About all these " reviews "

Thats actually a very valid concern unlike the "ugly face animation" horde we get all over BSN. Weak villain is a major reason why I haven't really been able to get into Pillars of Eternity for example, or why DA2 felt so fractured and all over the place. I want something that I'm afraid of, not something that I don't know what the hell they want from me and I feel like I can crush them like a bug.

What I'm reading out of that is that Andy had a first-contact scenario already built up in his own mind and the game didn't use that particular scenario, so he was disappointed.  This is what happens when people try to decipher a story before reading the book... self-fulfilling prophesy.  Sure, keep it on the list of concerns; but I wouldn't be overtly condemning the game over it yet.  Criticisms about the story, IMO, really should wait until the entire story is readable.

What is normally expected in a game opening is a tutorial on how to use the basic controls.  I suppose an alternative would be open with Ryder shooting at a bunch of other humans on the Ark... but I doubt that would have gone down well with far more of the fans that a "minor" skirmish with one of the new alien species on the block.  There is still 40 or so hours of game for them to develop the Kett into something to be feared.

I find it interesting that he mentions meeting the Vulcan in First Contact as a comparison... Star Trek had been talking about that first contact through several series by then and it even came right at the end of that particular movie.  The villain introduction in that movie was the skirmish with the Borg that caused Enterprise to chase them back in time.

They're not really reviews though. The game just went gold so the review copies either just went out or are going out within the week. They don't really say how old the versions are that they're playing.

You did say that... in a subsequent post only after another poster had already queried you out on it.  It was not in the post that I responded to and I had not read the subsequent exchange when I typed the post you quoted above.  Prior to your first post, the OP had also tried to explain that their comments were directed towards people who had been "literally freaking out" about some of the negative comments in these reviews.  As I said, even the most negative of these reviews do have some positive comments in them as well.  It's not just cherry-picking overall reviews... it has been cherry-picking little comments within each review.

Even with the PC Gamer review being mentioned in the post above yours, which brings up a lot of negative points and is probably one of the most negative I have read so far, the reviewer indicates near the bottom that he still can't wait to get his hands on the game.  That final conclusion means that his overall review of it is not particularly damning.  He's still seeing enough good in it to make him still want to play the game.  In my experience, when journalists decide to pan something, they generally pan it outright.

www.pcgamer.com/making-first-contact-in-mass-effect-andromedas-opening-mission/



 

Am I doing that? How so?

All I've said is that one shouldn't dismiss opinions they don't like. 

You took the words from my mouth. Cherry picking just what proves your point is a blight too.

Your comment... "And you can see a lot of that [cherry-picking] on this thread."

When, from what I'm reading, the people on this thread are not off-handedly dismissing anything.  One even went to so far as to show you, side by side, an image from the Sims and MEA to show you exactly how the two are not the same.  She also brought in a full copy of the review in question... and, overall, it is a pretty positive review.  I've repeatedly linked to full copies of the reviews I've mentioned and fully admitted that they contain negative points in them.  I've directly quoted, however, their generally positive conclusions.

So... My conclusion is that you're merely dismissing our comments because you don't like them.

Well, then I guess we just can't discuss any details about any of them since that requires pulling those details out of the document.  As I said above, I have consistently linked to the full document so people can see for themselves what the original context of the statements I've quoted was.  Others here have done the same... so, since I'm a "blight" on this discussion, I will gladly leave it.  Have at 'er folks.

Overpaid? lol If you think those guys and gals at GameInformer or other gaming outlets are well-off you are way off the mark.

And those accusations of being paid-off is just the easiest way to dismiss other opinions. Under every damn review you read posts similar to the above. It has become a joke. I'm not saying there have never been isolated cases of some shady deals and surely publishers want to wield influence or control the word that gets out there as much as possible without crossing any lines but the notion that the whole gaming press is bribed is a bunch of nonsense.

That's correct. I thought DAI was a good game with some great moments, but otherwise fell flat due to BioWare trying to do far too many things in that game. Had The Witcher 3 not been delayed into Spring 2015, DAI would not have won so many GotY awards.

These aren't true reviews, anyway. They're media first looks. The reviews will drop in a couple/few of weeks, oddly. They'll be based upon longer looks at the game.