Dropping the old PS+ sales fable

Look guys, I don't understand why this sort of thing set in, but I want it to stop. Stop with the bullshit pricing lies, and tell people how things are. When PS+ went up, with the encouraged deal that it was a value of under $5 for a whole year, I remember it sounded amazing. For just a chip out of your pay, you could have all these extra savings and freebies. Except... it's not so easy, because it wound up being $50 at the checkout. It always has been. So what's with this bullshit about it being $5 a month now? And even weirder, why the hell are other consumers talking about it this way all the time? This especially sparked up in a conversation with a journalist when discussing PS+'s value...

"The amount of entitlement people have from paying a few dollars per month is astounding. Somehow they expect 100s of dollars in free games every month for the $5 they put in."

Riiiiight....look dude, it's a lot easier to pretend a bunch of people are "entitled" when you're using a phony sales pitch to discuss what they're actually paying for. Do you get free PS+ in with your review copies of games as well? Because it's like you're not actually making the actual payments. It cost $60, and that's an important distinction. Saying it's $5 a month is just sugar-coating it, trying to make you feel better about how far the value goes, or even trying to make the argument (like here) that you're complaining your $5 doesn't transform into the best possible mileage. Really, we paid $60, and like anything you burn $60, I'd like to enjoy it. You know what else also happens to work this way, where you pay some giant sum at first for a bunch of things you don't know about until it's here? That's the season pass gamble, and last I checked, people were critical as hell of that and didn't try to spin some bullshit about how Battlefront's pass was just like paying "$5 a month". The only difference is, season passes last forever.

There is a real difference present. Not only can you no longer sugar-coat your arguments about how "entitled" all the paying customers are for voicing their opinions, but you also have to consider actual math and savings, and embrace the fact that PS+ is actually gambling. You'll be faced with the questions like:

• Can I afford to put down $60 for fun and games at the moment?
• Do I want to use that $60 on a service that does not directly add anything at this moment?
• If I buy PS+, can I still afford to spend money on this new game I've been excited for?
• How far can $60 go, and what is the best route for me?

It actually becomes a lot easier and humanizing to see that these "entitled" gamers might actually find better value elsewhere. $60 up front can get you a year worth of possible savings, deals, freebies that are amazing, or you might be looking at a loss of games you directly know you wanted. If somebody just put $60 in my pocket, I know up front I could make a decision between buying Dark Souls 2 remastered, that new Tooth and Claw game I want, and the Uncharted trilogy remastered I've been thinking about. That's five games I know I want, which is about how many PS+ games I've probably loved and found true value in, except for better or worse I'm actually doing the picking here. That is the difference! The upfront payment of $60 is what lead me to actually drop PS+. It was the final straw, the thing that made me say "No, I'm not paying that much for what I can't see. Maybe another day when I'm better paid." So let's drop this bullshit that it's $5 a month. I would love it if that were true, and Sony should put out the option, but instead you're paying $60 for a year of gambles that end in an expiration, where they come searching for another $60 they rip out up-front. That is the reality, stop pretending otherwise.

In defense of Andromeda...

So recently, I finally got to play Mass Effect Andromeda. I'll fully disclose my casual flying interest was more on the basis of being contrarian, but the reason I write this article... was genuinely because I was kinda right to be. You see, I'm really not a fan of Mass Effect, or Bioware's style of making games. They tend to make these games that have real good ideas, and then some real shit stuff mixed in with some cringe-worthy design choices. Witcher 3 honestly outdoes them on every single damn front, aim, goal, and design Bioware ever attemps to do. Whether it's the better writing, or the choices and roleplaying that feels like it actually matters, and all within one of the best and truest of open worlds that can be observed in gaming. I never was able to enjoy Bioware's stuff, even when I put myself in the right kind of mood to, something always got in the way. So when people all unite to say a game was seriously disappointing, or just outright bad, I get curious as to why people are in agreement with what I've been saying... but for different reasons. Then it actually gets out that the open design and combat are actually better... but it doesn't matter, because the fan's hearts are broken, and the game was bugged to hell. Well I put on the same mentality that let me endure Two Worlds 2, and decided to dive in to see what was better or worse about this entry. In the end... I not only think it's better, but I'm considering making my first serious purchase for the first time ever (considering the rest of my attempts were gifts or rentals). I genuinely liked Andromeda. Though I will make it very clear, it still has issues, including much of the typical Bioware bullshit.

My face is tired, and I must scream

Everyone loves to make fun of that one line. You know what I'm talking about, and if you really don't, well it's right above in the image. People have essentially laughed and mocked it to the point of putting it on a plaque, and passing it around as the schoolyard's best prank. It's the icon of infamy for this game, and then there's.... oh yeah, like nothing else being mentioned. People really hype the dialogue as something terrible, with quite a lot of cringing. Then I hear quite a few others talk about how poor the decisions are, or the reactions in your character and how they don't match up with what you choose. To that I ask... are you newer to this than me? Seriously, where the fuck have you guys been, this is like Bioware's code of ethics. This is up there among one of the reasons I most detest in a Bioware game, yet somehow most are only seeing it here like it were a new discovery.

Somewhere out there in their offices, I'm sure they have a rule written that at least 40% of the text to talk must betray the player's expectations (whilst pretending you have strong sense of choice), and this game is only the sixth or so time in them doing it. That's why there's a freakin' emotion icon right with the choice, because god knows you can't actually decipher the path you're taking without it. That's the only thing with some accurate guide, a good game wouldn't need it. But sure, let's all point and laugh at this particular entry only because we already started with "my face is tired". That is a terrible, and horrendous line, but... it's like one of maybe three or four missteps in two books worth of scripts and dialogue. I'm not going to condemn the game on that. Same with the choices in your way. You get wedged into some weird scenarios where they over-simplify your possible solutions and answers, including an attemped murder case where attempted murder isn't even in the vocabulary and you must decide whether or not a guy should be free for misfiring, or busted for a false murder. That is honestly a dumb design, but... it's nothing new! It's on a dialogue wheel, not in a void of awesome possibilities. As a guy who's been forced to trudge through Mass Effect 2's first three-four hours over and over, and over again, trust me I can tell you there aren't a tone of real choices that matter, nor a lot of my preferred methods. Mass Effects has always been more about the thrill ride and seeing ideas, than giving you actual deep control. Before you argue, just remember ME3's ending. I'm only dealing with it here because my expectations were set so low long ago, and I'm able to enjoy the rest of the stuff surrounding the dialogue that dances with two left-feet.

Shepard is dead

I kinda get this, but at the same time it's one of the sillier complaints too. On the better side... well, it's your beloved main character of a bold and impactful story-heavy series. You stuck with him a trilogy all devoted to making him the coolest guy in the known and unknown universe, and now he's tossed aside. But at the same time... you guys can't seriously go buying the game, and saying it's unexpected. This was all over, Shepard wasn't going to just show up here. He's not your pal, he's not your hero, he's dead in the 3rd game, and this is a totally place and theme going on in the same universe. Same IP, new story, and new characters. If I can deal with the butchering and loss of Spyro after a solid trilogy, and then a total betrayal of what his entire branding and genre was, I'm sure you guys can live with a faithful recasting that expands upon the features and tries anew.

Oh, and I freakin' love the new story and characters, just saying. The prior trilogy that I knew of did some cool stuff to. I liked the illusive man and that mysterious plot, I loved how the opening of ME2 gave a cool reason into constructing a confused and lost shepard, and I enjoyed some of the politics at the citedel, or some of the scenes. Oh yeah, and Garrus was amazing, nobody sane and stable is fighting anyone on that point. Still, I really, really, really dug into some of the overlapping stuff going on here. Let's go over some of it just to recap on how epic in scope this story really is:

• Sent to colonize a new galaxy, 600 years into the making, only to find things go wrong and a mystery is out there.
• Mysterious aliens that can be barely understood, and those aliens are studying other mysterious aliens they don't understand, and then you get stuck helping other aliens who are fighting the first aliens over what the mysterious other aliens are all about. All of the 3 new races are conflicted in mystery, and trying to kill each other over figuring out, and you just show up and get stuck being a 4th array of aliens that they don't know, and you don't know them. It's the best kind of confusion.
• SAM is an awesome concept that melds well with gameplay and story. A convinient scanning guy, and perk gifter, while being secretly mixed into your brain and passed on from your father. Oh, and it all came from an illegal process, and SAM is like an unrestricted super computer leaching onto your brain. Questions? Of course you have them, so play the game and figure out more.
• Where are all the other ARKS?
• There was a freakin' mutiny onboard with all sorts of lingering angst to figure out and solve, old rebels lingering out there, and then even the guys who helped out became their own outlier group to figure out and win back.
• There's a power struggle between all the main commanders, and it laughably turns out the one winning was an accountant who got lucky by having all seven of the higher commanders die in a random flash of chaos.
• Oh yeah, and that random flash of chaos is kind of a weird piece of the plot that also needs to be resolved.
• You've got a twin sister/brother who is trapped in cryo sleep, with occasional concern or breakthroughs there.

Now on top of all that, there's all the new characters at work here. I personally love Vetra's character a lot, being a person who's simultaneously a cunning rogue, and a stern commander. Then there's the braggart veteran warrior Drak who's surprisingly chill and yet gruff, the bumbling everyday man of Liam, the previous mentioned accountant commander who is power hungry enough to annoy you, yet is also a total fanboy for you. There's so much here, meanwhile back in ME2 and 3... it was all a bit meh to me. I loved Garrus's character, and the rogue that came with DLC, but beyond that... all so meh. I really never grew a big attachment to any of them, but with Andromeda it's harder to find someone I don't care about in some capacity. Even a few of the ones I am more bitter about are kinda cool in how I don't quite like them. Meanwhile, I don't see the problem others do with Scott Ryder either. His voice actor is just fine, and he's a chill but confident type I can get behind and relate to in a reasonable sort of manner. Shepard was never bad either, but... I felt he was just trying to be serious and done with things. Gruff, stern, and a commander, but the sort of guy I'd usually see as an NPC than the main hero. I can't say I miss him much myself, and I thin Ryder could be given more of a break.

So, those glitches and wonky things?

About that... by this point in the patch, I ain't got much to report on. One time a wall was invisible until it loaded, another time there was a silent line (a common glitch in this kinda game), and there was occasional animation hiccups in trying to have it leap from gameplay to conversation. Aside from that, I'm thinking this all went roughly smooth, especially considering the shit development cycle I heard this game go through. They pulled this thing off incredibly well for a game that was essentially made by a B-team in around a year's time (they claim it was a decade in the making, but it was almost ALL concept and writing type work. Due to engine flips and all other sorts of mess, it was essentially crunched on in around a year or two's time). Though I do also understand that some characters came out looking a little ugly, but I'm personally more forgiving because I've seen much worse in gaming. Still, a fair point to bash, it's 2017 and you're wondering why humans look like animatronics with synthetic rubber skin stretched across their faces.

Still I won't deny there are some... other problems. I was fairly livid a couple of times when stupid things sent me back to my ship, interrupting the flow of my first real colony. Look guys, of all times for an "are you sure" button, you freakin' need it on the loadout thing. Nobody else on this whole world uses a back button for CONFIRM AND DEPLOY right on the most vital options for a mission. But here we are, where a multi-tab and layered system of options is set to go with the simple accident of an accidental extra press of backing out of one of the several menus of your choice. It's so easy to slip up on this, that I go ahead and do a manual loadout at the locker before I do it via mission deployment, just because I know it could screw me over and send me out with the wrong squad mate or weapons. Then there was the nomad. Who the fuck puts an instant evac, again with NO CONFIRMATION MENUS on the common exit vehicle button? It's admittedly a hold button at least, but I never would have thought driving around in a jeep would have a single button that just teleports you to the ship, right off the planet. That's a tad bit extreme, especially when there's no "are you sure" things. I never thought I would be asking for those annoying prompts, but Andromeda does fuck up in that area, and I won't deny that a bit. Then there's just all the damn convoluted minerals, the fact your ship has to manually fly over little sight-seeing, and you have to wait on that to load, and the mission strike teams are slow and grindy as hell, etc. There's lots of little dumb things like this in the programming. The shitshow of a dev cycle this game went through shows here more so than anywhere else, and I'm not sure if they will or even can just patch this stuff up with a magic wand.

Oh hey, level design is actually used

When people compliment the combat of this game, it's an understatement to leave it alone at that. The combat actually isn't too improved in itself. You still have weightless laser guns, enemies that bathe in your ammo before going down, and a very shallow system of squad commands and perks + powers. The only real addition at surface level is the evade and momentum type stuff, and the reason why that actually works is because: they actually have half-decent level design this time! Seriously, has anybody ever gotten on Mass Effects case about this, or is it just me? Damn near every level in this wide galaxy was a connection of corridors with hiding walls, maybe a slight open area, and then a funnel into another series of halls. Every single level was the most literal and textbook example of a corridor shooter, and not the fun Killzone 2 kind, but rather literal corridors everywhere. That's a really stupid oversights for a game that pretends it's all about an open story, exploring the galaxy, and presenting ideas. It bored me to death, and made me dread the levels in any replay, especially Korlus.

Every damn level was like this!

I'm not a big fan of open world as a concept, because it's usually done lazy or I just don't care, but Mass Effect was always a series where I was asking myself "why not!?". Besides, it was clear the linearity here wasn't for tighter quality when it was all the must dull corridors ever. It was begging for open world. Exploring the galaxy, making friends, doing side-quests, it all just made sense to open the game up to reflect those themes. ME:A finally does that,  and then realizes it enough to give you boosts, jet jumps, fun platforming challenges, and offroad fun. It embraces it even better than Dragon Age now, and we've got a galaxy with planets that are actually welcoming to the basic idea of moving around. You still have those funnels and those walls, and the vault place I went through was a callback to ME shit design, but I've got my expectations within reason, I'm not expecting a Far Cry here. If a few places still need to be tight or were designed in a hurry, fine, but the game has enough diversity and mechanics working within that, that it's actually fun. I still remember being able to run up a cliff, jump off of it, land on top of my space ship, and have my crew make fun of me for it. That kind of thing was great, and a step up where Mass Effect finally upgraded to modern standards. ...so yeah, naturally within all of this, the combat is also more fun, because I'm not fighting a 7th wave of bulletsponge enemies thinking "when is this stupid hallway going to end!?", instead it's more to push forward and to actually see what happens next.

So is it a "golden world" or not?

Andromeda feels very similar to my outlook of the main plot honestly, except I didn't go in expecting glory and golden worlds. I came in expecting a strange game that had a mixed and mediocre reception, and for it to possibly be the change I wanted in the series. What really happened, whether I see it that way or not, was disaster behind the scenes. However in the debris, there's still hope, and a lot worth exploring and seeing. It's not a golden world, but it's a place worth staying with some work, and after the patches I'd say some of that work has been done. The rest is the sort of thing that's up to the player: Unfold the story. There are some cringe moments, and remaining Bioware bullshit that make me shake my head, or agonize over something, and the occasional newer feature that is just poorly done, but for every moment that frustrates or slows the journey, there's more telling me to move on and see what's next. It's an actually decent game that seems inviting, unlike Mass Effect 2 that I tried so hard to trudge through time and time again, and could not enjoy it so well in all the time there. ME3 was better, but not good enough to send me back. But with everyone bitching about Andromeda... well, it's brought the game's price down to a comfortable level, and I think I'll buy it while reminding you guys to chill out. Some of the complaints just pale when considering the whole series was always flawed in places, and then others are just not bad enough to stall me from a good adventure. It's not a fantastic game, but it's a good enough game, and I'm excited to see more from it and will be considering a purchase.