2010/12/22: Xbox 360: Mass Effect

[ShadowAngel1]

[QUOTE=Not Available]Excuse me, but why is a shooter classified as an RPG? I am so sick of people making up loop-hole names for shooters.
[/QUOTE]

It does have RPG elements and where are real RPGs in todays world anyway? The days of Ultima, Wizardry, Might & Magic are long gone. If the japanese crap can be called RPG or Action-Adventures like Oblivion with it's completely broken skill-tree and useless character system, then Mass Effect 1 can certainly be called RPG, at least the skills do something and you get the feeling your characters becomes better and better with weapons as you progress.
Now the second game really is nothing more than a Third Person Shooter as they dropped basically every RPG element

The C+ is too harsh, even though the Xbox 360 version sucks compared to the overhauled PC version that addresses a lot of problems like the HUD and Controls (Games like that shouldn't be played with a gamepad, same as first person shooters)

Even though the game isn't perfect (Mako controls horrible, nearly every mission in the first half features the same set of buildings on some planet) it is a great game with a great storyline, great characters (who doesn't like Garrus or Wrex?) and good gameplay.

[The RPG Critic]

Hey, folks. Sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one.

My advice is that if you can get over some of the (what I found to be) shortcomings, bump up the letter grade to a B+. Remember that C+ isn't a bad game, in fact, it's better than average. For me, any story game in the C territory means I probably won't play it again, but I'm not particularly sorry I played, I had an alright time.

I have nothing but good things to say about the game's plot, storytelling, audio, and for the most part its graphics (save for the pop-in).

Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just say I had no problems with the combat, exploring, and equipment stats. There are still things that keep it from being an A game.

• That blasted Simon hacking game – which you did any time you wanted to recover an artifact or open locked containers, and there were lots!
• No stats overview screen – I shouldn't have to scroll through each piece of equipment and its upgrades to get a picture of the party members' attributes. Equipping all of Shepard's allies took like 10–15 minutes each time new items came in.
• Slow aiming – it would have been better on PC with a mouse.
• Mystery stats – if an upgrade can bolster my "weapons force", or my "stability", why doesn't the weapon itself list these stats somewhere? Not to mention the game doesn't exactly make it readily apparent as to what these stats actually mean.
• Collision stuckedness – I got trapped between objects more than once

Here's why I thought the combat and equipment just weren't all that fun. These seem to be my personal opinion, and if you can get over them, great.

• Accuracy vs. aiming. If this is a genre debate, I apologize. I'm used to FPS titles where the crosshair is where my bullets go. If the game designers see fit to "nerf" my aim as a player, why even taunt me with a crosshair whose center is a place where ammo may or may not end up?
• Untrained weapons – Why should I have to waste the time equipping allies with weapons they're never going to get better at using? Tali isn't trained to use Sniper Rifles, so why even give her the option of firing one in the first place?
• Unnecessary stats – I get the concept behind shields and damage protection, really, I do. I just think it complicates things unnecessarily. I'm a fan of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. If your armor only had one stat, you wouldn't have to worry about "Oh, well, does this attack bypass my shields? Because I'd better up my damage protection just in case".  Why does an upgrade increase my "weapons force" as opposed to its "damage"? Shouldn't these be the same thing? Less is more in this case, for me.

About 2/3 of the way through the game, I just wanted to finish it. It became a chore, especially collecting all the outrageous artifacts, metals, turian symbols, etc. etc. to level up. When I complained about the game to some of my friends who've since beaten it (one of whom was a girl), they insisted the sequel is much better regarding what I pointed out (for instance, no exploration in the Mako, and combat/equipment is much more streamlined). I hit up a great deal on Amazon and got Mass Effect 2 for $10, and it's sitting on my shelf ready to be tried out. I'm hoping for a better time.

―Jonathan

[GILLY]

This review must be taken down ASAP!!!!!!

[The RPG Critic]

Pop over to the thread about "What makes a game an RPG?" if you're interested in that discussion.

http://dmrozek.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5021402

―Jonathan

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Kudos for the honest review!

I have never played Mass Effect, but it sounds like the game is rather annoying.  I've been an RPG nut for a long time and to be honest, I'm kind of disappointed in the direction that the genre has been moving towards.  They seem less like RPGs and more like action games with too much dialog and unsatisfying combat.  I was very disappointed with Bioware's Dragon Age and much of my dismay stems from the ridiculous amount talking going on.  Sure its great that they can bring these worlds to life in ways we never thought possible when we were younger, but I'd be lying if I said that exploring them is fun.  I think that is a major problem with more modern RPGs, they simply lack/forget the fun.  However, I'm probably in the minority on this one.  

Those looking for a real space epic go play Star Control II.  That is the ultimate Space exploration RPG ever made.  

[gilly]

Why do people have opinions on a game they never played?

[stika1]

[QUOTE=The RPG Critic]Hey, folks. Sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one.

• Mystery stats – if an upgrade can bolster my "weapons force", or my "stability", why doesn't the weapon itself list these stats somewhere? Not to mention the game doesn't exactly make it readily apparent as to what these stats actually mean.

Here's why I thought the combat and equipment just weren't all that fun. These seem to be my personal opinion, and if you can get over them, great.

• Accuracy vs. aiming. If this is a genre debate, I apologize. I'm used to FPS titles where the crosshair is where my bullets go. If the game designers see fit to "nerf" my aim as a player, why even taunt me with a crosshair whose center is a place where ammo may or may not end up?
• Untrained weapons – Why should I have to waste the time equipping allies with weapons they're never going to get better at using? Tali isn't trained to use Sniper Rifles, so why even give her the option of firing one in the first place?
• Unnecessary stats – I get the concept behind shields and damage protection, really, I do. I just think it complicates things unnecessarily. I'm a fan of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. If your armor only had one stat, you wouldn't have to worry about "Oh, well, does this attack bypass my shields? Because I'd better up my damage protection just in case".  Why does an upgrade increase my "weapons force" as opposed to its "damage"? Shouldn't these be the same thing? Less is more in this case, for me.

[/QUOTE]
this is what I'm talking about, not everyone wants an RPG to be KISS, infact, Mass Effect was criticized by most Bioware fans for being too simple

when I think Bioware I think Baldur's gate and Neverwinter Nights, these games (speciall Neverwinter) have stats, upon stats, upon feats, upon special abilities, classes, races, it's unending
I once took 3 days to create my main character on Neverwinter Nights, sure I could have used the recomended settings, by I wanted to make him just perfect for me.

That's the thing, mass effect is not meant to be a simple RPG, and in the end it was simpler then what most Bioware fans wanted it to be

None of the bioware games make it crystal clear what the stats always do, it's part of their M.O. it's supposed to give you room to experiment
The acuracy is purposly dwarfed so that you have to imprve your acuracy points like in Deus Ex (considered to be one of the greatest PC games ever made)

Untrained weapons serves as an extra option RPG's use this in case you're desperate, though I will agree that Mass Effect is not deep enough to make the untrained weapon option usefull

Extra damage levels, physical defense vs. Shield defense these are all meant to be used as strategies

I consider the mass effect series to be weaker then  most bioware games, (specially mass effect 2) but the points you brought up seemed to come from someone who hasn't played many PC RPG's.
Maybe you have, i'm sorry if i'm comming too strongly, but I found mass effect to actually be too simple.
I mean the only RPGs that I can think off that are simpler then mass effect are Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion which is famous for being a step down from Morrowind

and Fable, which Peter Molyneux has recently admitted to be more of an Action Adventure game instead of an RPG

[ActRaiser1]

Is it possible that the edited down version of the review lost some of the context?  Maybe adding back the missing context would have helped?

As reviews go, it's fine.  You didn't love it.  The parts that I found most tedious were the driving aspects, but that's just me.

My only real complaint with the review was that a lot of the criticisms given are those aspects that are typically found in an RPG.  One must usually deal with armor, stats, etc.  It's like those aspects of the game irked you, but that's usually what you do in an RPG.

My only other suggestion, and take it with a grain of salt, you used a lot of passive voice in the review.  Compare the critic's reviews and there's very little "is" and "ares".

Looking forward to the Mass Effect 2 review.  As RPGs go, it's extremely light but incredibly fast paced with amazing visuals.

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=gilly]Why do people have opinions on a game they never played?
[/QUOTE]

My opinion wasn't about the game, but rather the review and modern/western RPGs in general.  I added something to the conversation rather than crying about an arbitrary letter grade and demanding that the review be taken down because it goes against your own personal opinion.  Maybe if you explain to Jonathan why you considered the game an A he could have a conversation about it.  He has taken the time to give well thought out responses...you could try to do the same.

[Blueguy93]

[QUOTE=gilly]Why do people have opinions on a game they never played?
[/QUOTE]

You need to understand that if you think it's an A game, that's all that matters. As long as you personally enjoy the game, you won't let any other opinion sway yours. I'm pretty sure John has played the game, and if it were Dave playing the game, I'm pretty sure he'd give it the same grade.