PSA Mass Effect: Andromeda is a little rough around the edges.

[ShadowReplicant]

I'm amazed that people are getting so stuck on the character animations and other technical stuff – meanwhile, it appears that one of the coolest sci-fi properties of the last decade got turned into a Mass Effect fanfic by a team of edgy teenage writers. Yes, the character models look like ass, but it's the characters, lore and world-building that made me fall in love with the franchise. If that's gone, then there's truly nothing left for me. Guess I'll find out in a couple of days.

Edited March 20, 2017 by ShadowReplicant

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

4 hours ago, ShadowReplicant said:

I'm amazed that people are getting so stuck on the character animations and other technical stuff – meanwhile, it appears that one of the coolest sci-fi properties of the last decade got turned into a Mass Effect fanfic by a team of edgy teenage writers. Yes, the character models look like ass, but it's the characters, lore and world-building that made me fall in love with the franchise. If that's gone, then there's truly nothing left for me. Guess I'll find out in a couple of days.

 

Be sure to let us doubters know how the parts of the game not covered by memes, gifs and youtube fail videos are. I'm still hoping that much of it is halfway decent.

[Mcbeanstr]

Giving this game a pass. Enough to play as it is

[Cynthia-Roses]

On 3/16/2017 at 4:28 AM, KingGuy420 said:

Good thing I play video games for gameplay and not graphics or story. Cause the gameplay in action is amazing IMO. Screw everything else lol.

 

Translation: I will lower my standards to whatever Bioware tells me to lower them to.

 

Seriously every Mass Effect fan ever praised the original games fro their story and graphics. Now when the story and graphics suck they suddenly don't matter. Besides the game is filled with bugs too. It's sitting at around a 4/10 on fan reviews on Metacritic. So clearly fans don't like it.

On 3/20/2017 at 9:29 AM, Undead Wolf said:

There's no real evidence of this happening. It certainly doesn't happen "often", and definitely not from the big sites. People would have come out about it by now. This is just what the kids say in the comments sections of reviews to reaffirm their own opinions. If a game they don't like gets a good review, the reviewer has been bribed, but if a game they love doesn't do as well as they wanted it to, it's always "I guess X game company didn't pay X reviewer enough". It's pretty childish tbh.

 

To be fair though NO ONE can deny there is a HUGE disparity between the critics and fan reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mass-effect-andromeda?ref=hp

 

Almost 1303 fan reviews and the game is sitting at 42%, but Critics average it out to 74%.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the critics are being quite generous.

[Undead Wolf]

4 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

To be fair though NO ONE can deny there is a HUGE disparity between the critics and fan reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mass-effect-andromeda?ref=hp

 

Almost 1303 fan reviews and the game is sitting at 42%, but Critics average it out to 74%.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the critics are being quite generous.

 

Come now, nobody takes the user reviews on Metacritic seriously, do they? You don't even know if these people have played the game. Besides, the vast majority of games have a lower user score than critic score. You'll often see popular games bombarded with low scores. This isn't anything new. I'll take what a professional game critic says over some random dude giving the game a 0/10 because he doesn't like it.

[Cynthia-Roses]

Just now, Undead Wolf said:

 

Come now, nobody takes the user reviews on Metacritic seriously, do they? You don't even know if these people have played the game. Besides, the vast majority of games have a lower user score than critic score. You'll often see popular games bombarded with low scores. This isn't anything new. I'll take what a professional game critic says over some random dude giving the game a 0/10 because he doesn't like it.

I will agree that there are some people that just downvote and some fanboys who just upvote, but come one, you can't just dismiss over 1,300+ reviews and say they hold no value. I could understand assuming like maybe 10% of them are fanboys and 10% are haters, but I think we should at least take them and look at the voices echoed in other mediums:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-PlayStation-4/dp/B01N00X3DH/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1490264083&sr=1-1&keywords=mass%2Beffect%2Bandromeda%2Bps4&th=1

 

Fans on Amazon gave the game 3.1/5 stars. A decent score, but on the lower side as well.

 

I mean when you have THIS many fans giving it relatively low scores you have to at LEAST be curious of if professionals are perhaps being too generous. This isn't just a few people giving it low scores, it's enough to affect the overall score of the game on many of these sites. Like I wouldn't say they represent the "true" scores, but the disparity shouldn't simply be dismissed under "it's probably just haters or fanboys" or shit like that. That's an excuse to ignore criticism and blindly believe that the professionals are being as objective as they could be. Isn't this evidence that there is at the very least a POSSIBILITY that the critics perhaps are giving the game more generous scores?

[Undead Wolf]

1 minute ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

I will agree that there are some people that just downvote and some fanboys who just upvote, but come one, you can't just dismiss over 1,300+ reviews and say they hold no value. I could understand assuming like maybe 10% of them are fanboys and 10% are haters, but I think we should at least take them and look at the voices echoed in other mediums:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-Andromeda-PlayStation-4/dp/B01N00X3DH/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1490264083&sr=1-1&keywords=mass%2Beffect%2Bandromeda%2Bps4&th=1

 

Fans on Amazon gave the game 3.1/5 stars. A decent score, but on the lower side as well.

 

I mean when you have THIS many fans giving it relatively low scores you have to at LEAST be curious of if professionals are perhaps being too generous. This isn't just a few people giving it low scores, it's enough to affect the overall score of the game on many of these sites. Like I wouldn't say they represent the "true" scores, but the disparity shouldn't simply be dismissed under "it's probably just haters or fanboys" or shit like that. That's an excuse to ignore criticism and blindly believe that the professionals are being as objective as they could be. Isn't this evidence that there is at the very least a POSSIBILITY that the critics perhaps are giving the game more generous scores?

 

I can and I will. The user scores on Metacritic are a joke, dude. Hell, I don't even put much thought into the critic score on Metacritic. It's just a number that holds no real value. Review scores themselves are pretty stupid, but that's a different discussion for another day.

 

I don't see how critics are being generous to the game. If it was getting 9's and 10's, sure, but I see most sites giving it a 6 or a 7. From what I've seen of the game, that sounds about right. So what are you suggesting? That EA has "bribed" these sites into giving the game a mediocre score?

[Cynthia-Roses]

Just now, Undead Wolf said:

I can and I will. The user scores on Metacritic are a joke, dude.

 

So basically you are going to dismiss over 1,300 reviews because some of them might be trolls or fanboys. That just seems like an excuse to me.

 

1 minute ago, Undead Wolf said:

I don't see how critics are being generous to the game. If it was getting 9's and 10's, sure, but I see most sites giving it a 6 or a 7. From what I've seen of the game, that sounds about right. So what are you suggesting? That EA has "bribed" these sites into giving the game a mediocre score?

 

When fans are giving it almost half of those scores, it's definitely generous.

 

Also no, but we all know that big publishers and devs hold power over review sites. If they get black listed then they sort of go out of business, so it's possible they don't want to go much lower than 6/10 for fear of backlash. People think bribery is the only way to game the scores, but it's really not. We have heard of devs and publishers threatening to blacklist review sites before, so we know it happens. 

 

However let's agree to disagree. I submit that yes there is a chance a chunk of the fan reviews are probably fanboys or trolls, but to dismiss ALL of them as fanboys or trolls and say they hold zero value whatsoever I think is a stretch too far. Meet me in the middle here and at LEAST admit that. You can't just say that 1 "professional" critic is more right than 1,300 fans. Like how many people would need to give the game bad reviews before you accepted that MAYBE critics are not being as objective as they could be? I could understand if there was like 10 fan reviews, but over 1,300? That's a lot to just dismiss when the fan reviews are almost 7 times the critic reviews. Some of them are just as detailed or even more detailed than the critic reviews. I guess what I'm asking is: at what point do you suspect that the critics may be wrong?

[Undead Wolf]

5 minutes ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

When fans are giving it almost half of those scores, it's definitely generous.

 

Also no, but we all know that big publishers and devs hold power over review sites. If they get black listed then they sort of go out of business, so it's possible they don't want to go much lower than 6/10 for fear of backlash. People think bribery is the only way to game the scores, but it's really not. We have heard of devs and publishers threatening to blacklist review sites before, so we know it happens. 

 

However let's agree to disagree. I submit that yes there is a chance a chunk of the fan reviews are probably fanboys or trolls, but to dismiss ALL of them as fanboys or trolls and say they hold zero value whatsoever I think is a stretch too far. Meet me in the middle here and at LEAST admit that. You can't just say that 1 "professional" critic is more right than 1,300 fans. Like how many people would need to give the game bad reviews before you accepted that MAYBE critics are not being as objective as they could be? I could understand if there was like 10 fan reviews, but over 1,300? That's a lot to just dismiss when the fan reviews are almost 7 times the critic reviews. Some of them are just as detailed or even more detailed than the critic reviews. I guess what I'm asking is: at what point do you suspect that the critics may be wrong?

 

We don't know if these people are fans, though. In fact, we don't know anything about them at all. For all I know, half of the user scores could be from trolls or alternate accounts. I'm not saying every user review is like that, but a few bad apples spoil the bunch. How am I supposed to take that user score seriously when I know it takes into account all of the trolls and fanboys too? It's just meaningless. I go to the "most helpful" reviews and it's full of 0's and 1's. I'm sorry, but no matter how mediocre Andromeda may or may not be, it definitely doesn't deserve that.

 

Like I said, I think most critics have given Andromeda a fair review. I don't see it as a generous score at all. Publishers usually only blacklist a site if they break the embargo or leak something that they didn't want anyone to know. I don't recall a site ever being blacklisted for giving an unfavourable review. Besides, a 6/10 isn't exactly glowing praise... I'm more worried about youtubers and what not being manipulated by publishers. This is why you see Bethesda doing what they did. Game critics aren't as easy to control than Joe Bloggs and his YouTube channel of a few thousand subscribers.

 

Game reviews aren't objective, though. That's not how it works. Critics all have their own preferences and what not and they may differ from my own. I don't take what anyone says about a game as an objective fact, but I'll actually read what they have to say and apply it to my own likes and dislikes. You don't get that from a review score alone. It doesn't give you any of that context. This is why I don't give a shit about user scores. I'm sure there are some fair reviews in there, but like I said before, that overall score means nothing.

[Cynthia-Roses]

11 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

 

We don't know if these people are fans, though. In fact, we don't know anything about them at all. For all I know, half of the user scores could be from trolls or alternate accounts. I'm not saying every user review is like that, but a few bad apples spoil the bunch. How am I supposed to take that user score seriously when I know it takes into account all of the trolls and fanboys too? It's just meaningless. I go to the "most helpful" reviews and it's full of 0's and 1's. I'm sorry, but no matter how mediocre Andromeda may or may not be, it definitely doesn't deserve that.

 

Like I said, I think most critics have given Andromeda a fair review. I don't see it as a generous score at all. Publishers usually only blacklist a site if they break the embargo or leak something that they didn't want anyone to know. I don't recall a site ever being blacklisted for giving an unfavourable review. Besides, a 6/10 isn't exactly glowing praise... I'm more worried about youtubers and what not being manipulated by publishers. This is why you see Bethesda doing what they did. Game critics aren't as easy to control than Joe Bloggs and his YouTube channel of a few thousand subscribers.

 

Game reviews aren't objective, though. That's not how it works. Critics all have their own preferences and what not and they may differ from my own. I don't take what anyone says about a game as an objective fact, but I'll actually read what they have to say and apply it to my own likes and dislikes. You don't get that from a review score alone. It doesn't give you any of that context. This is why I don't give a shit about user scores. I'm sure there are some fair reviews in there, but like I said before, that overall score means nothing.

 

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Undead Wolf]

Just now, Cynthia-Roses said:

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Haha, I guess so. 

[KingGuy420]

1 hour ago, Cynthia-Roses said:

 

Translation: I will lower my standards to whatever Bioware tells me to lower them to.

 

Seriously every Mass Effect fan ever praised the original games fro their story and graphics. Now when the story and graphics suck they suddenly don't matter. Besides the game is filled with bugs too. It's sitting at around a 4/10 on fan reviews on Metacritic. So clearly fans don't like it.

 

I love the gameplay in the Mass Effect series. The story has also always been an afterthought. This isn't something that just popped up with this one.

 

And to be fair, every single person I've talked to in the last 3 days that's bad mouthed the game, hasn't actually played it. The ones I've talked to that have played it are loving it. It definitely makes me doubt everyone's opinion on it.

 

And you can say it's full of bugs all you want but until you play it, that comment means nothing. I finished the game a few hours ago and have started chipping away at the post game and I haven't run into a single bug. The game stuttered once but that's it. The original trilogy all stuttered more then that within the first 15 minutes lol.

 

There's a major issue with the review system as a whole and this game really puts it front and center. I know for a fact, a lot of reviewers will give biased reviews, just to agree with reviewers who are bigger then them, for fear of losing subscribers / visitors that are hardcore about the bigger reviewer. With Andromeda, those glitchy pictures came out during the trial, and before the embargo lifted, and all of a sudden the internet became the biggest first reviewer, despite not even playing it. So boom, all of a sudden all the reviewers have to agree with the internet or risk losing subs / visitors and risk taking a shot to their paycheck. The whole system literally pays reviewers for biased reviews, even if it's not directly. The system as a whole is broken, and something I refuse to take part in. The day I let some idiot tell me what games to play, is the day I quit gaming. I refuse to be part of this lemming culture that everyone seems to be falling into.

Edited March 23, 2017 by KingGuy420

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

1 hour ago, KingGuy420 said:

I love the gameplay in the Mass Effect series. The story has also always been an afterthought. This isn't something that just popped up with this one.

 

You are also the one who said it's ridiculous when people complain about story and graphics in videogames and that if people wanted good facial animation they should just watch Netflix, so I think your view is a bit askew on this point.

 

Many people, including myself, have played the original trilogy just for the story and thought that the gameplay was subpar (bad even, in the first game). With a game like Mass Effect, which has so much thought put into the story and the world building, it's very silly to claim that the story is "an afterthought". That's like saying the story in The Last Of Us was an afterthought.

 

Quote

And you can say it's full of bugs all you want but until you play it, that comment means nothing. I finished the game a few hours ago and have started chipping away at the post game and I haven't run into a single bug. The game stuttered once but that's it. The original trilogy all stuttered more then that within the first 15 minutes lol.

 

Talking about bugs and faults, I definitely agree. I played Assassin's Creed Unity day one and never encountered anything others were putting online. I never had a savegame error in Batman: Arkham Origins, my Switch screen hasn't scratched and my left joycon hasn't desynchronised even once. I think that in the current way the internet works, people enjoy bashing popular stuff that they themselves have no interest in, and just take and repeat a couple of things that happen to others. Even when the first Mass Effect Andromeda bug vids popped up, there were countless reviewers claiming they had nothing of the sort.

 

Gameplay videos don't lie about graphics, however. It was very true that the creature graphics in No Man's Sky were much less than initially advertised, and it's true that the faces in Mass Effect Andromeda look a lot worse than the faces in the original trilogy, not even taking into account how good the faces look in comparable big games from recent years, like Witcher III. You're going to have to accept that there are people out there who do enjoy story and graphics, and that ME:A has taken a downturn in overall quality. I'll buy the game a year or two from now (perhaps earlier if I can find it used in a trade) and then I'll give my full opinion but for now, what I've seen in actual gameplay has turned me off enough to not want to drop even €20 on this game.

Edited March 23, 2017 by BillyHorrible

[Cynthia-Roses]

10 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

The story has also always been an afterthought.

 

I guess that's why fans heavily criticized the ending of ME3 and many people regard it as inferior to 1 and 2 for that reason? What are you even talking about?

 

9 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

Many people, including myself, have played the original trilogy just for the story and thought that the gameplay was subpar (bad even, in the first game). With a game like Mass Effect, which has so much thought put into the story and the world building, it's very silly to claim that the story is "an afterthought". That's like saying the story in The Last Of Us was an afterthought.

 

This ^

 

10 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

And to be fair, every single person I've talked to in the last 3 days that's bad mouthed the game, hasn't actually played it. The ones I've talked to that have played it are loving it. It definitely makes me doubt everyone's opinion on it.

 

 

So because you surround yourself with likeminded friends who echo your opinions everyone else's opinions are wrong? That to me sounds like a the symptom of a drug we call "fanboy".

 

10 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

And you can say it's full of bugs all you want but until you play it, that comment means nothing.

 

Despite NUMEROUS reports of bugs, video evidence of bugs and Bioware admitting there are various bugs and problems? So I guess everyone is lying and you tell only the truth? I guess all the video evidence is photoshopped?

 

11 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

I finished the game a few hours ago and have started chipping away at the post game and I haven't run into a single bug. The game stuttered once but that's it. The original trilogy all stuttered more then that within the first 15 minutes lol.

 

Da' Nail ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

11 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

There's a major issue with the review system as a whole and this game really puts it front and center.

 

Lol, but the same reviewers gave the other games amazing scores, and I am willing to bet when people criticized those games you pointed to everyone else's opinion as proof that the games were good. Willing to bet if the game got 9s and 10s across the board you would flip this argument around and be on the total opposite side of the fence.

 

11 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

I know for a fact, a lot of reviewers will give biased reviews, just to agree with reviewers who are bigger then them, for fear of losing subscribers / visitors that are hardcore about the bigger reviewer. With Andromeda, those glitchy pictures came out during the trial, and before the embargo lifted, and all of a sudden the internet became the biggest first reviewer, despite not even playing it.

 

Except people got those pictures from the 10 hour beta released... So people DID play it. Also the final game didn't change any of those things and Bioware said themselves they have no plans to change those animations in the current timeframe either. So your argument is invalid.

 

11 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

So boom, all of a sudden all the reviewers have to agree with the internet or risk losing subs / visitors and risk taking a shot to their paycheck. The whole system literally pays reviewers for biased reviews, even if it's not directly. The system as a whole is broken, and something I refuse to take part in. The day I let some idiot tell me what games to play, is the day I quit gaming. I refuse to be part of this lemming culture that everyone seems to be falling into.

 

Okay, then I don't want to hear your opinion on any game ever. Don't tell me a game is good or you are trying to influence me buying it and don't tell me a game is bad or you are trying to influence me into not buying it and that would make you a hypocrite.

[Shurax_Urden]

I played this about 6 hours yesterday and I (for the moment) did not find any bug or glitch. The facial animations look a bit weird, that's true, but I don't think that the game deserve all the hate it is receiving from the internet. I am enjoying it  

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

 

I am enjoying it  

 

In the end, that's all that matters. Personally, I really liked Assassin's Creed Unity. Hating stuff is much more vocal these days on the internet, but something with actual value won't be bothered by it.

 

[Shurax_Urden]

 

 

In the end, that's all that matters. Personally, I really liked Assassin's Creed Unity. Hating stuff is much more vocal these days on the internet, but something with actual value won't be bothered by it.

 

So much true in your words. I did also enjoy AC: Unity (I bought it at launch day and did not find any game breaking bug).

[ShadowReplicant]

Looks like the lead animator put herself in the game:

 

 

[ratchetdude231]

5 hours ago, ShadowReplicant said:

Looks like the lead animator put herself in the game:

 

 

This game is just the joke that keeps on giving. I guess we can thank Bioware for all those funny gifs. 

[Venocide]

 

[RavenclawHobbit]

So I recieved a code from a PlayStation email for 20% off my cart total. And even though I was highly discouraged from playing this I watched some streamers and decided to give it a shot. I do not regret that choice. I enjoy the combat as well as another mass effect universe to jump into. The facial animations is the biggest flaw in my opinion but once you get into the game you tend to not care as much. I am having fun with the title and that's all that matters in the long run. Please don't pass this game by because of the memes. It is worth experiencing for yourself. (Although I do understand people waiting for it to be less than $48)

[ratchetdude231]

New patch coming on April 6th

Quote

Other big complaints that will be addressed in the update include "improving localized voice over lip sync" and tweaks to main character Ryder's movement when he or she is running in a zig zag pattern. Here's the full list of changes coming in the April 6 update:

• Allowing you to skip ahead when travelling between planets in the galaxy map
• Increasing the inventory limits
• Improving the appearance of eyes for humans and asari characters
• Decreasing the cost of remnant decryption keys and making them more accessible at merchants
• Improving localized voice over lip sync
• Fixing Ryder's movements when running in a zig zag pattern
• Improving matchmaking and latency in multiplayer
• Improved tutorial placement
• Single-player balance changes: Ammo crates, armor, weapons, nomad, profiles, attacks, and progression
• Multiplayer balance changes: Weapons, cover, and enemies
• Added option to skip autopilot sequences in the galaxy map
• Improved logic, timing, and continuity for relationships and story arcs
• Improved lip-sync and facial acting during conversations, including localized VO
• Fixed various collision issues
• Fixed bugs where music or VO wouldn’t play or wasn't correct
• Fixed issue where global squad mate banter sometimes wasn't firing on UNCs
• Fixed issue where player was unable to access the Remnant Console Interface after failing decryption multiple times
• Fixed issue where fast travel is sometimes disabled after recruiting Drack until the player reloads a save
• Fixed issue where Ryder can become stuck in the start of Biotic Charge Pose
• Fixes issues related to some saves
• Fixed issue where objective sometimes becomes un-interactable for players in multiplayer
• Streaming and stability improvements

Looking further ahead, BioWare will be "rolling out additional patches which will go even deeper and look to improve several areas of the game." These areas include variety in character creation and improvements to character appearance, among others. Take a look at the full list of areas BioWare hopes to address in the list below.

• More options and variety in the character creator
• Improvements to hair and general appearance for characters
• Ongoing improvements to cinematic scenes and animations
• Improvements to male romance options for Scott Ryder
• Adjustments to conversations with Hainly Abrams

 

Source