Polygon: In Defense of Mass Effect

Speak for yourself. It's worthy of the title cult classic for all the right reasons IMO.

People like to be contrary to popular opinion. I think what bioware did was bad, but not because MEA was really not that bad. It's bad because they laid all the blame on Montreal when it wasn't just Montreal. It isn't as if Montreal is its own identity and had 100% creative direction. We know that other names from Edmonton were actually more involved in the conception of MEA than Montreal was. Once they knew where they were going, they handed it off to Montreal. Which was a piss poor method for doing a game. On top of that they didn't have a lot of Veterans transfer over to Montreal well before MEA conception. The fact is when you make a new office you can't fill it with a bunch of new talent and expect that to work. Things were bad at Montreal well before MEA and they knew it, didn't fix it, and handed them a game they knew they couldn't handle. They failed them as much as Montreal did.

So my problem with the decision is it doesn't fix the underlying problems at bioware. It just gets rid of a bunch of new talent and ignores that old veteran management was just as much to blame for the problem. They'll go on to make similar mistakes because they aren't actually dealing with the problem. My 2 cents and all, but MEA is not awful never was. It was just mediocre which was disappointing to us fans because it could have been better. They should have restructured based on what was good about it and what didn't work. Laid proper blame to all the senior management involved in at bioware.

Cult classic can be good or bad, it just means it has a cult-like following.  Firefly is a cult classic in a good way IMHO, and something like Sharknado is a cult classic in a bad way because people just watch them for how ridiculous they are lol.

Weren't they bashing the game for some really stupid reason months ago? And some wonder why gaming media consist mostly of click bait articles.

This is what they said about the game months ago.


"After a number of complaints, it might seem odd to end on such a positive note. Let’s be clear: I’m conflicted about Mass Effect: Andromeda. There’s a lot of roughness throughout the game, and the technical issues, while not game-breaking, are often incredibly distracting.

But it’s my time with the cast that I’m still thinking about, and the mysteries about the world that haven’t been answered that make me feel like I’m waiting once again for a new Mass Effect game. And if I’m judging a game by where it leaves me, Andromeda succeeds, even if it stumbled getting there."


Hardly bashing the game.  Unless my understanding of bashing is different than everyone else.

well the article I think is just wrong, there's not really anything under the hood that's worth holding up

I'm still not convinced that the two articles even disagree with each other, let alone that such a disagreement would mean anything.

At least here, that's not the case. You'll note that the review and the new article are by different writers with a separation of half a year between them. Furthermore... the new article is about how games can flop but still have a lot going for them... and the original review is basically "I really enjoyed this but a lot of it didn't work", so it's hardly much of a difference.


I've worked in media myself and it's not unheard of for an editor to put out two simultaneous pieces with different viewpoints at the same time; in fact, editors love it when two intelligent people in the office disagree, because that offers a lot of information and interesting content for the readers.

Two different authors with two different opinions.

As Yoda would say: a conspiracy it is not.

I don't think that's the right metric. Overall quality isn't really relevant to cult classic status, except in the sense that something too good ends up being just plain classic.

The question is whether it nevertheless inspires devotion for a large but not too large group of fans. I don't think ME:A is going to get there either, though. It has strengths, but nothing really particular to itself.

She mentions Earth Defense Force and Deadly Premonition. I just don't see Andromeda making it to the place those have. Again, I like Andromeda, but I think it's in ugly stepchild territory. Really, ME1 has more of a cult feel than Andromeda.

Subtle dig at a conspiracy maybe...

The fact is that ME3 and DAI's over all quality was never in question. Only design choices. ME:A is truly the DA2 of its time. People may like it but that doesn't excuse its flaws.