idk i didn't have a problem with sam. edi in me1 and me2 defiantly had less of a personality than in me3 so there is hope he will progress and grow if they continue the series. i also felt like sam shouldn't have TOO much of an distinctive personality because some people might end up not liking them when that would be literally the worst thing because sam is stuck with you.
I think it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
I definitely feel Bioware’s pain with personalities. Any time they take a risk and make a character that’s “unlikeable” the fandom rages (see reactions to Sera & Vivienne as a recent example). But avoiding it also causes problems - at least to me. Because SAM’s personality is so undefined, the other characters treat him like a tool instead of a comrade. Which would be fine if he was a VI interface but the game explicitly says that he’s an AI. There’s a side quest that attempts to develop SAM and Ryder’s relationship, but it falls flat because Ryder (again) just treats SAM like a useful tool. In the narrative SAM functions like a higher-powered version of SIRI. Which I wouldn’t have a problem with if that’s all he were supposed to be, but the game tells us that he isn’t.
And with regards to the original trilogy - I think the lack of development for EDI and Legion mirrored how the games handled organic/synthetic conflicts. In ME1 synthetics are strictly in the enemy territory, with little moral gray room. It isn’t until the second game when Shepard (and we as players) start to see the potential in synthetics as more than just monsters and as beings capable of complex thoughts and feelings. That’s also when we are introduced to more sympathetic AI characters. This isn’t the case in Andromeda because SAM is introduced and widely accepted right out of the gate.