I avoid RTS like the plague, because I'm not good at those games. Speaking of games I'm not good at, I am in Elysium's camp--if I suck at it, I'm not going to play it, not for too long anyway.

The question then is, how much time will you give a game before you realize you're not getting any better and that it's time to give up? In my case, 2 hours and 38 minutes.

Also to comment on acquiring more powers/items as you level up in games--what bugs me as bad as an overpowered character against underpowered foes is when a game clearly tells you you're at a boss by giving you tons of ammo and health and armor right before you open the door. This trend goes all the way back to the days of Wolfenstein 3D, and seems to be a particular thorn in the side of many FPS and 3rd person action games, for some reason.

Demon's Souls does better than most, though it still falls victim for the last battle in the Skeleton world by giving you a weapon that it is safe to say without which you would never win that fight. It is a pretty darn awesome sword though.

God of War does a decent job as well, seldom giving you much before the boss fights, but giving you a little more life every time you die.

Actually, I would sometimes rather NOT save the world. Or anything Every so often, I just want to get through a tough challenge, or an impossible situation.

Check out 1:07 of this. Sums up the situation fairly well.

What quality do you save the Mp3 as? Your shows are normally small-ish file size but always with good quality audio.

EDIT:

I think the MAG points are slightly misleading. I've put 60 hours into the game now and have only unlocked one new gun; all the other weapons I use are starter ones.

One can unlock grips and sights for these weapons, making them more stable and accurate. It does make things a lot easier -- but I only decided to unlock them at about 45 hours in. I didn't feel particularly outgunned when I didn't have them.

On skill, of course people that have played more and unlocked more will have a one-to-one advantage. However, if they don't have a good leader and don't communicate, they will find it hard to win (even against a team Certises).

Great discussion on the main topic. I don't mind the 'save the world/universe' story as long as it's written and delivered well. I'm getting close to the end of ME2, and while I really enjoyed almost all of the recruiting and loyalty missions, I can't help but feel like the game has gotten too far away from the main, overarching plot. I find myself trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to remember the who/what/why details of what my true goal is in the game.

I never had that problem in ME1. There's a lot of secondary stuff you can do, but if you mostly stick to the primary missions, you never lose focus of the main story and what your role is in it. Even if the ending of ME2 completely blows me away with its awesomeness (fingers crossed), I think that BioWare could have improved the mid-game experience by trimming down the number of squad members (and the number of loyalty missions as a result) - seriously, do I really need 11 people? - and keeping a combination of the best 7 or 8 characters/loyalty stories, so that by the time you've finished recruiting them as "loyal" squad members, you haven't forgotten why you recruited them.

@Jonman:*cough* Julian*cough*

I find it funny that the whole "I'm tired of saving the universe" conversation got started based on a game where the central plot doesn't involve saving the universe. Sure, you saved the universe in ME1 and probably will try to do it in ME3, but that's not the main thrust of it in ME2.

I got 4 out of 6... anyone do better?

Cap the guesses? Aww man, so I shouldn't have guessed on some of those?

I agree on the points of finding some guys notebook. In some games it works, when the main story is meant to be behind the scenes and not really visible to the public (Baldur's Gate for example), but it definitely stands out in games like Mass Effect. For my part, it serves to really take me out of the experience when I've just been charged with saving the universe, and I have to resolve a domestic quarrel 5 minutes later.

there are hundreds of games that have you doing something other than saving the world/universe. I'll give you a hint, they're from Japan, and playing one probably gets listed on some potential sex offender registry some where.

I've said this before, but I think one of the DLC packs should focus on Blasto, the hanar spectre, trying to save the universe, if only to hear his dialogue over and over again.

These games are actually ones that let you destroy the universe.

And keeping with Rabbit's comic book analogy:

Would people really care where the Turtles came from if they didn't go on to save the world from the Shredder? It's not so much that they are incredible, it's that they've done and continue to do incredible things.

Love the discussion about how wearying saving the universe is - it's how I felt all through ME1. What I found incredible about the story of that game is how central human beings were to the plotline. It felt so incredibly... speciesist? I mean, it takes the American idea of manifest destiny to the stars. (and isn't Bioware Canadian?)

One of my favorite games of all time, Planescape:Torment, was not about saving the world, but your soul. What a concept. If we had more games like that, we can get over this whole games as art stupidity.

As far as the notebook quests are concerned - if there was real pressure on you -- if Bioware style RPGs were willing to be less forgiving -- each side-quest becomes a tradeoff. Then you can have interesting moral questions. Imagine: You can save this village that's under attack, but to do so you'd waste a day, and you only have two weeks before the Flibberflabber of Doom explodes! It'd give some interesting replay possibilities - what changes if the village is saved/not saved? (Yes, I know, that really screws up sequels. I don't care, I'd like to see this happen).

I can't believe nobody snickered when you mentioned the one-handed mode for Bayonetta. Was that a joke?