EmP's Mass Effect 2 review

"the roving MAKO vehicle no one liked"

*coughcough* AHhahahehehehmmm!

But then again, I also think the entire main plot (and all dialogue and writing associated with it) in ME2 is extremely pedestrian. The side-quests are often good, though.

I disagree. To me, the dialogue and the world itself was the strongest point, while the actual gameplay was shabby at best.

Good review, though.

Maybe ME1's plot was more of a sweeping epic, but ME2 was much more character driven. It took the time to establish the cast in a way the first kinda skimmed over to plough more effort into the main story. Pros and cons, I guess.

I'd argue that ME2 was too character-driven for its own good. The story itself was terrific, but there were only really a handful of missions devoted to it. The standard three-act plot structure is there for a reason.

By the way, EmP, I already hated my ME2 review before I read this and now I hate it even more. Great job/go to hell.

lol :D

"The story itself was terrific, but there were only really a handful of missions devoted to it."

That's a really good point, imo. They really know how to write great characters, and to design situations where the player can engage with them. And the game does that so well you feel like a real miser when complaining about anything.

But there is maybe a tendency, and a stronger one than in ME1, to almost have the missions exist outside and away from the main plotline.. I mean, in ME1 you had the ties back to the council, all the locations involved the lore and so on. Even some of the random encounters had political or situational context that explained something about what happened in the star-systems, etc..

I remember reading your first review and being rather confused by its roundabout way of telling things, even though that one was really good, too. This one I find to be much more engaging simply because it's more "linear", if that makes sense. The examples you use are also very poignant and illustrate well the deep and turbulent world(s) you explore. Frankly, when it comes to reviewing games that are this large, the best way is to find a focus rather than talking about everything, and that's exactly what you did. By fully illustrating the game's strongest points, we get a much more detailed image of the game (or at least that focused part of it) rather than just a surface-glazing of everything that went into it. And this works much better.

The only real issue I had with the review, aside from the typical grammar / spelling things (pointed out below) that almost inevitably come with your reviews (although they've been mercifully fewer as of late), deals with some of your sentence structure in some cases. Sometimes you get so wrapped up in what you're describing that some of your sentences just get bogged down and confusing after a while, so it might be worth cutting down, breaking up or rephrasing some them to make them clearer. However, there aren't too many examples of this in the review, and again, this is also another common problem you have with your stuff that, really, in the grand scheme of things isn't THAT huge a deal.

I rather liked your ME2 review, Suskie. I almost didn’t bother writing my own because I didn’t feel the site needed it. Then I wrote it anyway; I’m odd like that.

I didn’t mind the loose focus on the plot because it felt more like this attack was a scouting mission rather than a full out Reaper assault that the third game is set to bring. 2 felt like it was setting a lot of the foundations for 3 so that it need not go back over things already covered, like the team’s backstory and building their characters and the like. I guess we’ll see.

Thanks for the catches, WQ. I set out with the failings from the first Mass Effect review in mind, and also taking what seemed to work for Red Dead Redemption, which people seemed t have liked.

I’m thinking about entering this in the Indie tourney.

Actually, it'll be interesting to see how they handle ME3's cast. Keep in mind that no one in ME2 is guaranteed to have survived that game. However they approach it, it feels at this point like so much of the exposition on display in ME2 is wasted on characters that, one way or another, won't have the spotlight in part three.

What they did to scatter ME1's cast was great, but if they ploughed this much effort into establishing ME2's cast at the cost of the overall plot then threw them away, I cant help but feel that would be a huge mistake. Hence why I'm backing on 2 & 3 suscribing to the usual "One big game" rather than the huge progression between 1 & 2. I guess time will tell.