Mass Effect 2

[Jarnis]

Mass Effect was always envisioned to be a trilogy and the story of Commander Shepard continues with Mass Effect 2. Bioware is well known for their RPG formula, but this time they have bravely gone ahead and tweaked the gameplay quite a bit - so much, that some have already cried that Mass Effect 2 isn't a role playing game at all. I humbly disagree, but it is true that the second part of the story relies a lot more on action and combat.


Full Story: http://www.yougamers.com/reviews/27147_mass_effect_2/

[ct1615]

Good Job Jarno, you get a cookie [xmasthumbup]

[Sam250]

Though this is essentially positive feedback, I wouldn't be leaving it if I weren't also rather disappointed.

I usually only use YG for the Game-o-Meter, but today I thought I might sample the criticism side of the site. I wasn't expecting much. Most mainstream sites are the same: flashy designs and up-to-date reviews... but are careful to feed the readers just what they want, and hence are devoid of intelligent, honest criticism.

I was initially surprised.

Compare to this trash, where, as is the norm in the racket you unfortunately are competing with, a review that is mostly descriptive rather than analytical is sprinkled with half-lies so the game comes off better than it really is. That review could have been written based on the game's promotional materials. It probably was.

You, on the other hand, tell it like you see it, for the most part at least. The honesty is refreshing. You don't pretend the story is better than it is, or that the probing minigame and removal of the inventory are necessarily a good thing, like it seems everyone else did. You actually attempt explain the effect of each element you describe!:

...the whole thing feels a lot more like a third-person shooter with a lot of dialogue and some token RPG elements.

In retrospect, you spend the vast majority of the game running side jobs to recruit people and help them with their personal problems, with the epic threat to humanity turning out to be little more than a footnote.

If only the other sites would take notes from you!

But why, after some rightfully cutting criticism, do you double back on yourself in the conclusion and award the game a 92, even inexcusably dismissing four pages of good criticism as "mostly nitpicking"!

Perhaps you do think the game deserves that score, in which case there is a inconsistency between the text and the score, but all you are guilty of is failing to put more focus on the positives — which, for me, were the art direction and the witty optional dialogue, that you never even mentioned.

More likely is that you predicted the backlash that dissent from popular opinion would prompt, in justified fear that giving this widely loved series by a loved developer anything less than 89/100 could only lead to trouble.

So, there we have it. A great review (and the first I have read on the site, and my fingers are crossed it is indicative of the quality of the rest of the site), but what felt like a dishonest conclusion.

[Jarnis]

Nope, I genuinely thought that the game still deserves the score - and in retrospect I would still give it something like 90-93 today.

It has flaws. All flaws do not automatically mean "deduct X points from a perfect score because of this and that", but they do deserve to be mentioned (hence lot of stuff that you can't find in reviews that are pretty close to paid PR). What is important is the big picture. Is the game stable? Is it fun to play? Do you feel like you can't quit before you complete the story? For ME2, the answer to these is "yes". So... as the review states;

Is Mass Effect 2 perfect? No. It could have been longer. The story could have offered even more options and freedoms. The play areas could have been less linear. The exploration aspect could have been stronger. Some of the immersion-breaking design decisions could have been polished over with more attention to detail and in some ways the drive to streamline the experience may have gone just a tad too far, but Mass Effect 2 is still one of the best story-driven games. Ever.

In other words, in my opinion the numerous flaws still can't kill the game. It is up to you if you feel the same way after they are all detailed in the review.

[Sam250]

Thanks for the clarification, though it brings up other questions, foremost: why focus on the negatives and not the positives in a positive review?

If the review is overall positive, then the negatives must be of minor importance. Why are you spending you and our time focusing on minor points? You could be analysing the important things ie. the things that made the game good. Wouldn't that make for a more valuable review?

From the text, I certainly know in what ways the game sucks, but I have little idea why it's good, yet I'm expected to believe your final score? It's not that I don't appreciate the negative analysis. I think I've made it clear that I do. But the text should justify and explain your score and in this case it simply doesn't.

It has flaws. All flaws do not automatically mean "deduct X points from a perfect score because of this and that",

I agree: that is certainly not how I think a score works.

What is important is the big picture.

Exactly.