Mass Effect 2 - The Many Failures @ InfoAddict

[Maylander]

Like I said in my own little "review" (impressions mostly), I still consider ME1 the better game. ME2 clearly has superior characters, and the cinematic experience is excellent, but I feel the gameplay itself suffers.

While I don't agree with everything in the article, I certainly agree with some of it (the lack of variation when fighting is still my biggest beef with ME2).

 

[wolfing]

As for the combat set up, I think Bioware went in reverse. Instead of designing a level and then placing enemies there (according to whether they are caught unaware or prepared), it's like they first placed the enemies and then designed the layout of the level around the enemies.

 

[mute]

Intersting views. I agreed on some. However where he think logs and PDA should be removed i would have liked that my hacking a PDA didn't grant me 2000 credit. I would loved more logs to tell a story.

I however feel that there is a + factor to hyped up companies or games series. Bioware seems to get better grade where other would not.

The combat could have been done better. I want to jump up, do i have to take cover then roll upp. Hm. And the planet scanning as many other mentioned.

Something i was bothered about, the loading times. That was my biggest grief. A good game, an 8 definitly. (For me). Still love it.

 

[BillSeurer]

When I read stuff like this I just laugh. If the same "standards" were held to all games there are and never will be any good games.

 

[Dhruin]

So we can't discuss potential design flaws because no game is perfect?

 

[JemyM]

So we can't discuss potential design flaws because no game is perfect?

Yes.

Carry on.

 

[txa1265]

When I read stuff like this I just laugh. If the same "standards" were held to all games there are and never will be any good games.

I think it is also important - especially with stratospheric scoring games like this - to provide a reality check. Truth is the early reviews paint an unrealistic picture of absolute and unassailable perfection that isn't remotely related to the classic role of criticism.

 

[BillSeurer]

A lot of the "perfect review people" are the same people who whenever they find something they like exclaim, "Wow, this is the BEST <whatever> ever!"

The opposite happens, too. "This game totally sucks because of <whatever>!" when <whatever> is really quite trivial and/or there are existing games that also have <whatever> that the same person rates highly.

Also, suppose a reviewer rates a game as an "8". A new game comes along that the reviewer likes better. So it gets a slightly higher rating. Repeat.

 

[BillSeurer]

You know, the above is probably why game reviewers should give "star" ratings like movie reviewers do.

 

[txa1265]

You know, the above is probably why game reviewers should give "star" ratings like movie reviewers do.

For me it isn't even the scores, it is the text of these early reviews. Often there is little indication they have completed the game, and instead it is replaced with loads of gushing praise. Mass Effect 2 is a really good game - that is not anything I'm debating - but shouldn't we actually be able depend on early reviews to give us the most objective and useful critique?

 

[BillSeurer]

...but shouldn't we actually be able depend on early reviews to give us the most objective and useful critique?

For games that can take scores of hours to really complete and that offer multiple pathways through them? No. Unless the reviewers get the games a few *weeks* early or something (do they?).

Problematic games often can be spotted by early reviews, though. Especially ones with severe technical problems (Gothic 3 and it's bastard child anyone?).

And early reviews are not always gushing. I've seen some that panned games where it was also obvious the reviewer hadn't played much of the game.

BTW, quite often after playing a game I read a review of it and wonder if we actually played the same game.

 

[txa1265]

For games that can take scores of hours to really complete and that offer multiple pathways through them? No. Unless the reviewers get the games a few *weeks* early or something (do they?).

Then what is their purpose?

Games with huge advertising budgets and hype get 9's, and those without get 7's based on the dreaded 7-9 scale ...

... and with each review the whole Gamespot-fiasco thing is more proven, and the opinion that game reviews are an affront to actual criticism, journalism, and even decent Consumer Reports style consumer advocacy.

 

[Trelow]

This is why point based review scales suck. Either a game is either worth playing or not.

Clearly this game is worth playing.

Never did understand why people niggle over a few points, or in some cases fractions thereof.