Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

I Wanted Mass Effect 4 But Got Something Better - Mass Effect: Andromeda Review - MMORPG.com

11011121416

Comments

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    edited March 2017
    Buccaneer said:
    Personally I don't care much for the ME universe; I played the first one and haven't bothered with the rest.  I will give them ago in the future if I get through all the other games I haven't played in my steam account.  With this in mind I don't care if the game is good or bad.  I'm looking at the game with a more unbiased approach compared to the reviewer.

    My issue with the review is that it shouldn't have been called a review; it should have been an opinion piece, nothing more.  For me a review should be approached in a unbiased manner; the fanboyism should have been left at the door.  If I want a fanboyism review I would have looked at the games forum.  A review should be able to look at things subjectively and the reviewer should be able to list the games pro's and con's without accusing people that disagree with them to have an anti-progressive agenda, especially after hearing what one of the (ex)devs thinks of white males. 

    Edit: Just wanted to add this is not an attack on the game, but more disappointment in MMORPG's approach in reviewing the game.

    You do understand that subjectively essentially means biased, right? You mean objectively. 

    For the most part I would agree with you, but we're also talking about a game which already has 3 predecessors, so do I really care to hear a review from someone with zero previous experience in the ME world? Nope! Not really. 

    As far as the approach to reviewing the game, 20 of 75 reviews of the game across all platforms rated the game 85 or above. 27 of 75 reviews ranked 75 to 84. This isn't a matter of somebody being a hyper fanboy, it's simply a matter of a polarizing IP under-delivering on a game, leading to a much wider divide than usual. In the days of yesteryear, there were actual metrics used for games. This was both useful and problematic. For one, you can see where the problems are for the game. On the other hand, though, it meant that executing well in all other measured areas could still garner you a great score, even though your game is relatively empty feeling. 

    These days, few sites actually publish good metrics of what their measures are (I think they do here? For some games?), which means that the reviews themselves are, inherently, subjective. Every review is biased, and they don't even have to go as far as to show you how they arrived at their rating using actual metrics, so the bad reviews are just as biased as the good ones. Shit, here's a clipping from a review that gave the game 60,

    "
    Mass Effect Andromeda falls short of its predecessors, but it's still a competently executed open-world action RPG with an interesting world and tons of quests to complete. Its biggest shame is that it doesn't make better use of its setting, opting instead to go with more of the same. Hopefully BioWare will be more ambitious when it comes time for the inevitable sequel."

    Soooooooo, that gets it a 60? A competently executed open-world action RPG? Take the rating away and 9/10 people on here would buy that, lol. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • TimEisenTimEisen ColumnistMember EpicPosts: 3,290
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    TimEisen said:
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 

    To be honest, I would rather have something review a game they have experienced and enjoyed. Like, I'm assuming you'll be reviewing Crowfall? It's Crowfall you're a huge fanboy, white knight for right? :P 

    Anyway, I feel like people who already dislike a game are more likely to be overly biased towards the low-end of the spectrum, whereas the fans tend to still want things changed, so they are more objectively, in my opinion. 

    Case in point here, the people who are rating it the highest on Metacritic are still closer to the average score than the lowest. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • YumeTsukaiYumeTsukai Member UncommonPosts: 38
    TimEisen said:
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 
    Yes, in an ideal environment we should definately do that. But how can we get there when even this review instigates to matters that maybe shouldn't have been mentioned at all in the first place? We should have pros, cons and overall enjoyment, right ?

    Instead this is something that what we get in a paragraph from this review:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Despite what you might have heard up to now, it is not that bad. Really. Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill. In addition, let me be frank here: if you play(ed) Mass Effect and / or Dragon Age for graphics, you’re doing it wrong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. I've read/seen other reviews but to my surprise those reviewers *didn't have to address* the internet's concerns. They were able to share their honest opinions on the fact at hand, however.

    2. "Petty witch-hunts" while insulting the "interneets" and their opinions, links to a Kotaku post named "Scumbags Harass Woman For Working On Mass Effect: Andromeda's Animations". While most people (including me) do not support that kind of behavior I don't really see the reason for including this in the actual review. It just feels like an extra argument to prove that the reviewer's beliefs are 100% accurate.

    3. "Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill"
    While I'm not an actual english native, I'm pretty sure that "occasionally" /=/ "quite often". When you do a bit of research and see that they switched from Unreal engine to their own baked Frostbyte engine and also watch some extended gameplay you kinda tend to agree even more. But either way, you should not disregard other opinions - while you may be able to play ME5 in 2D as a side scrolling game, some of us might crave for realism. And yes, our current technology allows it. Yet most excuses these days sounds exactly like the final sentence of the paragraph.

    4. And lastly we finally get to know why we have played DA and ME games. A grand revelation, truly! Because yes, again, we are dumb and the reviewer can objectively compare animation standards with other titles. Did the reviewer actually stop for a second to think that, possibly, at those times the animations were quite good compared to similar offerings? Games are not a bunch of polygons anymore - VR has even started working it's way up. Don't blame us for wanting to find maximum immersion, especially in one of the most popular franchise that revolutionized the gaming world forever :)

    This paragraph is pretty one sided, patronizing, biased and quite feminist, if you consider the fact that he reviewer is a woman. While I appreciate the hard work you are doing here @SBFord and @BillMurphy it's worth noting that you should not disrespect the readers just because you believe you are right. No matter how biased you are.

    Before jumping aggressively at me or even banning me from the website please spend a moment reading my arguments and let them sink for a bit... we all love games, and I believe that we should all respect each other even if we maybe don't share the same opinions. 


  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    TimEisen said:
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 
    Yes, in an ideal environment we should definately do that. But how can we get there when even this review instigates to matters that maybe shouldn't have been mentioned at all in the first place? We should have pros, cons and overall enjoyment, right ?

    Instead this is something that what we get in a paragraph from this review:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Despite what you might have heard up to now, it is not that bad. Really. Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill. In addition, let me be frank here: if you play(ed) Mass Effect and / or Dragon Age for graphics, you’re doing it wrong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. I've read/seen other reviews but to my surprise those reviewers *didn't have to address* the internet's concerns. They were able to share their honest opinions on the fact at hand, however.

    2. "Petty witch-hunts" while insulting the "interneets" and their opinions, links to a Kotaku post named "Scumbags Harass Woman For Working On Mass Effect: Andromeda's Animations". While most people (including me) do not support that kind of behavior I don't really see the reason for including this in the actual review. It just feels like an extra argument to prove that the reviewer's beliefs are 100% accurate.

    3. "Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill"
    While I'm not an actual english native, I'm pretty sure that "occasionally" /=/ "quite often". When you do a bit of research and see that they switched from Unreal engine to their own baked Frostbyte engine and also watch some extended gameplay you kinda tend to agree even more. But either way, you should not disregard other opinions - while you may be able to play ME5 in 2D as a side scrolling game, some of us might crave for realism. And yes, our current technology allows it. Yet most excuses these days sounds exactly like the final sentence of the paragraph.

    4. And lastly we finally get to know why we have played DA and ME games. A grand revelation, truly! Because yes, again, we are dumb and the reviewer can objectively compare animation standards with other titles. Did the reviewer actually stop for a second to think that, possibly, at those times the animations were quite good compared to similar offerings? Games are not a bunch of polygons anymore - VR has even started working it's way up. Don't blame us for wanting to find maximum immersion, especially in one of the most popular franchise that revolutionized the gaming world forever :)

    This paragraph is pretty one sided, patronizing, biased and quite feminist, if you consider the fact that he reviewer is a woman. While I appreciate the hard work you are doing here @SBFord and @BillMurphy it's worth noting that you should not disrespect the readers just because you believe you are right. No matter how biased you are.

    Before jumping aggressively at me or even banning me from the website please spend a moment reading my arguments and let them sink for a bit... we all love games, and I believe that we should all respect each other even if we maybe don't share the same opinions. 




    First off, you're hardly being critical enough to be banned.

    Secondly, I'm not sure what you found feminist about this. What the fact that the Internet is full of fans who choose to attack a woman over animations that were, likely, created by a team of people, not just one? You could be right, the link might be out of place, but I think it's more an illustration of how fans tend to blow things out of proportion and less about it being a woman. Linking to the hilarious User Scores at Metacritic could have garnered the same mass effect (huh? yeah?), but user scores weren't out at that time. 

    Finally, as far as bias goes, the only REAL reason we can even elude to there being any sort of bias here is that the reviewer actually told us it would be biased. In reality nearly 1/3 of reviews were scored over 85/100. A total of 2/3 of reviews for the game scored over 75. So 1/3 of reviews were below 75/100. So was the review really THAT biased? Could be more objective than some negative reviews even. Simply put, this is NOT a game where you will find a good, objective review. It's not the fault of this site, it's the game itself. 

    Meanwhile, the user score on metacrtici continues to hover around the 4.0 mark while rabid haters seek to out-pace the rabid fanbois in a race to see how many accounts/reviews each can create in as short a time as possible. For context purposes, a total of 2800 user scores have been tabulated since launch a couple days ago versus the 750 or so user scores for ghost recon wildlands launched over 2 weeks ago. Again, objectivity is out the window. 


    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • YumeTsukaiYumeTsukai Member UncommonPosts: 38
    edited March 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    TimEisen said:
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 
    Yes, in an ideal environment we should definately do that. But how can we get there when even this review instigates to matters that maybe shouldn't have been mentioned at all in the first place? We should have pros, cons and overall enjoyment, right ?

    Instead this is something that what we get in a paragraph from this review:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Despite what you might have heard up to now, it is not that bad. Really. Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill. In addition, let me be frank here: if you play(ed) Mass Effect and / or Dragon Age for graphics, you’re doing it wrong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. I've read/seen other reviews but to my surprise those reviewers *didn't have to address* the internet's concerns. They were able to share their honest opinions on the fact at hand, however.

    2. "Petty witch-hunts" while insulting the "interneets" and their opinions, links to a Kotaku post named "Scumbags Harass Woman For Working On Mass Effect: Andromeda's Animations". While most people (including me) do not support that kind of behavior I don't really see the reason for including this in the actual review. It just feels like an extra argument to prove that the reviewer's beliefs are 100% accurate.

    3. "Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill"
    While I'm not an actual english native, I'm pretty sure that "occasionally" /=/ "quite often". When you do a bit of research and see that they switched from Unreal engine to their own baked Frostbyte engine and also watch some extended gameplay you kinda tend to agree even more. But either way, you should not disregard other opinions - while you may be able to play ME5 in 2D as a side scrolling game, some of us might crave for realism. And yes, our current technology allows it. Yet most excuses these days sounds exactly like the final sentence of the paragraph.

    4. And lastly we finally get to know why we have played DA and ME games. A grand revelation, truly! Because yes, again, we are dumb and the reviewer can objectively compare animation standards with other titles. Did the reviewer actually stop for a second to think that, possibly, at those times the animations were quite good compared to similar offerings? Games are not a bunch of polygons anymore - VR has even started working it's way up. Don't blame us for wanting to find maximum immersion, especially in one of the most popular franchise that revolutionized the gaming world forever :)

    This paragraph is pretty one sided, patronizing, biased and quite feminist, if you consider the fact that he reviewer is a woman. While I appreciate the hard work you are doing here @SBFord and @BillMurphy it's worth noting that you should not disrespect the readers just because you believe you are right. No matter how biased you are.

    Before jumping aggressively at me or even banning me from the website please spend a moment reading my arguments and let them sink for a bit... we all love games, and I believe that we should all respect each other even if we maybe don't share the same opinions. 




    First off, you're hardly being critical enough to be banned.

    Secondly, I'm not sure what you found feminist about this. What the fact that the Internet is full of fans who choose to attack a woman over animations that were, likely, created by a team of people, not just one? You could be right, the link might be out of place, but I think it's more an illustration of how fans tend to blow things out of proportion and less about it being a woman. Linking to the hilarious User Scores at Metacritic could have garnered the same mass effect (huh? yeah?), but user scores weren't out at that time. 

    Finally, as far as bias goes, the only REAL reason we can even elude to there being any sort of bias here is that the reviewer actually told us it would be biased. In reality nearly 1/3 of reviews were scored over 85/100. A total of 2/3 of reviews for the game scored over 75. So 1/3 of reviews were below 75/100. So was the review really THAT biased? Could be more objective than some negative reviews even. Simply put, this is NOT a game where you will find a good, objective review. It's not the fault of this site, it's the game itself. 

    Meanwhile, the user score on metacrtici continues to hover around the 4.0 mark while rabid haters seek to out-pace the rabid fanbois in a race to see how many accounts/reviews each can create in as short a time as possible. For context purposes, a total of 2800 user scores have been tabulated since launch a couple days ago versus the 750 or so user scores for ghost recon wildlands launched over 2 weeks ago. Again, objectivity is out the window. 


    Craz - I know you like talking about scores, but I haven't even mentioned that here :) This is different bias than "I'm liking the game a lot so I'll be giving this a high score".  That paragraph is translated more into something like "I don't know why them plebs (replace word of your liking) are complaning about this... LOOK, THE ANIMATIONS ARE FINE. Really. Look at those guys making threats to a female developer... And if you still don't believe me, you're not playing the game like you should".

    This should not be part of a review - unless you are ok with possibly offending your readers.

    P.S: you're still putting the blame on "rabid haters" instead of trying to accept the fact that the game might have been a let down for a considerable number of fans.


  • ShaighShaigh Member RarePosts: 1,986
    CrazKanuk said:
    TimEisen said:
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 
    Yes, in an ideal environment we should definately do that. But how can we get there when even this review instigates to matters that maybe shouldn't have been mentioned at all in the first place? We should have pros, cons and overall enjoyment, right ?

    Instead this is something that what we get in a paragraph from this review:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Despite what you might have heard up to now, it is not that bad. Really. Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill. In addition, let me be frank here: if you play(ed) Mass Effect and / or Dragon Age for graphics, you’re doing it wrong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. I've read/seen other reviews but to my surprise those reviewers *didn't have to address* the internet's concerns. They were able to share their honest opinions on the fact at hand, however.

    2. "Petty witch-hunts" while insulting the "interneets" and their opinions, links to a Kotaku post named "Scumbags Harass Woman For Working On Mass Effect: Andromeda's Animations". While most people (including me) do not support that kind of behavior I don't really see the reason for including this in the actual review. It just feels like an extra argument to prove that the reviewer's beliefs are 100% accurate.

    3. "Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill"
    While I'm not an actual english native, I'm pretty sure that "occasionally" /=/ "quite often". When you do a bit of research and see that they switched from Unreal engine to their own baked Frostbyte engine and also watch some extended gameplay you kinda tend to agree even more. But either way, you should not disregard other opinions - while you may be able to play ME5 in 2D as a side scrolling game, some of us might crave for realism. And yes, our current technology allows it. Yet most excuses these days sounds exactly like the final sentence of the paragraph.

    4. And lastly we finally get to know why we have played DA and ME games. A grand revelation, truly! Because yes, again, we are dumb and the reviewer can objectively compare animation standards with other titles. Did the reviewer actually stop for a second to think that, possibly, at those times the animations were quite good compared to similar offerings? Games are not a bunch of polygons anymore - VR has even started working it's way up. Don't blame us for wanting to find maximum immersion, especially in one of the most popular franchise that revolutionized the gaming world forever :)

    This paragraph is pretty one sided, patronizing, biased and quite feminist, if you consider the fact that he reviewer is a woman. While I appreciate the hard work you are doing here @SBFord and @BillMurphy it's worth noting that you should not disrespect the readers just because you believe you are right. No matter how biased you are.

    Before jumping aggressively at me or even banning me from the website please spend a moment reading my arguments and let them sink for a bit... we all love games, and I believe that we should all respect each other even if we maybe don't share the same opinions. 




    First off, you're hardly being critical enough to be banned.

    Secondly, I'm not sure what you found feminist about this. What the fact that the Internet is full of fans who choose to attack a woman over animations that were, likely, created by a team of people, not just one? You could be right, the link might be out of place, but I think it's more an illustration of how fans tend to blow things out of proportion and less about it being a woman. Linking to the hilarious User Scores at Metacritic could have garnered the same mass effect (huh? yeah?), but user scores weren't out at that time. 

    Finally, as far as bias goes, the only REAL reason we can even elude to there being any sort of bias here is that the reviewer actually told us it would be biased. In reality nearly 1/3 of reviews were scored over 85/100. A total of 2/3 of reviews for the game scored over 75. So 1/3 of reviews were below 75/100. So was the review really THAT biased? Could be more objective than some negative reviews even. Simply put, this is NOT a game where you will find a good, objective review. It's not the fault of this site, it's the game itself. 

    Meanwhile, the user score on metacrtici continues to hover around the 4.0 mark while rabid haters seek to out-pace the rabid fanbois in a race to see how many accounts/reviews each can create in as short a time as possible. For context purposes, a total of 2800 user scores have been tabulated since launch a couple days ago versus the 750 or so user scores for ghost recon wildlands launched over 2 weeks ago. Again, objectivity is out the window. 


    There were a total of 3 reviews that scored it 85 or higher on PC and mmorpg.com was the only english review that scored it that high on the PC. There's one english review on PS4 and two on the xbone that scored it equal or higher than mmorpg.com. Only one english reviewer gave it a 9.

    Its also important to realize that the metacritic average for ps4, xbone and PS4 is around 73-77. If you compare it with ME 1-3 that was around 85-95 its a drop by 10-20 points for the IP. Its lower than what dragon age 2 had, a game that also had lots of criticism. Checking metacritic averages its actually the lowest for any bioware game listed on metacritic excluding dlc.

    Bioware RPG have been viewed in high regard for a very long time and while a lot of people complained about certain aspects of dragon age inquisition reviewers still gave it high reviews. That simply isn't true for Mass Effect: Andromeda.
    The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,122
    edited March 2017
    Well, MMO isn't the only English language site to give MEA an 85+ score, @Shaigh. My Day 1 score went up alongside every other media outlet and I gave it 8.5/10.0. My review is at GameSpace, admittedly it's not a big enough traffic generator yet to be on MetaCritic, but we are on Open Critic (a much better aggregate site, IMO). You can see what I had to say over there if you're interested.

    http://www.gamespace.com/mass-effect-andromeda/review/
    Post edited by SBFord on


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • JeroKaneJeroKane Member RarePosts: 6,221
    Shaigh said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    TimEisen said:
    I'm just glad we play games as a source of fun entertainment. Taking them too seriously might ruin some of that fun. Of course I'm kidding, I take my fun very seriously! 
    Yes, in an ideal environment we should definately do that. But how can we get there when even this review instigates to matters that maybe shouldn't have been mentioned at all in the first place? We should have pros, cons and overall enjoyment, right ?

    Instead this is something that what we get in a paragraph from this review:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Despite what you might have heard up to now, it is not that bad. Really. Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill. In addition, let me be frank here: if you play(ed) Mass Effect and / or Dragon Age for graphics, you’re doing it wrong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. I've read/seen other reviews but to my surprise those reviewers *didn't have to address* the internet's concerns. They were able to share their honest opinions on the fact at hand, however.

    2. "Petty witch-hunts" while insulting the "interneets" and their opinions, links to a Kotaku post named "Scumbags Harass Woman For Working On Mass Effect: Andromeda's Animations". While most people (including me) do not support that kind of behavior I don't really see the reason for including this in the actual review. It just feels like an extra argument to prove that the reviewer's beliefs are 100% accurate.

    3. "Occasionally, there might be a slightly weird facial expression or a stiff look another character gives you, but mostly it is people making a mountain out of molehill"
    While I'm not an actual english native, I'm pretty sure that "occasionally" /=/ "quite often". When you do a bit of research and see that they switched from Unreal engine to their own baked Frostbyte engine and also watch some extended gameplay you kinda tend to agree even more. But either way, you should not disregard other opinions - while you may be able to play ME5 in 2D as a side scrolling game, some of us might crave for realism. And yes, our current technology allows it. Yet most excuses these days sounds exactly like the final sentence of the paragraph.

    4. And lastly we finally get to know why we have played DA and ME games. A grand revelation, truly! Because yes, again, we are dumb and the reviewer can objectively compare animation standards with other titles. Did the reviewer actually stop for a second to think that, possibly, at those times the animations were quite good compared to similar offerings? Games are not a bunch of polygons anymore - VR has even started working it's way up. Don't blame us for wanting to find maximum immersion, especially in one of the most popular franchise that revolutionized the gaming world forever :)

    This paragraph is pretty one sided, patronizing, biased and quite feminist, if you consider the fact that he reviewer is a woman. While I appreciate the hard work you are doing here @SBFord and @BillMurphy it's worth noting that you should not disrespect the readers just because you believe you are right. No matter how biased you are.

    Before jumping aggressively at me or even banning me from the website please spend a moment reading my arguments and let them sink for a bit... we all love games, and I believe that we should all respect each other even if we maybe don't share the same opinions. 




    First off, you're hardly being critical enough to be banned.

    Secondly, I'm not sure what you found feminist about this. What the fact that the Internet is full of fans who choose to attack a woman over animations that were, likely, created by a team of people, not just one? You could be right, the link might be out of place, but I think it's more an illustration of how fans tend to blow things out of proportion and less about it being a woman. Linking to the hilarious User Scores at Metacritic could have garnered the same mass effect (huh? yeah?), but user scores weren't out at that time. 

    Finally, as far as bias goes, the only REAL reason we can even elude to there being any sort of bias here is that the reviewer actually told us it would be biased. In reality nearly 1/3 of reviews were scored over 85/100. A total of 2/3 of reviews for the game scored over 75. So 1/3 of reviews were below 75/100. So was the review really THAT biased? Could be more objective than some negative reviews even. Simply put, this is NOT a game where you will find a good, objective review. It's not the fault of this site, it's the game itself. 

    Meanwhile, the user score on metacrtici continues to hover around the 4.0 mark while rabid haters seek to out-pace the rabid fanbois in a race to see how many accounts/reviews each can create in as short a time as possible. For context purposes, a total of 2800 user scores have been tabulated since launch a couple days ago versus the 750 or so user scores for ghost recon wildlands launched over 2 weeks ago. Again, objectivity is out the window. 


    There were a total of 3 reviews that scored it 85 or higher on PC and mmorpg.com was the only english review that scored it that high on the PC. There's one english review on PS4 and two on the xbone that scored it equal or higher than mmorpg.com. Only one english reviewer gave it a 9.

    Its also important to realize that the metacritic average for ps4, xbone and PS4 is around 73-77. If you compare it with ME 1-3 that was around 85-95 its a drop by 10-20 points for the IP. Its lower than what dragon age 2 had, a game that also had lots of criticism. Checking metacritic averages its actually the lowest for any bioware game listed on metacritic excluding dlc.

    Bioware RPG have been viewed in high regard for a very long time and while a lot of people complained about certain aspects of dragon age inquisition reviewers still gave it high reviews. That simply isn't true for Mass Effect: Andromeda.

    It's currenty getting slammed on PS4. It runs like crap with lots of performance issues, crashes and glitches.

    In Playstation Network, the players rating sits currently at 3 stars out of 5. 
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited March 2017
    JeroKane said:


    It's currenty getting slammed on PS4. It runs like crap with lots of performance issues, crashes and glitches.

    In Playstation Network, the players rating sits currently at 3 stars out of 5. 
    I'll never understand why so many studios have issues with PS consoles, it seems like it's an issue that permeates many larger world games ( at least the non exclusives anyway).

     I had to play on my wife's PS3 for a time a couple years ago due to PC issues, most open world games ran like freaking crap on that system, be it Red Dead redemption, GTAV, DA:I, Skyrim ( which was notoriously bad on that system) and fallout New Vegas ( the games I tried playing).

     None of them ran at a steady frame rate, lots of freezing/crashes, etc.. I know Bethesda said something about the way they handled memory allocation (it was split or something along those lines) caused issues.. Did they do that with the PS4 as well?

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • IkedaIkeda Member RarePosts: 2,738
    JeroKane said:

    It's currenty getting slammed on PS4. It runs like crap with lots of performance issues, crashes and glitches.

    In Playstation Network, the players rating sits currently at 3 stars out of 5. 
    Weird, my PS4 (not Pro) isn't having any issues.  I had ONE stutter the other day in the fight where you meet a Krogan.  That's been it.  No weird faces, nada.  But the quests have been SOOOOOO boring so far that I've been hunting a N.Switch to play Zelda the last 2 days.  (so boring)
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Shaigh said:
    CrazKanuk said:



    First off, you're hardly being critical enough to be banned.

    Secondly, I'm not sure what you found feminist about this. What the fact that the Internet is full of fans who choose to attack a woman over animations that were, likely, created by a team of people, not just one? You could be right, the link might be out of place, but I think it's more an illustration of how fans tend to blow things out of proportion and less about it being a woman. Linking to the hilarious User Scores at Metacritic could have garnered the same mass effect (huh? yeah?), but user scores weren't out at that time. 

    Finally, as far as bias goes, the only REAL reason we can even elude to there being any sort of bias here is that the reviewer actually told us it would be biased. In reality nearly 1/3 of reviews were scored over 85/100. A total of 2/3 of reviews for the game scored over 75. So 1/3 of reviews were below 75/100. So was the review really THAT biased? Could be more objective than some negative reviews even. Simply put, this is NOT a game where you will find a good, objective review. It's not the fault of this site, it's the game itself. 

    Meanwhile, the user score on metacrtici continues to hover around the 4.0 mark while rabid haters seek to out-pace the rabid fanbois in a race to see how many accounts/reviews each can create in as short a time as possible. For context purposes, a total of 2800 user scores have been tabulated since launch a couple days ago versus the 750 or so user scores for ghost recon wildlands launched over 2 weeks ago. Again, objectivity is out the window. 


    There were a total of 3 reviews that scored it 85 or higher on PC and mmorpg.com was the only english review that scored it that high on the PC. There's one english review on PS4 and two on the xbone that scored it equal or higher than mmorpg.com. Only one english reviewer gave it a 9.

    Its also important to realize that the metacritic average for ps4, xbone and PS4 is around 73-77. If you compare it with ME 1-3 that was around 85-95 its a drop by 10-20 points for the IP. Its lower than what dragon age 2 had, a game that also had lots of criticism. Checking metacritic averages its actually the lowest for any bioware game listed on metacritic excluding dlc.

    Bioware RPG have been viewed in high regard for a very long time and while a lot of people complained about certain aspects of dragon age inquisition reviewers still gave it high reviews. That simply isn't true for Mass Effect: Andromeda.


    Interesting..... So it's fair to assume that people in other counties are more familiar with monotone, unemotional delivery of dialogue :) 

    BTW, my stats were compiled across all reviews of all platforms. So I think there were like 20/75 reviews which were 85+. I manually verified all my stuff. So are you confirming or denying it? 2/3 of all reviews across all platforms are over 75 (75%)? 

    I'm not saying that's right, wrong or otherwise, but people are claiming that this review is way out of line, yet 33% of reviews are within 2 or 3% of it. All I'm saying is that maybe this review is just as objective as, say, a 6.0 review (detailed in another post). What we can say for certain is that there are issues, even big issues. I'd even go as far as to say that it seems unfinished or rushed. The reviewer here addresses the warts. The fact that people are focusing on the number given versus the words in the post is the real problem. Even in the horrible reviews people are saying that the combat is astounding and there is tons of content. What we do know is that some systems like crafting and the UI are broken. If you're not sure if that's a deal breaker for you, watch a video, right? The number is pretty arbitrary and it will ultimately be influenced by what the reviewer likes and cares about. Maybe this one didn't give a shit about crafting and wasn't impacted by the UI as much as some others. I effectively craft 0% of the time in MMOs or other games (even like W3), so the crafting system means squat to me. UNLESS I'm going to be dependent on it. The reviews haven't told me whether my only way to obtain gear is through a broken crafting system :) 


    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,802
    Is crafting broken? I've only dipped into it slightly. What is broken about it?
  • Adamgam3rxrxAdamgam3rxrx Member UncommonPosts: 2
  • BuccaneerBuccaneer Member UncommonPosts: 654
    edited March 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    Buccaneer said:


    You do understand that subjectively essentially means biased, right? You mean objectively. 

    Thank you, nice catch; Slightly embarrassed.


    CrazKanuk said:
    For the most part I would agree with you, but we're also talking about a game which already has 3 predecessors, so do I really care to hear a review from someone with zero previous experience in the ME world? Nope! Not really. 

    As far as the approach to reviewing the game, 20 of 75 reviews of the game across all platforms rated the game 85 or above. 27 of 75 reviews ranked 75 to 84. This isn't a matter of somebody being a hyper fanboy, it's simply a matter of a polarizing IP under-delivering on a game, leading to a much wider divide than usual. In the days of yesteryear, there were actual metrics used for games. This was both useful and problematic. For one, you can see where the problems are for the game. On the other hand, though, it meant that executing well in all other measured areas could still garner you a great score, even though your game is relatively empty feeling. 

    These days, few sites actually publish good metrics of what their measures are (I think they do here? For some games?), which means that the reviews themselves are, inherently, subjective. Every review is biased, and they don't even have to go as far as to show you how they arrived at their rating using actual metrics, so the bad reviews are just as biased as the good ones. Shit, here's a clipping from a review that gave the game 60,

    "
    Mass Effect Andromeda falls short of its predecessors, but it's still a competently executed open-world action RPG with an interesting world and tons of quests to complete. Its biggest shame is that it doesn't make better use of its setting, opting instead to go with more of the same. Hopefully BioWare will be more ambitious when it comes time for the inevitable sequel."

    Soooooooo, that gets it a 60? A competently executed open-world action RPG? Take the rating away and 9/10 people on here would buy that, lol. 
    For the rest of your comment, I have to agree with YumeTsukai post. 


  • AlandrosAlandros Member UncommonPosts: 2
    Good review... Basically I see

    Other games like Bethesda ones (Skyrim, Fallout 4, etc) include horrible and complex UI, animation glitches, shallow filler open world content, etc... People praise those games and forgive the issues (massively more than this and this is easily the worst of Bioware)...

    Bioware does those things and people hammer it relentlessly.

    I didn't play TW3 until after I heard people bashing DA:I so much in comparison to it, people bashed the side quests as pointless, tedious, and unnecessary. Well my first few hours of TW3 was spent basically mostly doing the same sort of pointless and tedious side content... Over inflated dialogs to basically trigger a follow this path quest.

    It's kind of like being crazy, the same sort of Open World style content in multiple other games is literally praised but when DA:I and now ME:A do it they get hammered.

    I genuinely can't reconcile such things other than there are a lot of trolls or narrow minded people out there that just really want to jump on the Bioware hate bandwagon.

    The bugs etc, I can understand, certainly Bioware usually has a high bar for such things so to see so many issues is disappointing... though let's remember Fallout 4 had *game breaking* bugs at launch (my wife restarted 3 times due to main quest breaking issues until she finally googled up console hacks to bypass them) and still has an 84 metascore... ME:A has 76.

    The double standards are real and ridiculous, especially from actual game site reviewer who are supposed to be applying the same standard for all games. It reminds me of The Verge and Apple vs non Apple products. You can literally compare reviews where they said certain features were of equal value to a non-Apple product and they inflate the relevant Apple reviewed score.

    It's fine having preferences and sharing those but you should separate that from an objective review. If ME:A deserves a 76% for it's filler open world content and bugs then other games out there clearly have inflated scored.
  • AlandrosAlandros Member UncommonPosts: 2

    Elminzter said:


    SBFord said:

    What I find funny is that when "professional reviewers" rate a game highly but the gamer population doesn't, it's pitchforks and torches because they're all shills.

    When reviewers pan a game, it's sunshine and roses and "See? They know what they're talking about". 

    :D


    its actually simple, professional reviewers get paid, whilst gamers paid for the privilage to play these games and what we have seen most professional reviews are questionable as it tend to ignore the basic things most gamers look for.

    in this case there's so many glaring cons how can it even get a good or ok review???

    my 2 cents



    Most professional reviewers are gamers too... I'm sorry but there's an entirely other side to this. Professional Reviewers usually try to compartmentalize their personal preference and objective analysis. The idea is just because you personally are excited by a game doesn't mean you should forgive a high level of bugs and instability in game A (like every Bethesda game that still gets high scores) vs game B (ME:A).

    That is the mark of a good reviewer and professional, that they can objectively compare games and apply a consistent standard while still being clear about their own personal opinion.

    People bash Bioware games for things that are praised in Bethesda games (and to a lesser extent things in TW3).
  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Member UncommonPosts: 3,140
    I've enjoyed the new Mass Effect game so far. However, after starting the second planet I've started running into bugs, graphical bugs to be exact. The bugs are horrendous if you receive them, thankfully I'm not prone to epileptic seizures because there were points where the game was flickering white 7-8 times a second. Fortunately it stopped after I cleared a specific portion of the story.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,122
    Alandros said:
    Elminzter said:
    SBFord said:

    What I find funny is that when "professional reviewers" rate a game highly but the gamer population doesn't, it's pitchforks and torches because they're all shills.

    When reviewers pan a game, it's sunshine and roses and "See? They know what they're talking about". 

    :D
    its actually simple, professional reviewers get paid, whilst gamers paid for the privilage to play these games and what we have seen most professional reviews are questionable as it tend to ignore the basic things most gamers look for.
    in this case there's so many glaring cons how can it even get a good or ok review???
    my 2 cents
    Most professional reviewers are gamers too... I'm sorry but there's an entirely other side to this. Professional Reviewers usually try to compartmentalize their personal preference and objective analysis. The idea is just because you personally are excited by a game doesn't mean you should forgive a high level of bugs and instability in game A (like every Bethesda game that still gets high scores) vs game B (ME:A).

    That is the mark of a good reviewer and professional, that they can objectively compare games and apply a consistent standard while still being clear about their own personal opinion.

    People bash Bioware games for things that are praised in Bethesda games (and to a lesser extent things in TW3).
    Exactly @Alandros. I can assure you that all reviewers are passionate about gaming. I, for instance, preordered MEA long ago. It'd be tough to work for a gaming website and not be an ardent gamer. :)


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • VowOfSilenceVowOfSilence Member UncommonPosts: 565
    Alandros said:

    It's kind of like being crazy, the same sort of Open World style content in multiple other games is literally praised but when DA:I and now ME:A do it they get hammered.

    I genuinely can't reconcile such things other than there are a lot of trolls or narrow minded people out there that just really want to jump on the Bioware hate bandwagon.
    Bethesda games have great open worlds filled with tons of content and freedom, that's why they're praised  - not really for any other reason.

    The Witcher 3's world is more linear and limited, but the story & delivery are better than in any Bethesda game. Overall, a great mix.

    Oldschool Bioware games were liked because of the great stories & characters.

    But ME:A? Nothing about it is special, it's just flat-out mediocre in every possible way. Well, I guess the environments look kinda nice... 

    Hype train -> Reality

  • LeFantomeLeFantome Member RarePosts: 559
    We know why MMORPG is NOT a reviews site. Gamespot was right with the 6.0

    image
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,802
    Alandros said:

    It's kind of like being crazy, the same sort of Open World style content in multiple other games is literally praised but when DA:I and now ME:A do it they get hammered.

    I genuinely can't reconcile such things other than there are a lot of trolls or narrow minded people out there that just really want to jump on the Bioware hate bandwagon.
    Bethesda games have great open worlds filled with tons of content and freedom, that's why they're praised  - not really for any other reason.

    The Witcher 3's world is more linear and limited, but the story & delivery are better than in any Bethesda game. Overall, a great mix.

    Oldschool Bioware games were liked because of the great stories & characters.

    But ME:A? Nothing about it is special, it's just flat-out mediocre in every possible way. Well, I guess the environments look kinda nice... 
    Nah, after having played it for a while, it's pretty special. 
  • JhiaPetJhiaPet Member UncommonPosts: 46
    It's unprofessional to bring politics into the workplace, and even more so to let it affect your product.  It's very strange that nobody remembers this.  Or perhaps they were never taught this important bit of manners in the first place?  Lots of people educated in the last few years have no idea that it is inappropriate to force your ideas onto other people.

    This mixing of political propaganda into work is an extension of the old "the personal is political" in from the 1960's.  It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.  If nothing is off limits to politics, there is no respite from it.  People get wound up to the point of anger and even violence.  This destabilizes a (sub)culture and foments strife. This is the purpose of mixing these things- to stress people out and give them no escape. 

    Video games are the ultimate escape for a lot of people, so it's probably not surprising that they react angrily when politics are injected into them.  They have lost the last place they could get away from all the noise and nonsense.  That's not going to go without a response, even if the people reacting do not know why they are angry.

    A lot of people are going to be rightfully angry that someone who acts as gatekeeper to their hobby is suddenly preaching an unwanted religion to them.
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member RarePosts: 6,802
    JhiaPet said:
    It's unprofessional to bring politics into the workplace, and even more so to let it affect your product.  It's very strange that nobody remembers this.  Or perhaps they were never taught this important bit of manners in the first place?  Lots of people educated in the last few years have no idea that it is inappropriate to force your ideas onto other people.

    This mixing of political propaganda into work is an extension of the old "the personal is political" in from the 1960's.  It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.  If nothing is off limits to politics, there is no respite from it.  People get wound up to the point of anger and even violence.  This destabilizes a (sub)culture and foments strife. This is the purpose of mixing these things- to stress people out and give them no escape. 

    Video games are the ultimate escape for a lot of people, so it's probably not surprising that they react angrily when politics are injected into them.  They have lost the last place they could get away from all the noise and nonsense.  That's not going to go without a response, even if the people reacting do not know why they are angry.

    A lot of people are going to be rightfully angry that someone who acts as gatekeeper to their hobby is suddenly preaching an unwanted religion to them.
    Except no one is doing that? Give an example please.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited March 2017
    JhiaPet said:
    It's unprofessional to bring politics into the workplace, and even more so to let it affect your product.  It's very strange that nobody remembers this.  Or perhaps they were never taught this important bit of manners in the first place?  Lots of people educated in the last few years have no idea that it is inappropriate to force your ideas onto other people.

    This mixing of political propaganda into work is an extension of the old "the personal is political" in from the 1960's.  It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.  If nothing is off limits to politics, there is no respite from it.  People get wound up to the point of anger and even violence.  This destabilizes a (sub)culture and foments strife. This is the purpose of mixing these things- to stress people out and give them no escape. 

    Video games are the ultimate escape for a lot of people, so it's probably not surprising that they react angrily when politics are injected into them.  They have lost the last place they could get away from all the noise and nonsense.  That's not going to go without a response, even if the people reacting do not know why they are angry.

    A lot of people are going to be rightfully angry that someone who acts as gatekeeper to their hobby is suddenly preaching an unwanted religion to them.
    Are you trying to say Bioware adding same sex relations is bringing the politics? Or the staff here is bringing the politics? Either way neither one is exactly true, anyone who thinks same sex options are political is the one who can't separate their own politics from everyday life in 2017... That's essentially calling relationships political.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


Sign In or Register to comment.