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.
LMS2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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

dark3552823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

How do you disagree with facts?

deadreckoning6662823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

thereapersson2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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!

despair2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

gamingdroid2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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!

thereapersson2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

despair2823d 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_out2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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

baodeus2823d 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.

JohnnyBadfinger2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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

inveni02823d 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-2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

Ducky2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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-2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

BeOneWithTheGun2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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?

BattleAxe2823d ago

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

Slashbee2823d 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 2142823d 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 2823d ago
egidem2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

thereapersson2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

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

despair2823d 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.

StbI9902823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

schlanz2823d 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 2823d 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 2823d ago
GrandTheftZamboni2823d ago

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

despair2823d 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.

Biggest2823d ago

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

kharma452823d ago

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

Christopher2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

gamingdroid2823d ago (Edited 2823d 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.

nycredude2823d 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.

Ifone2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

"Much better" i love trolls... By the way, if even the biased ign szy ps3 version is "definite" you can't ignore them...

Slashbee2823d ago

I already bought all the DLC and ME2 for my 360 for around 15 dollars. Thanks, XBLA sales.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2823d ago
ALFAxD_CENTAURO2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

IGN IGNore most the PC, they focus more on Consoles, the only thing they advertised good on PC lately, was Starcraft 2, DC Universe, Portal 2, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft Expansion, The Witcher 2, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2 and some Hardware.

And that is a very small portion, everything else to the consoles.

IGN should focus also more to PC. To be equal as the Consoles.

StbI9902823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

Nah, console is where the spotlight is also the money...

gaming started on a CONSOLE, don't know you but better to keep it that way.

Kon2823d ago

Only idiots disagree with you.

WhiteNoise2823d ago

IGN's claim is funny for 2 reasons.

Firstly because PC annihilates both, and secondly because you can't transfer your game/ can't play ME1 to have known what choices you have made.

Watching a sequel to a movie you have never seen would be equally as meaningless, you don't know anything about any of the characters and being told what someone did is different to actually fighting a f-ing reaper in ME1.

So it's PC>360>PS3. This is true in both graphics and performance and also in immersion because of game save transfers.

gamingdroid2823d ago

I kind of think so too. The transfer of game saves is a huge part of what makes ME2 fantastic. Seeing how you affected the world in little subtle parts is just way awesome. A first for a game as far as I can tell.

IGN's reasoning is because the PS3 version includes all the DLC and at a premium if you ask me at $60. The Xbox 360 version can be had for $10 while all the DLC at full retail price is $25. Still got $25 to spare for that ME1 game!

However, if you don't know what you miss you won't care. So in that sense, ME2 and the comic is just fine on the PS3 for newcomers. It's also one disc, but that is meaningless to me at least.

TKCMuzzer2823d ago

I don't know. I have a 360 and PS3 but bought the PS3 version for £35. It runs well, looks great on my TV and does come on one disc.
I just prefer it on my PS3 as the machine is just quieter, meaning my experience is not ruined by an over loud fan and a disc drive that sounds like it's about to conk out.
I don't think Mass Effect 1 matters as I found that game very hard work and to much of an extent, boring.

WhiteNoise2823d ago


So you like your PS3 more, how does that make, "mass effect 2 on the ps3 'simply the best'.

I can understand your comment.

But IGN is still insane.

ChristianGamer2823d ago

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hhhhhhhh...aaah dammit, sorry my keyboard froze.
Where was I? Oh yeah, ha ha ha ha ha ha %*¥¤&?{ error ¤*}€:... NNNOOOOO!! Laughter file CORRUPTED!!!
Lol the best huh? Why isn't anyone buying it then? <90k were bought during its release week. Pitiful

Ifone2823d ago

Because ps3 has better games selling better (like lbp, ds2, etc) and most of the time a pc, and me2 was a pc game beforevthe ultimate version :) (by the way, i'm sorry for your sad library, each years)

[email protected] funny xbox's fans living in opposite world transforming a news best vesrsion : ps3>pc>xbox, in pc>[email protected]>ps3, so desperate...

Sarcasm2823d ago

Actually, a $300-$400 PC could probably run ME2 pretty decently at around 60fps or so.

But Colin Moriarity from IGN clearly mentioned in his article that the PS3 version is simply the best all around package. He already notes that the PC has superior graphics (which always do) and that the entire trilogy experience cant be had on the PS3.

ipe2823d ago

pc needed for 120fps, AAx8(not 32), afx16 at 1920x1080

gpu-ati 5970 2gb(almost 600$)
cpu-i7 920 @3.2ghz(250$)
ram-6gb ddr3 (140$)
psu-800-1000w (about 200$)
quality mb like asus rampage(another 200$)

prices in my country here in eu. So there re 2 sides of coin, im not saying u re wrong, pc ll perform better no doubt but u have to pay for that much more.

kwicksandz2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

your specs are waaaayyy off. no way you need a 5970 or a rip off gene mobo to max the game. and lol at the 800w PSU. its UE3 for christs sake. a gtx 275 will do the job.

ct032823d ago

Those specs are so far off, it shows you have no clue. 6GB of ram? What the heck for? I played in 2560x1600 on 2GB. So tell me, how is this possible?

kharma452823d ago

You don't need a 5970 or an i7 to max ME2 xD Nor 6GB RAM

dark3552823d ago

You don't even need 6 gigs of ram to run Crysis on max settings.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2823d ago
DigitalAnalog2823d ago

9600GT 2.8Ghz C2D, 4GB ram.

It's considered mediocre by many PC elite standards, but I can run ME1 & 2 60FPS on 1080p MAX settings.

**Yet for some reason I can't do the same for the earlier UE2.5 ON Splinter Cell Conviction game.

-End of Line

Shane Kim2823d ago

I for one hate the PC. You look at the back of the game and you see that your recommends match the game. Well one would think that you could, and most important, should be able to play the game on max. But hell no. Most times, I find myself playing with the settings more then I play the game itself. And after 20 mins of trying to optimize the game to the best possible experience, I just give up and turn on my PS3 instead.

In conclusion: F'ck PC.

CoLD FiRE2823d ago

Don't worry it just means that you are a n00b.

Moentjers2823d ago

ps3: come home after work, boot ps3, play

pc: come home after work, boot pc... wait till windows loads... check automatic update messages, check windows update messages, wait for urgent anti-virus update, install newest vga-driver, reboot, wait untill pc boots... re-install previous version of vga-driver, reboot, wait untill pc boots... start ME, tweek settings for best fitting graphics settings compared to cpu, play

ct032823d ago

What did you type this long message on? Your cell phone, or a game controller? You cant wait 40 seconds to boot into Windows, but instead you waste tons of time typing stuff without a keyboard? Uh-huh, you're a smart one.

Xristo2823d ago

I never turn off my computer and Steam is always up and waiting for me to click "Play"....seems faster than the PS3.../shrug

Moentjers2822d ago


on my ipad


so you turned your windows and virus updates off and made clear that ms has no right to reboot your pc after a critical update without annoying messages that your pc isn't safe anymore. lot's of tweeks but indeed it's possible.
I guess if you have enough money, you can by a decent pc that you can leave on day and night (at the cost of 2 games for the extra electricity).

malandra2823d ago


I disagree with the importance of the facts quoted by LMS, I rather have everything on one disc that an slightly better technical performancem just like the IGN writer said

Vherostar2823d ago

OOOOH the 360 fanboys are gonna RIOT!!!!

otherZinc2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )


You are 100% correct. Also, for the "COMPLETE" Mass Effect 2 experience; a person must play Mass Effect 1! It is impossible to have the full effect of the Mass Effect Universe without the experience of Mass Effect 1.

IGN just got punked by the SONY Nation, & was forced to say something good about a PS3 game, though wrong as hell.

I played Mass Effect 1 & 2 on the 360 & know the PC has the best version. Only a completely punked idiot would think the PS3 has the best version.

Its impossible to swap a 15minute comic for a 60hour game/story!

schlanz2823d ago

It frustrates me to no end that my fellow PS3 brethren deny, deny, deny, when it comes to a superior version of a game on another platform.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter which version is superior, as the game is a nearly identical amazing experience no matter what platform you play it on, but cmon, facts are facts.

That said, the PS3 version of the game is certainly a wonderful package.

CoLD FiRE2823d ago

No no no IGN are saying nothing but the truth. Because we all know the PS3 version runs at native 1080p and looks like this...NOT!

Rageanitus2823d ago

its funny how console fanboys come back to the same conclusion..... "you need a hefty rig"

This is BS I noticed that current generation of gaming especially the multiplatform games you DO not need a hefty rig.

I have all 3 consoles, and this time around I went for a gaming laptop rather than a full fledged PC... why because I know very well the laptop with lower specs can still handle current game properly

Carlos_Irwin_Estevez2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

Mouse and KB controls suck for ME2, they really do and using xpadder and some glitchy work around doesn't help.

That is a big setback for the pc version imo.

I will also take trophies over steam achievements anyday.

kwicksandz2823d ago


M+Kb controls work great in Me2. its a shooter for christs sake!

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 2822d ago
egidem2823d ago

What's going on at IGN? Someone must be twisting arms to get such an Xbox 360 fanboy site to say nice things about the PS3.

morganfell2823d ago Show
Ifone2823d ago

If you look closer, it's not so nice, you can again smell the biased perfume, but they can't deny the value, and that evidence would not cist them to much wuth their xbox strategy to look less biased, but onlu reviews counts !

LMS2823d ago (Edited 2823d ago )

everything i said was true ghost, deal with it, or wait for the ngp to come out and play mass effect better

i love the people that disagree with the truth, what about what i said is not true, the console versions look like ass compared to pc, the run like ass, and load like ass

you probably all drive fords

thereapersson2823d ago

The hell does driving a Ford have to do with anything? Oh, and I'm no Ford fanboy or anything, but Fords actually have the highest reliability among all US auto makers, and even some foreign companies.