How will game 'journalists' spin Casey Hudson's return to BW?

Well recently, I had to disagreed with joe on many things, one of them being mass effect andromeda. Now his reviews belongs to him and he has the right to his opinion, but he made several points that had nothing to do with the quality of MEA and more of what he wanted the game to have, for exemple he consider the absence of space battle to be a negative and same for no choice of alien species for the SP of Andromeda.

Now I would have loved both of those things to be there in MEA, but it was never part of what ME did, ME was always about a defined character and no space battles were playable. IF bioware wants to make a game with multiple species, I would love to see that but they wanted a defined character like ryder than they should do what they want. And for space battles, while I was dissapointed when I learned there was not going to be any, That modes takes up ressources to create and maybe the team was not interested into making it, and if they were not interested I don't think they should be forced to do it.

Another thing I hated that he did was during his injustice 2 review, where he unfortunately said that injustice brought the final nail in the coffin of MEA because it had better facial animation...

I was like "Ok joe, I am not saying MEA had acceptable facial animation at release they should definately have been more worked on before they sell it. The problem is comparing a fighting game who has much less work to do not only as a game, but can have full motion capture for their facial animation because they have at best 2 to maybe 3 hours cinematic to do with less than 30 characters, some of them completely masked and during the fight you don't see them upclose for most of the fight. Comparing it with MEA who had hundreds of characters, not all scripted cutscenes and dozens of hours of cinematics... its comparing magic apples to a mutant sci fi oranges".

If he compare dragon age inquisition to mass effect andromeda, ok it would have already been a better comparison because they are both rpg with a lot of character and non scripted cutscenes and like I said the facial animation of MEA were bad for an rpg. But asking rpg to have the same facial animation than a very short fighting game, that would blow up the budget.

And once again, you put words in my mouth.  You keep trying to turn this into a binary question.  No , not every detail is needed.  But some details are.  Including why the "on" switch for the Crucible is a pipe that has to be shot.

I'm asking that you be clear as I'm not sure what your specific point is. I'm not 'putting words in your mouth' or 'trying to turn this into a binary question', my original question was asking what it was about the endings that meant they were 'poorly explained'. You responded with a list of examples that implied that you expected quite significant detail on the various events. I pointed out that the level of detail you appeared to be expecting is not normal for this kind of genre - down to wanting to know precisely how Synthesis worked or why that tube, when broken, caused Destroy etc.

At that stage you started claiming I was arguing people should leave their brain on the shelf etc, which I blatantly wasn't suggesting at all as I specifically pointed out that, while the specifics were not covered, it was pretty clear what the ultimate result you were being offered was and therefore the endings being 'poorly explained' didn't appear to fit.

FWIW I'm not suggesting the endings were particularly good - I quite liked the High EMS/Destroy ending because it drew a line under everything, but also partially because both Synthesis and Control came with a lot of questionable connotations which didn't really fit the overall story the trilogy had put forward, and I'd agree that endings that all sounded like realistic options rather than Go Mad/Go Cyborg/Do what you originally set out to do would have been better. But for them actually being explained? And understanding what they actually were? As I said, I didn't feel like I was in the dark as to what they meant.

Why is it considered unreasonable to know why the on switch is a tube to be broken?  Or why Shepard has to walk into the subsequent explosion?

Hell, why is it considered unreasonable to question why Shepard has to die at all in any of the endings?  Especially after five years of "these are your Shepards"?

Why is it considered unreasonable to want to know how Synthesis is supposed to work?  Especially if this is a choice that is going to affect everything living in the galaxy as well as everything that WILL live in the galaxy?  Not to mention it was blatantly put for as the "best" ending.  Why is it the best?

Then if it requires that level of explanation, it should have been left out.

 

Why Shepard is walking towards the tube while shooting it? That doesn't make sense

You can believe that, but it was stupid. Shepard being in the military for over 10 years would know the effective range of the weapon and realize shooting the tube from a distance would get the same result instead of  getting up close and personal with the tube