GameInformer has released three new screenshots for Mass Effect: Andromeda. These new screenshots showcase the game’s Mako (that is now called Nomad), the scan abilities that players will have in this new Mass Effect game, as well as the main protagonist using a flaming ability via the game’s flexible new skill system.
Mass Effect: Andromeda will be powered by the Frostbite 3 Engine and will feature destructible environments, as well as enormous enemies to fight.
The game will also feature boosted jumps for added verticality, as well as all-new weapons and Biotics that aim to make combat more thrilling than ever.
Mass Effect: Andromeda will also come with a much more flexible skill and weapon progression tree, and a class-based, 4-player co-op multiplayer mode.
Mass Effect: Andromeda is currently planned for a Spring 2017 release.
Enjoy!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
720P ? Meh..
There you go son! Glorious 4K! Cinematicly upscaled just the way Sony likes it 🙂
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b93883e9178fd63f6fd1e5b81aefaf8de3701f4dacd40b9880b3031410cf878.jpg
lol
L O L this is perfect!
Manqueer Hair
Wtf are these rubbish graphics
They are scanned from a magazine that is why they look weird.
Those are the digital versions best I can tell, actually, so aside from whatever image compression DSOG & GameInformer in turn applied to the images, those should be exactly as provided to GI by EA.
Image quality / graphics.
Lighting and geometry doesn’t even come close to either SW or BF1, looks like DA:I with PBR.
its called “console gaming”
HEY! we dont use the CG words in these parts….
Rubbish… really? Have you seen rubbish graphics ever?
if the maps are large and open worldish like witcher 3 and inquisition they are good enough for me.
Is advertising a game for six months really effective or can they just show us footage a week before release?
He’s the hero we need, but not the one we deserve.
He went all “I’m Batman!” did he? O.o
You mean he didnt go “i am ironman”……i am dissapointed Trump.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
These are the kind of shots that won’t be allowed to be used on Steam anymore.
I’m a huge ME fan but this just doesn’t excite me.
Then what does excite you.
For me it’s some rope, duct tape, a bucket, a shovel, two silly straws connected together, a sound proof room, mentos and diet soda… and mass effect 4.
Mm yeah alright… But Andromeda isn’t the type of mass effect I wanted to see. Sure I’ll buy it but I would have gone a little different route.
Try my method. 😉
I will be the alien viliian. My Utrom/alien version will be the main villian of the game
Meh cant get excited for Bullshots
I fear they are going to Inquisition Mass Effect, with large open areas with freaking fetch quests!!!
That is EXACTLY what they going for and if they do, ill buy it. Or you prefer to lecture you for 12 hours about lore stuff like mass effect 1 or social justice in this game.
lol wha???t you want fetch quests in mass effect and no lore SMH Gaming is dying
“Mass Effect: Andromeda will be powered by the Frostbite 3 Engine and
will feature destructible environments, as well as enormous enemies to
fight.”
Does even an INCH of originality from EA’s marketing department require someone on the same IQ level as Albert F*cking Einstein?
I think the EA’s marketing department has a combined IQ less than or equal to Albert “Ph*cking” Einstein.
ea marketing…originality…thats a bad combination, go watch the crysis 3 launch trailer or what they did to dead space 3 trailer called “take down the horror” its like they are trolling us. STILL they market it unlike titanfall 2 and mirrors edge that most people did not even realize they came out.
Video Games getting too inspired by Hollywood marketing, which in turn, is getting more & more sh*t these days.
“Market the action” seems to be their go-to strategy, which is absurd. For example; they made out Star Trek Beyond to be “Star Trek: The Fast & The Furious” when in fact it was actually pretty good. Then there’s all those “Inception Horns” & “snap cuts” they do in Horror Trailers to keep the tension high, & now it’s all about the pop song trailers…..
Ugh.
Hmpf, the thumbnail didn’t work. Well here it goes again then:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e773913ddc701bd4c0680dd4d80327ab4b799a4db9b769cfafc43257f6aa5db.jpg
Well, it’s a couple of days early to celebrate Crysis’ 10th anniversary (November 13th, 2007), but since I doubt Crytek is about to grace us with any recognition of the event what-so-ever;
In celebration of 10 years of Crysis. May we one day be once again graced with such visual marvels.
Very well said my friend!
Another bad port incoming.
Huh? If anything, the PC version of the latest EA games have been very well optimized. Even Inquisition, that had its share of issues (that seem to be common for open-world games), wasn’t as bad as any Bethesda game.
“Even Inquisition, that had its share of issues”
Voted for understatement of the year.
“wasn’t as bad as any Bethesda game.”
Might want to revisit that last bit, btw. Fallout 4 was f*cked, sure, but even that didn’t quite manage to compare to Dragon Age: Give Me Your Money & F*ck Yourself.
Well, I played Inquisition from almost day one and didn’t got issues besides crashes and freezes that were related to either Mantle or the AMD Gaming Evolved app. And even the issues many others mentioned were fixed in patches that were released swiftly NOT released two months later… or that required mods to be fixed.
Even so, let’s say that Inquisition was a broken mess. The EA games that have been released since have had mostly smooth launches, way better than games from Ubisoft, Bethesda, WB (with the exception of Mad Max and Middle Earth) and Square Enix.
I think the common denominator in this case, rather than EA itself, is actually the Frostbite Engine instead, since it seems to me that now that the engine’s become more seasoned, & all the various EA developers have in turn familiarised themselves with it better, they’ve become more adept at working with/on it.
Andromeda should be able to confirm if I’m right in this regard, but either way, you make a fair point; post-Inquisition, Frostbite-based launches have been relatively solid, even if not quite legendary (Battlefield 1’s launch did feature some issues, but for all intents & purposes, it truly did fail to rival Battlefield 3’s & 4’s EPIC FAIL launches, for example).
Whereas on the other hand, studios using modified engines (Void Engine), or half-assed carry-over old-gen engines, or re-purposed engines (Rainbow Six: Siege), or whatnot as a result find themselves with far greater issues than those that are using something more seasoned, like Frostbite &/or Unreal 4, even, or even just something that’s simply better suited to their needs/requirements.
After all, Avalanche Studios said themselves that Mad Max was using a slightly older version of their tech, due to the development process starting slightly earlier than Just Cause 3’s, which is really (seemingly) the only reason why Mad Max avoided JC3’s massive memory leak issues, etc. even at the cost of the slightly more advanced effects that JC3 features (rumour has it Mad Max was originally intended as an old-gen game, before being re-tooled for the new-gen consoles).
Perhaps an analyst has finally managed to convey to the EA Upper Management that buggy launches = lost sales….. O.o!
I think it’s pretty much that. I mean, many EA games seem to have an important PC player base (Battlefield and FIFA, mostly, comes to mind) so I think someone said, hey, let’s launch stable games. Why do I believe that? Because they are quite open to delay their games as much as necesary in order to have a smooth launch (the last Need for Speed comes to mind).
I forgot that Mad Max was supposed to launch in 2012, I think it was, and was delayed quite a bit.
It seems you’re right that the more seasoned the engine the better performing the final product is… but again, Arkham Knight was built in Unreal 3. I just hope Sony doesn’t have anything to do there.
The Batman: Arkham games ran on a modified version of Unreal 3, though. Granted, I’ve no idea what-so-ever how modified their engine was by the time they got to the actual Arkham Knight development stage, but the fact that they had to implement new-gen console support by themselves should be a strong indicator that they delved very deeply into its bowels, if nothing else.
“so I think someone said, hey, let’s launch stable games. Why do I
believe that? Because they are quite open to delay their games as much as necesary in order to have a smooth launch”
Who, EA? Unless they’ve undertaken some massive internal shift in the last couple of years, wrong company. We are after all talking about the people that wanted both Battlefield 3 & 4 to launch within weeks of Call of Duty, no matter what, as reflected in their respective launch states. Not sure which Need for Speed you’re referring to, or when it launched, though I suppose it is possible they decided it was worth delaying if it came out post-BF4 &/or Inquisition, as the backslash they took over those releases was seriously heavy. Either way, I doubt they’d have permitted DICE &/or Respawn to delay the launches of either Battlefield 1 &/or Titanfall 2 respectively, in order to avoid BF4-style launches, considering how EA still sees its FPS’ as being in direct competition with Call of Duty (/eyeroll).
Ergo, for them it was “launch NOW. Period” no matter what state the game in question may or may not have been in. Granted (I’m getting repetitive, I know), it is possible that Battlefield 3, 4 + Inquisition backslash resulted in someone finally saying “we can’t do this anymore, it’s killing our IP’s”, which undoubtedly would have had an effect on “secondary” IP’s like Need for Speed, but I’m not sure if even that would ever have had an effect Battlefield 1’s launch window, no matter what state the game was in at the time.
Well, Battlefield Hardline was delayed a couple of times. Titanfall 2 was announced not a long time before its launch date as was Battlefront and Battlefield 1. I don’t know if they suffered a massive internal shift but I think their rep not only affected their sales but their stock prices. So, at the very least, they have made their studios more “organized” and efficient. Look at DICE, for example: they are not making a Battlefield nor Battlefront every year (AFAIK) but they alternate them so that one team can focus on one game with a proper development time.
Hell, even Inquisition was delayed several times so its state I’d blame it on Bioware not being proficient at using Frostbyte (as it was also the first time it was used for such a massive open word game) than poor management at EA.
Might as well blame both, I think.
Regardless however, I agree; EA still wants to have at least 1 FPS coming out every fall, but much like Activision, they’re not expecting just 1 or two teams (or IP’s, even) to bear the entire weight of that.
Next year we’ll be getting that new Battlefront game, & I believe Visceral is also working on something which will most likely feature multiplayer in turn, & the year after they’ll probably have another Titanfall game in the works, & so on & so forth, much in the same way as Activision’s Call of Duty “studio-based release cycle” strategy.
Yes, but unlike Call of Duty, they launch games that are, at their core, different. Battlefield is the most CoD like of the bunch, Battlefront is the more “bare-bones”, accesible and Titanfall the most… fun/different? Whereas CoD is just the same thing year after year, Treyarch’s attempts to shake up the formula notwithstanding.
Visceral’s game I think it’s going to be an action/adventure game set in the SW universe, not a FPS, although we know next to nothing about it. Me? I just hope the next Battlefront includes a SP campaign and relies less on DLC, like Titanfall 2.
Action/adventure doesn’t predicate it from being Star Wars: Uncharted (with a possible (read: hopefully) tinge of Dead Space) though, much like how EA-DICE’s take on Battlefront was, as expected, nothing less (or, rather, more, I suppose) than Star Wars: Battlefield.
Definitely to the single-player campaign (“we thought nobody would play that” – LOL morons. Didn’t stop them from throwing one in with BF1 though, did it? Really makes you wonder what kind of f*cked up thinking goes on over there……), debatable on the DLC, as DICE doesn’t seem to have eased off the Battlefield DLC much (see Battlefield 1 Premium), though either way, there will absolutely be more base game content.
Battlefield is becoming as Call of Duty as Call of Duty itself in terms of repetitiveness, however. Sure, there were some degrees of variation between Battlefield 3 & 4 (mainly just DICE correcting all their various f*ck-ups – to a degree), but in the end, Battlefield 4 was nothing more than a glorified, overpriced Expansion Pack for Battlefield 3, & now, much the same applies in turn to Battlefield 1 best I can tell, except this one also comes with a WW1 theme, “because Modern Warfare got stale” or some such sh*t (read; Call of Duty went futuristic, & we didn’t feel like doing the same, since we’ve already got Star Wars doing that for us). Hardline at least was something different, & could have gone on to be something akin to Bad Company, had it not been a massive financial flop, courtesy of DICE repeatedly trashing the Battlefield IP.
Battlefront is just a joke right now (even excluding the fact that for whatever positives the EA reboot may have, all-in-all Star Wars: Battlefield doesn’t hold a candle to the original Pandemic Studios duology), & Titanfall is, while in a way its own thing, at the same time, also, at its core, for all intents & purposes, just a variation of the long-since established Call of Duty formula, to be fair, save for the whole “it’s got mecha’s” thing. Sure, on the other hand, Call of Duty is pretty much just the same thing every year, but in all honestly, it’s really not like the competition is really that much better off, is it?
Well, on one hand, I don’t think there’s much to mix things up on a multiplayer-based FPS and on the other, I meant that there’s variation not between Battlefields, but between it, Battlefront and Titanfall in order for those formulas to not get stale. I don’t think it really justifies to have annual iterations of anything (hell, Assassins Creed has more reasons to be given is story-based but even that got exhausting and tiresome at the end) but based on the current state of things, EA is the lesser evil, in a way.
Agreed, there is some degree of variation between the IP’s, & annual entries in an IP is just dumb (at least do a variation of some sort, like EA, if nothing else).
As for mixing things up though; Well, IMO if you know you’re going to do another entry in a couple of years, I’d argue that’s actually the perfect time to try something new. Look at Halo, Bungie managed to improve on the MP with each subsequent release, right until they tried something different (with mixed results) in Halo Reach.
Then 343 came along & started fiddling their thumbs with it all, while at the same time downgrading (read: mainstreaming) the experience with idiotic additions like bullet magnetism.
IMO that’s really the one great boon of an annual-entry franchise, which only AC, for all its bullsh*t, ever actually took advantage of; you can do real variation, experimentation, etc. with each entry, since the entry in question is only expected to last a year.
If it didn’t work out, oh well, you take a small sales hit. If it did, well then that’s great, you’ve got something new to build off of with next year’s entry. Sure, Call of Duty used to have that, to a degree, but they stopped introducing real change some time ago, with the exception of Treyarch’s Black Ops series, as you yourself previously mentioned; Killstreaks were originally introduced in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, & then carried over to CoD: World at War, before being turned into the overpowered mess that’s been a staple of the series ever since Modern Warfare 2. They (the original Infinity Ward team that then went on to found Respawn Entertainment & Titanfall) were still trying something new at the time, which the community responded to extremely positively, & which, as a result, ended up being a staple of the IP from that point onwards.
Ever since then, though, the IP has been nothing but an endless series of generic bullsh*t, with Treyarch trying out something “new” when it’s their turn, & Sledgehammer just doing….. whatever.
Yeah, I mean, I look forward to the SP campaign (since in my country piracy is rampant for various reasons, there’s no reason to go for the MP with my folks, other than CoD 4 that is widely available on internet houses, don’t know how you call it) and Advanced Warfare just failed to impress, despite the fact it had Kevin freaking Spacey there. The last one that did was Black Ops 2 (the first one is still the best SP CoD has ever had IMO) which was pretty awesome with the introduction of branching choices (no matter if they were binary, that was refreshing) and I’m looking forward to play Black Ops 3. I’m hopeful Treyarch keeps messing with the formula and their CoD end up offering a less corridor-like, more improvisation-friendly experience. The sad part is that, according to reviews, Infinite Warfare had a lot of potential to built upon but it got ignored for sticking to the formula.
But returning to the initial topic, I’m still optimistic Mass Effect will have a smooth(er, at least) launch with (hopefully, considering that was the most criticized aspect of Inquisition) better and more engaging side-quests (it’s possible, considering the sidequests on the DLC were pretty decent, collectibles aside).
Internet Cafe’s?
Yeah, the new Infinity Ward team seems ardently terrified of large divergences from the established formula.
As for Andromeda; the launch itself should (in theory), be solid, whereas the content….. no idea, really. Rather than BioWare “OG” this is a new BioWare Studio working on the game (though I admit, I am happy it’s not BioWare Austin, the idiots that did Inquisition), so it could go either way, considering both how BioWare “OG” has been (allegedly) working hand-in-hand with them on this, & how it’s been delayed multiple times, alongside key figures routinely exiting the development process.
Not to mention the racist in charge, bla bla bla, bla bla bla, bla bla bla which may-or-may-not result in a ridiculously strong SJW-pandering agenda present throughout the content, but hat’s focusing on the content itself, though. On a technical front, as I said, in theory, it should be quite solid, especially considering Frostbite’s most recent performance; Battlefield 1.
Then again, you can never really tell these days, I suppose. Hm.
Yeah, internet cafes. They call them cyber cafes here.
I certainly don’t get the hate for Inquisition, besides the technical issues that, again, were fixed relatively fast. When people mention the RPG mechanics I can’t help but feel odd because, well, the RPG mechanics in Origins were damn too many. I’m all against dumbing down things but on that case, I’m glad they did: there’s a point, at least for me, where the micro-management of your party becomes a pain in the rear, and Origins, for me, was much of that. Not to mention the fact that unless you had the perfect party, there were scenarios where you lose the agency of picking the party you wanted (talking especifically on that boss battle agains Branka and her golems: forget the idea of losing Morrigan or Wynne in order to include members who deal more raw damage). The other thing about controlling the way your party attacked, IMO, that’s fine for a 20 year old game where the AI wasn’t as well developed but right now you can have you party do that automatically, I don’t see the sin on that. As for Mass Effect, people complain that the combat turned into a cover-based TPS but what is wrong with that? The combat in the first one was pretty bad when you consider the idea that your accuracy was not determined by your aiming skills or the gun type but a number you set in your character sheet. I disliked the lack of armor customization and the ammo system in ME 3 though. From a storytelling point of view, Bioware still makes great stories, and that’s what I’m for. But I’m digressing, that’s what happens when I came here after the vitriol in the article about the new alien race in Andromeda.
Finally, I’m not aware of what racist in charge you mention. Please enlighten me.
Internet Cafe, Cyber Cafe, both terms work in most of the world I think.
Funny, from what I remember, the Inquisition story was a giant cliche, which irritated a lot of people. Other than that, honestly if you do a straight-up mechanics comparison, you’ll always find something that has, actually, been done better in the sequel, sure. The question is though, overall, are the mechanics better, or worse than its predecessors?
In Inquisition’s case, overall, the mechanics & story both are simply inferior to its predecessors (not to mention, even excluding the technical issues, the visuals, which are downright hilarious quite often, but that’s a separate thing). In Mass Effect’s case, the issue is more generalized & straightforward, for most people, I think, as ME literally went from; “Mass Effect: The Semi-Hardcore Semi-Old School RPG With “Clunky” Shooting Mechanics” to “Mass Effect 2: The Generic Cover-based Third Person Shooter” to “Mass Effect 3: Fine, Just Play It Your Way” with each respective entry.
As for Mass Effect (OG) itself, it’s funny, I’ve noted a very strong split in the community in regards to how it’s aged. Some people take it as what it is, & find it to still, to this day, be a damn-near perfect RPG, whereas others wish BioWare would remaster it with a gameplay overhaul, ala-Mass Effect 3. Since I tend to lean more towards the first category, I can’t really comment here. I suppose we just see it as its own thing; a character-driven RPG experience with shooting bits, or some such.
Oh. I don’t know what he’s said so I can’t really comment on the matter but as long as he’s not involved in story or can separate his beliefa from it I’ll be hopeful.
As for the aliens, the conundrum is that, for some, he’s still too humanoid looking or Reaper-like. Or the jokes about it being romanceable.
LOL.
Agreed on the first part, btw. That’s really the question, which nobody seems to have an answer to, & BioWare hasn’t said a word on, either; how involved in the story is he?
I mean, if he’s just a world designer or some such sh*t, then who cares.