I was cool with ME ending in 3, and Shepards fate, though the specifics of the end were an eye roll, story wise. There was more wrong with Andromeda than franchise fans screaming about a lack of Shepard. Generic tasky repetitive questing and plain oatmeal level companions (imagine Mass Effect 2 with 10 Jacobs). I gamed when gaming was a lot of reading (see Baldurs Gate & Neverwinter Nights), so I don’t complain about graphics, I figure it will sort itself by the next patch and it usually does. Story “punch” and companions matter though, and Andromeda didn’t deliver there. Andromeda was more like Fallout 4 than Mass Effect. It wasn’t new in that sense, and that was the real problem.

Andromeda's gameplay was clearly better than Mass Effect 3. Yes some facial animations were clearly worse, and were since updated, but it didn't actually affect gameplay at any point.

And considering the original end of Mass Effect 3, before they changed it after the backlash, anybody claiming things went downhill in Andromeda are out of their damned mind.

There's a lot I can say about the direction they went with Picard, especially considering the massive difference in the Borg they showed across 2 directly adjacent seasons. Like freaking whiplash.

What we have today masquerading as Star Trek is cheap, low effort garbage that tries to make up for it by wasting its budget on as much off the shelf CGI sparkles that can be thrown at

Strange new worlds is good though. And it's "true trek". You know, with more than 1 character doing all the things. A full diverse crew with diverse skills working together to solve issues and having fun.

After Discovery and Picard, it's really refreshing. And even though it's reusing old characters, it's not in your face constantly the nostalgia.

I generally agree with you, but then there are also situations where massive negativity is warranted.

The Witcher and Halo TV series for instance recently. They both deviated so far from the source material that it was clear the writers wanted to make their own story and couldn't get that approved, so they instead hijacked an existing IP and still tries to write what they wanted anyway.

For viewers that didn't know the source material that would probably be fine, but they decided to go with two very large IPs with very devoted fanbases and a lot of established lore. Interviews with the showrunners for Halo that mentioned the negativity just resulted in answers that showed clear contempt for the fanbase, shifting blame anywhere but with the writers/showrunners, and no actual attempt to understand what they might be complaining about. Or in the case of The Witcher, attempted to shift all blame to the one person the fans loved, and the only person that was keeping many people watching the show, Henry Cavill, trying to smear him personally. A person they were avoiding to cast for over two years before seemingly running out of options. It is my personal theory that this was solely because they knew he was a huge fan of The Witcher, and he would be advocating to make sure it was as accurate as possible, which would be an issue with them doing whatever they wanted with it. Cavill said publicly he was on board for 7 seasons if they kept it accurate to the books, and we clearly saw them make major changes immediately in the first season fundamentally changing main character personalities and core interactions, making it impossible to follow the original storyline well.

There are situations where overwhelming negativity is valid, the issue is that so many times it's overwhelming negativity for small issues blown way out of proportion by fans.