What score this game deserved after latest patches?

Yeah, I get that. I'm harsh on ME3, but in the end I learnt to cope with that, and I wound up having multiple playthroughs, if only because I'm stubborn and I was not letting one game ruin me the end of the trilogy like that. 

This forum is a better indicator than metacritic? In what way? This place is nothing more than a small community of mostly hardcore Bioware fans. There is no other reason, except for loving atleast some of Bio's games or flat-out trolling, to be here. I therefore see atleast two negative points when it comes to using this community as an indicator for the playerbase at large. The userbase is too small and the people tend to be biased. No single poll or thread here can therefore be used as a definitive indicator of how the game is received. Atleast not without using other sources for cross-reference. Metacritic is also not the best place to look, I'm the first to admit that, but it has its strong-points which you seem to overlook. I'm not talking about the user scores by the way because they are utter garbage and anyone using them as a source just needs to get off the internet. My post is about the critic scores. Those too have the problem that they, in the end, are comprised of a small sample group. On the other hand, criticasting is those people's job, not a pasttime. They tend to be more professional in their arguments and statements than the people here. Critics rate and compare games on an almost daily basis so they have a better overview of how a game fits in comparison to other releases around it. In the end Metacritic is still a collection of opinions though so you can always be free to disagree, but when it comes to sources the amount of 'authority' one has to speak and write about a subject is extremely important, and this is clearly in metacritic's favor. Fans still have some authority because they can compare Andromeda with other Bioware games and are often quite knowledgeable on the consumer-end of gaming, but critics, on the other hand, are professionals. The pool of games they have played and reviewed is probably larger, they tend to have more background information and knowledge and they can structurally write on a professional level. They have, as long as their track record is solid, a greater authority than a Bioware fan like you and me. You might not like that, and that's fine, but it's just how sources work.

So I can't help but feel that your statement that this forum is a better indicator than metacritic is quite problematic and I would like to hear your view on why it's the other way round. Still though, I would like to underscore that I personally never base my assumptions on one source alone. Best way to look at the reception of the game with the limited overview we have is to use as many sources as possible, studying their merits and problems and weigh them down. I can look here to see what a handful of longtime Bioware fans think of the game. I look at social media and my local surroundings to get a grasp of what a lot of casuals think of the game and I look at metacritic and individual review sites to see what professionals have to think. The more sources the better I say.

Sorry, among the previewers and reviewers are enough that are simply not as professional about it as you claim; and they've let me down too many times... i.e. where upon playing the game myself, I had a completely different opinion on it than they did.  Some of them churn out articles that are basically click-bait on a regular timetable and some of the panel discussions are laden with all sorts of just plain attention-seeking silliness.  I'm of the view that the best way to get a halfway accurate assessment of the game is to watch people actually playing the game as they play the game, preferably blind... listening to their natural commentary as they encounter various elements of the game and then decide for oneself whether or not it's a game that interests you.

Um, my score was bumped up .08 since patch 1.08. Originally I gave the game a 5/10 but it's gotten a bit better since.

Oh I know and acknowledge that there are a lot of rotten tomatoes in the bunch when it comes to reviewers and critics. That's why I also specifically added that their track record is of vital importance when defining the amount of authority they have. About reviewers letting you down... In the end it simply all comes down to opinions anyway. I've disagreed with  reviewers many times but that's why you need to look out for reviewers with a similar taste and style. Oh, and you should also try to gain information from as much sources as possible. Looking at people playing the game is also a good way to assess if you like a game or not so I commend you for that and I agree that it is a good way to gather intelligence. The discussion between Lucas and Griffith was about Metacritic and this forum however and which one held more merit. Hence the exclusion of individual streamers from my post. When it comes down to that I still believe that professionals tend give a better indication of the reception of a game than a smaller fan forum. We are in the middle of it all after all whilst they can report on things from the outside and have generally access to more sources than we have. 'Tend' is the keyword here however, because it is ALWAYS important to check each individual critic or poster for his/her track record. No matter how professional one might seem to be. I'm looking at you IGN.

Uh... I think he was referring to me. You're faaaar from radical - very much a Biodrone.

It's good that we have threads like this here. Otherwise this forum would be too boring to visit.

Now, though, you're arguing beyond just believing the reviewer Metacritic score... you're into reading and researching individual reviews and reviewers.  The same can be done here on the forums through archives.  If people want to put in the groundwork in, they can tell which people are overtly positive or negative about the game.  They can read the quality of the individual arguments and decide for themselves who they are inclined to agree with or disagree with, who they feel might have an agenda (overly negative or overly positive), who is trolling, etc.  It's not like any of these posts are private.

The thing with Metacritic and Andromeda that makes it obvious to me that the aggregate score for the game should be higher is that there is a full 3 point different between the reviewer scores and the user scores.  Combine that with the fact that, for a time right a release, those user scores were even lower... and that translates to clear evidence of a metabombing... so, yeah, I throw out the user scores entirely.  However, based on personal experience and by watching the reactions of people playing the game on YouTube, I still feel the reviewer scores are too low for this particular game.  Part of the reason is that some of the scores are based on very short preview plays done prior to release of the game and others were clearly influenced by the opinions already being express by other reviewers and the public.  The memes and the metabombing clearly had an impact on some of those reviewers.  Furthermore, they (like any media) can also be influenced by their own employers and advertisers and, yes, sponsors.

Again, I'm not out to convince anyone to like the game.  If, based on your own experiences with it, you give it a low score; that's perfectly OK by me.  I think it should, however, also be OK with anyone else that I give it a high score based on my own experiences with it... without questioning my sanity or the sanity of anyone else here.

So either reviewers all colluded together... or maybe the game is just kinda bad compared to everything else out there?

I find it funny that when Inquistion got glowing, some people accused reviewers of collusion. Now that with ME: A the reviews all of a sudden fair and balanced?

I'm not saying that there is corruption, I'm just making an observation.