So what's the hate on Andromeda all about?

A person's expectations will color their impressions. I hadn't played DA2 until last year, after hearing how bad it was repeatedly. Went in with low expectations, and the game easily exceeded them. That is happening with new players for Andromeda.

But I am a more rabid Mass Effect fan, and played Andromeda at release. I did not have as high expectations as I did when ME3 came out though, in part due to some of the choices made with that game, and a few Andromeda specific things. First, the premise was weak. Secondly, the "open world" concept to me is more of a time wasting gimmick than a recipe for a well built sci-fi rpg-shooter. But, I figured if they built upon the well done ME3 MP design and improved it for single player, the game would still be good despite these design and plot choices.

For the most part, my impression of this game is a two word phrase: "dumbed down." Applies to nearly every facet of the game.

Squad management was the first big disappointment in that respect. ME2 and ME3 got this right. Players were allowed to order specific powers at specific points in time, and were rewarded for doing so with a much more effective fighting force.

Other sets of problems arose from "Wouldn't it be cool if..." syndrome. This is what you get when you sit around drinking a lot of Ryncol and snorting Red Sand while designing the game. Wouldn't it be cool if you saw the ship fly between planets? No, not really. Wouldn't it be cool if there were no classes and you could use whatever talents you wanted?

The classless system was poorly executed. As is, only half of the profiles are usually worth using, and switching profiles is largely pointless. They are just a grab bag of bonuses right now. I would have been inclined to enable or disable talents based on the active profile if I was going to implement them at all. At the very least, "trademark" powers should have remained, and been locked to class or profile.

The talents are quite an eclectic collection. Some are amazing, some aren't that great but answer the cool question, and some are duds. Nevermind that there is a bit of overlap. I find the Combat page disappointing. I am not sure if the problem was lack of imagination, or determination to make changes for the sake of change. Barricade is of particular interest to me. Effort was expended to increase mobility in this game, then you drop in power so you can sit in one place behind waist high cover. "But in the open world you may not have cover! See this is a good power." Why don't I get Fortification (which exists in the game), or something buffing or reliant on the jetpack?

Loot, material grabbing, and crafting was already covered above by others. Balance is way off, found gear is largely useless except to deconstruct. Many of the mods are just there to answer a question that nobody asked. It sort of fits here, but I will say that weapon "feel" is good in this game, for the most part. But I question the need Bioware has to drastically alter the handling or role of some weapons between games with tweaks to specs that seem to come out of left field.

Plot wasn't anything interesting. Sort of a Halo-Mass Effect mash up. Sort of the Mass Effect version of Force Awakens.

Overall it isn't terrible. I can have fun playing it, so there is that. It just could have been much better.

What takes did it make that you hadn't considered? 

Ah, okay. Yeah I saw the Kett being that example (studied lots of history so that’s probably why), from seeing themselves as superior to the lesser savage races to making the natives like them and genuinely thinking that is a blessing.
The AI being refugees was kind of known among the fan base since we knew what was happening after they left, though interesting how the characters didn’t.

Speaking for me:

I don't *hate* Andromeda, but I guess many people were just disappointed because it truly isn't Bioware's best work and we saw through Kotaku's reports how the development cycle was hell. As fans, we want the franchise to succeed, to do better each iteration.

Andromeda was miles off from that. And then all that of the Quarian Ark DLC that was thrown into a book, or even support for the bugs that keep plaguing the game to this day was nonexistent. The game ended support roughly in a year, and half of what they fixed was something that should've been there in the first place, like the character faces, the banter bug and so forth.

See, I guess that's disappointment, like I said. But the minority is way vocal about actually hating a product, so it always seem that there are more Andromeda haters than everything else.

I think it comes down to three big factors.

1. You spend 3 games with Shepard. You see her through her struggles, through her victories, and you end up connecting with her one way or another. You end up loving and respecting the crew as she does. This is built over three games, and Andromeda is a one-shot.

2. The story has some stake to it, but it doesn't feel like it. Not to mention that your decisions don't carry over from previous games, and that's what was so unique about the OG trilogy. Your choices affected the story and affected Shepard as a person. Again, over three games.

3. Review bombing by idiots because of some funky facial expressions.

So, Andromeda had to accomplish the impossible with making you fall in love with Ryder, as much as you love Shepard, over one game. It was never going to work.

I think, if you loved the OG trilogy, then, of course, Andromeda is always going to pale in comparison because it's missing important mechanics that makes Mass Effect what it is. I think if you want to enjoy Andromeda, you have to do so without comparing it to the OG trilogy, and to accept it for what it is.

Yeah that's probably true! And I get that the stakes are high from what you explained, it just never really feels like it? But again I just cannot get into that game, like at all. I can't even pinpoint what it is about it, I just don't like the feel of it overall and it doesn't pull me in like MET does.


And after playing ME2 I actually really liked the story. I understand it was a detraction from the main plot of the reapers since they probably wanted to extend the plot and add another game, but at the same time, the Collectors are still connected to the Reapers and taking them out helped out their chances in the end. 

Yes, and no.

Yes, I initially thought Riker was a chump, Picard was too grumpy, Wesley needed to go do anything else, etc. But I watched it, because I was a huge Trek fan and it was in that universe. By the end of season 2, I was hooked. But I genuinely did not enjoy several of the episodes of the first season, they were just too chock-full of exposition, and they made some questionable casting decisions.

My experience with MEA is similar to my feelings about the first season. I like the universe, some of it feels right and there is a familiarity, but so sloppy and taking away facial uniqueness so blatantly from the Asari is still a problem for me. It got better, and I would like to see more but it has to improve. If they deliver a similar level of quality in the final product of the next game, it will be very bad for this company.

1. Because the Ark's first destination isn't the Nexus but the Golden World for each race. They'd go there, have the essential people woken up to start settling up the colony, then the Ark goes to the Nexus to awaken the others. That's why the Turian Ark got so damaged: their SAM was in shock so was following the main directive for its mission. 

2. They landed to scout out the planet. And they did take precautions since they went with weapons, fully sealed suits, etc despite the sensors before the launch saying it wasn't inhabited and perfect for human life. 

3. Because the Nexus was desperate. They needed essentials like food, so they had to risk setting up on Eos. Same reason people in real life take desperate measures, like drinking salt water, when they're dying of thirst.

4. Proximity to the Vaults most likely. Ryder needed to access the Vaults to make the planets livable, and thus since they are in those factions back yard means they had to make nice. Plus as we see with Eos, places closest to the Vaults are changed first so that means less time waiting. 

5. They couldn't make slight adjustments. They were deep in a Scourge cloud so any change in direction means boom your ship is ripped apart. And slowing down super quick isn't something new to Mass Effect, since that's been possible since the first game and especially the second. 

6. From the wiki: The name "Architect" precedes their initial sighting. Peebee claims she theorized the existence of a Remnant that was responsible for excavating the space needed for vaults, and for building other Remnant infrastructure. These Architects, simply by size alone, appear to fit that profile.

True but I feel like that is a double edge sword, because of the success of the LE could have BioWare returning to the Milky Way, and maybe find some way to resurrect Shepard. Before the Legendary Edition was announced I assumed that the next Mass Effect game would be a sequel to Andromeda. Now with Legendary Edition bringing back old fans, and making a bunch of new fans fall in love with the OG trilogy. It’s hard to see a Andromeda 2 as the next Mass Effect game from a business point of view. It might have been better for the people that wanted a sequel to Andromeda if the MELE never happened.