AngryJoe's review on MEA

I haven't watched his review since I didn't beat the game yet (and his reviews are full of spoilers), but I was already calling it, and yeah he gave it a low score.
Although I do agree that ME:A especially in its current state is not a very good game, I think he is just biased against this particular game, so pretty much all is gonna be negative for him.
I'll still watch the review at some point because they're hilarious (main reason why I watch his videos), but I'd probably disagree with a lot of what he'll say.

Honestly, the only things about Garrus and Tali that I can recall being remotely enticing were their voices. Wrex and Ashley were the only ones with stronger more memorable personalities.

The score would've gone up if he was really biased, he's a huge fan of the franchise(I mean, the dude is willing to literally spend thousands of dollars in support of it). He very easily could've been a dick and ripped it apart further had he reallly wanted to, it can really be argued he didn't do so because he loves it (the franchise specifically) that much.

Totally agree on that, while I think garrus and tali were all right as squadmates in the first game, they really exploited their potential by the second game. Tali losing her father made her way more interesting in her loyalty mission of ME 2, same for garrus and his revenge quest. Character needs more than one game to express themselves and become more loved by the fanbase, and that is why we cannot compare the mass effect andromeda squadmates to Mass effect trilogy squadmates. The ones of the trilogy had 3 games to be developed and had way more chance to be interesting, the squadmates of andromeda only had one game.

If anyone wants to compare the squadmates of MEA with the ones of the trilogy, you should only do it with the characters in their first game. which means if you have to compare jaal to tali, it should be the tali of the first game and ONLY the first, if you compare vetra to garrus it should only be the garrus of the first mass effect. Without their following development of ME 2 or ME 3.

bsn.boards.net/thread/7511/planet-viability-bug-major

You are not very good at this.

Never said that.



Saren was by far the most interesting antagonist in the trilogy.  But when people complain about the Archon and the Kett, I see simply the continuation of a trend, not a further decline.

I will admit one thing. Even though I prefer the lighthearted tone of this game over that of MET. I will say the Archon is not an intimidating threat. I compare him to Saren. He is just kind of there and not really that scary.

The best is Harbinger. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL. My Shepard enjoyed hearing him talk smack to her.

Stalking you and each and every post of yours on the forum? No, I am not. You not deserve SO much attention, sorry.

Do you know who they need as a villain? Who I think is one of the best villains in all gaming history. They need to add a Handsome Jack type villain. Someone you love to hate.

Kinky

Sorry for quoting something from pages ago but I just found it funny that my opinion as someone who would call it a 7.5/10 game is so different.

What brought my personal score down were the terrible performance* and terrible enemy AI with extremely fluctuating difficulty levels and HP sponges. Ofc the general unpolishedness of the game and bugs also affected my opinion but nowhere near as much as the first two issues. A lot of the auto-dialogue didn't seem to take your chosen personality into account at all either. Good example of this are some of the meetings where even a professional/logical Ryder suddenly became a babbling fool. The planet's main stories also needed hefty expanding. I feel like I barely got introduced to the situations before I was already expected to resolve them.

What I liked about the game were the very relatable crew. We had, among others, a religious scientist, a pilot stuck in his past and a general discovering himself and his place in the world. Even the one squadmate who could potentially have continued the ME tradition of daddy issues, Vetra, didn't really suffer from them. I'm also the anomaly that acctually likes the UI apart from the acctual crafting one where the logical folder system seemed to fall apart or the Skyrimesque "compass". Personally, I also found a rookie like Ryder a lot easier to relate with than a war veteran like Shepard, even if Ryder was a bit young for my tastes. I'd like to think Ryder was written childish to make their growth as a person and maturing more noticeable in the future games. I mean, look at DA2. At the start of the game Hawke was in their early 20s and at the end in their 30s, yet there was no noticeable maturing happening in all those years. As for the main plot and Angara as a race. I liked them. There were moments I felt like I was exploring Ilos for the first time again and that was amazing to me.

What I've noticed reading forums and reviews, is that the game's story and writing are very divisive. Take for example the Angara/Remnant reveal. Some people scream bad writing at it and other find the implications of it extremely intriguing. Another example is Addison.

*My specs are between minimum and recommended and even playing on lowest settings I kept crashing in cutscenes and other various issues like stuttering and textures taking ages to load.