Says the guy who likes anthem

[quote]very solid game[/quote]

The bad writing and characters is what killed Andromeda for me. I played like 6 hours. I just couldn’t take the terrible dialogue anymore.

[i]Mass Effect: Andromeda[/i] arguably got less hate than it deserved. I only see it get hate for its gamebreaking bugs (they definitely were not minor) which is obviously deserved, but even putting bugs aside for a second, the game did pretty much nothing well, and did many things badly. Massive open worlds with literally nothing in them. Forgettable enemy design. Forgettable quests - main and side quests. The dialogue options came down to either "No" four times or "Yes" four times, and were non-specific in what you were going to answer with. Forgettable plot. Basic gameplay and visuals. Awful, unhelpful quest markers. Quantity > quality Destiny-style pool of weapons. Tacked on multiplayer modes. And after many hours playing the game I only found one real boss fight - a massive robot in the desert, which actually looked pretty fun to fight. Except for the fact that it was COMPLETELY BROKEN, it was literally impossible to beat thanks to bugs. The only redeeming quality [i]Andromeda[/i] had was its characters, but even that quality was inferior to previous [i]Mass Effect[/i] games. I'd love to hear what this game's defenders actually liked about it, because even trying to be optimistic I've got nothing.

Personal taste issues. I could say the same thing about a lot of games I didn't like. Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it was a bad game. The issue is that the Mass Effect community wanted a continuation of the Shephard story arc....a Mass Effect 4....and ME: A wasn't the game they wanted. So they took their anger and frustration out on the game. But when you approached the game with no prior expectations....and play it for what it is? Its a good game, and the story is well-written. A good blend between an open world game, and a story-driven RPG. The combat is crisp and intutive. The game world was HUGE...at times almost annoyingly big. But you need to do the side missions and the loyalty missions to get the full flavor of the game. If you just blitz the game and try to get through the priority missions as fast as possible you will miss most of the story. Which is about bringing people together in common cause....and the danger of religion and being convinced that you are right-by-definition (The Kett). I still remember the sense of satisfaction I felt in the final battle watching all the different groups I had worked so hard to forge alliances between come together and fight the Kett as a single fighting force. I also remember a quick time event when I had to choose between siding with an organized crime boss....and a spy in their fight for control over an Outcast port. I took the shot at the spy who had been friendly towards me...and at the time I didn't understand why. When I thought about it later, i realized that I rather deal with someone unpleasant but honorable (if she was going to come after you she'd stab you in the chest)...than someone who is a charismatic schemer. When he came after you, you'd just suddenly find a knife sticking out of your back. Actually learned something about myself in the process, of being forced to make that snap decision. I was building an allaince...and the crime boss (as ruthless and unpleasant as she was) had an code that she operated according to. So she was someone who I knew I could rely on, and whose behavior I could predict. Also---at least on PlayStation---the bugs were minor. I played through the vanilla game twice with no difficulty. My current play through I've only experienced one graphic bug in about 15 hours of play.

[quote]But when you approached the game with no prior expectations....and play it for what it is?[/quote] It’s still not that great of a game. I have no stake in the Mass Effect series, and I don’t exactly care about the franchise. The narrative was almost as weak as the writing, which was almost as bad as the voice acting. The gameplay wasn’t anything to write home about, and while it’s not great, it was moderately enjoyable. It was a mediocre experience. Maybe mediocrity is enough for you, but other people have higher standards. Especially for a title like Mass Effect. At some point, you have to realize you’re as clouded by emotion as the people you complain about, maybe even more so. Actually, definitely more so.

[quote]Personal taste issues. I could say the same thing about a lot of games I didn't like.[/quote] Not really. There is a difference between "I don't like this game" and "this game is bad." I'm open minded and unbiased enough to admit when a game is simply not my taste - for example, I'm not really interested in most fighting games, but games like [i]Tekken[/i] and [i]Street Fighter[/i] are objectively well made games. The issue with [i]Mass Effect: Andromeda[/i] is that it's an objectively badly designed game, and even in the bloated subgenre that is open world games... it doesn't bring anything new to the table. Enjoy it by all means - but it isn't good. [quote]The issue is that the Mass Effect community wanted a continuation of the Shephard story arc....a Mass Effect 4....and ME: A wasn't the game they wanted. So they took their anger and frustration out on the game.[/quote] Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But that's not where my criticisms came from. [quote]But when you approached the game with no prior expectations....and play it for what it is? Its a good game, and the story is well-written.[/quote] I await some arguments in support of this controversial claim. [quote]Also---at least on PlayStation---the bugs were minor. I played through the vanilla game twice with no difficulty. My current play through I've only experienced one graphic bug in about 15 hours of play.[/quote] Fair. I can't speak for anyone else's experience with a game. I just know that when I played it on Xbox One, bugs occuring during combat encounters ruined my experience. But that's neither here nor there - like I said, the game is bad even if you ignore the bugs.

[quote]The issue with Mass Effect: Andromeda is that it's an objectively badly designed game, and even in the bloated subgenre that is open world games... it doesn't bring anything new to the table. Enjoy it by all means - but it isn't good.[/quote] Translation: I didn't like it, and it didn't meet the expectations that I had set for it (Never mind that BioWare didn't promise anything revolutionary). [quote]I await some arguments in support of this controversial claim.[/quote] Not controversial. You just have to understand how most reviewers play games----and why I don't pay attention to them any more. When a reviewer reviews a game, they are on a deadline. So they play through the game fairly quickly, so that they can write their review and meet their deadline. So its like eating at dinner at a fine restaurant quickly. You don't really get a chance to savor what you're eating. The campaign in ME: A is not a story that lends itselt to being experienced that way. If you blow through the priority missions in 20 hours or so, you will miss half the story...and arguably the best part. The side missions and loyalty missions. The story is about what happens when you take a stable, established society.....and you KNOCK the supports out from under. it. Everythign that could go wrong in the journey to Andromeda DID go wrong......and then the scramble for SURVIVAL started. ...and the "civilized veneer" of that society got stripped away. Out came the criminal element. The selfishness. The power struggles. Desperation. Ethnic/Racial suspicions and rivalries. Into this steps the Pathfinder....and he/she has to basically NATION-BUILD. He has to find a way to pick up the pieces of the shattered society they left behind, and reforge a new society where all of these different groups once again live in harmony and work together. As well as forge a peaceful presence with the indigenous groups in the region. As well as the dirty work, and compromises you have to make along the way. IN my main play through....I had to let an AI kill someone in order to preserve it and its technology for the greater good. As I said in another post, I had to take sides in a fight for control over a smuggler's port. Opting to side with the faction whose leader whose behavior was more predictable, and who would maintain an more stable community....even if conditions were harsh. I had to let a radical kill a hostage in order to prevent him from weaponizing an fatal disease she had brought with her from the Milky Way. So yes, I was making an omelette...but I also had to break some eggs along the way in rebuild that society. My character was principled....but he didn't walk away from it all without a fair amount of blood on his hands. And having to make some fairly ruthless decisions that had bad consequences for individuals in the story. But the end result was worth it. When I led that nation that I had forged into battle against the Kett. [quote]ike I said, the game is bad even if you ignore the bugs.[/quote] And you're welcome to that **opinion**. But that opinion is that you didn't enjoy the game. Not that the game was poorly made. The reality here, is if the game hadn't been released as part of the Mass Effect franchise....and had to carry all the weight of hype and expectation that came with that name? The game would have been much better recieved....and its bugs would have been overlooked. I've played games that were MUCH buggier than ME: A was on launch...(cough.... Fallout 4)....and no one made a big deal of it

[quote]Translation: I didn't like it, and it didn't meet the expectations that I had set for it (Never mind that BioWare didn't promise anything revolutionary). [/quote] This is why people get so angry debating with you. You've just ignored all of the arguments I made, and made an assumption about me I've already disputed. [quote]Not controversial. You just have to understand how most reviewers play games----and why I don't pay attention to them any more.[/quote] More irrelevant sidestepping and assuming that has nothing to do with anything I said. [quote]and arguably the best part. The side missions and loyalty missions. [/quote] Something I've already addressed... thus having clearly not ignored or missed it. [quote]Story stuff[/quote] A lengthy run through of the story... without any arguments for what made it good. [quote]And you're welcome to that **opinion**.[/quote] Pretending it's all subjective... [quote]But that opinion is that you didn't enjoy the game. Not that the game was poorly made.[/quote] And then claiming that there are objective analyses and that there is a difference between "I dislike a game" and "this game is bad", a claim I made previously that you ignored, only to then agree and disagree with it in a single post. So which is it? [quote]The reality here, is if the game hadn't been released as part of the Mass Effect franchise....and had to carry all the weight of hype and expectation that came with that name? The game would have been much better recieved....and its bugs would have been overlooked. I've played games that were MUCH buggier than ME: A was on launch...(cough.... Fallout 4)....and no one made a big deal of it[/quote] More assumptions. I've already explained to you that I had no prior expectations. And you'll see (at least if you EVER actually addressed your opponent's arguments in a debate) that I also criticise [i]Fallout[/i] and other garbage AAA games. So this has nothing to do with the individual franchise... and everything to do with actual criticisms I have for games like these - games with open world filler, generic story and storytelling, that do nothing of any worth. I made a number of arguments for why [i]Mass Effect: Andromeda[/i] is a shit game, NONE of which had ANYTHING to do with its name, prior expectations or reviewers. And conveniently, you ignored every single one of them so you can continue making assumptions and blaming people for criticising a game you like. I'll gladly have a friendly, respectful debate with you, if you come back and actually address my arguments instead of assuming things.

I didn't ignore what you said. I'm pointing out that what you said are all SUBJECTIVE issues that are matters of personal taste and not GAME design or game tuning. For example. The Division 2 right now is suffering an OBJECTIVE problem that has been caused by poor game tuning, poor difficulty scaling....and ultimately a bad approach to game design. Loot games are power-fantasy games. People grind them so that---when they have their builds complete----they feel powerful....and the game gets easier. But the devs for The Division 2 have this bug up their butt about "challenging the player". So instead of feelign powerful....in the end-game you feel weak and vulnerable. You hve to empty two magazines or more into enemies to get them to die. While they can one-shot you. You are constantly being driven out of cover by drones, grenades, fire bombs, suicide bombers, flame throwers, or multiple NPCs flanking you....or even spawning out of thin air BEHIND You if the game "decides" you've been in cover for too long. While the NPCs can drop healing stations and stand out in the open and face-tank your fire. Oh, and don't get me started on the Rogue Agents that randomly appear...have exactly the same abilities as you do. Excpet theirs don't have any cooldowns, and they can take a shit ton more damage than you. Not only is the game play NOT enjoyable at that point...the game breaks down an unravels at that point....and the progression and loot systems stop working at that point. Although Massive has been tone deaf in dealign with their community over this, even they realize that the game's tuning is broken...and they've been cranking out multiple patches trying to fix it. They admited to the mistake of tuning the game----in developement---against players with perfectly optimized loadouts. But when you do that, you make the game unplayable (or tediously and unenjoyable) for everyone but that 1% of the player base who can grind their way to perfect gear sets. It also throws the loot system off, because you wind up having to hve better gear equipped to clear content than the game gives to you in terms of rewards. So the game winds up getting a flat tire and stops working properly. Then starts hemorrhaging players. Which is where The Division 2 finds itself right now...for hte SECOND time in the history of the franchise...and for the same damn reason. THAT is what a game with an OBJECTIVE problem looks like and plays like. Mass Effect: Andromeda (other than the graphics bugs) had NONE of those kinds of problems. You just don't like the KIND of game that BioWare decided to make. Which is your right. But the fact that you didn't enjoy it, doen't make the game objectively bad. If I applied that standard in my own assessment of games, I'd be calling some of the most popular games of the last 20 years "bad". Because there has never been a Halo game that has managed to hold my attention for more than about 30 minutes before I got bored and turned it off. My lack of enjoyment doesn't make those Halo games bad. Just makes them "Not My Cup of Tea". Mass Effect: Andromeda simply wasn't yours.

Surely by your own logic [i]The Division 2[/i] is just "not your cup of tea." If it's a case of purpose vs execution, then ME:A could easily be scrutinised for being objectively bad for being an open world game that doesn't encourage exploration and doesn't have any freedom in how you traverse the world. So what makes one critique of a game "just not your cup of tea/just a personal taste issue" while the other one is valid? I'm not being sarcastic btw, I'm genuinely interested in your thought process.

[quote]Surely by your own logic The Division 2 is just "not your cup of tea."[/quote] Still missing the point. I actually LIKE The Division 2...and that the only reason why I'm still playing it. But my liking the game doesn't change the fact that aspects of it have been badly designed, and poorly executed. As I said, when you tune a loot game badly like this....it has a ripple effect that impacts other parts of the game. Difficutly-scaling becomes a problem. 1. Teams have difficulty clearing content because the fights become too difficult for the damage output and damage resistance that they have. 2. Players start running out of ammunition during encounters, because the ammo boxes wind up being stationed too far apart because the fights take too long. 3. The loot system runs into problems because you wind up having to have gear that is better rolled in order to clear the content than actually drops as rewards FROM the content your playing. And because progression was gear-based up until the current expansion----it also caused progression problems. 4. Difficulty scaling becomes a problem as well. The open world becomes unplayable as a solo player at higher levels of difficulty. Because of NPC aggression, you often find yourself being swarmed from multiple directions, by NPCs that (once they aggro on you) will chase you endlessly....or rush you from the other side of the instance. The problem compounds because damage scaling is off as well. So there is a mismatch between the damage you can deal as a solo player, and the damage NPCs can absorb. I ran into one ridiculous situation trying to clear an open world encounter where a medic NPC (who heals wounded enemies and drops healing stations) got hooked up with a chain-gun tank. A heavily armored "boss" character that deals out massive damage and can absorb a ton of damage. I ended up having to retreat halfway across the play space because I literally couldn't damage the tank fast enough to over come how fast he was being healed and repaired by the station. I ran out of all the ammo for my LMG and assualt rifle. Had to switch to a rifle and a sniper rifle..... ...then retreat until I lured the medic out into the open....killed him....destroyed his healing station. Then I could finally get around taking out the tank. That's just bad design and tuning for an activity that is supposed to be playable by a solo player. Even the devs "get" this....and have been trying to make the tuning more reasonable by nerfing these NPC abilities and retuning damage and difficulty scaling. The game is getting better...but ridiculous situations what make the player feel incredibly week (like I just described) still happen A LOT. Especially in open-world play. Mass Effect: Andromeda had NONE of those kinds of problems. It just had graphics and animaction issues that got blown WAY out of proportion by an angry and frustrated player base. Plus it told a story that that same player base didn't want to hear....and they shit on it because of it.

Still missing the point. You can give all the examples you want, but you're not explaining why your criticisms of a game are valid, and my criticisms of a different game are "just personal taste issues." Also: [quote]issues like those[/quote] Means very little until you actually lay out the traits that make one criticism valid and another one "just personal taste issues." And STOP passive aggressively referring to me as the "Mass Effect community who had unrealistic expectations."

Last time....and then I'm going to stop wasting my time. Bad game/Badly designed game is one that doesn't WORK properly....and as a result some aspect of play breaks down. Simply not LIKING a game simply means you don't like it. If I applied YOUR logic to what constitutes a "bad game"......the following games would be "bad" (because I don't/didn't like playing them). [i]Halo CE Halo 2 Halo 3 Halo 4 Halo 5 Monster Hunter Word. Every Dark Souls game ever made. Every Call of Duty game (except Infinite Warfare) Every Battlefield game ever made. Jedi: Fallen Order Every Fallout game ever made (though that argument can be made for other reasons ) [/i] [b]Just for starters.....[/b] And lastly, GET OVER YOURSELF. When I refer to the Mass Effect community...I AM REFERRING TO EXACTLY THAT. The thousands of people ---as a group----who shit on this game without giving it a chance, because it wasn't the game the wanted from BioWare. If I were referring SPECFICALLY to you, I would have no problems doing exactly that. Trust me. The point is that your personal tastes in gaming don't define what is or is not a good game for anyone except yourself. The fact is---when people come to ME: A without the burden of expectation created by an attachment to the previous triology-----many people enjoyed playing it. Because it FREQUENTLY gets mentioned when people discuss "underated" or "underappreciated" games.

So in conclusion Fortnite Bad?

[quote]The point is that your personal tastes in gaming don't define what is or is not a good game.[/quote] Thank you! That's what I've been saying since the beginning. :)

No. You haven't. Because every criticism----sans the bugs----you've leveled against ME: A have been matters of personal taste and expectation. If you had simply said, "Hey, I didn't like it". You'd have gotten no push back from me. No one ever has to justify their taste in gaming as far as I'm concerned. But instead you dug in and tried to insist that it was a bad game...and therefore bad for everyone....and (as I pointed out) that is an indefensible position.

I thought your last response was the last time?

I thought it was an enjoyable game, but for a Mass Effect title it was pretty underwhelming.