| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (95)

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 1:49AM Trogdorwhore said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Not suprised, brilliant game.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 1:49PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Trogdorwhore

Yes... unless/until you hit the game-breaking 'corrupt save file' bug when playing it on PS3.

It happend to me, erasing 27 hours of hard gaming graft. EA/Bioware are aware of the problem, but have not yet devised a solution that enables players to retrieve what they've lost.

As far as I'm concerned an flaw so fundamental and with such punishing consequences means that ME2 cannot be Game of the Year.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:35PM Cap Morgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
That does suck and might not make it GOTY for you personally, but the awards are well earned. Consider the bug an oportunity to correct some of the mistakes you made on the first play through.
I've played it through 3 times already so I don't see playing it through again as a bad thing.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 1:51AM Invigilator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well deserved! Mass Effect 2 was incredible in all respects.

Mass Effect 1 was better in a few ways, like the various ammunition customization (missed that a bit in the sequel) and also being able to equip and customize ally armor and weapons a lot more.

That said, Bioware always takes feedback into account, and they said Mass Effect 3 will combine the sweet combat of ME2 with the deeper customization and min.maxing of ME1.

Cannot wait for ME3, I anticipate it more than any other game. Though Elder Scrolls 5, Battlefield 3 and possibly Diablo III and Heart of the Swarm will also be amazing this fall.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:01AM DigitalImpulse said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Invigilator IMO Mass Effect 1 had a BY FAR superior story to Mass Effect 2. I mean sure the weapons had their issues in both games but I was way more interested in the story opposed to the graphics or weapons. For example I was able to use the Mako just fine. I hope they go back and add more elements that compliment the STORY this time, like the artifacts left by the Protheans in Mass Effect 1.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:13AM Vcize said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@DigitalImpulse

The difference with the story was that ME2 didn't have a big payoff like ME1 did. Both of them built up the stories well, and then ME1 just went BAM and punched you in the face with that conversation with Sovereign, whereas ME2 just had you fight a giant terminator with no major twist or anything.

Plus, nothing really ended up happening in ME2. Whoopdee, we saved the galaxy from that one reaper they were building nearby, but then the cutscene shows like ten thousand reapers on their way anyway. I guess it's a good thing we won't have to fight 10,001 in ME3 since we took care of that one already.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:22AM Vcize said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Vcize

***SPOILERS BELOW***

I should clarify that, while the overall "big picture" story was much better in ME1, ME2 did a lot of the small scale story stuff much better. The characters were better, the loyalty missions were phenomenal (even if they went to the "daddy issues" well one too many times), and most importantly the way they did the last mission where anyone could live or die was incredible.

I lost Garrus, who has been my right-hand man all the way through the series so far, because of a stupid decision that I made. I was half tempted to go back to my last save and replay from there so I could have Garrus in ME3, but instead I chose to just play on and live with the consequences. Now I have to live with my decision and what it cost me, and in ME3 I'll actually have a feeling of loss for not being able to have him in my party because of something I did. It's unreal that Bioware was able to invoke a real, true sense of regret out of me based on what played out in a videogame.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 3:09AM Invigilator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Vcize

Personally I preferred the events that happened in Mass Effect 1 as well: more interesting things happened.

That said, in a trilogy like this, I view the whole thing as one continued story. I dont think of it as say, Fellowship of the Ring being better than Two Towers, simply because theyre all part of the same story. I do think Fellowship had more interesting events in it, but it wasnt as if Two Towers was somehow worse or something: eventually the Fellowship events had to stop and something else had to start.

Mass Effect 2 is almost based around a sidequest: finding team members and then eliminating at best a minor threat, the Collectors. Unlike Saren and Sovereign, the collectors never had threatened the galactic community as a whole. They were just hinting at the bigger threat to come.

Obviously Mass Effect 3 will have more story progression than 2 did. But all the same, Bioware did a phenomenal job in making one of the best singleplayer games ever around what is essentially just sidequests in ME2.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 9:31AM arkweld said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Invigilator

All respects? Nah.

Collecting thermals clips was just lame arcade crap.

They took a brilliant bit of science fiction established in the first game and created a more stupid replacement to up the action content.

Apparently in the future we'll design weapons that have almost infinite ammo but instead of designing a more efficient cooling mechanism we'll just force the soldiers to run around the battlefield looking for ice packs?
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 11:59AM Caerus said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@arkweld This, times infinity. It took me 4 months to bring myself to get past the very first fight because of how disappointed it made me feel that they changed the perfect ammunition system for no reason. I finally got a mod that tried to mimic ME1 ammo and powered through it, but it just wasn't the same. I never got past the IFF mission, because the combat had just lost something from ME1 (which I've played through... probably 5 times).

They also changed how cover worked, and I for one much preferred the ME1 style. I think it was the difference between running "into" a wall would enter cover, and pressing a button. ME1 just felt more natural and flowed better.

Lastly, it was great how you couldn't use most of the armor if you wanted to see your face and the associated amazing facial technology these games have. That scene where your character takes a drink through his mask... just so very out of character for Bioware.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:14PM maveric101 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Invigilator

"That said, Bioware always takes feedback into account, and they said Mass Effect 3 will combine the sweet combat of ME2 with the deeper customization and min.maxing of ME1."

i hope so. don't get me wrong, ME2 is still a great game, but i was disappointed with the comparative dearth of guns and armor. not to mention only one upgrade path shared between all guns of a certain type for your whole squad. also the ammo, and how all your powers have to cool down after using one. oh, and having to buy fuel for your ship is a pain in the dick. at least give me a bigger freakin' tank.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:31PM maveric101 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@arkweld

the thermal clips would be absolutely stupid in real life, too. so, you're going to heat this piece of metal to several hundred, probably over a thousand degrees, and then eject it sideways... straight into the guy next to you?

the weapon upgrade slot system in ME1 was so much better, imo. i miss having my shotgun that was upgraded to the point where it was impossible to overheat it. i also didn't like how they made shotguns shorter range to differentiate it in combat use from the submachine gun.
Reply

Posted: Feb 12th 2011 9:33AM arkweld said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@maveric101

not to mention the weapons inventory was crap too. They present a small list of guns but no stats to indicate which is better or why. if each gun is successively an improvement then why keep the old ones? It's not as if you are going to go back and use them.

At least in the first you could sell the crap weapons when you found better.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 1:58AM UnverifiedUser said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Couldn't agree more with this one. Recently got it on PS3 and absolutely love it. I've put in only 30 hours and its quickly become one of my top 10 games.

Although, while BioWare is an amazing developer, I don't quite agree with them being Studio of the Year... forgot who named them as such, but that title definitely goes to Platinum Games.

That said, I'm loving ME2, lookin' to pick up ME1 on PC soon, since I jumped into the series with 2 and eagerly awaiting ME3.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 3:13AM Invigilator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@UnverifiedUser

Im not familiar with platinum games, what did they make this yearÉ
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 3:56AM jtrjuwrue5iiejie5ijeie3i5 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Invigilator Bayonetta, Vanquish
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 12:39PM SuzanoSho the drug dealer PSN Sm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Invigilator

So far, they've made nothing this year lol...


As for Mass Effect 2, I'm REALLY loving this game, and I haven't even put that many hours into it yet...my only issue is that it's really hard for me to actually call this an RPG...so far, it really just feels like a shooter...

Not that I have a problem with that, just a little identity crisis thing...
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 1:58AM staybrutal420 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Deserving. I started a 3rd playthrough, a female biotic today. Can't wait for ME3.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:04AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@staybrutal420
I can't seem to enjoy the game as much when I'm not a biotic. I should probably try the others again though...
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:14AM Vcize said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Premature ejaculation man

Vanguard, charge.

That is all.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 11:14AM DokiDokiBawanga said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Vcize i like sentinel. armour looks pretty cool and i'm indestructible.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:34PM maveric101 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Vcize

totally; charge is the shit.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:03AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
ME2 was good, but it was not nearly as great as ME1 in a lot of ways. The combat was a lot better (except the thermal clips) at least.

Can't wait for ME3

Also glad to see Starcraft 2 get recognised since it is a PC game and all...

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:10AM HoFT013 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Premature ejaculation man What was wrong with the thermal clips? It served as ammo, standard in shooters.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:24AM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Premature ejaculation man

Totally agree.

I thought I was the only one on joystiq who thought this way.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 4:29AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@HoFT013
I liked the unique way it was in ME1. It encouraged cover based shooting, rewarded you for shooting in bursts and punished you for spamming (since you'd have to wait or switch guns).

I hated in ME2 when I would run out of thermal clips (maybe I missed them). Thermal clips put it into "standard shooter" territory. Going by the lore of the first game, one shouldn't be able to run out of ammo, they'd simply have to wait for the cooldown of the heatsink. But nope! Had to throw them around using biotics to kill.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 4:50AM RogueJedi86 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@HoFT013

The cooldown/heating system was more unique and worked well with the ammo powerups(do you choose +damage at the cost of +heat?), plus the ammo clips created some plot holes. Without spoiling, I'll just say you go to a world that has been away from galactic contact for over 10 years, long before the Thermal Clip system was adopted. And yet the foes there still drop thermal clips when killed. How can they drop/use thermal clips that won't be invented/adopted for 8 years after their ship crashed on a remote planet?

And in case anyone isn't sure what I'm talking about, it's Jacob's loyalty mission. That should refresh everyone's memory.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:03AM Riley Freeman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well deserved. Congrats to BioWare, I can't wait for ME3.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 9:21AM StrangeDNA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I didn't like the move to thermal clips for two reasons: 1. It felt very conventional and decidedly less futuristic than ME1 weapon design, and 2. Our small arms weapons today have no need for thermal clips.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:17AM KIDCHAINSAW said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Too bad Nier beats ME2 is all three of those categories, and tops at least two others (soundtrack and original composition).

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:23AM Deschain said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I usualy get down voted for saying anything bad against bioware, but Bioware's story telling as of late is overrated. It's all quantity over quality. It's not bad, but overrated. I would have given the story telling and goty award to RDR. Much more compelling story imo.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:34AM psnkillstrike said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Deschain I'm playing through ME2 right now and agree with the opinion that red dead had a better story...again that is my opinion
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 4:28PM Rather Dashing said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain Karpshyn's good at writing characters. His "stories" are generally typical or send-ups. I've always preferred Avellone, who always subverts his subjects in some major way, provides realistic homosexual characters that aren't insulting, has a dark sense of humor, and has some amazing social commentary to bring to the table. It's too bad Obsidian's games never can be reviewed well, because the bugs are generally fixed not too long after release and the games are very well-conceived and designed.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 7:40PM TheDarkWayne said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain RDR might have had a more interesting overreaching plot, but it's individual parts really lagged behind. Nearly the entirety of Mexico had zero in terms of story, it was like complete filler. ME2 might have faltered a little with the big picture, but it was a sequel setting up for the big finale after all, but it really succeeded in the details, the personal relationships, the loyalty missions, all that good stuff.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 9:03PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Rather Dashing

Pretty much, totally agree.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 9:13PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@TheDarkWayne

Haha it was not filler at all. When you have a story as long as RDR or ME for that matter you are bound to have sub plots and side stories. As long as the side stories help the main plot - which they did - it's not really filler. Besides that I think RDR did a much better job presenting a realistic/beleivable representation of characters without the melodrama or cheesy albeit well acted dialog. But then again ME is basically part of that space opera genre so i guess some cheese is what makes it appealing? maybe? I don't know. All I know is that ME2 had me groaning at times. Mainly because the lack of a compelling villain which is very important in a story like ME. Sometimes I wish Saren didn't die so he could be a reoccurring villain lol. I am bias though. I loath the choose your own adventure style of story telling so much I always pick the neutral response in dialog.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:36AM Rather Dashing said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Heavy Rain is NOT innovative. This EXACT SAME COMPANY did the EXACT SAME THING only ONE console generation ago. Gamers' short-term memory only gets shorter and shorter as the years go by, it seems.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:46AM jameskond said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Rather Dashing Kind of the same? Sure Exactly the same? No way man, have you played Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain? Fahrenheit is some weird Quick Time Events game while Heavy Rain is something far more unique.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:55AM ZexionArmando said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jameskond Yeah, Heavy Rain is far more unique. I mean, gosh, the QTE's were soooooo normal...
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 3:07AM Rather Dashing said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jameskond PLEASE explain the difference to me. I've played both. Indigo Prophecy was at best a refinement of the FMV/interactive movie games, and Heavy Rain was at best a refinement of that. That's fine and all, but it's not an INNOVATION and it's not UNIQUE. I seriously want you explain what makes Heavy Rain unique. This isn't a trap or anything, I honestly DON'T KNOW what you people are thinking.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:41AM Ospov said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All of those games deserve it. Good job guys!

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:54AM ZexionArmando said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
... God of War for Outstanding Achievement in Animation?
... Or Heavy Rain for Visual Engineering?
Dear lord... lol

..... The worst is GoW:GoS for best portable game... really?

And hell, rock band shouldn't even be eligible for OST...

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 4:22AM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ZexionArmando

Apparently they ignored the "original" aspect of OST. Crap like that annoys me.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 9:04AM Mcmax3000 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain - They didn't ignore anything.

The category is titled "Outstanding Achievement in Soundtrack", which is an award that Rock Band 3 very much deserves.

I believe you're looking for "Outstanding Achievement in Original Music Composition", which is a separate category & was won by Heavy Rain.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:44PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mcmax3000

this is what i get for reading a comment and not the article.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:54AM Axe99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seems like a 'lets be mainstream and masses-friendly' with the awards this year. They're all good games, but ME2 and GoW:GoS strike me (obviously, only my opinion) as the 'best-in-class' experiences for their respective categories (although ME2 clearly had a lot of good competition, GOTY's are always hard, but it was at least an equal-best in 2010). But Heavy Rain had better animation than GoW III, and NFS:HP was a disappointment that faded fast (compared to the elephant in the room, which has a greater presence on my PS3 friends list than the CoDs (MW2 was the big game on my FL this time last year)). Personally, I thought RUSE was both a better game (although clearly less moddable) and far more strategic than SC2, but these awards seem to be all about mainstream and popular, and fair enough, there's a place for that.

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 4:27AM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Axe99

Ruse, more strategic than Starcraft 2?

I'm not even a huge Starcraft fan and even I have to say that is asinine.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 5:46AM Axe99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain Did you play RUSE? SC2 is a great game, but it's more of the same (albeit polished to perfection) Westwood/Blizzard formula we've been playing for over fifteen years. RUSE mixed it up a bit, played a bit differently and was really, really well balanced. SC2 clearly has modding ability through the roof, which is awesome, but you don't give a game best strategy for that.

Remember, strategy ain't tactics - the old Westwood/Blizzard formula is a great twitch game with a lot of tactics with a small helping of strategy to one side. Old-school strategy gamers (the ones who've been doing it since before strategy games were on computer) are right up on this, but a lot of gamers assume RTS games involve strategy because it's in the name, whereas in most cases they're primarily RTT.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 2:43PM Deschain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Axe99

Yeah strategic isn't tactics. Strategy is your long term plan, tactics are the fundamentals to fulfill that plan. On that note SC2 is highly strategic.
Reply

Posted: Feb 11th 2011 4:00PM Axe99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deschain Almost - from a tactical gaming perspective, strategy is how you mobilise your production base and position your forces - tactics is how you win the battles between those forces and the other guys.

The thing about SC2 (and every Westwood/Blizzard RTS game) is that winning is all about actions per minute - generally, the person with the most APM wins (and this is often in the hundreds!). The great thing about RUSE is that once you get to a certain (still _very_ low from an SC2 perspective APM) it's all about decision making. In SC2, the contest is often between who can twitch-click the best (yes, there's strategy in there as well, but because SC2 holds tight to the classic RTS formula, APM is generally more important than strategy - strategy only becomes important when you've got two players with the same APM - which you'll find in contests, but in general online play not so much). In RUSE, it's all about between who's got the better strategy and tactics (as the optimum APM is nowhere near as high). That doesn't make SC2 a bad fame - SC2 is a great game. But RUSE is far more about strategy (and better at it) in my opinion.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW