Giant Bomb's honest review of ME:Andromeda

Fair review, thanks for sharing.

DIdn't GB say that ME2 was the greatest game of its generation? While I ultimately enjoyed it, I thought ME2 killed just about everything I loved about ME1, particularly its promise of exploration and discovery.

So I find it hard to agree with the same organization saying that ME:A lost the soul of Mass Effect, whatever that means.

I share many of the sentiments of that review, except I cannot get behind their view on combat being a "marked improvement". I may be on odd one out, but give me tactical pause and squadmate control any day over the pure shooter experience. If I all I wanted was a shooter, there are better ones out there, anyway.




I emphasize with that conclusion, too. Do not get me wrong, I am glad that some people are having fun with the game, and getting their money's worth enjoying it, but Andromeda left me cold. For a time I tried to persuade myself that I am clinging to the trilogy's past glory, or just not 'keeping up with the times'. And maybe I am. Maybe not enjoying Inquisition as much as previous DA titles was a sign. But if it is so, then clearly BioWare is not my go-to for entertainment anymore, and it has been for close to 2 decades now. Hard to turn your back on something like that.

a very fair review. I've seen people claim this game is GOTY material.

Standards of quality have taken a Trump in the last few years. Andromeda just doesn't compel me to play it, at all. I sigh at the thought of the remaining and upcoming 30 mundane fetch quests, the glitches, the poor writing, and the total lack of sensible UI/UX design in almost all aspects of the interface and menus.

That review falls into the trap of judging the characters off one game and the MET off 3 games worth.
A fairer comparison is to judge the original MET characters from one game also - which would not be as favourable.

The biggest curse of ME:A has been the trilogy and the rose tinted glasses it is viewed with. The trilogy makes the 3 games greater than their component parts, something ME:A can never achieve.

Obviously there is no excuse for some of the technical failings - that should be QA'd of death - but I still think it is judged to impossible standards. The plot is no better than the trilogy (well ME2 excluded as that plot got taken to the basement and shot).

Yeah, it's pretty much a trap. Like, if we were to compare Vetra to Garrus, Garrus gets the clear advantage of being developed throughout the trilogy, but if you were to do that same comparison to just ME1 Garrus, then it's a whole different story. ME1 Garrus was basically a turian statue in the cargo bay that said and did little, and to be honest, I don't recall him having much to talk about in ME2 either. The bulk of his character revolved around getting his revenge on Sidonis. Once that was resolved, there wasn't much left to talk about and you'd just get calibrations if you tried. It wasn't until ME3 that the character really came into his own.


The one and only companion in the original trilogy that I would say stuck out the most as a solid companion with lots of compelling attributes would be Mordin. Mordin is easily the best companion in the trilogy, in my opinion, because he was the most thought-provoking and could manage to be funny at the same time. None of the companions in Andromeda, I feel, really come to Mordin's level, but Mordin is one I also feel to be a rarity in the franchise as a whole. I should make an honorable mention to Javik as well, as I feel he is also a major bright spot in the trilogy, but his being a [paid] DLC character compels me to disqualify him just the same. 

The characters in MEA has more dialogue and more interactions than any of the characters in the old trilogy combined and they still come off as flat, poorly written and mediocre voice acted.  

I agree with the review on most points, but still like the game. I accept this is how the story goes, although I would have done something completely different if I was BioWare.

I do agree with others here that point out that you can't compare squadmates from ME:A to the ones of the trilogy. It's almost like people expected fresh new NPC's to feel as close as the squad in the Citadel DLC. I feel like they did a better job than in ME1 with the squad.

I agree with most of this, it sums up perfectly why I haven't been able to enjoy this game as much as I had hoped I would.

I've been saying from the start this game needed more development time because some of these bugs and technical issue make it hard to enjoy the game. I'm glad he posted a video because too many times people say well I haven't experienced any of these issues people are saying, or they'll say you're exaggerating. It's that bad for some people.

I also agree on only having two new races in what was supposed to be a fresh start game, the characters, and definitely the quest set up and quest compass, the thing is terrible.

I believe it is. One game could easily be considered a fluke or misstep, but two in a row (three if we count TOR but that's not really comparable) is a perfectly valid reason to set off alarm bells.

For the most part I agree. I said this long before it came out that the game will be judged by impossible standards. I love the MET but that is being used to judge this which is unfair.

Yeah ME1's companions were a little flat other than Wrex but most of them developed throughout the series. Having more dialogue doesn't mean they get more development either, they have similar character arcs to the trilogy they just have more to say, mostly on missions and as banter rather than in conversation with Ryder.

ME2 did a better job but there were a lot more companions to focus on and the plot of the game was mostly about recruiting them. That said Mordin, Samara, Thane and Legion are good examples of very strong companions who were only available as companions in one game.