Open worlds - Inquisition vs Andromeda

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Mass Effect: Andromeda
  3. Open worlds - Inquisition vs Andromeda

User Info: Maelora

11 months ago#1
So, MEA is basically 'DAI In Space'. They both suffer from the fact there are huge open worlds with very little in them. The spine of the game, the main quests, are okay, but everything else feels like padding. There's a decent 20-30 hour game there, padded out to over 100 hours with dull fetch quests taken from a 2004 Korean MMO. 'Kill twenty of that thing. Grind for 50 of that item.' Is there anyone who actually likes this rubbish?

The main quests (and loyalty missions) were... okay, although nothing really had the dramatic impact of Virmire or the Suicide Mission.

But I actually think MEA's 'open world' was worse than DAI's. MEA is very repetitive - the same monsters over and over again. In DAI, the High Dragons at least had some differences and alternative tactics to them. And they looked different. Whereas the Architects are the same fight done five times (once in a cold hazard environment).

Also, at least DAI had a few interesting finds, like the singing sword or the mage staff that behaved like a lightsaber. There's nothing that's really interesting to find in MEA

Also, you could walk around in DAI, but in MEA everything is made bigger by a scale of ten, forcing you drive everywhere in that horrible vehicle. And out of five planets you can walk around on, THREE of them are deserts? With mostly the same opponents.

Finally, while a lot of the open world environments in DAI were tedious filler, there were a few encounters that really did make me sit up and take notice. Things you could just stumble upon, like the Still Ruins, or the really creepy leprechaun with the blossom crown in Emprise de Leon. Or the giants in Emerald Graves, or the castle with the laser beam defences.

My favourite find in DAI was Chateau D'Onterre - a really unsettling environment that you just stumble on by chance, nothing directs you there. A haunted house full of unsettling moments and a creepy story. Plenty of dialogue with your companions and jump-scares.

I wish there was something like that in MEA, something that seemed wondrous or unique in the open worlds. Instead it just felt like filler - scan this, go here, finds plants, fight the same monsters and solve suduko puzzles. Sure DAI could drag, but there were a few moments that inspired or made me want to explore more, like seeing the giant fighting the dragon on the Storm Coast.

User Info: ultron

11 months ago#2
Honestly, I didn't hate DA:I's open world, they were more of a location with too many repetitive content, but it was still a thought out location with its inhabitants fitting the location lore/conflict.

Whereas ME:A was just a massive pile of sand, dirt, snow with an outpost here, some piles of crates there, and meaningless quests everywhere. Things were placed so there was a thing, not that it plays any significance to the location lore, things existed for a very mechanical reason, rather than an organic one that ties everything together.
3DS FC - 2148-8242-1614
PSN - bostovik

User Info: mambo

11 months ago#3
I preferred DAI in regards to the environment. There was a lot more variety. The dullest of environments in DAI were the deserts... which MEA has in excess. So, exploring the open world of DAI was more enjoyable, though in other aspects I prefer MEA.

Though they're both Bioware games, it's hard for me to really compare the two... I enjoyed both, for different reasons. And, both had flaws. I'm okay with that. I don't expect perfection. I can't recall a game I've played that had it all.

User Info: asbsand

11 months ago#4
They both suck /thread
Zelda has deepest lore

User Info: Raziel689

11 months ago#5
Some of these arguments are lame. Yes, Dragon Age Inquisition did have more locations you could go to, but almost every single map was empty, life less, with nothing to do in them once you finish the main story for that map. As for the desert worlds; DA:I had three desert maps. ME:A has only two desert maps, a frozen world, and a poisoned world. They virtually have the same number of deserts when you look at the ratio from game to game when not including DLC maps, and maps loaded because of storyline. or specific to another maps personal story.

As for both games, neither are truly open world games, and neither were marketed as open world games (well, excluding the initial first few E3s for DA:I but they back tracked on that). Matter of fact, ME:A was marketed multiple times as NOT an open world experience, because it isn't. Not truly. Things are self contained.
GT FunkFlyBoy, Lv160 Vaikari, Ranger
Alt GT SaviorNDestroyr, Lv164 Leonora, Sorcerer/Ranger. GT: MalformedLamb8, Draken Lv0 Strider

User Info: mr_caution

11 months ago#6
One thing to bear in mind is that most of MEA's open world gameplay beyond setting up the Eos outpost is optional. You can finish the game doing nothing beyong priority missions. You'll miss a lot of story and items, including most of the best fusion pieces and key Cry Pod rewards like decreased penalty fusion mods and the extra augmentation slot, but it's feasible.

User Info: SpiritualBegga

11 months ago#7
I prefer Andromeda's open worlds because you actually change them, make them habitable. And better, you do it at your own pace.

I just wish they hadn't taken out the power wheel and that Warp was still in there. Unrelated to the world question, sure, but still my biggest gripes.

User Info: sbn4

11 months ago#8
DAI is better than MEA in nearly every way for me.

One of my biggest issues in MEA is constantly have to go to different worlds for one quest. In DAI, most quests usually kept you on the same map.
"No man should fight any war but his own."

User Info: Yandizbar

11 months ago#9
BioWare needs to go back to structured "levels." Pacing is a major problem in most open world games, but especially BioWare ones. They tried, had some success, now need to go back to what has always worked for them. Even the main missions in both Inq. and Andromeda still had the "feel" of older designs.
PSN-EBFred Live-EB Fred
Add me because I don't have friends. Welcome to die!

User Info: BiggyDX

11 months ago#10
Yandizbar posted...
BioWare needs to go back to structured "levels." Pacing is a major problem in most open world games, but especially BioWare ones. They tried, had some success, now need to go back to what has always worked for them. Even the main missions in both Inq. and Andromeda still had the "feel" of older designs.

Most of the reason for why they went this route is because there was a large section of the fanbase that wanted to see a return of - and expanded on - Mako style exploration. I mean, I'm not gonna knock Bioware for listening to their playerbase; though the execution could have been handled better. I do agree though, that they do better when missions and playspaces are more linear. I don't even think you'd necessarily have to scale back the total playspace in the next game (in comparison to ME:A), but I'd rather levels be designed around the quests inhabiting them; rather than the other way around. I also miss the small map spaces you could visit in orbit from ME1 and ME2.
"And who are you little boy? I am 43 of years" -- Poor Sportsman
XBO Gamertag: Biggy DX
  1. Boards
  2. Mass Effect: Andromeda
  3. Open worlds - Inquisition vs Andromeda

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived