IGN: Simply the Best - Mass Effect 2 on PS3

Now that Mass Effect 2 is out on PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, IGN can finally answer the question: Which version is best?

The story is too old to be commented.
LMS2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )


Simply the Best - Mass Effect 2 on PC

The only one with HD 1920x1200p native or higher 2560x1600p

The only one with anti aliasing up to 32x

The only one with 20 second load times

The only one with 120 frames per second

The only one that Costs $14

dark3552399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

How do you disagree with facts?

deadreckoning6662399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

Ummm...yea. The PC version is the best value for the price. Any idiot can make that determination. Any normal minded 360 or PS3 gamer would come to the same conclusion.

@thereaperson- And ur need to "right the wrongs" of an insecure person shows your own insecurities. See, I can make up utter bullshit too :)

Oh and as far as your argument about needing to buy a powerful PC to enjoy the PC version of Mass Effect 2 to the about having to purchase an HDTV to experience the PS3 version of ME2 to the fullest? U fall into the same trap everyone does when they make that argument.

thereapersson2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

And yet you can play the ps3 version on the ps3, which only costs $299. You cannot get a pc that is that cheap to play ME2 like you quoted. So for the best gaming value and all the content on one disc, get the PS3 version. If you have a rig capable of running the game at those specs, you wouldn't be paying this article any mind, because you already know the answer.

Your knee-jerk comment right off the bat shows your insecurity.


If someone can point me to a pc that costs 299 dollars that can play ME2 on full settings, at max resolution, with "32x AA" enabled (lol), I'll rescind my argument. Go ahead, I'll be waiting. In the meantime, keep slamming the disagree button!

despair2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )


Lets say I spend $800 on a system to play ME2 and other games on the PC (that's a lot higher than you would need). And lets say we both buy 50 games a year, you pay

$60 * 50 = $3000

I pay

$50 * 50 = $2500

So thats $500 saved minus that from the already more than needed $800 system and I get $300 which is the cost of the HD console.

See by that logic you can get cost to be equal and thus countering your argument. And to add salt to that wound, if you take into account the super deals on Steam (like ME2 with everything for like $15.00 or SC:Conviction $9.99) you may actually come in negative numbers....

Using price can work both ways. Of course I'm a gamer so I don't just play on my PC but you get my point.

gamingdroid2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )


If someone can point me to a pc that costs 299 dollars that can play ME2 on full settings, at max resolution, with "32x AA" enabled (lol), I'll rescind my argument. Go ahead, I'll be waiting."

That's like arguing:

Can anyone point me to a PS3 for $200 so I can play ME2. Oh, you can't? Ok, then I guess the Xbox 360 version is teh bestest, because I can get an Xbox 360 Arcade for less than [email protected]#$#@

It's a fact, the PC version is the best version if that is your thing. I don't care, I like it on my console with a pad!

thereapersson2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

It was the whole "max spec" point that was ridiculous. And we are talking about system price, not game price. In actuality, there are arguments on both sides of the fence that will equalize the price debate. I just hate when people have to have all-or-none.

Also, this article is a waste of space, and is just here for the sole purpose of baiting fanboys for hits to IGN's website. I, for one, am not clicking the link.

Edit @ reckoning above:

Way to miss the whole point of the OP's post about playing Mass Effect 2 on full settings, hence my argument about needing to spend a lot of money on a rig to get to those settings. Of course you can spend minimal cash on a PC build to match the console's value, but if you want to play the game like the op so ignorantly quoted, you're going to be putting more than 299 dollars into a system. This is further reinforced by the need to also purchase an OS if this is your first system build.

despair2399d ago


agreed its petty but PC sometimes..rather most times does not get the praise it deserves but as a PC and console gamer it doesn't matter to me much as I just get the version that's right for me.

Inside_out2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

...and to complicated to use. Try and find some one to post a video of them running Mass Effect 2 with all the features mentioned in the posts above on high't happen. A decent PC these days costs $1200 assuming you want to run the latest games on high settings...even then.

No two PC's are alike and there fore every one has a different gaming experience. The Xbox 360 S was on sale over the holidays for $130, I know I bought one. Good luck finding a gaming PC for that price. Mass Effect 2 is dirt cheap as well on 360 seeing as it's a year

There is no denying the power of a well built, well running PC. As Crytek is finding out now, anyone can make a game with the latest and greatest equipment but it takes alot of skill and hard work to get great performance from a system like the 360. Having said all that, I hope they announce new machines soon...current systems were designed in 2003...O_o

baodeus2399d ago

ok, ign is kinda stupid lately, why are they keep fueling the stupid argument over which ones are the best? If you have a good pc, it is simple that pc would be the likely choice and best for you. If you only have consoles, than ME2 would be best on your consoles. Regardless of the specs or not, ME2 is still the same fucking game. Nothing change because graphic isn't the main aspect of what make ME great it is? What a pointless argument.

JohnnyBadfinger2398d ago (Edited 2398d ago )

WOW its amazing how all of you have misinterpreted the title and are now arguing something completely different from the article.

Sure it could have been worded better, but what they are saying is the Mass Effect Franchise is now the BEST because it has finally found its way to the PS3. It has successfully conquered all 3 major consoles.

And i agree Mass Effect 2 simply is the best game of the last 5 years

"The only one with 20 second load times"
Really? thats weird, the load time on my 360 is about 12 seconds... and pretty sure the PS3 wont be far behind the 360. so i think that particular fact is not a selling point

inveni02398d ago

Alright, let's put this whole "Cost of the PC" thing to rest. First of all, when you buy a PS3, you buy it for three reasons (at least I do...I have two). First, I buy it for games. Second, I buy it for media streaming (Netflix, PC content, etc). Third, it is a Bluray device. A PS3 costs $299. I don't count an HDTV cost in that because I assume that, when I buy the PS3 for two of those three reasons, it is given that I already own an HDTV. So, my HDTV serves more purpose than just gaming. Its cost can be justified on a number of levels.

Now, let's look at a PC. To build a decent gaming rig, you're looking at around $700. That's really not bad for a PC (not including monitor, input devices, speakers, etc). But the problem with that cost vs. a PS3 is that a much, much cheaper PC can be used for all of the other tasks for which you use a PC. The hardware in the computer that you use for gaming (4+GB Ram, 4-6 Core Processor, $150+ video card) are only good for gaming. This means that you can get a decent gaming rig for about $200-300 more than a regular PC. If you'll notice, that's about the cost of a PS3 or 360. Of course, you can go higher than that. You can buy PC parts that will cost you double the PS3 cost and then you'll have a monster rig. But that's choice. And that's where PC shines. You can adapt your rig to fit a budget--something you can't do with consoles.

Let me give you an example: My monitor is 1680x1050 resolution. I don't plan on upgrading it when I upgrade my computer. So, I take that max resolution into consideration when upgrading my other PC parts. I don't need the top of the line graphics card because I don't need to push 2k+ resolutions. That makes PC a great buy.

On the other hand, I hate gaming on my PC because I sit there all day working. I like to get out of my office chair and game in my bed. I have a 42" HDTV in my room that I would have anyway, and I justify the PS3 using two options besides games. And, to be honest, the PS3 sees more media streaming time than game time.

So, let's break it down. When it comes to ADDITIONAL cost, the PC is on par with PS3 and 360. When it comes to PREFERENCE...well, that's all up to preference now, isn't it?

EeJLP-2398d ago (Edited 2398d ago )

Who the hell buys 50 brand new games per year? Quality control or Used... 50 per year you'd have to be buying games rated 5s and 6s at full retail and wouldn't have any time to devote to quality games and multiplayers that deserve months of playtime.

I get the point you're making, but that's more like a minimum 5 year return on investment, not every year.. and doesn't become advantageous until you've invested 3-4 grand, which is a mark probably 99% of people never hit.

Attach rates are like 9-12 games per console to talk numbers, so your scenario is still $400 off to the average gamer.

Ducky2398d ago (Edited 2398d ago )

^ I bought 50 games in a month. =/

During the christmas break, I spent around $150 on games from Steam, and according to the 'steam account calculator', my account's value increased by $680.

EDIT: Hmm, not bad. 25~50% off for most. Most of what I bought was 66-75% off.
Though, I also bought a $500 laptop (well, $600 with tax) and it can max out most games including MassEffect2.

EeJLP-2398d ago (Edited 2398d ago )

I bought around 27 in December, but that was off eBay at an average between $10-15 each, not full retail.

Here's my collection and listing of what I paid (pic is outdated, but gives a general idea):

To above: shipping is the killer for getting 70%+ off total.. it's basically like a $4 mandatory charge. If you figure that for gas going to the store though, then it's basically like you said, around 70% off.

Good back and forth edit talking with you :), later.

BeOneWithTheGun2398d ago (Edited 2398d ago )

Hes right. I am an avid Ps3 owner but i played this on PC when it came out n there is no way any console version can top the PC one

@stb. I played this layin on my bed the entire time. On my ASUS laptop. On high settings. Do u really think all pc games sit at a desk with a wrist protector and eat Hot Pockets?

BattleAxe2398d ago

The biggest problem with the PC version is that theres no controller support, so for that reason alone it comes in 2nd place.

Slashbee2398d ago

@cez of rage

You must not keep up with the PC building scene as you can build a computer that can do high end graphics for about 800-900. Very reasonable for something that's going to be able to perform for multiple years and be able to do everything else you want.

Shepherd 2142398d ago

Actually, other than the PC version the 360 version is the best because you can actually play the first game and carry over your choices and profile into the second game.

Its way better than the crappy, half-assed comic book solution they came up with for the PS3. Hey guys, were gonna release the Empire Strikes Back first, and two years later give you a comic book of A New Hope, the one that comes before!

PS3 version is inferior because of this.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 2398d ago
egidem2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )


That's assuming that everyone who buys the Mass Effect 2 for PC has a hefty gaming rig under $300 that will run the game at such a high resolution, high level of AA, equipped with an expensive graphics card to run at such a high frame rate?...right, I didn't think so.

thereapersson2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

Exactly the point I made above. I'm glad someone else has their wits about them.

despair2399d ago

Thats assuming you buy a rig just for 1 game and who buys a gaming rig for a single game? My rig cost $800 1 1/2 ago and while I do not have DX11 support :( I have yet to find a single game I couldn't run on max settings 1920x1080 except Metro 2033(max settings) which is a beast(20fps) and Crysis max settings(35fps) which is still very playable.

StbI9902399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

People arguin over console vs pc perfomance?...does that even count? I believe now most if no all pc gamer are graphic fags who only appreciate the game for its perfomance and no for its content??? childish I tell you.

Again can you play mass effect layed on your bed?, guess no.

Consoles = affordable and for the same content, are you telling me just for graphics, I gonna shell out my ass? lol yeah right. NEXT

When the pc get real games, like uncharted, god of war, gran turismo, litle big planet, gear of wars, halo 3, forza, motostorm, and not only baffling cus of some pretty graphics here and there then come back again.

schlanz2398d ago

Yeaaaah, but just because you don't have the means to play a game on max settings doesn't disqualify it from being the best version. It makes it the least affordable version, or whatever, sure.

Kon_Artist 2398d ago

couldnt agree with you more. they just assume that every pc in the world can run that game at those specs

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2398d ago
GrandTheftZamboni2399d ago

You forgot the cost of a PC and a monitor and a desk and a chair.

despair2399d ago

what about a couch, HDTV and surround sound system for the console? Price means nothing when dealing with systems, focus on the value of the specific game not the system that runs.

Biggest2399d ago

How much is the PC version of Mass Effect 2, all of its expansions, and the Mass Effect comic/back story?

kharma452398d ago

PC version doesn't have the comic as the first game was also on PC.

Christopher2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

I have to say that what I've experienced on PS3 so far really hasn't done much to make me think it's _that_ much more than what people experienced on the 360. Mostly some lighting issues, which I also believe introduced some additional areas where they don't work so well.

A lot of the graphical issues are still around, audio synching issues still exist in some cut scenes, and nothing in the game was improved from a gameplay perspective (I was seriously hoping that Mining would be looked at, but you still end up wasting a ton of time surveying and probing).

None of it sours the gameplay, it's still a great game. But, one might expect a bit more considering all the hooplah made about the PS3 version being definitive and on the ME3 engine.

I'll wait until I've finished the game at least once before reviewing, but so far I would rate it the exact same as the 360 version, and slightly lower than the PC version, which has much better graphics and load times.

gamingdroid2399d ago (Edited 2399d ago )

Which is basically, what almost every comparison I have read have said about the two console version. They are basically identical, with one having a slight edge in performance. The other has tweaked lighting that doesn't really improve anything.

Beyond that, they play and feel the exact same thing. Nothing about the PS3 version makes it definite unless you think packing in a few DLCs make it the definite version in which case a bout 2-3 months I'm sure EA will release the Ultimate ME2 Platinum Hits version for the Xbox 360 with all the DLC in package for $20-30.

nycredude2399d ago

Just lik every single ps3 port that wan't quite as good as the 360 version but pretty much played the exact same way, "basically identical, with one having a slight edge in performance." You guys flip flop so much it's ridiculous.