'I like or love the game' (General feedback)

I guess. It's the same to me. Combat is the only thing I care about.

36 hours in (30 of solo, 6 of MP) the game gets better and better with time, reaching a true pic after 10 -12 hours.

Ryder is on par with Shepard after she/he gets mot insured and battle savy. Today i actually stoped on one planet and called my roomate over. Just to show him the pretty planet and the landscape.

The Scale is huge and Ryder does more in the first half of the game than Shepard in ME2. Now don't get me wrong: ME2 is prolly better but ME:A is better than ME1 and DA:I. That's bad from EA to put a 10 hours trial with a storygate coming after 4-6 hours: What lies after this gate is the best.

Ive played to the first planet, and i think it good so far, so far havent run into any glitches, other than one character teleporting on the ground, but the old games had those too.

No. From what I've played though I can certainly see how it'd disappoint some. You practically need to be the sort who can play games for their gameplay alone more so than their story for much of this. The combat and exploration is fantastic with story beats that are not that special.

While i agree that those games the bugs are overlooked my response was to that poster questioning a previous posters statement that 




To which they replied




So i mentioned bethesda (oblivion/skyrim both got over 90 both were bugged to hell at launch) 

This wasn't a criticism of Bethesda just using them as it was the easiest example since they are most notorious for bugs.
Also for the record F4 did not get slandered in reviews it is sitting at 84 on PC. It has less story/poorer characters and was more buggy than MEA

MEA was the target of hate. Yeh the game isn't the best game since slice bread, but it is not by any means worse than the 1000's of games rated higher than it. Or if your going to throw game expectations have increased since then Fallout4 was not released that long ago (1.5 years ago) and it still is not majorly worse than the vast majority of games released in the last 90 days.

For Honour for example while good at what it is is not a better game than MEA especially at launchvslaunch since its MP was broke for almost a week when it is a MP dependant title. No matter which way you look at it MEA is a better all round game.

The criticism of the critics is not that MEA should be getting in the 90's (though neither should zelda  be a 97 it has way to many flaws but not getting into that) but it should not be being outscored by poorer games releasing at the same time. I think if it was averaging 8/10 there would be less backlash or if other games where also being underscored in a new lower scoring all round (we can dream for a time when 8/9 means something again).

Got 40 mins in so I can't say much other than talk about a weak intro were half wrong.

Not even remotely mad about anything yet my only real complaint is there was no leaving earth moment and the CC needs explaining and adjusting.

(Major gripe with the people saying you can't make white people, total BS.)

Ahh, I see. My apologies - I had misunderstood your original point. I definitely agree that all of those games were buggier than MEA at launch, and that they did indeed get 9s and 10s. I mean, I have only ever bought one Bethesda game at launch, and it was pretty dang glitchy. Since then, I've waited several months to purchase so that the games would have been patched by the time I played. I do think those high scores were mostly deserved due to other outstanding qualities for FONV and Skyrim (I would have rated FO3 and FO4 lower), but that doesn't negate the fact that MEA is getting hammered over bugs disproportionately. I think the hammering is more in the form of score brigading on user review sites and disproportionate amounts of memes and videos about things like animation, but there is also a little of it in the professional gaming press.

I agree that FO4 definitely did not receive nearly the amount of hate compared to MEA especially at launch, but I do think that it received more criticism than previous Bethesda games (for glitches and other, more important, reasons). I believe that FO4's glitches would have gotten less scrutiny if it had come out in the Skyrim/FO3/NV era, though not by much. I was talking about the older games in my earlier response, and should have made that more clear. Bethesda games certainly do get a pass on that front to a large degree, at any rate.

As for MEA deserving better scores in comparison to other recent releases, I can't really comment on that since I just moved back home after living abroad, where I didn't have access to video games for the past two years. I have a LOT of catching up to do! Scoring standards and parameters seem to also have changed while I was gone, but that's another matter.

I suspect that it's difficult to compare scores to some degree between the games you mentioned and MEA due to the different genres, game scopes, and various other factors, but there have always been (and I am positive currently are) games that are either overrated, or instances when scoring scales simply are not consistent. Unfortunately, there have always been games scored higher than they deserve, and those lower. The whole system is kind of a mess due to lack of industry standards. I am sure that there are games poorer than MEA that are outscoring it, but I also think that MEA has an extremely wide range of scores due to the wide range of players it appeals to, as well as the fact that it needs to appeal to both new gamers and those familiar with the OT. Nostalgia probably plays a role that other more free-standing games don't have to contend with - it's a powerful factor that can either raise or lower a person's view of MEA, as it is both like and unlike the trilogy in various ways. The game is in a tricky position. Certainly there is a lot of unfair score brigading by users - I'm not going to argue that at all! I'm not sure whether this spills over to professional reviewers, but my sense if that some of them have genuine issues/disappointments (besides bugs) that are making them take points away, while others are finding the game to be wonderful. I have yet to see any pro reviews that took points away only or primarily for glitches, or that didn't have at least a well-reasoned explanation for their score. RPS is kind of on the edge on that one, though. Anyways, professional reviews are supposed to be relatively objective, but they more often boil down to how well that one individual liked the game - not how much they think others will like it or how objectively good it is in comparison to another given title/IP. If a game is compared to another, it is most often in a negative way, which I think is fair in some cases and unfair in others. A lot of times it's apples to oranges and reviewers draw parallels that may not quite line up.

Should MEA have a higher score over all? I don't know. I was personally disappointed in some aspects that are really important to me as a gamer and would give it a personal score (based on my own enjoyment of it thus far) somewhere in the mid 70's, but I don't think it's a bad game. I just think it's a bad game for me personally, based on my criteria of what I like and dislike in games. Objectively, I know that many people will rate it higher because they'll enjoy it a lot more, and I think that's completely fair and I'm happy that so many players like it so much.

Anyways, I agree that review scoring and criteria are all across the board. There's very little standardization. While I consider scores in the 70's to be good, 80's to be great and 90's to be fantastic/should be nearly perfect, many people view 70's as bad, and won't even consider buying games under an 80 or so. I don't know what can be done about that, but it's really unfortunate because being unable to agree on the meaning of a given numerical value means that reviewers and consumers are both constantly somewhat unsure of whether they are conveying or interpreting a score correctly.

Recently, I've started to realize that numbers mean much less than the details of a review. That's the only way to find out whether the reviewer has similar scoring criteria and likes/dislikes as yourself. Numbers give you the fastest and easiest way to try to find out a game's value, but these things are so personal that numbers are far too simplified of a metric. Reading the etxt of reviews is much more useful for me. Unfortunately, when numbers are the primary/most visible system used on sites like Metacritic, we end up with problems like this, and lots of fans just end up upset. The system needs to be re-vamped if you ask me.Save

I don't think it's a case of 'like and dislike/ love and hate' at this point.
A great majority of people are acting in accordance with the fact that if you don't kick up a fuss, if you don't shout about it, if you don't hit them in the wallet; Then nothing will be done to fix it, and as sure as donkeys have big one's, it will happen again.

I'm enjoying the heck out of this game! I love the exploration aspect and although some dialogue makes me go "now that could have been worded differently" others make me go "that's a pretty cool line/exchange". I'm really enjoying seeing the story unfold and even when doing little tasks, I can imagine what the characters are thinking about and doing. Every time I have to log off and do stuff (darn life and work things), I'm always itching to get back and play.

So yeah, some minor technical issues aside, I'm really liking it.

Even if David Gaider worked on Mass Effect IP, i doubt he had a big role. his main involvement was with the Dragon Age IP which is possibly in even better hands now so don't worry about that. as for Andromeda, maybe it is the most flawed Bioware game yet, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad game. in general, ignore those that only focus on negative aspects and downplay positives (or reverse). there is a difference between constructive criticism and hate.

There are some things, which are a bit disturbing, like the non-skippable planet and landing sequences in space, but overall I like it.

I'd just like to start off by thanking you the time, thought and effort you put into that reply.

I bought morrowind/oblivion/skyrim all at launch even fallout 3 because i was a big fan of the first 2 but not a fan of the new direction. They are good games skyrim had to many design flaws and unbalancing to truly be a 90 rated game imho. For one reason or another bethesda games not only get bugs ignored in their reviewing but also the constant rehash of content in any given game. I will give them a lot of credit for NPC lives and the programming behind their day to day activities which is one of the things that makes a game truly theirs. If games were to be rated where 5/10 is average id say they are up there normally around 7/8 I'd probably go 7 for skyrim though you could have the best weapon/armour in the game quite quickly if you spent all your money on ores and focused on getting blacksmith to 100 thus becoming OP for the rest of the game, same went for summoning magic.
I would agree that games are getting more critically reviewed compared to 5 years ago, however i still believe MEA has had it the worst of anything i've seen but the standard does seem to be getting better finally. One thing i've noticed is that any Indie title including ones by CDPR (huge fan) always get a more positive review because they are indie.

The consistency is a major problem, i would even say the current averaging of around 75 is a fair reflection on MEA if all games where held to the same standard. While a lot of gamers are in a position to buy a title they like reviewers do hold power over the undecided and metacritic is probably just as powerful at selling games as reviewers. When i was younger games tended to be reviewed on Graphics, Audio, Gameplay, Story\Setting, Value for Money and then the total score was an average of this. I wish that was still the case to many games now are reviewed inconsistently like you say because of different genres but that old style worked because it applied to all. So a football game may score highly for Gameplay and value for money (replayability, length of game vs cost) it would also score average at best on setting. Hell andromedas aesthetics would keep its graphics score at above average/good despite the knockdown on facial animations its audio would boost its score the setting would also be high and value for money it would be fine under these circumstances because one or two problems (CC/Facial animations) would not be enough to cripple a game down to a 5 or 6 overall.
Just for fun and to see how we see the game differently. If we go with 5 being average and 10 being perfect lets see how we both score in these 5 categorys.



So for me MEA

Graphics 7 The actuall fidelty is incredible and would probably be an 8 maybe 9 but the below average facial appeal and CC average implementation knocks it down to a 7 imo.

Audio 8 The sound is immersive and generally very well done, just missing those truly memorable songs to grab that 9

Gameplay 7 The new cover system is fluid, the jet pack has changed the game for the better imo for travelling around and in combat. Lots of skills/playstyles to choose from, nomad handles itself well especially when upgraded. Enough activity spaced nicely around the planets. Solid as a whole but not state of the art. There is also a lot to craft. This would probably be and 8 but i knock it down a peg for lack of customisation to companions or at least a 2nd armour aesthetic.

Setting 8 The lore and visuals do set a lovely scene especially space and the planets surfaces. Each world feels like it's own and different from the last. The story is good but not great (though i haven't finished the game yet) The companions are a major step up from previous games in terms of content. They talk to each other alot on your ship, they hang out on the nexus/Angar resistance HQ planet (can't remember its name) They also talk to each other and you or make comments alot in the nomad/walking around planets. They make a comment about each planet on the tempest and have something to say after each main mission.

Value for Money 10 its a 100+ hour game with choices meaning at least 2 playthroughs could be done. Then there is multiplayer which like ME3 will get free dlc to expand it overtime. No brainer.

Overall 8/10
I agree that 70's are now seen as bad, which they shouldn't be. The reason they are though is because to many slightly above average games get scored in the 80's making 70's average 90's good or better. I'm glad to see scoring slowly year by year dropping a few points accross the board though because else we would of started getting 11/10 in a few years haha.
The problem in todays world is people wont even bother reading up a review unless it scores what they deem to at least average for the current trend. So in scores now that means anything under 8 or 80 isnt worth reading up about. games that get 8/80 reading the review may help you make up your mind. 9/90 should be a instant buy if its a genre you like. I'd like to see these drop down 2 points each except must buy that should stay at 9 really, but that means harsher scoring for all games and a consistent method of scoring.