I don't get why this game got fire while trash games like PUBG get high praise

My experience with Bethesda games is very limited, but so far the only issue I have with FO4 is that it may crash once in a while. Not enough to make me flat out stop playing, but enough to be wary whenever I play. Since ME1 does this to me just as often on my PS4, it hasn't been the worst just yet. 

 I had New Vegas on ps3 and the bugs weren't that bad. I don't remember running to anything bad in fallout new vegas, fallout 3, skyrim and Fallout 4. Fallout 4 can crash if you mod it  alot, it might be my hardrive. 

I haven't bothered with FO4 because I have found Bethesda games aren't for me and decided that it would be best if I stop buying them.  I did try the game on one of the Steam free weekends and I had the audio constantly cutting out requiring me to quit the game and re-start the game and that is years after support ended for the game.  Then again I have seen plenty of posts that people say they haven't encountered the majority of bugs that people say are in Andromeda either so its always a personal encounter with the problems in those games even for me the majority of problems in the release version of Andromeda is the quest advancement issues and with my last playthrough I didn't encounter any quests that didn't hang post the 1.10 patch.

Going to Fallout: New Vegas for a moment and I don't blame Bethesda for its problems since it was developed by Obsidian.  I was excited about the game, but when I was playing it there were a lot of people at least on the PC encountering the fact you couldn't exit the starting building unless you jumped out the front door otherwise you could fall through the ground. The other bug I encountered on launch day was that the save system was broken for it would update the time you saved the game, but the data itself wouldn't update if you overwrote a save file.

I again want to point out my problem isn't with individual looks past the problems with the game or how the problems in a Bethesda game isn't as important to them as a BioWare game, its the reviewers that are doing so because if you are going to constantly call out problems with one game, why not do it to all games?  With how bipolar the review process has become and nobody seems to have a uniform voice anymore I have given up on reviews that aren't mine or people I directly talk to because there is no baseline to compare them with.  Unlike with movies I can go to one reviewer and if they absolutely had a movie, there is a good chance I will like it because they are fairly uniform in their reviews and I enjoy things in movies they don't.

When you remember Kingdom Come : Deliverance has much more ambition than Mass Effect Andromeda whose studio was far bigger and an AAA one nonetheless, and is far more successful as well. You did it, BioWare.

Fallout New Vegas was an Osidian game with Bethesda only being the publisher. That makes all the difference, since Obsidian are known for two things. Great storytelling and customer care. They worked hard to patch everything out.

Now that being said, Bethesda games are buggy as hell. Some is down to their own lazyness, some to the abundance of mods. In my case the fully patched FO4 crashes more often than the vanilla game did. But I still play them, as I would MEA, if they had delivered. As has been said, bugs and glitches don't bother me half as much as an average and fogettable game does. Bethesda makes different promises than Bioware. But they deliver on what is promised. A large and living open world with little in terms of storytelling. Bioware failed on each account. There's no interesting story and an empty and lifeless open world. It turned out to be a generic shooter with lots of dropped in hordes. No more, no less.

I basically agree at this point.  They have tried twice and failed twice. It was the same type of failure from the same team though, so its possible other bioware teams could do it. Its kind of sad as the premise of MEA is set up for open world fairly well.  Explorers to a new galaxy, coming across a war and finding a lost civilization with extensive underground ruins.  On Voeld the quest where you bring down the shield around the ancient angaran ruins.  That should have been the standard for the small to medium bases scattered around almost every planet with a reason to explore each one.  These numerous 1 room outposts things are just lame.  The saving the moshi should be the framework for most large Kett bases with places of that size or larger being not too rare on each world.  Similarly, the EOS vault should be a fairly normal remnant ruin you come on, without it having to be a vault. The vaults should actually have been bigger than that. Vaults being a once per planet dungeon should be at least an hour long IMO. If in each of these numerous bases and ruins you developed more and more about the lore of the setting it would have been a decent take on a open world. The data pads with the khett were a decent way to do it, they just needed far more of that in much larger bases.

They don't seem capable of that instead making the world a pile of scattered 20 second events with no depth.  So yeah, at this point getting away from open world is probably for the best.  But, I guess will see what the A team does with open world when Anthem comes out.  But, it looks destiny like and if so it will probably be another open world fail IMO.

The main thing to remember in any big organization is to get the ball rolling. All of those developers had ideas, and some of them even might'a stuck (*cough*proceduralplanets*cough*). Yet, they failed to get the wheels in motion for the ideas to even start to happen. See, for a smaller team, you have only so many people working. Of course the wheels are gonna be much smaller.

All that we get is a happenstance game tossed together in the last eighteen months.

I think it depends on what they were really doing with those procedural planets, for the way it sounded like it was being designed was to compliment what we got in the game to give some something like the UNC missions in Mass Effect 1 a randomized planet with not a lot on it to do, but a randomized mission.  If that is the case I don't think it being removed would have had that big of an impact on the final product for they would have been working on the other systems and developmental areas at the same time.

I still think a lot of the happenstance of Andromeda was because BioWare did a dumb thing by trying to make a game around systems instead of making systems around a game for they were trying to sell us on how they took the favorite elements of the first three games and brought them together with other fan requests.  Its why I also think the story took so long to get finished because they were working in reverse.  That is just my take on the game, but I could just as easily be wrong.

If MEA2 needs a new cast it's only because they don't have the balls to clean up their own mess by giving us some kick ass DLC. That's the sort of thing that could convince the doubters that the cast was never the problem; it was the writing all along.

I thought Liara had a lot of garbage dialogue.  She certainly wasn't a consistent character across all three games.  I mean, she's an archaeologist who is capable of taking down asari commandos in the very first game.  Something isn't right about her.  Why does no one call that out?  Why wasn't she a fan failure?

EDIT: And I may as well add in the biggest lore inconsistency between ME1 and ME2, which is Cerberus.  They were outright villains in ME1 yet somehow fans bought into them being "anti-heroes" in ME2.  People loved them.  Why?  It's partly why I could never get behind Cerberus in ME2 - because I actually paid attention to what happened in ME1 and knew that Shepard was being played.

I'm pretty sure there was an epic battle on a mountain top somewhere between hardcore haters and Liaramancers. Both sides lost many to the great Tali Sweat Plague.