Comparing Andromeda to the OT as a whole is just silly...

Don't really agree with that either. Most of what we fought in ME1 were evil corporations and their evil experiments. The Turians were the Spartans. The Asari were the blue space chick mages. The volus were the fat geeky wimpy nerds. The Elcor were monotone codex holders, we never really learn much about them at all. The Krogan were the Klingons on steroids. The Council was just as petty and narrow-minded and corrupt as human politicians. 

Not only that, but apparently their technology had stagnated for hundreds if not thousands of years... they were morons as well. 

Mass Effect 1 was a fun way to pass some time, but it didn't break any ground in science fiction or world building. Though I did appreciate it's small attempts at world building. 

All the dull alien species were probably why I found the Reapers so intriguing... at first.

Edit: forgot the salarians = geeky science nerds with ray guns.

Just looking at ME:1.

The opening scene with Anderson and Udina talking, Shepard walking through the ship to the main theme, seeing your Shepard and then going through the relay for the first time was awesome. Ryder was not introduced in the same way. You became a Spectre, were told what a Spectre was, what you could and couldn't do. I still have no idea what a Pathfinder is. If there was no scourge and everything had worked as intended, what would have been your role. You have complete control over what personnel get brought out of cryo, but you have to ask for permission to get a ship. A ship that only you can navigate. To me, Pathfinders should have been on the Nexus, scouting these worlds, finding places to establish outposts so that when the Arks arrived things were already in place.

The squad in ME:1 were introduced as part of the story. Garrus was investigating Saren, Tali had the info to expose Saren, Ashley comes running out on Eden Prime, last person defending the base, Liara was the Prothean expert you needed after seeing what you did from the beacon. In ME:A Drack just shows up in the middle of the desert, Peebee just materializes at the first vault, Vetra just shows up at the docking bay. Some of the ME:1 characters may have been stiff but the introduced you to the races. Asari being natural biotics, Liara being 100 years old but still a teen for the most part, the mind melding. What were the unique things about Angarans, nothing really stuck out for me talking the Jaal or the others?

Enemies, there was no Saren in this game. No well written agent of the enemy that was challenging you and every turn as you tried to keep up or stay on step ahead. The Archon just wasn't much of anything. Then you had Sovereign who brought the seriousness of what was coming, because if one reaper could almost take the Citadel what would hundreds be like. You feared them. I didn't fear the Kett, they were never built up as anything, so seeing the new Kett leader turn and walk away from the window at the end did nothing for me because they weren't built up as anything I should fear during the game.

They way you were introduced to things like the Citadel, where even your crew was running to the window to see the Citadel and the Destiny Ascension and were in awe along with you seeing it for the first time. Since everyone in ME:A was seeing everything for the first time, there should have been more of this discovery played out in the game.

I could go on to things that a really more subjective like moments, but ME:1, just looking at ME:1 did a better job at introducing you to the it's world and laying the groundwork than ME:A did.

Just my 2 cents.

Yup, it is bound to happen


tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VindicatedByHistory

I think the point is that Spectres have a purpose beyond fighting reapers, it is well explained and justified.  Pathfinders on the other hand do not.  There are IIRC 4 MW colonies/outposts founded before the Pathfinders even arrive, so they aint required for scouting new colonies, they are only required for activating retirement tech.  This is classic example of building a universe around your story, rather than building a story around your universe and is objectively bad writing.  

the thing is i didn't make the comparisons to the OT Because Bioware made it very clear in the marketing that Andromeda was going to be different from the trilogy and Ryder was going to be different from Shepard.

Any comparison to the OT is either superficial or done in a unique, fresh, in many cases better way.

One may never forget that they were the ones opening that particular can of wirms. They could have created a new IP instead of using the Mass Effect brand. By calling it Mass Effect, they invited comparisons by people, who bought this game because of the label.

It may not be fair, but that's the way it is. Apart from the fact that it's entirely legit to compare Bioware against Bioware. Such as the work that went into the companions, as compared to previous efforts by Bioware. That would even be legit if it was indeed an entirely new IP.

To me ME1 is like a story that's already been told, you're just now catching up on it. ME:A is just a bunch of cheap deus ex machinas, only there to further the plot along. We can't defend this station? Have somebody do a biotic bubble the size of our moon, that'll save us!

Wait...


what?!?

HFS.

I can accept their own biotic bubbles around their person. But jesus, the size of a moon?

Holy christ, you people will defend anything.

Err, right. Okay. If you wanna have that much dogma about a subject, I'm out. You're defending something which is shit, you know it's shit, and yet you're defending it anyway.

You can compare MEA to any individual game in the trilogy and it will remain considerably lacking.

It's not a good game by (old) Bioware standards.

It's not like we're comparing ME:A to FIFA. It is only natural to compare a Mass Effect game with another Mass Effect game.
It's not about the trilogy either, it's about how good the tittle can do compared to how good ME1, ME2, and ME3 did on their own.

Of course, opinions are opinions, but ME:A's story is vastly inferior to ME1 story, and take into account that ME:A borrows a lot of things from the trilogy (part of the mistake). ME1 did everything from scratch and the combat suffered a bit because of that, the trade-off was a complete new universe filled with lore, life, and a very good story to be continued for the subsequent titles.
With ME:A, you have a product that tried to be new and fresh, but ended up mimicking things we already saw before, and not being particularly good at that either, with lots of potential wasted and very inconsistent writing.

I didn't mind it, especially compared to the Star Child.