![]() |
| This is an outfit with the best stats that my V sported for awhile. Would you be scared of this person? |
Saturday, September 16, 2023
Cyberpunk Hype
Saturday, September 9, 2023
The Red Headed Step-Child of the Mass Effect Universe
Usually I opt to re-play one of my favorite series during the summer months when I have lots of time. This summer I decided that it has been awhile since I had delved back into one of my favorite series, Mass Effect. In general, I'm content to play through the three core ME games (which are now nicely bundled together in the Legendary Edition). This time around, I decided to revisit Mass Effect: Andromeda, the newest, but most reviled game in the series.
I'm part of a very awesome Facebook group of Mass Effect fans (you can find it here--it's very well moderated and one of the least toxic fandom groups you will find) and a question that gets regularly asked is by new players who want to know if Andromeda is worth playing. In general, the feedback is fairly divisive. I'm here to say yes, it's worth playing, but just know that it's not the same experience as the core trilogy. They definitely made an effort with Andromeda to incorporate more open world gameplay and less of the dialogue heavy interactions with squadmates.
![]() |
| The Andromeda squad. |
Part of me has always thought that Andromeda gets a bit of a bad rap. So many people act like it is an absolutely abysmal game and it's not (although, it's definitely not of the same caliber as the core trilogy). There are some things that it does pretty well--the combat is some of the best in the series and is challenging at the upper difficulty levels. It's not perfect, I do wish they had left the ability to give commands to your squadmates (...and that they didn't feel so utterly useless), but it's definitely fun. The squadmate banter is also highly entertaining and helps to make those long stretches of exploration a bit more fun. The planets you visit in Andromeda are quite stunning too and piloting the Nomad definitely beats the Mako.
As I've been playing back through it, I've also remembered the things that make it less enjoyable. The open world format is...mostly okay. I dislike the fact that they sprinkled lots of interesting Kett outposts, crash sites, and smaller Remnant sites but gave players basically no impetus to stop and interact with those sites (yes, there are the random "task" missions that ask you to find certain objects, but those are some of the most annoying in the game). In previous playthroughs I've had very few bug/glitch issues, but this time around is my time, I guess. I've found my Ryder falling through planets just as I have landed on multiple occasions; I've had my Ryder fall through a set of stairs and get stuck...and then found that it had autosaved under the stairs (luckily I had another recent save to re-load). I absolutely hate the way that Kadara Port is divided up into two separate zones the require you to load into them (and that the doors there are frustratingly slow to open--why do they need so many stupid doors anyway?) The story feels a bit underwhelming too--it's a bit of a re-hash of the Mass Effect story but with different evil aliens with semi-understandable motives.
If you're looking to check out Andromeda the "deluxe" edition can be purchased on Steam for $39.99. That price seems a bit crazy to me, but you can also subscribe to EA Play for $4.99 a month and check it out. I've seen it on sale for very cheap, so that is probably the best time to purchase.
Saturday, September 2, 2023
Starfield Madness has Officially Begun!
Before you ask...no, I'm not currently playing Bethesda's shiny new space-RPG Starfield. I am, however, engaging in a sort of voyeuristic enjoyment of reading reviews and social media hubbub. The hype train for Starfield has been running at full steam for quite awhile now and it's nice to finally see some actual impressions from players.
Firstly though, just let me say that I think the whole "premium edition" offering that lets people play a few days prior to release feels a little bonkers to me. People are paying $99.99 to play 5 days earlier? (I mean, sure, you do get the soundtrack, a digital artbook, and some sort of "story expansion" too) Kudos to the corps for figuring out a way to get people to pay extra for basically nothing. I suppose you do get the pleasure/bragging rights of doing something before most people, but I think I'd just save that $30 and wait (that's like half the price of another big name game!). I also gotta kudos them for dropping the premium access before a holiday weekend in the U.S. Plenty of time to enjoy that extra $30 worth of game that you paid for.
If you haven't seen or read any reviews yet, the good news is that they're mostly positive. The metacritic score is currently sitting at 88, which isn't Baldur's Gate 3 level of greatness, but it's not bad (and yes, you do sort of have to take metacritic scores with a grain of salt). Games that are 80+ generally pique my interest, so that's encouraging. The only full length review I read was from PC Gamer and they gave it a score much lower than the 88--a 75. Some of the things that I was skeptical about are mentioned in the PC Gamer review. Those 1,000 planets...yeah, it seems like they're a pretty mixed bag. The reviewer mentions finding a few unique ones, but that most of them have a copy-past exploration type of format that involves running, finding a thing, and then leaving. Another review I saw mentioned the fact that the story is pretty forgettable--which, quite honestly, squares with my experiences in Skyrim and the Fallout series. To me, Bethesda's games are more about interacting with the world and experiencing all the weirdness that comes with that rather than a deeply engrossing and focused story. It sounds like Starfield follows that formula but does have some improvements to gameplay.
I'm not going to be running out and buying Starfield any time soon, but it does sound like something I'd be interested in at a future date. Maybe when it starts going on sale. I'm glad that people are saying mostly positive things about it even if it doesn't sound like the next gaming masterpiece.
Happy gaming and Labor Day weekend!
Saturday, August 26, 2023
Off to Medical School!
![]() |
| Molten Rock features tons of room to build, a volcano, and pirates. |
Saturday, August 19, 2023
Is Baldur's Gate 3 the "new standard?"
Much of the hot gaming news this week centered around the much anticipated release of Baldur's Gate 3. Unless you've stayed conveniently lodged under a rock, it was hard to miss the steady stream of articles covering the online debate that arose. The good news is that people are heralding BG3 as a regular masterpiece in the singleplayer RPG genre. Me, I haven't played it, but from what I have seen of it (which isn't much because I'm intentionally avoiding it with hopes of potentially purchasing it in the future) looks to follow the Larian formula that worked well in the Divinity: Original Sin games. I haven't waded into the minutiae of this debate, but there are certain things that I noticed about the development of BG3 that didn't seem typical of most other games. For one thing, it was in early access for quite a long time (several years, I do believe)--that seems way out of the ordinary.
For the most part, I think gamers are just happy with the fact that Larian hasn't followed the formula that many other triple-A games have--the constant push toward purchasing MORE! You know how it goes...day one DLC, cosmetic packs, "boosts," loot boxes...pick your microtransaction poison. This, however, is also out of the ordinary and I don't think gamers should expect any of the normal shenanigans to change due to one case of a company doing something right.
I'm holding off on BG3 for now, but am happy to hear that it is very good. I have my doubts that anything will change, but it's nice that it has kicked off a discussion about what gamers really want in a game--and guess what, it's not all the microtransaction-y garbage. Will it pressure the big dogs to do better? Maybe...but I have my doubts.
For now, I've finished up my cowboy adventures in Red Dead Redemption 2. It's always a little bittersweet finishing up an epic adventure like RDR2--I love the world of the old west and the beauty of the environments in that game. I'm dipping my toes into the newest expansion for Two Point Campus--medical school. Hopefully I will have a review for it next weekend.
Happy gaming!
Saturday, August 12, 2023
All the Small (Annoying) Things--RDR2 Edition
I've pretty much always been a big fan of Rockstar's games--heck, I even remember playing the OG Grand Theft Auto on my brothers PlayStation (if you're a young'un, look up some videos of it--seriously, because it's kind of amazing to realize how far that series has come). I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games and they're definitely very memorable and were some of the early masters of the more open world style of game that we see today. Although I haven't played Red Dead Redemption (and woo boy was there some strange/disappointing news about it this week) the third game in the series follows Rockstar's game style to a T. As much as I do enjoy their games, I don't want to get too fangirl-y--no one is perfect (woo boy! That news this week!) and as I've been working through RDR2 I've encountered some aspects of the game that do detract from what is an otherwise fabulous experience.
Before I get to that though, let's not avoid the hot RDR related news that dropped this week. Rockstar announced this week that they were going to be releasing a remaster of Red Dead Redemption! For about .25 seconds I was pretty stoked before my brain kicked in and reminded me that it took a very long time before Grand Theft Auto V and RDR2 came to PC (5-7 years? I think somewhere within that timeframe). Then things got even weirder because it turns out that this "remaster" is basically only for PlayStation 4 and Nintendo Switch--not even current gen consoles (*although apparently people with the newest XBOX can still play it because it's backward compatible) or for PC. The PC part isn't too surprising (but nonetheless disappointing), but not even for PS5? Things only escalated from there when the price was announced--$49.99! The internet reacted exactly how you would expect--anger, puzzlement, and tons of videos/articles analyzing this strange move. People with XBOX's were happy to point out that you can currently buy it for $30 (+$13 for some big DLC that's going to be included as part of the remastered version)--that price includes nice graphical updates as well as access to multiplayer--both things that aren't included in the upcoming remaster. Many articles also pointed out the disastrous GTA remaster as a reminder that maybe people shouldn't put too much stock in this whole "remaster" thing. The whole thing just seems like another shameless cash grab to me, but maybe I'm just being too cynical. (*If you missed this entire debacle--here's a link to an article: PC Gamer)
Anywho--back to RDR2 and those small, obnoxious things that drive me a tiny bit batty.
1.) The "weight/body condition" dynamic for Arthur and horses.
Early on in the game it is explained that Arthur needs to eat or else his body condition (which apparently contributes to how full his health and stamina gauges can be--like if you've ever wondered why there's a fragment that just never becomes available even after you've fully levelled it up--I'm guessing that's why) will decline. "Realistic" you might think--but, unfortunately, I hate how it works. Most games teach us that you use items when you need them--therefore if Arthur's health isn't low, I'm not having him reach for that delicious can of kidney beans. Why would I waste an item when I don't need to? Well, because you sort of need to! The truly crazy part of the whole thing is that the amount that Arthur needs to eat to maintain "good" body condition is pretty insane (here's a link to a Reddit thread with a recommended "meal plan" for perfect body condition: Tips for Arthur's Weight).
I wish this mechanic worked slightly differently and that Arthur would actually lose health/stamina and it would make eating more necessary. This same dynamic is true for horses--if you take your horse to a stable, the hands will comment about how your horse is so skinny--even though it looks fine!
2.) Having NPC's comment on Arthur's dirty/bloody state.
Arthur can get a little grimy from his activities. Sometimes the level of filth is completely obvious--if you're carrying around bloody, skinned animal carcasses (or humans who might have met an unfortunate end) there will be a very obvious bloody splotch. If you've simply shot...say, a rabbit, and then skinned it, Arthur's hands will be bloody. Occasionally though, there's no obvious blood and NPC's will still comment "where'd all that blood come from?" In order to get "clean," you can plunge Arthur into any available body of water close by and watch as blood floats away on the surface.
Again, you could easily say "realism," but why, oh why, can't there be an option for Arthur to wash up in camp? Why do I need to fully plunge him into a river when his hands are a little bit gross? I wish that his little shaving station had an option for cleaning up.
3.) Death...and horses.
It's just a fact that sometimes Arthur will die. For me, most of those times happen at the claws of panthers/cougars who can creep up on you pretty easily. If you're caught totally off guard, you're basically a goner--RIP Artie. It's also a fact that your horse can fall prey to unfortunate circumstances. In my case, those circumstances are typically due to my own stupidity (FYI, you do not have to fish for one of the legendary fish on the railroad bridge near Saint Denis and you should, in fact, not do that because it will likely result in the death of at least Arthur, but potentially your brainless horse too--it cannot control itself from running on to the tracks once you've caught the fish.). Having Artur die costs you some cash...but having your horse die sucks even more. One of the first things I do every playthrough is have Arthur trek up into the mountains to tame what is basically the best horse in the game--the white Arabian that wanders around near Lake Isabella. You should do that too because it's a great horse and it's only slightly difficult to tame. Then, it's just a matter of building up your bonding with the horse--and that does take a little while.
![]() |
| The panther saddle has good stats and looks nice. (not my screenshot, sadly) |
If your favorite, fabulous horse dies...well, then it's an issue of either 1.) returning to the snowy reaches of the mountains to find another white Arabian, tame it, and then bond with it--a somewhat time consuming process OR 2.) heading to the stables and finding an equivalent horse--which will be somewhat expensive. I had this situation arise when poor Arthur was randomly ambushed near Catfish Jackson's. Most of the time I'm able to head off any ambushes, but this time I don't know what happened--before I even had time to select my handy repeater from the weapon wheel poor Arthur was dead (I think he took a shotgun blast from short range...somewhere? It was pretty confusing). Dying happens, so I wasn't too concerned, but when I saw a totally random horse I was like..."nooooooooooooooooooo! Not my beautiful Elsa!" Then I had to seriously contemplate if I really wanted to go through the whole taming process again. Nope. Luckily, if you have the cash, there's a very nice black Arabian available from the stables in Saint Denis that is slightly better than the white one. Due to my previous cheating (AKA looking up a guide to find a hidden treasure--something I usually try to avoid), my Arthur was pretty flush with cash, so I purchased said horse.
About 99% of the time your horse is pretty indestructible....it's that 1% that sucks. And really, does your horse matter that much? It's nice to have a speedy horse for quick getaways, but the default horse would probably be just fine. But oh no...gotta have the best horse!
4.) I just want to take screenshots!
I've complained about this before, but I'm gonna bring it up again because I think it is one of the dumbest parts of the game. The game includes a nice photo mode and it's a visually gorgeous game. Personally, I like snapping some nice pics of my adventures. In fact, I wanted to snap a nice pic of my new black Arabian horse with its snazzy panther saddle. (In past playthroughs I haven't done the trapper crafted saddles, but I would highly recommend the panther saddle--it's probably the best of all of them stats wise and it's cosmetically a pretty saddle) Then I remembered that even if you upload your screenshot to the social club then it downloads in this stupid file format. I even thought I could use the Windows screenshot--no dice there, it saves a black square (*if you're playing on Steam, which I am not, you can use their tool or the NVIDIA overlay screenshot tool).
I just don't understand why they feel the need to make this such a headache. Wouldn't you want players to be able to easily snap screenies and share them? It's like completely free publicity! Yeah, I know that they undoubtedly want to draw people into the social club and Red Dead Online, but it just sucks.
I'm getting close-ish to finishing up my current playthrough of RDR2. It's a fantastic game, even with these minor annoyances. Due to the screenshot nonsense, I would recommend buying it on Steam.


.jpg)



