I'm ASimPerson, and This is My Favorite Mass Effect Review on the Citadel

Observant readers of this site have probably noticed another contributor sitting up in the top left for sometime now. That person is, in fact, me. I'm not as verbose as Chris, but I hopefully be only slightly less skilled a reviewer.

My plan here is to start off with Bioware's blockbuster sequel to, um, its 2007 blockbuster Mass Effect. For reference, here's Chris's original Mass Effect review.

Mass Effect 2 (PC)

If Mass Effect (ME) was Bioware's attempt to get first person shooter gamers into RPGs, then Mass Effect 2 (ME2) goes even further in that direction. Oh, there's still character customization - Shepard can now customize his (sorry female Shepard fans) individual armor pieces according to function and can apply any color he wants. However, almost as though it was a reaction to the terrible customization UI in the first game, the broad range of choices for armor and weapons is now gone. For each kind of weapon Shepard can equip there anywhere from 2-4 choices at the end of the game, and there is no inventory for weapons and armor. I'm not crazy about that, but it does at least mean the death of the "you have too many items" dialog box. All characters (excepting class requirements and the rare character-specific items) can equip any weapon. Class still does play a role here, though, as the weapons characters are proficient with will have more ammo available.

Yes, I did state that correctly - ME2 brings back ammo management. While the first game's weapons could overheat but had unlimited ammo, ME2 has finite ammo. I'm personally not a fan of this change, as it seems to contradict some of the other changes. In addition, this now means that ammo needs to massaged and managed. While occasionally this calls for strategy (for instance, the "best" weapons for non-soldier characters only have 20-30 shots, so they need to be saved for when it's neccessary) this mostly just means most players will have to waste time looking for SMG clips on the ground, which isn't really a lot of fun.

The character abilities have also been simplified in ME2. Instead of allocating points to abilities, skills, and force powers biotics, each character has 6 areas to allocate abilities to. Experience and ability points are earned very sparingly - while Shepard still gains levels, experience and points and now earned only after missions. This also means the ability system is simpler. Instead of the Knights of the Old Republic style 3/6/9 points system (where each ability generally levels up after so many points, but you only expend one point at a time) like ME did, ME2 uses a 1-2-3-4 system (where the first level of an ability is 1 point, the second is 2, etc.). At the 4-point level, the ability gives you some stat bonuses and that's that.

Missions are definitely more discrete in this game than in ME. Each time a mission is completed in ME2, the game tosses up a summary screen with some text and how much money, experience, and ability points were earned. While some folks may welcome this, I found it sort of jarring—especially early in the game where upon completing a mission I was sent back to my ship, while I still had things to do back on the space station I was just on. Nonetheless, that's a pretty minor complaint.

I will complain about the mining, though. Those who played the first game may remember the infamous mining subquest. Well, at least that one was at least optional. In ME2, minerals are required to build weapon, armor, ship, and character upgrades. The only way to acquire minerals is process which I personally referred to as "strip mining the galaxy". Upon visiting a planet in a solar system, the planet is scanned for minerals, and then automated probes are sent to pick them up. The scanning is, at best, tedious. At least on the PC version (which I played), the mouse is dragged around a globe representation of each planet while a chart tells you the concentration of each mineral in the area over which the scanner currently is. To add insult to injury, the probes used to actually pick up the minerals are not free and must be bought (also, fuel is not unlimited either, but this only applies to travel within local clusters, not solar systems). Given that your ship is actually smarter in this game makes this even worse (i.e., why can't the ship scan the planet?). I suppose the only way this could be worse than it already is if I had to drive the Mako down to the planet and get the minerals, a la the first game. (Good news: no Mako missions in this game!)

Of course, this would not be a Bioware game without a healthy dose of plot. Being a sequel, it's pretty much a given that this game is darker than its predecessor, but fortunately it trends more toward The Empire Strikes Back end than, say, the second Prince of Persia game. NPCs now swear more, and Shepard's "neutral" dialog options are even a little more, well, angry than the first game. Of course, this is still a Bioware game, so everyone is still pretty much transparently good or evil, including Shepard. ME's "dialog wheel" is back, and again the vast majority of conversations will have three options that progress the conversation: Space Goody-Two-Shoes, Space Switzerland, and Space Nazi. Based on my experience, players will generally end up on one of the two extremes unless they're purposely switching around.

Choices made in the first game can change the second somewhat significantly - the core plot will still be there, but just about everything around it will be different. (Hint, though: the "default" or "canon" choices from the first game are, fitting in the tone of the second, mostly the renegade options.) Your crew will be a mix of newcomers and old faces, and some other NPCs interactions are also flavored by choices you make in the first game. I think that's about all I can say without getting to plot spoilers, which I'd like to avoid for either game. Basically, your job is to, once again, save the galaxy against statistically long odds. The game makes it abundantly clear there will be a third installment as well, so go ahead and clear out some space on your 2012 day planner.

I'm late to the Mass Effect party. I only played the original after getting on sale on Steam back in January, figuring I should see what Chris and my brother had been going on about for the past two years. Turns out, they were on to something, and after beating the original I pre-ordered the second game. Since I finished the first game on a couple days before the second came out, this meant I had over a month of uninterrupted Mass Effect goodness. This is basically the gaming equivalent of getting into a TV show during the middle of its run, and then realizing that now you have to wait for the rest of the episodes to come out, just like everyone else. And here I am, waiting with baited breath with the rest of the Internet for the remaining downloadable content packs and the announcement of Mass Effect 3.

asim's "tl;dr" summary: they "fixed" inventory from the first game by getting rid of inventory management, combat edges closer to the FPS scale, but there's still a rich, deep RPG here that's addictive and fun. It's darker than the first game, but avoids overdoing the "edgy" thing.

In Memoriam

Last April 14th, the plug was pulled on the authentication for the original Xbox Live servers. Once the king of Live, and quite possibly the reason why Live still even exists, today Halo 2 is all but dead, as those who've managed to keep their Xboxes online since then are the only ones left. I played a lot on the last night and was hit with a wall of gaming nostalgia that I thought was only possible with games from my childhood. In particular, it brought back all those nights in college spent with my roommates from 2005 and 2006 when we'd go on there as a party, continually seek out the shotguns and plasma grenades, and make incessant "Juggernaut" references. ("I like your raincoat!", "You can't run!", "Jugs ain't got no power steerin'", etc.) So I guess what I'm trying to say is... thanks for the memories, Bungie.

LOST Odyssey (Polar bears need not apply)

There are many things that make a good JRPG: story, characters, the battle system, leveling curve, amount of grinding required, etc, etc. Few - if any - are able to excel at one at the expense of others, although more often than not flaws may be overlooked for a more "sum of it's parts" view. This is the perfect way to describe a game like Lost Odyssey: while often times not perfect, as a whole the game is more than enjoyable and deserving of praise. The usual list of exceptions applies: this is still a turn based game, still requires leveling up, is still a very long and time consuming game, and there are still large chunks of time that are not devoted to killing stuff. But let's be honest; if you go into just about ANY traditional JRPG expecting these things to not be the case, there is something wrong with you. If you are familiar with and enjoy the occasional JRPG, Lost Odyssey will not disappoint, even when it does... disappoint.

More often than not, the one major feature players claim to be most interested in when playing an RPG is a story. You want a good story to carry you through your progression as a character, something to give you that drive to play just a little bit more or to get just a little bit more powerful so you are ready to face the next challenge. Something that can keep your attention over the 40+ hours of gameplay when all else fails to be exciting. This is a broad net though: we are not just talking the 'overarcing' story, but subplots, characters and character development and backstory. It's not good enough if just one enemy in the story is interesting if it takes 30 hours of being completely bored to get to that point.

Where Lost Odyssey fails in this regard is that overall plot is extremely simple, but in many ways this works as much in it's favor as it does against it. There is no convoluted "he's a good guy but really a bad guy but really a good guy playing double agent" type story to merely keep you guessing at what is really happening. There is no cliche "hidden" bad man or "higher power" that remains mysterious (or missing) for most of the game only to suddenly be revealed on the last disc. The premise is simple, the setup is clear, and the story plays out almost like you would expect, but on some level we've been taught so often that nothing is as it seems (because it is easier to surprise the player if they just haven't seen the real enemy at all) that you will often times find yourself wondering if perhaps it is too simple to be true.

This works out well for the game, though, because the real story is not in the standard issue good vs evil struggle that most games focus upon: it is about the characters, their experiences and their "story" they each have to tell. It is here that Lost Odyssey excels where few have before; each character is unique, interesting, has something to say that is communicated effectively to the player. The 'immortals' all have dreams (which are really memories of their past), and each one is in itself a short story that almost always succeeds at stirring up powerful emotions and thoughts. This gives you better insight into who the character is and why he/she acts the way they do, which helps you understand (or empathize) with the choices they must make and the problems they must endure over the course of their adventure. People may fault the game for having a 'simple' story, but really what it is doing is not using a single person as a crutch for storytelling and plot progression and instead trying to emulate complex human thought and emotion into a cohesive, rational story. Does it always succeed? No. Was I impressed countless times and sucked into the world? Of course I was. Even many of the mortals, at first nothing more than story props for the main, immortal characters, eventually become their own unique identity and become characters you feel vested in. It makes those tense, dramatic moments much more powerful when you actually like the "person" it is happening to, instead of just want to get it over with so you can move on to the big bad boss.

Which is why the characters needed to be so strong in Lost Odyssey, and fortunately many of them are. One or two fall short - some of the NPCs feel a little rushed or underdeveloped and a few obviously exist for nothing more than to help move a plot or quest forward, and a few of the playable ones are weaker (i.e. not as well fleshed out) as the others, but overall the quality is high. The English voice overs - usually terrible and left to rot while I listen in Japanese with subtitles on - were so good that I left them on, and in fact prefer them to the Japanese voices. Having a good voice actor really helps solidify a strong character and gives you something tangible to grasp onto when you think of them, and this really shows off in Lost Odyssey.

Jansen, for instance, is one of my favorite characters on any RPG I have played. He's a very seedy character at first, generally unlikeable and comes across a little rough around the edges. As you progress through the game and Jansen changes as a character, he becomes more serious and likeable while remaining a fun, 'comic relief' feel. Jansen's voice actor (his English one, anyway) possibly gives him the biggest boost of character, delivering lines with such perfect inflection that the funny stuff gets funnier without making the serious stuff seem unreasonable.

Kaim is not the best main character by any stretch of the imagination, suffering from the usual 'main character' flaws that we've seen since the explosion of Final Fantasy 7 (that is the aloof, depressed emo), but his back story is so well explained that it certainly feels much more believable. He also comes to terms with himself in a much more rational way that other characters do, so it feels more like the character is actually growing than the plot needs him to stop being heartless and start caring about others (I'm looking at you, Squall). Unfortunately, good intentions don't make the early game any more bearable during his "it's so painful" and "woe is me" moments, but maybe making him that drab in the beginning helped make his growth that much more apparent. He comes through in the end, but it takes a few dream sequences to really set him up as an interesting character to the player. His voice actor is perhaps one of the worst in the game - which is not to say it is terrible, it is just not as good as some of the others - and it really makes his character difficult to really get into sometimes.

The other playable characters fluctuate from 'good' to 'great' for most of the game and bring their own unique experiences to the story. The two children are interesting in that they bring a very innocent, 'child like' perspective on many difficult "grown up" situations. It's also nice to see strong women on the roster that aren't all about the T&A (although Ming doesn't exactly dress for winter) but instead are strong individuals with emotions that run deeper than "I'm madly in love with that hunky main character dude!". Tolten's character, I feel, is far too weak and it is often times very difficult to watch as his struggles with suddenly accepting the heavy load of personal responsibility and challenges he must face. He does eventually embrace his destiny and overcome his own faults, but it is neither fun nor encouraging to watch one of your playable characters act as a pushover for a large portion of the game. Overall the cast of characters does an excellent job playing to each others strengths and it makes group dynamics very interesting. All that being said, they definitely help make an otherwise bland story teem with life and emotion.

Which, of course, is bolstered by the great graphics and cinematic presentation. While technically speaking the game is a disaster of epic proportions - insanely long and frequent load times, nearly unbearable slowdown during spellcasting, exceptionally bizarre looking hair, and a pretty bad case of the "realistic browns and greys" - overall the game is well presented and, often times, even stunning. Considering the game is nearly 2 years old now and not produced with a budget or experience behind such games like, say, Final Fantasy XIII, it was enough to keep me interested and, on occasion, even impress me. What is most interesting is the size and detail of many of the cities and areas you visit, one of those subtle but nonetheless important details often overlooked in a lower quality game (or a higher quality one with something to hide). It wasn't something to really write home about, sure, but the parts that were good were just as soon forgotten as the framerate slowed to a crawl when trying to cast a spell or you had to load the game (again) because you went through a door. Another one of those "not bad enough to detract but still bad enough to note" type games, I'm afraid.

Gameplay, on the other hand, is tight and controlled. While combat is 'turn' based, the system includes a number of substantial upgrades to make combat more involving and more rewarding of sound tactical decisions rather than "mash A to win". One such improvement is what I like to call action order, and is  similar to how the combat in Blue Dragon worked. Essentially, different actions have different initiative orders and occur before other actions of different types. As an example, using an item almost always occurs first in the turn order, whereas casting powerful spells tend to occur last. In fact, more powerful spells can take several turns to complete, and casters who are interrupted before their spells are cast get 'pushed back' to later turns. What this means that if your melee focuses their attacks on enemy casters, you can delay really powerful spells from going off (or cancel them entirely) by interrupting them with an attack or item before they end their cast. Of course, the enemy can do the same as well, so planning out your order of attack and making sure to bolster up your defenses is incredibly important.

Speaking of defenses, Lost Odyssey introduces an interesting (but somewhat clunky) concept to the 'Front Row / Back Row' battle order than I've seen in some time (apologies if this is in some other game and I'm just now seeing it). Basically, the characters on your front row represent a 'wall' of defense for those in your back row, so those in the back remain well protected from enemy attacks. As your front line is whittled down, however, their ability to effectively guard the back (called 'guard condition') is severely lessened. As your party's guard condition is decreased, units in the back start to take larger amounts of damage, something your spell casters and ranged characters are not so capable of taking. This adds a bit of defensive strategy to the game and is nice to see implemented in an RPG, even if it only takes a few levels of grinding to have "total offense" still be your best battle option. As long as human time is a factor, "spam damage to win quicker" will be the most preferred method of random-mob execution.

The ring system is also a welcome addition - actually giving you something to pay attention to in battle instead of watching your character's animation sequence endlessly loop as you press the same button over and over again (though I still like the combo system presented in Legend of Dragoon then best so far). Allowing characters to switch rings in combat to make most effective use of their abilities is nice, but the UI for doing so (coupled with the number of rings eventually available) makes it far too cumbersome to use in something other than the most dire of situations. This is just one of many areas where the idea behind the game is solid, but Lost Odyssey's menu system is so hopelessly deep that performing even simple tasks requires several minutes worth of fidgeting to accomplish. Add to that complex things like crafting rings, linking skills, assigning skill slots, swapping equipment, moving characters, using spells and checking status and you begin to spend huge chunks of time in the menu system just trying to navigate yourself around a labyrinth of options. It's nice that the game integrates all of these things well into gameplay and that they feel useful and have a set purpose, but without a decent UI system it is almost more frustration than it was worth.

Another fault of the gameplay system is that it heavily favors the immortal characters towards the end of the game. With a huge array of skill slots available, immortal characters can be fine-tuned for any battle as necessary and quickly become absolute powerhouses in battle. The usual mortal has their own pre-defined list of slots, plus 1-3 accessories available to them (certain characters are allowed to equip more than one) and start to fall significantly behind immortals in martial prowess and utility about midway through the game. The story 'remedies' this by forcing you through many portions where only specific characters are available to you at any given time, which only helps to enforce to idea that mortal characters are significantly weaker than immortals and causes you to feel like you are being forcefully handicapped. Once all characters meet up again, however, there is absolutely no reason to choose mortals over immortals and the unique aspect of having 9 available characters is destroyed when you feel forced to use the 5 most powerful ones available to you at all times. Most of each characters' story has played through by the end, so it is not a major loss, but it is unfortunate that they spend so much time giving each one a unique voice and story only to have them be thrown away on the gameplay side at the end.

Which is especially terrible considering the huge amount of side questing and 'harder than the last boss' dungeons you will want to do before wrapping up those loose plot lines. Some of them feel very 'grindy'  - the Temple of Enlightenment is an especially brutal place and you may find yourself having to cut your teeth for a few hours on the outer monsters before you can hope to even survive one encounter with the inner monsters. And the DLC is even worse, a massive dungeon of 25+ levels with no save points and almost a requirement to farm out the new items in order to have a fair shot at defeating the last boss (even I have yet to beat this after some 90+ hours behind the wheel). Fortunately for most of you reading this, the balance of story and gameplay through the 'main' portion of the game is well apportioned and you will hardly ever feel like you must grind out levels in order to succeed. The one notable exception to this is the first few levels, where you are still learning the system, bosses seem extremely tough and are frustratingly deadly. Past those, you will have enough experience with the system that difficulty will fall back in line.

Side quests like the 'backyard' are especially fun and challenge you to defeat encounters in specific and unique ways that you absolutely cannot win by just spamming a single button or command. Backyard will require you to use the full gambit of options available to you at all times and really explore the intricacies of the battle system - from effective usage of rings, to properly using specific skills, to even planning out cast times and "guard condition" management. You can play through some of it early on but unfortunately, by the time you get to the really challenging stuff you either already have figured that out for yourself or are kicking yourself for not knowing it most of the game. I really liked it, though, and would love to see more of that kind of challenge in other JRPGs.

Overall, Lost Odyssey is an superbly high quality game that keep you enthralled and entertained for hours on end, even if it does occasionally fall short of it's lofty goals. In a world of "When is the next Final Fantasy?", it's nice to see a game so similar in style be executed to such perfection, even if it does take the original creator of the series to achieve that. If you have an Xbox 360 and are looking for the perfect JRPG to sink your teeth into this is one I can highly recommend. (As if the thousands of words prior to these didn't already convince you of that...)