My answer to some * on Reddit thread a month or so ago:
"Er, ME3 was good? Sure it was. #sarcasm
Dialogue system from ME 2 was nerfed, Cerberus was made pure evil and Alliance/Council pure angels because fanbois demanded it. The Illusive Man became indoctrinated because fanbois demanded it. The story itself became VERY simple. It wasn't complicated like ME2 was, when we questioned our loyalty to the Alliance and the Council. In ME3 they made everything very simple for fanbois. Reapers and Cerberus are just meanies, go kill them, pls ☹️
The ending was the biggest BS I've ever seen in my 25 years of gaming. Suddenly, without any real hints in the previous games, Alliance has a "Death Star" schematic in their Mars outpost. How convenient. Reapers' motivation is * AF, we had a perfect hint during quarian story ark in ME2 that Zero Mass Energy - or whatever it's called - slowly destroys the stars themselves. Awesome theory, like the First Flame from Dark Souls, eh? What did they do with this awesome theory? Nothing.
Mass Effect 3 was the reason I didn't trust Dragon Age Inquisition. It took my friend 2 years of persuation, until I finally gave up and bought it. But because of DAI, I trusted MEA. ME thrilogy had it's bright sides, but also so much crappy console design, that I didn't really bother to finish it to 100% for achievements. For what reason a no-name Ryder is a better fighter than resurrected N7+Spectre+Cerberus Operative Shepard with Reaper implants shoved up his/her *? For what reason do we have such a pathetic arsenal in ME thrilogy? ME1 - reskin upon another reskin. ME2 - 5 guns in every category without modification options. ME3 - well, at least combat was significantly better here, guns included.
Also, where the hell were all krogan, turian, salarian, drell, elcor and hanar(do they even have any, btw?) species?
MEA isn't all sunshine and butterflies, I get it. I took the game only last summer, when lots of stuff had been fixed. Asari faces still creep me out. Also some glitches pop up here and there, which are mildly infuriating. But ME thrilogy wasn't 100% awesome, bug-free, without crappy design choices. You, and all your screwwed up generation, are just a whiny brat with tanthrum problems."
Always amazing to see someone defend a fascist racist terrorist group. When in doubt invent your own "moral ambiguity" amirite? Ignore Cerebus' willingness to experiment on live captives, traffic children, murder political opposition and oppose law when it suits it! That's all relative and I'm sure the Asari are doing the same thing right now. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
How very Post-Modern of you.
Oh and the repeated invocation of "fanbois." A thing so childish it's meant to be beyond demands for proof. Look at that outrage! It must be legitimate! Isn't reality subjective and thus opinion beyond reason?!
But on topic ME:A clearly wants to be a good game. The action's faster and more fluid, the worlds fantastical, there's a deeper theme of the meaning of belief clearly being set up, the characters are generally well defined and quirky and compelling mystery abounds. As presentation goes the voice acting is a minimum passable and the music is generally excellent. ME:A's title is positively hypnotic.
But I'm not sure it is a good game.
I usually tell friends to try Andromeda. There is magic in it, there is what you buy Bioware for: immersion. The sense of getting lost in an Other Place, conflict over real stakes.
But **** me the bugs. And worse the things I'm not sure are bugs. Case in point: do shotguns have stagger? Stagger isn't a statistic but it wasn't in ME3 either. I favor the Disciple a shotgun characterized by it's higher than average stopping power relative to it's weight.
In Andromeda it has zero.
Now the weapon's description is different. No stagger is mentioned. The Rhuzad is supposed to have stagger and plenty of it. Not that this is represented by a number or anything. I'd expect that as a general rule shotguns would have stagger and lots of it. They sure did in ME3; it was obviously necessary to make the weapon type viable. If you have to get close to things disabling their capacity to kill you at normal speeds is valuable.
Apparently not.
Or is it bugged? Or, like my Sentinel's durability values -750/750- just not what I think it is? I think the durability role with the durability powers should be hard to kill. I sure as hell was in ME3's mp and the only badge I don't have is Nomad -and if you know what it takes to get Nomad you can guess why.
But Andromeda's got too many cases like that. Does this weapon work? Or is it meant to be just grossly disappointing? What about those Shaders? Why do they need constant and exhaustive rebuilding.
Why is my Collector's Edition Retail Copy of Mass Effect: Andromeda now a trial version?
Why is this otherwise competently designed game such a total dumpster fire of frustration and malfunction?
I mean obvious beyond Electronic Arts shipping it before it was done.
Two and half years ago.
So there we have it, there I am. Later tonight I will fire up my positively dusty PS3, muddle through 30-40ish rounds of multiplayer at barely 30fps, and have a great time because even for it's bugs and clumsy combat it's the very highest art of cooperative play. Fighting a good fight against true evil for the simplest of reasons: the right to live.
I'll take that over getting soul-burned that Corporate Fascist Daddy's plans to strip humanity of it's humanity were a result of his hilariously stupid plan to Indoctrinate himself, visible from literally the very first moment we see his face, any and indeed every day.
