Mass Effect: Andromeda

As far as video games go, that really isn't great. Negative scores tend to be saved for games that are sincerely broken in almost unplayable ways, or short no-effort stuff like Ninjabread Man. (For comparison here, Assassin's Creed Unity, the game muchly mocked for having broken faces that only render the teeth and eyeballs, sits at 19 positive reviews, 17 mixed reviews, 4 negative reviews.) Game reviews in particular have a tendency, I think it used to be larger back in the day, to lean towards positive, to the point that Metacritic's quality-categories are actually different for games; in this case half, or I guess one more than half, have declared the game mediocre or worse, a do-not-buy without consideration first. And when you look at the positive reviews, most of them are edging towards average themselves.

Metacritic-wise, 72 is really not a great score. A few points lower and it'd be branded a disaster.

edited 19th Aug '17 4:12:07 PM by Lavaeolus

To be fair, Andromeda's Metacritic score was a drop of anywhere from 10-20% in an industry where a lot of players just won't bother with any game with a score below the dreaded Eight Point Eight, if that. Lame but true.

edited 19th Aug '17 4:37:30 PM by Unsung

However it sold well, even in its unfinished state.

Making no effort to finish the game is an FU to those who bought it.

EA. [shrugs]

Well... Shit!

Also, from my understanding, Dragon Age 2 got a far more divisive response when it released, but it at least got two DL Cs before the third and sequel campaign were axed.

Andromeda was divisive, but it sounded hopeful and I know a good portion of the fanbase, while acknowledging that this chapter had a lot of fundemental issues, still accepted and were excited about where it'd go.

I'm worried that, if the franchise continues, Andromeda will end up being a hanging plot line that will just never get mentioned ever again.

Those are my fears exactly. And you're totally right about DA 2. I think that's why a lot of us were holding on to hope for single player DLC. But shame on them for even making DLC so damn plot heavy to the degree you feel like you missed out if you didn't have it. They did the same thing with Inquisition and the Trespasser DLC. That game doesn't' really have a proper ending without it.

edited 19th Aug '17 4:46:58 PM by iamthecircle

I feel like it DOES have a very Bioware ending (It ends literally the same way that Origins does). Its just that the Bridging DLC of Trespasser ends up being a stronger ending in the long run.

I don't mind it really. I think Trespasser was influenced heavily by the game's release and made comment to address the goods and bads of the game they made rather than some deliberate 'we cut content from this game' things.

What sucks so much is this could have been a far better entry than the original trilogy with being true explorers, setting up colonies and so on. It was the closest a game has ever really come to capturing the feeling of Star Trek.

If it hadn't been squandered by its unfinished state and kinda drops the ball around the middle it might have been my fav game of all time. DLC could easily have rerailed the game.

edited 19th Aug '17 4:54:38 PM by Memers

The whole premise of being an explorer in a distant new frontier ends up being undermined by the kett, angara, and most of all the Outlaws getting everywhere before you do, but if you could really discover new places and drop colonies in such a way that it felt like it had some heft, that would've been a pretty cool game..

DA 2's unfinished mechanically, but I think it holds together pretty well in terms of its writing for a sequel that came out barely two years after the original game.

I'm worried where the franchise heads to go at this point. Andromeda felt like a soft reboot for the series and a massive attempt to avert EVERYTHING that created chaos in ME 3 and basically made a direct sequel logistically a nightmare.

So, what happens to a successful franchise when the soft reboot gets killed? Because, that's what we're looking at. Andromeda was probably the best way to do a soft reboot.

And I feel like this game will become the red headed stepchild in the franchise that the series never talks about again.

With Dragon Age doing great and having a successful and adored sequel in Inquisition and a sequel is already under way, Anthem having basically no faith from anyone at the moment, and Mass Effect dead in the water for now, where do Bioware I Ps go?

Resurrect Jade Empire?

I'm not surprised by this. EA still refuses to learn any lesson when it comes to rushing games. But Dragon Age recovered from the response for DA 2, so I'm hopeful Mass Effect can as well.

I certainly wouldn't say no to more Jade Empire.

Casey Hudson (executive producer of the Mass Effect trilogy and now head of Bioware) says that Mass Effect is not dead.

Its probably just shelved for 5 to 6 years. Its likely dead to the people who liked this game though as the lack of support has burned a hell of a lot of people.

Especially when the Citadel DLC existed for ME 3.

That's true. It stings to the fans that are left that they are just abandoning the game.

What on earth? Did I stumble onto reddit without realising it?

Um...

Okay, look, I think Andromeda was a pretty decent game, and I hate alt-right trolls as much as anybody, but...they are not the only reason the game didn't do well. It did have legitimate problems.

(Also, your edits to the Andromeda Trivia page are rather unmerited - I think you should produce some proof before claiming it's all lies and deleting it. At the very least, the Creator Killer entry does seem accurate.