It sounds like most reviews didn't get a good look at the game.
Here's a cool video exploring some aspects of that:
I had a feeling this game wasn't going to review well. From what I read, it looks like the game does way too many things and reviewers are finding things that they do not like. As Backfire said, some reviewers are annoyed by one thing while others are enjoying that part.
Compare to Horizons where the game is very structured on 1 or 2 major gameplay ideas and they do it well. It gets reviewed better.
I haven't played it but this looks like a game that 5 years from now could be shown in a different light. Similarly to how DA: I was well reviewed but looked negatively upon a few years later.
In the end, meh. Ghost Recon Wildlands is in the same boat score wise as Andromeda but all I have been hearing from people playing the game, it's ****ing good....
^ I think it's just the "in" thing to hate on a successful franchise. Fallout, NBA 2K, DA, ME, The Elder Scrolls, etc. If it's had more than three games in the series, people grow tired of it. I understand it feels tired and played, but I feel like going away from what you were known for can be just as dangerous.
DAI, for all its faults, still had engaging characters and what I felt was a really interesting central plot (culminating in Trespasser, which I really enjoyed). That's what Bioware is supposed to do best anyway, so if ME:A has that at least, then I'll probably enjoy it.
I have to admit though, I'm surprised that even the bigger sites like Gamespot are not rating this as a 9 or 10.
Not sure.
I'm generally confused about ratings now. It seems that some games get criticized and scored less for faults while other games do not.
Gamespot gave MGSV 10/10 even though 1/4 of the story was behind bullshit repeat quests. Yet, Andromeda gets 6/10 where the complaints are: too many fetch quests, dull characters and minor but pervasive technical issues. Who knows!
They gave Zelda 10/10 yet said it has framerate issues.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Not sure.I'm generally confused about ratings now. It seems that some games get criticized and scored less for faults while other games do not.
Gamespot gave MGSV 10/10 even though 1/4 of the story was behind bullshit repeat quests. Yet, Andromeda gets 6/10 where the complaints are: too many fetch quests, dull characters and minor but pervasive technical issues. Who knows!
They gave Zelda 10/10 yet said it has framerate issues.
Just another reason not to take it to heart. They can't even be consistent with what the give mark downs for.
Originally posted by socool8520
I remember FO 3 literally freezing on several occasions and still receiving a great score iirc. Same with FO New Vegas.
I'm not defending FO3, or any other game for that matter. If the game has issues, it has issues.
I'm just used to EA games getting more flattering scores from certain outlets, is all.
Originally posted by socool8520
Just another reason not to take it to heart. They can't even be consistent with what the give mark downs for.
Except, that's not how reviews work. I don’t know why people seem to not understand this, but reviews aren’t as simple as docking a set point amount because of frame rate issues or because of fetch quests. Clearly, the reviewer thought other things present in games such as MGSV made up for the repetitive quests.
For technical issues, it definitely should be that simple to mark down consistently. It doesn't make sense not to honestly. You can say that the game's story is magnificent or what ever and still mark down for technical issues. All your saying is it's not perfect. A game like FO 3 should have definitely been marked down for technical issues. the gameplay outside of that was still great though.