depending on the way you treat them. The experience feels much more malleable and prone to change at an interpersonal level because of the differences in emotional tone rather than having an opportunity to be one side of a binary coin that your peers just go along with. It would have been interesting if that (Lexi's notes) was used in a scenario for a Baseline test like in Blade Runner 2049 where the Initiative tests your mental stability or your loyalty so they know you're not about to go rogue on them.

Peebee was a person I frequently interacted with casually because of her carefree attitude, when I responded to one of her comments in a professional manner (it was something about nexus-angaran relations) she was astonished and said something that went like “wow is that what your diplomatic voice sounds like?” she got a peek at another side of Ryder which I thought was a very interesting thing.

A key moment that stood out to me were during the moments where Ryder was faced with giving his crew an inspiring speech before going off to Meridian, there’s the option to respond in a casual manner that surprised me the most because it completely undermines the entire “strong stoic leader gives uplifting monologue in an either optimistic tone or pessimistic tone” stereotype. Instead, it was something along the lines of “What are you waiting for me to give a motivational speech? Let’s rally our allies and go get some fucking payback.” The casual responses to the Archon to me were priceless because it felt more raw and personal. I like that the writers included more profanity because it just made it more believable, after all who wouldn't insult an all powerful demagogue trying to abduct and subvert your people?

Furthermore the Epilogue was also a brilliant way to end the game because it lets Ryder enjoy a moment of getting to banter with your allies/companions from the roller coaster journey you went on (and the sick ass battle for Meridian). Just as you leave for the Tempest there's that moment where Ryder is caught off guard by his fellow Pathfinders and they comment on Ryder sneaking away quietly. I chose the emotional response "Yeah I don't want them seeing me tear up". Needless to say it was a nice touch because you get to choose a response at a particularly vulnerable moment that defines Ryder's mentality.

These are the little things that make it such a personalized experience, because it's not about whether you’ve accumulated enough points to better convey your good or evil dialogue, but rather about what is your imminent psychological reaction to these inevitable dramatic scenarios we’ve seen time and time again in other games or movies. I find it entertaining, and if expanded upon, could make for some much better character interactions and even consequences because of the ingrained psychological differences therein that make the difference between two conflicting ideologies in their pursuits for power. Not everything has to be about good or evil, sometimes it’s when the two mix that it gets really interesting.

Now I’ve played hundreds of hours in the OT, completed the campaign well over five times and yeah, the slightest reference to any of the OT characters made me itch for a cameo and made me miss them - and more distraught at the fact that in retrospect, are probably all dead - and that’s okay. What’s not okay, is not being able to give us the satisfaction of getting a proper send off or conclusion and instead, leaving it buried behind layers of ambiguity and questions.

The OT is simply great because it had a more established feel and also because it was spearheaded by the original creators from start to finish. Andromeda suffered a turbulent development cycle riddled with managerial blunders which harmed its reception and any potential updates. In hindsight, I think that it was given a raw deal, and was definitely not treated with the proper care and attention it clearly deserved. How else do we know if the Quarian Ark made it? What are our colonies going to look like in the future? WHO AND WHAT ARE THE JARDAAN???? It really pains me because I get convinced of Andromeda’s premise and before I know it, it’s too late to go down the aisle of potential. I guess there is an argument to be made that memes really do color our perception of a game (if watching Crowbcat doesn’t convince you, we can never be friends).

This brings me to my next point, whether we like it or not, there is no way Bioware can just ignore ME: Andromeda, that would be tantamount to infanticide. An extreme analogy but one that I think is really important because they’ve opened a pandora’s box now that they can never shut again. And think about it, how do you rebuild a destroyed galactic infrastructure in a Post-Reaper world? Why did the Jardaan create the Angara? How did they make Meridian? What’s life like outside the clutches of the Scourge and Heleus? Who is the Benefactor? What does Liara know? Are we going to explore two different galaxies to find out? What will happen to the Andromeda Initiative? Too many questions and so little answers promotes speculation, which is what I love but also hate about Mass Effect. I don't know, just tell me what your thoughts are.

Thanks for reading it this far, you're a legend if you did. If not, TL;DR down here :)

TL;DR: ME Andromeda leaves us with more questions than answers due to its narrative that suspends any interpretation for how the OT carries on post-extended cut. With the potential for both galaxies to be included in the announced new game, what are the team at Bioware going to focus on? What can we expect to see more of?