Why the Characters of Mass Effect Andromeda are well written.

Conceptually they had ideas, but it was executed terribly. We're not really allowed to explore this into much detail. The characters are not fully explored and aren't really affected by our actions. For instance, in Dragon Age inquisition, we can turn a virtuous woman like Cassandra into a drunk depending on our actions. Were allowed to explore the many different extremes of characters. In Andromeda, there's no extreme. The characters are just there and we aren't really allowed to explore them further. We have a bare bones concept of who they are and that's about it. I don't think they're well written at all. Nothing special to be honest.

we got to know the characters in the MET through blunt force trama. Through reams and reams of exposition. Not natural conversation. We were told. We weren't shown.

In Andromeda we could effect our Characters and even drive them to certain extremes. However i find extremism to not be good writing. Quite the opposite infact. Most people aren't extremists. We tend to fall in the middle. And sure we can be driven to extremism at times...but on the other hand it would be a mistake to assume that Just because we can't drive them to extremes doesn't mean our choices don't matter.

I just can't agree.  DA2 is a trainwreck on nearly every level.  Maybe the character writing can be put next to ME's, but that would be it.

Actually speaking of DA 2 most of Andromedas best features were borrowed from the game. Namely its RPG mechanics focusing on personality rather then morality. And its character writing where you had to get to know your characters through their own story rather then just asking them a bunch of questions.

Peebee and the escape pot comes to mind. This was big and one of the moments, much more than the partially infantile dialogue, where I thought to be in a slapstick movie. You simply couldn't react in an appropriate manner. For all my Ryder knew, she got them stranded on a hostile asteroid. That didn't get any better by me knowing that this won't happen because it added yet another disconnect between me and the Ryder I was playing.

I'd agree that Andromeda's design sort of mimicked DA2's personality mechanic, but not that it was a great feature.  Hawke, like Ryder, remains a rather controversial figure - some people love 'em, some hate 'em, many simply feel disconnected from them.

... which provides me with a segue to a little theory I'd like to advance.

I'm going to suggest that the way players perceive other characters depends to some degree on how they feel about their PC.

Shepard is the living, breathing embodiment of the archetypal military action-adventure hero that we've seen over and over again in story after story.  S/he suffers setback after setback, struggles to gain support from relevant authority figures, but ultimately emerges not only right but victorious.  We've seen this archetype so many times and in so many different forms, that slipping into this character's shoes as a role-play PC is pretty much automatic.  We understand military and political organizations, as we've seen them many times in fiction.

Ryder doesn't really fit any particular archetype.  Her background is a little vague, as is her role as a Pathfinder.  (Personally, I found it an interesting challenge to define that role, as my character was the first person to ever really fill it for very long.)  Like Hawke, people figure out who Ryder is as they play along - and a lot of people aren't particularly comfortable with that.  The character's youth and inexperience don't help, either.  The Andromeda Initiative, too, is not fully understood, and is also controversial.  We've seen a lot of arguments about why anyone would join the Ai, why they'd send unarmed ships and ground vehicles, etc.  So - the easy acceptance of Shepard and her sponsoring organization does not extend to Ryder.

It's also possible that the misgivings about the whole Ai in general are being applied to all of the people who joined the group and went to Andromeda.

The bottom line for me, though, is that I do feel the Andromeda characters were every bit as well-written as any from the OT, but there are other factors that create perception problems.

I actually think the character writing is one of ME:A's weaker aspects. They don't feel like real people to me as they are all very focused on one single aspect of themselves, that the writer seemed to try and beat down on in almost every single conversation you have with them. Comparing them to other BW characters they lack dimentionality in my opinion, they are too focused. Real people have more than one personality trait and while it is important to highlight a character's primary motivations and goals in order to make them memorable ME:A is overdoing it on that front to the point where most squad mates annoy me.
In addition, most of their major personality traits are not very complex but can be boiled down to very simple premises and even worse, these characters self analyze a lot. It's not something people do a lot in the real world usually but these guys tend to explain to Ryder why they are the way they are, rather then letting Ryder (or the player) figuring it out by themselves. Jaal is a good example for this when he tells you (in one of his first conversations when he doesn't even know the other races at all yet) how they are very openly emotional and vocal because they live in these large families, etc., etc. But he's not the only one. Most of these character seem to follow a tell, don't show approach and that IMO takes a lot of fun out of getting to know them. If you spill almost everything there is in your first conversation and repeat it over and over alter, the routine gets old quick.
For me, it actually got to the point where doing my rounds of the Tempest got more of a chore (and this is coming from someone who loved going around the Normandy).

So sorry OP, can't agree with you there. Yes, they each have their arcs, but I don't consider that enough for actual good character writing.

As for Ryder, I agree, s/he is better constructed as a character within a story. Not sure if s/he is the better player avatar though. I definitely felt I had more input into the character of Shepard then Ryder. There is a trade-off there and it's very much a matter of taste where you want the player character to fall on that spectrum.

This is the same thing to me.

It also bothered me how they all were like "Hmm you have a different opinion but I understand your side and lets be friends". Not that having some characters that get along is bad, but having other dynamics makes them feel like real people. Jack and Miranda wanting to tear each other in half, but then Garrus and Tali are pals. Grunt and Zaeed weren't necessarily friendss, but they understood and shared experiences and were perfectly amicable with each other.

The point about characters telling so much also is a flaw in the writing to me. Show, don't tell is a very basic writing concept in movies/tv/games. The characters tell you what they are and how they are more often than acting that way. Its kind of a whole thing with the game. You're told how strange and alien everything is compared to the MW, but there is such familiarity with the colonies and everything that you could say the game was set somewhere in the Terminus or Far Rim that I would have believed it.