So, I finished Mass Effect 2 for the second time over this past weekend, and having been through it, twice I feel I can at least put my thoughts in order about the whole thing. Fair warning, this post will probably contain some spoilers, I'll try to keep it nebulous, but some of it will be avoidable. I'll try to mark what will be spoiler-ish and you can skip past it.

Ok, first, let’s get some spoilers out of the way.

Firstly, you owe it to yourself to play the first game and import your save into the new game - for the simple reason that if you don't, what you'll be playing probably isn't your story. For whatever reason, Bioware chose to make the "canon" story be one that had Shepard be the hugest dick imaginable. Not only did he romance Ashley (i.e. racist bigot chick) but also he sacrificed the council AND he killed Wrex. Seriously, what a douche. Who liked Ashley? Seriously? Granted Alenko wasn't much better, but he was better than Ashley was >_<. Anyway, as I said, this probably wasn't your story. We all know everybody romanced Liara anyway.

What?

Ok, that's it for the first game spoilers...probably...

Now, if you played the original on the 360 this is easy, just load the game, import and away you go. But if you're like me and hate the 360 with a fiery passion and switched to the PC either you'll need to buy the first game (it's only $20 on steam now, less if you catch it on sale) OR you can go to the online repository for saved games here and find a game similar to your original play through and download it. You'll be missing...not a lot of things, but certainly, you'll have a less fulfilling adventure because there are maybe three dozen choices from the first game that will show up in your play through. Moreover, all your choices will carry over through ME2 into ME3, so you'll probably want things to carry over simply for that reason. Plus you'll start out with some nice experience and crafting bonuses (for example, if you finished at level 50, you'll get enough starting exp to start out at level 3, if you finished at level 60, you get enough to start at level 5). They're not huge, but they help.
Now, that out of the way let's get down into the meat and bones of the thing and talk about Mass Effect 2.

If I were to list my all time top 10 or so games, the list would probably look something like this.

1. Xenogears
2. Mass Effect 2
3. Skies of Arcadia
4. Mass Effect
5. Conker's Bad Fur Day (N64)
6. Uncharted 2
7. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time
8. Final Fantasy X
9. Uncharted
10. Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
11. Starcraft
12. Dragon Age
13. Knights of the Old Republic
14. Knights of the Old Republic 2

A bit of background here. The games near the top are up there because either I can sit through and replay them multiple times, or because I can sit and invest hour after hour into them (like FFX...I think I have something like 140 hours of game play sunk into it). However, the top 2 (used to be just top 1 until ME2), are there because they hold a very special place in my heart. Xenogears made such an impact on me that it is the bar that I will - probably forever - hold all other games to. I'm not going to say it's perfect by any means, there were a lot of things that bugged me about that game, most of them starting on the 2nd disc, but that's not why we're here. Consequently, when I say that I like a game *almost* as much as I like Xenogears that should give you a good bar to judge that by.

Mass Effect 2 *is* that game. I can't explain in very simple terms what it is about the game that draws me to it. Some more background here.

If you'll notice, there are several Bioware games on my list. I am an unashamed Bioware Fanboy. There are very few other studios out there that have so drawn my loyalty. I discussed this in a previous blog entry, so I won't rehash old tales. Something about how the stories in their games are constructed and how memorable their characters are just come together into such a complete and wonderful package, that the RPG fanboy in me squeals like a little girl anytime I hear they're making a new game.

I got into the Mass Effect hype very early. Back when I first heard about the story, the whole hook of it just drew me in. I grew up on Star Trek and Star Wars, so sci-fi space stories make me happy, so when I heard that Bioware was making their own IP based in space I got very excited, and everything I read about the story got me more and more excited. I bought the novel tie-in they released a few months before the release of the game and read it through so I knew what was going on when Captain Anderson said he had a history with Saren, because I'd already read it - I was attached to the story. Starcraft does the same thing to me. I've read practically all of the extended universe novelization tie-ins. I eat this pulpy goofy sci-fi shit up with a spoon.

Because I had this attachment, ME was more meaningful to me, I was familiar with the characters and the world going in. I bought the second ME novelization sometime last year (I think, maybe it was the year before? anyway), and was introduced early on to the Collectors. I also know why the Quarians hate Cerberus. I read that book. Once again, going into ME2 parts of the story were already more meaningful to me. It also helps that Shepard was *my* Shepard, it was *my* story. There are only so many ways for me to play through my story, to do so otherwise would feel like a betrayal. But I'm starting to get far a field here. Going back to my hopes of being able to quantify my love for this game is going to come up against an impossible wall, but we'll try.

Ok, we're getting into spoiler territory here, you've been warned.

The story itself is rather simple. There's a great evil out to destroy the galaxy, and once again, the only one standing in the way of certain death is Shepard. The first 10-15 minutes of the game start out with a fantastic hook and does a wonderful job of explaining why you're not starting out at level 60 with a super powered Spectre trained warrior. I hesitate to spoil it here, so we'll skip it. Once you get control of your character, you're thrown immediately into the thick of things. Human colonies are disappearing, and the Collector's are the prime suspect. There's no real dilly-dallying around like there was in the first game. In ME1 you spent a good 4-6 hours (probably) running around the Citadel doing random quests and picking up some party members, and then you wandered around the universe trying to figure out what was going on. Not so here. You know you're going after the collector's, you need to get your team together, find out how to get to their base (you already know it's beyond the Omega-4 relay) and you have to take the fight to them.

Much of the side quests in the original game are now gone. I don't particularly miss them; they were a lot of busy work. Not to say there aren't side quests this time around, but the vast majority of them take 5 minutes to complete, or involve running through a planet or a secret base to complete some one-off mission that takes at most half an hour. Gone are the annoying days of driving your stupid lumbering Mako around fighting to climb up impossibly steep cliffs to get to some question mark on your map. Instead you scan a planet, drop a probe and land in a shuttle DIRECTLY WHERE THE MISSION IS. This right there wins sooooo many points in my book you have no idea. I hated that fucking Mako.

But back to the story. Ok, here's the thing. When it comes to a game, I'm a very big fan of everything in the game being integral to the whole while at the same time, not forcing something to be done to complete the game. While I'm Ok with doing some side missions, they need to tie back into the game itself in order for it to "fit in" with the rest of the game in my book. Outside of collecting your party members, it is entirely possible to skip practically everything in the game. Here comes the biggest spoiler in the game. You can play the game in such a way so that not only does every member in your party die, but Shepard will die as well, and it will make perfect sense in the context of the story. But that very much is the "bad ending". You're essentially NOT playing the game as intended and in the end you suffer the consequences because of it. You don't get a good ending. This is an amazingly wonderful design choice. This ties back into lack of superficiality in games and trimming away of the fat. To compare, the game that does this best is Final Fantasy X. Everything in that game ties into something else even if large parts of it are completely optional. Like playing Blitzball or doing the Monster Arena. You don't have to do it, but if you do, you get something related to the game because of it. Blitzball nets you Wakka's ultimate weapon. The arena nets you Auron's, but even more so you get to fight bosses that give you stat increase options that make you even more powerful. You can still beat the game without any of this, but doing all these extras nets you so many cool extras that finishing becomes more meaningful to you.

But what I really think pushes ME2 up very high into the upper echelons of gaming is the characters. I don't know if any of you have read anything by David Eddings, but he is very much the same. His stories aren't necessarily the most original of things. Half of his books are almost exact copies of the other half of his books, but he writes the most memorable characters. Bioware very much does the same thing. Now granted their stories are much better than a lot of what else is out there, but they're not grand sweeping operatic things for the most part (don't confuse this for thinking that I think their stories are bad, far from it). However, their characters are amazing. I spent probably as much time just talking to all my crew members and learning their stories as I did doing the rest of the game. I wanted to know these characters; I wanted to relate to them. I became attached to them and felt like I was a part of their lives.

This is what games need to focus on, interactions, building meaningful relationships [within the context of a video game], not fancy graphics and pretty FMV's (though those are fun too, and Bioware is no slouch by any means in this department). This is what keeps you invested in a story and wanting to come back for more. It's something Xenogears had in spades and very few games come close to matching it.

But what I really think pushes this game over the top is the last hour or so while you play through the climax. I don't think I've ever played through such an awesome ending. The final battle with Saren in ME1, was kind of annoying. You ran around this tiny enclosed space trying to shoot at this stupid little fucker who wouldn't hold still and was only difficult because he had far too many hit points and wouldn't stay still. The cinematic that was going on at the same time while everybody was fighting Sovereign outside was more exciting than the battle against Saren. But this ending, Mass Effect 2's ending, is amazing. Your group of 12 (or 13 if you have DLC) makes their last stand in the heart of Collector's territory. Never have I ever been so attached to a group of people than I was during the last hour of this game. Watching these people willingly stand before the impossible for you is a moving feeling. I don't want to spoil any of this, but suffice it to say I had chills going down my back for practically the entire hour. And that says more for the game than anything else I can say.

There was no question in my mind I would play through this game multiple times. I've completed it twice, and have finished my "perfect ending" with how I want things to be. While I want to play the game through more times, I find it difficult to do so, because to play it any other way would seem like a betrayal to my party - to my Shepard. I'm a goody-goody, and played through the game full paragon mode (though I did take a few renegade interrupt options XD), but I kind of want to play through it as an evil heartless bastard...but like I said, that would feel like a betrayal.

I think that says more about the game than anything else does. Playing the game in any other way than the way you want it, is a betrayal.

And I think that's all right in my book.

So I'm not going to lie here. I played World of Warcraft, for probably...3 or 4 years, I think. I can't remember if I started up in '04 or '05 (I stopped playing May of '08). Regardless, MMO's became a hugely distracting part of my life, to the extent that things were excluded because of it. But that's not the point of this. Recently, Bioware has been working on an MMORPG based on their Star Wars Old Republic universe (I say theirs, because they essentially created the time frame with Knights of the Old Republic). This presents a two-fold problem for me. One, I'm a huge fan of Star Wars, I read the extended universe, I play Star Wars video games, I read Wookiepedia when I'm bored...you get the point. Second, I'm a huge fan of Bioware. They've reached the same esteem with which I've held Blizzard in ever since Warcraft II - specifically when I see they're making a new game, I no longer question if it will be good or bad, I just buy the game and blindly hand over my cash. So you can see why this new game is a particularly potent kind of poison.

On the one hand, I do not particularly want to get back into an MMO, as I said; WoW was a...problem...for me. For my personality that game was essentially like crack, I was addicted to it, I will not lie. So you can understand me when I say I'm hesitant to pursue another game of the same genre. However, as I said above, it's Bioware, and it's Star Wars; metaphorically, the check has already been written.

But I must question how well the game will end up doing. A large part of the success from WoW comes from the fact that there is just so much to do in terms of endgame. There are countless instances to troll for new gear, dozens upon dozens of daily quests that can be repeated every day you log in, and factions with reputation you can grind to acquire new things with which to brag about. Blizzard rightly so has said not to try and copy them, because, simply put, you can't. They've been perfecting their "dangling carrot" strategy for 5 years, there is literally no way you can compete with them on their turf. To compete, you must innovate and pursue either an entirely different market segment or do something Blizzard doesn't.

This is what Bioware has done, really. In effect they've created Knights of the Old Republic 3 [Online]. Each of the 8 different classes gets their own storyline that is supposed to carry them from level 1 to level...whatever [the level cap is]. They will be fully voice acted and the player will have the option of "choosing their own adventure" that has become all the rage with RPG's lately in terms of dialogue choices. This is something Blizzard cannot compete with. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the mythos of their games as much as the next person, probably more. I'm a self-professed lore-whore. But Chris Metzen is a hack. I will not equivocate on this point, and as long as he's in charge of world building, Blizzard won't be able to hold a candle to Bioware. And Bioware is taking full advantage of that fact.

What time will show, however, is how well the game can stand after you've hit their level cap. In WoW I was a priest. There was no other class that brought me the same level of enjoyment, thus leveling 8 other alts really had little appeal to me. The same is going to be very true in this game. While technically there are only 4 classes (2 factions, 4 classes for each, just named different) there are supposed to be 8 origin stories, but am I going to have the same enjoyment level playing through as a Jedi as I would playing through as a smuggler? Am I going to want to play through it 8 different times? Am I going to like being a Sith Warrior more or less than a Jedi Knight even though they're essentially the same class? There is a lot of game out there.

Assume for a moment that I can't stand playing through as anything other than a Jedi Knight. I've invested probably dozens of hours playing through my individual storyline and now I want to go kick some Sith ass! Am I going to have the option of doing so? What if I suck at PVP (cuz I'm a n00b)? Am I going to have instanced options available to me? What about raids? Is my guild K|\|16ht5 going to be able to go take down some star destroyer (or whatever the Sith have)? Is the game going to go the cheap route and do the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" path and suddenly make Jedi and Sith fight together to save the universe from Generic Evil™? These are all very pressing questions.

Or are they even going to matter with this game? Has our - or perhaps must mine - collective conception of an MMO been so shaped by what has come before that we are unable to reconcile with this new idea? I admit that my exposure to MMO's has been limited primarily to Guild Wars and WoW, and thus isn't very expansive, but even those 2 followed very similar paths and ideas. Perhaps the game's biggest success will come primarily from the fact that it simply is KOTOR3[O] with some nice co-op features and that will be enough. Maybe Bioware isn't expecting huge monthly revenues from the game. Whether that's wise in itself is something different entirely.

So I suppose we're back where we started. Will the game really succeed? And will I be able to resist blindly buying it? Perhaps these are questions for a different time. Of course Bioware could just invite me into their closed beta whenever it starts. *wink*wink*

So...

Word has come through the interwebs that FF13 will not be released until 2010 stateside. This makes me angry on many levels.

As I am a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series, I have come to accept that Square will release their games when they will and wherever they want to (read: first NES, then SNES, then PSX, &c). I was quite surprised, however, to learn that FF13 will see a dual release, coming out on both the 360 and the PS3 in the US. Granted this is all old news, but the stage must be set.

The interesting thing to note here is that FF13 will not be showing up on the PS3 in Japan. This means that Square has to effectively build the game from the ground up, meaning they have to not only localize the PS3 version but build and localize (debatable if that's the proper term here as it's being built straight for US shores) the 360 version. Granted the English will already be translated, but regardless, they still have to code the game.

I was originally excited to see the departure to the 360. It's a wise business decision for Square, the 360 doesn't sell well in Japan but elsewhere, it sells quite well. So Square is simply following the market.

I was OK with this UNTIL THEY SAID I HAVE TO WAIT FOR MY FF13 UNTIL APRIL OF NEXT YEAR!!!!!

I hereby rescind my approval of Square's decision to release FF13 on the 360 and the PS3 and demand that it be released just on the PS3 so I can play it sooner. I have no shame in saying that part of my decision to purchase of PS3 was in anticipation of FF13; I just need my game!

So I have a theory

It's safe to say, at this point anyway, that the Wii is the current winner of the "current-gen" group of consoles. I realize it's the least powerful and doesn't have many of the same features as say the Xbox360 or the PS3, but in terms of sheer market penetration, it's the clear winner.

That being said it's always interesting to follow the trends of video games in terms of which console, specifically, developers produce for. If you follow any of the video game blog/websites (Kotaku, 1Up, IGN, etc) then you know that while the Wii has a very high console sale rate, it doesn't have the same attach rate as the Xbox 360. Moreover, if you look at the #1 sales for each console, the #1 sellers on the Wii are predominately Nintendo made products as made very evident by the fact that Wii Sports has sold approximately 80 bazillion copies world wide. What this all indicates is that 3rd party software developers aren't taking full advantage of the large population base available with the Wii.

I wonder why that is?

I have a few theories.

First, it's not a very powerful system. You could easily joke that the Wii is just 2 Gamecubes taped together. Nintendo never set out with creating the most powerful system when they made the Wii. They wanted a console that made money and was inexpensive so they could reach the largest population possible. When the 3 systems initially came out, the 360 was either $299.99 or $399.99. But the 299 version was crap, it basically came with nothing except a plug in controller, which pretty much meant nobody would buy it. Meanwhile, the Ps3 was so expensive I expect only people who sold their souls were able to afford one. At $499.99 or $599.99, the PS3 was out of a lot of people's budgets. The Wii rather had an unfair advantage over the competition.

All this, I must add, despite the fact that it's barely an upgrade of Nintendo's last gen outing in terms of sheer power.

Apparently, the Wiimote really is that fun to waggle

Ok, so you have a pretty wimpy system, developers seem to think people like pretty graphics, I don't have any demographics to prove that, but I'm sure somebody somewhere has analyzed this more in depth than I'm willing to do.

Secondly, the Wiimote is silly. Sure, it's fun to waggle around, but from my own experience, very few titles seem able to get it right. It's as if they add it on more as a gimmick. Nintendo on the other hand develops entire experiences around the Wiimote. Just look at Wii Sports, Wii Music, or Wii Play. Like or hate them, the entire experience is based upon and around the Wiimote, not the other way around.

Now I wonder whether Nintendo forces the use of motion control or if the developer feels they have to include it in order for the product to sell, regardless many games end up failing, I feel, because the control scheme is just crap, and perhaps this hurdle is just so high that developers don't bother and just stick with what they know.

It could be argued that the inclusion of a more standard controller could improve sales, or the removal of requirements (should any exist) regarding motion control could help, but I really don't think so. If anything they could do the same with just a few extra buttons (remember the PS3 and 360 have 8 buttons, the Wii on it’s best day has 6, and try using 2 of them mid-frantic combat). I think much of Nintendo's success is its own downfall (in that it caters more to a casual gamer than a hardcore gamer) because it has produced an image it has to live up to. I sometimes get the feeling that should something like Gears of War come out on the Wii the parents would be up in arms about how their child is going to be playing all these violent video games.

There is also the whole lack of network infrastructure with the Wii. You have to trade these ungodly large friend codes with people, AND there's no "network" that connects everybody for ease of interaction. I believe that much of Xbox's success in the realms of multi-player comes from its strong Xbox live infrastructure. Nintendo has NOTHING at all like that. Even Super Smash Brothers required you to trade large codes with friends so you could play with them, and then even with their match making service, and there was no voice chat. Granted I don't relish the idea of being called various racial slurs on any more networks than I already am, but seriously, it's only NOW with Animal Crossing that we're getting a voice chat capable Nintendo channel, but even then it's just a big mic, no headset, because, god forbid, children hear naughty words via a headset [as opposed to say, TV, movies, and who knows how many OTHER video games].

What am I getting at? Probably a couple of things.

First, Nintendo needs to implement some sort of "incentive" for the 3rd party developers out there. This means enticing them. Give them a few more buttons on the Wiimote, give them some kind of network infrastructure, anything, make your platform seem acceptable. Secondly, 3rd party developers need to just develop games for the Wii and say screw all to the others. Put out an RPG that isn't an "after thought" on the Wii. What would happen if you put out an exclusive RPG on the Wii that everybody wanted?
Look at SquareEnix with Dragon Quest 9 coming exclusively to the DS. They did it because the market penetration is HUGE. Who cares if the screen is a bit smaller or the graphics aren't as good as you can get on the 360/PS3. SquareEnix went after the device that most people own. And with the announcement of DQ10 coming EXCLUSIVELY to Wii, they're doing it again! They're saying FUCK ALL to the other consoles because simply put, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WITH A WII THAN THE OTHER CONSOLES.

Other developers need to do the same.

Screw graphics, screw whatever else, the audience is so fucking huge on the Wii you're being idiotic to ignore it and then turn around and say you're "catering to the hardcore" player. THE HARD CORE PLAYER HAS A WII TOO.

Attn Religious Conservatives

No, God really doesn't care, stop using it as a basis for your political platform.