Why do people here act like animations....

So... the point of this thread is reiterate (for the umpteenth time) that "I don't like Andromeda because..."

and then complain that other people don't agree with that assessment?

I agree with everything you said but you missed:

- bullet spongy enemies
- a regression to a ridiculous loot system
- unbalanced weapons
- visual, audio and haptic feedback of guns feeling bad/weak
- a reliance on weapon bloom instead of proper feeling recoil
- ugly (kett) or impractical (remnant) weapon design. How exactly is one supposed to shoulder a remnant rifle without injuring oneself? The butt is a giant spike FFS
- a level up system that punishes the player because of enemy scaling
- a clunky profile changing system
- a clunky loadout weapon and armour loadout system
- the fact that they just plunked a Mass Effect skin over a Dragon Age system even though we were told several times that this was not going to be "Dragon Age in space"
- the fact that SAM is actually the hero of the story
- a space exploration system that looks pretty but doesn't actually reward you for exploring space
- an environmental hazard system that forces the player to sit and wait for life support system to come back online
- the fact that the angara suck
- the fact that the decisions you make have little to no consequences
- the character creator that focuses more on being able to make clown characters rather than on actual customisation
- Ryder's weird posture when not in armour
- a cartoonish colour palette
- magically appearing melee weapons (sword, krogan hammer that just appear in your hand. These aren't produces by your omni tool so they should be visible on the character at all times when equipped)

There's probably more but these were just off the top of my head.

That sounds like an accurate summation, yes.

OP, you make good points, but I still wonder why you are surprised. There are lots of people overly negative and lots of people overly positive (which shouldn't surprise on a fan forum if one thinks about it), while the big majority probably sits somewhere in the middle and keeps quiet. So isn't it clear that both extremes are trying to cancel the arguments of the other side out? Which of course will never happen. One reason BTW is IMO that people tend to talk past one another too often.

To the question why bugs and animations get named even by the biggest supporters: because those two might be the only points where everyone agrees on. Everything else is subjective. Even though I agree with some of your points, it doesn't mean that we two are right when it comes to them. It also doesn't mean that everyone values these things in the same way. An example: My biggest gripe is the tone of the writing and the premise of the Initiative - and I hope that BioWare will agree with me when they plan the next game - but that isn't a sure thing and other players like that light hearted tone.

I'm pretty tired of fans bashing the game, bashing BioWare/EA, bashing each other for not agreeing with what should be bashed, links to other fans bashing something about MEA/BioWare/EA on youtube, in the meantime probably declaring someone to be the bashmaster etc.

I mean, don't we have better things to discuss when it comes to one of our favorite video game series? Looking at the first page of this forum it seems, sadly, that's apparently not the case.

As far as I know people here that liked ME:A where not saying the game was perfect. Look at the scores in the "review" section. Most people that liked the game said it was good. Most of them gave in between 7 or 8 (above average to good), and that's it. They where very well aware that there where more problems with the game than animations alone, but in their eyes the positives outweighed the negatives. That's a very valid opinion, just like the opinion that say's otherwise is valid.

Problem was - People here where harshly attacked by some people if the just dare to say they liked the game. Very harshly indeed. They where ridiculed, and accused of being a "Bioware puppet", "tastless jerks", "stupid blind", "satisfied with a story written by a 5 year old", brainless idiots, and so on, and so on. Needless to say that this caused a reaction. And part of that reaction was to quantify those received remarks as "hatefull". And to be honest - These remarks where not very polite, to say it mildly. I am sure that is something that can be agreed up on.

Now - people here that stayed polite but just disagreed with each other, could have a good discussion. And an opinion is something you can discuss about without trying to discredit each other. Sadly - every discussion that started out polite was rapidly invaded by those harsh people and they did everything to derail the discussion (and most times successful).

And lastly - To say that anyone that liked the game stated that only the animations where the problem is really a bit simplifying, and far from correct. The most people said that the initial reaction to the game would have been be better if there was not an "smoking animations gun" that could be used to ridicule the game. And I agree. It's not that the game would have a big positive reception. Nobody is saying that. It's only that the game would have more balanced critic, if that "funny stuff" - that is (even still now) been used over and over again by YouTubers in a cheap way - was not available in the first place. If those bad animations would not have been available, as they are gone now with the latest patch, that "funny stuff" could not have been derailing every possibility to argue about the real content of the game.

So - No, the better animations and bug corrections would not have made the game suddenly great, but at least there would be no stupid "funny stuff" to rob it from all chances beforehand.

Oh this is such a typical MJ thread. Yes MJ I ackhowledge that there are aspects to this game that are flawed outside the technical issues. No MJ it does not mean the game is "bad". A lot of it just comes down to how you prefer the game itself to be designed. I preferred the ME 2/3 format to the open world format. Other people don't they actually prefer the more open world format. You know what that means? It means how the game was designed and the design choices they made are all subjective to our own individual tastes. You want to act like there is nothing good or redeeming to this game and you know deep down that is simply not true. The reality is that is does not suit your individual tastes. I still like the game despite the fact that I do not agree with many of the design choices. At the end of the day it is still subjective. It might be "cool" to pick on MEA now but five years down the road I doubt it will be as hated as it is now. The mob has a short attention span they will move on to something else to hate. Look at DA 2 sure there are people that still don't like the game but it is not nearly hated as much as it used to be. You know why? It was never a "bad" game in the first place. Flawed? Sure. "bad"? Definitely not.

Wasn't it the character forum?  I never visited so I can't say definitively but I remember hearing something to this effect. 

Animations, bugs and broken quests etc are objective issues.

Story, characters and gameplay are subjective ones.

You either liked the game or didn't, patching can't change that.

Yeah, I noticed the animations issues in the beginning as I played the EA Trial on March 17th but it didn't necessarily bother me.  Having seen where it was in terms of animations to after the 1.10 patch I got to see significant changes in terms of expressions in the animations so, by virtue of that, I enjoyed the game more than I did previously. 

I agree with you but this shit has been discussed to death. Let it rest already.

Well - that's because the quality of GoT has gone downhill since they lost their books as source material.

The problem with the animations in andromeda is that they accentuate the weak writing. Like the scene where Ryder nonchalantly smirks after addressing her dads death.