Collective Criticisms of Mass Effect: Andromeda via Game Play Articles

[Just a brief clarification since I've seen confusion in response to this: the point of this piece isn't to being critical of Mass Effect--most of the feedback is very positive and I'm excited about the game--I was simply curious what criticisms have been made and in what proportion, so that's what's explored below.]

Yesterday (February 23rd) the publication ban was lifted for the various journalists and others who were allowed a few hours (varying from 90 minutes to four hours) to play an old build of Mass Effect: Andromeda.  I always expect to hear mostly praise for any AAA title at this stage, so I was curious what criticisms would come out of this.  Before I delve into the thirty articles and videos I've looked over, I'll briefly mention my own investment in the franchise along with a few brief thoughts.

I came to Mass Effect quite late, only playing the trilogy in 2015.  I'm a big Dragon Age fan, but for various reasons didn't get around to BioWare's sci-fi entry until then (and with the ending of the series already spoiled).  When I finally played it I had a muted reaction to ME1, loved ME2, and didn't finish ME3.  I'm a big fan of all the borrowing from the underappreciated sci-fi show Babylon 5 (eg) and wondered where BioWare would go with the franchise after so definitively ending the epic storyline at the close of the trilogy.

It's clear that Dragon Age: Inquisition was in part a laboratory for elements in the future Mass Effect game.  In hindsight I think DAI is the weakest chapter of the Dragon Age franchise--despite a great deal of fan service (imitation of Dragon Age: Origins' epic plot, the inclusion of past favourite characters, and so on), along with the decision to imitate Elder Scroll's open world concept.  The developers have acknowledged some of the problems with DAI, particularly in regard to story and character, referencing Witcher 3 as a better model to follow.  More specifically, the tactical mode from DAI is gone, the Elder Scrolls-styled fetch quests are supposedly gone, and there's no direct control of your party members, etc.  No one could call DAI a complete failure however, and elements from it have been borrowed into MEA (the extensive crafting system among other things).

My primary fear for the game was what kind of pseudo-open world would we get--would there be the same lack of narrative drive and character development that plagued DAI?  I'm a story-focused gamer so the mechanics side of things matters much less to me.  I was also concerned that DAI's character creation limitations would carry over.  So what have we learned?

I've looked at thirty articles (or videos) related to the gameplay BioWare demoed and what follows is a representative sample.  Two-thirds (20) of the reviews included some specific criticism and here are the most frequent (acronyms associated with the sites down below):

• Facial Animation problems - 14 (GS, IGN, EG, RPS, VG, RPG, PCW, GR, TR, St, Met, PCG, GI, MEO)
• Cover problems - 7 (IGN, VG, GR, TR, Kot, TeR, KFG)
• Buggy - 5 (GS, IGN, PCW, St, GB)
• Story/characters unremarkable - 5 (CN, GR, Met, PCG, GB)
• Open world too empty - 4 (EG, PCW, GR, TR)
• Combat unremarkable - 3 (CN, GR, TR)
• Unremarkable graphics - 1 (CN)
• The Tempest is unremarkable - 1 (CN)
• Lack of innovation - 1 (GS)

I have fuller notes on their criticisms below for those interested.  Only MEOdyssey's piece included a note that he was informed after the fact that the facial animations have already been worked on and improved from the build he played.

CNet's review is the most hostile, but four other reviewers were generally unimpressed with the overall tenor of the game (PC Gamer's Wes Fenlon's stood out to me as particularly odd as most of what he wants from Mass Effect are things the series hasn't emphasized--it felt like he'd prefer a good version of No Man's Sky rather than an actual ME game).

There are, indeed, some oddities to be found within the reviews--often reflecting the reviewer either missing things or not asking.  Examples (links below): Brad Shoemaker (Giant Bomb) somehow missed hearing the premise of the game and had no idea if you could (or couldn't) control your companions; a couple of reviewers complained about being forced into combat early in the game, but apparently this was something that could be avoided (given what was said in an interview in Metro)--Digital Trends seems to indicate an actual alternative approach, if I'm interpreting it correctly.  These kinds of errors and omissions all seem to be a product of limited time, but it obviously impacts their impressions.

On the positive side most of these issues are being addressed (such as the animations), while the game is undoubtedly being vigorously debugged.  The discussion of the cover system is so all over the place that the criticisms may simply be a matter of it taking time to get used to it (Kotaku's Hayley Williams says as much).  For me the story and character comments are the ones to worry over, albeit they are a significant minority and it's hard to imagine just how much exposure the playtesters could have had (especially for those who played two or less hours).  It's important to note that overall the impression of the game is a positive one.

Here are my original notes that inform the info above (they aren't meant to be comprehensive, just the impressions I was interested in):
GameSpot (Jacob Dekker and Jean-Luc Seipke) - lacks polish; won't have a "wow" factor (ie innovative)
IGN (Alanah Pearce) - buggy; facial animation issues; cover finicky; here she also said it felt like a "bro shooter" (a term I'd never heard, but apparently references Call of Duty and similar games)
Eurogamer (Tom Phillips) - less finesse in areas (terrain) meant to be rushed through; some animation issues
CNet (Sean Hollister and Luke Lancaster) - graphics aren't that remarkable; combat still cover-dependent and largely unchanged; ship too similar to the Normandy; didn't see the kind of character moments they were hoping for
RockPaperShotgun (Holly Nielsen) - facial animation issues
GameSpot (Tamoor Hussain) - some clunkiness in the combat system (switching loadouts [she doesn't seem to realise that the D-pad could be used, as pointed out by Digital Trends])
VG247 (Alex Donaldson) - clunky cover system, facial animation issues
RPGSite (Alex Donaldson) - facial animation
PC World (Hayden Dingman) - buggy; facial animations; not a lot of meaningful content on the planets (compares it to the mindless fetch quests of DAI)
Polygon (Arthur Gies) - general frustration related to limited time with the game
GamesRadar (Matt Elliott and Lucas Sullivan) - facial animations; felt opening mission was flat; the Kett are generic; clunky cover system; some platforming issues; melee combat clunky; emptiness on the planet during travel portions; disliked scanning interrupting dialogue
Trusted Reviews (Brett Phipps) - clunky cover; combat not a strong suit; facial animation; empty terrain
Stuff (Chris Rowlands) - glitchy; facial animations
Metro (David Jenkins) - facial animations; disappointed with the opening mission; concerned about the lack of new aliens shown
PCGamer (Wes Fenlon) - facial animations; guns are lackluster; not impressed by the main story--doesn't like that Ryder is "special" or that the Archon plot exists (seems to only want exploration and hanging out with the crew); admits here that he didn't talk much to the other characters, focusing on combat
Kotaku (Hayley Williams) - cover clunky (but likely something you'll adjust too); notes the dialogue wheel's emotional symbols don't always accurately reflect what Ryder will say; didn't like the interface to pick up enemy loot
Game Informer (Javy Gwaltney) - all positive (mentions facial animations here)
Tech Radar (Stephen Lambrechts) - clunky cover; too many enemy encounters while exploring [seemed unaware of the fast-travel options available]
MEOdyssey - facial animations
Kinda Funny Games (Greg Miller) - finds the new cover system wonky; thought Scott Ryder was too much like Nathan Drake
Giant Bomb (Brad Shoemaker) - buggy; thought the writing was generic; it's apparent he paid no attention to the story premise as he was unable to provide it

Fenix Bazaar (Gaetano Prestia) - expresses some anxiety, but without specific complaints

God is a Geek (Ryan King) - all positive
NZGamer (Keith Milburn) - all positive
Mercury News (Gieson Cacho) - all positive
Digital Trends (Mike Epstein) - all positive
USGamer (Jaz Rignall) - all positive
PCgamesN (Richard Scott-Jones) - minimal content with no real criticism
The Verge (Casey Newton) - vague but positive
Venturebeat (Dean Takahashi) - all positive

A final note: if there are no quarians in the game I'll eat my hat.

This article was written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)