First impressions from Mass Effect: Andromeda

I have finally begun playing Mass Effect: Andromeda. I am a dedicated fan of the original trilogy. I even wrote a blog post discussing the lessons a tabletop military sci-fi RPG referee can draw from the original Mass Effect. Thus, I came with much enthusiasm. Below are my first impressions from the first two and a half hours of the game, which I played last night.

Note that I began playing for the first time only after Bioware released Patch 1.08. I am told that the patches greatly improved the game. So this post refers to the latest (June 2017) patched version.

The game runs flawlessly on High settings on my mid-range rig - Intel Core i5-2400 CPU @ 3.10GHz, GeForce GTX 960, 12 GB RAM, Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit, and running both Windows and the game from an SSD. It looks gorgeous and runs perfectly smoothly with good FPS and no graphical glitches so far.

My first impression is that Mass Effect: Andromeda is a flawed game, an unpolished gem if you wish. Its interface is cumbersome and sometimes counter-intuitive. Getting into the menus, for example, takes one keystroke. Getting out of them and into the game requires you to go through many, many screens. Or at least I did not find yet the quick shortcut key for leaving the menus. You cannot pause during cut-scenes, which are sometimes very long - though if I recall correctly, previous Mass Effect games had this issue as well. You can no longer control you squad-mates' power use, only direct them whom to attack; however, they seem to be very effective on their own (more on the combat AI later).

The greatest flaw, in my opinion, is that the plot exposition is very weak compared to Mass Effect 1. In the original Mass Effect, within the very first hours of the game, it introduces Saren. It made perfectly clear that he is a nefarious villain. He does despicable things to the colonists in Eden Prime and plots to blow up its starport. The first hour of game-play also introduces the Geth and the Reapers. Within an hour or two you know the main plot - Saren is trying to bring back a long-dead evil alien species called the Reapers using something called the Conduit, and as you saw on Eden Prime, that will be very, very bad. Therefore you have a clear motivation to pursue the plot and a strong villain established early on.

In Andromeda, on the other hand, you see some sort of alien villain whose underlings killed one of your crew-mates and beat up another one or two of them. He seems interested in the older alien technology present on Habitat 7, and that's it. It is unclear what is motivation is, what he is up to, or why you should oppose him; even the violence with his troops could be, as far as you could know in the first two and a half hours of game-play, a misunderstanding in first contact. Thus the plot starts off weak, with a weak villain. Your main motivation is exploring the galaxy to find a home for your people, but it is a much weaker motivation than pursuing Saren and his horrible plans.

The game shines, however, in exploration. I'd dare say that it does exploration better than any previous Mass Effect game. Much better. It engages your Sense of Wonder in one of the best ways I have seen in a computer game. You explore an alien world right off the bat. It is a wonderful world, full of beauty and mystery. Full of alien stuff. My favorite part so far was exploring a dead alien facility, which reminded me of the Derelict in the original Alien film, though (un)fortunately there was no Xenomorph here. The environment is incredibly detailed. It starts off linear but later allows much exploration off the beaten track. This Sense of Wonder kept me hooked into the game for two and a half hours straight, which is uncommon for me these days.

I love the Scanner. It really drives home the Exploration theme, reminding me of the Tricorders of Star Trek fame. You scan all kinds of stuff in the world and get an analysis of them. This analysis is far from generic, at least so far. Very enjoyable and thematically appropriate.

I also think that, while the game failed to introduce a strong villain, it introduced Ryder in a much better way than the original game introduced Shepard. Ryder has strong roots in the setting, hook and connections. She has family ties, a father and a twin brother on board the Hyperion. Her father is a very detailed character, up to and including superstitions such as a "Lucky Rock", which your scanner ironically presents as a simple chunk of granite. NPCs talk with familiarity about her father. She is part of a crew and of a family. Unlike this, Shepard's background came up very rarely, in one mission in the original game, a few conversation mentions, and a very few e-mails in subsequent games.

Combat is also very enjoyable, though the new cover system takes time to get used to. NPC AI - ally and enemy alike - is wonderful. Your squad-mates act very well in combat. Enemies flank you. This compensates for the fat that, as mentioned above, you have little control over your squad-mates.

All in all, mixed but enjoyable experience. I am definitely hooked to this game.

Once again on Classic Traveller skills

Vacc Suit-2 skill in action

The question arises many times - what do Classic Traveller skills represent? How competent is my character? If he only has Vacc Suit-2 (for example) and no other skill, is he useful in gameplay?

I have written about this in the past, but I think that this warrants further discussion.

The first thing to remember is that Traveller characters are competent. Skill-1 is employable - you are good enough with it to get a paying job using this skill. Skill-3 is a professional - typically enough to get you a license in one of the Professions, such as being a Medical Doctor or a licensed Engineer. In ordinary situations, they do their jobs competently. Under CT rules, for example, First Aid and even Surgery for Severe Wounds do not require a roll - you got the paramedic (First Aid) or the surgeon (Surgery), you get results. They only need to roll dice when there is a significant chance of failure even for a professional, and when failure will have dire consequences. For example, if a doctor character would try to perform the above-mentioned surgery in some colonial hellhole when only the local TL-3 tools are available, and not in the default TL8+ Medlab.

Again- Skill-1 is enough to work at an actual, skilled job. Most people, both in real life and in Traveller, do not have too many such employable skills. Most of the things you do rarely go over Skill-1. As a typical person living in a modern, industrialized country, you probably have Ground Car-0 and Steward-0 if you know how to drive and cook/entertain guests, respectively. However, unless you have specific training, these would not be enough to work as a professional driver or a steward (or chef), respectively.

For example, I, the writer of this post, am a highly skilled and experienced Hebrew-English-Hebrew translator, as well as a skilled writer and game designer. I deal quite a lot with official documents. I can cook a decent meal and know my way around a car. I also have a good education and a Master's Degree in Geography. In Traveller terms, I will probably be:

Omer, UPP 4759C7 Other, 4 terms, age 34, Linguistics-2, Art-1*, Admin-1, Ground Car-0.

Enough to earn a decent living while holding a quasi-professional job. Am I an adventurer? No. An adventurer will typically have different skills, for example, Gun Combat or Pilot or Vacc Suit instead of one or more of my skills. The number of skills, however, is quite typical. Someone with a good military career will usually have one or two additional skills. Of course, there are the rare elite soldiers who enjoy a meteoric rise through the ranks - the maximum is ten skill points at age 34, DOUBLE what a typical civilian like myself has. These are the officers with stellar careers who reach the rank of Commander or Lieutenant Colonel by the age of 34 - unlikely in real life even for a successful officer, and unlikely in Traveller as well. These people are exceptional, but most Traveller characters are not - this is a game about ordinary people doing wildly extraordinary things and going on hair-raising interstellar adventures.

Skills are a Big Deal in Classic Traveller. Pilot-1 alone can land you in a 6KCr/month job - very well-paying for a 22-years-old character. Medic-3 alone is enough for being a licensed physician, and with DEX 8+ you are actually a surgeon! Most people - even sci-fi heroes - will not have too many skills. The game mechanics also reflect this - on a 2d6 curve, DM +3 is a Big Deal, and skews things very far in your favor. Add to that Characteristics DMs, and a talented, skilled professional can be a highly successful expert.

But what about all the other adventuring stuff? you ask, If my character only has Vacc Suit-2 and Computer-1, what about combat skills? Driving a vehicle? Well, my friends, for this you have the Skill-0 rules. For starters, all Traveller adventures have Skill-0 in all common small arms. With a good gun at good range, especially with good Characteristics, they'll make very decent combatants even with Skill-0. With Vacc Suit-1, you can wear Combat Armor, and with Vacc Suit-2, you can wear a Battledress! As a Referee, I'd also assume Vacc Suit-0 and a Skill-0 in one Vehicle skill for the typical character. Most "passive" knowledge skills are subsumed in the EDU Characteristic. Finally, this is Old School - your character can do a whole load of "adventuring" stuff without having a specific skill listed on their character sheet.

An interesting sci-fi example comes from the Alien(s) movies. Ellen Ripley from was not a soldier and didn't really have good combat skills. At most, she has the usual Traveller Skill-0 in common weapons. In Alien, she killed the xenomorph without using a weapon by using her Pilot and Vacc Suit skills. In Aliens, she does shoot guns and throw grenades (Skill-0, right?) but her real kickass moment is when she uses her excellent Vacc Suit skill to slay the xenomorph queen with the industrial/loading equivalent of a Battledress.

Her Classic Traveller stats would probably look similar to this:

Ellen Ripley, UPP 67C997 Merchant 4th Officer**, 3 terms, age 30, Vacc Suit-2, Pilot-1, Navigation-1, Admin-1.

Another sci-fi example is Commander Shepard of Mass Effect fame. Canonically she*** is 29 years old at the beginning of Mass Effect, but to keep with Traveller character generation rules, I'd make her 34 years old - the earliest age you can reach the rank of Commander in the Navy. She is an N7 - an elite special forces soldier of the System Alliance Navy/Marines. In Traveller terms, she got Commissioned and Promoted on her first term and Promoted on each subsequent term. She is the poster-girl of the best you can achieve in the Navy in a stellar (so to speak) Naval career.

Her Classic Traveller stats would probably look similar to this - assuming the Infiltrator class I always play in Mass Effect 1:

Shepard, UPP 7CA875 Navy Commander, 4 terms, age 34, Rifle-3, Autopistol-2, Admin-1, Computer-1, Vacc Suit-1, Electronics-1, Forward Obs-1****.

Badass!

On a final note, the above also explains why it is difficult to learn new skills in Classic Traveller. Learning a new employable trade - not to mention a full-blown profession - at a later stage of life is difficult. Possible, but difficult. Certainly, you can learn a new profession - Skill-2 - by taking a Sabbatical - once per lifetime. You can also vastly increase your Education Characteristics by up to six points through study. You can train new weapon skills, but this takes time, dedication, and effort to become permanent. You can also train skills - it takes 8 years to increase one of your skills by one level. This all makes sense in the context I have described above.

* Additional skills from the Cepheus Engine/MGT1.

** Roughly Classic Traveller's Book 1 Merchant Service equivalent to the movie's "Warrant Officer", which is a senior non-commissioned officer.

*** FemShep FTW!

**** Actually uses this skill several times, most notably in Mass Effect 3.

The lessons of Mass Effect for military sci-fi RPG campaigns

The Mass Effect trilogy is one of the best computerized sci-fi RPGs in existence, with the first game earning a 89% rating on Metacritic (the second game even got 94% and the third again 89%). In it's most basic essence, Mass Effect is a third-person shooter with RPG elements, set in a wide open galaxy with an enormous number of worlds open to exploration. It boasts one of the better and more interesting sci-fi settings ("IP". as it is customary to call them these days) of the past decade, complete with a magnificent story, a wide-open galaxy, and multiple alien species, all with interested, detailed histories and cultures. This is a rebirth of sorts of the "space opera" genre, supplanted somewhat by hard sci-fi and nano-punk in the early years of the century. It stands at the same level as Star Wars, Star Trek and Babylon 5 - a true beauty to behold. But here I will talk about one specific aspect of these games, which has little to do with the combat mechanics or even with the specifics of the universe. I will focus on the first game as it has the most "classic" structure in this regard.

What Mass Effect did very well is build a military sci-fi RPG campaign. Generally speaking, military sci-fi RPGs have to deal with three main challenges. The first is how to justify a diverse team of characters - as typical for a group of player characters - in a military setting. Typically militaries are highly uniform, heavily regulated environments, and all the odds and ends you see in the typical RPG campaign stick out like sore thumbs in a military setting. The second is that, in a quasi-realistic military situation, the command team of a starship, or any other group of ranking people calling the shots and having agency (freedom of action), rarely see direct ground combat action. Instead, they command their subordinates to do much of the actual fighting. But players love to have both agency for their characters and get into the thick of things with guns blazing. Third, even if the characters are a command team on an independently-operated starship, in military settings you usually have a clear chain of command and relatively strict orders to operate under.

How does Mass Effect solve all of this? It puts the player in command of a small team of elite operatives, who are further removed from the usual military chain of command by being galactic-government special operative (i.e. a Specter and his/her entourage). The player still serves the military on the long run and in the big picture, but he or she still ahs much freedom of action. The powers that be give him/her a large-scale mission, and the military gives him smaller tasks to accomplish, but since Shepard (the protagonist) is a Specter, he or she can act as desired on the smaller scale. Furthermore, with this semi-military semi-special-agency milieu, Shepard can recruit various assistants, some of whom are mercenaries, rebels, and renegades. Whatever gets the mission done. Finally, as Shepard and his/her entourage are special-forces soldiers in addition to Shepard being the captain of the ship, they do get to carry out commando missions. The rest of the command crew and ship officers do not participate in such missions. This would be an interesting framework for a tabletop sci-fi RPG; detached-duty special forces and/or ranking government agents, rather than being directly subjected to chains of command and rigid micromanagement by superiors.

The overall plot structure is also of interest for the tabletop military sci-fi RPG player and referee. One may call it a quasi-sandbox. Following a short exposition, Shepard becomes a Specter and gets his/her command of the Normandy, and then the galaxy opens up. He/she gets three leads to check in search of the villain he/she is after, but can explore the wide-open galaxy. Around the galaxy, there is a good number of side missions, sometimes hinted at by NPCs and sometimes found by exploration. The typical side mission - sometimes small "dungeons" and sometimes in more open locations is one to three "scenes" (or encounters) long, typically closer to one than to three; on the tabletop, one could probably finish one of these side missions in a single session of play, and the bigger central-plot missions in around three sessions of play each. The player may approach the three leads and the side missions at his or her order of preference, and usually has some choice regarding their outcome, sometimes significant choice which will affect the plots of later games in the series as you can import saved games from game to game. Once you explore the three leads you enter the main chase after the villain, which is essentially two big plot missions and the final battle.

Finally, the way characters are built and used is also of interest. The big villain of Mass Effect is built very well - given a strong exposition - you actually see the big villain in the very first tutorial mission and given ample reasons to go after him with extreme prejudice and the game revolves after getting to the point where you can actually lay your hands on him and stop his infernal plan. There is a big surprise in store for the player in regard to the villain, but generally speaking, you get a strong villain from the first minutes of the game. The NPCs are also interesting - except for one or two more relatively generic human characters who - if they survive - become more interesting in later games in the series. Each alien character is interesting, has a strong personality and a detailed history - and each has his or her own side-quest. All appear in later games and develop into central characters of the series.

All in all, interesting from the point of view of an RPG gamer interested in military sci-fi games.