Mass Effect was the game of the year... adds to Gamespot inferior reviews...

Mass Effect deserves an 8.5, and I say that as a huge ME fan. It was a fantastic game, but its various technical issues and glitches are more than enough to warrant an 8.5 score. My problem is the other scores in relation to Mass Effect. As far as I'm concerned, ME is a far better game than Assassin's Creed or Bioshock, and The Witcher has worse stability issues than ME does. But somehow all those games scored as high or higher than ME. Despite the fact AC is unbelievably repetitive, despite the fact Bioshock is clearly inferior to System Shock 2 and despite the fact that The Witcher has worse technical issues. PBSnipes

I know only two technical issues in The Witcher: long loading times (fixed after patch 1.2) and crashes in the early versions of the game (fixed with newer patches)... In fact Mass Effect had far more technical issues then TW... Mass Effect was good game but it absolutely doesn't deserves for GOTY and even doesn't deserves for the Best RPG (in fact TW was a better RPG)...

A) But you can't quote to me one more point that's bad. Let's say that I do agree that the Reaper plot isn't great. Does that mean that the rest of the game isn't great? No. The backstory is incredible. You're also not considering the variations to science fiction that it presents, such as humanity not being the center of the galaxy. Very few games have as much backstory as Mass Effect... just go ask any character in your squad or otherwise and you'll learn something about Mass Effect's truly massive universe.darthzew

I CAN quote you more points. In fact, read my post immediately above yours, where I answer why I think ME's story is crap. There are more points for you to try and refute. If I had to have a single main point, it would be that the plot itself is disjointed, with no good reason for anything happening the way that they did. There can be no more damning condemnation of a story than to be unbelievable, and that's exactly what ME's story is.

Additionally, backstory is NOTHING. There are plenty of games with as much if not more backstory. What it does with that backstory is what's important. I think Mass Effect has one of the better scifi settings made for a movie, TV show, or video game. It's better than Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5. But its story? Absolutely not.

B) If it was broken, then yes, it's horrible. The only truly bad part was the Mako driving sequences and even those, after you get used to them (like really cold water in a pool), don't seem so bad. But no, the shooting elements were fine and I had a lot of fun with them. Numerous posters OTHER than me have repeated my praises for Mass Effect that it's gameplay isn't bad, but good.darthzew

As I said, it's a matter of personal tolerance.

Gameplay design doesn't go beyond skindeep. It's there. That's the point of the game, story is actually deeper than gameplay. A game MUST have gameplay for it to succeed in any shape or form. That's WHY it's the most important principle in a game. But it's what goes beyond that that really defines the game. Your question: "why should anything else be considered?" is foolish at best. You missed the point where I previously said that not everyone plays just for gameplay. Games are a form of art and art comes in many different forms. Add to that, art can be appreciated in many different ways.darthzew

First, no, games are not art. Games are the furthest thing from art right now, but that's something to be discussed somewhere else.

Second, it appears you're more guilty of misjudging games than I am.

As you say, games aspire to be art, and even though they are not even close to being art yet, if they are to be judged by artistic criteria, then they must be able to be appreciated in many different ways. However, YOU are apparently appreciating ALL games by the same set of criteria (that's the impression you give by attempting to judge SMG by the same criteria as Mass Effect).

I attacked Mass Effect for being immature because it's lacking in its primary focus: its story. Mass Effect's story is disjointed, lacking any kind of emotional resonance, and simply makes no sense once all the pieces are put together. Also, Mass Effect glorifies the action-movie cliches that have plagued video games for the last ten years, and does so unapologetically. And on top of all that, Mass Effect strips away any semblance of gameplay depth, and focuses on straight shooting and bare-bones squad tactics.

On the other hand, I praised Super Mario Galaxy for being a mature game because it excels at its primary focus: its gameplay design. It doesn't need anything else because it was never meant to have anything else. Not having a story doesn't minimize the greatness of its gameplay, nor does it preclude it from being a greater game than another game (Mass Effect) that uses more to achieve less.

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"][QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"][QUOTE="colmusterd28"]

[QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"]it got what it deserved ;)DragonfireXZ95

no it didn't.... It was clearly better than Assassins Creed and on par if not better than Bioshock (for different reasons) I don't believe you played the game...

i agree with you on assassins creed. that game was garbage.

but mass effect seemed like a high AA game to me. not enough polish and far too many technical issues.

the game deserved a 9.0 score....it was far better than assassins creed...not to mention it had lots of replayability. The storyline itself was more epic than any other game that came out this year.

The Witcher begs to differ.

don't compare those two games.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.TMontana1004

Same here, though I've only been playing games for 20 years, Mass Effect was one of the best and most SATISFYING games I have ever played, it's certainly right up there with the best.

Shame fanboys who haven't even played it are missing out. I almost want Mass Effect to go multi-plat just to shut them up.

I think you're the fanboy who can't see the truth.

Mass Effect is a second rate game with great CINEMATIC production values. Everything else about it stunk. The shooting gameplay was slow and felt weak, the magic system consisted of only a dozen magic spells (Baldur's Gate II had THREE HUNDRED), the story was predictable and poorly thought out, the conversation system was no better than KotOR's, the main character's voice acting consisted of short, single lines with no real substance, and the game teemed with technical issues (not just framerate, but also animation issues).

***SPOILERS***

-

The story was NOT predictale. So I guess you knew what the Citadel, Conduit, Protheans, Reapers, the beacons, Sovereign, and what Saren's reason for siding with the geth from the beginning were, right?

Once I knew that that the Reapers were the true enemy, everything fell into place pretty quickly. It's a generic scifi story that has been done in one form or another hundreds of times before.

Hell, look up the game Star Control 3. The storyline is practically identical.

darthzew

a) I'm not dodging anything. The Reaper plot was lazy and contrived. The writers don't give the slightest hint that the Reapers have a purpose other than total annihilation, and a simplistic theme that has been done to death in other, better works does not redeem creative apathy. I'm sure they'll come up with something for the next game, but apart from that one question that persists unanswered throughout the entire game, there's nothing foreshadowed or hinted in ME that could be carried over to ME2 at all, which would make any kind of "revelation" in ME2 pointless and empty, like most sequels to poorly written stories.

b) Actually, yes, Mass Effect's gameplay IS bad enough to be considered horrible. Numerous posters OTHER than me have repeated our complaints about Mass Effect, while ME supporters like yourself can only ever cite its "presentation" and "cinematic feel." The extent to which they affect the total experience can be chalked up to each individual's personal tolerance for flaws, but they ARE flaws nevertheless.

As for your question, once more, I HAVEN'T dodged it. I've answered it: gameplay design. You're the one dodging points of discussion by rejecting them outright for no good reason. You said yourself gameplay should be the most important factor in determining the quality of a game. Why should anything else be considered, especially when the developers make no pretenses at all about delivering a well-developed storyline or roller-coaster thrills?

A) But you can't quote to me one more point that's bad. Let's say that I do agree that the Reaper plot isn't great. Does that mean that the rest of the game isn't great? No. The backstory is incredible. You're also not considering the variations to science fiction that it presents, such as humanity not being the center of the galaxy. Very few games have as much backstory as Mass Effect... just go ask any character in your squad or otherwise and you'll learn something about Mass Effect's truly massive universe.

B) If it was broken, then yes, it's horrible. The only truly bad part was the Mako driving sequences and even those, after you get used to them (like really cold water in a pool), don't seem so bad. But no, the shooting elements were fine and I had a lot of fun with them. Numerous posters OTHER than me have repeated my praises for Mass Effect that it's gameplay isn't bad, but good.

Gameplay design doesn't go beyond skindeep. It's there. That's the point of the game, story is actually deeper than gameplay. A game MUST have gameplay for it to succeed in any shape or form. That's WHY it's the most important principle in a game. But it's what goes beyond that that really defines the game. Your question: "why should anything else be considered?" is foolish at best. You missed the point where I previously said that not everyone plays just for gameplay. Games are a form of art and art comes in many different forms. Add to that, art can be appreciated in many different ways.

I'm gonna jump on your back, because it hurts my soul to hear Mass Effect spoken about in such a derogatory manner. Everyone holds games like Oblivion and KotoR above the rest of the RPG pack, and yet they both have many of MEs issues, and more.

Oblivion's story is about as barebones as you can get (you must defeat evil guys who have amulet and thus the power to destroy the world), and if you don't do anything but play the main quest, you can easily beat said game in about the same time as it takes to beat Mass Effect's main quest. Like Mass Effect, Oblivion was about exploration of the world Bethesda created, so if you didn't explore, you can't really say you got everything out of the game. In terms of tech issues, Oblivion had so many that it's not even worth arguing about; in this area it more than equals ME. I would even argue that the combat in Oblivion isn't as interesting or as well done as that in ME (and keep in mind that Oblivion is one of my favorite games ever).

Now we come to KotoR, ME's spiritual predecessor. The game was technically deficient in many ways(uninspiring graphics, sometimes crummy framerates, loads of repeated dialog clips), but its still universally respected. Why? Because the sum of its parts is greater than those parts by themselves. KotoR is another game that I love to death, but Mass Effect has improved on many of the things in that game. The conversation in ME is not only better than KotoR (which did a pretty good job), but it's actually really well done; I've never played a game that comes close in terms of mimicking actual conversations between living, breathing people. The graphics in Mass Effect are fantastic; whether or not you like the unreal engine, and even if you factor in graphical issues, the game will still take your breath away at certain points, and the facial models are just...well, unreal. The combat system in ME is more challenging (you can't pause and issue commands for 3 people any time you want), and whether or not you prefer it, it's an interesting change of pace. ME's story may not be the greatest ever (although I find it interesting), but honestly, neither was KotoR's. It was an interesting game, and the plot twist at the end was similarly interesting, but the story wasn't particularly groundbreaking, so I'm not sure why people are dumping on ME like it's such a step backwards.

Thanks for the info jangojay. I appreciate it :)

TMontana1004

Np, I know how these discussions can get and I've done that a few times myself.

[QUOTE="darthzew"]A) But you can't quote to me one more point that's bad. Let's say that I do agree that the Reaper plot isn't great. Does that mean that the rest of the game isn't great? No. The backstory is incredible. You're also not considering the variations to science fiction that it presents, such as humanity not being the center of the galaxy. Very few games have as much backstory as Mass Effect... just go ask any character in your squad or otherwise and you'll learn something about Mass Effect's truly massive universe.mjarantilla

I CAN quote you more points. In fact, read my post immediately above yours, where I answer why I think ME's story is crap. There are more points for you to try and refute. If I had to have a single main point, it would be that the plot itself is disjointed, with no good reason for anything happening the way that they did. There can be no more damning condemnation of a story than to be unbelievable, and that's exactly what ME's story is.

Additionally, backstory is NOTHING. There are plenty of games with as much if not more backstory. What it does with that backstory is what's important. I think Mass Effect has one of the better scifi settings made for a movie, TV show, or video game. It's better than Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5. But its story? Absolutely not.

B) If it was broken, then yes, it's horrible. The only truly bad part was the Mako driving sequences and even those, after you get used to them (like really cold water in a pool), don't seem so bad. But no, the shooting elements were fine and I had a lot of fun with them. Numerous posters OTHER than me have repeated my praises for Mass Effect that it's gameplay isn't bad, but good.darthzew

As I said, it's a matter of personal tolerance.

Gameplay design doesn't go beyond skindeep. It's there. That's the point of the game, story is actually deeper than gameplay. A game MUST have gameplay for it to succeed in any shape or form. That's WHY it's the most important principle in a game. But it's what goes beyond that that really defines the game. Your question: "why should anything else be considered?" is foolish at best. You missed the point where I previously said that not everyone plays just for gameplay. Games are a form of art and art comes in many different forms. Add to that, art can be appreciated in many different ways.darthzew

First, no, games are not art. Games are the furthest thing from art right now, but that's something to be discussed somewhere else.

Second, it appears you're more guilty of misjudging games than I am.

As you say, games aspire to be art, and even though they are not even close to being art yet, if they are to be judged by artistic criteria, then they must be able to be appreciated in many different ways. However, YOU are apparently appreciating ALL games by the same set of criteria (that's the impression you give by attempting to judge SMG by the same criteria as Mass Effect).

I attacked Mass Effect for being immature because it's lacking in its primary focus: its story. Mass Effect's story is disjointed, lacking any kind of emotional resonance, and simply makes no sense once all the pieces are put together. Also, Mass Effect glorifies the action-movie cliches that have plagued video games for the last ten years, and does so unapologetically. And on top of all that, Mass Effect strips away any semblance of gameplay depth, and focuses on straight shooting and bare-bones squad tactics.

On the other hand, I praised Super Mario Galaxy for being a mature game because it excels at its primary focus: its gameplay design. It doesn't need anything else because it was never meant to have anything else. Not having a story doesn't minimize the greatness of its gameplay, nor does it preclude it from being a greater game than another game (Mass Effect) that uses more to achieve less.

wow, what you said right there proves the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about...

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

First, there is absolutely no good reason for the Reapers to be doing what they were doing. Hell, there's no reason for Sovereign to be doing what it was doing. At least, none that the writers gave any hints for (and that IS part of their job, not ours). Since this is the basis of the entire plot, leaving it hanging without even a slight hint or speculation leaves us with an incomplete story with no foundation.

Second, the entire story structure of the game mimics that of KotOR by having you assemble a galactic puzzle by going to different planets to retrieve the different puzzle pieces (literally). HOWEVER, it lacks what KotOR had: character motivation. In KotOR, the final twist of the game turns the entire story on its head, as well as your relationship with each of the characters. That is a full story: plot events affecting character relationships. In Mass Effect, nothing happens to affect your relationships, other than dialogue choices that have nothing to do with the story itself. As a result, Mass Effect feels empty.

There doesn't appear to be any real reason for the Thorian's existence or for the Rachni's existence other than to provide you with their respective puzzle pieces. They are just arbitrary events that take place because you need a reason to go oafter Saren. Only on Artemis Tau does Mass Effect's emotional resonance approaches that of more complete stories like KotOR and BGII.

Bgrngod

The lack of explanation for the Reaper's motivations is intentionally left unexplained. The mystery surrounding them is the explanation. They just don't know why, but the story deals with the "how" and "what" aspects of the Reaper's actions, not the"why". The sequels will probably get into this more.

The Sovereign's actions are explained in the game. I don't want to explain it here because of *spoilers* and all, but that is explained in the game.

Character Motivation? Saving all life in the galaxy is not enough motivation for the main character to continue on?

a) "The lack of explanation for the Reaper's motivations is intentionally left unexplained." What a worthless cop-out. Even the most cryptic storylines have to have a seed of substance with which to hook the audience for the next installment. It's one thing to be mysterious. It's quite another to leave the story COMPLETELY ABSENT OF ANY KIND OF EXPLANATION.

b) "The Sovereign's actions are explained in the game." Actually, no. His actions are given the same kind of "We know what he's doing, we just don't know exactly why" treatment that the Reapers' motivations are.

c) "Saving all life in the galaxy is not enough motivation for the main character to continue on?" No, it's not. Not for a GOOD story, anyway. If altruism were the only motivator any fictional hero had, stories would become very boring very fast.

[QUOTE="flowdee79"]Exactly what was wrong with ME's story? Not great but not as bad as you make out eithermjarantilla

First, there is absolutely no good reason for the Reapers to be doing what they were doing. Hell, there's no reason for Sovereign to be doing what it was doing. At least, none that the writers gave any hints for (and that IS part of their job, not ours). Since this is the basis of the entire plot, leaving it hanging without even a slight hint or speculation leaves us with an incomplete story with no foundation.

Second, the entire story structure of the game mimics that of KotOR by having you assemble a galactic puzzle by going to different planets to retrieve the different puzzle pieces (literally). HOWEVER, it lacks what KotOR had: character motivation. In KotOR, the final twist of the game turns the entire story on its head, as well as your relationship with each of the characters. That is a full story: plot events affecting character relationships. In Mass Effect, nothing happens to affect your relationships, other than dialogue choices that have nothing to do with the story itself. As a result, Mass Effect feels empty.

There doesn't appear to be any real reason for the Thorian's existence or for the Rachni's existence other than to provide you with their respective puzzle pieces. They are just arbitrary events that take place because you need a reason to go oafter Saren. Only on Artemis Tau does Mass Effect's emotional resonance approaches that of more complete stories like KotOR and BGII.

All RPGs (hell virtually every game) follow a similar timeline. You travel to a new area, learn something new, travel to another area, lather, rinse, repeat. Mario does it. Halo does it. Diablo does it. Final Fantasy does it. Hell Forza and Gran Turismo do it. Movies and books do it. Its a basic story element to keep the game fresh. You can also significantly affect relationships with your teammates, and throughout the course of the game you will see them fall under your influence. The best example of this is Garrus, whose personality significantly changes depending on your conversations. You don't get the plot twist of KotOR, but if you did people would complain about ME being too much of a KotOR clone.

The Rachni and Thorian are part of the puzzle to explain how Sovereign (and therefore Saren) are able to corrupt so many people (especially those like Matriarch Benezia). Its not as clear as it should be (I don't fully understand the motivations) but I do know that the Rachni and Thorian's psychic abilities were key to Sovereign's indoctrination.

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.shadow_hosi

top 3 or 4? wow, you must not play many games

starcraft

the witcher

crysis

half life

halflife 2

CiV 2-4

Cod 1,2,and 4

theres so many games far surpassing ME

lets not forget SMG and zelda OoT

crysis wasn't that good. just very pretty.

I'm gonna jump on your back, because it hurts my soul to hear Mass Effect spoken about in such a derogatory manner. Everyone holds games like Oblivion and KotoR above the rest of the RPG pack, and yet they both have many of MEs issues, and more.SeanBond

Oh God, do NOT bring up Oblivion with me. I have an even lower opinion of that game than I do of Mass Effect. For different reasons, naturally, but let's just say that after Oblivion, I have absolutely no confidence in Fallout 3.

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

First, there is absolutely no good reason for the Reapers to be doing what they were doing. Hell, there's no reason for Sovereign to be doing what it was doing. At least, none that the writers gave any hints for (and that IS part of their job, not ours). Since this is the basis of the entire plot, leaving it hanging without even a slight hint or speculation leaves us with an incomplete story with no foundation.

Second, the entire story structure of the game mimics that of KotOR by having you assemble a galactic puzzle by going to different planets to retrieve the different puzzle pieces (literally). HOWEVER, it lacks what KotOR had: character motivation. In KotOR, the final twist of the game turns the entire story on its head, as well as your relationship with each of the characters. That is a full story: plot events affecting character relationships. In Mass Effect, nothing happens to affect your relationships, other than dialogue choices that have nothing to do with the story itself. As a result, Mass Effect feels empty.

There doesn't appear to be any real reason for the Thorian's existence or for the Rachni's existence other than to provide you with their respective puzzle pieces. They are just arbitrary events that take place because you need a reason to go oafter Saren. Only on Artemis Tau does Mass Effect's emotional resonance approaches that of more complete stories like KotOR and BGII.

mjarantilla

The lack of explanation for the Reaper's motivations is intentionally left unexplained. The mystery surrounding them is the explanation. They just don't know why, but the story deals with the "how" and "what" aspects of the Reaper's actions, not the"why". The sequels will probably get into this more.

The Sovereign's actions are explained in the game. I don't want to explain it here because of *spoilers* and all, but that is explained in the game.

Character Motivation? Saving all life in the galaxy is not enough motivation for the main character to continue on?

a) "The lack of explanation for the Reaper's motivations is intentionally left unexplained." What a worthless cop-out. Even the most cryptic storylines have to have a seed of substance with which to hook the audience for the next installment. It's one thing to be mysterious. It's quite another to leave the story COMPLETELY ABSENT OF ANY KIND OF EXPLANATION.

b) "The Sovereign's actions are explained in the game." Actually, no. His actions are given the same kind of "We know what he's doing, we just don't know exactly why" treatment that the Reapers' motivations are.

c) "Saving all life in the galaxy is not enough motivation for the main character to continue on?" No, it's not. Not for a GOOD story, anyway. If altruism were the only motivator any fictional hero had, stories would become very boring very fast.

what about the fellowship of the ring? especially the book. it just ended... great book but it just ended. that's how the first installment is supposed to be... shepard saved the citadel and now he's off to kill the rest... kinda like aragon killing the guy who killed boromir and it endid with "lets hunt some orc"

[QUOTE="SeanBond"]I'm gonna jump on your back, because it hurts my soul to hear Mass Effect spoken about in such a derogatory manner. Everyone holds games like Oblivion and KotoR above the rest of the RPG pack, and yet they both have many of MEs issues, and more.mjarantilla

Oh God, do NOT bring up Oblivion with me. I have an even lower opinion of that game than I do of Mass Effect. For different reasons, naturally, but let's just say that after Oblivion, I have absolutely no confidence in Fallout 3.

Oblivion was great RPG....but If you liked Morrowind than you probably wouldn't be to keen on it (I loved morrowind so i was alittle upset that they left some of the things that made Morrowind special out of the game)

I am starting to come up with the conclusion that you simply don't like RPGs

[QUOTE="TMontana1004"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.mjarantilla

Same here, though I've only been playing games for 20 years, Mass Effect was one of the best and most SATISFYING games I have ever played, it's certainly right up there with the best.

Shame fanboys who haven't even played it are missing out. I almost want Mass Effect to go multi-plat just to shut them up.

I think you're the fanboy who can't see the truth.

Mass Effect is a second rate game with great CINEMATIC production values. Everything else about it stunk. The shooting gameplay was slow and felt weak, the magic system consisted of only a dozen magic spells (Baldur's Gate II had THREE HUNDRED), the story was predictable and poorly thought out, the conversation system was no better than KotOR's, the main character's voice acting consisted of short, single lines with no real substance, and the game teemed with technical issues (not just framerate, but also animation issues).

***SPOILERS***

-

The story was NOT predictale. So I guess you knew what the Citadel, Conduit, Protheans, Reapers, the beacons, Sovereign, and what Saren's reason for siding with the geth from the beginning were, right?

Once I knew that that the Reapers were the true enemy, everything fell into place pretty quickly. It's a generic scifi story that has been done in one form or another hundreds of times before.

Hell, look up the game Star Control 3. The storyline is practically identical.

***SPOILERS***

-

We didn't know that for sure until Sovereign actually told us on Virmire. That is whenthe story is starting to climax.

The Reapers motivation is somewhat explained. During the course of the game several characters say something along the lines of "they are so advanced we couldn't possibly understand their reasons". This isn't a cop-out, but a story element to a) add an element of mystery to the Reapers (who invented them, what are their motivations etc.) and b) continue the story across the trilogy. As others have said, you don't wrap up the entire story and motivations of all the characters in the first installment.PBSnipes

Yes, it is a cop-out. There are ways to add mystery to an ancient, unknowable enemy while still giving an idea as to their purpose.

All RPGs (hell virtually every game) follow a similar timeline. You travel to a new area, learn something new, travel to another area, lather, rinse, repeat. Mario does it. Halo does it. Diablo does it. Final Fantasy does it. Hell Forza and Gran Turismo do it. Movies and books do it. Its a basic story element to keep the game fresh. You can also significantly affect relationships with your teammates, and throughout the course of the game you will see them fall under your influence. The best example of this is Garrus, whose personality significantly changes depending on your conversations. You don't get the plot twist of KotOR, but if you did people would complain about ME being too much of a KotOR clone.PBSnipes

Except that those changes occur INDEPENDENT of the story, and that's what makes the story a bad story. As I said, it's a disjointed story. Things happen with no connection to one another.

[QUOTE="darthzew"]A) But you can't quote to me one more point that's bad. Let's say that I do agree that the Reaper plot isn't great. Does that mean that the rest of the game isn't great? No. The backstory is incredible. You're also not considering the variations to science fiction that it presents, such as humanity not being the center of the galaxy. Very few games have as much backstory as Mass Effect... just go ask any character in your squad or otherwise and you'll learn something about Mass Effect's truly massive universe.mjarantilla

I CAN quote you more points. In fact, read my post immediately above yours, where I answer why I think ME's story is crap. There are more points for you to try and refute. If I had to have a single main point, it would be that the plot itself is disjointed, with no good reason for anything happening the way that they did. There can be no more damning condemnation of a story than to be unbelievable, and that's exactly what ME's story is.

Additionally, backstory is NOTHING. There are plenty of games with as much if not more backstory. What it does with that backstory is what's important. I think Mass Effect has one of the better scifi settings made for a movie, TV show, or video game. It's better than Star Trek, Star Wars, and Babylon 5. But its story? Absolutely not.

B) If it was broken, then yes, it's horrible. The only truly bad part was the Mako driving sequences and even those, after you get used to them (like really cold water in a pool), don't seem so bad. But no, the shooting elements were fine and I had a lot of fun with them. Numerous posters OTHER than me have repeated my praises for Mass Effect that it's gameplay isn't bad, but good.darthzew

As I said, it's a matter of personal tolerance.

Gameplay design doesn't go beyond skindeep. It's there. That's the point of the game, story is actually deeper than gameplay. A game MUST have gameplay for it to succeed in any shape or form. That's WHY it's the most important principle in a game. But it's what goes beyond that that really defines the game. Your question: "why should anything else be considered?" is foolish at best. You missed the point where I previously said that not everyone plays just for gameplay. Games are a form of art and art comes in many different forms. Add to that, art can be appreciated in many different ways.darthzew

First, no, games are not art. Games are the furthest thing from art right now, but that's something to be discussed somewhere else.

Second, it appears you're more guilty of misjudging games than I am.

As you say, games aspire to be art, and even though they are not even close to being art yet, if they are to be judged by artistic criteria, then they must be able to be appreciated in many different ways. However, YOU are apparently appreciating ALL games by the same set of criteria (that's the impression you give by attempting to judge SMG by the same criteria as Mass Effect).

I attacked Mass Effect for being immature because it's lacking in its primary focus: its story. Mass Effect's story is disjointed, lacking any kind of emotional resonance, and simply makes no sense once all the pieces are put together. Also, Mass Effect glorifies the action-movie cliches that have plagued video games for the last ten years, and does so unapologetically. And on top of all that, Mass Effect strips away any semblance of gameplay depth, and focuses on straight shooting and bare-bones squad tactics.

On the other hand, I praised Super Mario Galaxy for being a mature game because it excels at its primary focus: its gameplay design. It doesn't need anything else because it was never meant to have anything else. Not having a story doesn't minimize the greatness of its gameplay, nor does it preclude it from being a greater game than another game (Mass Effect) that uses more to achieve less.

Mass Effect's story's most condeming factor is unbelievability. You're joking right? Tell me you don't watch sci-fi to get a believable story out of it. It's ridiculous, just like the rest of sci-fi. But what is believable the characters. They're all great and feel like real people in the way they interact with you. In fact, they almost feel human especially with their detailed and lifelike facial animations.

I'm going to quote a conflict of interest here. Just because you didn't like a story, doesn't make it any less great. For instance, I don't like Starcraft: I hate it. I could argue all day as to why I don't like it. But that doesn't mean it isn't a great game.

Point B:

1. Be as that may be, art is viewed differently by everyone else. Which means the things you may or may not be considered art may or may not be considered art by others.

2. What do you mean Mass Effect is lacking in emotional resonance? I'm sorry, but even haters of Mass Effect would have to disagree. Even more than KotOR, I was convicted by what I chose to do. Was I doing the right thing? The voice acting and, again, the facial animations really added drama to the situations and made me consider what I was doing. I really got the feel that what I did or said would have an impact on the galaxy as a whole.

Mass Effect was not made to be a shooter. I cannot emphasize that anymore. It is a hybrid RPG-shooter. It is meant to be played close to KotOR's style of pausing, assessing, and issuing orders to your squad. It adds something of a twist to that with its realtime shooting elements. I like that twist.

I think your definition of "mature" and its application to games needs to be revised. You may apply it differently, but when everyone else uses the term "mature", we don't refer to the quality of that game but rather its content (sex, violence, languange, or the lack thereof), a game is considered kiddy or immature when it is overly cartoony. That's why your points of maturity and immaturity are being held to mockery.

First, no, games are not art. Games are the furthest thing from art right now, but that's something to be discussed somewhere else.

Second, it appears you're more guilty of misjudging games than I am.

As you say, games aspire to be art, and even though they are not even close to being art yet, if they are to be judged by artistic criteria, then they must be able to be appreciated in many different ways. However, YOU are apparently appreciating ALL games by the same set of criteria (that's the impression you give by attempting to judge SMG by the same criteria as Mass Effect).

I attacked Mass Effect for being immature because it's lacking in its primary focus: its story. Mass Effect's story is disjointed, lacking any kind of emotional resonance, and simply makes no sense once all the pieces are put together. Also, Mass Effect glorifies the action-movie cliches that have plagued video games for the last ten years, and does so unapologetically. And on top of all that, Mass Effect strips away any semblance of gameplay depth, and focuses on straight shooting and bare-bones squad tactics.

On the other hand, I praised Super Mario Galaxy for being a mature game because it excels at its primary focus: its gameplay design. It doesn't need anything else because it was never meant to have anything else. Not having a story doesn't minimize the greatness of its gameplay, nor does it preclude it from being a greater game than another game (Mass Effect) that uses more to achieve less.

mjarantilla

I completely disagree about games not being art; that most of them would simply qualify as "bad" art doesn't necessarily mean that they're not art at all. But I digress.

In terms of the debate between SMG and ME being mature...I guess what I'd ask is this: Which game takes more risks? Sure, SMG has great gameplay; it uses the tried-and-true style of gameplay that Mario 64 revolutionized, and throws a spin in it, by playing around with the ideas of gravity and perspective. On the other hand, it's still the same basic game, and makes no pretense of being different. In fact, I'm clearly in the minority on this, but I found the Wii controls tacked on ("oh, I can shake the controller to spin attack? do I want to? well, at least I can aim my throws using the remote...oh wait, Mario automatically throws in the direction he's facing..."), and to me they did very little to show me why this game was on the Wii, and not the Gamecube or the Xbox 360. Super Mario Galaxy is a great game, but I think it would've been close to as good a game on Nintendo's last system, which in my mind, makes it something of a failure.

On the other hand, Bioware took a formula that's a proven hitmaker (the KotoR formula), and completely changed the system of combat, threw in a new emphasis on spacial exploration (more definitely could've been done with it, but it's there at least), and basically took their old conversation system, and built it from the ground up. I'd argue that the point of Mass Effect isn't the story, but how you fit into the story; that's why the conversation system is built around morality and your skills as a conversationalist. Yes, everyone reaches the end of the game to a similar result, but the path there can be extremely different for everyone.

And that is what sticks out most, in my mind. I was playing through SMG, and each time I chose a new star to go after, I was annoyed to find a new blastoff point at the beginning of the level, sending me directly to a new area. Instead of trying to search for the area in which said star was waiting (like in Mario 64), I allowed the game to hold my hand, and show me exactly where I needed to go, to find the star. To me, part of the fun in getting stars is in finding where they're hidden, and Mario Galaxy took this from me. Mass Effect, on the other hand, allows me to go where I want, and say what I want, and whether I say or do the right things is up to me. That ambiguity is what makes the game feel more "mature" to me.

Wow... what a finish... Mass Effect delivered the goods on every conciveable level and ended with an amazing interactive cinematic of sheer genious, never jumping the shark, but concentrated on superior story telling. All in all the game was very easily in the 9's as far as score was concerned. I gave it a 10 because frame rate issues pale in comparrison to the greatness of this game.

The one thing that jaded my thoughts a bit durring the ending though, It kept running through my head how terribly off the review on Gamespot was... Even if you don't enjoy rpg's it's worth playing through this game just so you can see how off the mark gamespot was on this game... It makes you wonder if they even played it at all....

colmusterd28

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="TMontana1004"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.TMontana1004

Same here, though I've only been playing games for 20 years, Mass Effect was one of the best and most SATISFYING games I have ever played, it's certainly right up there with the best.

Shame fanboys who haven't even played it are missing out. I almost want Mass Effect to go multi-plat just to shut them up.

I think you're the fanboy who can't see the truth.

Mass Effect is a second rate game with great CINEMATIC production values. Everything else about it stunk. The shooting gameplay was slow and felt weak, the magic system consisted of only a dozen magic spells (Baldur's Gate II had THREE HUNDRED), the story was predictable and poorly thought out, the conversation system was no better than KotOR's, the main character's voice acting consisted of short, single lines with no real substance, and the game teemed with technical issues (not just framerate, but also animation issues).

***SPOILERS***

-

The story was NOT predictale. So I guess you knew what the Citadel, Conduit, Protheans, Reapers, the beacons, Sovereign, and what Saren's reason for siding with the geth from the beginning were, right?

Once I knew that that the Reapers were the true enemy, everything fell into place pretty quickly. It's a generic scifi story that has been done in one form or another hundreds of times before.

Hell, look up the game Star Control 3. The storyline is practically identical.

***SPOILERS***

-

We didn't know that for sure until Sovereign actually told us on Virmire. That is whenthe story is starting to climax.

What are you talking about? The Reapers were revealed at the beginning after the very first planet.

[QUOTE="shadow_hosi"]

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.jlh47

top 3 or 4? wow, you must not play many games

starcraft

the witcher

crysis

half life

halflife 2

CiV 2-4

Cod 1,2,and 4

theres so many games far surpassing ME

lets not forget SMG and zelda OoT

crysis wasn't that good. just very pretty.

You probably never played it.

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="shadow_hosi"]

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.jangojay

top 3 or 4? wow, you must not play many games

starcraft

the witcher

crysis

half life

halflife 2

CiV 2-4

Cod 1,2,and 4

theres so many games far surpassing ME

lets not forget SMG and zelda OoT

crysis wasn't that good. just very pretty.

You probably never played it.

I haven't played it because it would make my computer cry

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Mass Effect deserves an 8.5, and I say that as a huge ME fan. It was a fantastic game, but its various technical issues and glitches are more than enough to warrant an 8.5 score. My problem is the other scores in relation to Mass Effect. As far as I'm concerned, ME is a far better game than Assassin's Creed or Bioshock, and The Witcher has worse stability issues than ME does. But somehow all those games scored as high or higher than ME. Despite the fact AC is unbelievably repetitive, despite the fact Bioshock is clearly inferior to System Shock 2 and despite the fact that The Witcher has worse technical issues. herezjarchus

I know only two technical issues in The Witcher: long loading times (fixed after patch 1.2) and crashes in the early versions of the game (fixed with newer patches)... In fact Mass Effect had far more technical issues then TW... Mass Effect was good game but it absolutely doesn't deserves for GOTY and even doesn't deserves for the Best RPG (in fact TW was a better RPG)...

Mass Effect's story's most condeming factor is unbelievability. You're joking right? Tell me you don't watch sci-fi to get a believable story out of it. It's ridiculous, just like the rest of sci-fi. But what is believable the characters. They're all great and feel like real people in the way they interact with you. In fact, they almost feel human especially with their detailed and lifelike facial animations.darthzew

Now you're confusing context with storytelling. Scifi stories can be believable. As long as it follows its own internal, unspoken rules, it can be believable. What stories can't be, whether scifi or not, is non-sensical, and that's what Mass Effect's story is.

I'm going to quote a conflict of interest here. Just because you didn't like a story, doesn't make it any less great. For instance, I don't like Starcraft: I hate it. I could argue all day as to why I don't like it. But that doesn't mean it isn't a great game.darthzew

That would be true only if I couldn't identify specific and tangible flaws in Mass Effect's story. But I can and I have.

2. What do you mean Mass Effect is lacking in emotional resonance? I'm sorry, but even haters of Mass Effect would have to disagree. Even more than KotOR, I was convicted by what I chose to do. Was I doing the right thing? The voice acting and, again, the facial animations really added drama to the situations and made me consider what I was doing. I really got the feel that what I did or said would have an impact on the galaxy as a whole.darthzew

What I mean is that the main character has no place in the story. He acts, but has no apparent reason for acting. His history has almost no effect on his relationships. In previous BioWare games, the main character ALWAYS had a motivation for what he was doing, whether you were the Bhaalspawn in the BG series or Revan in KotOR (haven't played Jade Empire). In Mass Effect, that doesn't exist. The Council could've sent a completely different Spectre to chase down Saren, and the outcome would've been exactly the same. The main character didn't change at all from beginning to end.

Mass Effect was not made to be a shooter. I cannot emphasize that anymore. It is a hybrid RPG-shooter. It is meant to be played close to KotOR's style of pausing, assessing, and issuing orders to your squad. It adds something of a twist to that with its realtime shooting elements. I like that twist.darthzew

I'm not judging it by comparing it to other shooters, I'm judging it for what it is, and its shooting mechanics simply suck. Just because a game isn't made to be a shooter doesn't mean the shooting gameplay, if implemented, should be tedious and unresponsive.

I think your definition of "mature" and its application to games needs to be revised. You may apply it differently, but when everyone else uses the term "mature", we don't refer to the quality of that game but rather its content (sex, violence, languange, or the lack thereof), a game is considered kiddy or immature when it is overly cartoony. That's why your points of maturity and immaturity are being held to mockery.darthzew

My points of maturity and immaturity are being held to mockery because certain posters couldn't comprehend other people having a different idea of what should be considered mature and immature. It was the very idea of games being judged mature or immature for their content, and positive or negative connotations of quality being applied to a game because of those judgments, that I was challenging when I declared Mario Galaxy "mature" and Mass Effect "immature."

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="shadow_hosi"]

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.jangojay

top 3 or 4? wow, you must not play many games

starcraft

the witcher

crysis

half life

halflife 2

CiV 2-4

Cod 1,2,and 4

theres so many games far surpassing ME

lets not forget SMG and zelda OoT

crysis wasn't that good. just very pretty.

You probably never played it.

it was good but far cry for the pc was much better. crysis was definitely prettier, but gameplay is where it counts...

8.5

because that's what you would do if a cow said something like this about a TRULY botched review like ratchet and clank:FTOD

[QUOTE="darthzew"]Mass Effect's story's most condeming factor is unbelievability. You're joking right? Tell me you don't watch sci-fi to get a believable story out of it. It's ridiculous, just like the rest of sci-fi. But what is believable the characters. They're all great and feel like real people in the way they interact with you. In fact, they almost feel human especially with their detailed and lifelike facial animations.mjarantilla

Now you're confusing context with storytelling. Scifi stories can be believable. As long as it follows its own internal, unspoken rules, it can be believable. What stories can't be, whether scifi or not, is non-sensical, and that's what Mass Effect's story is.

I'm going to quote a conflict of interest here. Just because you didn't like a story, doesn't make it any less great. For instance, I don't like Starcraft: I hate it. I could argue all day as to why I don't like it. But that doesn't mean it isn't a great game.darthzew

That would be true only if I couldn't identify specific and tangible flaws in Mass Effect's story. But I can and I have.

2. What do you mean Mass Effect is lacking in emotional resonance? I'm sorry, but even haters of Mass Effect would have to disagree. Even more than KotOR, I was convicted by what I chose to do. Was I doing the right thing? The voice acting and, again, the facial animations really added drama to the situations and made me consider what I was doing. I really got the feel that what I did or said would have an impact on the galaxy as a whole.darthzew

What I mean is that the main character has no place in the story. He acts, but has no apparent reason for acting. His history has almost no effect on his relationships. In previous BioWare games, the main character ALWAYS had a motivation for what he was doing, whether you were the Bhaalspawn in the BG series or Revan in KotOR (haven't played Jade Empire). In Mass Effect, that doesn't exist. The Council could've sent a completely different Spectre to chase down Saren, and the outcome would've been exactly the same. The main character didn't change at all from beginning to end.

Mass Effect was not made to be a shooter. I cannot emphasize that anymore. It is a hybrid RPG-shooter. It is meant to be played close to KotOR's style of pausing, assessing, and issuing orders to your squad. It adds something of a twist to that with its realtime shooting elements. I like that twist.darthzew

I'm not judging it by comparing it to other shooters, I'm judging it for what it is, and its shooting mechanics simply suck. Just because a game isn't made to be a shooter doesn't mean the shooting gameplay should be tedious and unresponsive.

I think your definition of "mature" and its application to games needs to be revised. You may apply it differently, but when everyone else uses the term "mature", we don't refer to the quality of that game but rather its content (sex, violence, languange, or the lack thereof), a game is considered kiddy or immature when it is overly cartoony. That's why your points of maturity and immaturity are being held to mockery.darthzew

My points of maturity and immaturity are being held to mockery because certain posters couldn't comprehend other people having a different idea of what should be considered mature and immature. It was the very idea of games being judged mature or immature for their content, and positive or negative connotations of quality being applied to a game because of those judgments, that I was challenging when I declared Mario Galaxy "mature" and Mass Effect "immature."

Before I start again, I want you to know that I'm enjoying this discussion.

What you see as flaws in Mass Effect are either seen as good things by others or simply not even a problem. For instance, the Reapers. Most of us here like the mystery behind them and as I said, it's a direct allegory to God, which is pretty cool how philosophical that is. I don't like where the idea behind it is going (that humanity can stop God), but that's just because of my own religious beliefs.

On your points about Shepard:

Yes, he does change. He becomes a Spectre, remember? He gains fame and becomes the greatest hero in the galaxy. A main character in an RPG generally won't have much character development because he's you. As said by someone else, Mass Effect is more about how YOU fit into this universe.

As for Shepard's reasons to act... dude, no. You're just flat-out wrong here. After college and the ROTC program, I'm joining the Marines. Why? Because I want to act to make this world better. I feel compelled to fight for a better world, and I know that in the Marines I can make a difference. Shepard's motivation is his duty. He has his orders and he'll do them.

The Council sent Shephard for political reasons. Humanity had pushed them over the edge. They had brought proof that Saren was a bad guy and the Council's ignorance could have meant bad things for them if they had persisted. They gave in to humanity and let them go. Notice that the Council really didn't care all that much about Saren or what he was doing? Shepard was little more than just the Council giving the humans what they wanted. They gave Shepard the Saren because they didn't consider it all that important and because they wanted to appease humanity.

On maturity: you can't change established definitions of words and not expect confusion. That's foolhardy. That's almost like saying that you're view of how long a meter is is different than everyone else's.

a) "The lack of explanation for the Reaper's motivations is intentionally left unexplained." What a worthless cop-out. Even the most cryptic storylines have to have a seed of substance with which to hook the audience for the next installment. It's one thing to be mysterious. It's quite another to leave the story COMPLETELY ABSENT OF ANY KIND OF EXPLANATION.

b) "The Sovereign's actions are explained in the game." Actually, no. His actions are given the same kind of "We know what he's doing, we just don't know exactly why" treatment that the Reapers' motivations are.

c) "Saving all life in the galaxy is not enough motivation for the main character to continue on?" No, it's not. Not for a GOOD story, anyway. If altruism were the only motivator any fictional hero had, stories would become very boring very fast.

mjarantilla

Did you manage to skip all of the story cutscenes and such? Because a lot of this stuff is indeed adressed in game, regardless of you having ignored it, or rejected it because you didn't like it. It's all there, just pay attention the next time you play it.

[QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"]it got what it deserved ;)colmusterd28

no it didn't.... It was clearly better than Assassins Creed and on par if not better than Bioshock (for different reasons) I don't believe you played the game...

it was great

it was fun

it was epic

but after playing through it, I agree with the score. I let the hype fever get to me too much.

[QUOTE="Vortec33"]I am mostly Hermit right now, but I have no doube ME is one of the top 3 or 4 games I have played in 25 years of gaming.shadow_hosi

top 3 or 4? wow, you must not play many games

starcraft

the witcher

crysis

half life

halflife 2

CiV 2-4

Cod 1,2,and 4

theres so many games far surpassing ME

lets not forget SMG and zelda OoT

Starcraft

Half Life 2

Ocarina of Time

Mass Effect

No specific Order, but you can easily see how that could be someone's top 4. It's mine.

[QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"]it got what it deserved ;)colmusterd28

no it didn't.... It was clearly better than Assassins Creed and on par if not better than Bioshock (for different reasons) I don't believe you played the game...

It was clearly better then Assassians Creed. However, Assassian's Creed didn't deserve more then an 8, so at 8.5, Mass Effect is fine.

What you see as flaws in Mass Effect are either seen as good things by others or simply not even a problem. For instance, the Reapers. Most of us here like the mystery behind them and as I said, it's a direct allegory to God, which is pretty cool how philosophical that is. I don't like where the idea behind it is going (that humanity can stop God), but that's just because of my own religious beliefs.darthzew

I understand that. It's completely possible to enjoy Mass Effect's story on a superficial level, and I don't begrudge people for doing so, but there's a difference between enjoying something and praising it for being something it's not.

On your points about Shepard:

Yes, he does change. He becomes a Spectre, remember? He gains fame and becomes the greatest hero in the galaxy. A main character in an RPG generally won't have much character development because he's you. As said by someone else, Mass Effect is more about how YOU fit into this universe.darthzew

Incorrect. A simple glance at BioWare's previous RPGs will prove wrong the idea that main character's can't have much character development.

Also, the main character in an RPG is NOT me. And he's NOT you. His reactions are pre-scripted, same as every other video game character, which means he already has a pre-determined personality (or rather, several pre-determined personalities) which the developers have given him. BioWare seems to have taken the easy route in this respect, because with a few exceptions, the main character's responses in ME to conversation prompts are inappropriately over-the-top and extreme.

As for Shepard's reasons to act... dude, no. You're just flat-out wrong here. After college and the ROTC program, I'm joining the Marines. Why? Because I want to act to make this world better. I feel compelled to fight for a better world, and I know that in the Marines I can make a difference. Shepard's motivation is his duty. He has his orders and he'll do them.darthzew

I know and understand that motivation, but I am certain there is more to your desire to join the Marines than that, because I nearly joined ROTC and the military myself for nearly the same compulsion as what you describe. However, years of self-examination later revealed my underlying personal reasons for wanting to join, and also for NOT wanting to join.

It's NEVER "that simple," and that's simply because we're real people who are affected by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of different stimuli throughout our lives, often in ways we can't predict or detect. It's the storyteller's job to duplicate that complexity of interaction in the story, and that's where Mass Effect fails with Shepard.

The Council sent Shephard for political reasons. Humanity had pushed them over the edge. They had brought proof that Saren was a bad guy and the Council's ignorance could have meant bad things for them if they had persisted. They gave in to humanity and let them go. Notice that the Council really didn't care all that much about Saren or what he was doing? Shepard was little more than just the Council giving the humans what they wanted. They gave Shepard the Saren because they didn't consider it all that important and because they wanted to appease humanity.darthzew

My point is that it didn't have to be Shepard at all. As you said, he was sent for purely political reasons. It's not even clearly established why Shepard is such a great Spectre, anyway. I mean, compared to Saren, he's nothing. Saren is a galactic business mogul (or so it's implied by his corporate influence on Noveria) with connections on practically every world, and not just because he's a Spectre. Hell, the Council could have sent anyone, and as long as he were competent enough, the story would've turned out exactly the same.

Again, look at KotOR. Could anyone else but Revan have accomplished what he did in KotOR? No, because KotOR was ABOUT Revan. Same with Baldur's Gate. Could anyone else but the Bhaalspawn have taken his place in that story? Nope. In those previous BioWare games, the character was inextricably linked to the story, even though the character was still a completely user-created entity in both cases. Even more importantly, in both KotOR and BG, you had a personal stake in the defeat of the enemy (Malak, Irenicus, or Sarevok), because you knew that the protagonist's (and thus your own) destiny was closely linked to that of the antagonist. That is not the case in Mass Effect, where the only apparent link between Saren and Shepard is a remote encounter on a single world that Shepard takes personally for no apparent reason.

On maturity: you can't change established definitions of words and not expect confusion. That's foolhardy. That's almost like saying that you're view of how long a meter is is different than everyone else's.darthzew

Except it never was the established definition in the first place. It's the most obvious definition, but look around once in a while. This topic of what makes games mature or immature is a recurring theme in many threads here in System Wars. And, amazingly enough, I'm not always involved.

Did you manage to skip all of the story cutscenes and such? Because a lot of this stuff is indeed adressed in game, regardless of you having ignored it, or rejected it because you didn't like it. It's all there, just pay attention the next time you play it.

Bgrngod

I skipped nothing. And no, these were NEVER addressed. They were only ever acknowledged as continuing mysteries, and left at that. They were never explained, not even partially for the sake of foreshadowing.

im really loving mass effect so far. so i kinda agree

though part of me still views cod4 as the years best game

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

Did you manage to skip all of the story cutscenes and such? Because a lot of this stuff is indeed adressed in game, regardless of you having ignored it, or rejected it because you didn't like it. It's all there, just pay attention the next time you play it.

mjarantilla

I skipped nothing. And no, these were NEVER addressed. They were only ever acknowledged as continuing mysteries, and left at that. They were never explained, not even partially for the sake of foreshadowing.

I'm telling you, you missed it. I managed to pick up a lot of the story elements you are questioning without any problems. The only real mystery is the Reaper's origins/motivations. Go play it again and come back to this thread when you have figured it out.

[QUOTE="colmusterd28"]

thanks for your addition to our thread... I know great games when I play one... ME is a great game by any logical standard...

the_h_bomb

I'm sure your buddies in high school we're impressed with the aliens and the "risque" content but those of us who know a thing or two about RPGs and have played good Bioware games tend to think differently.

lol if you read that statement outloud you realize how sad it is

UnknownSniper65

What''s sad is lemmings going on about a flop KOTOR ripoff with technical issues

1. Im 29... I was gaming back when both of you were still craping in your hands and rubbing it on your face...

2. I don't claim to be an RPG deciple but I know a great game when I see one...

3. KOTOR is my all time favorite game and yes it had a lot of bad technical issues (non of which took away from the experience) sound familiar...?

4. Stop acting like an elitest because your mom and dad bought you a nice rig after you prmised to mow the lawn for a month...

You CANNOT say a game objectively deserves a given score, reviews are just opinions. And in the opinion of Gamespot editors Mass Effect deserves an 8.5/10. There are also more things wrong with the game than just performance issues. The cover system is shoddy, the vehicles sequences are frustrating(to some) and the menus are combersome in comparison to other RPGS. espoac

agreed but in context to what games are out at a given time Mass Effect is a 9.5 at least... Story, graphics, gameplay, exploration...

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

Did you manage to skip all of the story cutscenes and such? Because a lot of this stuff is indeed adressed in game, regardless of you having ignored it, or rejected it because you didn't like it. It's all there, just pay attention the next time you play it.

Bgrngod

I skipped nothing. And no, these were NEVER addressed. They were only ever acknowledged as continuing mysteries, and left at that. They were never explained, not even partially for the sake of foreshadowing.

I'm telling you, you missed it. I managed to pick up a lot of the story elements you are questioning without any problems. The only real mystery is the Reaper's origins/motivations. Go play it again and come back to this thread when you have figured it out.

:roll:

What exactly do you think I'm talking about? I AM talking about the Reapers' origins/motivations.

I completely disregarded anything GS had to say regarding Mass Effect the instant I read the completely false statement in the review which said the Mako's turret couldn't move up and down.Verge_6

It's not false, just misinterpreted. The Mako turret couldn't tilt down all the way, so that sometimes you were aiming at something but were actually firing above its head. It was only a problem in close-in situations, but the problem lay in the fact that BioWare allowed you to target something with the reticle that you couldn't hit anyway. The way they should've made it was that the reticle would not continue to move down once the turret couldn't move down, either.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]I completely disregarded anything GS had to say regarding Mass Effect the instant I read the completely false statement in the review which said the Mako's turret couldn't move up and down.mjarantilla

It's not false, just misinterpreted. The Mako turret couldn't tilt down all the way, so that sometimes you were aiming at something but were actually firing above its head. It was only a problem in close-in situations, but the problem lay in the fact that BioWare allowed you to target something with the reticle that you couldn't hit anyway. The way they should've made it was that the reticle would not continue to move down once the turret couldn't move down, either.

The statement that you have to be completely level with your target to kill it when you don't have to isn't a lie, but a 'misinterpretation'? :|

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]I completely disregarded anything GS had to say regarding Mass Effect the instant I read the completely false statement in the review which said the Mako's turret couldn't move up and down.Verge_6

It's not false, just misinterpreted. The Mako turret couldn't tilt down all the way, so that sometimes you were aiming at something but were actually firing above its head. It was only a problem in close-in situations, but the problem lay in the fact that BioWare allowed you to target something with the reticle that you couldn't hit anyway. The way they should've made it was that the reticle would not continue to move down once the turret couldn't move down, either.

The statement that you have to be completely level with your target to kill it when you don't have to isn't a lie, but a 'misinterpretation'? :|

Not "completely level," but close to it. There were times when it was pretty hard to judge exactly how low you could aim with the Mako turret. That's one of the reasons I hated the driving levels so much, and a severe oversight that I believe fully justifies GS's review score of only 8.5, or perhaps even lower.

SERIOUSLY just get over it.

HEY guys, i thih;kg THAt UCNHarted DESERves AAA GAOTY to cause it WAS roPBBOBED.

The 360 is turning games into movies, and gamers don't seem to be realizing it.

mjarantilla

And this is the 360's fault? And this is the end of the world?

I mean, firstly, what is the 360 doing to cause this trend? Are you just talking about Microsoft first-party games? I didn't know that Halo 3 and Forza 2 had world-beating graphics. Are you mad about the gameplay in these games? I didn't know that Microsoft was intentionally sabotaging the writing and the combat systems in Mass Effect just to tick you off.

But the more important second point is why this is bad. Is there something wrong with production values?

Console generations advance for a reason, and it's because that greater processing power and stuff are supposed to lead to better games, to things not possible on earlier consoles. That's happening. There were a lot of titles in 2007 that I think really laid the groundwork technologically for a lot of great things in the future. Assassin's Creed, while disappointing, seemed to me to really be a title that could not have been done last gen, for example. And I appreciate that there are games out there that are at least trying to push forward the frontier of storytelling in games. They may not be succeeding always, but they are pushing.

I'm glad the Wii is there to remind game developers that a large percentage of the market likes games that are more 'toy-like', and I actually hope that this trend translates into something on other next-gen consoles. But that doesn't mean that next-gen consoles can't also be the home for games that are movie-like, whose purpose is to entertain with story, and not just gameplay.

There really have been glimmers of serious progress in this region, even if they haven't been fully realized, and I think that as this generation continues, someone will eventually get it perfectly right.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]I completely disregarded anything GS had to say regarding Mass Effect the instant I read the completely false statement in the review which said the Mako's turret couldn't move up and down.mjarantilla

It's not false, just misinterpreted. The Mako turret couldn't tilt down all the way, so that sometimes you were aiming at something but were actually firing above its head. It was only a problem in close-in situations, but the problem lay in the fact that BioWare allowed you to target something with the reticle that you couldn't hit anyway. The way they should've made it was that the reticle would not continue to move down once the turret couldn't move down, either.

The statement that you have to be completely level with your target to kill it when you don't have to isn't a lie, but a 'misinterpretation'? :|

Not "completely level," but close to it. There were times when it was pretty hard to judge exactly how low you could aim with the Mako turret. That's one of the reasons I hated the driving levels so much, and a severe oversight that I believe fully justifies GS's review score of only 8.5, or perhaps even lower.

It seems that the team responsable for the "Mako" portions of the game went on an extended vacation between alpha testing and release. Every time I got into the thing the first thought that went through my head was "Did anyone play test this tank at all?". I can understand that they wanted planet exploration to extend beyond docking at a space station and walking around, but this could not have been done in a more half-baked method.

[QUOTE="espoac"]You CANNOT say a game objectively deserves a given score, reviews are just opinions. And in the opinion of Gamespot editors Mass Effect deserves an 8.5/10. There are also more things wrong with the game than just performance issues. The cover system is shoddy, the vehicles sequences are frustrating(to some) and the menus are combersome in comparison to other RPGS. colmusterd28

agreed but in context to what games are out at a given time Mass Effect is a 9.5 at least... Story, graphics, gameplay, exploration...

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"]

I'm telling you, you missed it. I managed to pick up a lot of the story elements you are questioning without any problems. The only real mystery is the Reaper's origins/motivations. Go play it again and come back to this thread when you have figured it out.

mjarantilla

:roll:

What exactly do you think I'm talking about? I AM talking about the Reapers' origins/motivations.

Well look at that, you managed to skip my responses to your posts just like you skipped all the story elements in the game. What a shocker. If you need to understand what I am talking about, scroll down a bit and re-read everything you have said that I responded too. When you catch up, feel free to respond.

comusterd don't be ridiculous! Its fine to complain about PS3 (and the odd Wii one) games being underscored on System Wars but you are plainly just biased if you think any PC or 360 game deserves a better score. The 360should never be ranked higher than an 8 because of RROD and the PC sucks because its is too expensive and hard to use,any Sony game, on the oteher hand, getting less than 9.0 is just GS being bought off by MS!

blue_hazy_basic

The sarcasm is strong in this post...