Old School Reviewing (by players)

Ahriman The idea was to try stick to the old school 5 sections of analysing a game. I took the liberty of adding the 2 scores you had for setting and gameplay and averaging them an your current average is 7.1 when missing the last section so a score of 6.5 for value for money would be needed for the 7 overall.

For the 40 hours I have been playing, I in total give it an 8,5. But I agree with Morrigan, in the end my opinion is very subjective.
The complaints seem more hyperbole than anything else. But judging without experiencing is today's modern times I guess. It is all about belonging with the crowd because that is cool. Groupthink above all else.....

If I lack anything in this game, it is the music. It is lacking during exploring.

Graphics 8
Audio 5
Gameplay 7.50
Setting 8
Value for Money 9.75
Overall 8.50

Visuals = 7. Graphical fidelity isn't bad, but I've seen better and the comparatively cartoonish looks of some of the characters knock it down a peg for me. Going to beat the dead horse here and comment about the animations just like everyone else; half the characters I've interacted with look like they're made of wood or plastic, and the other half appear to have Parkinson's. Plus whoever was responsible for the lighting engine appears to have been huffing copious amounts of jenkem, so that doesn't really help.

Audio = 7. Guns and explosions sound meaty, but everything else sounds weak and/or hollow. Voice acting is very hit-or-miss as well. When it's good it's good, when it's not it completely takes you out of the scene. Music is... there? It's not unpleasant but it doesn't strike me as particularly memorable yet.

Gameplay = 7. I love the new combat and cover systems. They work way better than I thought they would. The Nomad is a neutral point for me, it's not outstanding, but it's also not as painful as the Mako was. I don't understand the need to switch it between 4- and 6-wheel drive, it's a completely pointless """mechanic""" that adds nothing except annoyance when you realize you're in the wrong mode for climbing that hill in front of you. Navigating the galaxy map is cool for the first two or three times but becomes completely asinine after about ten minutes. Mining is somehow even more mind-numbing than it was in ME2. I generally dislike crafting in games, so I'm not going to hold that against Andromeda.

Setting = 6. Somehow uninspired. Species that call the Milky Way home, like the Elcor or Hanar, feel far more "alien" than the Angara or Kett. None of the worlds feel like they're part of a different galaxy, in fact they feel like they'd be more on the boring side of Milky Way planets. The main villain is about as generic and boilerplate as they come, even TIM in ME3 was more interesting than him. It really feels like they designed the game with the Milky Way setting in mind, but then decided to switch over to Andromeda at the last second to avoid having to actually deal with the outcomes of ME3.

Story = 5. Honestly my complaints here are almost exactly what Ahriman said a little earlier up the page. While I like having more control over how Ryder says things, I have no control over what Ryder means. Instead I just have four different ways to convey the same statement. It's okay though, it's not like I wanted to role-play in an RPG or anything. Also, the characters seem pretty bland and two-dimensional. I wasn't expecting anyone to be the new Garrus or anything like that, but goddamn, I was expecting to feel some kind of connection to someone.

Value for money = 7. The multiplayer is just as fun as it was in ME3. The rest leaves quite a bit to be desired, in my opinion. I would be pissed if I were someone who exclusively played the singleplayer.

Thank you i merged story and setting (one topic) to give 5.5 updated main post average