Some thoughts on the (bad) enemy design.

I will grant those cosmetic things...  I don't really care about graphics in video games.
In my opinion graphics in video games are focused on way too much in today... time wasted on 4K when could be putting more to the story...ugh!
Game makers focus on graphics way too much -instead of the actual story and many times because of this visual overload they tend to let the story slide.
I would rather go play a game with a great story that has lame graphics and or combat THAN a game that tries to sell us graphical insanity with a sub-par story.
Good stories but bad graphics: Homeworld Trilogy and KOTOR 1.

 
This leads me to ask:
How does Horizons' story hold up?
Does it match the Homeworld Trilogy and KOTOR story level?
Does completing Horizon's story leave you feeling that something has been accomplished?
Are you thinking about it for days, weeks, months or years after being done with the game?
Or will you soon have forgotten it?

Edit: Buffer didn't keep up with typing speed.

My personal structure on validating games:
1. Story Design
2. Control Design
3.  Level Design
4. Audio Design
5. Combat Design
6. Art Design (Graphics included)

If a game fails to meet me with an intriguing story then I never will even give it a look.

Yeah I noticed I got them out of order.
Fixed.

I include cutscenes in Art Design.

Yep.
Upgraded it is.
How did I miss that?
media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m66ibf7uDj1qk12n6.gif

If it's anything like the last three games and any game with shooter mechanics, enemy count increases with difficulty.

Enemy design is indeed disappointing. From their attacks to their AI. None of them look any way near threatening. they just stand there like idiots, like target practice. They don't seem alive or like they are aware of their surroundings. That fiend especially is a sad thing to watch. You seee a big monster and you think alright that's a special enemy, gonna be a fun fight, just to realise that it's specialty is to be the dumbest of them all. It walks in slow motion, unable to reach you in time because its' extremely sad and poor pathfinding is terrible, so it gives up and stands there and probably praying so you put it out of it's misery as you shoot it.

While Ryder gets all these cool OP stuff in comparison to Shepard (access of gazilion of skills of all kinds to jet pack that can get you out of danger any time), enemies get dumbed down and look absolutely ridiculous. And don't tell me it was easy difficulty, because we all know AI won't get more intelligent on higher difficulties, they will just get shields, armour, more HP and will deal more damage. This is how whole trilogy worked.

AI in ME3, while not perfect, knew how to take cover, knew how to dodge your biotics, knew how to flank, knew how to flush you out of cover with grenades and they didn't look like freaking idiots without a brain. Go play me3 mp on bronze and you'll see AI behaves the same, it's just not so tough and aggressive as on higher difficulty. Their moves, however, are the same, they know how to take cover, keep distance, flank etc.
If you were running towards your target to melee them, they didn't stand like an idiot, doing nothing. They fought back. Assault trooper smaked you with shock baton, Marauder, protheans, geth and others elbowed you etc.

I'm not saying the game will be bad, I'm just trying to point these things out and say that I agree with OP that concerns are justified. You can't just fix stuff like this with a quick patch. And also top kek for people who say it's not a big deal because combat is not what's Mass effect is all about, while there is combat in majority of missions and pretty good big part of that is combat , which is in most cases unavoidable. If you wanted to advance the story in trilogy, you had to do a lot of combat. It won't be any different now. Also, multiplayer is all about combat. So skip the BS that combat is not important. Yes, it's not the main focus, but it's very important part of the game. And if someone is passionate about it and voices their concerns, you don't get to call them a troll and hater, just because they donn't share the same opinion as you and because you play game for the story. Guess, what? People are different and play the game for different aspects. If story would suck, you bet your ass you would not be happy and would probably want to give your negative feedback to Bioware. Let others do the same.

But at least in ME3 they use cover, they try to flank you, they use grenades, and don't stand in one spot just so you can shoot them.. I don't have issue with how they look in MEA (even if generic too) it's just the AI which is ''average''.
At least that enemy Krogan in PeeBee's mission did try to be smarter..

They got consistently more easy? I thought ME1 was the easiest of them all; the combat in ME2 and ME3 was definitely more difficult.

Really? I mean, yea, ME3 multi player could be hard, but SP? Not as far as I remember...

spikeydale: We also saw Kett and Raiders, and those didn't really use cover much either.

What difficulty did that guy play on anyway?

And my goodness, was he awful.

True, usually the enemies just get buffed stats...

Not smarter, but given more abilities (i.e. skills, talents, whatever). Wouldn't be the first time this happened in a game.

Hell, even ME1 had this is if I recall correctly.