Effected

With the impending release of Mass Effect 3 next week, I’ve been doing what every logical, right-thinking gamer would do. I’ve been playing Mass Effect 2 again, and I’m about 15 minutes away from completing it entirely, for the third time. That’s probably not very uncommon for Mass Effect fans considering that about half of the people who fired the game up finished it and that at least a couple of people have played through the game 30 times or more; this according to statistics released more than a year and a half ago and at this point criminally out of date.

The thing is, I’d lost the save files for my last two Mass Effect 2 playthroughs, and the thought of playing 3 with some generic Shepard was anathema. Totally unacceptable. And so, I’ve invested another 30 or so hours into this latest playthrough, happily and without a second thought on the matter. Somehow, the game completely fails to become stale to me.

I realize that saying Mass Effect 2 is a pretty good game is hardly an edgy stance of a critical contemporary issue. So let me spice the deal up a bit. At this point, I feel like I can talk about Mass Effect 2 in the same breath as games like Ultima 7, Fallout and Baldur’s Gate. In fact, I’d dare say that from where I’m sitting, it’s the best game BioWare has made.

I’m actually pretty surprised how much I like Mass Effect 2, because I was, all things considered, fairly tepid on the first Mass Effect. It was a decent enough game, but the pacing for it never felt right to me. The combat mechanics always seemed like they were in conflict with the way the game seemed to want to be played. Like many of BioWare’s games, I was driven to completion more because of the story than actually enjoying the game itself.

Mass Effect 2 is something different entirely. The simplified and more dynamic action styling of the game was, to me, a night-and-day improvement. It was one of those games that just clicked on a fundamental level from the first day and never lost its shine.

I try not to be too quick in proclaiming something among the best ever, though. And I try to be practical about some of the flaws and hiccups that exist in Mass Effect 2 as well. Planet scanning is a bothersome and unavoidable chore. The game is missing a strong antagonist that centers the game the way Saren and Sovereign did in Mass Effect 1. Customization seems limited with the oversimplification of inventory management; there are very few interesting choices to be made beyond aesthetics about how you outfit yourself and your crew. And the final boss battle has always felt a little forced — if not openly silly — to me.

I don’t deny any of those points, or like a half dozen other criticisms that can be legitimately laid at the feet of the game. Doesn’t matter, though. I imagine all of you, like me, have had moments where you play a game and it just fits. To borrow from Queen, it’s a kind of magic. The game just seems to know how to keep you happy, how to turn your head from the flaws. It becomes more than a game to you; it becomes part of your gamer identity.

Of course, I realize this sets me up for absolute, crushing disappointment with the impending conclusion to come in Mass Effect 3, but at this point I'm all in for better or worse. I can't not experience how the over-arching story concludes, to say nothing of how the choices I’ve made — including some choices that I think now I would go back and choose differently — resolve in the final act. This Shepard goes into the final game with a stake in game and a complex past that hasn’t actually turned out exactly as I’d hoped. And that makes me like her (yes, her -- there is only FemShep) all the more. She is, in my head, a character that has defined herself as much as being defined by me, and that is a rare thing. An act of what feels almost like creation that exists the same way in no other media.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not trying to convince you this is a great game, one of the best ever made. I’m not proselytizing here. I’m not even trying to tell you that the story, which could reasonably be described as decent but not particularly ground-breaking space-opera fluff, is something to put up on a pedestal as a triumph of the form. I realize there is usually a gulf between that for which an argument of historic significance can be formed and that which is my favorite.

I point all this out, because even as I storm into the final few minutes of this third playthough, I’m thinking in my head of the alternatives missed and wonder what it would have been like to play through with an Engineer instead of an Adept. What if she had made this decision on Tuchanka or Illium instead? What if my relationship with the Illusive Man had been different, what stage would that have set? What if I hadn't held onto that pointless torch for Liara? Then I wonder if maybe I could squeeze one more playthrough in before March 9th. And that, my friends, is the sort of thing I never think to myself.

Comments

I think, across two different platforms, I've finished ME2 about six times (once on the highest skill setting: something I NEVER do). I've just got the last DLC mission to run through on my PC character (the slightly rubbish solo one that bridges the gap to ME3) and I'm all set.

Fingers crossed they conveniently whitewash over that whole "final boss plot twist" thing though.

T'was very silly.

In fact, I’d dare say that from where I’m sitting, it’s the best game BioWare has made.

You are sitting on a throne of lies! (Seriously, I'm going to beat you so hard the next time we play chess for this statement.) I couldn't ever get past the poorly-written dialogue. I do realize this puts me in the minority. Horses for courses, I guess.

Also, the title made me think of this.

IMAGE(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/effect_an_effect.png)

Of course, I realize this sets me up for absolute, crushing disappointment with the impending conclusion to come in Mass Effect 3, but at this point I'm all in for better or worse. I can't not experience how the over-arching story concludes, to say nothing of how the choices I’ve made — including some choices that I think now I would go back and choose differently — resolve in the final act. This Shepard goes into the final game with a stake in game and a complex past that hasn’t actually turned out exactly as I’d hoped. And that makes me like her (yes, her -- there is only FemShep) all the more. She is, in my head, a character that has defined herself as much as being defined by me, and that is a rare thing. An act of what feels almost like creation that exists the same way in no other media.

This x1000.

Only problem is that when I played ME1 I wasn't aware of how much better FemShep was versus ManShep, so she's only a few hours into ME1. So I await next Tuesday with the same anticipation, however I know that when I find the time, I'll need to go through the entire trilogy with my FemShep. For me, the fact that a series like Mass Effect would cause me to look forward to that opportunity is why it is one of (if not my favorite) series.

Don't worry...more adventures will be able to be had with the Mass Effect MMO that I'm sure they are working.

Bethesda and Bioware are currently taking turns owning my life. I really wish they would stop making such great games. I need my life back. Please.

P.S.
Thanks for using the Femshep for the art. I still have no idea who that Guy Pierce look-a-like they keep calling "Commander Shepard" is?

Nevin73 wrote:

Don't worry...more adventures will be able to be had with the Mass Effect MMO that I'm sure they are working.

I believe they've even started talking about it.

I was insanely excited for Mass Effect 2, and it just didn't live up to those expectations. As a result, I think I'm a lot better grounded for Mass Effect 3. I've gone into a weird space where whenever I see a preview with a feature that I think looks silly or bad, I'm all, "Yes! Lowered expectations!"

At this point, I feel like I can talk about Mass Effect 2 in the same breath as games like Ultima 7, Fallout and Baldur’s Gate. In fact, I’d dare say that from where I’m sitting, it’s the best game BioWare has made.

Man, I have such an opposite opinion that it hurts.

I liked ME, and ME2 was such a major letdown. I enjoyed the game, but I absolutely hated how areas were so painfully linear that they could easily have had "One Way" signs. I mean, mission areas are always pretty much a "start at point A and finish at point B" affair in both games, but ME2 rarely offered even the illusion that I had any more than one specific path I was to walk.

I hate games that are SO afraid of the player getting lost that they completely remove the concept of exploring your surroundings. It's like bumper-lane bowling. Or writing Java.

Jumping on to the "can't wait for ME3" wagon. I'm among the few that believe the 1st chapter was better than the sequel. While I'll be the first to admit ME2 was a much more polished experience, Mass Effect is about the story.

Having said that, I believe ME3 will give us a great conclusion to the single player arc, and still manage a cliff hanger for the upcoming MMO.

I never played WOW (mostly because of my addictive personality), but my understanding is that the Warcraft canon continued through WoW and the continuous releases.

I'm guessing MEMMO will do the same.

In general: get out of my head. It's disconcerting to read someone else type my thoughts (except the part about being luke warm on ME1 -- I love the sh*t out of that game too, Mako controls and all).

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not trying to convince you this is a great game, one of the best ever made. I’m not proselytizing here. I’m not even trying to tell you that the story, which could reasonably be described as decent but not particularly ground-breaking space-opera fluff, is something to put up on a pedestal as a triumph of the form. I realize there is usually a gulf between that for which an argument of historic significance can be formed and that which is my favorite.

The funny thing about the linked article is that even though it is meandering, poorly constructed, and generally just not very convincing, it made me realize that at least for me its general thesis is absolutely correct. Each time I replay one (or both) of the games, it has moved up in my estimation. At first, ME1 was among my favorite games on the generation. Then it became my favorite series on the generation, hands down. Then my favorite series of the decade. These days (especially after the ME2 run I just finished up last Sunday) I come very close to saying it's my favorite game series, period, and honestly compared to that the statement that it my favorite piece of sci-fi doesn't seem too overblown.

Why isn't it Tuesday now?

Sean, I think you and I are in sync. Your thoughts are pretty much exactly how I feel about ME2 and the series (except for the femshep part: mine is a bald dude). ME2 was the first game in a decade that I beat two times back to back, and ME3 is the first $60 game I have ever pre-ordered, which is based solely on the merit of the first two games.

Pretty much agree with most everything the mighty Beard-o-Matic says.

I too have been revisiting ME2 (along with a sizable portion of my friends list), trying to polish off the remaining bits of DLC and hit Level 30 for my canonical Shep, ready for him to emerge in ME3.

It's been interesting getting back into it, if only to highlight the difference between my memory of the game, and the reality. But also to note that slipping back into Shep's armor really does feel like pulling on a comfortable pair of pants. They fit just right, you know?

In my memory, Mass Effect is peerless. When talking about it, I'll often use the phrase "it's the only game I've ever played that's done sci-fi right".

Upon reflection, and from playing the ME3 trailer, I've got to admit that I need to caveat that and replace the term "sci-fi" with "dumb summer blockbuster sci-fi". Let's make no mistake, the world of Mass Effect is not a high-brow space opera in the vein of Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds (oh what I wouldn't give for a Culture game done right, but that's another issue), it's peers are Starship Troopers, Skyline or Halo. The bombastic, dumb-as-a-rock-but-badass-as-all-f*** awesomeness.

And in that context, I stand by my assertion. There's no other game that does blockbuster-sci-fi anywhere near as well as Mass Effect. It stands head and shoulders above everything else I've played.

Then again, I've not played EVE. Maybe I should...

Elysium wrote:

What if I hadn't held onto that pointless torch for Liara?

I assume you didn't pick up the Shadow Broker DLC then Sean? I played through it for the first time last week, and took great delight in demonstrating to Liara quite how pointy Shep's torch was.

The game made me laugh out loud when immediately after getting me some blue booty, I head downstairs to the engine room to catch up with my other piece of tail, I mean, Tali, and she proceeds to tell me how she's caught all kind of space cooties from my manbits, and that it was totally worth it. How does Shep respond?
"I'll see you later", and walks away.

Did I mention I played Renegade?

I’m actually pretty surprised how much I like Mass Effect 2, because I was, all things considered, fairly tepid on the first Mass Effect. It was a decent enough game, but the pacing for it never felt right to me. The combat mechanics always seemed like they were in conflict with the way the game seemed to want to be played. Like many of BioWare’s games, I was driven to completion more because of the story than actually enjoying the game itself.

Mass Effect 2 is something different entirely. The simplified and more dynamic action styling of the game was, to me, a night-and-day improvement. It was one of those games that just clicked on a fundamental level from the first day and never lost shine.

I'm sort of the opposite I guess. After playing through ME1 and 2 a few times, I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the first game. Both have their flaws, but ME1's story was much more interesting and focused in my opinion. It felt like a good sci-fi RPG with a secondary focus on a third-person shooter, whereas ME2 shifted the focus to being a shooter first and a RPG second. ME2's oversimplification of skill progression, weapons and inventory, along with the addition of "thermal clips" as ammo was a letdown, as was the majority of the plot (excluding the beginning and end).

That said, even though my anticipation is lower for ME3 than it was for ME2, I'm very much looking forward to the conclusion of this great trilogy.

With hindsight, ME1 did seem like a big experiment to me. Bioware were trying a lot of things, and realistically they couldn't know with certainty what would work. ME2 and ME3 are refinements and corrections (sometimes over-corrections) based on what they learned from the previous games.

That thing you like sucks!

I don't know where the love for Mass Effect comes from. I own, and have played through, both 1 and ~75% of 2. The latter struck me as so vapid, so boring, so devoid of anything but the Bioware Plot and insipid on-rails shooting galleries that I gave up on it. Ironically, it was the comparison to older games (and damn it, I meant this username to be taken as a joke!) that left me shaking my head and walking away.

What made Ultima 7, the Fallout series, and especially BG sing for me was the openness. It felt like those games presented deep pools, where you could swim for weeks and explore the various nooks and crannies without feeling the artificial walls bumping up against you. In a way, that thrill of exploration, vis a vis the continuous sense of wonder at "just how much stuff did they put in this thing!?", was the point. There was no hand-holding, no glowing path leading you to plot. While that kind of mechanic might feel a bit esoteric now, the depth and player agency it provided for was significantly more engaging than running through dialog trees in the hopes of increasing a relationship score, or shooting dude in another long rectangle filled with Cover Crates.

I think ME2 is Bioware's most self-aware game, in that they looked at what worked in their previous games, and discarded or fixed what didn't. Building a stronghold is awesome, so make the overarching plot about that. Companion quests are the best quests, so make 80% of the game about those.

Jonman wrote:

In my memory, Mass Effect is peerless. When talking about it, I'll often use the phrase "it's the only game I've ever played that's done sci-fi right".

Upon reflection, and from playing the ME3 trailer, I've got to admit that I need to caveat that and replace the term "sci-fi" with "dumb summer blockbuster sci-fi". Let's make no mistake, the world of Mass Effect is not a high-brow space opera in the vein of Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds (oh what I wouldn't give for a Culture game done right, but that's another issue), it's peers are Starship Troopers, Skyline or Halo. The bombastic, dumb-as-a-rock-but-badass-as-all-f*** awesomeness.

I have heard many people like to make this distinction, but does being one exclude the other? Sure, opportunities to be a "blockbuster" may result in passed up opportunities to be sci-fi, but they don't work against eachother. They are two different aspects of Mass Effect, like Renegade and Paragon points.

TheHipGamer wrote:

That thing you like sucks!

I don't know where the love for Mass Effect comes from. I own, and have played through, both 1 and ~75% of 2. The latter struck me as so vapid, so boring, so devoid of anything but the Bioware Plot and insipid on-rails shooting galleries that I gave up on it. Ironically, it was the comparison to older games (and damn it, I meant this username to be taken as a joke!) that left me shaking my head and walking away.

What made Ultima 7, the Fallout series, and especially BG sing for me was the openness. It felt like those games presented deep pools, where you could swim for weeks and explore the various nooks and crannies without feeling the artificial walls bumping up against you. In a way, that thrill of exploration, vis a vis the continuous sense of wonder at "just how much stuff did they put in this thing!?", was the point. There was no hand-holding, no glowing path leading you to plot. While that kind of mechanic might feel a bit esoteric now, the depth and player agency it provided for was significantly more engaging than running through dialog trees in the hopes of increasing a relationship score, or shooting dude in another long rectangle filled with Cover Crates.

That sort of thing is better satisfied by games like Skyrim, of which I hear endless good things. It's not for me, but I get the appeal.

The thing is, games like ME2 (and Amalur, and inFamous) aren't trying to be that sort of game. They're trying to be their own game, satisfying different sensibilities. It's not necessarily bad to be a corridor shooter if that's what the game's intent is. Blue is not better than red, even though you may like blue better. It doesn't make the world better to make everything blue.

The things that ME2 do well are the skill trees and leveling, the shooter/magic squad-based combat, and character vignettes (not plot). Looking for plot in ME2 is like looking for detailed characterization in ME1 - you'll just leave unsatisfied.

Meatman:

It felt like a good sci-fi RPG with a secondary focus on a third-person shooter, whereas ME2 shifted the focus to being a shooter first and a RPG second. ME2's oversimplification of skill progression, weapons and inventory, along with the addition of "thermal clips" as ammo was a letdown, as was the majority of the plot (excluding the beginning and end).

I've done extensive and repeated playthroughs of both games, for each of the classes in the game and to explore the various story options. I had 5 playthroughs of 1 ready to go when 2 hit, and I played them all (two playthroughs on one ME1 save).

I'm not saying this to make me seem like an expert. It's to establish a baseline for conversation and discussion. Don't feel like you need to simplify, I can take it.

My overwhelming impression is that leveling and skill tree progression is better in every way that matters in ME2. Specifically, ME1's point progression, benefits, and powers were unbalanced (Pistol Mastery ultimately was the best gun mastery in terms of flexible DPS), and progressive level-up numerical benefits could easily skew difficulty outside of intentional player agency (we're seeing this problem right now in Amalur).

In practical terms, there's less variety in optimized ME1 builds than there are in ME2 builds, and the variation in field performance between supposedly different builds was less, quite outside of build variety.

ME1's weapons and inventory was also not better than ME2, though ME2's is often criticized as being "oversimplified." After the first playthrough, there really was only one gun variety - Specter weapons. That was it. Even before that, you had maybe two or three significant leading gun choices. In ME2, taking assault rifles as an example, the Vindicator, the Geth Pulse Rifle, and the Revenant (a supposedly superior gun) are all viable choices, and have definite pros and cons depending on range application and enemy type. The markedly superior choice over all three in terms of brute DPS is the DLC Mattock, but it has actual, palpable ammo issues to balance that out (it's still a very popular choice for those who bought the DLC).

Overall, I felt that ME2 moved in the right direction in going back to basics in terms of loot conceptualization and implementation. ME1 felt a little lost in that regard. It wasn't Diablo, but it wasn't D&D, and it wasn't a shooter. It didn't know what it was and it suffered as a result. ME2 knew that it was a shooter, and it parceled out loot accordingly.

stevenmack wrote:

I think, across two different platforms, I've finished ME2 about six times (once on the highest skill setting: something I NEVER do). I've just got the last DLC mission to run through on my PC character (the slightly rubbish solo one that bridges the gap to ME3) and I'm all set.

Fingers crossed they conveniently whitewash over that whole "final boss plot twist" thing though.

T'was very silly.

It was logical!

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/pe9s6.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/psn8214/Deal_with_it_mass_effect_2.jpg)

I'm with you here - though I call shinanegans on Ultima 7 - 6 was the masterpeice, with it's fantastic dialog system before 7 ruined it with the moronic "Choose what you say from a limited list" that has dominated games since.

Anyways, I absolutely loved ME1 and 2, and am entirely stoked for 3. Just coming off my 160 hour obsession with Skyrim, ME3 is going to continue to eat all my spare time for the next while. Mass Effect/Fallout/Elder Scrolls... its pure gaming heaven for me.

Sure, ME1 and 2 have flaws, and 3 will as well... but they are *easily* in my favorite games of all time.

RoutineMachine wrote:
Jonman wrote:

In my memory, Mass Effect is peerless. When talking about it, I'll often use the phrase "it's the only game I've ever played that's done sci-fi right".

Upon reflection, and from playing the ME3 trailer, I've got to admit that I need to caveat that and replace the term "sci-fi" with "dumb summer blockbuster sci-fi". Let's make no mistake, the world of Mass Effect is not a high-brow space opera in the vein of Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds (oh what I wouldn't give for a Culture game done right, but that's another issue), it's peers are Starship Troopers, Skyline or Halo. The bombastic, dumb-as-a-rock-but-badass-as-all-f*** awesomeness.

I have heard many people like to make this distinction, but does being one exclude the other? Sure, opportunities to be a "blockbuster" may result in passed up opportunities to be sci-fi, but they don't work against eachother. They are two different aspects of Mass Effect, like Renegade and Paragon points.

Yes and no. The world-building of the Mass Effect universe feels more like high brow sci-fi. I devoured every codex entry in the games because they scratched that itch I have for deep, thought-out universes, and it touched on the politics, societies and technologies of that universe. That's what made it feel fleshed out.

However, what's front-and-center to the player is kinda dumb. The dialog is both written and delivered in a way that maximizes badass-itude and bombast while minimizing that depth of scope in the universe. I think that this only really became quite so apparent on later playthroughs because I was skipping all the codex stuff and rushing through the gameplay.

Jonman:

That's actually one of the things I like best about the medium. Its scope can telescope or retract according to individual taste. In that sense, ME is both high brow and low brow. The front-and-center story is the stuff of forgettable summer blockbuster pulp, but the environment detail and the Codex entries are pure Golden Age Sci Fi.

LarryC wrote:

Jonman:

That's actually one of the things I like best about the medium. Its scope can telescope or retract according to individual taste. In that sense, ME is both high brow and low brow. The front-and-center story is the stuff of forgettable summer blockbuster pulp, but the environment detail and the Codex entries are pure Golden Age Sci Fi.

Totally. Me too.

I think what I was trying to get at was that my recollection of the games emphasized the high-brow aspects, while I'd forgotten quite how popcorn/pulp the moment-to-moment experience of the game was.

Just did my 4th run last week. Realized I hadn't ever played paragon femShep. Always paragon male and renegade female. Needed to correct that.

Thankfully we don't have to worry about that in the 3rd, another thing that makes me hopeful it will somehow be better than 2.

Apollo0507 wrote:

Only problem is that when I played ME1 I wasn't aware of how much better FemShep was versus ManShep, so she's only a few hours into ME1. So I await next Tuesday with the same anticipation, however I know that when I find the time, I'll need to go through the entire trilogy with my FemShep. For me, the fact that a series like Mass Effect would cause me to look forward to that opportunity is why it is one of (if not my favorite) series.

As we have discussed in both ME2 and ME3 threads, there is an updated save file editor for ME2. You can start ME2, save, and then modify your file to look as if it was imported from ME1, with all the appropriate choices that you want, and then just play ME2.

Would save you the 30 hours of ME1, and give you time to just finish ME2 before 3 gets here.

I posted the step-by-step in one of the threads. Could do it again here if needed.

There's also a thread on the bioware site about how to import 360 saves and use the same editor and put them back on 360. For those of you who weren't meticulous about keeping your saves.

I have all 4 save files backed up on all 3 hard drives in my PC. Probably should stick the most recent of each on a flash drive too, just in case.

Wintersdark wrote:

I'm with you here - though I call shinanegans on Ultima 7 - 6 was the masterpeice, with it's fantastic dialog system before 7 ruined it with the moronic "Choose what you say from a limited list" that has dominated games since.

  • No
  • Job
  • Bye
Jonman wrote:
RoutineMachine wrote:
Jonman wrote:

In my memory, Mass Effect is peerless. When talking about it, I'll often use the phrase "it's the only game I've ever played that's done sci-fi right".

Upon reflection, and from playing the ME3 trailer, I've got to admit that I need to caveat that and replace the term "sci-fi" with "dumb summer blockbuster sci-fi". Let's make no mistake, the world of Mass Effect is not a high-brow space opera in the vein of Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds (oh what I wouldn't give for a Culture game done right, but that's another issue), it's peers are Starship Troopers, Skyline or Halo. The bombastic, dumb-as-a-rock-but-badass-as-all-f*** awesomeness.

I have heard many people like to make this distinction, but does being one exclude the other? Sure, opportunities to be a "blockbuster" may result in passed up opportunities to be sci-fi, but they don't work against eachother. They are two different aspects of Mass Effect, like Renegade and Paragon points.

Yes and no. The world-building of the Mass Effect universe feels more like high brow sci-fi. I devoured every codex entry in the games because they scratched that itch I have for deep, thought-out universes, and it touched on the politics, societies and technologies of that universe. That's what made it feel fleshed out.

However, what's front-and-center to the player is kinda dumb. The dialog is both written and delivered in a way that maximizes badass-itude and bombast while minimizing that depth of scope in the universe. I think that this only really became quite so apparent on later playthroughs because I was skipping all the codex stuff and rushing through the gameplay.

I hear a lot of people dismissing Mass Effect for being just a space opera, but that's not really true. While the plot itself is pretty bubble gum, the world of Mass Effect is very a world about how technology influences culture, and about the organic development of technology. The Mass Effect world is essentially one big cautionary tale about taking the advancement of science and technology for granted, and it does it in a way that's not just reflexive, Michael Crichton-style alarmism.

Between the Krogan, the Geth, the Quarians, and the Rachni, Mass Effect is telling a story about how science and culture don't exist in isolation from each other. And I think it does a very good job of that. It just doesn't put it front and center very often.

Jonman wrote:

Yes and no. The world-building of the Mass Effect universe feels more like high brow sci-fi. I devoured every codex entry in the games because they scratched that itch I have for deep, thought-out universes, and it touched on the politics, societies and technologies of that universe. That's what made it feel fleshed out.

However, what's front-and-center to the player is kinda dumb. The dialog is both written and delivered in a way that maximizes badass-itude and bombast while minimizing that depth of scope in the universe. I think that this only really became quite so apparent on later playthroughs because I was skipping all the codex stuff and rushing through the gameplay.

This is one of the the aspects of ME2 that really disappointed me when I played it: reams of fascinating background material to read, but precious little to do beyond talk-a-bit-and-fight.

And ME2 isn't the only game to get this balance wrong: Deux Ex, I think, made the same mistake by sticking so much interesting content in the e-mails, and so little interesting content in the bits the player actually plays.

To borrow the old movie adage, the developers should focus on putting more of the money on screen.

detroit20:

Which points exactly would you have liked to see and how, without turning ME2 into something else that you happen to like better? I see "This is a bad game," commentary all the time, but most of the time it's actually saying "I would like Street Fighter to feature less fighting and more shooting." I'm hoping that you're not doing the same thing - I'm asking an honest and straightforward question.

An example of a practical playable part of lore is the travel mechanic. The Mass Relays are divided into primary and secondary relays, which explains why you have to travel the universe the way you do.

With Bioware acknowledging the possibility of further ME games, I hope they do explore that world further after they've dealt with the largest threat possible with Shepard. If anything I don't think they can avoid it if they have to dig into smaller conflicts, be it another singleplayer story based game, a MMO or expanding out the multiplayer. As Jonman said, throughout the trilogy it's been a very light look at everything, but not much depth is explored, it does feel like what we've seen so far serves pretty well as an introduction rather than the main course of the world they've made.

Scratched wrote:

With Bioware acknowledging the possibility of further ME games, I hope they do explore that world further after they've dealt with the largest threat possible with Shepard. If anything I don't think they can avoid it if they have to dig into smaller conflicts, be it another singleplayer story based game, a MMO or expanding out the multiplayer. As Jonman said, throughout the trilogy it's been a very light look at everything, but not much depth is explored, it does feel like what we've seen so far serves pretty well as an introduction rather than the main course of the world they've made.

So an ME game with a narrative more like DA2? I want it.

Sonicator wrote:

So an ME game with a narrative more like DA2? I want it.

Hmmm, that makes me think of a hurdle they will have to jump, following the trilogy and selling the game as something different, yet keeping the links people have with the trilogy.