Home
Great article. I've often wondered what is ideal in regard to ratings. I use Metacritic for a quick glimpse but I then rely on Gamespot’s quick Pro’s and Con’s to determine if what I value highly is done well in a game. Lastly, I use videos of gameplay to make my final decision, rather than opinions of others.
Anway, if I were you, I'd use all four main methods for every game for the next 6 months as a test. I'd do this partially because it would be very intellectually interesting from a review standpoint, and moreover, it would be most helpful to thoughtful readers.
For instance, give a 0-100 score for quick and easy Metacritic users. Also, give a dollar value assessment in relation to other games because this idea is so compelling. Then provide an L/N score that separates the technical gaming aspects from the artistic/thematic elements (I might suggest Gameplay/Narrative as the terms). Finally, give a score like Spill.com does: full price/sale/rental/skip.
(I love the L/N idea because so many games starkly contrast between being both technical disasters but thematic greats (Alpha Protocol, Arcana, VBtM, The Last Remnant Xbox, ect.), and this division allows players to decide what they value more, hardcore gameplay or unique and deep experiences.)
As I said, I do think this process tried for 6 months will greatly enhance our understanding of what is the best rating system. I know if I had a game review site, that is what I would do. ...Maybe I should start one."
Anyway, ME2 I completed and enjoyed like you did because ME2 definitely has incredible production values. But I too had zero interest in playing it again. I wanted to have interest, I really did, but it felt so hollow. I even tried starting over but I found myself getting very annoyed at the same repetitive combat. And understand, I'm a hardcore FPS player as well as hardcore RPG player.
As you point out, ME2’s RPG elements were really completely pointless. Stats, character levels, ect all meant almost nothing. I felt like I was playing Uncharted or something when playing ME2.
I also agree 100% that the ME2 story was so completely contrived and silly. ME1 was epic. How anyone can think ME2’s story was good is beyond me…
Anyway, your article nailed it. ME2 is just shallow and doesn't allow for any further inventiveness in subsequent playthroughs. And I actually preferred the combat in ME1, I never once got bored of fighting during my four playthroughs. And I really enjoyed the inventory system in ME1. Of course, I also adored the Mako exploration segments (exploring distant planets in hopes of finding rare and powerful artifacts=awesome!). And yes, I realize I'm in the 0.001% minority.
I agree that games like ME1, Oblivion, and Alpha Protocol give players true reasons to replay them because they are deep enough to allow gamers to express themselves over and over each time. Games like ME2 allow gamers to express almost nothing. ME2 didn't allow me to have my own ME2 experience but rather the prepackaged ME2 experience, just like so many others like Uncharted, BioShock, Singularity, ect. It's the "me creating my own world" vs "me visiting someone else's world" juxtaposition of ME1 vs ME2 that I found so striking.
To conclude, thanks again for the article. I also hope BioWare reconsiders and makes ME3 more like ME1 because the last thing we need is more 10 hour throw-away shooters!"