Curious about the complaints surrounding Andromeda.

damn straight.

The game had its weak points but for whatever reason I enjoyed the heck out of it. I see a lot of comments about people being mad at paying top dollar for a new game and feeling like they got a beta. I paid top dollar for a game I enjoyed the heck out of. I feel like it was well worth every cent to me, but  then again, my  perspective is unique to me in that I had been playing an MMO with my guy for almost a year, bored out of my mind, had come to hate that game and really was wanting a new one. That is when I noticed all the hype for MEA. While I never intended to get it thinking it would probably suck, I ended up quite liking what I saw in trailers. I thought facial expressions looked strange off the bat. Sara's in some of the takes she was in - well she looked bizarre and goofy to me - but I ignored that and focused a lot on fun looking combat, that I would probably play the male version, and whatever else looked good. I was so excited for  the game, you have no idea. But for me, I was bored to death with what I was doing, was wanting a new game to love, and along came this one where my expectations were so low that it could only go up and it did, tremendously. 

Perspective is important. And context for ones experience. I have no problem seeing how people who thought it would be like the second coming given that MET was overall stellar were massively disappointed. However, I do wonder why some have stayed on their unhappy focus for so long. I wish I could share my fun with them. 

There is that video from Jim Sterling where he rants about how gamers are especially vicious about disappointment with a game and want others to hate it too and attack people who like the game they hate. A lot of people don't understand this. I think it's not so inconceivable or incomprehensible when you put it in context of people loving something and being really excited for it, possibly for a long time, having very high hopes for it, then it shows up and their expectations were so high the game likely would not meet them, but add to that a game that had shortfalls beyond the OT, one that in general is good but had issues on release and doesn't really live up to the OT but still is good nevertheless.  Those people are going to feel really bad about it. All that expectation and excitement for what feels to them now like a huge disappointment. This is why I think any company that hypes the hell out of their games is rather dense. Better to just show up and  say here it is like Bethesda did with fallout 4 and create short term hype than to have it go on for years. Right now, if I were running BW, I would STFU about Anthem and not get into any discussion about it other than vague stuff (which they tried to do with MEA but they still showed up and showed enough to hype it). That's dangerous ground. Disappointment stings and people can get very mean about their disappointment.

Well, you did state "incredibly flawed" as if it was an objective fact rather than a personal judgement. Just plain "flawed" would have worked fine, or even "seriously flawed," but "incredibly" is a bit much.  What sort of response did you expect? 

Yes, the tone is light but then every once in awhile it will suddenly shift and give you a decidedly Renegade-style option even though you don't have any Renegade-style dialogue options to develop into a character that would do those things. I think my Ryder ended up sarcastic and snarky enough to justify decisions like that, but it still felt weird having her make them, given the "vibe" of her personality.

I could have a more useful reply if your original statement was useful as well. But since your original statement boils down to "Game is flawed but people refuse to see it", I didn't feel it actually deserved a well thought out response. You seem to refuse to see anything good about the game, so the counter statement is true. MEA haterz refuse to see that the game is not a failure or as flawed as some would say. But I can break it down into a more well thought out argument for ya, if movie references aren't your thing.

So let's look at your statement "MEA is incredibly flawed." You have to agree that that is a subjective statement. If you look at things like metacritic reviews from professional reviewers, the majority lie in the 70-80 range. While not stellar, those scores do not denote an incredibly flawed have, merely a game that could be better. Looking at the user review side and... Well now I'm blind. But actually reading those reviews (and cleaning up the ensuing vomit) clearly shows that many of the very low reviews are from people with issues that go beyond the game (SJW's, No Shep, Manveir Heir, EA sux, etc) and while some make reasonable arguments, so many are 0's for reasons that do not fall under the grading guidelines that they can be ignored. Now reviews and their scores are also subjective/opinions, but you can use them as a metric for quantifying the data to try to make sense out of the general point of view of the game. Thus, looking at review scores and opinions in those reviews from professional reviewers, MEA is not an objectively "incredibly flawed" game. Thus your opinion that it is is, as I said before, just that. Your Opinion, Man.

Secondly we can look at why you think the game is deeply flawed. Things like animations, graphics, glitches, etc, are fairly objective. They exist or they don't. In MEA's case, while at launch there were issues with these, many/most have been sorted out by the continued patches. Thus those reasons for being "incredibly flawed" can be taken out. So then you are left with gameplay, story, dialogue, etc. Gameplay I think was pretty universally agreed to be very good in Andromeda. You might not think so, but that would be going against what many reviewers and people here have said, so again, your opinion. Story is harder. Very much a personal opinion, but there can be some objectivity. Full Metal Jacket is fairly objectively better than a Disney channel original movie. But in this case, comparing the story of MEA to something in it's same genre/level, the OT or TW3, it can't be agreed that MEA's is significantly worse. Again, your opinion.

So what we learned is that my original statement of your opinion that the game is "incredibly flawed" is, in fact, true, and is totally "Just, like, your opinion, man."

Thanks for playing.

Happens when you've got writers that can't write.

There is the Kett Empire, and the AI and angaran resources are not enough to fight it if the attack happens (so the new commander may request reinforcements and it would be very similar to ME3). And the kett themselves were represented as zombies (made of the angara), just like the Collectors and Reapers' troops. I guess, it was supposed to remove any ethical issues about shooting them and make them creepy (?). But it was the same plot-twist for the third time.

Also there was inconsistency with how they were shown - story-wise intelligent and cunning, because the angara said so; yet incredibly weak and predictable as the player cut through them casually.

No, lets never go there again. Let it go.

Story-wise, they were shown as being run off a planet by some exiles in a fledgling colony.  Story-wise the Kett fleet was defeated by an unarmed ship and a group of unmanned drones.  Story-wise they lost their exaltation facility on Voeld to a small group of people, not some Angaran army.  There was never a time in this game where the Kett story-wise or not were built up to be anything.

No, they were kicked off the planet.  Because later on in the game, you find a small group of Kett held up in a cave trying to re-establish a presence on the planet and you kick them out again, and never see them again.  To me, that's kicked off the planet.

1. A player character is OP.
2. The kett severely damaged the angara (which may say more about latter, than the former).
3. It was mentioned that the kett Empire conquered several (not specified or I don't remember) systems.

Something that's actually cool about the Kett concept is that they're basically a sentient virus of a sort. That could have been a little scary, and also as intimidating as anything in the OT, but they decided to go light and so we got the lumpy brute meathead design. Which does work with the tone, if it's your thing. I was hoping a second "real" antagonist would show up, like in ME1 and 2.