[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Mass Effect 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMass Effect 2 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2012Good article nomineeListed
March 23, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 19, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Mixed reception

[edit]

While it can't be denied that ME2 is well received, I feel that the article right now only represents the positive critics. There is also a significant amount of fans (and a few critics) who feel disappointed in the overall plot, some of the gameplay changes and lack of RPG. It's just a suggestion but shouldn't the reception section reflect that as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterMida (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you can find reliable sources backing these sentiments up—meaning no blogs or forum posts. For instance, perhaps a video game magazine noting that hardcore fans of the first game feeling let down by the plot of this episode. Of course, it would need to be kept to only a few lines so as to not outweigh the positive reception in the section, since the game did receive critical acclaim. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copies Sold

[edit]

At the very end of the article it, it states that Mass Effect 2 has sold 1.6 million copies during it's run. However, in the first paragraph, it states that 2 million copies were sold in the first week of release. Which one of these stats is the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.61.204 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what EA announced. About a month after release, they announced that the game sold "over two million copies" in the first week. Then, during an investor conference call in May 2010, they said that they had sold a total of 1.6 million copies (I can't tell if this is for only the first quarter, which I think it is, or up to that point). Anyway, I'll just use the two million copies for now, just so that both figures are the same. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Docdocharper, 10 October 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change all reference to Illusive Man to read Elusive Man.

Illusive is not an actual word, and appears to be a mass-propagated typo threaded throughout the Mass Effect articles.

The correct spelling is found within the game itself, as well as the majority of current game reviews, documentation and other reference material for the game.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdocharper (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 October 2010

It actually is "Illusive" in the game. And it is a word; it's an adjective, and so is used properly in "Illusive Man", as well. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 95.246.195.50, 31 October 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Shepard, along with Jacob and Miranada, is sent to investigate

Shepard, along with Jacob and Miranda, is sent to investigate

95.246.195.50 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out - its fixed now.Caidh (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Spoiler

[edit]

Why is it necessary to include a spoiler in the lead section for the article? Wikipedia has already caught some flak from the practice of not including disclaiming in the plot summary sections: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/media/18spoiler.html

I have taken a look at the guidelines for Spoilers under Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPOILERS

I am aware that the spoiling of the plot by the material is not a sufficient reason to delete the entry. Two things: 1) I am advocating instead for moving the pertinent material instead to the plot summary section. I will do so myself. 2) The guidelines page also stipulates, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." What is the encyclopedic purpose for including a spoiler in the lead section and not under plot summary?

MondoManDevout (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is intended to summarize the article, including the plot. This is standard practice among video game articles, so as to provide a general idea of what the game is about. I assume that you are very familiar with the game's plot already, but think of it from a person who has never heard of the game before and wants to learn more about it; providing a brief idea of the plot is useful when reading the lead section. The same goes for movies that someone wants to learn more about; they usually want a quick idea of the plot. The lead in this particular article doesn't give away anything absolutely crucial, such as the ending. The part about assembling a team, for instance, is obvious from the pre-launch videos. Shephard's death is also alluded to in the game's first teaser trailer, and isn't really a secret anymore now, anyway, especially since it's the game's very first scene. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music update

[edit]

the page is protected, so i thought it apporpriate to post here: the Kasumi stolen memory DLC soundtrack is infact now available for sale (for those interested): http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-Kasumis-Stolen-Memory/dp/B004BUKBK4/ref=sr_shvl_album_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1291330987&sr=301-5

i went to the effort of downloading from the sonic meyhem website before i found this out, as i logged on to amazon and the album was recommended to me. I thought i would save others effort, but the page is protected as stated previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.210.187 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Ps3 version a year late?

[edit]

I found no info in the article of why the Ps3 version is delayed a year. This is important stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.19.194 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to try to put an explanation up. I am flirting with violating WP:ORIGINAL but it is pretty self explanatory. The original game was a Xbox 360 exclusive. Oldag07 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stumped on how to say it. Suggestions? Oldag07 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. Gary King (talk · scripts) 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Won.

[edit]

aside from the mentioned awards from gametraliers.com, mass effect 2 received also "Best single player campaign","Best XBOX360 game" and "Best PC game" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlopras (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards section could do with some expansion in general - Mass Effect 2 won the following awards: Giant Bomb 

    - Multiplatform Game of the Year/Overall Game of the Year 2010: http://www.giantbomb.com/news/giant-bombs-game-of-the-year-2010-day-six/2805/

RPG Site 

    - RPG of the Year 2010: http://www.rpgsite.net/articles/1/261/rpg-site-awards-2010-finale.html
    - Xbox 360 RPG of the Year 2010, Best Voice Cast Performance in a 2010 RPG: http://www.rpgsite.net/articles/1/260/rpg-site-awards-2010-day-three.html
    - Best Story in a 2010 RPG: http://www.rpgsite.net/articles/1/259/rpg-site-awards-2010-day-two.html

GameSpot 

    - Best RPG: http://uk.gamespot.com/best-of-2010/genre-awards/index.html?page=6

Eurogamer 

    - Game of the Year 2010: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-12-30-eurogamers-game-of-the-year-2010-article

That's just a start, but these sites are all sites that are on MetaCritic as approved sites, so that's a starting point. There's a good mix in there, too - Giant Bomb is mid-sized but more specific, RPG Site is smaller but very specific, GameSpot and Eurogamer represent the big, beast, hulking sites. Thoughts?

Due to all the critical acclaim that the game is getting, it may be best to just mention "Game of the Year" awards from notable sites like the ones you mentioned. There's no need to have an Awards section larger than the Reception section, for instance, since Awards would just be a list whereas Reception should be a more detailed analysis of the game by notable critics. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unprotection

[edit]

I am going to request to unprotect this page. If StarCraft II has completely removed its protections, so can ME2. With the PS3 release, we probably want as many editors working on this page as possible to fact check this page anyways. Oldag07 (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given it was semiprotected a number of months ago, I don't see why that would be a problem.
Though, the protection status of other articles doesn't really have a bearing on this one. --King Öomie 15:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it protected at all? Wikipedia doesn't allow public editing of its articles any longer? In particular, I wanted to change that mass-propagated line that's been given by EA/Bioware about the game not having Securom, but having a "basic disk check." I've asked Chris Priestly personally what a basic disk check is supposed to mean, and they won't give an official answer. The "no securom" line is supposed to make it sound as if the game doesn't feature DRM or copy-protection, but it absolutely does. They just didn't waste money and license Securom's copy protection features, since they're cracked just as often as simple protections: 100% of the time. Not a benefit to the end-user, and repeated here like propaganda straight from EA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitation493937 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given in the log is "Excessive vandalism," which is a perfectly valid reason to protect a page. Not whatever mental conspiracy you are on about. You could request the protection be lifted but it expires in a few hours anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mental conspiracies. As opposed to the physical and emotional ones I invent. Not everyone knows every in and out of Wikipedia's vast labyrinth of bureaucracy. Thanks for pointing out the log, rudey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitation493937 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The recent changes in the article - [1], clearly show that article should be protected for a while. Sir Lothar (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot reduction

[edit]

I'm going to try to shave off as much as possible from the plot. Given theres not much wiggle in that, unless someone objects, I'm going to trim the personnel collection to almost nothing: Shepard is then given the dossiers and proceeds to recruits blah, blah, blah, done. Given theres a character section in addition to the plot, the lions share of noteworthy facts are repeated.Brinlong (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take a stab at it. It's really long right now, and I think it can be substantially shorter, as you mentioned. I think it should be written in a concise manner, with sentences that tell you exactly what's going on, such as: "Shepard went to this planet to complete this mission to recruit this person." Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it could be significantly shorter. As it is right now, its a brief walkthrough of the entire game following one story line.ZeroGeined (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 dlc

[edit]

I have tried to update the DLC section to the best of my ability. I don't own a PS3, and as such I can't check the prices of the PS3 DLC. I used mass effect wiki as a guide. It would be good if someone looked over it.

Looking at it from a larger perspective, I am not sure if all the information on the table is necessary. Do we really need to talk about every piece of DLC for the game? There are far better tables on Mass Effect Wiki anyways. At minimum, I propose eliminating the price column, or that into a "notes" column. Price probably doesn't need to be on an international encyclopedia. More radically, I believe we could eliminate the DLC like the alternate appearance column and sticking with the story DLC. Everything else we could eliminate, or convert into paragraph form. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Character List Necessary?

[edit]

I feel like the important characters of the game should be listed in the plot summary, with detailed descriptions in another article. Do we really need an entire character list?

What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, a detailed character list really isn't necessary in this article. It belongs in the article dedicated to characters in the Mass Effect universe. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from GrinnyN7, 16 March 2011

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} A request to add Mass Effect 2's Best Game Award it received 16th March 2011 at the Video Game BAFTAs to the awards section. Source here: http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/video-games-awards-nominees-in-2010,1656,BA.html#jump12

GrinnyN7 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Looks like someone already got it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classification?

[edit]

Currently the game is referred to as an action adventure on the main page. Though I understand that it is often used as a half-hearted insult against the romance sections of the game, having played through this and the first Mass Effect several times I can't help but notice that the romantic segments of the story are very similar in the way that they are written, they way that they develop, and the way that they are played to a typical dating sim video game. I was wondering if it would be fair to add to the main article that, along with being an Action Adventure Shooter RPG, Mass Effect 2 also shares several elements with most dating sims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flackw (talk • contribs) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can take this seriously :P Rehevkor ✉ 02:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me that it wasn't really asked seriously, either. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.200 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely related to some recent vandalism, including this hilarious edit. Rehevkor ✉ 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness though, this game ( and ME1 too) is not classified as a scifi game,only the generic "action role-playing game". This should seriously be changed though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downloadable Content (DLC)

[edit]

The article contains two separate sections with virtually the same information about the dlc for the game. Maybe I'm just being picky, but it seems a bit redundant. One of the DLC sections contains a nice table and includes citations, while the other does not. Does anyone else agree that having two sections on the same thing is pointless? - George

If I'm understanding which sections you are referring to, one section is for the plot of the DLCs, since the DLCs are technically part of the larger Mass Effect 2 story as a whole, while the other section contains the release date, etc. for the DLCs. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. It just seemed out of place to me, maybe the two articles so should be merged into one or moved closer together in the article so they are more cohesive. - George 11:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.6.190 (talk)

I Think Three Changes Are Needed

[edit]

I think that if three changes are made, this article could be really good. If I am completely wrong, then I apologize.

1) As mentioned above, there is no need for the huge DLC section that lists all the prices.

2) I feel like there is no need for a huge character list.

3) Awards section needs to be tightened up. Every review site does not need its own paragraph.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thoughts beyond agreement. Rehevkor ✉ 17:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the article needs a lot of work, that's for sure. It needs to be generally tightened up, since it's the product of fanboys adding tidbits every day for a few years. For the table in the DLC section, I'm a bit torn. I personally find it useful to see what DLCs are out, but for an encyclopedic article, I don't think it should have a table when possible. So I think ultimately it should be removed. I'll just turn to the Mass Effect wiki when I need my DLC fix. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would like to add, there are two downloadable content sections on this page. One in the synopsis section and one below music. We probably should merge these two. Ideas on how to do so? Oldag07 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, scrap the table in "List of downloadable content", then merge the remaining text in that section to Release since it involves the release of DLCs. The Plot section, including the DLC section there, needs a lot of shortening in general. The DLC Plot section could possibly be whittled down to one paragraph, and the game's Plot section goes without saying, needs to be a lot shorter. Characters should probably also be very minimal, perhaps not even include character summaries and just leave that for the article dedicated to the series' characters. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created to do list based on suggestions on this page. Oldag07 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tried re-doing the plot section. I'm sure I did lots wrong, but I think it's better than what was there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah definitely looks a lot better, thanks for the effort. Is anyone interested in bringing this article to good article quality? The only thing that I think there would really be difficulty with is the Development section. Is anyone aware of some good developer interviews for the game? At the very least, I'd read those articles for personal enjoyment. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I hope you guys are watching the Mass Effect 3 article, too. It'd be nice if we could get it to GA standards by the time it's released, similar to Portal 2, for instance, or StarCraft II at the time. There should be more info on the game as the release date draws closer, at least more info than there was for ME2 I assume. Gary King (talk · scripts) 07:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the big Game Informer special on ME3 that comes out tomorrow. I guess we better wait on that first. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DLC table

[edit]

Removed DLC table as mentioned on to do list. Kept the final version of it here Oldag07 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed DLC table

[1]

Title of DLC Content Release Date Price
Inferno Armor Armor Set *Pre-order *Free with pre-order from Amazon,
now included in Equalizer Pack
Terminus Armor and Weapon Armor Set and Heavy Weapon *Pre-order for Xbox 360 and PC users.

Available via the PSN network for PlayStation Users[2]

*Free with pre-order GameStop and Play.com.

Free for PlayStation owners until 23 February 2011. Paid DLC after that.

Sentry Interface Helmet January 26, 2010 *Dr. Pepper/7-Eleven Promotional Item
Recon Hood Helmet January 26, 2010 *Dr. Pepper/7-Eleven Promotional Item
Umbra Visor Helmet January 26, 2010 *Dr. Pepper/7-Eleven Promotional Item
Incisor Sniper Rifle Sniper Rifle January 26, 2010 *Free with purchase of Digital Deluxe Edition,
now included in Aegis Pack
Collectors' Weapon and Armor Armor Set and Assault Rifle January 26, 2010 *Free with purchase of Collectors' Edition
Blood Dragon Armor[N 1] Armor Set January 26, 2010 *Free with purchase of Dragon Age: Origins[N 1]
Normandy Crash Site Mission January 26, 2010 &Free[N 2]
Zaeed: The Price of Revenge New Character, Loyalty Mission, and Heavy Weapon January 28, 2010 &Free[N 2]
Cerberus Weapon and Armor Armor Set and Shotgun February 9, 2010 &Free[N 2]
Cerberus Arc Projector Heavy Weapon March 9, 2010 &Free[N 2]
Firewalker Pack[3] New Vehicle and 5 Missions March 23, 2010 &Free[N 2]
Alternate Appearance Pack #1 3 Alternate Squadmate Outfits March 23, 2010 160 MS/BioWare Points
Kasumi's Stolen Memory[N 1][4][5][6][7] New Character, Loyalty Mission, and Submachine Gun April 6, 2010 560 MS/BioWare Points[N 1]
Equalizer Pack[8] Armor Set May 4, 2010 160 MS/BioWare Points
Overlord[N 1][9] Mission Pack June 15, 2010 560 MS/BioWare Points[N 1]
Aegis Pack Armor Set and Sniper Rifle July 7, 2010 160 MS/BioWare Points
Firepower Pack Weapon Set August 3, 2010 160 MS/BioWare Points
Lair of the Shadow Broker[N 1][N 3][10][11] Mission Pack September 7, 2010 800 MS/BioWare Points[N 1]
Mass Effect: Genesis[12] Interactive Comic Book January 19, 2011

(for PS3, uncertain release PC and Xbox 360)

&Free[N 2]
M-490 Blackstorm Projector Weapon[2] Heavy Weapon January 19, 2011 (for PS3) *Free for PlayStation owners until 23 February 2011. Paid DLC after that.


Available as a retail bonus item for PC and Xbox 360 upon game's original release, not as DLC.

Recon Operations Pack
  • Collector Armor
  • Collector Assault Rifle
  • Recon Hood
  • Sentry Interface
  • Umbra Visor
 January 19, 2011 (for PS3 only) $1.99 USD
N7 Complete Arsenal Bundle
  • Alternate Appearance Pack 1
  • Equalizer Pack
  • Aegis Pack
  • Firepower Pack
  • Terminus Weapon and Armor
  • Recon Operations Pack
 January 19, 2011 (for PS3 only) $7.99 USD
Alternate Appearance Pack #2[13] 3 Alternate Squadmate Outfits February 8, 2011 160 MS/BioWare Points
Arrival[14] Mission Pack March 29, 2011[15] 560 MS/BioWare Points (Xbox 360/PC), $6.99/£5.49 (PS3)[15]
  1. ^ a b "Bioware". Bioware. {{cite web}}: Text "Information : Downloadable Content" ignored (help); Text "Mass Effect" ignored (help)
  2. ^ a b "Mass Effect 2 PS3: MORE free DLC announced". Computerandvideogames. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
  3. ^ "Cerberus Network Revealed". News.teamxbox.com. 2010-01-19. Retrieved 2010-01-26.
  4. ^ "Mass Effect 2 DLC 'Kasumi's Stolen Memory' lands on Apr. 6". Joystiq. 2010-03-11. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
  5. ^ "Mass Effect 2 DLC Being Announced at GDC?". GameZone. Retrieved 2010-02-19.
  6. ^ "New Images of Kasumi". Kotaku. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
  7. ^ "Mass Effect 2 DLC Kasumi's Stolen Memory Review". Thankless Grind. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
  8. ^ http://masseffect.bioware.com/info/dlc/
  9. ^ "Mass Effect 2 Overlord DLC Impressions". Gamespot. 2010-05-13. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
  10. ^ http://masseffect.bioware.com/home/news/103/
  11. ^ "Bioware". Bioware. {{cite web}}: Text "Information : Downloadable Content" ignored (help); Text "Mass Effect" ignored (help)
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference Genesis3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "Announcing Alternate Appearance Pack 2". Bioware. Retrieved 1 February 2011.
  14. ^ "Mass Effect 2 PS3 patch reveals Arrival DLC pack -- PlayStation Universe". 2011-02-21. Retrieved 2011-02-22.
  15. ^ a b "BIOWARE MARKS 'ARRIVAL' DATE FOR FINAL MASS EFFECT 2 MISSION". 2011-03-18. Retrieved 2011-03-18.

Two More Change Ideas

[edit]

Ktmartell (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)1) Do we really need a whole section devoted to Marketing? Could some of the information be incorporated into Development somehow?[reply]

2) Do we really need a whole sub-section devoted to character death? Could it be put in the Story section somehow?

What does everyone think?

New Features

[edit]

The line in the "New Features" section about healing automatically is false. In Mass Effect your health and shields regenerate over time, but you can use the medi-gel to heal your health (not shields) instantly. It even had upgrades for how much health you recover per second. Thus it is not a new feature to ME2 and this line should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.1.102 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a lot

[edit]

Ktmartell (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Was studying GRE all day, and in breaks didn't have much to do, so I changed a lot. Hope it looks alright. Apologies if not. Development section needs a huge expansion and technical issues probably don't deserve their own section.[reply]

Thoughts?

Mass Effect: Genesis

[edit]

I've noticed that the DLC-table is missing the "Genesis" DLC. Can someone please add it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHopeThisNameWorks (talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit needed

[edit]

In the 'reception' section, 1st paragraph, this line "As of April 14, 2011, the review aggregator website Metacritic ranks the Xbox 360 version as the 14th highest reviewed game of all time, with an average score of 96/100" is no longer valid. I just checked Metacritic today, and it's the 4th highest ranked Xbox 360 game of all time, not the 14th. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/xbox360?view=condensed&sort=desc HardwareLust (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Postwar (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Date Formatting

[edit]

I noticed that Mass Effect 2 uses the "day month year" format for dates (particularly noticeable when saving or loading a new file), but this article does not. According to MOS:TIES, "For articles about modern … works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote". The dates on this article should be changed to reflect how Bioware Edmonton writes dates in its games (even though some, but not all, Canadians prefer to write "month day, year" instead). Any thoughts? —C. Raleigh (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing


Reviewer: Electroguv (talk · contribs) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can handle this quickly.

Review

1. It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS): 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I doubt that RPG Site is a reliable source. Also, there are unreferenced statements in Gameplay section.

Thank you for your review - much appreciated. I will address these issues soon (right now I'm a bit busy). Let me know if there's anything else. -- Niwi3 (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the review on hold so the issues can be adressed. Electroguv (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if there's anything else. Again, thanks for your time. -- Niwi3 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rapid response. Looks fine now. Electroguv (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I think that Gameplay section could use a more representative screenshot. Other than that looks good.
Done. -- Niwi3 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass/Fail:
You've done a great job with this article. It's well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. Keep up the good work! Electroguv (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Mass Effect series capitalization of alien race names

[edit]

You're invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illusive Man#Request for comment. czar · · 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning recent edits

[edit]

@Niwi3 and Osh33m: Probably worth discussing whatever before editing the page again. Constant editing and reversions help nobody, and edit summaries aren't the best place for discussion. Don't know if Niwi has a problem with current version, but it's probably bad to have the article in constant flux. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He did have a problem with some of the things and I've admitted to my mistakes, but there is one part left that I added that I believe deserves to be in the article. So I hope it is okay now.Osh33m (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Osh33m, you are not being constructive. Reasons:
  • The fact that the PS3 version was announced at Gamescom is already mentioned in the Marketing and release section, yet you still keep adding it into the development section for no apparent reason.
  • The fact that the PS3 version was released in 2011 is already mentioned in the Marketing and release section, yet you still keep adding it into the development section.
  • Why do you create a separate section for the PS3 version in the development section? Info about the PS3 version is not exclusive to the development section.
  • The Microsoft quote is irrelevant and confuses the general reader; it does not explain why the Xbox version would be superior.
I will keep reverting your edits unless you justify them with a good reason. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will reason with you with points one and two, and I will no longer make those edits because you are right. However, I do not agree that the Microsoft quote is irrelevant.
  • The Mass Effect series was exclusive up until that point for quite some time as the 360 being the only console you could play it on
  • The Ps3 revelation was a huge buzz considering the game was critically acclaimed and was still exclusive to 360 for a whole year
  • Mass Effect 1 continued to be exclusive to 360 for another 2 years. With that in mind, Microsoft's statement is relevant
  • It is informative on the Ps3 announcement. It will not confuse the reader, but further inform him/her by showing them that Microsoft did respond and did not keep quiet about the reveal.
  • I'm making a separate section for the PlayStation 3 version because Bioware themselves made it a big deal that the Ps3 port was happening. They had an announcement trailer and the gaming world in general was shocked that it was happening.
I hope we can come to an understanding about this. Osh33m (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it is a bit ironic: it seems that you agree with points one and two, yet you still keep adding that info into the development section. Please do not add it again (because you said you agree). As for the Microsoft quote, I decided to include the game's loss of exclusivity in the marketing and release section because it is a marketing thing, not a development thing, and it fits better there. Before editing the article again, please read the whole article so that you don't repeat information that is already present in other sections of the article. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that I agreed with you that I shouldn't have been adding stuff about the Ps3's included DLC, etc. But alright. I'm satisfied with you adding the microsoft somewhere else in the article, even though it was a response to bioware stating that a Ps3 version was in development. While I still think PlayStation 3 still deserved its own section in development, I just made it its own paragraph because of what I stated before; the Ps3 reveal was a very big deal when it was announced. So I hope we can come to an agreement now. Osh33m (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you insist so much on having a "one paragraph" subsection in the development section. By that logic, we should add another one in the Marketing and release section, another in the DLC section, and another in the Reception section, turning the article into a mess and increasing its already big table of contents. Keep in mind that info about the PS3 is not only present in the Development section; there are more bits in the rest of the article, so it is not wise to add one there; it confuses the reader. Also, I don't agree with having a separate 2 line paragraph in the development section, so I'm merging the last 2. It perfectly makes sense since the paragraphs talk about the multiple versions of the game. Additionally, merging both paragraphs helps the article have a neutral point of view because no version is more relevant than the other. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the Xbox 360 version is the most relevant since it is the highest selling version, but alright. I'll settle for what we've got. Osh33m (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open world?

[edit]

Could this game be classified as open world?ECW28 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, for the same reason I gave on Talk:Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the game is segmented into smallish levels/hubs. The1337gamer (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"On one hand, it's a third-person shooter. On the other hand, it's an RPG with sandbox, open-world sensibilities."-IGN PS3 review Dohvahkiin (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While some reviews might comment on it having open-world elements, I haven't really seen sources call it an "open world" game, unlike games such as pretty much any Elder Scrolls game and not to the extent of even Dragon Age: Inquisition (which is often called "semi-open world"). – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 11:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Mass Effect 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Mass Effect 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

[edit]

@Niwi3: I don't think it's a question about "selling the game to retailers" or not: we are always talking about selling. And the fact that a section is "two lines long" means little, since the section itself could be expanded. A reader of Wikipedia, could easly find those data if looking in "Sales" subsection, not having to dig in another one. Nothing less, note that "Sales" section is very used normally, why it should not be used the same in here? Sales are actually a large part of game's reception - as a product, we could say it is the only part that really matters. But if you simply, and personally, don't like these changes... well, that's another kind of story. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DUE, we should organize information in proportion to its prominence in reliable sources. If there are not enough reliable sources that discuss the game's commercial performance, then we certainly don't need a "sales" section, otherwise we would be adding more importance to the sales than necessary. Just because a sales section is normally used in AAA games, doesn't necessarily mean we need to have one here. It's about sources, not about copying the structure of other articles. Thank you for your understanding. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge accolades list

[edit]

Per recent discussions ([2] [3] [4]) on standalone accolades lists, I think List of accolades received by Mass Effect 2 should be merged back into this article. The table is far too short to warrant a separate article per WP:SPLIT. The relevant guideline is at WP:VG/AWARDS. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge, mainly because the list of awards has been reduced significantly as per the new guidelines. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing / development

[edit]

Here's a few sources that go into some character design and writing. They mostly focus on ME2 but it could be relevant for the whole series. Jontesta (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=N> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_Effect_2&oldid=1217240156"