I’m so tired of review rubbish like this. “Experts” who haven’t finished the game or make virtually no effort to distinguish between some piece of the game they just don’t like vs something that is actually wrong with the game. They then baptize their personal tastes in a few trite comparisons to a handful of “safe harbor” games and call it a day.

For example, the problem with ME:A apparently is that it’s too big, and therefore has lost focus on engaging quests. If only it were more like, um, Skyrim – that’s safe – it would have been better. Its suggestion like this that make me wonder if I occupy the same space-time as the reviewer.

Don’t get me wrong, I played 200+ hours of Skyrim and enjoyed much of it. But, the suggestion that is avoids fetch quests in a way that makes the majority of its vast open world content engaging -- in a way that ME:A doesn’t -- is just absurd. Huge sections of the guild quest lines, for example, had content that was procedurally generated. How many times in unlocking a city for the Thieves guild did I have to do x instances of a “numbers” jobs where you literally step and fetch your way through machine generated content to achieve the objective. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if the people who complain about these “fetch” quests “space bar” through all the initial context setting conversations, and then complain about how they don’t “feel” heroic. Its fine, just admit, you don’t personally enjoy this type of content. Its not your taste. There’s really nothing Bioware could have done to change that. ME 1 – 3 were filled with all kinds of this small, side content. Collecting dog tags for the fallen dead at the crash site of the Normandy SR-1 isn’t necessarily epic/heroic. As an RPG fan, I got it. If you’ve ever been a solider or known one, you immediately understand how that helps tell a story and contributes to your understanding of the values and concerns of that character.

I submit to you that the vast majority of the side-quests in ME:A are similar to the example above. They aptly address the types of issues you would expect to emerge as the Pathfinder role the games sets up for you. Maybe not all of them appeal to you, but if that’s the case, skip them and move on. It has become increasingly common among professional reviewers to find some aspect of any game they just don’t like, and make that the reason the game is objectively bad. You talk to a doctor struggling to save the life of a guy in a horribly undersupplied clinic. He begs you for help. You have the chance to do it. If engaging in this kind of suspension of disbelief, and taking on a roll isn’t fun for you, then maybe just disclose you’re not a fan of the RPG genre in your review of the game and move on.

Don’t get me wrong. ME:A has things that are objectively bad, and I think Bioware would admit that. The animations need work, way too many bugs, and places where the writing is clunky. But if the reviewer community is going to be the vanguard of accountability for quality and professionalism for game producers, I’m unclear why they get a pass.