Interesting review/article from Screenrant

Agree with almost everything.  As far as characters go I thought Drack, Vetra, and Jaal were alright.  Liam and PeeBee were both annoying.  The rest just 'meh'.

Customization, pfft, MEA isn't even close.  Just starting with the CC by itself the rest of the OT blows MEA away before we even get into ME1 allowing better customization of both the PC and the squad.

Profiles became much more useful when I found this: No Profile Cooldowns  But yeah without mods it is basically a useless feature.

Aside from those small differences, agree completely.

There is a lot of BW hate out there. These people really want BW to fail. I have seen the posts and threads with them in it. Not really in this forum other than a few, but I think some are pissed about ME3 still. Or perhaps any overall changes since pre MEA. These people talk serious trash about MEA, about BW and even EA. 

I don't think of people who defend it are giving it unconditional love. I think of it more as seeing people really go off the rails with the hate and making it as if the game is utter shite because of this. Frankly, I don't think people would defend so hard if they didn't think things were being overblown. That is not to say that BW is without fault. But for people to trash on and hate the game to the point of filling up reviews with 1 to 3 stars out of ten? It's nowhere near that bad. So that is just some kind of grudge or hate. Not really even justified. Probably by people who did not even play the game. Reddit was filled with this stuff right around release time. Threads of people bitching about it and knowing it would be trash. So yeah, fans will defend it because we see it getting treated much worse that it actually is. Did BW fuck up? Yeah. But it wasn't a complete fuck up. The game isn't utter garbage. It's still rather enjoyable for many. But these people out there do wish MEA would burn and that BW would burn. You have no seen it but it exists. it's irrational and ugly. It's why Kotuku rose to the top with all those clicks for misleading reports of the death of ME or trying to spin it that way. A huge part of that was the desire to see it fail. Also a lot of hate coming out of the we hate SJW side which is part of gamergate and frankly I think a huge piece of what is happening here. People are convinced this game is pure SJWism. While the ugly CC heads do nothing to help with that, they are ugly for both male and female characters so I don't really see how that is SJW unless they are trying to help men with self esteem issues too.

It's very fair review, thank you for sharing!

I think some people actually want to punish BioWare for producing a game that isn't what they wanted it to be. There are a fair few people, for example, who prefer a linear narrative over open world exploration and wanted an experienced badass PC.

Also - some youtubers and other clickbait trolls made quite a bit of $ publishing stuff - irrespective of whether they actually care about the franchise.


I think there have always been quite a few choices that are more about role-playing than actual in-game consequences.  If you think about some of the biggest choices from ME1, how much did they actually impact the rest of the trilogy?  Ashley or Kaidan fulfill the same role.  If the Council bites it, they're replaced.  Reaperized rachni regardless.  Etc.  For the most part, the saga plays out exactly the same way regardless of choices, with a few minor flavor changes.

Most of these are very much positives about the game, but I wouldn't say it's the best game in the series.


The combat was a real improvement, particularly the pace and the jumpjet.


I'm not a huge fan of the open world format, I feel that ME is at it's best when it's story and character driven, not sidequest driven. It was nice to run around in the Nomad, and it certainly fits in with the pathfinder theme, but I hope the next one has less trivial quests in a large map and more lore, character development, and an antagonist that gives me the chills.


The story is interesting and I want to know more about the Remnant, Scourge, Angara and Jardaan, but the Kett felt like they were just an excuse to get your guns out. I want an enemy that gives me the chills, to genuinely fear or hate, not a glorified bucket of toy soldiers spilled out of some cosmic toy box onto various habitable planets.


Ryder grew on me and I'd stick with her through another couple of games.


The other characters I love. I feel like I got to know them in the same way as I did the ME1 squadmates. And after reading Nexus Uprising I have a great interest in the supporting characters. I'd love to have a squadmate that wasn't so moral though. Someone rough around the edges.


Profiles...I tend to snipe and headshot, can't really comment there. The idea of opening up the character abilities from profiles to a free for all is interesting but I've never really played that way.


Customisation? Well, it started on a major low when I tried to create my character. After DA:I's impressive CC, it was a huge let down. The R&D was a good idea but not so well realised. Having to create a new weapon every time instead of levelling a base weapon up is strange. It was clunky and cumbersome and not as intuitive as it should have been. Some of the augmentations were disappointing but it's a good base to improve on. Colour options for the casual wear was welcome though.


I liked the departure from Paragon/Renegade to tone, it's more organic and I found my Ryder responded differently to different characters and situations. I cool headed, cautious, logical scientist who got soppy with her LI, frustrated with bureaucracy and silly with her friends. Love it. With Shep I felt I had to go 100% Paragon or 100% Renegade.


Loyalty missions were mostly fun, and I liked that they span the whole game, not just "Hey Shep, I'm in a crisis!".


Like ME1 I think the concequences are going to come up in later games and I'm looking forward to


Volume of content is a mixed bag. The story and lore was rich, but a lot of the volume was trivial fetch quests or clearing out a layer of thugs. Sure the game is big, but maybe it was too big to fill. Quality over quantity!


I don't think the small stuff was simplified. Driving round for 20 mins trying to find the last drilling spot for some rock you need for R&D is even more boring that scanning in ME2. Who know that was possible?


Visually the concepts are awesome, some of the scenery was good, but a lot of times it was diluted, again because of the large land area, and we ended up with vast sand dunes and icy mountains for miles.


Don't get me started on multiplayer. An improvement on ME3 but hardly Bioware's biggest strength.


The tempest was cool, sure, but I expected it to be a little bigger and a lot cooler.

Since this is the first game of a new series I think it's fair to compare to Mass Effect 1 in terms of what actions had actual consequence in that game:

Ashley or Kaiden surviving Vermire  - none in that game.  Their presence is missing in terms of their powers or abilities but its strictly used as a plot device but it doesn't impact the end.
Shoot/Don't Shoot Wrex - No difference other than, again, his powers/ability is not in the squad
Release/Kill Rachni Queen - Nothing changes in-game
Save/Ignore the council - No in-game consequence
Anderson or Udina - No immediate consequence

All these changes happen and there is nothing different from the outcome of the story...Saren and Sovereign are defeated and Shepard looks heroically off in the distance

I think a lot of people are looking at these things in terms of what happens in sequels and, even then, the consequences are not huge.

At least in ME:A, there are some in-game consequences.  Don't save all the Pathfinders?  There are in-game consequences.  Choose Raeka over the Scouts?  There are in-game consequences in having to deal with Behemoths  during the final battle.

I think with ME1 you knew that there was a planned trilogy so you believed the consequences would be realized down the road so the lack of immediate, in-game consequences was rationalized.

And still 1+3 does not equal 6. I think the article values "features" as strong that can be seen as very subjective. I havent read all comments to that article (on the article page) and it appears most (almost all) are very negative and do not agree with what was said. While I agree with you external validation shouldnt be necessary, it makes stuff easier to know "I am not alone". Aaaand while 7 billion people do not make something wrong right just because they say so, this applies only to fundamental facts. When it comes to subjective preferences, the more, the better. When many many many people say blue is the best color, the likelyhood of blue winning a popularity contest are pretty high. What are we walking about here? This postings of pro and contra MEA articles are becoming very annoying.

ME1 definitly made you FEEL the choices would have eventual consequences. Think Rachnis. We waited a long time for it (arguably they crewed it in ME3 with the clone queen anyway) but right there and then, you knew you were making an important choice, that defined Shepard's character and would shape the world around you. 


Now, i'd say it depends a lot on the opportunity the game has to be the beginning of a new saga. Maybe they could build on the choices made even when most of them seem forgetable (dev team has been shying away from giving bad outcomesthat last longer than 1 dialogue  to anything so far ). But if the game doesnt get the chance of a follow-up, it will really just stand out for its lacks (somehow unfairly compared to a trilogy).

It's really sad that when explaining why a Bioware game is good, story ranks as number 13 and characters at 11. And multiplayer, graphics, and simplification are in the top 4. And number 5 is volume of content, not quality. The article even points out that "There’s no denying the fact that some of the tasks aren’t too exciting."

Talk about damning with faint praise.

1. Math is completely objective and not influenced by emotions, and in this case, irrelevant.

2. Whether or not one likes something is entirely subjective. There is no objectivity in liking/disliking ME:A.

3. Comments sections are toxic sewer waste that should not be taken without a massive grain of salt.

4. Group consensus does not make something that is entirely subjective correct, especially not at an individual level, nor should said consensus influence said individual.

5. I agree. Articles hammering away on ME:A, in both positive and negative light, are nothing more than beating a dead horse with a stick and milking a cash cow ''till dust is all that remains. Such is the way of the modern shite excuse for something that barely resembles the media

In short, group concession in orders of subjective options are meaningless and only go to reinforce the status que. The fact still stands, needing a group of people agreeing with oneself is a sign of weakness in one's belief in their own opinions and should cause an individual to reevaluate their position on the issue.

Thats why I used it...



... and thats where you are wrong . Story, writing (pacing, dialogue, tone), artistical decisions (angara/kett design, why AI uses only terran design) and OST are highly subjective. But then again, the number of bugs can be measured, as well as their impact on players (is it just a minor glitch or are hours of time lost). Just as well as facial expressions, animations, number of head models, unfinished/unpolished features (like the Tempest taking off evertime you board, sure it is just a minor nuisance, but so is the inventory, so is the crafting, so is the AVP, so is the jetpack, so is the artificial intelligence... like enemies/squadies shooting walls because no LOS... so is the powers limited to 3, so is the cooldown with favorites and so on, and so on. All this minor, very minor, nuisances add up to one large problem and this problem have a name: MEA. Whether people see it or not. What is the saying: ignorance is a blessing. I wonder though, if people do not see the problem with the, ie, inventory, what is about them?)

That sounds rough . While I agree there is a lot of quite vulgar and stupid stuff going on, I gues taht is an internet problem, such people were always there, but we did not see them, now with inet available to every moron, we see their opinions... most comments are actualy (in general, not just that article) well thought out. I just wish people would embrance different opinions instead of refusing them from the getgo. If there is something wrong with "A" and I do not see it, I have to think about it and not deny it just becaue it is not my opinion.


No it does not. But, well, when 7 billion people around the world prefer vanilla to chocolate, I should maybe judge my own opinion and think about it, and most importantly: When there is a contest, I should not be surprised when vanilla wins, not chocolate. Unfortunately, it is the chocolate people (in other words minority) that starts to be vocal and starts trouble.


It was never any different, we just did not have to see it in such a mass (thanks to inet), back in time, folks were talking about some very old sh... on and on for decades in their local pubs.



Yah, it is not more or less true then before, it is a sign of inner strength, so is the capability to admit to errors. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of both.