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

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]

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!

Funkyhamster

The sarcasm is strong in this post...

Not to mention the fact that you have to use mouse and keyboard in PC games.

[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.

....I'm starting to wonder if you have played the game. There is a HUGE difference between 'almost' having to be completely level with a target to shoot it, and actually having to. The fact you are saying this is merely a 'misinterpretation is mind blowing. And even then, I was able to take out Geth that were high atop a mountain.

Mass Effect is a great game. About to begin my second playthrough as Slagathor Shepard. But it has its flaws. The framerate can go to **** every now and then. Most of the time it's not bad enough to bother you, but it can. What's more bothersome is the ocassional "Loading" pauses and skips you get when running around. And there's the infamous texture pop-in, but I don't really care.

Furthermore the Mako can be awkward to control. Turning around is a pain in the ass.

But the most annoying thing, one which I find extremely perplexing is the handling of the inventory. You can't see how many items are in your possession unless you pick something up, by then it might already be too late and you might be forced to delete an item you wanted. So eventually you basically have to go through your inventory every now and then and make sure you always have a couple of slots available. This is an annoying process if you have many items of one category. Armor upgrades for instance, I had a ton of those and it takes forever to scroll down to the bottom of the list to delete the worst upgrades. When you delete an item you're transported to the top of the list again. At the end of the game you have to do this constantly. You can't see any info regarding the items you pick up either, you have to guess by the items level if it's worth picking up. If it's not you're gonna have to delete it.

But the absolute worst aspect of the inventory is when you try to sell stuff. I typically had around 145 items. There are no categories, no way to filter or sort, always from cheapest to most expensive item. You have to scroll through it all at an alarmingly sluggish rate to reach the item you want to sell. So I went through the entire game without selling a ****ing thing. Just converted everything to omni-gel instead, of which I would've had close to several thousand if the amount wasn't capped at 999.

It's just stupid and I can't believe how a company like Bioware messed up such a thing so badly.

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.Bgrngod

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]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.

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.

No, it's not explained in the game. First, the Reapers' motivations are NEVER explained. You agree that this question is brought up, and no attempt is even made to answer it; it's simply glossed over, and the game leaves it as a complete and utter mystery.

Second, we know the general reasons about Sovereign's purpose, but when specific discrepancies are brought up, they are also glossed over as "mysteries of its nature." It's been a few months since I beat the game, so I may be off on the specifics, but I think it had to do with why it took so long for Sovereign to act, why Sovereign waited for so many millennia, only to engage in a flurry of action over the span of a few years prior to the game's start.

Third, I covered this: Shepard's only motivation cannot be pure altruism. That's a story-killing cliche. Previous BioWare games linked the main character's identity and backstory to that of the primary antagonist, which forced an immediate and wholly relatable motivation for the main character to follow and for us to sympathize with. Mass Effect has nothing. It's an absence which weakens Saren as a villain and Shepard as a hero. There is no apparent reason why Saren and Shepard must take their opposition so personally, especially since Shepard only meets each of the main antagonists (Saren, Benezia, Sovereign) once before the climactic encounter.

it got what it deserved ;)---OkeyDokey---

I agree with this. The written review, however, was completely messed up but I'll agree to the score.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][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.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.

....I'm starting to wonder if you have played the game. There is a HUGE difference between 'almost' having to be completely level with a target to shoot it, and actually having to. The fact you are saying this is merely a 'misinterpretation is mind blowing. And even then, I was able to take out Geth that were high atop a mountain.

No, there isn't a huge difference between "almost" completely level and "actually" completely level. The difference is only about negative fifteen degrees from the horizontal plane of the turret, and when the angle of the terrain can easily vary by that amount then it's easy to see how it can become a very small but nevertheless very annoying problem. I know that it posed a problem for me the first time I tried landing on a planet.

And this is the 360's fault? And this is the end of the world?sonicmj1

No, but possibly the end of gaming.

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.sonicmj1

It's a general industry trend, and we do know where trends have led the industry before. But yes, Microsoft is in part to blame, because Microsoft is an extremely conservative company, and while that's good for Microsoft's bottomline, it can also be detrimental to gamers in the long run.

But the more important second point is why this is bad. Is there something wrong with production values?sonicmj1

Yes, if they come at the expense of gameplay.

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. sonicmj1

With regards to Assassin's Creed specifically, that's more than just another disappointing game. That's a game which, in many ways, epitomizes what's wrong with this generation. I mean, if you hold down the A button, then the bloody game practically plays itself! You may be right and it probably could not have been done last gen, but it's the kind of development that probably SHOULDN'T have been done in the first place.

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.sonicmj1

Problem: It's never taken this long for the generation's potential to be realized before. Progress will ALWAYS be made. But there has never been such a visible slowdown in progress as there was with this generation, and in particular with the 360, which is past two years old and has yet to deliver a game that both could not have reasonably been done last generation AND is of stellar quality.

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.sonicmj1

My objection is to games which sacrifice gameplay in favor of cinematic production values. I'm all for games that have both, but the growing trend is for games to deliver as little discrete gameplay as possible, and to instead inflate the perceived value of the package with unnecessary secondary add-ons rather than improving the core game itself.

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.sonicmj1

Repeat: It's never taken this long for a new generation's improvements to be "fully realized." It's been two years already, and if it takes any longer, we'll be going into the NEXT generation before someone gets THIS generation right.

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

SERIOUSLY just get over it.

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

kool-aids

The difference... Uncharted isn't one tenth the game Mass Effect is... not even close.

[QUOTE="kool-aids"]

SERIOUSLY just get over it.

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

colmusterd28

The difference... Uncharted isn't one tenth the game Mass Effect is... not even close.

Mass Effect was great but the texture poping is the worse I have ver seen, ontop of that most conversations were shallow ...:

1) ALOT of things led to the same conversation ... with say 1 or 2 words different.

2) the Good/Evil option was so bloody obvious ... top right/left for good, low left/right for bad X_x .....

3) Lack of long term outcome.

4) Some quests provided ridiculous rewards from the get go ... before doing a 2nd main mission (after Citadel ofc) I got:

[spoiler] Those damn Spectre Prototype weapons that allow you 2 practically 1 shot anything with a shutgun from a distance P_x [/spoiler]

.... very shallow conversation system. .... in some ways a step backwards.

it got what it deserved ;)---OkeyDokey---

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

[QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

1.6 million copies in a month, now you show me a game that did better besides halo 3.

Mass Effect was great but the texture poping is the worse I have ver seen, ontop of that most conversations were shallow ...:

1) ALOT of things led to the same conversation ... with say 1 or 2 words different.

2) the Good/Evil option was so bloody obvious ... top right/left for good, low left/right for bad X_x .....

3) Lack of long term outcome.

4) Some quests provided ridiculous rewards from the get go ... before doing a 2nd main mission (after Citadel ofc) I got:

.... very shallow conversation system. .... in some ways a step backwards.

Meu2k7

Exactly. I don't think it was deep as KotOR. In KotOR, the relationship with Carth/Bastila was deep where as the relationship with other characters weren't and the whole sex scenes weren't as good. And the whole "you can go anywhere you want" isn't really there. It's a great game but not deserving of a AAA status at all.

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

[QUOTE="yellowandmushy"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

1.6 million copies in a month, now you show me a game that did better besides halo 3.

[QUOTE="c_smithii"][QUOTE="yellowandmushy"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

1.6 million copies in a month, now you show me a game that did better besides halo 3.

for console.

not this thread again...In my mind this game was the RPG of the year...if you guys disagree then...fine more power to ya.

**leaves thread**

[QUOTE="c_smithii"]

[QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"]it got what it deserved ;)leviathan91

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

doesn't matter because in the long run, having TIME magazine and the New York Times notoriety will look far better on its record then gamespot.com :lol:

If it weren't for the fact that I just got pissed that the game made me turn everything to omni gel before being able to put it into my inventory, I would agree with you.

Jandurin

[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

doesn't matter because in the long run, having TIME magazine and the New York Times notoriety will look far better on its record then gamespot.com :lol:

[QUOTE="c_smithii"]

[QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"]it got what it deserved ;)leviathan91

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

Gamespots reviews and scores are jokes... I refuse to live and die anymore with Gamespot and their reviews... I have absolutely no reservations in doing so.

ME was game of the year... no questions... SMG was good but it was no ME. Matter of fact Bioware games are better than just about anything else released in any given year.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]

If it weren't for the fact that I just got pissed that the game made me turn everything to omni gel before being able to put it into my inventory, I would agree with you.

DrinkDuff

Yeah, I just don't understand where this complaint came from. For those of us that understand the term "vendor trash" Mass Effect's inventory limits were not a problem at all.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]

If it weren't for the fact that I just got pissed that the game made me turn everything to omni gel before being able to put it into my inventory, I would agree with you.

Bgrngod

Yeah, I just don't understand where this complaint came from. For those of us that understand the term "vendor trash" Mass Effect's inventory limits were not a problem at all.

agreed... again, its an RPG... getting bulk items is the name of the game. If you weren't smart enought to manage your items efficiently, shame on you.

My only complaints with Mass Effect is that the main mission is too short, and the barren landscapes you land on. It would be fine, if there were also some side missions with interesting side planets, but there isn't. I would be pretty disappointed if I wasn't comforted by the fact that this is going to be a trilogy, and they have to therefore leave a lot of questions unanswered. Although, I still wish it was a bit longer, because it feels like the story moves a little too fast at the end...

The technical issues that everyone seems to complain about are barely worth mentioning, they are so insignificant and they hardly affect gameplay.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

Gamespots reviews and scores are jokes... I refuse to live and die anymore with Gamespot and their reviews... I have absolutely no reservations in doing so.

ME was game of the year... no questions... SMG was good but it was no ME. Matter of fact Bioware games are better than just about anything else released in any given year.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

doesn't matter because in the long run, having TIME magazine and the New York Times notoriety will look far better on its record then gamespot.com :lol:

So what? Time magazine and the New York Times don't have any significance in gaming at all. :?System Wars can only use Gamespot's scores. It's the law...

Unfortunately.

It's fine and dandy for everyone to voice their complaints about GOTY and the Gamespot "flops" of '07. But I really disagree with you on every count. Mass Effect doesn't deserve a higher score than what it got here. The Framerate issues are awful, and while the graphics and storytelling are delicious, Galaxy just blows every other game out of this... well... Galaxy! It innovates; it's beautiful; it's fun! Seriously, Galaxy was the only game this year that really pushes the boundaries of what is achievable in a game and makes you feel like all platformers need to take the giant leap Galaxy has taken for all videogames.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

Gamespots reviews and scores are jokes... I refuse to live and die anymore with Gamespot and their reviews... I have absolutely no reservations in doing so.

ME was game of the year... no questions... SMG was good but it was no ME. Matter of fact Bioware games are better than just about anything else released in any given year.

Mass Effect is great but not GotY material. I thought it would be after seeing all these videos and the amount of hype, but after playing it, it just doesn't feel GotY material at all, and for once, I actually agree with Gamespot's score (not the written review).Of course, it's my opinion but you thinking it's GotY material is your opinion, all I'll respect your opinion.

I don't like Gamespot at all and I would rather use IGN for reviews (they seem to be spot on with most of their reviews) but as of right now, Gamespot's scores count and no other.

Funny thing is that your first sentence reminded me of cows back then... Ah the hypocricry. :lol:

[QUOTE="c_smithii"][QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

[QUOTE="---OkeyDokey---"]it got what it deserved ;)leviathan91

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

doesn't matter because in the long run, having TIME magazine and the New York Times notoriety will look far better on its record then gamespot.com :lol:

So what? Time magazine and the New York Times don't have any significance in gaming at all. :?System Wars can only use Gamespot's scores. It's the law...

Unfortunately.

I'm done with gamespots scores and ya know what... alot of others are as well. GS scores aren't law they're mostly a joke now a day...

Then why has Super Mario Galaxy won at a number of other publications? I suppose now GT, Ign, 1up, Yahoo, etc. are all jokes too? The fact of the matter is that while Mass Effect is a great and fantastic game, it is not better than Mario Galaxy.yellowandmushy

Fact. SMG won a lot of appraisal from mostly video game review sites, sites that cater mostly to kids. SMG is rated E for Everyone, a kid rating.

Mass Effect was appraised by well established publications subscribed mostly by smart, mature, deep intellectuals. Mass Effect is rated M, a mature rating.

SMG is a good game, but only in the minds of children, or adults who still think they're young at heart (a lot of you sheep here).

The majority elites see Mass Effect as the real Game of the Year. Hence its appraisal from top press.

it got what it deserved ;)---OkeyDokey---

Yeah it has a few technical problems which hamper the true greatness it could of had.

[QUOTE="yellowandmushy"] Then why has Super Mario Galaxy won at a number of other publications? I suppose now GT, Ign, 1up, Yahoo, etc. are all jokes too? The fact of the matter is that while Mass Effect is a great and fantastic game, it is not better than Mario Galaxy.c_smithii

Fact. SMG won a lot of appraisal from mostly video game review sites, sites that cater mostly to kids. SMG is rated E for Everyone, a kid rating.

Mass Effect was appraised by well established publications subscribed mostly by smart, mature, deep intellectuals. Mass Effect is rated M, a mature rating.

SMG is a good game, but only in the minds of children, or adults who still think they're young at heart (a lot of you sheep here).

The majority elites see Mass Effect as the real Game of the Year. Hence its appraisal from top press.

So pc gamers see mass effect as the game of the year? Gamerankings is wrong now? GOTY on gametrailers is wrong, on ign the same site that gave bioshock a 9.7 the same score as SMG?

God stop being a fanboy.

Mario is by far the best Wii game out there, but at the end of the day that really isn't saying much.

I'd agree that Mass Effect was my also my favorite game of last year and a superbly underscored game here. Hell I would even go as far to say that Mass Effect takes massive wet dumps all over SMG.

SMG was fun for a quick romp, but there's a reason I've played through Mass Effect several times as different classes.

So pc gamers see mass effect as the game of the year? Gamerankings is wrong now? GOTY on gametrailers is wrong, on ign the same site that gave bioshock a 9.7 the same score as SMG?

God stop being a fanboy.

Marth6781

What does PC gamers have to do with this conversation. Once again, you interject into a video game system conversation. But anyways, I was discussing "Game of the Year" status between SMG and Mass Effect, try to follow along please.

[QUOTE="Marth6781"]

So pc gamers see mass effect as the game of the year? Gamerankings is wrong now? GOTY on gametrailers is wrong, on ign the same site that gave bioshock a 9.7 the same score as SMG?

God stop being a fanboy.

c_smithii

What does PC gamers have to do with this conversation. Once again, you interject into a video game system conversation. But anyways, I was discussing "Game of the Year" status between SMG and Mass Effect, try to follow along please.

You did it while bashing tons of credible sites calling them "kiddy" because you didnt agree with their GOTY. You said elites, well common knowledge on the forums are pc gamers are elite(somehow) so unless we ask the pc gamers how they feel you are just being a fanboy for no reason.

Also its like saying mass effect is a good game, only if people like a weak story(compared to books) and a game thats the jack of all trades master of none.

You fail

You did it while bashing tons of credible sites calling them "kiddy" because you didnt agree with their GOTY. You said elites, well common knowledge on the forums are pc gamers are elite(somehow)

Marth6781

No

[QUOTE="c_smithii"][QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="c_smithii"]

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

you damn right. 2nd best selling game of the year behind Halo 3 which was number #1 selling game of 2007.

Mass Effect was also named TIME magazine and the New York Time's game of the year for 2007.

SMG and the rest only got video game review site appraisals. Roff

Last time I checked, sales don't make a game and we use GAMESPOT'S scores only, wheather you like it or not.

doesn't matter because in the long run, having TIME magazine and the New York Times notoriety will look far better on its record then gamespot.com :lol:

huh... Dude.. Gamespot is literally a joke at this point. Reviewers leaving like wild fire, horrible reviews... other than this forum, whats the point of coming here...?

Then get out of here if you won't follow the rules.:? I hate the rules, personally,but at least I don't complain about it and don't take it seriously. It's just a game on these forums and no one expects you to listen to Gamespot's reviews and base your opinion on that.

So stop taking the reviews so seriously. Right now, you're reminding me of the cows when their games got underrated.

I held off playing Mass Efffect till last week, mainly because i was put off by the negativity from some quarters.

when i finally got round to playing it though..... WOW!!!!!!!!!

Sure, some of the technical inconsistancies seem pretty shoddy, but when it all comes together this game is flat out unbelievable -

All true gamers should hold off dragging this game into the battlefield of the fanboy-wars because it is a trully astonishing creation, and pretty much delivers on many of the dreams we always had for the future of video games.

I though it was one of the best RPGs, showcasing why WRPGs are superior to JRPGs. Also, what's with this technical thing. I never had a glitch or framerate problems.dkhw

uh, the game chugs all the time. How can you not notice that? There are a ton of glitches. Characters disappear, they run in place, texture pop-in, etc...

[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]

If it weren't for the fact that I just got pissed that the game made me turn everything to omni gel before being able to put it into my inventory, I would agree with you.

colmusterd28

Yeah, I just don't understand where this complaint came from. For those of us that understand the term "vendor trash" Mass Effect's inventory limits were not a problem at all.

agreed... again, its an RPG... getting bulk items is the name of the game. If you weren't smart enought to manage your items efficiently, shame on you.

Bull****. Inventory systems have never sucked as badly as they have in Mass Effect. Absolutely no categorization or organization, just some arbitrary ordering that isn't even exposed to the player. The sheer inattention to such a basic function is just one of the many straws that break the camel's back and reduce Mass Effect into a shadow of what BioWare USED to be capable of.