Look guys...the MMORPG folks are NOT paid shills. I think deep down you all know that. They are just much more positive about ALL games than the average gamer.
They are the Yin to my Yang. I will almost always see the glass half empty. They will almost always see it as half full. As long as they let you make your own comments... isn't that in many ways a good thing?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I bought the game Monday night with zero research on the subject. I felt like a space rpg, and behold there was a space rpg. I've only had a few hours with it, but I thought it was a pretty good game. I certainly noticed a few quirks with the facial animations, but they were just that. Quirks, nothing major. I also had a few moments of cringe worth writing (especially when they attempted to get "Sciencey"). But in general I thought it was a pretty decent game.
Imagine my surprise when I start perusing reviews and forums today while I have a few mins break, and I find that people are tearing the game up. If I listened to the reviews and comments, I don't think I'd have even thought about buying the game.
So, lesson learned. Don't listen to other people. Fly blind and make my own decisions on whats good or not. I'll be happier that way.
Been playing most of the day. Fantastic game in my opinion. Very few bugs and they are all minor. Once in a while the AI gets confused. Ran it at 4k to start(PC), but scaled down to 2k for better performance. Looks gorgeous at either resolution. This game is much better than the previous games in this series, people do not know what they are talking about when they say a prior version was better. This version has so much more good content and is far more open world.
For all the whiners you are missing a really great game IMO.
About 12 hours in so far. It's a very solid game build with a scope much larger than any previous Bioware projects. It is definitely not better than ME 2 which was the pinnacle of the series. My opinion can change of course as i have a lot more game to explore however this is unlikely.
Combat is more streamlined and engaging than ME2, ME3. The RPG / character development elements are way more diverse than any of the trilogy. Visuals are gorgeous. I play on a GTX 970, 8GB Ram, 500GB SSD. At 1080p set on medium / high the game runs smoothly.
Cons: some of the female facial animations are indeed out of place and context with what we are accustomed from the series. The writing in some occasions is poor, to say the least. Some side quests are just boring chores the likes we did in CRPG's a decade or more back.
You almost have to be an optimist to be a MMORPG gamer at this point.
I prefer to just be realistic and assume that all the announced games will suck. This way, some day when "The Long Prophesied Game To End All Games" is actually delivered I will be pleasantly surprised!
Honestly, I think being an optimist MMORPG gamer today is just a symptom of insanity. To each their own though.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
1: No that wasn't your point. You said it was important to be able to relate to your character's sex and ethnicity for RP.
2: You're being completely dishonest if you're claiming those talking points were not taking a political stance. They could have been copy pasted from any number of Kotaku (an expressly political gaming blog) articles (kind of like parts of the review in question).
1. Uh that was my first post, not the one that reply was commenting toward... You're the one not connecting or empathizing with that posters right to their own perspective. As you're the one that has such a problem with what they find important in a modern RPG. Which has nothing what so ever to do with what you find important. That's where you say each to their own and go about your day, not attack them for sharing their own perspective.
2.. LOL
1. It's called context. both statements were made in the course of the same discussion on the same topic and are linked. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
2. I'm glad that you can laugh at your own absurdity.
I would argue that if you can't connect and empathize with people who aren't like you, then you're probably a bigot and your opinions don't count for much.
Maybe because there's a difference between political and social commentary?
You're joking, right? Social issues have never been more intertwined with politics than they have been in the last few years.
First point: That was my point, how is the original posting not empathizing with anyone else? Applauding representation of others such as gays or lesbians, other races etc is the exact opposite of that.
Second point... It is brought into politics yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between politicizing social issues, and talking about social issues. They're not mutually exclusive. The poster didn't politicize the issues they simply applauded inclusion of other lifestyles in a game other than the norm. That's not politicizing it...
It really wouldn't be any different than saying I'm so happy they added people who like yellow sponge cake rather than devil's food...
1: No that wasn't your point. You said it was important to be able to relate to your character's sex and ethnicity for RP.
2: You're being completely dishonest if you're claiming those talking points were not taking a political stance. They could have been copy pasted from any number of Kotaku (an expressly political gaming blog) articles (kind of like parts of the review in question).
What is your goal here, exactly? Someone said it was easier to make different types of characters, including sexual orientation and ethnicities... To have more role playing options in a role playing game. Yet, you're taking issue with that viewpoint why, because it coincides with a larger social movement?
So it does. It's still simply extra options that you never have to utilize if you don't want. You CAN make a gay character, you don't have to. You CAN make a hispanic character, you don't have to.
Someone likes that a ROLE PLAYING game has given them more robust ROLE PLAYING options, and you're miffed because the options are minorites and sexual orientation choices... Or just miffed that the extra choices aren't more "square-jawed white male" flavors? Or maybe miffed that the staff here also likes those extra options?
The goal is to have game reviews that are unbiased and reflect the quality of the game, not praising mediocre games simply because they share your political view. It states in that post that they "have to" support Bioware because of their political views but only as long as Bioware supports their politics. That's pure nonsense.
Support a game company because they make good games. Keep politics out of it.
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 objectively 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.
At its best (Mass Effect 2), Mass Effect is a masterpiece with as much interest and intrigue as any Star Wars or Star Trek media. At its worst (Mass Effect 3), the series still manages to be, at worst, average and unremarkable. Mass Effect Andromeda might not be the series' best, but it is certainly not its worst.
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.
Um...that ex-developer's statements NEVER came into the review AT ALL. That came into this thread later on by other people.
If you took the time to read the review, yes, it says that there is some bias but that cuts both ways. Fans of the series, especially after the ME3 missteps, were and are judging the game with a very serious eye. Additionally, the article goes into great detail about what works and what doesn't in their opinion. Read any other site's review and you'll find that the exact same things are brought up in both, the only deviation being in the score.
I find it funny that in the day or so since MEA's release, most of the kerfuffle has died down. I attribute this to two things: 1) It wasn't worth all the angst in the first place; and 2) most of the critics have either moved on (as they should, tbh) or they are playing and realize #1 is true.
What is your goal here, exactly? Someone said it was easier to make different types of characters, including sexual orientation and ethnicities... To have more role playing options in a role playing game. Yet, you're taking issue with that viewpoint why, because it coincides with a larger social movement?
So it does. It's still simply extra options that you never have to utilize if you don't want. You CAN make a gay character, you don't have to. You CAN make a hispanic character, you don't have to.
Someone likes that a ROLE PLAYING game has given them more robust ROLE PLAYING options, and you're miffed because the options are minorites and sexual orientation choices... Or just miffed that the extra choices aren't more "square-jawed white male" flavors? Or maybe miffed that the staff here also likes those extra options?
The goal is to have game reviews that are unbiased and reflect the quality of the game, not praising mediocre games simply because they share your political view. It states in that post that they "have to" support Bioware because of their political views but only as long as Bioware supports their politics. That's pure nonsense.
Support a game company because they make good games. Keep politics out of it.
While I get the sentiment that we should review games based on game merits, it's still a role playing game. And to that end, one that allows you to completely define your own character. Considering the video game industry has quite the decorated past as far as stereotypes and latent discrimination goes, I don't mind celebrating a developer that's leading the charge, so to speak, in bucking those conventions. Straight white males aren't the only demographic capable of saving the universe.
It's worth mentioning because Bioware specifically provides the means to define your character in any way you choose in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. It's also worth mentioning because to this day many developers pigeonhole the otherwise undefined protagonist in some ways (name me how many RPG franchises allow your character to choose to be completely straight, gay, or bisexual?).
How relatable the protagonist and supporting cast of characters are has a profound effect on the quality of the RPG experience. It's the reason you don't see a lot of 8-legged, 4-armed, clawed protagonists out there; the player would have no way to relate to being such a monster. It deteriorates the experience. Even those protagonists who have monstrous qualities almost always have a normal, humanoid looking form they assume when they're not performing a specific task. The same concept applies to boss mobs. So many are monstrous or disfigured or strange-looking, and that's so the players cannot identify or relate to the antagonist and, as such, has no qualms with his/her protagonist murdering that boss and everyone who calls it friend.
The diversity being discussed here comes from the same concept, but it simply lies on another part of the spectrum. So yes, I see rationale for objectively stating that MEA is a better game for having included such possibilities for the player. While I wouldn't say that MEA should be given higher ratings just because the company supports diversity itself, it should be given higher ratings because, as an RPG developer, they offered up the possibility to create a more diverse character than the vast majority of their competition. As such, they gave a much wider fanbase the opportunity to create a character they can better relate to, which in turn creates a better overall experience for more players. That's worth celebrating in my opinion.
I would argue that if you can't connect and empathize with people who aren't like you, then you're probably a bigot and your opinions don't count for much.
Maybe because there's a difference between political and social commentary?
You're joking, right? Social issues have never been more intertwined with politics than they have been in the last few years.
First point: That was my point, how is the original posting not empathizing with anyone else? Applauding representation of others such as gays or lesbians, other races etc is the exact opposite of that.
Second point... It is brought into politics yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between politicizing social issues, and talking about social issues. They're not mutually exclusive. The poster didn't politicize the issues they simply applauded inclusion of other lifestyles in a game other than the norm. That's not politicizing it...
It really wouldn't be any different than saying I'm so happy they added people who like yellow sponge cake rather than devil's food...
1: No that wasn't your point. You said it was important to be able to relate to your character's sex and ethnicity for RP.
2: You're being completely dishonest if you're claiming those talking points were not taking a political stance. They could have been copy pasted from any number of Kotaku (an expressly political gaming blog) articles (kind of like parts of the review in question).
What is your goal here, exactly? Someone said it was easier to make different types of characters, including sexual orientation and ethnicities... To have more role playing options in a role playing game. Yet, you're taking issue with that viewpoint why, because it coincides with a larger social movement?
So it does. It's still simply extra options that you never have to utilize if you don't want. You CAN make a gay character, you don't have to. You CAN make a hispanic character, you don't have to.
Someone likes that a ROLE PLAYING game has given them more robust ROLE PLAYING options, and you're miffed because the options are minorites and sexual orientation choices... Or just miffed that the extra choices aren't more "square-jawed white male" flavors? Or maybe miffed that the staff here also likes those extra options?
I do agree here. More options is good, and everyone should have representation. It makes for a better, more versatile roleplaying experience.
However, I have to take issue with the idea that you seem to believe that there are enough "square-jawed white male" flavors available. There aren't. Previous Mass Effect games had a much more robust selection of options available for you to make an ideal character regardless of race. Here, we have a pathetically small number of hairstyle options; I wasn't even able to find one that is ideal for my personal tastes. Preset templates are limited. Tatoos and scar patterns are in short supply and missing quite a few popular options (like cross scars, tribal tattoos, vine patterns, and so much more) that have become staples of RPG character creators. Beard options are limited and often unappealing. Options available in previous Mass Effect games are missing entirely.
To call Mass Effect Andromeda's character creation system disappointing would be an understatement. And not just for white males. It's a half effort for everyone that could have been much more.
What is your goal here, exactly? Someone said it was easier to make different types of characters, including sexual orientation and ethnicities... To have more role playing options in a role playing game. Yet, you're taking issue with that viewpoint why, because it coincides with a larger social movement?
So it does. It's still simply extra options that you never have to utilize if you don't want. You CAN make a gay character, you don't have to. You CAN make a hispanic character, you don't have to.
Someone likes that a ROLE PLAYING game has given them more robust ROLE PLAYING options, and you're miffed because the options are minorites and sexual orientation choices... Or just miffed that the extra choices aren't more "square-jawed white male" flavors? Or maybe miffed that the staff here also likes those extra options?
The goal is to have game reviews that are unbiased and reflect the quality of the game, not praising mediocre games simply because they share your political view. It states in that post that they "have to" support Bioware because of their political views but only as long as Bioware supports their politics. That's pure nonsense.
Support a game company because they make good games. Keep politics out of it.
While I get the sentiment that we should review games based on game merits, it's still a role playing game. And to that end, one that allows you to completely define your own character. Considering the video game industry has quite the decorated past as far as stereotypes and latent discrimination goes, I don't mind celebrating a developer that's leading the charge, so to speak, in bucking those conventions. Straight white males aren't the only demographic capable of saving the universe.
It's worth mentioning because Bioware specifically provides the means to define your character in any way you choose in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. It's also worth mentioning because to this day many developers pigeonhole the otherwise undefined protagonist in some ways (name me how many RPG franchises allow your character to choose to be completely straight, gay, or bisexual?).
How relatable the protagonist and supporting cast of characters are has a profound effect on the quality of the RPG experience. It's the reason you don't see a lot of 8-legged, 4-armed, clawed protagonists out there; the player would have no way to relate to being such a monster. It deteriorates the experience. Even those protagonists who have monstrous qualities almost always have a normal, humanoid looking form they assume when they're not performing a specific task. The same concept applies to boss mobs. So many are monstrous or disfigured or strange-looking, and that's so the players cannot identify or relate to the antagonist and, as such, has no qualms with his/her protagonist murdering that boss and everyone who calls it friend.
The diversity being discussed here comes from the same concept, but it simply lies on another part of the spectrum. So yes, I see rationale for objectively stating that MEA is a better game for having included such possibilities for the player. While I wouldn't say that MEA should be given higher ratings just because the company supports diversity itself, it should be given higher ratings because, as an RPG developer, they offered up the possibility to create a more diverse character than the vast majority of their competition. As such, they gave a much wider fanbase the opportunity to create a character they can better relate to, which in turn creates a better overall experience for more players. That's worth celebrating in my opinion.
Just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't award any points for ticking off token boxes on a political scorecard.
Especially not when the writing is painfully amateurish and hamfisted like these:
I'm all for diversity as I stated in my earlier post, but player avatars being leaned to be plain/unattractive isn't helpful to any ethnicity. In fact it actually makes things worse IMO.
Going from handsome/pretty white people all the time, to unattractive everybody isn't helpful. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that's for love/relationships. Give the player options to do what they desire. I don't want to fight an uphill battle in the character creator to have my Ryder NOT look like a cast member from Girls or Big Bang Theory nor should I have to feel guilty about wanting this. That desire from players transcends political, cultural, and socioeconomic bounds.
Let folks do what the hell they want with their avatar. The technology is there.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
But it could have been better and something went wrong. Dragon Age Inquisition had better facial animation. I think the developers didnt know how to work on the frostbite engine as well as the unreal engine. Frostbite engine could achieve much better if they tried just look at battlefield 1
This thread got weird. Maybe I should have read the rest of the review to see what was going on.
For me it was simply this, the reviewer who in this case had a clear bias, which is fine it happens everywhere. They made no real attempt to hide it. So take it as it is.
The issue came into play when it was mentioned that my complaint wasn't a complaint worthy of concern or mention. Personally that comes across disrespectful to your readers. The facial animations for me are a big deal, they aren't a bug nor a glitch, they're a design choice. I watched Bill Murphy play for a bit again but I couldn't handle the facial animations, they just don't feel right to me. That alone is a deal breaker. So when someone says my concern is invalid or negligible, I simply disagree.
This is probably why I can't handle realistic styled games.
That's a fair point. We all react to games with realistic characters according to our own subjective bias. Sometimes we are repulsed by them. That's the "valley" part of the uncanny valley.
The Final Fantasy characters do that to me. I find it easy to dismiss all those characters as shallow metrosexual teens and I have a hard time taking them seriously or empathizing with them because of it. And it's not just FF. A lot of modern games with realistic graphics force us to play as a teen supermodel... I hate that.
I'm obviously in the minority in that respect because the games are hugely popular and very few people complain about the FF character looks, but it bothers me nonetheless.
The MEA human character models seem to be doing that to a larger portion of the gaming public but they look like normal every day people to me. Maybe I just hang around more plain people than you do
"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
That's a fair point. We all react to games with realistic characters according to our own subjective bias. Sometimes we are repulsed by them. That's the "valley" part of the uncanny valley.
The Final Fantasy characters do that to me. I find it easy to dismiss all those characters as shallow metrosexual teens and I have a hard time taking them seriously or empathizing with them because of it. And it's not just FF. A lot of modern games with realistic graphics force us to play as a teen supermodel... I hate that.
I'm obviously in the minority in that respect because the games are hugely popular and very few people complain about the FF character looks, but it bothers me nonetheless.
The MEA human character models seem to be doing that to a larger portion of the gaming public but they look like normal every day people to me. Maybe I just hang around more plain people than you do
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Sowwy :awesome:
I clipped the politics.
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
----------------
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
They are the Yin to my Yang. I will almost always see the glass half empty. They will almost always see it as half full. As long as they let you make your own comments... isn't that in many ways a good thing?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Imagine my surprise when I start perusing reviews and forums today while I have a few mins break, and I find that people are tearing the game up. If I listened to the reviews and comments, I don't think I'd have even thought about buying the game.
So, lesson learned. Don't listen to other people. Fly blind and make my own decisions on whats good or not. I'll be happier that way.
Combat is more streamlined and engaging than ME2, ME3. The RPG / character development elements are way more diverse than any of the trilogy. Visuals are gorgeous. I play on a GTX 970, 8GB Ram, 500GB SSD. At 1080p set on medium / high the game runs smoothly.
Cons: some of the female facial animations are indeed out of place and context with what we are accustomed from the series. The writing in some occasions is poor, to say the least. Some side quests are just boring chores the likes we did in CRPG's a decade or more back.
Honestly, I think being an optimist MMORPG gamer today is just a symptom of insanity. To each their own though.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
2. I'm glad that you can laugh at your own absurdity.
The goal is to have game reviews that are unbiased and reflect the quality of the game, not praising mediocre games simply because they share your political view. It states in that post that they "have to" support Bioware because of their political views but only as long as Bioware supports their politics. That's pure nonsense.
Support a game company because they make good games. Keep politics out of it.
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 objectively 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.
If you took the time to read the review, yes, it says that there is some bias but that cuts both ways. Fans of the series, especially after the ME3 missteps, were and are judging the game with a very serious eye. Additionally, the article goes into great detail about what works and what doesn't in their opinion. Read any other site's review and you'll find that the exact same things are brought up in both, the only deviation being in the score.
I find it funny that in the day or so since MEA's release, most of the kerfuffle has died down. I attribute this to two things: 1) It wasn't worth all the angst in the first place; and 2) most of the critics have either moved on (as they should, tbh) or they are playing and realize #1 is true.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's worth mentioning because Bioware specifically provides the means to define your character in any way you choose in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. It's also worth mentioning because to this day many developers pigeonhole the otherwise undefined protagonist in some ways (name me how many RPG franchises allow your character to choose to be completely straight, gay, or bisexual?).
How relatable the protagonist and supporting cast of characters are has a profound effect on the quality of the RPG experience. It's the reason you don't see a lot of 8-legged, 4-armed, clawed protagonists out there; the player would have no way to relate to being such a monster. It deteriorates the experience. Even those protagonists who have monstrous qualities almost always have a normal, humanoid looking form they assume when they're not performing a specific task. The same concept applies to boss mobs. So many are monstrous or disfigured or strange-looking, and that's so the players cannot identify or relate to the antagonist and, as such, has no qualms with his/her protagonist murdering that boss and everyone who calls it friend.
The diversity being discussed here comes from the same concept, but it simply lies on another part of the spectrum. So yes, I see rationale for objectively stating that MEA is a better game for having included such possibilities for the player. While I wouldn't say that MEA should be given higher ratings just because the company supports diversity itself, it should be given higher ratings because, as an RPG developer, they offered up the possibility to create a more diverse character than the vast majority of their competition. As such, they gave a much wider fanbase the opportunity to create a character they can better relate to, which in turn creates a better overall experience for more players. That's worth celebrating in my opinion.
However, I have to take issue with the idea that you seem to believe that there are enough "square-jawed white male" flavors available. There aren't. Previous Mass Effect games had a much more robust selection of options available for you to make an ideal character regardless of race. Here, we have a pathetically small number of hairstyle options; I wasn't even able to find one that is ideal for my personal tastes. Preset templates are limited. Tatoos and scar patterns are in short supply and missing quite a few popular options (like cross scars, tribal tattoos, vine patterns, and so much more) that have become staples of RPG character creators. Beard options are limited and often unappealing. Options available in previous Mass Effect games are missing entirely.
To call Mass Effect Andromeda's character creation system disappointing would be an understatement. And not just for white males. It's a half effort for everyone that could have been much more.
Especially not when the writing is painfully amateurish and hamfisted like these:
Going from handsome/pretty white people all the time, to unattractive everybody isn't helpful. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that's for love/relationships. Give the player options to do what they desire. I don't want to fight an uphill battle in the character creator to have my Ryder NOT look like a cast member from Girls or Big Bang Theory nor should I have to feel guilty about wanting this. That desire from players transcends political, cultural, and socioeconomic bounds.
Let folks do what the hell they want with their avatar. The technology is there.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Final Fantasy characters do that to me. I find it easy to dismiss all those characters as shallow metrosexual teens and I have a hard time taking them seriously or empathizing with them because of it. And it's not just FF. A lot of modern games with realistic graphics force us to play as a teen supermodel... I hate that.
I'm obviously in the minority in that respect because the games are hugely popular and very few people complain about the FF character looks, but it bothers me nonetheless.
The MEA human character models seem to be doing that to a larger portion of the gaming public but they look like normal every day people to me. Maybe I just hang around more plain people than you do
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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
----------------
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
----------------
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
----------------
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.