What score this game deserved after latest patches?

Even as someone who found Andromeda to be entirely mediocre, I'd say that the game is just about worth a punt at 50% off. In the event you do end up pulling the trigger, tell us what you make of it.

Me, right now.

I gave it a 7/10 at launch and it's still 7/10 game to me. Because you can't fix what annoyed me most in a patch. Only DLC and a sequel can but since you have to pay for them my score won't change.

The author of The Witcher is just salty, because he has sold the rights for the game franchise for an not too high amount of money. It looked a good bet at that time. CDPR had originally offered him a percentage of the sales from the game, but he declined that and asked a fixed sum. If he had chosen that sales percentage, he would have a multitude of the sum that was payed to him.

So - He turned grumpy on that. Also - his books got a great sale impulse driven by the popularity of TW3. He cannot stand that, and claims the game sold that good because the popularity of his books. When asked for that for the n'th time he got salty and said some unpleasant things.

This all has nothing at all to do with the development studio (CDPR), and saying the TW3 game is rotten because of that frustrated author is completely and utterly ridiculous (the same can be said about that infantile yelling about that presumed SJW stuff in ME:A).

Anyway - Back to topic. My score for ME:A is still "very good". I don't like that number score, because an 8 in America seems to be lower than a 8 in Europe. As far as I seem to understand a 8 in America means "average", While 6 to 7 means "average" in Europe. So I would give the game an 8.5 in the European scale, what means "above merely good, but below excellent".

8 before patches, 9 now.

No, that seems to be the same everywhere. It's the game magazine's fault that they handed 80ies and 90ies left, right and center to every so called AAA title being released. That stuck in people's perception and they don't realize anymore that a 7 is still an above average rating. As is a 6 even. There's a reason why there are ten digits on the usual scale and everything between. Not everything is a 90, which speaks of a near flawless game or a 1, which implies a total trainwreck.

This time they got it pretty right by averaging at 71, far as I remember. The game's good, it offers quite a lot, but it's not something memorable, exceptional or flawless. I for one would have expected quite a bit more from a game that had a five year development cycle.

my god for once i agree with the Europeans. Honestly we have people on this forum (you know who are) who are treating this game like some massive failure...pointing to review scores and metacritic. Last time i checked 70+ wasn't a failure. And especially given the huge hurdles this game faced if i were bw I'd be cracking open the champagne at just how well it did.

6\10

Dialogue, story and quest design are still bad.

Problem with that is 2 things:

1) Mass Effect (the brand) is not 70+ but rather 80+ on a bad day. 70+ is not what was expected and please do not act like it was.

2) EA will most likely see the 70ish average below the standard which it is for a ME game. If it was 80ish we would be hearing teases about DLC from the devs along with a soft conformation from Bioware/EA that MEA2 is in the works and more MEA media coming such as more novels and perhaps a comic series. NONE of that has happened and we all know the future of MEA or ME as a whole is really close to being dead.

70ish score isnt bad, but for a brand such as Mass Effect from a developer such as Bioware.....70ish isnt something to celebrate.

Hey, at least I'm honest

Still 9/10. The game hit the sweet spot for me, and the patches did not have impact on that.

ME1: 7/10, ME2 + ME3= 9/10, ME2 standalone 7/10, ME3 standalone 8/10