Mass Effect 2. Game of the Year. I'm calling it. [Spoilers will probably abound]

[shadow skill]

Except for the fact that Mass Effect's technical design is so shot to hell that it's not even funny, or the fact that all of the character quests are just dropped on your head because the game has no concept of pacing itself so that the quests appear "on time". Oh yes Mass Effect 2 really beats all of these games even though there are about four or five other games that are better than Mass Effect 2 mechanically depending on which mechanic you decide to take a look at.

Oh yea, because letting the player decide on what pace they want to play the game at is such a bad thing. I need to be guided along like a sheep in everything I do during gameplay or I get completely lost. That's why Final Fantasy's mechanics are SO much better.

/Sarcasm.

Aww how cute. Although when you look at the fact that Gears, Uncharted, Graw, and Rainbow Six Vegas all either have better cover mechanics, or map design and Persona 3 actually has a relationship system that doesn't just drop the equivalent of loyalty missions on your head from no where not to mention menu screens that you can actually read because the designers had the sense to actually use colours that provide contrast, it kind of throws your assertion under the bus.

Did I say ME2 did every mechanic better than the games that essentially created the mechanics to begin with? No. What I said was that it did do all these things well, some of them better than others, but putting all of them together in a single game is a completely unique accomplishment. Why did no other game do it first? God if I know, but ME2 damn well better get the credit it is due for having done so. Which means GOTY.

It deserves credit for putting in worse versions of the same mechanics that have been done better in so many other games? What? That makes no sense. It doesn't even do those things as well as the games that came before it. It's actually rather bad at combat while at the same time being a combat heavy game. It's not so great at being an RPG because the game is not given enough time to develop characters. (This is largely a side effect of Bioware not understanding how to make the second game properly. it isn't complete unto itself, it actually feels like the midpoint of a larger game which is a bad thing.) Mass Effect isn't even close to the first action-rpg Deus Ex, and System Shock come to mind. The only thing I can't remember seeing was being able to carry your save over into subsequent games. (Though I'm sure someone will enlighten me.)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

That's right. I'm calling it right now. I finished it a few days ago. Greatest ending ever. I may even say Decade, but it' s too early.

i certainly hope not. a game that is 75% team recruitment and planet resource scanning and 25% plot, does not deserve game of the year.

and the ending was not that exciting. the final missions were decent (the final boss was a joke) but the "cinematic" ending was exactly what i expected (read: predictable).

it also amused me how quickly your character deals with the fact that they have literally been brought back from the dead.

"I've been dead two years!?"

*pause*

"Let's save the galaxy."

I don't know what game you we're playing, but the ending was anything but predictable. You just sound like someone who hates the game because everyone else likes it... which isn't cool.

 

[Ascarus]

I think you're taking too big a look at the mechanics of the game rather than the soul, yes it isn't a perfect shooter, but the characters, the story and the sheer awesomeness of the universe is what makes the game so brilliant, you actually care for the characters (especially Tali and Garrus).
Overall it is better than the sum of it's parts.

please point to the story you speak so highly of. i must have missed it in the midst of the constant recruiting.

seriously ... a vast majority of the game proceeded in this manner:

Recruit member. Talk to them. Head to system. Scan planets (really bioware?!). Perform personal quest. Repeat ad nauseum. Once team is loyal, 5 missions to end of game. Over.

that's not a story. that's repetition for the sake of making the game seem longer than it really is.

 

[Ascarus]

I don't know what game you we're playing, but the ending was anything but predictable. You just sound like someone who hates the game because everyone else likes it... which isn't cool.

that's an interesting interpretation. i could just as easily argue that you only like the game because you are a bioware "fanboi". but i'd rather avoid useless generalizations.

you on board with that?

 

[Slaanax]

Okay, so what I've gathered here is if I want to play a FANTASTIC conversation simulator with watered down Shooter and RPG elements, a story that is not very original but set in space, then this is the game to get. Nah, I'll take a pass.

You seem very bitter about this game.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think you're taking too big a look at the mechanics of the game rather than the soul, yes it isn't a perfect shooter, but the characters, the story and the sheer awesomeness of the universe is what makes the game so brilliant, you actually care for the characters (especially Tali and Garrus).
Overall it is better than the sum of it's parts.

please point to the story you speak so highly of. i must have missed it in the midst of the constant recruiting.

seriously ... a vast majority of the game proceeded in this manner:

Recruit member. Talk to them. Head to system. Scan planets (really bioware?!). Perform personal quest. Repeat ad nauseum. Once team is loyal, 5 missions to end of game. Over.

that's not a story. that's repetition for the sake of making the game seem longer than it really is.

Considering how the entire game revolves around the preparation of a suicide mission, I'd spend a damn long time recruiting and getting to know those people.

 

[Ascarus]

Considering how the entire game revolves around the preparation of a suicide mission, I'd spend a damn long time recruiting and getting to know those people.

did you really think everyone was going to die during this "suicide mission"? i lost one team mate. one. i was actually hoping to lose more.

for a supposed suicide mission, it was decidedly anti-climatic.

and sadly, the most tense and exhilarating moments in the final mission were the cinematics that pitted the normandy versus the collector's ship. and that wasn't even interactive.

although trying to keep your engineer alive was a clever addition to the typical run to cover and kill enemies who can't seem to stay in cover missions.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think you're taking too big a look at the mechanics of the game rather than the soul, yes it isn't a perfect shooter, but the characters, the story and the sheer awesomeness of the universe is what makes the game so brilliant, you actually care for the characters (especially Tali and Garrus).
Overall it is better than the sum of it's parts.

please point to the story you speak so highly of. i must have missed it in the midst of the constant recruiting.

seriously ... a vast majority of the game proceeded in this manner:

Recruit member. Talk to them. Head to system. Scan planets (really bioware?!). Perform personal quest. Repeat ad nauseum. Once team is loyal, 5 missions to end of game. Over.

that's not a story. that's repetition for the sake of making the game seem longer than it really is.

Considering how the entire game revolves around the preparation of a suicide mission, I'd spend a damn long time recruiting and getting to know those people.

Indeed. Why you would complain about that is beyond me, anyway, since the characters themselves are a part of the story, and thus gaining their loyalty is too. Besides, all their loyalty missions, along with all of the side-missions, were mostly unique and all fun.

I get the whiff of troll about the new user. If we ignore it, it should go away.

 

[Ascarus]

I get the whiff of troll about the new user. If we ignore it, it should go away.

yes - it's so much easier to dismiss my arguments out of hand rather than try to defend your opinion.

your use of rhetorical nonsense surely dignifies your title.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

zit deserves credit for putting in worse versions of the same mechanics that have been done better in so many other games? What? That makes no sense. It doesn't even do those things as well as the games that came before it. It's actually rather bad at combat while at the same time being a combat heavy game. It's not so great at being an RPG because the game is not given enough time to develop characters. (This is largely a side effect of Bioware not understanding how to make the second game properly. it isn't complete unto itself, it actually feels like the midpoint of a larger game which is a bad thing.) Mass Effect isn't even close to the first action-rpg Deus Ex, and System Shock come to mind. The only thing I can't remember seeing was being able to carry your save over into subsequent games. (Though I'm sure someone will enlighten me.)

Deus Ex and System Shock are two of my favorite games of all time, but you're overrating them here, or viewing them through rose colored glasses. Neither of them was as linear as Mass Effect 2, but ME sacrificed sandbox gaming for pacing, and judging by the reviews it was a trade-off well worth making.

I'll defend anyone's right to their opinion, but to be honest it reads like you're just taking a polarized stance here for the sake of being argumentative, and making no effort whatsoever to be objective. Randomly lifting gameplay elements out of context and either comparing them against out of genre titles or simply sneeringly dismissing them off-hand is not presenting compelling evidence of why you hate the game so much.

It's a problem with a lot of user reviews on here, and it's a good lesson in why average joes make lousy critics. There's this propensity to pitch everything too high. Either the subject being discussed is lavished with outlandish praise, or it's the worst piece of crap ever endured. I realize this is an internet forum, and as such top quality discourse shouldn't be at the top of my list of expectations, but if you're incapable of applying rudimentary objectivity to your opinions then they're really just a lot of useless noise.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

zit deserves credit for putting in worse versions of the same mechanics that have been done better in so many other games? What? That makes no sense. It doesn't even do those things as well as the games that came before it. It's actually rather bad at combat while at the same time being a combat heavy game. It's not so great at being an RPG because the game is not given enough time to develop characters. (This is largely a side effect of Bioware not understanding how to make the second game properly. it isn't complete unto itself, it actually feels like the midpoint of a larger game which is a bad thing.) Mass Effect isn't even close to the first action-rpg Deus Ex, and System Shock come to mind. The only thing I can't remember seeing was being able to carry your save over into subsequent games. (Though I'm sure someone will enlighten me.)

Deus Ex and System Shock are two of my favorite games of all time, but you're overrating them here, or viewing them through rose colored glasses. Neither of them was as linear as Mass Effect 2, but ME sacrificed sandbox gaming for pacing, and judging by the reviews it was a trade-off well worth making.

I'll defend anyone's right to their opinion, but to be honest it reads like you're just taking a polarized stance here for the sake of being argumentative, and making no effort whatsoever to be objective. Randomly lifting gameplay elements out of context and either comparing them against out of genre titles or simply sneeringly dismissing them off-hand is not presenting compelling evidence of why you hate the game so much.

It's a problem with a lot of user reviews on here, and it's a good lesson in why average joes make lousy critics. There's this propensity to pitch everything too high. Either the subject being discussed is lavished with outlandish praise, or it's the worst piece of crap ever endured. I realize this is an internet forum, and as such top quality discourse shouldn't be at the top of my list of expectations, but if you're incapable of applying rudimentary objectivity to your opinions then they're really just a lot of useless noise.

Couldn't have said it better myself... really.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

No matter how good it is, by the end of the year, no one will be talking about it. It won;t be shiny & new enough for their attention spans.

-Can't lie, this is premium logic. Sure, "Mass Effect 2" is pure sex NOW, but look at MGS4. By the end of the year all people talked about in regards to that game was how long the cut-scenes were. And what about "Batman: Arkham Asylum"? Newness is a large factor when it comes to these "GAME OF THE YEAR" titles.

--Oh, and I love all three games I previously mentioned. I can't stop playing ME2 and MGS4.

Ok, not necessarily true. People used to say the same thing about the Oscar race. Look at the front-runners now. One of them, the Hurt Locker, which is a favourite along with Avatar to win best picture, was being shown as early as late 2008. I know movies and games are different, but since what used to be "common sense" in one art form has now been debunked, isn't it entirely possible for it to happen in the other?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I get the whiff of troll about the new user. If we ignore it, it should go away.

yes - it's so much easier to dismiss my arguments out of hand rather than try to defend your opinion.

your use of rhetorical nonsense surely dignifies your title.

To be honest, making an account just for the sake of an arguement pretty much sums up my first impression of you.

 

[Ascarus]

Indeed. Why you would complain about that is beyond me, anyway, since the characters themselves are a part of the story, and thus gaining their loyalty is too. Besides, all their loyalty missions, along with all of the side-missions, were mostly unique and all fun. He acts like it was a WoW-like grind.

at no time did i say that the side missions weren't fun or unique (although a few, thane krios' for example, was decidedly dull for such an interesting character).

but as you say, they are supposed to be SIDE missions. NOT the bulk of the game. once they dominate the game progression, they cease to be side missions and become the game.

further, the characters had (seemingly) minimal impact on the game itself. you could take any two team mates on any given mission and complete it just as easily. i tried this several times. it makes virtually no difference who goes with you on any given mission.

if the game is going to spend so much time developing these characters there ought to be a payoff in the end. and perhaps there is, the end may be different if you don't gain all their loyalties, or will be in ME3.

 

[Ascarus]

To be honest, making an account just for the sake of an arguement pretty much sums up my first impression of you.[/quote]

in other words: i disagree with what you say, so i am going to dismiss you as a troll.

do you do this with everyone who disagrees with you?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

To be honest, making an account just for the sake of an arguement pretty much sums up my first impression of you.

in other words: i disagree with what you say, so i am going to dismiss you as a troll.

do you do this with everyone who disagrees with you?[/quote]
look up three posts.