• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

BlueRose

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,389
Agreed.

Reviews shouldn't factor in "roadmaps" or the promise of "QoL changes over time" from the developers. Review the game based on its current state that the developer and publisher agreed to launch.
Like imagine if "potential to get better" was factored into a review. Literally every single game would never score below a 7. How anyone can come to the conclusion that this was a suitable way to review something is beyond me.
Honestly, it's misleading and just brings into question too many variables. There's no guarantee developers will and/or can deliver on promises made with regard to future content and fixes.

Heres a list of some of my recommendations in no particular order.
Andromeda - Superior Anthem - 6.8/10
Burnout Paradise Remastered - One of the best racing games of all time - 8.5/10

Darksiders III - It's 'aight - 6.5/10
Mirrors Edge Catalyst - Mirrors Edge 1 but loses focus and is not as tight - 6.8/10
Tyranny - It feels good to be bad - 8.2/10
Titanfall 2 - Huh, the campaign was actually excellent - 7.8/10, if you're interested in the MP then it goes up to 8.5.
Dragon Age: Inquisition - It's not Dragon Age Origins but I'm not mad - 8/10
Dragon Age 2 - Boring Caves, Excellent Characters, Combat Underrated - 8/10 (I love DA2, sue me)

Torment Tides of Numenera - Wasn't the second coming of our Lord and saviour Planescape Torment, but still 'aight - 7/10
Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons - TotalBiscuits favourite game of all time. - 7.5/10
The Saboteur - Why PapaEA? Why? - 7.8/10
Dragon Age: Origins - Greatest game ever made, fight me nerds - 11/10

That should be a start, I'm sure there's something on there you haven't played before. There are a tonne of great games in the Vault and I've played pretty much all of them if you need more. By the way I'm still not 100% where I fall on Anthem' score as it's changed for me several times, It will be somewhere between 4 and 5 out of 10. I need some more time to digest the experience.
Your list and ratings are absolutely spot on. I've only played the bolded titles, but I'd give them the same scores more or less.
 

ShadowAUS

Member
Feb 20, 2019
2,109
Australia
This is a pretty great list and I pretty much agree spot on with your rankings, titanfall 2 campaign is one of the best FPS campaigns ever
Yeah it is, the only reasons I didn't rate it higher are that 1. "Effects and Cause" really outshine everything else, like, the rest of the campaign is decent to good but it never even tries to reach for the greatness it found in that mission again and 2. I wish it was longer.

Realistically it probably deserves the 8 and it's not fair to judge it on what it isn't rather than what it is, I just wish some of the rest of the levels were more ambitious as I know Respawn has it in them to make a truly masterful, one in a decade FPS campaign with the time and resources. There aren't enough great FPS campaigns.
 
Last edited:

FallenGrace

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,036
A much more positive review has come in from Gaming Trend. 8/10. An interesting read that also calls out some other reviews.

https://gamingtrend.com/feature/rev...ogether-and-a-work-in-progress-anthem-review/
As many people have pointed out about this, that editors note just makes the author come across as a smug prick calling out other reviews as if this is the only one done correctly. Absolutely mention the patch has improved things, list how it now runs, absolutely! That's the state of the game at the time of the review publishing but when the game has a staggered launch and people, paying fans, have access to the full game and it has a huge amount of issues, posting a review in that time is perfectly valid listing the problems.
 

Hey Please

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
22,824
Not America
Just a nice retrospective overview of Andromeda (spoilers included) for folks reminiscing about the past through rose tinted glasses of nostalgia:




Looking at where and when EA pulled the plug on post launch support for Andromeda (hey, at least they made an X enhancement patch), a heavily marketed Bioware game, albeit a non-GAASeous product, it ought to provide some context on which to base expectation of post launch support from Bioware and EA.
 

Jom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,490
As many people have pointed out about this, that editors note just makes the author come across as a smug prick calling out other reviews as if this is the only one done correctly. Absolutely mention the patch has improved things, list how it now runs, absolutely! That's the state of the game at the time of the review publishing but when the game has a staggered launch and people, paying fans, have access to the full game and it has a huge amount of issues, posting a review in that time is perfectly valid listing the problems.
The editors note makes him look like someone wanting to get out of writing about games to making games.
 

ShadowAUS

Member
Feb 20, 2019
2,109
Australia
Just a nice retrospective overview of Andromeda (spoilers included) for folks reminiscing about the past through rose tinted glasses of nostalgia:




Looking at where and when EA pulled the plug on post launch support for Andromeda (hey, at least they made an X enhancement patch), a heavily marketed Bioware game, albeit a non-GAASeous product, it ought to provide some context on which to base expectation of post launch support from Bioware and EA.

Hey! Raycevick, one of my favourite channels, right behind MrBtongue. Also one of my favourite videos of his. As for rose-tinted glasses, I'm currently playing at the moment and enjoying it more than I did at release. I still hate how quick they pulled the life support on that game but I hope (even if naively) that EA does the thing I want for once and supports at least a year of Anthem to see how it pans out with content and fixes.
 

Scuffed

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,896
Why people are so keen about blaming EA anyways? Like 6-7 years, they didn't even bother to put something as basic as a waypoint in their map, and somehow EA was responsible for that?

I agree. I'm the first to go all in on EA because I think they are bad for gaming BUT there are so many horrible design choices in this game you can't blame anyone other than Bioware.
 

FallenGrace

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,036
Just a nice retrospective overview of Andromeda (spoilers included) for folks reminiscing about the past through rose tinted glasses of nostalgia:




Looking at where and when EA pulled the plug on post launch support for Andromeda (hey, at least they made an X enhancement patch), a heavily marketed Bioware game, albeit a non-GAASeous product, it ought to provide some context on which to base expectation of post launch support from Bioware and EA.

I was having a similar talk to a friend earlier regarding that train of thought when they were talking about Anthem support and I asked him if he remembered all the Andromeda DLC we never got. I wanted to see the Quarian ark :(
 

Dan L

Tried to PM someone for a tag
Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,177
Regina, Saskatchewan
That Video is what got me to finally play through Andromeda and I actually really enjoyed it. It has faults to be sure and weakest ME but the environments visuals and action were really good. Way better than anthem IMHO
 

Gamer @ Heart

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,603
That Video is what got me to finally play through Andromeda and I actually really enjoyed it. It has faults to be sure and weakest ME but the environments visuals and action were really good. Way better than anthem IMHO

This is what I always tell people. The combat elevates the game significantly. Combos are extremely satisfying and there are different build options that change how you play that are all fun and viable. That along with some great party members helps cover alot of the games shortcomings.

I didn't expect anthem to basically copy that format and make it worse, but I guess that was to be somewhat expected when trying to balance around 4 players.
 

OtterMatic

Member
Oct 25, 2017
881
Seeing the reviews made me have this conspiracy theory:
EA management saw how bad Anthem is and just green light DA4 and announced it right away.

At the same, I feel like no one can pinpoint the exact problem.
 

HockeyBird

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,591
This is what I always tell people. The combat elevates the game significantly. Combos are extremely satisfying and there are different build options that change how you play that are all fun and viable. That along with some great party members helps cover alot of the games shortcomings.

I didn't expect anthem to basically copy that format and make it worse, but I guess that was to be somewhat expected when trying to balance around 4 players.

Andromeda was one of my favorite game experiences I had last year. Yes, it falls short of the Mass Effect legacy in many ways, especially for a franchise that built itself largely on its characters and worlds. But Andromeda was the closest I got to the feeling of wonderlust I had with the first Mass Effect. As great as ME2 was, it really stripped things down. RPG elements most definitely. Combat and non-combat sections were clearly segmented. Andromeda had a world I wanted to explore. One where I could expect combat at any moment and one where the social areas were not was overly segmented. The game also had some tedious side quests but they weren't as offensive as any other open world game. Witcher 3 probably had the best side quests and even it had some tedium. Now if you attempt to do every quest before moving on then you're definitely going to be get burned out. But if you move on when you're feeling the tedium, you'll have a much better time.
 

HockeyBird

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,591
Just a nice retrospective overview of Andromeda (spoilers included) for folks reminiscing about the past through rose tinted glasses of nostalgia:




Looking at where and when EA pulled the plug on post launch support for Andromeda (hey, at least they made an X enhancement patch), a heavily marketed Bioware game, albeit a non-GAASeous product, it ought to provide some context on which to base expectation of post launch support from Bioware and EA.


I'm not saying EA won't pull support for Anthem but Andromeda was primarily a single player game while Anthem is multi-player and it was built as a continuous live service. Even if Andromeda were super successful, I doubt they had huge expectations from any potential DLC. I've heard developers says single player DLC is more costly and usually get fewer returns. To the point where it might be better to sell DLC as stand alone games/expansions. The ME trilogy DLC probably did well but didn't light the world on fire. Even a successful game like Final Fantasy 15 had single player DLC canceled. Anthem has a higher potential to bring in continuous amounts of money and games like Destiny, Warframe, and the Division have shown that it may worthwhile to continue support even after a rocky start.
 

Heartimecia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
73
A much more positive review has come in from Gaming Trend. 8/10. An interesting read that also calls out some other reviews.

https://gamingtrend.com/feature/rev...ogether-and-a-work-in-progress-anthem-review/

This review feels like it unnecessarily puts down other reviews. It is absolutely not unfair to decide on a score based on what we reviewed before launch day. The day one patch didn't occur in the days we had since we got the code before the launch; it occurred on the launch day. Our embargo was slated to be several days before that, even. Our job is to review a game based on what we got in the days leading up to the embargo. Aside from that, perhaps some reviewers just couldn't push back their reviews to wait for a day one patch (that ultimately wasn't game-changing by any means) due to their schedules, or any number of reasons.

I'm seeing this rising sentiment from people who enjoyed the game where they sort of find some silly reason to push back on the people who don't enjoy it, especially the reviewers. And like, I get it, I get being in the minority--I love Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be imo, but come on. This feels unprofessional and slightly condescending since it is very much not everyone engaging in some "fervor to condemn BioWare." I know plenty of people who reviewed this game and most Specifically reviewed it because they are BioWare fans. I was specifically assigned the game because I'm a BioWare fan. This is silly. Be confident in the score you assign without having to put down other reviews.
 
Last edited:

ShadowAUS

Member
Feb 20, 2019
2,109
Australia
Probably the final review from my inbox as most of the channels I was interested in hearing opinions from have posted, with the 2 exceptions being EZA and gamermd83 (though I don't know if she has any intention of covering it.). This is another review from a severely underrated youtuber and the review I will probably be linking anyone who asks whether they should buy it or not to in the near future. It's very straightforward and to the point, with no hyperbole or exaggeration, just a (relatively) concise, well-written review.
 

Se_7_eN

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,721
There is WAY too much hate going to EA for the poor 6 year development cycle for Anthem...

Our publisher has said what direction they would like to see the game go... NEVER, have they said "Hey, make a bare-bones looter shooter with abysmal endgame content and snooze-worthy weapons."

I think Bioware is going to be getting a little bit of a restructure.
 

shancake

Managing Editor ‑ Press Start
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
485
This review feels like it unnecessarily puts down other reviews. It is absolutely not unfair to decide on a score based on what we reviewed before launch day. The day one patch didn't occur in the days we had since we got the code before the launch; it occurred on the launch day. Our embargo was slated to be several days before that, even. Our job is to review a game based on what we got in the days leading up to the embargo. Aside from that, perhaps some reviewers just couldn't push back their reviews to wait for a day one patch (that ultimately wasn't game-changing by any means) due to their schedules, or any number of reasons.

I'm seeing this rising sentiment from people who enjoyed the game where they sort of find some silly reason to push back on the people who don't enjoy it, especially the reviewers. And like, I get it, I get being in the minority--I love Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be imo, but come on. This feels unprofessional and slightly condescending since it is very much not everyone engaging in some "fervor to condemn BioWare." I know plenty of people who reviewed this game and most Specifically reviewed it because they are BioWare fans. I was specifically assigned the game because I'm a BioWare fan. This is silly. Be confident in the score you assign without having to put down other reviews.

I actually disagree with this to some extent. I don't think it's wrong to have reviewed the game earlier than when the day one patch came out, but it was actually out two full days before launch (five days after outlets go review codes). Given a game like Anthem is going to exist as a GAAS for 2-3 years, it does seem a little harsh reviewing pre day one patch, given that Bioware had said from the get-go that there would be a significant day one patch. I personally wouldn't feel good about a review being up before launch, when the game has already changed quite dramatically.

You're right in saying that the patch wasn't game changing to the actual content, so if that's the reason you were pinning the game fair enough, but if it was for load times or disconnections, then it does feel wrong to pin a game for that full-well knowing that a day one patch was on the way (two days before launch).
 

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
I actually disagree with this to some extent. I don't think it's wrong to have reviewed the game earlier than when the day one patch came out, but it was actually out two full days before launch (five days after outlets go review codes). Given a game like Anthem is going to exist as a GAAS for 2-3 years, it does seem a little harsh reviewing pre day one patch, given that Bioware had said from the get-go that there would be a significant day one patch.

You're right in saying that the patch wasn't game changing to the actual content, so if that's the reason you were pinging the game fair enough, but if it was for load times or disconnections, then it does feel wrong to pin a game for that full-well knowing that a day one patch was on the way (two days before launch).

Of the 49 reviews on Open Critic, 8 scored reviews came before the Day One patch on the 20th. The rest came after, starting on the 21st. He wrote an entire thing about 16 percent of reviews.

It's a dodge and has little to do with the actual situation. So let's not try to say the argument has merit.

EDIT: If anything, my post Day One experience was worse. I was actually free of major crashes and significant connection issues prior to then.
 

Heartimecia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
73
I actually disagree with this to some extent. I don't think it's wrong to have reviewed the game earlier than when the day one patch came out, but it was actually out two full days before launch (five days after outlets go review codes). Given a game like Anthem is going to exist as a GAAS for 2-3 years, it does seem a little harsh reviewing pre day one patch, given that Bioware had said from the get-go that there would be a significant day one patch.

You're right in saying that the patch wasn't game changing to the actual content, so if that's the reason you were pinging the game fair enough, but if it was for load times or disconnections, then it does feel wrong to pin a game for that full-well knowing that a day one patch was on the way (two days before launch).

Unfortunately, the patch helped mitigate some issues but the load times and disconnections are still issues a lot of friends of mine are experiencing, both friends who reviewed the game and are just playing it. Regardless, I do think this point could've been made gracefully (as you did) without the unnecessary condescension toward the rest of us in the press.

And like Mike said, all but 8 scored reviews came after the day one patch. Mine did, and I wrote it up the night before on the 22nd. So.
 

shancake

Managing Editor ‑ Press Start
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
485
Of the 49 reviews on Open Critic, 8 scored reviews came before the Day One patch on the 20th. The rest came after. He wrote an entire thing about 16 percent of reviews.

It's a dodge and has little to do with the actual situation. So let's not try to say the argument has merit.

I haven't read that review, and absolutely don't think there's any merit in a game review commenting on other outlet's reviews.

I was speaking to the fact that this specific poster said that it was fine to rush a review knowing full-well that a major patch was coming.
 

Jobbs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,639
That Video is what got me to finally play through Andromeda and I actually really enjoyed it. It has faults to be sure and weakest ME but the environments visuals and action were really good. Way better than anthem IMHO

Andromeda is sort of okay. If it weren't called Mass Effect or perhaps came out a few years earlier I think people would have been pretty happy
 

Deleted member 46948

Account closed at user request
Banned
Aug 22, 2018
8,852
I actually disagree with this to some extent. I don't think it's wrong to have reviewed the game earlier than when the day one patch came out, but it was actually out two full days before launch (five days after outlets go review codes). Given a game like Anthem is going to exist as a GAAS for 2-3 years, it does seem a little harsh reviewing pre day one patch, given that Bioware had said from the get-go that there would be a significant day one patch. I personally wouldn't feel good about a review being up before launch, when the game has already changed quite dramatically.

You're right in saying that the patch wasn't game changing to the actual content, so if that's the reason you were pinning the game fair enough, but if it was for load times or disconnections, then it does feel wrong to pin a game for that full-well knowing that a day one patch was on the way (two days before launch).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the launch was on 15th, when the Premier subscribers were given "access to the full game" (per EA's words).
This narrative about day 1 patch is baffling.
 

Heartimecia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
73
I haven't read that review, and absolutely don't think there's any merit in a game review commenting on other outlet's reviews.

I was speaking to the fact that this specific poster said that it was fine to rush a review knowing full-well that a major patch was coming.

I never said this but okay. Anyway. The argument has very little merit and is a baffling one to make, especially with condescension added to it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
Probably the final review from my inbox as most of the channels I was interested in hearing opinions from have posted, with the 2 exceptions being EZA and gamermd83 (though I don't know if she has any intention of covering it.). This is another review from a severely underrated youtuber and the review I will probably be linking anyone who asks whether they should buy it or not to in the near future. It's very straightforward and to the point, with no hyperbole or exaggeration, just a (relatively) concise, well-written review.

very well-made review video.
 

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the launch was on 15th, when the Premier subscribers were given "access to the full game" (per EA's words).
This narrative about day 1 patch is baffling.
They occasionally, when they send over review code, will let us know "X or Y isn't available in-game, and is coming on a patch available on or near launch day". Off the top of my head, Spider-Man had a patch that was a few days after the review embargo, but what we got prior was treated as the final product and what most reviewed.

That said, I can't remember a game before that with a major patch that wasn't available ahead of time. Online-enabled games are always in a state of flux, but generally we receive those games when the average user does: Fallout 76, FF14: Stormblood, and WoW: Battle for Azeroth stick out here for me as launch day codes. In Anthem's case, we received the PC version when it went live for Premier members, as you noted.

And again, my post-Day One patch experience was actually worse. I'm not sure it would've significantly changed my score, as my impressions weren't amazingly positive, but there you go.
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the launch was on 15th, when the Premier subscribers were given "access to the full game" (per EA's words).
This narrative about day 1 patch is baffling.
This. It was a day 8 patch, not a day 1 patch. And it was clear no patch was changing anything about this game this early.
 

Darkstorne

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,825
England
I regret subbing to Origin Premiere. Is there anything else worth playing? I already have a month of it, might as well give everything a shot.
Lots of people made game suggestions already, but I feel it's worth noting that all the vault games don't require Premier. You get them with the basic version of Origin Access too for £20 per year. Premier just means you get new games on day one too, like Anthem. Those games hit the vault a number of months later when even a basic sub allows you to play them like you own them. It's a much better value proposition imo.
 

kurahador

Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,565
I regret subbing to Origin Premiere. Is there anything else worth playing? I already have a month of it, might as well give everything a shot.
Titanfall 2 campaign as it's amazing, Battlefront 2 campaign if you want some Star Wars story, Apex Legends as you get extra coins, Unravel as it's short and sweet.
 

Green Yoshi

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,597
Cologne (Germany)
The anger in the last few pages is honestly disturbing.
giphy.gif
 

golem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,878
Just a nice retrospective overview of Andromeda (spoilers included) for folks reminiscing about the past through rose tinted glasses of nostalgia:

The last line about how Bioware making Andromeda was in essence running from its past makes me wonder if the main studio was just sick of making Mass Effect games and that's why ME3 ended in a hard cut and MEA and Anthem happened the way they did.
 

Decarb

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,643
I regret subbing to Origin Premiere. Is there anything else worth playing? I already have a month of it, might as well give everything a shot.

Play Titanfall 2 and be amazed at the amount of creativity and mission variety you can cram into a 5 hour campaign of a fucking FPS. Its the opposite of 'stand here and defend the area for 10 minutes' and 'collect and bring orbs to open this gate' stretched over 15-20 hours.
 

shimon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,581
Haha, what fucking nonsense. The sad mental gymnastics people go through to let Bioware off the hook are literally laughable. It's EA's fault that Bioware chose not to include a stats screen? It's EA's fault the story is dull? That the combat is unresponsive? Well fuck me I guess EA was the developer. That's leaving aside that Bioware haven't developed a good RPG in quite some time or that they previously made a fucking MMO.
Yup. EA knows jack shit about game development/bad design decisions. All they care about is money. They give money, work on advertising the game, tell devs to somehow implement MTX and use Frostbite bc it doesn't cost them extra money.
EA doesn't write the story and dialogues. EA doesn't know that NOT putting a stats screen in a game like this is ridiculous. EA doesn't design boring combat encounters. EA doesn't design very mediocre loot in a looter shooter.That's all on Bioware. With the exception of loading screens, those may be an engine limitation issue but I'm not a dev so I don't know if it could've been avoided with more dev work. And if it could than shame on Bioware. Unless EA at some point just cut the money cord and said: "We don't care, game's coming out before the end of FY and we want it to sell 5-6 mil by the end of March".

I hope they mean March next year
Nope.
 

SleepSmasher

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,094
Australia
Haha, what fucking nonsense. The sad mental gymnastics people go through to let Bioware off the hook are literally laughable. It's EA's fault that Bioware chose not to include a stats screen? It's EA's fault the story is dull? That the combat is unresponsive? Well fuck me I guess EA was the developer. That's leaving aside that Bioware haven't developed a good RPG in quite some time or that they previously made a fucking MMO.
The combat isn't unresponsive at all.
 

LeonLeon

Banned
Aug 7, 2018
53
Chile
How can anyone blame EA for this?
Six years in the making, thats almost Blizzard levels of patience.

I just cant believe people are still defending Bioware.
 

Br3wnor

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,982
How can anyone blame EA for this?
Six years in the making, thats almost Blizzard levels of patience.

I just cant believe people are still defending Bioware.

They're a truly beloved studio. It's sad to see a once awesome studio fall like they have. Makes sense that people still want to give them the benefit of the doubt but it's clear that they're not the same studio anymore.

Was there anyone near the top of the company who left in the past 5ish years? Hard to explain their fall from grace without having lost key personnel.

Andromeda is sort of okay. If it weren't called Mass Effect or perhaps came out a few years earlier I think people would have been pretty happy

Yeah, Andromeda wasn't a great game but it did not deserve the absolute drubbing it received from the general gaming community. Best combat in the ME series and some good environments and characters in an obviously rushed package. If it wasn't Mass Effect it would probably score in the 70's range but since there were such high expectations it let a lot of people down. It was a harbinger of things to come though regarding Bioware's ability as a studio.
 
Last edited:

CampFreddie

A King's Landing
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,957
The combat isn't unresponsive at all.
It's very unresponsive.
Lots of abilities have janky charge-up times. Lots of attacks stagger you and don't have a clear visual/audio clue to show you are staggered. Switching weapons or just alternating between weapon and ability use feels slow and laggy.
I'm constantly wondering if the game has registered a button-press or if I need to keep mashing it.
Flight even feels off, since the reliance on L3 and R3 (stick-pushes) for fly/hover makes it difficult to be precise.

It feels like an RPG combat system, rather than an action-game combat system. Like I'm requesting that a character perform an action (or queuing one up for execution) rather than doing it myself.

I think I preferred the combat in ME:A.
 

Baccus

Banned
Dec 4, 2018
5,307
How can anyone blame EA for this?
Six years in the making, thats almost Blizzard levels of patience.

I just cant believe people are still defending Bioware.
We're blaminng EA because the GaaS focus obviously comes from them. They took a rugby team and made them play football. No amount of time could compensate the lack of fundamental capabilities.
 

Sabretooth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,067
India
How can anyone blame EA for this?
Six years in the making, thats almost Blizzard levels of patience.

I just cant believe people are still defending Bioware.
To be entirely fair, shit happens. It's possible the development took that long because of EA (for eg. EA demanding changes and revisions). We don't really know.

As such, given that EA is the publisher and especially that BioWare is wholly owned by EA, it is EA's responsibility to put out a quality product, even assuming it was BioWare that fucked up.
 

Deleted member 2254

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,467
EA definitely needed Apex Legends' surprise success not to drag them too far down this fiscal year. No way this game is gonna perform based on their expectations, and even if that were the case, this could be a bait and switch scenario in which not that many players come back even if the game becomes "ideal" after 6-12 months given how the early impression is now inevitably blown and there'll be a lot of new, probably better games in the very same genre (see The Division 2 next month, new Destiny 2 content down the line and a possible 3rd installment, Borderlands 3 eventually, etc.). Siege had quite a resurgence, but that's a PvP game, so it's a bit different.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,579
The funny thing is that Anthem has the same Metacritic as Metal Gear Survive now. And before someone says that the Anthem reviews can't be legit then, no, MGS is a flawed game with great combat mechanics and was only 40$...it is also fun for what it is and the whole MTX-thing was completely overblown. I've spent 150 hours with that game and never felt the urge to purchase their currency.
 

TsuWave

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,996
Of the 49 reviews on Open Critic, 8 scored reviews came before the Day One patch on the 20th. The rest came after, starting on the 21st. He wrote an entire thing about 16 percent of reviews.

It's a dodge and has little to do with the actual situation. So let's not try to say the argument has merit.

EDIT: If anything, my post Day One experience was worse. I was actually free of major crashes and significant connection issues prior to then.

Why aren't you verified breh? I like your reviews