Extensive Analysis by Noah Gervais

He is probably the only youtuber I can watch entire hour of and not get bored.

As always he nailed it when it comes to analysing this game. As much as I want to love Andromeda it just has too many questionable things thrown in there. From animations to writing it's just a big mess. Still I enjoy it as a Mass Effect fanboy who just wants more and more of this universe, but this game is a huge let down.

I was playing pong in the '70's

First of all, lets establish the fact that critique doesn't tell you how to feel. Critique is provided in an argumentative format that may seem imperative, but really isn't. They're trying to make a point. Whether or not you agree with or even find it helpful it is up to you.

As a designer, my job is almost entirely founded upon what others think about what I produce, so I endeavor to figure out what people like and don't like about popular media to improve my own. Of course, getting this feedback directly from users is often impractical, but more importantly, most users are idiots. If their feedback isn't utterly useless, it can easily be far too superficial. "I like it because it's fun" isn't constructive. This is why I go to critics; they have the critical eye needed to see the problems and successes in a product and the vocabulary with which to properly articulate them.

Critique also helps me broaden my horizons. The really good critics will not only elaborate on their specific opinions on a piece, but place it within some kind of broader context. This means they'll be referencing a bunch of similar media that I might wish to avail myself of. This critique of Paprika introduced me to a number of neat literary concepts like Historical Materialism and works like Theses on the Philosophy of History. Being exposed to these kinds of concepts can supplant my lack of classical literary training and only improve my creations.

As a critic, I consider it important to establish where my opinion lies in relationship to others. I can say that Andromeda is too big for its own good and plays it far too safe (two very subjective assessments) because I've seen enough critique that corroborates such a stance. It's nice knowing that I'm not so wildly off base. It's also a nice way to build references for future reviews. If I like a point that one critic makes, but think I can expand upon it, knowing there's a published source I can refer back to is helpful in the generation of my own work. Most importantly, it helps me cut my teeth. Disagreeing with critique is usually a lot more involved than disagreeing with randos on the internet. I have to either strengthen my own argument against well-articulated points or alter it to integrate new data.

It's also good for games I haven't played. Critiques are essentially reviews, but view their subjects as art more than products. So as a guy who enjoys games as art more than products, I actually find critique to be a better metric for my purchasing decisions.

You're contradicting yourself there: if you're making a product for the certain audience, it is only their desires your should strive to satisfy. Regardless of whether or not they're morons. If they are, then you should take this fact into account and design whatever it is you're designing accordingly.

Basing an argument on authority rather than hard evidence (akin to saying "Millions hamsters can't be wrong.")? Much worse, authority assured by mutual references within a fairly small group of individuals with no external validation.I never doubted their influence (acquired through swaying the opinions of thousands people (hamsters?) who don't have, or don't bother to form, an opinion of their own). I only doubt what they do makes any sense other than entertaining those people who genuinely like listening what the reviewers have to say as a pastime.

I actually love reading reviews AFTER I've played/watched/read something because I like comparing impressions. It's fascinating how differently we all perceive things. I love over-analyzing everything and that includes listening to other people's interpretations. I read reviews of every movie or TV show episode I have watched just for the fun of it.

I avoid detailed reviews before I get my hands on a piece of entertainment because I hate spoilers. Most reviews give away too much imo. Especially video reviews. When I'm undecided about a game I watch bits of random gameplay.

First of all: why? Please, with your obviously vast design experience explain to me: why should I cater exactly to the whims of my users? How does that make for good art? I feel like you're just reiterating the "consumer is always right" platitude and just assuming you know how the design process works.

Second: how do I cater to my users when they don't know what they want? They're users, they're not trained to understand the complexities of interaction design. They probably wouldn't know what goes into the design of a good weapon; they might just say "it feels wrong." They might not know what goes into the design of good story; they might just say "I didn't like it." Many probably wouldn't know how to individually address all those issues and just label the whole experience "boring." Frankly, what you'll get is exactly the response to Andromeda: "the animations look dumb."
OK then, show me the hard evidence that proves definitively that Andromeda is or isn't "a good game." Do the same for whether Andromeda is or isn't "too big for its own good." I'll save you the trouble and say that you can't. I suppose you could quote me sales figures as evidence of the former, but let's not conflate artistic merit with marketability, lest we call Transformers a brilliant work of art. However, you can do nothing about the latter. How do you prove that? How do you know how to solve it? Users don't have an answer for you. That's why game development is difficult: you need professional designers to go in and figure out exactly where a game went wrong. Critics do the same, just on the sidelines.
Do you think going to college for literature is a waste of time? Do you think that it doesn't produce better writers? Because that's what any humanities college is: critics providing their students with opinions on how they might better their works.

Me too. I've always wondered why so many people are gravitating to such an inefficient medium for presenting and consuming analysis. Any of these hour-long videos could be presented on a couple of web pages with embedded video clips and be read and understood in five minutes.

LOL I thought the thread said Ricky Gervais.

But have you played SpaceWar?