Game Informer gives Mass Effect a 9.75
by Justin McElroy 
{ Oct 16th 2007 at 11:30AM }
With the opener "Not since Star Wars made its theatrical debut in 1977 has there been a universe so full of wonder and awe," the review starts with a healthy dollop of praise and keeps piling it on. There is some criticism though of the game's action sequences. "Most of the skirmishes," the review reads, "which begin and end in the blink of an eye run into balancing issues, problematic AI and a difficultly in comprehending what is transpiring." ... Wow, so that's just a quarter-point worth of problem? We'd hate to see what it takes to get a 9.5.
[Thanks, Morphy]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Spiza @ Oct 16th 2007 11:36AM
I'd rather watch a movie while playing solitaire. That gives about the same effect.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Oct 16th 2007 12:19PM
The game is called MASS Effect, not Ass Effect.
Yourself @ Oct 16th 2007 11:38AM
It isn't news that Game Informer gives just about every big name game ever a 9.5+
ruibing @ Oct 16th 2007 12:38PM
Though I don't have a 360, I guessed this game would be really good since its from Bioware. I really hope its not their last great game either.
Anticrawl @ Oct 16th 2007 1:39PM
While that is true in a sense I think the real news is..."Holy fuck it's almost here? When did that happen?" Seriously though the holidays really snuck up on me, I'm not ready for all these great games? What am I gonna do? *curles up in corner in the fetal position*
Genius @ Oct 16th 2007 11:38AM
Ehh I don't trust GI, so they can take their bloated review and shove it.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:42AM
Oh shut up. You haven't even read the review. and since I regularly read GI,I can say most of their reviews are spot on.(though they did give both True Crime games 8s) And I mean come on did anyone not expect this game to get 9s? This is Bioware we're talking about. this game deserves it.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:43AM
Seriously I do not want to have to start my, Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the reviewers wrong, speech again. Cause it's getting annoying.
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:47AM
"This is Bioware we're talking about. this game deserves it."
No game deserves anything, dude. I don't care if it's made by Bioware, God or Miyamoto himself.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:51AM
Fine then. Then at least wait until the whole review comes out before you make your judgement. Joystiq has already showed us what happens when certain comments are taken out of context (with the Halo 3 nega-review).
NATO_Duke @ Oct 16th 2007 12:04PM
Seems we all have no idea what to critique until the review is out. How can anyone attack the reviews validity without having read it?
Even Satan could write a good poem if he wanted to.
blooh (CDF - Nipple Ring) @ Oct 16th 2007 12:13PM
well he is a mean fiddler...
Burritoclock @ Oct 16th 2007 12:20PM
Oh if only you had a vagina blooh I would make sweet love to you.
StrangeBum @ Oct 16th 2007 1:02PM
@ Samfish
'No game deserves anything, dude. I don't care if it's made by Bioware, God or Miyamoto himself.'
You God or Miyamoto like there is a difference between the two.
Just kidding guys. I completely agree with you though, no game ever deserves a certain rating, if it is a great game, then it will most certainly get a great review. I haven't played it, but I am most certainly waiting for it. Bioware is a favorite of mine, and I have high hopes for this game.
Anticrawl @ Oct 16th 2007 1:47PM
@Samfish
I liked how God came after Miyamoto. Ever seen Dogma? I can totally seeing God taking a human forum to play skeeball and make videogames. He/She most certainly came in the form of Miyamoto. Though relavent to Dogma he probably came back as Mr. Gameboy(Mr Gunpei Yokoi) and the prophets used the car to send him back into heaven so he could stop the Angels(Sega) from entering the gate and leading the to salvation(a 3rd party developer for Nintendo).
Fernando Rocker (NDF - Water Ring) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:38AM
Another reason why its good to have a 360. And a Wii.
Wii60 FTW
MariosInferno @ Oct 16th 2007 11:47AM
QFT
xXFenixKnight13Xx @ Oct 16th 2007 12:05PM
Wii60 Para la Victoria!!! Oops... I mean FTW!!! =)
Anticrawl @ Oct 16th 2007 1:41PM
Maybe I'm missing why he got voted down? I know he's a radicalist but he is right haha. Wii60 is the bomb digady and I can't wait for this holiday to pan out, so many fantastic games for the Wii are finally coming out. Well maybe more like 3 but that's more than I can afford ontop of all the 360 games!
Arno @ Oct 16th 2007 2:39PM
Fuck you and your Wii. :p
mfed3 @ Oct 16th 2007 3:12PM
ditto, fuck the wii
arrrgh @ Oct 16th 2007 4:30PM
go for it, fuck you the wii if you can. I'd be more worried about having a slot shaped dick, vanessa
Ed @ Oct 19th 2007 6:03PM
damn you arrrgh, I want to be the one saying things that don't make sense.
T3kNi9e @ Oct 24th 2007 10:00AM
I have a Wii60
But personally the Wii part sucks ass, I shoulda never wasted my money
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:43AM
Sounds like yet another magazine/reviewer bought into the hype. Those strike me as issues that would knock almost any other game down to at least a solid 9.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:47AM
Or maybe (and this is just a maybe) the reviewer didn't find it that much of a problem worthy of dropping it to a 9. I mean can we stop with the whole, reviewers on the hype train(which makes no sense since there was really no hype for this game to begin with), it's total bullshit and is getting a bit annoying.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Oct 16th 2007 11:48AM
I agree. It seems that they're willing to let the hype and possibly their own enthusiasm at finally getting to play such a hotly-anticipated title overwhelm their sense of good and bad. Those issues do seem pretty bad to me. If it's hard to comprehend what's going on in a skirmish.... That's not a good thing at all.
I mean, people love knocking AI all the time. They did it for Resistance and Gears and lauded it in F.E.A.R. It's a big thing to get right in big budget games nowadays (I think that good AI is a real sign of 'next-gen' material) and to hear them say that the AI is problematic, that should be a bigger negative alone than that quarter point.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:55AM
"If it's hard to comprehend what's going on in a skirmish."
sigh,
Just wait until the full review is out. I'm sure GI will clarify this and is not as bad as you think it is.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:56AM
shit, nvr mind. I'm reading the review now.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Oct 16th 2007 11:59AM
So are you the official GI correspondent, Mr. Oreo?
Or are you just that insecure that you have to comment spam every single person who happens to express concern over whether the review was balanced and unbiased?
Please, if the game is good than the game is good. You don't need to bash people over the head by retorting every single person (you know just as little as everyone else, so your opinion is just as invalid as everyone else's).
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Oct 16th 2007 12:05PM
"I mean can we stop with the whole, reviewers on the hype train(which makes no sense since there was really no hype for this game to begin with), it's total bullshit and is getting a bit annoying."
There's no hype for Mass Effect? Please! I got my ass handed to me about a month or so ago for saying it looked cliche. This is the 360's other Big Gun for the holiday season.
And YOU yourself said the game "deserves" the score it got since it's made by Bioware! THAT is bullshit.
Sorry, but reviewers get sucked in by hype and give over inflated scores as a result. It happens. It's life. This is different that saying Microsoft bribed them like some people seem to think.
It happens all the time. Especially towards the end of the year. Even Game Spot's Twilight Princess 8.8 is justified to many people, in retrospect.
The only thing Joystiq's Nega-Review showed was that Halo 3 WASN'T deserving of it's perfect score.
It's kind of funny, really. People who about film critics being out of touch with their audience and being overly pretentious. But at the same time, I would bet that if Game Informer and others applied the same standards film critics often have, there's no WAY they'd let those issues slide and give it a 9.75.
If the score is SOLELY to tell you how much a game is worth playing in relation to other games, FINE. I can see looking past those issues.
But if the score is the aggregate of the written review? Right off the bat, those issues plaguing most of the fights is a huge issue it sounds like.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Oct 16th 2007 12:15PM
Samfish... Will you marry me?
Trev @ Oct 16th 2007 1:08PM
Big plus for Samfish.
The review mentions
-Lame AI
-Cheap deaths at the hands of non-visible, off the radar enemies
-Weapon customizations you can see the entirety of in a couple hours that can also let you steamroll through enemies making the game too easy
-Incomprehensible battles
Those issues, all in one game, would have (and should have) lost a less-hyped game 2, maybe 3, points. And unless they fixed the previous issues with bland voice acting and really muted facial expressions that were mentioned at earlier previews, I don't see how this game could possibly pull off a 9.75. Just give it a 7.5 or 8 like other games with those flaws have received and call it a day. That's a fine technical score for a game. If it's being rated on the subjective "how much the reviewer was excited for it and liked it" then fine, give it a 9.75. People gave Lair 9s on that same standard.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 16th 2007 1:27PM
Oh please Sam, I'm sure if it was a game that you absolutely loved and it got the same score with the same problems I'm sure you'd have absolutely no problem with it.
What makes your argument even weaker is the fact that you yourself have never played the game. How can you claim that a reviewer is on the "hype train" when you haven't experienced the game yourself. Isn't it entirely possible that while there are problems with the game(since no game is perfect) that the positives overwhelmingly exceed the negatives? I mean if you were to write a game review and you thought that the game was the most fun you've ever had, are you really going to drop the game to an 8 or a 7 just because there are problems, even though they don't even hamper your enjoyment?
And even if you did played it and disagreed with the reviewer (I really can't believe I'm repeating myself for the umpteenth fucking time)doesn't mean that the reviewer is wrong. The problems GI listed are going to differ from reviewer to reviewer and gamer to gamer, some will feel that the problems hamper the gaming experience, while some won't really care. And none of them are wrong, because it's their opinion and it differs from person to person.
Babel @ Oct 16th 2007 1:40PM
Bear in mind that combat isn't as critical in RPGs as in, say, action games, because there are so many other elements. Look at Oblivion - the combat in that wasn't exactly fantastic, but nobody can deny it was an awesome game.
Having said that, you're right to say it shouldn't get 9.75. The issue isn't THAT small.
rockintom @ Oct 16th 2007 1:50PM
"What makes your argument even weaker is the fact that you yourself have never played the game. How can you claim that a reviewer is on the "hype train" when you haven't experienced the game yourself."
And conversely, neither have you. It is entirely possible that Mass Effect is fully deserving the score it got, but it is also possible that it doesn't. YOU haven't played the game, so stop jumping to the aid of the reviewer in every goddamn thread.
MasterInsan0 @ Oct 16th 2007 2:37PM
Don't forget that GameInformer is Gamestop's official magazine, and Gamestop wants you to buy Mass Effect...
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Oct 16th 2007 2:50PM
"Oh please Sam, I'm sure if it was a game that you absolutely loved and it got the same score with the same problems I'm sure you'd have absolutely no problem with it."
It doesn't matter what I think, though. Would I complain? I'm sure I'd be less inclined to note it, but that doesn't matter.
If, for example, Game Informer writes a review of Mario Galaxy and says, "The lack of camera control is often a hinderance and impedes gameplay" but then proceeds to give the game a 10 or so...yeah, THAT'S a problem and, if it's a valid complaint, the game wouldn't deserve it's 10.
"What makes your argument even weaker is the fact that you yourself have never played the game. How can you claim that a reviewer is on the "hype train" when you haven't experienced the game yourself."
It doesn't weaken my argument at all. There is a lot of hype behind Mass Effect. If he's pointing out substantial flaws that are prevalent throughout the game and proceeding to give it a near perfect score then it's fair to certainly ASK if they haven't been taken in by the hype.
UNLESS...
"Isn't it entirely possible that while there are problems with the game(since no game is perfect) that the positives overwhelmingly exceed the negatives?"
Yes! It's QUITE possible. But that would mean the numerical score has little to nothing to do with the written critique. And as I said, I'm fine with that if that's the case. Unfortunately, the magazine is, in that sense, a bunch of shlock and doesn't make it clear what the score is representative of.
And you're right. No game is perfect. They can surely make Mass Effect 2 better on the Xbox720, since technological improvements alone would make a better game possible.
And I'm of the opinion that a perfect score should be awarded if the reviewer honestly feels that the game is perfect in every respect, given the limitations of the system it's on, and could not be improved.
"I mean if you were to write a game review and you thought that the game was the most fun you've ever had, are you really going to drop the game to an 8 or a 7 just because there are problems, even though they don't even hamper your enjoyment?"
Again, depends on how I'm reviewing it. I've said numerous times how I think God Hand is the greatest game ever (and it is!). However, if I had to write a review of it, I'd trash it for being incomplete and buggy. Walls and buildings disappear when you approach them, the graphics are muddy and sub-par.
If I were reviewing God Hand solely on it's merits, I'd give it about a solid 8.
If I'm reviewing it based on how good the over all game is, flaws and all, I'm giving it a perfect 10.
If I were trying to be professional and balance my opinion of it, I would probably give it about a 9, recognizing how the obvious flaws in the game could be a negative to many players but at the same time ultimately do little to detract from the overall gameplay experience.
That is what I and evidently many others expect from a review. The reviewer's personal opinion balanced with the over-all game itself.
This appears very clearly to not be the case with Mass Effect, which evidently features repetitive, confusing gameplay with no new gameplay elements showing up in the latter portion of the game.
Norm @ Oct 16th 2007 11:47AM
I take all game reviews with a grain of salt. well, GI reviews get 3 grains of salt. But yeah. I'm sure the game is great, and giving numerical value is pretty difficult. I understand a number score is great for a quick "play or pass" suggestion, but they are rarely accurate in my opionion. A lot of times, the numbers don't match up with the written review.
andregalan @ Oct 16th 2007 10:01PM
Lots of people forget Game Informer is owned by GsmeStop. They've got a vested interest in selling as many of these hyped up games as they can, and in turn hyping up these hyped up games.
Not saying Mass Effect is good or bad one way or another, personally I hope its great, I love Bioware.
Game Informer, however, is essentially a shill rag, they'll inflate the score of anything their readers are potentially interested in, and trash the stuff they weren't looking at in the first place to appear unbiased.
HineyWipe @ Oct 16th 2007 11:46AM
"I'll be looking forward to the sequel?" Why??? I mean, if it's such a great sci-fi adventure, why would I now, wonder when a sequel will be released? Crappy scan, btw.
Joop @ Oct 16th 2007 12:56PM
Probably because it has been noted that it's a planned trilogy from the get go. That fact was also recently in the news when EA bought Bioware and the exclusivity of the sequels came into question.
Pay attention.
Luis Gutierrez @ Oct 16th 2007 12:18PM
It's funny how the people knockin the game right now, all have Nintendo characters as their avatars. I think when you're that flamboyant about you fanboy-ism, your comment is pretty meaningless.
blooh (CDF - Nipple Ring) @ Oct 16th 2007 11:55AM
lurk more
Silver R. Wolfe @ Oct 16th 2007 11:55AM
I just like the hat. I don't think there's ever been a redheaded wolf character with a pink shirt in a Nintendo game.
danny. (fdf.) @ Oct 16th 2007 12:04PM
Star Wolf? No pink I guess...
Fox in smash with the purple clothes? a fox...
Animal crossing? No red hair...
oh well, no one likes furries anyway.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Oct 16th 2007 12:12PM
Thanks Danny... As if I didn't know that already. :(
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Oct 16th 2007 12:16PM
Anyone who impugns another person's opinion based on their avatar doesn't deserve to have their opinion taken seriously.
WiNG @ Oct 16th 2007 12:49PM
Luis one day you will look back on this point of yours and laugh.
However today all the laughing will be done by others, at your expense. Nice hat.
WiseGuy @ Oct 16th 2007 11:50AM
Why would anyone own a 360 when you can have BLU-RAY and HOME?!?! Surely PS3 has not even tapped it's potential (with the limits of DVD) and is the only console worthy of such praise for it's superior hardware, right? (sarcasm). Wow, it's a great time to be a 360 owner.