The entire Mass Effect trilogy is full of busted, hilarious janky animations including on the face. And animation bugs, particularly during dialogue. I really, truly don't feel this animates any worse at all.
That being said, I do feel some parts aesthetically could do with some work, namely the skin shader. I actually really adore how faces/skin look in DICE's games, like Battlefield 1 and Battlefront. People look very convincing there. With Andromeda it's like they're missing a subtle subsurface scattering shader or something to soften the faces and give fleshy a more...fleshy tone.
But that could also be a product of the varied lighting. Inquisition had a similar issue. I don't agree with the notion that Inquisition had bad faces; most of your crew looked fantastic. Solus in particular looked excellent and clearly had a subtle subsurface scattering going on all over his face. Under different lighting conditions though a lot of these impressive shaders would fall apart, and I kinda chalk that up to Frostbite. Even Battlefield 1 and Battlefront can look oddly drab at times.
I also feel the technical/artistic deficiencies are highlighted by advancements made technically in engine. Unreal Engine 3 is extremely limited compared to the real time algorithms of Frostbite 3, and in some ways had the advantage of baking a lot of effects, resulting in scenarios and assets that were highly hand tailored and unlikely to be "seen" outside of very specific lighting/shading context. With Andromeda you're dealing with a far more advanced lighting system and higher quality assets that puts weaker aspects into comparison, like hair. Plastic looking hair in the trilogy isn't a big deal since a lot of stuff looks plasticky and limited, but here it's up against a lighting/shadow engine that makes it really stand out.