Mass Effect: Andromeda

That's true...That doesn't mean you cannot criticize and discuss why one game gets a pass or not.

For instance, Horizons: Zero Dawn has repetitive quests throughout the game but I wouldn't say it negatively affected it.

However, in MGSV, it's a much different situation. It's not the repetitive side quests that I'm criticizing but the idea that 1/4 of the story is not completed. Instead of finishing the game with main missions (like all games), the game requires you to either replay the same missions from before at a harder difficulty or do 3-4 sideops in order to finish the story. Clearly, the game was not completed before being shipped.

Compare both games and you have one that gets a 6/10 for issues including repetitive quests and then MGSV which gets a 10/10 where a chunk of the game has not been completed.

I'm not saying Mass Effect doesn't deserve it's score but that I don't understand why some games get criticized for something while others get a free pass.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I wouldn't call the technical issues "minor" to be fair.

Not my wording, that's copied from the review itself.

Originally posted by socool8520
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.

No, you shouldn’t. There are so many different things to games that it’s ludicrous to imagine doing so. A 10 from most gaming sites does not mean the game is perfect. And I’m unsure, why you keep bringing up FO3 when that game was released nearly 10 years ago. Of course the reviews are going to be different from then.

What are you talking about? A bug is a bug. There is no subjectivity to that. Thus a markdown for said bug is not ludicrous. You can, however, state that the story, gameplay, visuals, etc are stellar in spite of the bug/glitch. It would still be fine then to not give that game a 10. The subjectivity comes in the games narrative or control style imo.

FO just happens to be a great example is all. It coming out years ago shouldn't change much.

Originally posted by Smasandian
That's true...That doesn't mean you cannot criticize and discuss why one game gets a pass or not.

For instance, Horizons: Zero Dawn has repetitive quests throughout the game but I wouldn't say it negatively affected it.

However, in MGSV, it's a much different situation. It's not the repetitive side quests that I'm criticizing but the idea that 1/4 of the story is not completed. Instead of finishing the game with main missions (like all games), the game requires you to either replay the same missions from before at a harder difficulty or do 3-4 sideops in order to finish the story. Clearly, the game was not completed before being shipped.

Compare both games and you have one that gets a 6/10 for issues including repetitive quests and then MGSV which gets a 10/10 where a chunk of the game has not been completed.

I'm not saying Mass Effect doesn't deserve it's score but that I don't understand why some games get criticized for something while others get a free pass.

They don’t get a free pass. The reviewer on MGSV clearly thought that other aspects of the game such as gameplay made up for the mediocre and unfinished story. As for ME:A, the reviewer has more problems with the game then merely boring side-quest, and whatever ME:A did well did not make up for these flaws. Beyond that, it could be as simple as the reviewer is more critical.

Originally posted by socool8520
What are you talking about? A bug is a bug

Ok. And? Like I said, for most review sites a 10 does not mean a game is without its flaws. So merely having a few bugs doesn’t mean a game can’t achieve this score. Beyond that, the same bug can be a bigger issue in different types of games. Frame-rate issues are far more problematic in a competitive FPS than in a single player adventure game for example.

I understand that.

But something like that puts into question on the site itself and how it does it's reviews.

Okay, so I'm preloading the damn thing now. All complaints aside, I don't plan to bang a human female, and from what I've seen of videos, it looks like it has promise.

And I love Mass Effect, so **** it, why not.

To go back to the conversation about the reviews and the inconsistency between reviews from one game to another. MGS is a good example of the fact that in the end, reviewers are just people with biases like anyone else. I've always felt that MGS is one of the series that reviewers are far too forgiving with. The fact that MGS5 got such universal acclaim is laughable considering the large amount of bugs, sidequests that are as repetitive as they could possibly have been, and a butchered, completely unfinished story lacking the compelling boss fights the series has always been known for. And it does open reviewers up to very fair criticism when they overlook problems with one game almost entirely, while chastising another game for those identical problems.

But it is worth noting that in many of these cases, different people review different games. The guy reviewing Mass Effect for Gamespot probably isn't the same guy who reviewed MGS5 for Gamespot, and so on.

As far as Andromeda specifically, the game is in the unfortunate position of coming out after Witcher 3 raised the bar substantially for this style of game. If Andromeda came out in 2014 like Dragon Age, you'd probably have seen much better, similarly scored reviews. But instead Dragon Age was lucky enough to come out before Witcher 3 raised the bar, Andromeda isn't.

Anyways, it's really fascinating to read the discrepancy in these reviews. There's such stark disagreement from one review to the next, it makes it very difficult to use them as a benchmark for what one might think of game. Personally, having played the trial, I think I'll probably end up agreeing with those with a more favorable opinion since I was engaged in the trial, and was liking the characters and the story. Probably a good idea for anyone considering this game to pay the $5 to try it out on EA Access, or rent it from Red Box or something before blind buying it, since it seems this game is going to be extremely divisive.

You are correct. There was two different reviewers for both games.

I do believe you are right regarding the issue Mass Effect has in regards to being released after Witcher 3. The game has been in development for a very long time and by the time Witcher 3 came out, it's past the point of reinventing it.

It's a bit funny if that's the case because the original trilogy was the benchmark for incredible story driven (and missions as well) RPG's while the game is now being criticized for being an open world-ish type experience. I also feel that Bioware was in a bit of bind because they couldn't really develop this game to be similar to the original three games and they needed to do something different due to the backlash Mass Effect 3 had.

I'm picking it up because one thing GameSpot mentioned was that the game had incredible exploration of the planets and that's what interested me originally with this game.

https://my.mixtape.moe/yugchn.mp4

What the **** lol?

You have to wonder what happened with this game to cause the animations to take such a downgrade. Like, did they lose all the code data for the game 3 months before release or something?

"I'm only human after all. Don't put your blame on me."

That song for the launch trailer is making so much sense right now haermm

Originally posted by BackFire
You have to wonder what happened with this game to cause the animations to take such a downgrade. Like, did they lose all the code data for the game 3 months before release or something?

Hmmm....that's a good question.

Maybe required too many resources and they needed to downgrade?

Let's say they lost a fair bit of stuff. Wouldn't it be best just to say that?

It was probably redone to match the rest of the game. It would be ridiculous if just that one part looked that good and the rest of the game didn't match it.

Maybe but the combat/environment look pretty good.....I don't know.

Originally posted by Nephthys
It was probably redone to match the rest of the game. It would be ridiculous if just that one part looked that good and the rest of the game didn't match it.

Well, there is a noticeable difference between the cut scenes and live play. The character models are honestly, at the same level as ME2. Hasn't been a huge issue for me, but it is definitely noticeable. It's really the eyes they messed up on as, like many of you have stated, the convey no emotion. The voice actors have done a good job of conveying the appropriate tones to set the mood though imo.

Spectres have more coverage on cosmetic surgery than Pathfinders it seems. I'm only customizing right now but there's already a problem right off the bat where I can't change the shape of my character's face, eyes, nose, mouth, etc.. What your choice of template has packing is what you get. All you can do is change the height, width, depth and size of them. Bioware never did this with the other Mass Effects so what gives?

Originally posted by socool8520
Really? That's interesting. I found it to be quite entertaining. Was it the story? I do agree it was a bit weaker than the others, but not a deal breaker. I thought the controls were a lot smoother, and I love how you didn't have to be a slave to the VATS system in this game.

Originally posted by Smasandian
However, Fallout 4 had a much better storyline

Than New Vegas? No, not even close.