Here's the old Game Informer article with information.

Did this also slip under anyone else's radar? What're your thoughts on the change from previous Mass Effect iterations?

It makes me slightly worried, because Dragon Age: Inquisition felt splintered and unfocused as it tried broadening the area of play. Open world games trigger a certain playstyle in me. I collect as many quests from the inevitable hub areas as possible, and then go do them in rapid succession to Finish the Area. In previous games we are forced to focus on many short storylines within the greater narrative, with no possibility of getting sidetracked by another quest that happens to be in the vicinity. This is one of Mass Effect 2 & 3's strengths: focused narrative and limited scope of operation for the small vignettes. You go to a place, you mop up as much business as possible in that place, and then, having marked that planet as complete, you move on.

Fractured thoughts here. What do you think?

I mean, you'd hope they've learned from the failings of DA:I and moved towards things like NPC's that aren't bolted to the ground, properly building the environs to suit the narrative written and not taking your open world activity design from MMOs. There's a lot of examples for them to follow now and if they actually looked at the rest of the industry it may not be the failure that DA:I was in terms of open world design.

I'm still hopeful, the ME games for the most part have been better than the DA games in terms of narritive, gameplay and world building so they might be better with open world design too.

more like open universe?

now there's even less chance i'll ever finish mass effect games! honestly i'm a little tired of the open world formula, or at least that it hasn't varied and evolved much since assaasins creed.

ME1 had open world elements, and from what I've read about Andromeda, they are trying to continue on that path but better.

I feel like an Inquisition-ish style exploration system could potentially be perfect in Mass effect if done right.

I think one of inquisition main drawbacks was that the exploration is tied to quests. You explored to get new quests, and quests told you to explore. In Mass effect 1 however, the spirit of exploration was right, you explored because you wanted to, and you wanted to gain knowledge of the planets (or at least I did). I think it's because it's optional and if you are invested in the lore, you got a lot out of it, lore wise. If you didn't want to explore though, there was a tight story you could focus on completely. I had a much better time driving around the Mako on empty planets and reading text about planets than exploring in Inquisition.

Have exploration mostly optional like in ME1 but expand the open levels to the detail of Inquisition. Throw in some of Inquisition systems like a war table where you can choose a team to do some side stuff and some occasional setting up bases (but don't overdo it like in Inquisition!). The reward for exploration should be the mystery of the planet or whatever you are exploring, throw some interesting lore at the player for exploring, preferably some obscure sci-fi stuff that wouldn't normally fit in a "mainstream story". Have a tight narrative of main missions in the style of Shepard trilogy that you can focus on solely if the player wants.

I feel like that would be the perfect Mass effect.

Also, in new GI articles Biware have stated that the game has open world elements, and isn't a fully open world. Whether or not that distinction matters only time will tell.

A'ight, how many quintillion planets we talking here? How many procedurally generated half-dinosaur half-giraffe ungodly abominations can we expect? I want the important deets, man.

I loved Mass Effect 2 and 3 but the planetary exploration of 1 was sorely missed by me. The planets were largely samey and boring and the Mako controlled like ass, but I wanted those aspects improved upon not removed entirely. Mass Effect is at its best when you're exploring an alien galaxy and learning about the universe, that's what hooked me in the first place. There are plenty of games with dialog trees and a focused narrative, I want Mass Effect to be more.

Now they could fuck it all up and implement it poorly and that would be a terrible shame, but personally I am very excited at the prospect of exploration returning to the series.

Considering the fact that you're ment to be a pathfinder, someone who scouts uncharted worlds and explores it makes sense that it's a bit more open. I'm replaying ME1 at the moment and yes those Mako quests were bad but the idea was sound. Then again I seem to be in the minority of people who relatively enjoyed DA:I. (after having hated DA2 and loved DA:O)

I also really enjoyed Xenoblade Chronicles X. (preferred it to TW3 & Fallout 4) As long as I enjoy the combat, the world(s) and the characters I dont really care if the quest design is lacking, and even SWTOR manages to have some pretty decent writing at times so I have faith Bioware wont skimp on dialog at least.

The planets will be open world? Otherwise all the mass effects were "open world", in the sense you could go anywhere at any time in the universe. The planets were all level based though.

Personally, i think it's fucking stupid and usually takes away from the narrative to run around for hours aimlessly just because you can.

Fuck.

Inquistion's open-worldiness was horrible. Basically a singleplayer mmo.

I mean, pretty much the very first thing they said about this game, long before it had a title or any other information, was that they would be revisiting the concept of the first game of having very large planets to be explored with the Mako. This isn't exactly news.

Still, calling it "open world" in the traditional sense isn't really accurate. It's going to have a bunch of large planets you can land on and explore, but it's not like the game takes place in one singular landmass. You'll be travelling to many planets.

They did say way back that Inquisition would be the template for their games going forward. I just hope they make some much needed improvements on that formula.

I feel like people would be far kinder to DAI if they had just been less completionist about it. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and stuck primarily to the main quest, save for some random things.

I'm really surprised to see so much DA:I shit talking. I haven't really paid attention to the reception of it, but I thought it was awesome. Not perfect, no. But really fun and I had a great time with it.

Fine. We'll see what they do with it. There are few design choices I'm against unilaterally, and "open world" isn't one of them. They just need to do a good job.

Ugh. Mass Effect felt very open as is but I don't need yet another big franchise to lose narrative focus with an open world.

Hopefully it expands on what came before instead of changing to random side mission generators.

Do we know if this game is actually in the same genre as the other games? Meaning rpg/3ps hybrid with all the same narrative choices and different endings etc? I remember them talking about simply making a shooter at some point, which i did really enjoy the multiplayer in 3.

As some people have also commented I am a bit scared that the new mass effect will have dozens of those pretty boring routine sidequests littering the world (like inquisition did). I hope they go the way of the witcher series and actually make most of the sidequests interesting in some way.

Though their last dlc for dragon age inquisition was actually pretty good. Hopefully the continue that trend in the new mass effect game.

@ivdamke: Bolted to the ground? These NPCs seem pretty mobile to me:

I'm hopeful but (except for Elder Scrolls for some reason) I tend to get a little bored with open-world stuff (DA:I & Witcher 3). I just end up looking at a laundry list of quests to be checked off every time I boot up the game so that I'm always thinking of the next two or three to be done instead of enjoying the thing I'm playing with in the moment.

I think the combat will benefit from the added movement and the open world. I've heard ME3 is actually a great cover shooter, but in that I case I just don't like cover shooters. They've talked about a jetpack and I think they're bringing the mako back. Hopefully they add some more abilities that let you move around more easily too, like the vanguard charge. And the open environments will make it less like the game is a hundred corridors.

Dragon Age: Inquisition was a good game y'all. Unpopular opinion?

Open World or... Open Worlds

@rvone: I liked it quite a bit, but only in spite of all the open-world busywork stuff. I liked the companions, the quests associated with them, and the main story--at least, once you factor in Trespasser, so it actually has a proper ending and decent villain. Almost all the side-quests, and the open world zones that contained them, were utter tedium, though--and that's speaking as someone who generally counts good side-quests as one of the very best things about RPGs.

In a good open-world RPG, you're left feeling like a new adventure awaits over every hillock--because the world, while large, holds enough stories, enough characters and enough compelling side-quests to fill out that space effectively. The Witcher 3 and Fallout: New Vegas are the two best modern examples of this sort of game I can think of, while Inquisition is one of the worst--it was an enjoyable game, but by the end, I was left feeling that it would've been much, much better had they just straight-up cut out the open world segments. (Though, obviously, I'd have ideally liked them to have kept the open-world, but filled it with stories instead of dull activities that I had little interest in.)

Inquisition had plenty to recommend it, but the open-world stuff - at least, to my taste - was a yoke about its neck. (This is all just opinion, obviously.)

I'm hoping Andromeda improves on Inquisition's failings in open-world design, and gives us planets with stories to explore. Honestly, my fondest hope for the game was that they'd make each planet less like an Inquisition open-world zone, and more like an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, with a focused story that you'd progress through... But that's clearly not what we're getting. So I'll instead wish for a decent ratio of actual, story-driven side-quests to explorable area, and leave it at that.

I'm getting the game regardless, 'cause as I said, I'm still glad I played Inquisition, and I care about the Mass Effect franchise a decent bit more than I do about Dragon Age.

@rvone: not for when it came out... very dated in the design department... also the weakest story of the three... so missed the mark on gameplay and weak story... not what you want in an RPG

Little can dampen my interest for a new Mass Effect, but I really hope Bioware learned from their previous title(s?). I like the "open-world-iness" of Mass Effect 1, but truthfully I want a more narrative linear experience for the story. I loved the cohesion of the three games and I really hope they don't venture to far from that format.

I agree the story was the weakest out of the three, but your other statements I don't agree with.

When I think of what I liked about previous ME games, I think of scripted missions, storytelling, character development, and just the right amount of pretty solid cover shooter action. Open world design is the antithesis of all of those elements.

I'll remain open-minded, but this sounds like "we need to make this open world because kids like the Skyrim."

@rvone: I think the quest design was right out of the open world play book form the early 2000. Fetch quest after fetch quest with little to no impact as a result of quests. The combat was... ok but I think it could have been much more dynamic. The boss battles just became exercises of patience instead of fun unique experiences... just my opinion.

Compare those points to a game like the Witcher 3. Where the player feels powerful with a wide range of skills from the start. And boss battles were never over few minutes but each felt unique and different.

DAI would have been much more of an achievement if it had come out a few years earlier...

Yeah I mean, not that DA:I didn't have its problems but I'm a big fan of that game. Personally, the art direction and use of color in the environments made me just like walking around and looking at stuff, so the larger and often emptier areas didn't bother me so much. I'd imagine BioWare's stellar art direction is something that's gonna continue (and seems to be, based on what we've seen so far).

They've had a lot of time on Andromeda and they're not having to split development between current gen consoles, PC, and last gen hardware; so hopefully they have had the time and the hardware to smooth out some of those bumps.

I didn't like how linear Mass Effect 3 was with missions. Mass Effect 1 was the most open but there wasn't a lot of enjoyable content in those open parts. Mass Effect 2 was a great middle ground between those two ideas that they just executed fantastically. That said, I enjoyed the world of Mass Effect 1 more, there just wasn't enough to do in the openness.

Too little info to tell still. Mass Effect 1 is my favorite but 2 is the best overall game. Saying they are trying to make it more like 1 makes me happy but I don't know how it will turn out. Mixed feelings but I need to return to the Mass Effect.

Inquisition ranged from mediocre at best, to trash at worst. There were a few interesting story sequences like the Grey Warden arc, and some of the environments looked cool. But a very large portion of Inquisition's content was boring, fetch quest filler. The combat system was arguably the worst of the three games. They fell into the trap of trying to appeal to people that loved Origins and hated Dragon Age 2 and vice-versa. Inquisition's quality and consistency are all over the place as a result. It blows my mind how Bioware pumped out these genuinely good looking environments, but were completely incapable of creating an inventory menu that not only was inferior to the previous two game's, but well below industry standards for a game released in 2014.

I could rant all day about how depressing I find the Dragon Age series has been handled. I'll spare everyone that nightmare.

If Andromeda is anything like Mass Effect 2, or even 3 (minus that dogshit ending) I'd be more than satisfied. The more I hear about the game though, the less I find myself interested.

Inquisition was okay, but its one of those games I'll never touch again once I completed the story. A lot of repetitiveness to the gameplay; and the patterns of play becomes apparent too quickly; especially if you've logged a few hours in MMOs. They need to go back to the think tank and approach these types of games differently; maintaining quality as well as having a big universe with interesting locations and NPCs and cause/effect gameplay sounds incredibly complicated to design and costly to execute properly.

Okay

I was hoping for tightly focused hubs like 1 and 2, 3 had this too but on a much smaller scale.

DA:I was a solid game (I still prefer it to the Witcher 3); but the open worldness of it was not what I liked about it. I wish Bioware focused more on their core strengths: tight, focused narratives and well-written characters that you can bone.

Companies need to stop using the phrase "open world" as though that means anything by itself. It's what you do with the open world that counts. Witcher 3 mostly did it right by making different looking regions with different cultures populated by interesting characters and meaningful side-content. DA:I mostly did it wrong with static MMO-style environments, lifeless NPCs, and a lot of quests involving meaningless collectibles.

Given that BioWare made DA:I, I don't have high hopes for ME:A.

If we look beyond Dragon Age: Inquisition, what other pedigree do we have that bodes well for ME:A and its supposed open world trappings? Any specific people attached to that project? All I've heard is that it's being developed by Bioware Canada and Bioware Austin. This means the original studios are involved, but also the one that brought us Star Wars: The Old Republic.

It's being developed by Bioware Montreal. They were the ones that did some of the single player DLC for ME3 and were the main developers for ME3's multiplayer. I don't know to what extent Bioware Austin is involved, but it's as a support studio. The core development is being done in Montreal.

Bioware Edmonton is the original Bioware studio responsible for almost all of the company's past games. Most of the people behind the ME trilogy are working on the unannounced new Bioware IP, but a few are working on Andromeda.

I don't believe there's much, if any, overlap in terms of individuals that worked on Dragon Age and those working on Mass Effect. Even when the two series were being worked on in the same studio there wasn't a ton of personnel overlap.

I expect and want it to be open world but i have lost hope in anything Bioware does many years ago. If they make an unlikely U-turn in basicly all their design it can be great but most likely it will just be a mediocre game i power through again with pure stubbornness.

ME1 and DA1 are so great :(

Welp I won't be buying this game. Dragon Age Inquisition was trash because of it. Open world is the bane of gaming, please die off please.

@emoney244: Witcher 3 says hello lol

Hmm. I was critical of CDPR when The Witcher 3 was announced to be open World. It's focused story was one of Witcher 2s greatest strengths. Tge thing is, CDPR proved me wrong as hell, because they're are a massively talented developer. Dragon Age Inquisition was.....well, yeah. I don't know what Bioware is even capable of anymore. Andromeda could be great, but I'll have zero expectations of it for now.

@luchalma: But here's the thing: I think Witcher 3 had pacing problems. We overlooked them because the open world design was couched in a stupendous world filled with interesting creatures, stories, people, and things to do. Its grit, dirt, and darkness was still new to the western gaming audience. It did have a good story, but with poor pacing in the second act. Mass Effect 2 & 3 suffered issues because of a very unfortunate ending, and a ludonarrative dissonance that kept interrupting the suspension of disbelief. It's actually interesting that both ME3 and Witcher 3 had plots revolving around cataclysms, but the former's plot elements painted imminent doom, whereas the latter never stressed the fact that an apocalypse is around the corner.

The Witcher 3 is fantastic. An absolutely momentous achievement. But it can also be picked apart for its many flaws, and the main story is one of them.

I've no idea what this says about ME:A. But to me Bioware has yet to maintain cohesiveness and narrative coherence in bigger worlds with increased player freedom.

It won't have an open world that is different from the Mass Effect you know. They have used the term 'open world' with all previous iterations as well. In this context it simply means it will be bigger than before, but still on the same scale. You won't actually explore an entire planet, not even one land mass on that planet. It will still be sectioned off proportions. Just larger sections than in ME3 for example.

@rahf You know, I'm glad I'm not as smart as people like you. Or perhaps rather, that I don't persist on being smart with everything I do. I had no problems with ME's storytelling at all and found it fantastic. To me, 'ludonarrative dissonance' is a term you use when you lack fantasy yourself, or you're trying to search for something to nitpick. Every single game ever made has ludonarrative dissonance. Unless it is super in your face all the time, I always found it an odd thing to complain about.

I don't like it one bit, I want semi-linear story driven Mass Effect. DA:I had some cool missions but was for the most part a dull slog through an unending stream of huge new areas that you could explore to find *%$# all in.

I really enjoyed DA:I. Sure, some of the quests were a bit repetitive at times, but you really don't need to do all of them. The story stuff I thought was really good.

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

@zevvion: I am never this clever in the moment. Only in hindsight. But yes, I do think about things a lot after they've happened. ME2 & 3 are some of my favorite games, but that shouldn't stop me from exercising some critical thinking and try to apply it. S'good for the brain.

@lawgamer Once is to keep using it? Come on, duder.

I've been playing ME3 since the trailer came out. I wanted to get refreshed. ME3 is much more linear than they are talking about I am sure, but even then its still somewhat open world. I still have a galaxy map that I can choose what order I do a lot of missions in. I'm not on an actual linear path. Yes the main objects have to be done on a linear path but everything else, not so much necessarily. Its not a sandbox open world game for sure but it certainly is not "that linear", I don't think anyway.

That being said, ME2 was my favorite and I think it blended it together better with the way you had to go recruit your crew and so forth. I am hoping, they look to that for inspiration.

They said ME3 was a large open world universe when that game was in development. Same with 2, same with 1. This is the same. People are taking it to mean something other than what it actually does. It will be a Mass Effect game.

Also, 3 is the best.