Then they're completely out of touch
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect: Andromeda | Review Thread (READ MOD POST)
- Thread starter kubus
- Start date
Then they're completely out of touch
Aside from the baffling lack of polish, the writing and voice acting are absolutely dreadful. What the fuck.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
My favourite series last gen were Mass Effect and Fallout
:'( This has not been a good run.
:'( This has not been a good run.
I can kind of see why. They probably didn't expect the backlash against the game's technical issues, and they likely felt that they made a pretty similar game to Dragon Age: Inquisition, which has an 89 Metacritic. I'd guess they expected high 80s for this game as well.
bluecapsule
Member
Yeah I'm sure they thought "this is like DAI, but better". Except DAI had much better writing and storytelling, music, and characters, and MEA is launching after games like TW3 and BOTW have considerably raised the bar in the genre.
Previously Recorded - Mass Effect Andromeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewHl_TcOE8
Great review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewHl_TcOE8
Great review.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Well... that was certainly something. I'm amazed they kept it going as long as they did.
Maybe they don't agree that it has poor writing, a bad story or that it's disappointing? Maybe they can look past the poor animation and facial rendering?
Similar to how some reviewers gave Fallout 4 90+ scores........For some the single step forward taken by the gameplay is enough to overshadow the numerous other steps back in other categories.
Freeman76
Member
Not everyone is ignorant enough to miss the fact the game is fun and does a lot of things right.
Even you can enjoy the story and the gameplay, I fail to see how you can just ignore the numerous bugs and game breaking glitches. There are even some side quests you cannot flat out complete because bad scripting the engine has.
Fall outs mess was small compared to the huge, fulfilling adventure you could have. This game isn't even that big to have these amount of problems
People often look past bugs if they still enjoy the game underneath. Hell, Skyrim got multiple GOTY awards despite being incredibly broken in parts.
It's probably the reason for the disparity in review scores. Those who don't enjoy the game underneath are going to be more critical of surface issues such as bugs and facial animations.
It's because the bugs aren't universal. I finished the game at 64 hours with no game breaking glitches or animation bugs (like the one in the Giant Bomb review).
Zombie James
Banned
Good grief. Writing and animation issues aside, the game feels like it needed another three months in the oven just to iron out the bugs.
Mechanized
Member
I like the game enough to have played for 10 hours so far, but the toxicity surrounding it has really poisoned it for me. It's almost like I shouldn't even bother playing anymore, as if I'm stupid or something for enjoying it at all. And that's not to say the criticism isn't deserved, it certainly is, it's just that there's no escaping the flaws. Every time I play it's all amplified to a degree where otherwise I'd probably shrug most of it off but now the flaws are spotlighted front and center at all times and I just can't play without noticing them. It's a real bummer.
Fair enough.
While it differs from a person to another, I would be incredibly disappointing if my favourite reviewer recommended me a game and I had glitches and bugs.
But again thats what an average game reviews are for.
MontyBrown
Banned
geordiemp
Member
So do we expect top range TLOU type facial animations and writing in all RPG;s now ?
Zelda did not have it, neither did Fallout 4.....so why the high bar for mass effect ? Do some games get a pass ?
MEA is great combat, enjoying it more than most games this year.
I agree with the bugs, it needed more time.
They've forgotten what Mass Effect is all about, or it never occurred to them how good the writing was.
As I've been playing the game I'm just trying to avoid the open world stuff as much as I can. Mainly because of all the negativity surrounding the busywork quests, but also because it's just not what I want to do in a Mass Effect game. I'm slightly worried that I'm going to need to start doing some of these to upgrade my weapons for the late game.
Also, a small comment on the writing.
Also, a small comment on the writing.
Man, I was so disappointed by our introduction to the angarans. This should be a big thing - I don't think it was implied that humans were already aware of their existence - and yet our introduction to this new major species in the Mass Effect universe is told through Ryder japing around. After the initial introduction, every angaran just treats us normally. I walk up to a random angaran on their home planet and just have a casual conversation. Compare this with the lore of Mass Effect 1, where humans are still integrating into the galactic community, and their first contact initiated a war with turians. There's just no gravitas in Andromeda, despite the gravitas of their situation. Everything feels like it was written for a low-tier Star Trek Voyager episode.
Maybe because the developers of Zelda or Fallout didn't brag how good their character animation was -
Mac Walters said:
Are you forgetting?
IT JUST WORKS.
Fans are out for blood with Andromeda in a way that they weren't for Fallout 4.
Sorry, but no. Fallout 4 was lambasted for its utter failure to do anything new (and regress in many ways) and yet still retain its layers of jank after so many years on the same engine.
A lot of the statements made of Andromeda have been very Todd Howard-ish.
I'm mostly thinking critic/audience reviews.
Fallout 4 PS4: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/fallout-4
Andromeda PS4: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mass-effect-andromeda
Oh critics? Yeah, I agree.
There is a strain of hypocrisy when they let Bethesda games get away with this kind of nonsense.
The audience reviews match up too. They also let Bethesda get away with stuff that they don't anyone else get away with.
But like Ryan David said: we all have our blind spots.
BouncyFrag
Member
If you like the game, just play it. I've watched the funny vid compilations and most of the time those moments in the game for me haven't been a train wreck and when it is I laugh. Who cares what strangers on the internet think if you are enjoying something they hate.
They tend to give Bethesda a free pass because they make games where you can do pretty much what you want. You can literally build towns in Fallout 4. Bethesda games are always buggy but it seems the "you can interact with every items on the ground" can be used as an excuse. You know what you can expect from Bethesda.
ME2 and ME3 were fairly polished game compared to MEA. There is definitely more than fans "being out for blood" here. I'm eager to learn what happened in those 5 years to end up with the game we've got. Someone somewhere decided it was ready for release in this state. Still, even without the bugs, I doubt it would have scored as good as 2 and 3 in 2017.
Yeah, it feels like theres an interesting story here behind the development of this game.
With five years to cook, very curious to see how things went so wrong.
Most freedom of self-expression games get free pass. See ARK.
Bethesda's games always get a free pass, I don't know why but it is what it is. Andromeda was in a tough spot
1) After the ME3 ending debacle and the team change, they had to prove themeselves all over again. "We're bringing back the series after 5 years and no more fuck ups this time". Unfortunately, that did not happen
2) I have my problems with Witcher 3 but it set a new standard for writing and meaningful content in western RPGs, while other, more recent, games showed an evolution in other aspects, especially in open world design.
The game that Bioware released not only did not live up to these new standards, but the general opinion is that it's generally inferior in many aspect to the original trilogy, with maybe the exception of combat. Also, it's a technical mess (talking about bugs, not silly animations). I don't see a cospiracy, I think critics reacted to this situation and the game was rightfully panned.
Humdinger
Member
Just stop reading forums and press for a while. Just play the game by yourself. Let yourself have your own experience, uncontaminated by others' opinions.
(I'm not saying there aren't flaws, but forum and press negativity can really damage people's ability to enjoy a game, sometimes. I often find it better to just experience a game for myself, then come back later to share my opinion. Otherwise I've got a bunch of forum/press opinions running around my head while I'm playing the game, interfering.)
StrongBelwas
Banned
Agreed. I'm really enjoying the game. It feels very much like mass effect to me. But every time I check any Andromeda thread on gaf it makes me feel a bit down about the game. So I just stop reading them.
Also I don't really think the writing is any worse than previous games. It's not amazing but neither were the previous games?
According to a Youtuber calling himself Video Game History Guy and, based on his sources, the human animation problems occurred due to outsourcing.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42-3GCq6gqo
Apologies if:
a) Posted.
b) Is April Fools hoax. Judging from his twitter it does not seem so.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42-3GCq6gqo
Apologies if:
a) Posted.
b) Is April Fools hoax. Judging from his twitter it does not seem so.
I would agree that the writing is not much worse than that of the original trilogy. At the same time though, I think standards have increased quite a bit.
BrassDragon
Member
Sounds like this guy's sources aren't anywhere near the graphics pipeline or BioWare leadership - most of it is baseless speculation.
It also throws in the ever-popular SJW conspiracy theory at the end - characters looking ridiculous is a management-mandated political decision rather than a lack of artistry and technical competence.
Yeah, right.
Big Green Anus
Member
Okay, that made me laugh!
So you thought the NPC interactions were ok , not a bug? If not a bug , then really fucking sloppy game Dev , no ?
Tertullian
Member
Not going to click, but was it that thing about how they managed to make male ryder look like the attractive guy he was modeled after but female ryder looks almost nothing like the attractive model she was based on ?
What was the story behind that anyway ?
It's a bizarre theory, because Male Ryder doesn't look anything like the model he is based on, and doesn't look like the shot all those comparisons use of him either. in game he's as bad as female Ryder, and how the hell you turn a guy that good looking into what we see in game is beyond me.
Crankshaft
Member
Not really. The game has real issues. Such as audio bugs when playing multiplayer. The audio plays from the wrong direction so you can't listen and run to where the action is.
This game definitely doesn't deserve any 90+ scores just because the combat is good and the story is passable.
I think the 73 metacritic is deserved. If we overlook a AAA game coming to the market in this state then we would just be allowing publishers to do it more in the future. EA needs to know that you can't release a game before it's ready.
But just because the game has gotten a low score doesn't mean people can't overlook the issues and still enjoy the game. That's not the same as saying everyone else is over reacting though.
Not sure about the reliability of what Shinobi062 has been told since he also said that the Pro version would have a 1080p mode and that squad mates would have alternate appearances (none of this made it into the game), but in the run up to release he posted that:
"Mock reviews are good btw."
"Anyway, mock reviews are in line with Horizon's mock reviews for the most part. "Good" and "great" are interchangeable. They were great."
If it is true that mock reviews were actually positive and good, I would definitely get some new internal reviewers, because you would have to be very out of touch with reality if you are unable to notice the flaws of this game and how it ended up scoring a 73 Metacritic.
1. People have higher standards of beauty when looking at women and lower standards when judging men (because of patriarchy). Therefore Scott looks fine, while Sara somehow isn't fine enough.
2. Even if this was the case that somehow Bioware character modelers, texture artists, lighting artists, etc. deliberately conspired to make someone less beautiful than the others, the game is clearly rushed for release and it would just be another example of the long list of things in ME:A that's unpolished.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
No. Just certainly not at bad as Andromeda. It feels/looks rushed. There is a level of finish that some games have and Andromeda doesn't have that finish or polish.
It would be great if all AAA games from established developers and publishers did have Last of Us levels of animation though.
In the end this might be another case of Bioware pissing on our shoes and telling us it's raining outside. They have done it before. People are allowed to be suspicious and even angry. People are also allowed to enjoy the game but people insisting that the game is great...well...they're just wrong. It's clearly not up to the same level of its predecessors.
Me. And other people I guess.
1) Might well be the case. As a gay guy, I'm viewing things differently, and to my eye the male Ryder just looks...wrong. right from the start, his eyes aren't right. Also, his actual head isn't the right shape compared to his model.
I honestly don't get how we went from Shepherd, who is practically a picture perfect representation of his model, to male Ryder who at best we could say is inspired by his face model. At best. Tenuously.