It's disappointing, but not a surprise that ME:A is dogged in 2017 awards.

I broadly agree with this whole statement, but I think the emboldened bit in particular is nicely put - possibly EA might consider putting it on a T-shirt.

When compared to other AAA games MEA is average, or 'meh', fraught with major technical problems at launch, improved slightly by some patches, but ultimately all a bit of a mess. It passes the time though, and it's just a game at the end of the day. It would probably warrant a 7 out of 10, at least if you're feeling charitable, but the early removal of support and total absence of DLC would probably drop that rating to a 5 or 6. I would say that must be regarded as a failure, but not necessarily the end of the world, or franchise for that matter. It was comparable to Fallout 4 on many levels, but Bethesda's patches and DLC eventually made for an engrossing world, despite the shortcomings of its central plot. The same obviously can't be said for MEA, on any objective level, as the franchise is now in a very uncertain state.

I was hugely disappointed by MEA, to the point that I deleted it after 1.5 playthroughs and 120 hours of MP. That was frankly unthinkable for me before it was released, as I love the OT more than any other gaming series and have played it through to completion 11 times (admittedly depending on the interactive comic for 8 of those - partly due to starting out on PS3 and partly down to the relatively poor combat mechanics of the 10-year-old original, which makes playing it seem like a little bit of a chore) and I've played well over 3000 hours of MP across two platforms.  And I continue to do so. But to say I hate MEA would be too strong. I do hate the MP Krogans though - quadless pyjaks the lot of them. 

MEA is worth playing if you pick it up cheap and aren't much of a Mass Effect fan to begin with. I don't begrudge anyone who has fully enjoyed their MEA experience, but personally, the only real positive I was able to take from it was the thought that I might actually enjoy playing a remastered original game with MEA's combat mechanics, with the single exception of omnipresent Jetpacks which I find truly ridiculous, bordering on offensively stupid, especially in MP, where they killed ME3's variety of characters single-handedly. In SP I was able to pass reasonably enjoyable hours in the company of Jaal and/or Drack, with solid combat for the most part, but other than that the writing is poor and the execution worse. The menus are appalling and the crafting laughable. And the contempt I feel for whoever signed off on Cora knows no bounds - the most annoying character I've ever encountered in gaming, and I've been around since the very beginning.

As for the EA 'versus' Bioware debate, in my case it would come down to my perception that Mac Walters is still primarily a representative of Bioware, and it was his continued hard-on for AI (and in particular AI/Human interfacing or Kumbaya happy-clappy Synthesis) that buggered up the game most significantly for me. The ME3 ending debacle didn't bother me so much because the Destroy option always suited me just fine, but after enduring the faux sci-fi guff of MEA, I for one know where I would most like to insert a smashed AI implant. I have never spoken a word to Cortana, Siri or Alexa and I never will. If I'd been Joker the Normandy would have been lost to the Collectors rather than handing over control to EDI, and the EDI bot would have been airlocked instantly if I'd had anything to do with it. I'm not the Illusive Man, and/or the Benefactor, obviously! It may be that I saw Alien, The Terminator, Blade Runner, War Games and even Maximum Overdrive at an impressionable age, but I don't trust the concept of AI and I never will. I hate Codsworth in FO4 too, and always banish him to a settlement I never visit. He's like a weaponized version of the only aspect of Iain M Banks's novels which I never liked. If MEA had offered a 'non-SAM' choice during the early crisis, it may have improved the game significantly for me, or at least its replayability. Instead I can't get that patronizing bastard voice out of my head, and as it stands the plot of MEA can be reduced to that of illegal Human/AI research beyond the reach of the Council, and little more. I also think killing Alec off early was a ridiculous decision, as he would have had some credibility as a main character, but apparently they were shifting their target demographic to kids. Or possibly morons. You know, the kind of people who would sign up for the Andromeda Initiative in the first place.

TL:DR version: if you think MEA deserved any awards other than 'Most disappointing' or 'Most 'meh' game of the year', you're a genuine nutjob. Seriously. But that is not to say it would have deserved the 'Worst Game' title either, and if you enjoy playing it I'm happy for you. Just don't try to tell me that I don't 'get it' - there's nothing of substance to get.

I'm not a Nintendo fan either, in fact I can't stand Nintendo games. The only Nintendo games I ever enjoyed were the handheld Pokemon games back on Gameboy. ME not liking Nintendo does not invalidate their serious contributions to the marketplace this year. They've nailed exactly what they set out to do. I think Super Mario Odyssey is overrated, repetitive busy work that throws up Moons at you whenever you have Mario break wind. But it does change the fact, their vision, their goal for that game was executed absolutely perfectly. You don't have to like a game, to give it the honest props it deserves for being exactly what the developer wanted it to be. Too often we hear stories about Devs never having enough time or money to create the vision they wanted, and the countless games that have suffered from such things, KOTOR 2 being the most well known example on this Board.

Make no mistake, 2017 was a fantastic year for games, provided you utterly ignore or for some reason don't care about the rampant corporate greed that has been called out this past year.

Maybe they need the games that you can play on PC awards, because most of the games you listed are either console exclusives or, like Niera, have a PC port that is criticized at least in the player's reviews (I know, they should be taken with a grain of salt, but after trying to play Bayonetta, that was frustrating to the point of unplayable for me on PC, I tend to be concerned about the Asian ports).

And, yes, the goal & vision is kindda a big deal as well. It is really hard to appreciate the greatness of the games you either cannot play b/c they are not available, or was not interested in playing to start with. While there are gamers with a wide interest in genres, some of us are sub-genre folks who do not even play multiple games per year. The fact that PS won't put Horizon ZD on their own PSnow that was developed SPECIFICALLY to give the PC audience access to the PS exclusives is mindboggling. When they launched PS Now they promised that the exclusives will be on it... and? Nope, nope, suck it up. No game that is priced at $400 deserves a GoTY.

For example, the DoS2, the only game you have listed that was PC-oriented, has quest system that is very confusing, it is an isometric game with an enforced pause and an extremely complicated ruleset/hard gameplay not for a casual gamer. Hardly a game you can buy into easily & it cost more than Andromeda, despite being isometric.

So, perhaps, 2017 was a formidable year, but Andromeda was both playable and developed for the PC and a huge fun to play, while every other game you listed had serious drawbacks imo.

I agree Jade Dreamer. Video game awards should be separated by PC Master Race, Console, Portable, Mobile, Cross-Platform and Competitive. Always start and finish with PC Master Race... though... (drools.)

I'm a Dirty Console Peasant who Dabbles in PC, and I approve this this message from those who call themselves our Glorious PC Overlords.

Yeah I meant DA2. It's the best (or worst?) example of rushing the hell out of a game, and yet somehow managed to do something decent in spite of that. Mass Effect has always been more polished on a technical level than any DA counterpart, but ME2 definitely half-asses it. 

Edit: I need to correct myself, the crown should belong to ME1. It's easily the worst. Even with all of Dragon Age: Origins' blood-soaked oatmeal textures and fleshy sack copy/paste everywhere, it still had a great deal more variety in its environments than the first Mass Effect, which was the same bunker with different skyboxes.

I don't know if I agree with this.  The thing about ME:1 and DA:O is that when you went through the story and saw the different areas it was something unique.  The Citadel in ME:1 was the best version in all three games.  Feros, Noveria, Ilos, Virmire etc were all unique areas.  There was nothing on Ilos for example that reminded me of Virmire or Feros.  Same with DA:O, Redcliffe, the Forest and the ruins, the caverns before the Urn of Sacred Ashes, separate parts of the Deep roads.  When you went to the different Hub areas,or different areas of the story they were all unique.

To me the second game in each series lacked the variety.  Because in both games you had less hubs and you kept coming back to one area, Kirkwall or the Normandy before you went out for your quick run through some corridors, in DA:2's case the same corridors over and over again.

The only time in ME1 that they half-assed was with the side content.

None of it bothered me, so I did not feel like corners were cut. I actually loved the way companion armor worked in that game (and Andromeda) so I only worried about gearing myself and finding the upgrades for the comps. The encounters... I guess I love the battle mechanics vs lots of enemies & the gameplay, so I don't even notice how they spawn. Not big on OW myself. Obviously, if Kirkwall was like one of the AC cities, it would have been nice, but I like it how it is, do not miss anything.

I liked the 3rd Act as well, except the Mage path in the very end, but that's where Exalted march imo was missing. I actually like how intense it is, b/c by that point in the game I am usually eager to finish the story.

I dunno, I place very little value on the "dynamic" and "OW" and "exploration" and "crafting" stuff, so DA2 is my fav along with ME2 and Andromeda. Love Tyranny too, even though peeps complain about the same stuff.

In other words, even if corners were cut, those were the corners I am not inspecting anyway. hells, I only noticed that they reused areas by the end of the first PT, like in the middle of act 3.

And, to add to it, I also always play with music at minimum anyway, because music gives me headaches, so the "great soundtracks" are lost on me.

I am into fun, fast, flashy spells, rule-of-cool chars adventures with companionship. And I don't have much time to play, so shorter games are appreciated.

Yeah, but MEA doesn't hold a candle to Divinity, it's love for detail and it's continued support. There's really a difference between Indie developers and AAA companies. The Indies tend to look out for their customers. With AAA it's the bean counters deciding if it's worth the effort.

Of course not, it is the definition of Meh. Even at release it technically didn't belong there. The truly outrageous, utterly trash games are simply the kind of games critics never even look at. Like "Deep Dark Fight" "Lawnmower Game" "Sword of Fortress" "Life of Black Tiger" etc. I doubt anyone here has ever even heard of those games unless they watch Jim Sterling. 

All the circlejerk about being positive and respecting one another probably made everyone omit the "most disappointing" categories. But it makes sense because discourse online has gotten more toxic. The mentality of journalists in the past has been multiplied and extremefied by the boom in trash-talk YT channels and Twitter hate.

But alas we didn't get the "most potential but sadly not achieved" category on TGA.

BioWare fucked up, and released a trainwreck of game, the only recognition it deserves it got already, the memes.