EA seem to just screw up any Game Studio that are half decent, I wonder what would happen if Bioware had remained independent. I wish good studios were not absorbed by other companies.
Oh for sure there would be more tolerance and forgiveness from the fans and critics alike if Bioware were still their own company. The could pull a Bethesda and release a weak title like Fallout 4 that got good reviews even though the game paled in comparison to their previous titles and suffered some of the same faults that Andromeda was accused of by a weak story and lack of creativity.
Not to mention that the Fallout game engine had really seen better days and needs to be upgraded going forward. And I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but I thought Andromeda was the better game of the two. Yeah I know right? But people would forgive them and pat them on the back because they were not part of a bigger corporation such less EA.
People now say it wasn't a bad game because they are abandoning it, but if they hadn't it would still be getting criticized. I suppose a few years from now when they decide to reboot this franchise we will be so happy and conveniently forget the bad parts, may be this is a good strategy.
People now say it wasn't a bad game because they are abandoning it, but if they hadn't it would still be getting criticized. I suppose a few years from now when they decide to reboot this franchise we will be so happy and conveniently forget the bad parts, may be this is a good strategy.
That's pretty much everywhere. Kind of like childbirth......hurts like hell but after a few years you forget and start thinking...."Gee how about another one?" It's all rosy 'til the delivery room.
Companies get absorbed when they can no longer financially support themselves or the main stake holders decide they want to cash out. Given EA's track record, it was obvious that anything not showing a profit would be getting the axe. It's their company, they can do whatever they want with it.
Downsizing takes on many faces... this is just one of them.
I honestly don't understand when people say ME:A was a disaster, or a terrible game. It certainly has it's flaws, there is no denying that, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and I was very much looking forward to seeing more, and pretty much everyone who is a long time fan of the series that I talk to about it feels similarly. With the way the game ended, it's a massive disservice to the fans to not at least allow for a proper DLC to finish the whole thing off properly. Not only do we potentially lose one of our favorite franchises over things that could be fixed, but we don't even get to know what happens with a really significant situation at the end? I agree, they deserved another chance, the game was a commercial success even if it was met with a lukewarm reception by critics, YouTube critics for the most part, who found it very easy to bandwagon on very superficial issues and paint them to be game ruining because they know their mindless zombie fans will believe everything they say. I literally NEVER listen to reviews on games that I'm interested in because I'd rather make up my own mind, and more times than not I'm glad that I operate that way, because I would have missed out on some solid, fun games if I didn't.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'm going to attempt to not jump to any conclusions about this being the end of Mass Effect. It's entirely possible BioWares main office in Edmonton takes the series back on, once Anthem, and DA4 are completed. It would be completely idiotic and ridiculous to drop the franchise altogether, and I really can't see them doing that since BioWare has really never been a studio to shy away from challenges, or be deterred by critics. Both Edmonton and Austin have been bringing BioWare veteran developers back on board for un-announced projects, so I'm not willing to write the series off until somebody from BioWare and/or EA provides us with a definitive answer on the subject.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'm going to attempt to not jump to any conclusions about this being the end of Mass Effect. It's entirely possible BioWares main office in Edmonton takes the series back on, once Anthem, and DA4 are completed. It would be completely idiotic and ridiculous to drop the franchise altogether, and I really can't see them doing that since BioWare has really never been a studio to shy away from challenges, or be deterred by critics. Both Edmonton and Austin have been bringing BioWare veteran developers back on board for un-announced projects, so I'm not willing to write the series off until somebody from BioWare and/or EA provides us with a definitive answer on the subject.
I think the problem is that it's coming from a very popular IP so there was certaint expectations which IMHO should have been expected so you need to take that into account.
That said I hope there will be more in this IP and I hope this move on EA part is them realizing certain things that were critised need to be addressed and them thinking part of correcting that is what led to bioware being absorbed.
Who knows this might be a good thing down the line as frankly bioware haven't been doing a good job.
Frankly they need to let things settle down a little before making further attempts with this IP.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Susie and the "reviewer" didn't shit on anyone's opinion differing from theirs. They only commented to trolls saying things like "paid review" etc. They also defended themselves from those that saw a 5 min youtube video and had a PhD in MEA and decided that the review was invalid because of their pretentious views. I'm guessing you were one of those people. Why else would you post something so stupid.
The reviewer very openly insinuated that everyone who was critical of ME:A was engaging in a witch hunt and harassing women involved in making the game.
No. She didn't do that.
You would have to outright deny reality and go into "alternative fact" territory if you ignore that there was an orchestrated alt-right anti-MEA and anti-Bioware campaign surrounding the launch of the game.
The game can indeed be criticized legitimately but that criticism was somewhat tainted by the actions of the lunatic fringe. There were even some reviewers that disliked and ridiculed the game who were nevertheless just as quick to ridicule the reasons being cited by many metabombers for their 0 scores. Just have a read through Jim Sterling's "Metabombed: Mass Effect Andromeda is 'Pure SJW Propaganda'" for an example of that. He also gave it a 5 out of 10.
The fact is that, like it or not, there was so much wacko, extraneous bullshit mixed in with the legitimate criticism of MEA that any review written at that time pretty well needed to acknowledge the lunacy as part of the launch environment. And that's exactly what she did.
"Everyone who was critical" is just your spin on it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Not sure I agree it needed to be addressed in the review. The review should solely focus on the content quality of the game itself.
Any assessment of the whackos was deserving of and appropriately addressed in an opinion piece centered around that issue in context with other, similar issues that have occurred within the genre. Including it in the review colors the review more than the whackos, at least reference the reader of this review, who may or may not have intimate knowledge of the controversy.
I don't disagree the hate has been over the top from some folks, and the misogyny is straight retarded.. But this isn't the first AAA game to come out with such surprisingly obvious quality issues. I would surmise some of the hate MEA got is a residual hate that's been building among the gamer population (see Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed, heck even Kane and Lynch way back when).
Not sure I agree it needed to be addressed in the review. The review should solely focus on the content quality of the game itself.
Any assessment of the whackos was deserving of and appropriately addressed in an opinion piece centered around that issue in context with other, similar issues that have occurred within the genre. Including it in the review colors the review more than the whackos, at least reference the reader of this review, who may or may not have intimate knowledge of the controversy.
I don't disagree the hate has been over the top from some folks, and the misogyny is straight retarded.. But this isn't the first AAA game to come out with such surprisingly obvious quality issues. I would surmise some of the hate MEA got is a residual hate that's been building among the gamer population (see Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed, heck even Kane and Lynch way back when).
In general and most of the time I would agree that reviews should try to ignore extraneous factors as much as possible. But there are exceptions and to be fair, this was not by any means the only site that felt a need to acknowledge and take at least a passing stance on some of the external events surrounding the MEA launch simply because it was so loud and widespread that to simply ignore it would have seemed like a deliberate omission of related material.
Also reviewers are no more immune, nor should they be, from having opinions partly based on their own ethnicity, country and/or regional cultural conventions and certainly not gender either.
The link in the original review was to a particular misogynist alt-right hit piece that was part of the anti MEA campaign madness. I might not have chosen that particular link to highlight the idiocy but then I'm not a woman and what I find most outrageous is colored by my own personal circumstances. Jim Sterling chose to highlight multiple different examples of the same tripe to ridicule based on his own personal reasons.
Reviewers are not required to put on blinders and channel Joe Friday ("Just the facts, mam") and produce some sterile pseudo-objective review. That would be some really boring generic shit to read.
I can understand those with legitimate negative MEA opinions feeling uncomfortable when it gets pointed out that a sizable portion of their anti camp is behaving badly and I think a lot of the complaints about the MMORPG review piece are just attempts to carve out the legitimate negativity about MEA.
But ironically, instead of just saying something like "I'm aware of the extraneous complaints about MEA but mine are not about that" and carrying on, they've spent a lot of time undermining their own credibility by focusing instead on bashing Suzie.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Not sure I agree it needed to be addressed in the review. The review should solely focus on the content quality of the game itself.
Any assessment of the whackos was deserving of and appropriately addressed in an opinion piece centered around that issue in context with other, similar issues that have occurred within the genre. Including it in the review colors the review more than the whackos, at least reference the reader of this review, who may or may not have intimate knowledge of the controversy.
I don't disagree the hate has been over the top from some folks, and the misogyny is straight retarded.. But this isn't the first AAA game to come out with such surprisingly obvious quality issues. I would surmise some of the hate MEA got is a residual hate that's been building among the gamer population (see Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed, heck even Kane and Lynch way back when).
In general and most of the time I would agree that reviews should try to ignore extraneous factors as much as possible. But there are exceptions and to be fair, this was not by any means the only site that felt a need to acknowledge and take at least a passing stance on some of the external events surrounding the MEA launch simply because it was so loud and widespread that to simply ignore it would have seemed like a deliberate omission of related material.
Also reviewers are no more immune, nor should they be, from having opinions partly based on their own ethnicity, country and/or regional cultural conventions and certainly not gender either.
The link in the original review was to a particular misogynist alt-right hit piece that was part of the anti MEA campaign madness. I might not have chosen that particular link to highlight the idiocy but then I'm not a woman and what I find most outrageous is colored by my own personal circumstances. Jim Sterling chose to highlight multiple different examples of the same tripe to ridicule based on his own personal reasons.
Reviewers are not required to put on blinders and channel Joe Friday ("Just the facts, mam") and produce some sterile pseudo-objective review. That would be some really boring generic shit to read.
I can understand those with legitimate negative MEA opinions feeling uncomfortable when it gets pointed out that a sizable portion of their anti camp is behaving badly and I think a lot of the complaints about the MMORPG review piece are just attempts to carve out the legitimate negativity about MEA.
But ironically, instead of just saying something like "I'm aware of the extraneous complaints about MEA but mine are not about that" and carrying on, they've spent a lot of time undermining their own credibility by focusing instead on bashing Suzie.
Again, I don't disagree with the disgust against the ridiculousness, just feel it does nothing to acknowledge it in the review but validate the relevance of the group. It invites discussion centered not around the content of the review itself, but of the controversy, instead.
Reviewers need not be robots, no, but the author could've expounded upon his views of the controversy itself in its own article. One with that goal in mind. Just felt including it in the review is distracting. It doesn't make the review of the merits of the game itself any clearer.
Susie and the "reviewer" didn't shit on anyone's opinion differing from theirs. They only commented to trolls saying things like "paid review" etc. They also defended themselves from those that saw a 5 min youtube video and had a PhD in MEA and decided that the review was invalid because of their pretentious views. I'm guessing you were one of those people. Why else would you post something so stupid.
The reviewer very openly insinuated that everyone who was critical of ME:A was engaging in a witch hunt and harassing women involved in making the game.
No. She didn't do that.
You would have to outright deny reality and go into "alternative fact" territory if you ignore that there was an orchestrated alt-right anti-MEA and anti-Bioware campaign surrounding the launch of the game.
The game can indeed be criticized legitimately but that criticism was somewhat tainted by the actions of the lunatic fringe. There were even some reviewers that disliked and ridiculed the game who were nevertheless just as quick to ridicule the reasons being cited by many metabombers for their 0 scores. Just have a read through Jim Sterling's "Metabombed: Mass Effect Andromeda is 'Pure SJW Propaganda'" for an example of that. He also gave it a 5 out of 10.
The fact is that, like it or not, there was so much wacko, extraneous bullshit mixed in with the legitimate criticism of MEA that any review written at that time pretty well needed to acknowledge the lunacy as part of the launch environment. And that's exactly what she did.
"Everyone who was critical" is just your spin on it.
I like how you cut out the relevant words from the reviewer that did, in fact, claim "the internet" was engaging in witch hunts and harassing women. Not a specific group, not some people and not even many people. "The internet" meaning everyone. Here it is again:
"Now comes the point I’m surprised to having to address. The Internet’s biggest gripe with the game and the reason for petty witch-hunts: animation."
I have no doubt that many disgusting people sent vile messages to the ME:A team, but the reviewer painted everyone who criticized the game with the same brush. Whether that was intentional or not on the part of the reviewer, I don't know. By doing so, the reviewer tried to legitimize their claim that the graphical issues weren't that big of a deal and demonize those that disagreed. Next time , maybe the reviewer can simply avoid sweeping generalizations.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
So summarize, one side says that SBFord have the right to put this topic in the review, the other says that she puts everyone in the same "witch hunt" group.
So summarize, one side says that SBFord have the right to put this topic in the review, the other says that she puts everyone in the same "witch hunt" group.
What do you have to say about that, SBFord?
I'd say check out the ME:A review comments and decide for yourself my Polish brother
So summarize, one side says that SBFord have the right to put this topic in the review, the other says that she puts everyone in the same "witch hunt" group.
Quite frankly, I really enjoyed the direction this franchise went with Andromeda. It opened up a whole new world... (scratch that, a whole new EVERYTHING!). I'll be sad to see it stuffed onto a back shelf somewhere.
Comments
Not to mention that the Fallout game engine had really seen better days and needs to be upgraded going forward. And I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but I thought Andromeda was the better game of the two. Yeah I know right? But people would forgive them and pat them on the back because they were not part of a bigger corporation such less EA.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Downsizing takes on many faces... this is just one of them.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'm going to attempt to not jump to any conclusions about this being the end of Mass Effect. It's entirely possible BioWares main office in Edmonton takes the series back on, once Anthem, and DA4 are completed. It would be completely idiotic and ridiculous to drop the franchise altogether, and I really can't see them doing that since BioWare has really never been a studio to shy away from challenges, or be deterred by critics. Both Edmonton and Austin have been bringing BioWare veteran developers back on board for un-announced projects, so I'm not willing to write the series off until somebody from BioWare and/or EA provides us with a definitive answer on the subject.
That said I hope there will be more in this IP and I hope this move on EA part is them realizing certain things that were critised need to be addressed and them thinking part of correcting that is what led to bioware being absorbed.
Who knows this might be a good thing down the line as frankly bioware haven't been doing a good job.
Frankly they need to let things settle down a little before making further attempts with this IP.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
You would have to outright deny reality and go into "alternative fact" territory if you ignore that there was an orchestrated alt-right anti-MEA and anti-Bioware campaign surrounding the launch of the game.
The game can indeed be criticized legitimately but that criticism was somewhat tainted by the actions of the lunatic fringe. There were even some reviewers that disliked and ridiculed the game who were nevertheless just as quick to ridicule the reasons being cited by many metabombers for their 0 scores. Just have a read through Jim Sterling's "Metabombed: Mass Effect Andromeda is 'Pure SJW Propaganda'" for an example of that. He also gave it a 5 out of 10.
The fact is that, like it or not, there was so much wacko, extraneous bullshit mixed in with the legitimate criticism of MEA that any review written at that time pretty well needed to acknowledge the lunacy as part of the launch environment. And that's exactly what she did.
"Everyone who was critical" is just your spin on it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Any assessment of the whackos was deserving of and appropriately addressed in an opinion piece centered around that issue in context with other, similar issues that have occurred within the genre. Including it in the review colors the review more than the whackos, at least reference the reader of this review, who may or may not have intimate knowledge of the controversy.
I don't disagree the hate has been over the top from some folks, and the misogyny is straight retarded.. But this isn't the first AAA game to come out with such surprisingly obvious quality issues. I would surmise some of the hate MEA got is a residual hate that's been building among the gamer population (see Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed, heck even Kane and Lynch way back when).
Also reviewers are no more immune, nor should they be, from having opinions partly based on their own ethnicity, country and/or regional cultural conventions and certainly not gender either.
The link in the original review was to a particular misogynist alt-right hit piece that was part of the anti MEA campaign madness. I might not have chosen that particular link to highlight the idiocy but then I'm not a woman and what I find most outrageous is colored by my own personal circumstances. Jim Sterling chose to highlight multiple different examples of the same tripe to ridicule based on his own personal reasons.
Reviewers are not required to put on blinders and channel Joe Friday ("Just the facts, mam") and produce some sterile pseudo-objective review. That would be some really boring generic shit to read.
I can understand those with legitimate negative MEA opinions feeling uncomfortable when it gets pointed out that a sizable portion of their anti camp is behaving badly and I think a lot of the complaints about the MMORPG review piece are just attempts to carve out the legitimate negativity about MEA.
But ironically, instead of just saying something like "I'm aware of the extraneous complaints about MEA but mine are not about that" and carrying on, they've spent a lot of time undermining their own credibility by focusing instead on bashing Suzie.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Reviewers need not be robots, no, but the author could've expounded upon his views of the controversy itself in its own article. One with that goal in mind. Just felt including it in the review is distracting. It doesn't make the review of the merits of the game itself any clearer.
"Now comes the point I’m surprised to having to address. The Internet’s biggest gripe with the game and the reason for petty witch-hunts: animation."
http://www.mmorpg.com/mass-effect-andromeda/reviews/i-wanted-mass-effect-4-but-got-something-better-1000000469
I have no doubt that many disgusting people sent vile messages to the ME:A team, but the reviewer painted everyone who criticized the game with the same brush. Whether that was intentional or not on the part of the reviewer, I don't know. By doing so, the reviewer tried to legitimize their claim that the graphical issues weren't that big of a deal and demonize those that disagreed. Next time , maybe the reviewer can simply avoid sweeping generalizations.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
What do you have to say about that, SBFord?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯