MetaCritic metascores: Reviewers: 75 - Users: 4.7

User reviews are typically a joke.

Weird. Can you directly link me a source for that claim? I would like to see this. 

Also, I think it's super odd how people are so callously treating the developers. 

Look...

They didn't kill your fucking dog or ruined the climate or sell your browsing history to the highest bidder or shot a starving kid on the street. Companies like Comcast, Exxon Mobil, Coca-Cola, and Apple have all done ACTUAL despicable things that have killed or hurt people in this world yet EA/Bioware can get voted as worst company in America (remember ME3?). The developers themselves aren't even wealthy Hollywood celebrities that are drunk in their power. They are normal, Honda-driving (probably) people that makes video games. 

They made a bad product (which arguably is debatable) that YOU choose to buy. No one was forced to do it. 

However, people making these mini-celebration over a group of people losing their jobs (show me that the majority of Bioware consist of mostly contracted employees) is just mind-boggling misplaced anger. 

Who died and elected you the representative all gamers everywhere?


So you speak for everyone?

Glad to know it, now how do we start the impeachment process, cause you sure as hell do not speak for me. Whether I like the game or not you're not my representative so kindly do not speak for me again Thanks

I am more likely to trust critic scores than user scores which are often reactionary or protest votes--hell, even I'll admit to it--I gave that garbage fucking movie, "Life" a ZERO on metacritic. Worst movie I've seen this year!

Also DA2 was the worst of all Bioware games. If I gave enough shits, I'd go on metacritic and give that one a ZERO too.

Metacritic is cancer caused by fanboys and haters, their reviews are worth less than nothing.

You'd think Dutch would be happy given he has his own cameo.

74 is way more honest of a score, desu. 70s is exactly where I'd put the current game.

It disgusts me that Mass Effect 3 got a high score when it did not deserve it.

Horizon has a higher score than Andromeda even though it has similar problems like writing, faces, facial and general animations, So what saves that?

They didn't learn that open world and a blandly good protag didn't work in DA:I, so gave us exactly the same but in space for ME:A and it didn't work their either.... So far they keep moving away from what did work, (paragon and renegade, or the Wardens ability to be either a saint or a complete dick) and giving us blander, flatter characters both to play and as companions.  I am not hopeful they have learned a damn thing. 

Console exclusive, lower standards.

I don't know how good Horizon Zero Dawn is but MEA suffers of the comparison to the main Trilogy. People idealise the Trilogy and treat it as one game while if you took the games separatly, they were faaaaaaaar from perfect...

Considering the game has been meta bombed cos - SJWS HAVE RUINED IT! The user Metacritic rating is meaningless. As for the critics score, I'd rate it a bit higher than most critics 8/10 but I can understand why you'd rate it a bit lower, there are some elements to the game that are very 'your mileage may vary'

For example, I know some complained that the Archon wasn't a good bad guy, but personally, as soon as I discovered what exaltation was, I had full on rage to murder him. Saren was much more sympathetic to me, I got why he did what he did. The Kett are like biological Borg and I enjoyed killing the Archon. I also liked the open world elements, much better done than in DA:I, each planet felt alive and important.

It's not as good as the trilogy as a whole, but IMO it is better than ME1.