IGN: Mass Effect 2 (PS3) Review

Every generation of game consoles has its defining titles. When one thinks back on a system and its legacy, an association with those games is often made. For instance the NES and SNES eras gave us Super Mario Bros. and Zelda, while the original PlayStation served up Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII. Naturally, this generation isn't without its own defining set of games, too, and one of those titles is undoubtedly Mass Effect 2, a project from the minds at Canadian developer BioWare.

The story is too old to be commented.
Shanks2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

"Mass Effect 2 on the PlayStation 3 is the best, most complete version of the game available. Sorry, Xbox 360 version. You were good. But this is better."

Xbox 360 - 9.6
PS3 - 9.5

ROFL! as expected from IGN.

Kamikaze1352830d ago

idk..there was an incredible amount of hype when it first came out so the reviewer might have been a little too excited? Also, is it the same reviewer?

ExplosionSauce2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

You wouldn't be too far from the truth. I don't think a game like GTAIV deserved a 10. But to each their own, I guess. Maybe they're seeing something we don't(if).

But that aside and on topic.
I might be getting this. I already played ME on PC, but it wasn't able to run as smoothly as I would've liked. So I'll more than likely get it on PS3 (and finish it this time).

Xulap2830d ago

IGN only gives X.0 and X.5's now. That's why it can't be 9.6. It had to be either a 9.5 or a 10.

Anyway, 9.5 is fucking fantastic. I'll be getting this for sure tomorrow alongside LittleBIGPlanet 2, plus the PSPlus update tomorrow... Damn, and my semester begins Wednesday. I'm so screwed.

thereapersson2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

But, as Shanks quoted above:

"Mass Effect 2 on the PlayStation 3 is the best, most complete version of the game available. Sorry, Xbox 360 version. You were good. But this is better."

Xbox 360 - 9.6
PS3 - 9.5

Don't you think that statement would mean that the PS3 version would be a 9.7?

So, in essence, the reviewer is a complete moron. IT ISN'T ABOUT THE SCORE, IT IS ABOUT STANDARDS AND INTEGRITY. There is NO INTEGRITY this generation. How can you say something and not back up your words in your score?

Anyone who points out the triviality of a .1 difference is completely missing the point.

edit @ below:

OK so that makes a bit more sense. You have an extreme case of bad timing, where this version manages to come in at a time where it is guaranteed a lower score.

ksense2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )


they do scores on a 20 point scale now and hence no in between scores. either 9.5 or 10. just go with the statement which says the ps3 version is definitely better and be happy lol
the score will still be under 10 but the way they figure it out is something like this:

96 0ut of 100 is 9.6 (96 divide by 10)
19 out of 20 is 9.5 (19 divide by 2)this way any score divide by 2 will come with a .5 difference. hope u understand that

BryanBegins2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

@Thereapersson: 20-points scale, so 1, 1.5, 2... up to 10. What the 20-points means is that you lose 1/20 every time (like passing from 10/10 to 9.5/10. No possibility of losing only 1/100 for instance.

Geez, was it that complicated?

-Alpha2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Remember that IGN changed its scoring system. The only options would be to give it a 10/10 or 9.5

ME2 on 360 scored 9.6, and they rounded off.

And second, the game is a year old so there is no reason for the media to treat it like it's absolutely new.

The score is absolutely fine.

Shikoro2830d ago

20 point scale, meaning that going from 0-10 and increasing the score for 0.5 points counts the score 20 times. 0.5, 1, 1.5... :)

And I agree that if it is better than the X360 version as they say in the review, it should have scored higher. Still, 9.5 is an amazing score and the game's a must for shooter RPG fans. :)

thereapersson2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Anyway, here's the great thing about Mass Effect 2 on PS3: It's running the Mass Effect 3 engine. Based off of the performance of ME:2, the PS3 version of Mass Effect 3 should be guaranteed to run good, and will not suffer the same fate as other multiplatform games.

I'm eager to support Bioware with my hard-earned cash. They are a development studio who gets it, and I respect that.

gta28002830d ago

They changed their scoring system, but does that mean they changed their glasses too? 9.0 for graphics while the 360 got a 9.5 for graphics even though it's evident that the PS3 looks far better. Am I missing something here?

TheLastGuardian2830d ago

Oh, IGN changed their scoring system did they? I wouldn't know. I stopped caring about IGN's reviews a long time ago.

morganfell2830d ago Show
NoBias2830d ago

Geez, it seems that's all you ever do these days.

Shepherd 2142829d ago

some smart people already pointed this out, but since its not getting through, i'll say it too.

IGN only scores with increments of ".0" and ".5" now. They figured that .1's and .2's didnt mean anything, so they changed it. Theres no way they can fix it and make it a 9.6 like the 360 version.

blahblah2829d ago

don't know about the rest, but i was depressed to see what all the hype was about.

mediocre shooter with mediocre graphics, annoying speech wheel, not to say that i hate when graphics differ between story and action. story has wonderful graphics while action doesn't get to level where games in '95 were. even fallout seems like revelation compared to mass effect and i never liked it very much either.

i'm rpg fan, but this one i'm passing.

MeanOldman2829d ago

nobias you are whining. dont know if you realize it but at least morg had reasons behind his comment. maybe thas the problem. you couldnt debate him so you just attack him. hes right tho. ign didnt say nothin in an article tat was about the game of the year. i also like how they waited right before a flood of big ps3 titles to change the scoring system. wouldnt do it before halo reach, no. lets wait until sonys on the cusp of they biggest year ever.

jeseth2829d ago

Besides the fact that this game is awesome and IGN changed their scoring system about a year ago and the flaming fanboyness going on right now. . .

I am very encouraged to hear IGN say that the PS3 version is superior. Not that ME2 on PS3 is a year later and SHOULD be better by now, and not that I am a primary PS3 player, but the fact that they didn't have to improve it but did.

Bioware could have just done a direct port and made plenty of $$$. The fact that they took the time to improve it on PS3 is encouraging and comendable. Some reviewers said the PS3 version of Dragon Age was a smidge above 360's version. . .which shows that Bioware is a dev that will put in the time to program on PS3. ME2 solidifies that and the fact that ME2 came out so good makes me even more pumped for Dragon Age 2.

I'll definitely be picking ME2 up this week and just got even more excited for Dragon Age 2.

Christopher2829d ago (Edited 2829d ago )

***idk..there was an incredible amount of hype when it first came out so the reviewer might have been a little too excited? Also, is it the same reviewer? ***

IMHO, doesn't matter. As a sign of a site's score, which is what each review on IGN is, they need to make the scores match up when a game plays the exact same and shows the same (or better) quality.

Unless this game is a lesser version of the game on the 360, which all signs point to it being a better version of the game, then they have a duty to uphold the score.

That's my perspective of IGN as a business. As far as the score itself, it's a good one.

Edit: I didn't know about the "scoring change", but it would still make sense to make an exception when precedent is already set.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 2829d ago
ForzaGT2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

perphaps the standard of gaming improved in a year but I still believe that the sheer amount content added to the PS3 version of Mass effect 2 and (as they say)the use of MS3 engine in comparison to the 360 version warrants at least the same score if not higher

SoapShoes2830d ago

I'm sorry but standards only change significantly over 5 years or more. I doubt that is the case, but I really don't care about the score. lol

starcb262830d ago

Multiply that .1 difference by 10 and it becomes a 1 point difference!

visualb2830d ago


the numbers don't matter. the words do.

Boody-Bandit2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

It's IGN, what did you expect?
This has been going on this whole generation now and I'm not talking about one console to another but even with sequels this happens. You will read captions like, "this sequel takes everything that was wrong with the first and made it right plus all that was right and made it better. Than they go on to give the newer gave a slightly lesser score than it's predecessor.

Review numbers are meaningless. I just read them for the content even though that usually isn't much better than the grading.

NYC_Gamer2830d ago

IGN is full of crap like always

Raendom2830d ago

I agree man but this is under their new scoring system.

For example a game can only be ".5" not ".6", ".7", ".8" etc.

Therefore there are only scores :

1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5 etc.

trounbyfire2830d ago

yeah ign only gives whole numbers or .5 numbers
but if they fixed so much shouldn't it get a 10

Raendom2830d ago


Actually, and I'm probably going to fail due to my complete lack of knowledge when it comes to maths... Should this actually be a 10 anyway?

Assume they'd give it 9.7 on the old scale... 9.7 rounds up to 10 doesn't it?

Heh. Doesn't make sense, but this is IGN...

-Alpha2830d ago

9.6 rounds off closer to 9.5, not 10/10

People are complaining, it's incredibly childish. I'm thankful the game made its way on to the PS3 and is actually a solid copy instead of a hand-me-down

FrankMcSpank2830d ago


In America we round up to the next highest score. If this is the ultimate complete edition, which is superior in everyway, giving 2010'2 GOTY a 10/10 is not at all unfair. If IGN can give Halo 3 and GTA IV 10s, this one can get it.

-Alpha2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

IGN didn't give Halo a 10/10 first of all.

And how does it make sense to round up? You round off to the CLOSEST number to the original, not the highest. A 9.5 is closer to the original 9.6

Your logic that it deserves a 10/10 just because other games got it doesn't make sense.

despair2830d ago

seriously guys, complaining first that it did not get the same score as the X360 and PC versions, then realising(from other posters) that the score system is now in .5 increments and finally debating that if it was to get the same score as the other versions it should be rounded up to a 10/10. lol talk about serious nitpicking.

thereapersson2830d ago

The mathematical way of rounding works like this:

1-4: Round down to 0
5-9: Round up to 10

So, 9.4 would round down to 9 in a 20 point scale, and 9.5 would round up to a 10 in a 20 point scale. That is the way it works. It might not make sense to some, but that's how the system has been set.

-Alpha2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )


But we are using 0.5 intervals. It makes sense to round off to the closest to that interval. In this case we are working between 9.5 and 10

If we were going by 1's I could understanding rounding off in between 0.1-4 and 0.5-9.

It also doesn't make sense to give a game a perfect 10/10 when it didn't score that way the first time through. Mass Effect 2 was 9.6 according to IGN. To say that it is suddenly perfect really doesn't make sense.

I never heard people complain when IGN and other reviewers gave the PC version the same score as the 360 version despite the PC version having clear superiority. Yet the PS3 version deserves to be 10/10?

FrankMcSpank2830d ago


look at the scores. if they were exactly the same and the PS3 took the rounded down score from 9.6 to 9.5 for the sake of the 20 point rating system then fine, whatever.

But they gave a lower score for presentation, graphics, and sound after calling it superior on the PS3. This is biased and completely unprofessional. You want to explain that one? I call it BS to review a game better and intentional demean the score. Xbox got 9.5 in grpahics, but the superior PS3 verision is only a 9.0? Spin it, you have enought bubbles to explain why you feel IGN can justify their failing attempts to damage the PS3 in everything, regardless of what game it may be.

-Alpha2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Both reviews are by two different people. If it was by the same person I'd agree with you.

Regardless, this is besides the point. Regardless of if you feel IGN is trying to undermine the PS3, it doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense to give the game a perfect score after it is not only a year old but doesn't add much to warrant an additional 0.4 points aside from looking slightly better.

Notice that the game is still expensive at $60 when you can get it for cheaper on the PC WITH the DLC included too.

I think it's silly for people to fight over such a petty difference and act as if everybody is out to get the PS3, yet I never saw anybody attack IGN or any other site when they rated the PC version the same, despite it too having superior graphics to the 360 version.

Christopher2829d ago (Edited 2829d ago )

That's the thing I disagree with as a concept, Alpha.

Yes, they're two different people, but they are one site in which they are representing the score of the site/business. IMHO, all reviews should be a business decision that involves a group of people and not an opinion of just one person. Otherwise, the point of saying it's "IGN's Review" is pretty incomplete.

Even most movie reviewers aren't associated with just a newspaper heading but are recognized as individuals for their reviews.

I believe if they call it IGN's review then they have a duty to uphold a baseline concept. Even when they start changing how they review games.

This isn't necessarily specific to ME2 on PS3, but on all reviews of this sort.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2829d ago
Dsnyder2830d ago

Um has everyone already forgotten that IGN olny grades with a .0 or .5 at the end now? They cant rate it higher without giving it a solid 10.

Megaton2830d ago

They don't grade on the 100-point scale anymore, they dropped it to 20-point. Everything's gotta be a solid or a .5.

I certainly won't defend IGN's glaring inconsistencies with their review process, but that's why the scores are what they are for ME2. If they hadn't switched to the 20-point, it would have likely been 9.7 - 9.9.

elbeasto862830d ago

IGN changed their scoring to just .5's or .0's. So rather than give the game a perfect 10, which I don't think ANY game should get, they gave the score the next best thing. Hence it .1 lower score. And it's not like .1 is that much of a difference. It's literally almost no difference.

ksense2830d ago

hmm don't they do it on a 20 point scale now and hence it is either 9.5 or 10. so lets not get carried away with that analysis of yours

jjl2830d ago

Sure it might be better on PS3, but that doesn't mean it will get a higher score. It just means there are more quality titles on the PS3 and to earn a higher score is difficult as a result of that ;)

joydestroy2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

rofl nice

Ducky2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Am I the only one who finds this score-comparison childish?

Congrats guys, you foiled IGN's plot to undermine the PS3 yet again. They were trying to give the Xbox version 0.1 point higher to coax people into buying 360's instead of PS3s... but oh, they couldn't get it past your vigilante eyes.
I'm pretty sure they're writhing their hands in anger right now for failing their attempt to bash Sony.
Again, congrats.

silkrevolver2830d ago

1) New scoring system. It was either this or a 10.
2) It’s out a year later. Even if it’s on 1 disc, runs better, looks better and has all that DLC, it’s still a year later.
3) Why should the difference of .1 points even matter to you?

Eyeco2830d ago

Ign score 9.5

+ Revamped Engine
+ DLC Included
+ Epic storyline
- Late to the ps3 (im dead fuckin serious on that con)

zeddy2830d ago

he gave it a 9.5 and your're still complaining?! anything 9.5 and over is a must buy.

eferreira2830d ago

ign only incrments by .5 now so it could either be a 9.5 or 10

ABizzel12830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )


They reviewed Mass Effect on 360 before they changed their rating system to a 0.5 scale only.

On to the review. I really liked the world and story of Mass Effect 2, but the TPS gameplay is the weakest point. Everything else about the games is great.

ambientFLIER2830d ago

"Xbox 360 - 9.6
PS3 - 9.5

ROFL! as expected from IGN."

1: IGN does not score in .1 intervals anymore.

2: PS3 scores are not comparable to XBOX scores, because they are different platforms. This has been said a billion times, and yet idiots like you STILL don't understand it.

TBM2830d ago

well shanks they did have a different scoring system then. im sure if the new one was in place then the score would have been a 9.5 for the 360 version.

hatchimatchi2830d ago

IGN uses a 20 point scale. It's impossible to score a 9.6 now.

pain777pas2830d ago

They changed their scoring system at IGN. What is funny is the individual scores for presentation, graphics etc... There are major differences in that regard. ME2 for the 360 is one of the best looking and playing games and will be on the PS3. There is more competition in the "wow me" department for PS3 owners though. I really want to see what PS3 only owners think of this game if they did not play the first at all. I believe that the best game in the 360s library is on the PS3 in all truth and honesty.

xCaptainAmazing2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

IGN now rates on a 20 POINT SCALE. Last year, this was not the case. The highest score they could give ME2 PS3 is a 9.5. If the core game wasn't a perfect 10/10 last year on PC/360, it still isn't now.

In this case 9.5 = 9.6

The reviewers are different, as well. Some people need to have their posting privileges revoked... I mean, look how many agrees the first post got, and it's based on faulty logic!

Looking forward to playing this through on my PS3 after finishing it 3 times on 360. ME is a premier franchise, no doubt about it. There is no other third person shooter as tactical when you play through on Insanity, either. Well worth it for those looking for a satisfying challenge.

Jamegohanssj52830d ago

Shanks wtf? Are you retarded.


Darkfiber2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

PC > either console version. Better graphics and better gameplay. Being able to map way more skills to your number bar using mouse for aiming alone make the gameplay better. The first game was also designed this way for PC, so essentially the game played the same in the first for PC as it did in the second, both being superior to the 360 version. I realize the obviousness of comparing the PS3 version to the 360 version as they are both consoles with essentially identical controls and very similar graphics, but to not compare the PS3 version to ALL other versions of the game is just silly, particularly in the sentence implying that it's almost better that PS3 owners don't play Mass Effect 1 because the gameplay was bad, but not clarifying that it was bad only on the 360, and the gameplay on the PC version was VASTLY superior to the 360 version of Mass Effect 1. That just indicates that the reviewers didn't play the game on all platforms and essentially only did half their job. That's game journos for you.

Also, how is it any more complete than if people have all the DLC (like me) already? And have saves carried over that literally adds more content in the game, like Conrad Verner for example, who wont even appear in the PS3 version of the game since you never encountered him in the first game? If anything, compared to the 360 and PC versions with all DLC that's available, you are getting the least amount of content because a bunch of things simply wont be in the game because you don't have save files from the first. /boggle

ufo8mycat2830d ago

Superior graphics yes, but definitely not superior gameplay and immersion. I can pretty much confirm this from playing the PC version of ME1 first.

Nice try though.

Darkfiber2830d ago

How can you confirm that the gameplay from 360 for Mass Effect 1 was better than the PC gameplay? The game had way better control, ran at a much smoother framerate, let you map far more abilities to your bar so you didn't have to pause the game every 2 seconds and fixed big issues like the inventory system? Also, how can one version of a game be more immersive than another? It's the same damn game. If anything, the PC version is more immersive simply because of the better graphics and gameplay.

renegade2830d ago

Ign not do scores like 9.6 anymore they are now doing by half for example: 8.0,8.5,9.0,9.5,10 in this case with mass effect on the xbox 360 they make the review before implanting the new score system... Any way IGN is a joke right now IMO.

Clarence2830d ago

Of course. Even with all the DLC that came on One Blu-ray disc. Plus you don't have to worry about circular scratches that you get from playing it on the 360


Lol, if you go on the xbox 360 mass effect2 review page you see the number 9.2/10 on the side but 9.6/10 at the bottom but the ps3 mass effect2 review page says 9.5/10 on the side and 9.5/10 at the bottom of the page.


ChrisW2830d ago

Hmmm... And I thought people here considered the PC as a console.

alster232830d ago

you guys do realize that IGN changed their review system so that only .0s or .5 will be given to accompany the whole number right? they had a whole article a couple months back announcing it and giving legit reasons for the change. one being the 9.6 score for ME2 and the 9.7 for RDR

Sony3602830d ago

Coming out a year later will do that.

Three_Sisters2829d ago

Maybe the reviewer of the ps3 version didn't know what score the 360 version had last year...

DigitalAnalog2829d ago

IGN's review feels like a statement to advertise the game rather than a review in itself.

-End of Line

femshep2829d ago

if any of you compared the 360 and ps3 side by side playing it 360 deffenetly had the upper hand tho the ps3 to some small degree

BlackTar1872829d ago

LOL what?