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

It may seem a bit disingenuous... but the other thing to consider here is the amount of pre-release criticism ME:A and Bioware received... before anyone could possibly have been identifying actual existing bugs within the game and long before they could assess the game's writing.  This game was set up to be a failure and people here were speculating about being disappointed over it even a full year before it was released.  Bioware IS a victim of overt and ridiculous maliciousness... fans just haven't behaved like that prior to the release of a CDPR or Bethseda game.  Then, many people are clearly saying that the bugs they experience were no where near as severe as people here were making them out to be... and clearly many of them have been fixed in these subsequent patches.

Still, my point is not that this game or that game is better or worse than the other.  The nature of the bugs themselves are similar - duplication "ghost" characters, sinking into the terrain or floating above it, odd head or body spins.  Other issues are similar - breaks in story logic when certain quests are done in a order different from what the developer probably expected them to be done it, flatter character personalities (which hurts Bioware's stories more than CDPR's because of the type of choices each developer tries to focus on during the game - CDPR making more "NPC live or die" choices and Bioware making more choices that try to developer the PC's personality (in the case of MET paragon or renegade; in the case of ME:A casual  or professional).  A heavy reliance of collection/looting is another feature of the open-world template... that also involves crafting.  Means of covering open-world distances are also an issue... TW3 has Roach (a source of frustration for some) and Fast Travel (which is totally out of "character" for the times) and a problem with having the incidental "quests" work with whatever the player's level is at (i.e. either you're trying to kill off red skulls or your rewards/loot are probably serious under your level)... and there are similar "complaints" about ME:A.

It's not just that I don't like TW3... I'm just not "starry-eyed" over a big open world when it detracts from my ability to follow the story and/or to navigate the "game" (i.e. kill enemies appropriate to my level and receive rewards appropriate to my level).  The overall game template for ME3 was, IMO, one of the best for Bioware's style of story.  A couple things they could have done to make that template better - add back in more dialogue wheels (something personally I didn't miss, but others would certainly have been happier) and a little bit more open level design (i.e. they did not have to go to the big, massive open world concept like TW3).  ME3's upgrade system was very streamlined and "satisfying" in that one did not have to spend hours looting and going out of one ways to loot to get decent weapons and upgrades. 

Yeah, I fully admit, I like shooters with good campaigns... that is, I don't have to heavily RPG to enjoy a game... still, I do like to do personality based role play.  TW3 doesn't deliver that sort of role play... Geralt is Geralt and nothing I do in the game changes him.  Yeah, I can have different NPCs survive and change who wins the war... but that sort of choice in a story is NOT as intriguing to me as changing around the personality of my PC.  In ME:A, Bioware lost a lot of that.  The Ryder twins do not come across as being as flexible in their personalities as Shepard did.  Bioware, it seems, gave it up to follow TW3 down the hugely, massive open-world game fad... and that's a shame.