Why MEA did not work for me

Not this veteran. Also, why would that have anything to do with anything? 

I wouldn't say this place is about circle jerking Andromeda, but I have noticed that it has become somewhat of an echochamer of positive MEA thought which isn't a bad thing, but it is interesting to come here and see how 90%+ of the discussion is more positive about MEA and any prospects of future ME titles while everyone else outside this forum tends to be more critical of MEA.

I am not looking to start any fights. All I want to do is offer my opinions as to why MEA does not live up to what I expect today in 2017 from a AAA WRPG especially after playing Witcher 3 which IMO raised the bar for non JRPG gaming and I believe that when Cyberpunk 2077 comes out, it will be a product full of quality that will once again raise the bar for RPGs. Bioware used to be that developer that would raise the bar and set the standards, now it seems like they are trying to catch up with others seeing how DAI was an attempt to ride the coats of the Skyrim success. 

I am not saying MEA was a failure, but it is telling that after 3 months of being released, EA has yet to say ANYTHING about any success (financial or critical) about MEA and yet only 2 months after the release of DAI, EA was making it known just how will DAI sold and the records it broke. If I had to be honest, the future for ME is more bleak than positive. I feel that Bioware will continue to patch the game and release a story DLC or two, and then after than let the IP finally rest after a long 10-year run and then focus on DA4 and new IPs. 

But yeah, it is a bit hard here to be criticle about Andromeda cause this place has become a save haven for all people who enjoy Andromeda and any critical discussion about the game is always met with disdain. It is almost the reverse of the old BSN where most of the talk was negative and any positive discussion was met with disdain. 

Funny how you say Bioware is not boarding the current bandwagon of darkish games but yet it was Bioware that admitted to jumping onto the Skyrim/open world band-wagon with DAI because they wanted to ride the success wave of open world that Skyrim created.

Point is, this is a business and appealing to the demographics that will lure in the greater return on investment is a BUSINESS decision that will be made by EA.

Gamers got tired of the futuristic shooters....so EA gave us Battlefield 1 set in WWI and now we are getting a WWII Call of Duty Game. 

It isn't a fluke why Horizon and TW3 are viewed as great games while MEA is seen as below the standard and average at best.

Again, funny because with Mass Effect 2, Bioware was very clear that they wanted to imitate the combat from Gears of War for Mass Effect 2. In the end, ME2 is viewed by many as the best Mass Effect title.

Funny isn't it?

I don't think anybody would have complained, let alone noticed if BioWare had taken on some of CDPR's attention to detail and worldcrafting...  but the similarities between the Omnitool in ME:A and Geralts witcher senses seemed a bit on the nose to me.  

ME2 is primarily remembered for its combat? And those "many" specifically liked the fact that they have copied another developer? So, you are championing even further the uniformity among all game titles. (Shrug) 

ME2 is primarily remembered for its combat? And those "many" specifically liked the fact that they have copied another developer? So, you are championing even further the uniformity among all game titles. (Shrug) Well, this is not the first and the last time when someone tried to regulate the arts, and tell what is "beautiful" and what is not; or in your case, what will sell. But popularity is short lived. After all, you have not even played Baldur's Gate. And neither should you, its time has passed.  

But it's 2017, and we can still play a game with a customization for a protagonist, party, hopeful setting and have fun.  Or some other game that has different set up, and have fun. Perhaps, in the future, the games will not be as expensive to make, so the pressure to sell massive amounts will be less, so we will see games that can more and more afford to speak to its own audience, not try to please an edgy teen with zip to his name, and a sweet grayhaired lady who is bored with prosperity and quietude alike, an old boy ripping his shirt over his chest in his nostalgia for old values and an up and coming libertarian looking ahead to something different. 

Sigh....

This isn't about Andromeda vs Witcher or you vs me. This is about will EA allow Bioware to stay current course or get in and suggest Bioware adapt more onto what is selling today. Like I said before, EA could careless about your feelings or my feelings, they care about $$$$ and if they feel that they can make more $$$$ by forcing Bioware to adapt more features from games like Witcher 3 and Horizon, then Bioware will do so. If EA feels that they will lose $$$$ by seeking another ME title, then MEA will be the last ME game, regardless of your feelings or my feelings.

So when I say that Bioware could or should adapt to a more modern approach to videogame story-telling instead of the archaic "I am so special" approach of the past, then it will be done based on $$$$, not what you want or what I want. 

Sigh....

This isn't about Andromeda vs Witcher or you vs me. This is about will EA allow Bioware to stay current course or get in and suggest Bioware adapt more onto what is selling today. Like I said before, EA could careless about your feelings or my feelings, they care about $$$$ and if they feel that they can make more $$$$ by forcing Bioware to adapt more features from games like Witcher 3 and Horizon, then Bioware will do so. If EA feels that they will lose $$$$ by seeking another ME title, then MEA will be the last ME game, regardless of your feelings or my feelings.

So when I say that Bioware could or should adapt to a more modern approach to videogame story-telling instead of the archaic "I am so special" approach of the past, then it will be done based on $$$$, not what you want or what I want. 

Biowares already partaking in borrowing features/ideas off others. They've specifically said skyrim influenced them to try open world since DA:I, gears has already influenced the combat long ago, and they've said they'd take some influence from TW3. It's an industry where it amounts to who can do it better cause copying will happen regardless what people want.

The problem with the Kett wasn't that they were introduced to early, it was that they weren't built into anything that you would fear.

In ME:1 you had fodder enemies and then you rolled out Sovereign, which was when everything really got real, and then after Sovereign attacked the Citadel, it was a man, if one reaper can do this what would hundreds or thousands do.

In ME:2, right out of the gate Collectors destroyed your ship and killed you. Then took over entire colonies with advanced tech that you had to prepare for. You had mercs for the most part as fodder enemies, and the collectors even when you fought them, you never went into a collector base and just overrun it. You snuck on their ship and escaped. They were built up as something bigger than you.

ME:3 Reapers require no explanation.

Now ME:A. First scene you walk into a Kett controlled facility and take it over. On Kadara, exiles with limited supplies, running from the Initiative eradicate the Kett presence on the planet and put their heads up as trophies. This is the race that has this vast galaxy-wide Empire. Really? Nothing about the Kett screamed fear us. So at the end, when the new Kett Commander or whoever that was turns and walks from the window, who cares, I didn't feel threatened.

Now in the first scene had you found the facility with the remnant tech first and then the Kett came to claim it, showing up with some advanced tech forcing you to flee. Then you have an entirely different view of the Kett. They could have even made this how Alec was killed, sacrificing himself to make sure you got out OK.