My understanding is that Bioware Montreal's internal expected score was...well, significantly higher than what it is now.
Then they're completely out of touch
My understanding is that Bioware Montreal's internal expected score was...well, significantly higher than what it is now.
You have to post the video that goes with it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYgUhXDDio
Such a goddamned mess
My understanding is that Bioware Montreal's internal expected score was...well, significantly higher than what it is now.
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.
Previously Recorded - Mass Effect Andromeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewHl_TcOE8
Great review.
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?Can someone explain to me how come some places have give this game 90+ with all the poor writing, bad animation, terrible facial rendering, bugs, unfulfilling story and overall disappointing game?
Can someone explain to me how come some places have give this game 90+ with all the poor writing, bad animation, terrible facial rendering, bugs, unfulfilling story and overall disappointing game?
Can someone explain to me how come some places have give this game 90+ with all the poor writing, bad animation, terrible facial rendering, bugs, unfulfilling story and overall disappointing game?
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.
People often look past bugs if they still enjoy the game underneath. Hell, Skyrim got multiple GOTY awards despite being incredibly broken in parts.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
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
You have to post the video that goes with it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmYgUhXDDio
Such a goddamned mess
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).
Called it!
Can someone explain to me how come some places have give this game 90+ with all the poor writing, bad animation, terrible facial rendering, bugs, unfulfilling story and overall disappointing game?
Can someone explain to me how come some places have give this game 90+ with all the poor writing, bad animation, terrible facial rendering, bugs, unfulfilling story and overall disappointing game?
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.
Mac Walters said:Were pushing the boundaries of what Frostbite can do and what Mass Effect can do. The quality of the character animations is at an all-time high for us, and thats great because it means expressiveness, emotion and a connection with the player.
Are you forgetting?Maybe because the developers of Zelda or Fallout didn't brag how good their character animation was -
Fans are out for blood with Andromeda in a way that they weren't for Fallout 4.
I'm mostly thinking critic/audience reviews.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
The audience reviews match up too. They also let Bethesda get away with stuff that they don't anyone else get away with.Oh critics? Yeah, I agree.
There is a strain of hypocrisy when they let Bethesda games get away with this kind of nonsense.
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.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.
Oh critics? Yeah, I agree.
There is a strain of hypocrisy when they let Bethesda games get away with this kind of nonsense.
Yeah, it feels like theres an interesting story here behind the development of this game.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.
Most freedom of self-expression games get free pass. See ARK.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.
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.
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.)
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.
The game is horrible. Just look what did guy had to go trough. He even went back to work.
User review:
I¨m a big fan of ME1 and 2 so I called in sick for work and prepared to spend the whole week playing ME: Andromeda. Never mind that, a few hours in and already felt sorely disappointed. Called my boss and said it must have been food poisoning and I already feel better. He is a gamer too and knew immediately what was up and laughed his ass off at me for looking forward to this "mess".
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).
My understanding is that Bioware Montreal's internal expected score was...well, significantly higher than what it is now.
"Internal mock reviews are tracking very well"
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.
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 ?
So much overreaction
Is there a source for this?
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.
So do we expect top range TLOU type facial animations and writing in all RPG;s now.
Me. And other people I guess.Is there a source for this?
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.