No wonder Andromeda sucks. Because the game formula they copied, The Witcher 3, sucks!

 The level of toxicity in this thread is overwhelming, though that should be no surprise given this site was birthed from the community of an equally toxic site. It never ceases to amaze me how many gamers rather tear the works of those who are their source of entertainment to shreds so readily. It is truly baffling, though perhaps not so much so, even I am guilty of it at times when frustrated with a particular title, so maybe I have no room to talk. 

I added my two cents once already though to no avail, so I will add another two. Again I would state, quite adamantly in fact, that none of the mentioned games, namely The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Mass Effect: Andromeda, or The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, 'suck' in my opinion. Do they have their flaws? Absolutely, as does everything single thing upon this planet is and will be in the future. Is it because of the 'fact', a word I use loosely here, that one or the other copy one another? No, not in the least. They all stand by their own merits. Interestingly enough most of the mentioned issues present in any one of these titles are found in all three of them which has more to do with the sand box experience rather than developer competence. 

Take story presentation for example. Each of three are set in a open world, or for the sake over argument, semi-open world, even Skyrim can not boast a true fully open world as many locals are 'instanced' off, walled off by loading screens because the interior is not apart of the 'open world' but is a separate 'cell' that is not attached to the world. Because the player is free to explore as they choose it is far more difficult if not down right impossible to present a story or experience in the same fashion as a more linear experience such as say The Last of Us or older titles in the Mass Effect original trilogy and or the older Witcher titles. The player chooses the pacing of the story and thus is responsible for how and when they experience it. If a player sticks to the main quest and treats it with the presented urgency that the narrative tries to imply then it will be a better, 'cleaner' experience, but if you, the player decided to hit every side quest and loot every OPTIONAL loot spot then your experience will be jarring and you will that disconnection from the story. You are in essence writing the story of your character, whether it be the Dragonborn, Geralt of Rivia, or Pathfinder Ryder, you decide what they do, not the other way around. With this in mind I think players should take as much ownership and responsibility for the story presented and how they experience it as much as the writers.

Now let us look at the worlds themselves and their 'filler' as some have called it, all of which are optional and present in each title. I will agree that the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt does have an over abundance of Guarded Treasure, Lost Treasure, and Bandit Camp spots that offer little to the overall narrative. It weighs down the game though not  in nearly a meaningful a way as some would claim, again in my opinion. Yet, this dilemma is seen in Skyrim as well with it's plethora of arguably pointless caves, forts, ruins, all that serve the same purpose as the locals in the Witcher 3, a source of coin and loot, nothing more. Sure there are books, journals, letters, and other such 'lore' or 'flavor' bits but they all add nothing meaningful to the story. Andromeda does it worse, rather than simply having you get the experience over quickly as in the Witcher 3 or give you a place to explore like in Skyrim you find a datapad, go to several spots, kill some randomly spawned enemies that lead to a anti-climatic and meaningless end with a small sum of experience given for your time. All of the above are examples of fillers present in titles with years apart between their release and development. Is it a product of them copying Skyrim or is it more a product of the type of experience? The latter makes far more sense. 

That might have read as a bit 'rambly' and maybe it was. The point is, each of these games having mirroring issues, all a product of the type of game and are present in any titles that shares a similar design. You want the story to feel important and that sense of urgency, then treat as such and with urgency. There is only so much that the developers and writers can do for you without holding your hand. Optional content is optional, if you choose to stop for it then that is on you. Yes it is filler, a unfortunate byproduct of an open world or as said before a semi-open world experience that adds content however meaningless between the main quest, side quests, and other activities the make a world feel more alive. Were it not there people would in turn gripe about there being nothing.