Guess the Metacritic score for Mass Effect: Andromeda

  • 132 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
Posted by SpaceInsomniac (5944 posts) 3 days, 23 hours ago

Poll: Guess the Metacritic score for Mass Effect: Andromeda (806 votes)

99 - 95 0%
94 - 90 1%
89 - 85 7%
84 - 80 28%
79 - 75 29%
74 - 70 21%
69 - 65 5%
64 - 60 4%
59 - 55 1%
54 - 50 1%
49 - 40 1%
39 - 30 0%
29 or below 2%

After reading loads of comments and opinions from both reviewers talking about the EA Access portion of the game, and just various gamers talking about their experience with the trial, I think this game is going to get the most mixed reviews of any AAA title in years.

I can absolutely see some reviewers deducting serious points for the animation issues, and I can see other reviewers not really letting it bother them all that much. I think some are going to love the massive scope of the game, and others are going to reject it. Some are going to love the multiplayer, and others aren't going to care.

The interesting thing is that we haven't seen or heard anything beyond the first 6 hours or so of a game that will likely take weeks or months for most people to finish. Dragon Age: Inquisition takes an average of almost 90 hours to finish every side quest, so who knows what the rest of the game will contain? There could be animation issues that make the worst of those found in the trial look fantastic in comparison. There could be brilliantly written side quests and loyalty missions. We just don't know, but it's fun to speculate, and it's going to be very interesting to read reviews for the full thing starting in just around 30 hours from now.

So what do you think the game will score, and what makes you feel that way? Did you play the trial? Did you just watch clips of some truly terrible moments and judge the game from those?

And yes, I do understand that we have a lot of "people sure are talking about that Mass Effect" threads here, but I thought having a poll and seeing how wrong or right we were in our review assumptions would be fun.

My vote goes to 74- 70. I think the game will definitely still get some scores in the 90s, but a handful of reviewers are going to get stuck on the presentation issues and/or dislike the writing, and that's going to bring it down past what most people feel is an acceptable score for a big budget title from a company like BioWare or EA.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#101 Posted by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@devise22: I don't think the people are the problem, though, because I don't think there's a problem at all. People are going to buy it if they think they'll enjoy it. Saying that the people are the problem for buying a product with poor reviews is like suggesting that reviewers are the arbiters of some kind of objective reality and the consumers are wrong.

Avatar image for devise22
#102 Posted by devise22 (450 posts) -

@redcometrising: Don't mean to pile on, especially since I agree with you about defending peoples right to fair criticism. However arguing that ME1 and ME2 are old games, thus the animations "should" be better I just can't support. Not that I don't think the animations should be better. I do. But neither of us get to determine that. That is the thing I don't think people really understand, or some people I should say. This stuff came up with criticism of Fallout 4 as well. Jeff and many others, there was a strong contigent of vocal people sick and tired of the Bethesda levels of jank. That is great, and I'm glad some people want to see more from these beloved franchises.

But if the masses still buy this stuff and do not care enough about these issues to stop buying them, that is as far as the criticism goes. Campaigning to get things changed that other people don't care about is the exact definition of trying to project your own desires onto the media you buy. I don't agree with that. It's almost like people can't handle that a large number of people simply as you said "have a low bar". Again so what? That shouldn't bug anyone, and if for example a developer like Bioware wishes to continue producing the content they do and there is enough people who enjoy it? Then there is, and not only is it their right it's also Biowares right to continue producing what they want to produce.

I'm all for fair criticism, I'm all for open discussion and debate. But "gamer entitlement" is such a big thing. Hell media entitlement. I mean how many fair criticisms do you see start with something and then instantly start projecting their own thoughts of what they wished something was? Not just in this ME debate, but across gaming and hell everything. I think the real fact here is that it's not being a apologist of a product if the things that bug people about it don't bug you regardless of what product it's in. I loved Oblivion for example. Janky game as hell. If Bethesda re-released that game and it still had all the same jank but looked prettier? I'd buy it without question. Because the jank doesn't bug me. Ever. They could release a game 20 years from now with the same jank but with modern systems and concepts and I'd still enjoy it.

At a certain point if enough people start saying "yeah the animation is bad but it wouldn't bug me in any other game enough to not enjoy it, so it won't here" is a fair counter point to the animation argument. At that point it's no longer who is right or wrong, and simply is there enough people one way or the other to influence anything. And if the answer is no in the case of the animation (which it often is, it was for Bethesda jank for years) then perhaps people who hate the facial animation to the point of leaving should simply stop following, buying, or caring about the products that bug them so much?

Avatar image for frytup
#103 Posted by frytup (590 posts) -

@mrwakka said:

PC gamer called it the best RPG combat ever, and the best storytelling in gaming. It was a trash fire at best made all the more disappointing for the few glimmers of promise that showed through the seams. But, y'know, apparently the pinnacle of storytelling and rpg combat back in 2011.

PC Gamer's 94 was an outlier, and if you read comments on their site people never let them forget it. Usually while accusing them of taking payola. "It's about ethics in video game journalism!" etc. etc.

My problem with DA2 was dumbed-down combat mechanics, not the story. But that's the direction Bioware has chosen to go and most people seem to like it so... you can't argue with sales, I guess.

Avatar image for devise22
#104 Edited by devise22 (450 posts) -

@nate_is_my_fake_name: Was more talking about the people reviewing things badly. Like there is a logical leap that is happening that my brain doesn't understand from. Let's go froward to a hypothetical world where ME Andromeda releases, has decent reviews on metacritic from critics but super low on user reviews. How many of those users have purchased every ME game before? How many are likely to purchase the next one regardless of how well it's received or whether the criticism they voiced was changed or addressed? At a certain point people aren't even criticizing for the sake of anything anymore. To me those people are the problem. Once a pattern has been established that a product isn't for you, and it is likely never to be (see my previous arguments about Bethesda jank) why keep spending money on it? I have no issues with seeing dissenting opinions, but if it starts turning into the same dissenting opinion on every title from this developer at what point do those giving that opinion realize they should stop playing or buying these products? Because the conversation inevitably turns to the same thing, again and again. The side that believes the experience is hampered by the problems, and the side that doesn't.

But I just don't see how a person can have such a miserable opinion about something and then actively choose to continue engaging with it, from a discussion perspective, a playing perspective etc. Especially if what they are criticizing remains unchanged. So they are literally having the problems with the exact same things time and time again. At a certain point there needs to be recognition that this product isn't made with you in mind. Period. And perhaps it never will be? So move on. That isn't me trying to get rid of bad opinions, or opinions that focus on the negatives of something. It's so that the negatives that are being focused on are meaningful in some way. Again I think the Bethesda jank is a perfect example of seeing this. For games and games people complained about it, and while those who have gotten sick of it has grown in number over the releases, there is still this odd fascination with people who hate that stuff continuing to buy and play those products and trying to make every conversation about them about how bad the jank is. At a certain point that criticism becomes meaningless because everyone who is anyone knows when they pick up a Bethesda game it'll have some jank it.

Avatar image for randizzledante
#105 Edited by randizzledante (21 posts) -

@devise22 said:

@redcometrising:

And if the answer is no in the case of the animation (which it often is, it was for Bethesda jank for years) then perhaps people who hate the facial animation to the point of leaving should simply stop following, buying, or caring about the products that bug them so much?

This is absolutely mind-boggling to me in every possible way. I loved the original Mass Effect trilogy, and no small amount of that love came from the fact that the characters, animations, and writing were on a level good enough to draw me into and care about the universe.

So now that they have completely dropped that ball, and my anticipation for the game very much dropped considerably with it - I need to just shut my mouth and move on? Because people who just want pretty graphics and to go pew pew are going to shell out the money for it anyway?

This disturbs me so deeply I cannot put it into words. I will not apologize for having a higher standard. I want to play amazing, passionately crafted, immersive experiences. I have nothing against the people that are/will enjoy this game, but this anti-critic mentality needs to end.

Edit: For what it's worth, I am currently speaking with my wallet as well, having not pre-ordered the game and currently having no intention on buying it, unless it receives stunning reviews from sources I trust.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#106 Edited by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@frytup: Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins both have my favorite gameplay from those trilogies.

You know what I did for the very end of ME3, and then later for Inquisition? Turned the combat difficulty all the way down. Explored the world. Enjoyed the story. Got to know the characters. I became less fruatrated with the combat and became that much happoer with the game. That's what I come to BioWare games for.

I'm just looking at all of this overblown reaction to the faces and the animation and wondering who comes to these games for the graphics and the gameplay?

Avatar image for devise22
#107 Edited by devise22 (450 posts) -

@redcometrising: I'm not saying you should apologize for having a "higher standard." Only that having a higher standard doesn't give your opinion any more fucking weight. It simply doesn't. You know what gives weight? The $60 purchase that people are willing to put their hard earned dollars on for that product. Your $60 is no different than anyone else. I'm not literally saying anyone with a dissenting opinion move on. It's what the opinion is. With this particular product it's obviously a different situation. The "uproar" about animations is only really happening now. However it's how much of an uproar there is that is causing people to be defensive.

You say you don't like how others have tried to treat their opinion like the word of god. Look in the mirror. You defend the amount of uproar because in your own words "this shouldn't happen in 2017." You mean according to you. Given that the sales numbers will probably be high, and a good majority of players aren't going to be bugged by the animations at all. Then guess what? It "should, would and did" happen in 2017. Because a big enough collective of that audience has determined they don't care. Now maybe they will, I can't confirm that. I'm still on the fence about the product myself because I want to see more feedback on the later game stuff, specifically if there is a bigger narrative arc that they deal into that will make me want to invest in that combat system. But that is neither here nor there.

But in this case you've voiced your criticism. It's been taken earnestly. The animations are bad. Nobody has denied it, nobody has said that people aren't allowed to say the animations are bad. I don't see how there has been any effort here to silence dissenting opinions. None. In any of the threads. Even the one sick about ME hate was more talking about the group think happening in other places on the internet. Nowhere was that denying you or anyone else the right to come in and say that the animations are bad, or that they are no longer looking forward to this game.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#108 Posted by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@devise22: Oh, I see what you meant! I misunderstood and thought you meant "people" as non-critics. I get you now.

Yeah, user reviews are exactly that: "0/10; no way I'm buying this!"

Well...that's useless and not a "review," so what's the point? And then on the next game from the company, they do the same. It's so weird. And in Andromeda's case, so many people are just using ridiculous arguments.

Avatar image for devise22
#110 Edited by devise22 (450 posts) -

@nate_is_my_fake_name: Indeed. This isn't just happening with Mass Effect either. I think people don't realize that there is a decent number of players who go out of their way to buy or watch enough of a game to then shit all over it in the hopes of drawing out defensive reactions and creating the very garbage we see right now. Often they regurgitate opinions, and I don't think it's "silencing criticism" to say that those critiques eventually become meaningless.

In your case @redcometrising all I'll say is that we get that the animation is bad. We that it's caused you and others to stop your pre orders. It sucks that the animations were enough to cause you to do so, but you have your reasons. Now can the conversation move on from that basic regurgitated opinion that you rightfully justified, or do we need to still defend every single person who comes in and says blanket "this animation is shit yo." Or can we move on to learn about the rest of the game, so that those of who are on the fence but don't care about the animations as badly can determine our thoughts on this product? Haha.

Edit - For the record as well, people do the same thing positively. Buy or watch enough of something to regurgitate the positive group think. It obviously goes both ways, and both are absolute bullshit at a certain point.

Avatar image for devise22
#112 Posted by devise22 (450 posts) -

@redcometrising: I haven't spent shit on ME Andromeda and I still don't know if I will. Your just assuming because I'm defending peoples right to see more reasonable and productive criticism instead of "insert animation joke/complaint here" as the only method of critiquing this thing that I am somehow for this product.

But you again reveal your own high opinion of yourself and your opinion. Something you did accuse someone else of doing. "Bend over and take it." There is nothing about someone bending over and taking it just because they want to shell out money for this or any other game someone else deems flawed. Again, it's all subjective. No persons individual standards on a game define the "industry standard." The industry standard is defined by what sells, what people are willing to put with in terms of bugs, broken games etc. And again this is why people get defensive. Mass Effect gets piled up but X game launches broken doesn't get this much? Again, there is no industry standard that a game must ship without these issues. If there has been I've missed the memo, because every developer from big AAA titles to overhyped indies like No Mans Sky have shipped with tons of problems. Whether you agree with it or even I agree with it is not the point. It simply isn't. And for the record of course I'd rather a world where the Andromeda animations are better. But I don't get to determine whether that happening or not is considered acceptable in 2017. As long as people shell out money, then it's fucking acceptable. It's as simple as that.

One day, one game is going to do it and the entire collective of video game audience may get fed up with it to the point to completely detriment future sales for that franchise or even all games. But that day isn't yet.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#113 Posted by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@devise22: Were you gaming on the PC 8-10 years ago? Every game that came out, DRM was the issue. Every. Fucking. Game.

Uses Steam? Limited activations? SecuROM? Always online? Instant non-buy for some people. Not for me personally, but okay, I get it. But the thing is, the people who would never buy these games made it clear, again and again and again, that they wouldn't buy the game. And made it cLear for the next game with DRM. And the one after that. PC games got review-bombed on Amazon and Metacritic. Always the same people, always making the same arguments.

Avatar image for devise22
#115 Posted by devise22 (450 posts) -

@devise22: Were you gaming on the PC 8-10 years ago? Every game that came out, DRM was the issue. Every. Fucking. Game.

Uses Steam? Limited activations? SecuROM? Always online? Instant non-buy for some people. Not for me personally, but okay, I get it. But the thing is, the people who would never buy these games made it clear, again and again and again, that they wouldn't buy the game. And made it cLear for the next game with DRM. And the one after that. PC games got review-bombed on Amazon and Metacritic. Always the same people, always making the same arguments.

That is fair. I'm not denying that this type of group think can obviously motivate change. But I do think that is a different scenario. A lot of the people who didn't care about the DRM didn't even know what it meant, what it was, or why it'd be better if it wasn't like that. However the DRM was the issue in getting you from playing the game you wanted to play. We are now talking about how much something in a game effects peoples enjoyment of the game. There is similarities for sure, I bet you the people who ignore or don't give a shit about the animation may find that a game with better animation they enjoy better. Which is the silliest thing of all of this. It's why I do agree it'd be awesome if the facial animation didn't suck. But as with anything divisive you'll always have that divide.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#116 Edited by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@redcometrising: Those people do not speak for everyone. And yes, I find 0/10 reviews from people who haven't played the game in question to be worthless, because by definition it's not a review.

You said that your main issue isn't even the animations, though. So I'll ask. What's your main issue?

Avatar image for pyrodactyl
#117 Posted by pyrodactyl (3656 posts) -

While janky animation GIFs on twitter are funny, I'm much more worried of what I heard about the story and structure of the game at least for the first 5-10 hours. Austin made very thoughtful and salient points comparing the game to Mass Effect 1 in the latest Waypoint radio episode. Go listen to that if you want real criticism instead of the dumb internet dogpile. The discussion is spoiler free too which is impressive considering Austin is still able to expose why the game just seems inferior to the original from a structural and world building perspective.

Avatar image for randizzledante
#118 Edited by randizzledante (21 posts) -

@nate_is_my_fake_name: I have no idea why you're talking to me about 0/10 review scores, I have never posted a review score, nor do I intend to, and certainly not for a game I haven't played. Apparently I am speaking for every single human being who has ever said a negative thing about a game now.

My main issue is the writing. From the first 10ish hours I have seen, it is by far and away the worst part of the game. This gives me grave concerns about the story overall. That being said, it is very possible that the story will get better as the game progresses, and so I am anxiously awaiting some good reviews in regards to that. The animations don't help, and to me, personally, they are disappointing, but even that was not the deal breaker for me that certain other posters are railing me about. The only reason I brought it up in this thread was because I was sick of seeing the original trilogy thrown under the bus to justify Andromeda, be it good or bad.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#119 Posted by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@devise22: It's not a perfect comparison, but there are a lot of similarities. I was well aware of the issues: when BioShock 2 came out, for example, I specifically got it on the 360 to avoid the SecuROM. When I bought The Witcher 2, I specifically activated it on GOG rather than Steam, to show that I preferred and appreciated no DRM as an option. More recently, I did the same thing with Pillars of Eternity. At the same time, I didn't constantly complain about versions of a game I wasn't going to buy.

People would often dramatically inflate the issues with Steam, for example, and that's what I had issue with. A review fron someone who couldn't activate or play the game because of DRM is useful and informative. A review from someone stating that they WOULDN'T play the game is useless, because it doesn't tell anyone how common activation issues actually are.

A "review" about bad animation from someone who isn't gonna play Mass Effect is useless. Tell me about it after you've played it...or don't.

Avatar image for brownsfantb
#120 Posted by brownsfantb (443 posts) -

I think it'll land in the low 80s, maybe slip into the 70s. Doubtful that it's gets many "perfect" scores but it'll probably get enough 9's to stay in the "green."

Also, who cares.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#121 Posted by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@redcometrising: In my defense, I'm on my phone and can't tell which of my posts you replied to. So far, my comments in this thread have been about user reviews from people who haven't played the game focusing on animation and nothing else, so I assumed from context that is what you were responding to.

Avatar image for devise22
#122 Posted by devise22 (450 posts) -

@nate_is_my_fake_name: Exactly. Bingo. You pretty much nailed of it. All I was saying is that continued critique about facial animations on a site where the early videos of the game talk about facial animations is adding no new critique to the conversation. If a person is trying to offer that opinion to try to show us how many people have enough of an issue with the animations to detract from the experience then obviously that is fine. However I think it's fair to say some (not all) were using it as a means to draw out defensive conversations and start a ruckus over the whole thing. Which I am simply stating I don't agree with.

Avatar image for randizzledante
#123 Posted by randizzledante (21 posts) -

@nate_is_my_fake_name: Sorry, I should have made that more clear, I was responding more so to the DRM thing. I cannot and do not speak for people who leave 0/10 reviews without even playing the game. That's just nonsense.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
#125 Edited by BladeOfCreation (251 posts) -

@redcometrising: I don't think anyone is throwing the original trilogy under the bus. What people are bringing up is that animation and human faces have never been a strong suit for BioWare. That's the case in Andromeda, yes, but it's also the case in the last 7 games that the company has released.

I'm not throwing ME2 under the bus when I say that the pouring animation was AWFUL and Miranda's face looked like a wax sculpture. Even BioWare knows that their animations aren't great, and by ME3 they were making fun of it themselves.

Avatar image for randizzledante
#126 Posted by randizzledante (21 posts) -

@nate_is_my_fake_name: In fairness though, you just made a well-explained argument, with which I agree. Other posts have not been this reasonable.

Avatar image for blackichigo
#127 Edited by blackichigo (304 posts) -

I have no idea how good this game is, but in this time a great video games coming out, this game can go waaaaaaaaaaay on the back burner. I do not have enough time or money to play video games I think I might kind of like.

Avatar image for devise22
#128 Edited by devise22 (450 posts) -

@redcometrising: Go for it. You'll find I haven't "defended" Andromeda as I haven't played a lick of it. The only opinions of the game itself I've expressed is recognizing the bad facial animation and saying that there seems to also be a consensus from those who have played it talking highly about how it plays combat wise. You seem to believe that there are only two sides to this whole thing. Although I'm just speculating and could just be inferring too much from what you've said.

Avatar image for devise22
#130 Edited by devise22 (450 posts) -

@redcometrising: When did I say you need to move on? I was talking about those who dog pile and or clearly have serious issues with the animation without providing any more legitimate critiquing. You've clearly indicated otherwise several times. Apologies if it appeared as though I was directly telling you to move on or that it's your opinion specifically I considered worthless.

Avatar image for bollard
#132 Posted by Bollard (7557 posts) -

Game looks terrible, but its Mass Effect, so the general reviewer bias will result it in being over 80.

Online
Avatar image for mirado
#133 Posted by Mirado (2464 posts) -

I'm thinking a flat 80. It depends on how well the gameplay (not just the shooting, but whether or not it's fun to explore planets and how interesting it is to do things on them) is able to cover up the deficiencies in writing, non-combat animation and voice acting. Whether or not those problems also extend throughout the game or are concentrated during the beginning and ending (if ME:A followed ME:3's development cycle which left the polishing of those two segments to the very end just before final QA passes) will also have a large impact on the score.

Basically, can this:

make up for this:

Avatar image for rethla
#134 Posted by rethla (3433 posts) -

@mirado: well yes. A cool dude walk aint a problem in a game like this.

Geralt slapsticking down stairs didnt exactly hamper that game ;)

Avatar image for efesell
#135 Posted by Efesell (2338 posts) -

The walk gifs seem disingenuous cause that is mostly the player exerting their ability to ruin everything.

Avatar image for colossalghost
#136 Posted by ColossalGhost (215 posts) -

It will be some where between Mass Effect 3(93) and Dragon Age 2(76). This would put it at an 85 or, the same as Dragon Age Inquisition(85).

Avatar image for ivdamke
#137 Posted by IVDAMKE (1414 posts) -

@efesell: it is you get that animation by spamming A and D while sprinting forward. It's forcing the game to constantly transition between the left and right turning animations while still moving forward. Most third person games with inertia turn animations do this.

Avatar image for whatshisface
#138 Posted by WhatsHisFace (434 posts) -

Yesterday I chose "74 - 70" and right now the score is 75. But Brad didn't finish his review yet so that 75 will go down in the near future.

Avatar image for slag
#139 Posted by Slag (7349 posts) -

@slag said:

Based on how popular it has become to hate on it, perhaps excessively, I'm going to say 76. I think there are smaller sites out there that are going to come in real low now that it's "safe" to do so which will counteract some of the 90's it might get.

I don't think Gamespot or IGN staff is super positive on the game which is worrying for the score. Because if they come in the 80 range or so, it might go lower since I imagine they get weighted heavily.

...

Damn my guess was pretty good!

PS4 75, XONE 77, PC 78= Composite 76.66666...

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
#140 Posted by Fredchuckdave (10203 posts) -

I said 80.1 for PC and it's 78; the inaccuracy!

Avatar image for junkerman
#141 Posted by Junkerman (388 posts) -

Reviews are so strange when you zoom out to look at the big picture. According to gamespot Kane and Lynch 2 is a better game then Andromeda. I havent played it yet, maybe it is... but man I dont know.

Avatar image for zombie2011
#142 Posted by zombie2011 (5502 posts) -

I played the 10 hour trial and while i didn't love what I was playing i did enjoy it enough to buy the game. Also i believe they will make a sequel that will be better than this at least on a technical level, so i might as well get invested in the series now.

Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
#143 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (5944 posts) -

@slag said:
@slag said:

Based on how popular it has become to hate on it, perhaps excessively, I'm going to say 76. I think there are smaller sites out there that are going to come in real low now that it's "safe" to do so which will counteract some of the 90's it might get.

I don't think Gamespot or IGN staff is super positive on the game which is worrying for the score. Because if they come in the 80 range or so, it might go lower since I imagine they get weighted heavily.

...

Damn my guess was pretty good!

PS4 75, XONE 77, PC 78= Composite 76.66666...

Well done. Initially, I said 74 - 70. Then I changed my guess to a flat 78.

At least I got the PC version right.

Avatar image for slag
#144 Posted by Slag (7349 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: 78 is basically on the money too. I'd consider that "right" too. The margin of error on guessing something like this has to be decent and being within 2 definitely should count as correct in my book.

Still amazed I got so lucky. I'll probably never guess this correctly again. :)

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.