AngryJoe's review on MEA

Joe did say he could see people giving it around a 7 for those reasons. His friends both gave it 7 and Joe did think with a patch to sort out the technical issues he might be tempted to go to 7. He really only balked at the notion you could objectively score it 8 and upwards with all the problems he brought up.

The sad thing is Angry Joe's not even that mad, he's clearly just disappointed. Considering Jaal/the Angara are arguably one of the few highlights and they didn't resonate with him, then the list of things to love dwindles pretty quick.

His points are well reasoned and he's tempered the fact he thinks it's a big letdown a lot better than I thought. I was really expecting a massive rant on this one considering Joe himself points out it's pretty easy to tear the game apart.

I really hope they patch this game up big time. Without the technical jank I seriously don't think reviewers would've been as hard on it.

However, now that I have finished it, I really start to question how many reviewers actually played through all planet main quests, Loyalty missions and then the main quest. I think everything but the main quest is incredibly uneven in quality, like a rollercoaster, but the main quest feels like it's cut from another cloth with more cinematic animations, setpieces and a different sense of polish. It started to feel very shallow early on, especially when you're only 3-4 main quests in and you start thinking "isn't this the Virmire part where the plot goes point of no return, already?" but then the final stretch actually felt pretty long to me.

MEA is still a case of "kill your babies" to me though. Kadara Badlands, Havarl's asinine fetch-quests, the fetch-questing in general and the "go to these markers on the map" quests, man, they really need to stop doing that kind of Open-world stuff. I have a feeling this has just become BW edmonton's schtick while Montreal just managed the Loyalty missions and main plot as well as core features like combat, galaxy map and crew dialogue on the Tempest. Maybe they thought the game felt very shallow and then the Inquisition-metagame was imposed later as they figured out that the idea of settling homeworlds was much more interesting than a more narrow main plot.

I really hope they get another shot at this with Andromeda 2 where Montreal can improve and handle more themselves. I want to see more of Ryder and co. now, -- FAMILY SPOILZ

I don't know why I'm not getting any of these glitches. Sometimes I'll get a temporarily frozen enemy or gameplay continues for a few seconds after I reload a save. I almost feel left out (I just jinxed myself, didn't I?).

Also, I love Joe, but whoever called him a meathead is pretty spot on. He's a fun dude and has a big heart, though, and even when I disagree with him, I've never felt he wasn't being forthright or was starting shit to get clicks. Wish more Youtube "content creators" were like him.

Angry Joe is of the few people on youtube I actually respect(He does seem honest for the most part) and I mostly agree with him about this game. This game is a very solid foundation for the future of the Mass Effect series but they got to improve on the writing and get rid of all the bugs. I would rate this game a 7.5/10 but I can see how someone can rate it a 6. That said Joe is a guy that if something is basically handed to him he going to struggle with it. I remember he struggling on the Order 1886 and him gave it a lower score because of it. 

He did say that Vetra is just "another Turian Solider", even she is not even a Turian citizen.

Also I didn't get as much bugs as he did, and the writing overall is not as bad as he make it sounds.

But he mention that 40 million dollars is not that much, which I agree. It is very obvious that ME:A is not a game just been made so that the company can have some cash, it has a lots of thoughts put into it. But in the end they don't have enough time or budget or both to make it like they want to.

True but the distinction being made is this game makes it really easy to do so with so many problems, especially with the shadow of the Shepard Trilogy looming over it.

MET had just as many flaws too especially with the ending controversy looming over it.

A 6 is quite reasonable and I've said a week before I expected him to give it a 6-7, maybe even a 5, I know this dude. I also agree with his point on people giving it an 8,9, or 10 as you're then downplaying the issues it has. It's fine to like the game, I do, but 8-10 means a good-great game, and I don't see Andromeda like that, it's an ok game, not good, not great, and it's not bad either.

I agree with the story plots he made, the "childish" dialogue, the angarians being "boring". The multiplayer is just a copy and paste out with new maps, better graphics, and differ enemies and weapons, not exactly new in terms of actual additions and it takes the "safe" approach rather than trying to expand on it. People won't keep playing multiplayer if it stays like this multiple games in a row, you need to add in and change stuff at some point. I only disagree with him questioning why people even liked mass effect multiplayer as it's actually quite fun for what it is. I spent a lot of hits in ME3 multiplayer and would fit Andromeda if the servers would ever resolve itself.

I STRONGLY agree with him on bioware having a damn solid foundation for the next games. It's up to bioware to act on it, but if they go forward this franchise can go big. The frostbite engine gives it that next gen look in terms of details, but they need good animations to make it worth more. The combat keeps improving game by game, and with Montreal being a brand new studio and this being their first game, things "should" only get better as they gain experience as well as having feedback on what andromeda does well and what it didn't. I do disagree with his point on The games budget, while true bioware games don't get budgets as big as most AAA studios you don't "need" that much to make a great game. The originals got just as mich budget as Andromeda so no excuses there. Quite honestly the game looks superior to most games out there even with a smaller budget than others, the issues to me was inexperienced workers or a lack of effort, a larger budget doesn't guarantee a fix to that, there's plenty of 100+ million dollar budgeted games that were garbage. Can't forget with it being a completely new Galaxy and with no ties to the original, that opens up various possibilities to expand.

I also agree with him in the inventory and crafting system, they're very disorganized and as he put it, a "mess", but I'll go the extra step and say why add them if you don't do it right? I loved that they were bringing more RPG elements back, but not if they're going to be half assed as what's the point?

Another great point he brought up (and one I've honestly forgot about since ME3) was the ability to key us play as a different race. That's unexplored territory for mass effect if they let us play a different race in the story. I'd love to give an asari a try or even a turian and krogan. It also adds to the game if it then recognizes your choice on what race you picked and the differing dialogue. I don't mind playing as a human, but it'd be so freaking cool to try out an Asari or something different in the story.

I could add more, but know his points and I'd just be rehashing what he said. I predicted a 6-7 from him and even his famous "you done fucked up" line as Andromeda was a disappointment and underachieved what I was expecting, especially having the longest dev cycle a mass effect game has had to date and because of the guys who make it, the brand carries a lot of power, and it can work vs them if they underachieve.

Ultimately I'm still looking forward to the next game as I'm optimistic, the foundation is absolutely perfect, and hopefully this new studio getting experience and feedback from Andromeda will be used to make the next a great game.

I can agree with just about most of his points negative and positive, and I can understand his 6//0 but I personally give it a 7/10. It's a fun game to play, has its moments, but it is hampered with a TON of bugs, an awful UI setup, and a so-so story with so-so dialogue. Completely replace the writing team, if they're uncreative and this bad, you don't keep them for another game as odds are they're creativity won't just magically improve(I've experienced many franchises holding onto writers and nothing improving, don't chance it, just start fresh again), let someone else give it a go. If the writing can get fixed you already improve the next game by a lot.

I think they're making fun of the players who like to run around and scan planets.  There are just as much fans who liked the game as upset and I'm sick of the exaggerated mockery the game is getting.

I agree with most of his points. However, I think male Ryder dialogue and voiceover is actually pretty decent.

Go away, you're the resident troll. It's really annoying.