About Us | Game Reviews | Feature Articles | Podcast | Best Work | Forums | Shop | Review Game

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Brad Gallaway's picture

Mass Effect 2 Art

I hit the 20-hour mark last night in Mass Effect 2 (ME2), and I've got quite a list of review notes going. Much, much more than I would have anticipated before starting the game, actually.

To anyone who would say that ME2 is indisputably better than the first game, I would ask what it was that they felt was lacking the first time around. I don't mean to broadly assume, but from those I've spoken to, it seems as though players who wanted a more combat-focused experience are loving what ME2 brings to the table. Players (like myself) who enjoyed the combat but were more interested in the story and characters seem to have some issues embracing it wholeheartedly. Your mileage may vary of course, but this seems to be a general trend I've observed.

Although I don't want to spoil my review before it's written, one issue I've really been wrestling with is the developers' decision to radically shift their design in order to bring total focus on the teammates Commander Shepard can recruit.

Being able to convince someone to join forces with you and get to know them over the course of an adventure is one of the hallmarks of BioWare's greatness, and it's certainly one of the things that made me a convert after my experience with Knights of the Old Republic. However, in every BioWare title previous to ME2, there has been a larger, overarching plot, usually involving saving the universe or something along those lines.

Characters are encountered over the course of a player's travels as they attempt to resolve this big issue, and by choosing to engage in conversation with them, their particular backstory and (sometimes) hidden quest is revealed—but, this type of content has always been what could be properly categorized as sidequests. They're there if the player wants them, but they are not the focus of play.

In ME2, BioWare has changed tactics and taken these hidden surprises a player had to work for, and instead put them front and center. Essentially, the main quests in the game are sidequests, and to be frank, I don't feel as though this tactic was successful—for a couple of reasons.

First, although there is an overarching plot, it's not able to be advanced until the player recruits a certain number of teammates, which basically forces them into a number of disconnected, random-feeling missions. Go here and meet this person. Go there and meet that one. The game explains it in the context of the plot, but this structure makes it nearly impossible to feel as though the game is moving forward. Rather than meeting someone on the way to accomplishing a goal, simply meeting them is the goal itself. There is little sense of drive. Having said that, I don't think that such a structure is inherently unworkable, but what puts the nail in the coffin for me is the sheer amount of characters to be recruited.

Mass Effect 2 Screenshot

At the moment, I have ten characters in my stable, with a slot for one more. With two characters on my team at the start of the game, this basically means that I've been through approximately eight core missions with the sole objective of recruiting someone. By way of comparison, I'd say that there have only been two missions which could be seen as advancing the main plot. The ratio here is way off.

Making the situation worse is the fact that the player can only be accompanied by two characters at a time. With this structure, there is little opportunity to develop significant bonds or any sense of in-game camaraderie with more than a few of them. There just isn't time to have most of the cast mean much, yet getting these characters to join and completing their individual quests is the bulk of the ME2 experience regardless of how much or how little screen time they get.

As I go through the game and complete these missions, I can't help but get the sense that each one would be improved and feel much more significant if there were just less of them. It's not very meaningful to me to accomplish Mission X for Character Y when I've only used them once or twice, and there's no real chance for dramatic build-up with the stop-start-stop rhythm the game has. There is no flow to progression; no feeling that things are building to a head. I've just been making frequent stops around the neighborhood, basically. Need a ride? Gotta drop something off? No problem.

Further complicating things and detracting from the experience overall is that with so much focus on one person or another's problems, there's little room for me to develop any feelings at all about the antagonists of the game—and every good game needs a recognizable and present enemy. What would Mario be without Bowser? What would Final Fantasy VII be without Sephiroth? In Mass Effect 1, Saren and the Geth filled this role quite satisfactorily, but this time around, there are so many people to meet and such a great number of errands to run that it's quite possible to forget that there's even a larger threat at all.

I may be in the minority with this view, but I think the BioWare Character Sidequest System™ worked better and was more meaningful when it actually consisted of sidequests. The player could participate in the larger adventure and feel as though significant events were happening, yet still had complete control over when (and if) they took the time to take a break from saving the galaxy to delve deeper into someone's problems. I'm not done with the game yet, but after the last 20 hours, I feel comfortable saying that this reverse-prioritization gives ME2 a very haphazard, aimless feeling, and a central plot that fails to materialize. For a game that's ostensibly about saving the universe, I can only see this as a bad thing.

…Of course, there's still time to pull things together and drive it home with a bang, but based on my time spent so far, I'd say that BioWare's going to have to pull off one hell of a trick to do it.

Category Tags
Platform(s): Xbox 360   PC  
Developer(s): BioWare  
Series: Mass Effect  
Genre(s): Role-Playing   Shooting  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Excellent points!

Very well said Brad. I'm about 13 hours in and feeling the same way. There is just way too much "character-fetching" and not enough storyline. I think I've seen the collectors only once and even then it was like, "meh".

If the ME2 team wanted this game to be more character-driven, then they should have taken lessons from Squaresoft. Games like FINAL FANTASY 6 and CHRONO TRIGGER both featured unique teams that you had to build, yet you often met your next party member en-route to your final destination and there were plenty of times where you had to split up so that you were pretty much forced to get some "game time" with each character.

For myself, I've been using the Miranda/Garrus combo pretty much the whole time . . . while the other characters sit on the Normandy and play cards or something.

Speaking of the Normandy, has anybody else noticed how the men's bathroom has two toilets but they're divided by a mere partition and not a stall?

I didn't think Saren was all

I didn't think Saren was all that great of a antagonist. His motivations for doing what he was doing didn't really make sense given the persona they established for him.

I didn't play ME2 yet (still waiting for the mail to arrive...)

I didn't play ME2 yet, but I had this feeling already in other Bioware RPG. In KOTOR I hardly spoke to some of the crew, in Dragon Age I couldn't care less for half my ensemble. I don't know but when I should save the world, some part of the galaxy or the galaxy as a whole I rarely do sidequests unless the objectives are literally on the way.

But what I find the larger problem is the limitations to such a small party, while the rest is standing on the same spot in the camp or spaceship, waiting for you to talk to them about their oh so hard life. In Baldurs Gate your whole party would move with you and it was cool. In almost every Bioware game of late there was a large pool of people that follow you and only one or two are joining you on your mission. What's the point of collecting so many people throughout the galaxy (or ferelden) if only a handful of them are going with you anyway?

Finally to the question what I was feeling would be 'missing' in ME1: The middle ground on most decisions. You had to choose either paragon or renegade at the beginning and roll with it, since staying in the middle would result in you not being able to do certain things, since your persuasion or intimidation was limited. And it's not nice to feel like the game is punishing you for not being either a saint or an a$$hole. And a good romance option would have been nice. I liked neither the mad racist nor the boring alien. Beside that ME1 was pretty much everything I wanted :)

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Dammit, I predicted something like this the moment I heard that there would be 11 team-mates.

One thing not noted here is just how little conversation you have with any of them. You pretty much recruit 'em, get some perfunctory dialogue, leave 'em alone, and then get given a second quest for each one of them.

Six characters was perfect. One for each class. Go nuts from there.

Your expecting it to be the same...

I started getting caught up in the hype early on for this game, then I began to think of all the disappointments I have bought over the years, so i literally convinced myself that this was going to be a terrible game.
It isn't.
The combat is now as good as many other games I play, the levelling, streamlined so that it only really includes powers, which have now been much improved. Customisation is now pretty awesome, but hopefully they release another set of armour as in depth as the N7. The conversations are better, with the interrupts bringing in some fun.
The only downside is the endless planet scanning, it's so boring, maybe a faster paced mini-game would be better and more elements found on the ground. What I truly love is that each gun feels unique and the new worlds.
In terms of DLC I hope we get:
-To visit Earth or Mars
-A colour customisable armour
-New weapons
-More story
-New powers and raised level cap

You hit the nail on the

You hit the nail on the head. Suddenly you've set the Collectors in your sights as the antagonistic force, but why do I feel like a collector too? Worse, after completing their personal missions they stopped talking to me! What the hell?

The combat wasn't any better. They added ammo, but they're not calling it ammo. Again, what the hell? Most of my biotic and tech ability arc, even when I've aimed them squarely at an opponent, and they would dip into the ground or into an object somewhere else. Most of the time I curved them just to have some control over it.

Still, I was pleased with the game after finishing it. It came together rather nicely. They employed a few mechanics at the very end of the game that I would have liked to see throughout the entire thing. It was strategic without being too complicated. I think they could expand on that and have an awesome system that puts everybody on the battlefield at the same time. There was one huge WTF moment towards the end of the game, and you'll know it when you see it. It was unnecessary and didn't make any sense to boot.

Personally, I Disagree

While I can definitely see the opposing argument, I for one really like the more character-focused approach Bioware took with Mass Effect 2. One of the thing I was disappointed about in the first Mass Effect was the characters. They weren't bad or anything, but they didn't seem integral to the plot. Mass Effect was a great game, and I really liked its story, but I was hoping that Mass Effect 2 would focus on the characters more, and so far I've been more than satisfied. It helps that I find the characters in Mass Effect 2 more interesting than the ones in the first game. I also love the character-specific quests in the game; some of them feel more fleshed-out and intriguing than the main planets in the original Mass Effect. I'm about 25 hours in, and I've done most of the character quests, so I'm excited about how the finale's going to turn out.

It's a "Your Mileage May Vary" thing, though. Maybe I'm just a fanboy too in love with the game to properly see its flaws. XD

Get out of my head!

Spooky, that's exactly what I've been thinking. It's a great game, but the logic that requires you to accumulate all these weirdos is strained, to say the least. Why do you need all of them to save the galaxy? What really bothers me is that I see this affecting replay value. In the original you could rattle through the half dozen core missions and try multiple outcomes with ease. If I'm going to have to do ten missions just to get to the half way point . . .

Things i disliked from the

Things i disliked from the first ME.

1. Combat
2. Inventory system
3. Some classes were handicapped e.g. Engineers
4. Boring sidequests

From what i read in your impressions the first one has indeed been improved.

What class are you playing? Most people i know play as Soldiers where as i would really like to try another class.

Finally with regards to the number of characters i would agree with you that having too many lessens any chances of connection with these characters. It must be a juggling system as well as you are probably trying to use most of them in order to keep them at decent levels and still be useful.

Sigh...

Brad, I can't read your reviews anymore. You are the most inconsistent reviewer I've ever come across. ME2 is clearly a better game. I know there's an attraction to being the devil's advocate and 'going against the grain', but in this instance you're just wrong. At least have the integrity to admit you rated ME1 too high. Personally, I think ME2 is as good as it gets and surpasses the first in every respect (yes, even story). At the very least your gripes regarding the sequel should even out with the universally viewed gripes of the first game resulting in a comparable score... yet you gave the first game a freakin' 10! Good luck explaining your way out of this one. I'm not whining that your early take on it doesn't hold up to the other reviews out there... I'm merely pointing out that your early take doesn't even hold up to your own standard set two years ago.

Zelazny7 wrote: I know

Zelazny7 wrote:

I know there's an attraction to being the devil's advocate and 'going against the grain', but in this instance you're just wrong.

Says who? These are just OPINIONS. Like your comment; it represents an opinion, not an indisputable fact. If you disagree so vehemently, there's no need for the "Brad, I'm never reading your writing again" preface. That's just plain rude (not to mention unfounded). Just state your opinion and why you disagree.

I'm sure Brad is writing this out of disappointment, not some vague attraction to "going against the grain." Don't you think he would have rather loved the sequel? Don't we all buy games in order to enjoy them, not slam them in writing?

I'm only holding Brad up to

I'm only holding Brad up to the standards he sets for himself. My comment was borne of frustration over someone who is missing the forest for the trees when he was able to overlook so many flaws from the first game (and there were TONS) and yet give it a 10. I also understand that Brad is giving his opinion. I just don't think opinions matter much when they're not based on some consistent, underlying value system.

Zelazny7 wrote: I just

Zelazny7 wrote:

I just don't think opinions matter much when they're not based on some consistent, underlying value system.

An opinion is by nature not based on a static value system-if it was it would be fact. I'm enjoying the game quite a bit more than Brad at the moment, but that's based on my personal preference and expectations, just like he is basing his opinion on his. There is no "if the game does this its good" set of standards in existence, nor will there ever be.

Zelazny7 wrote: I'm only

Zelazny7 wrote:

I'm only holding Brad up to the standards he sets for himself. My comment was borne of frustration over someone who is missing the forest for the trees when he was able to overlook so many flaws from the first game (and there were TONS) and yet give it a 10. I also understand that Brad is giving his opinion. I just don't think opinions matter much when they're not based on some consistent, underlying value system.

Yep, I have to agree here. Granted, Brad's opinion is just that - an opinion. But it's an inconsistent one. Mass Effect 1's scenario was not-that-great; Saren was not a good villain (well, not when you think Bioware also created Jon Irenicus: everything's relative), the missions were not exactly compelling (go fetch that scientist; then help these colonists; explore the labs), and the character interaction were way too simplistic (3 short personal quests, few party banters).

What made it great, then? The presentation, the acting, the choices, the verse (and the gameplay, IMO, though your mileage may vary). All those elements are back and (generally) enhanced. Maybe it's not a better game, but it clearly matches the first.

Just update your ME1 review, it clearly didn't deserve a 10 ;)

Brad is the Man!

He's not afraid of nothing because his voice is the truth unlike these other game critics who have their mouths so far up the developer's dicks. Brad is a honest and hardcore game critic, he bashes all those mainstream games and praise good games that aren't mainstream.

He said Lost Planet for having a good story and Psychonauts had a bad story which is true.

He praised Tork as being a finely tuned platformer but bashed Psychonauts for being a mediocre platformer which is true.

He said Dead Space was a bland and boring game which is true.

He said that Alone in the Dark Inferno is a great game which is true.

He said Bionic Commando was a better than inFamous and Prototype which is true.

He said Ninja Blade is a good game and Ninja Gaiden sucks which is true.

He says Galleon is an amazing game which is true.

He said Mass Effect 1 is better than Mass Effect 2 which is 100% true.

This guy is the best game reviewers ever because everything he says is true! Don't trust other game reviewers from other websites, trust this guy and everyone else in this website.

I may have confused the

I may have confused the issue a bit with my word choice, Mr. Naik. I didn't mean that opinions have to be based on an absolute standard, but that for opinions to mean anything there has to be some consistency from the person offering the opinion. In Brad's case, I'd argue his positions are woefully inconsistent when it comes to reviewing ME1 and ME2.

Hey all. Just a few words to

Hey all.

Just a few words to clarify a few things here:

>Regarding Mass Effect 1 being rated ‘too high’ – No way. I made my case in that write-up and I still stand by it. If you don't agree, that's one thing, but I still feel as though the first ME was a genre-defining experience and that's not going to change regardless of what comes after. That review and that score will not change.

> In case anyone is confused, this is a BLOG POST of thoughts, and not an official review. Since I have not given a review or score to Mass Effect 2, I find it a little puzzling that people are calling into question my consistency or ‘underlying value system’. If you want to start poking holes in my review when it goes up, that's all well and good-- however, trying to take me to task for the differences between an official review and a quick blog post is an apples/oranges sort of thing. Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

>Finally, if you’ve read my reviews and blog posts for any length of time, the sort of things I value in games and the kinds of games I like should be pretty clear. If you disagree with what I like then that’s absolutely your right and I won’t begrudge you for it, but casting aspersions won’t get you much traction with me. If you think I’m wrong, then present your case… rudeness isn’t a very effective strategy to get someone to hear your points.

I'm not through the game yet

I'm not through the game yet either, but I think I'm enjoying ME2 and it's story more so far because of what I've expected of it going in. No, I'm not going to use the "It's only the middle part of trilogy" defense, because I think that's bogus. I do think the story is structured to feel "complete" as story (even within the context of ME1 & ME3) but the story itself is not what most RPG lovers are accustomed to.

From what I've seen of Bioware's interviews and their marketing of the game, this always appeared to be a "Men on a Mission" type story, not a space opera, at least when taken by itself. Typically used in war movies , "Men on a Mission" stories are the gathering of a group of experts who have no where else to go for one specific mission that has a low rate of perceived success, a "suicide mission." THE DIRTY DOZEN is the most famous example of this but you can find many others (even in heist films like OCEAN'S ELEVEN as well). In those movies, the recruiting of the crew/team/poor bastards is half of the story, before throwing them into the fire with the perlious mission (where usually half of them get slaughtered, proably by Nazi's). The main character meat of these stories is exploring the personal quirks of the misfit team, letting you get to know them right before they dive head long into the meat grinder.

So with that mindset I've been pretty happy with ME2 so far. It seems to be following this structure, with every team member, even the ones from ME1 being outcats in someway, whether by design or by choice. And if the message boards are to believed there is a meat grinder coming for them (probably no Nazi's though. It's not without flaws though, even accepting the framework I've just described. There should be more missions involving everyone in the team like the end mission, at least two times before the end to give you that "team" feel. How cool swould it be to have the team do a prison break for Subject Zero rather than just picking her up for example?

I'll wait until finishing the game before judging the villians, but the Collectors do seem bland right now.

Well, that's how

Estoc wrote:

Yep, I have to agree here. Granted, Brad's opinion is just that - an opinion. But it's an inconsistent one. Mass Effect 1's scenario was not-that-great; Saren was not a good villain (well, not when you think Bioware also created Jon Irenicus: everything's relative), [...]

I didn't remember who Jon Irenicus was until I googled the name, and I played every piece of Baldurs Gate I & II there is. Thus: I don't think he was THAT awesome, while Saren at least left some impression on me.

And in my opinion the reason why ME1 was a great game is not just because of some shooter mechanics or because some NPC, but because how it all fit together. Well, obviously not in your opinion but I found ME1 more enjoyable than KOTOR (sacrilege! ;)) and way way way better than last years Dragon Age.

What I'm saying is that just because _you_ think ME1 doesn't deserves a 10, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. And since you can't measure "gameplay" or "fun" in scientific terms anyway a review score will _always_ be an opinion therefore always matter of interpretation. There will never ever be a game where everyone agrees is perfect. Never. Period. But that doesn't mean it's forbidden by law to give a game a 10, otherwise there would be no use for a scale from 1 to 10 anyway. We could just rate games with thumbs up and thumbs down. Check out the podcast on this site about myths of game criticism, might clear up how things work around here ;)

Li-Ion wrote: I didn't

Li-Ion wrote:

I didn't remember who Jon Irenicus was until I googled the name, and I played every piece of Baldurs Gate I & II there is. Thus: I don't think he was THAT awesome, while Saren at least left some impression on me.

And in my opinion the reason why ME1 was a great game is not just because of some shooter mechanics or because some NPC, but because how it all fit together. Well, obviously not in your opinion but I found ME1 more enjoyable than KOTOR (sacrilege! ;)) and way way way better than last years Dragon Age.

What I'm saying is that just because _you_ think ME1 doesn't deserves a 10, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. And since you can't measure "gameplay" or "fun" in scientific terms anyway a review score will _always_ be an opinion therefore always matter of interpretation. There will never ever be a game where everyone agrees is perfect. Never. Period. But that doesn't mean it's forbidden by law to give a game a 10, otherwise there would be no use for a scale from 1 to 10 anyway. We could just rate games with thumbs up and thumbs down. Check out the podcast on this site about myths of game criticism, might clear up how things work around here ;)

You didn't know who Jon Irenicus was? And you liked Mass Effect better than KOTOR? Well, that's more than sacrilege, at this point. THIS IS MADNESS!

Hehe. Back to the point, I happen to agree with you. In Mass Effect, everything fit together (if you analyse what I said the right way, that's actually what I meant by "presentation" and "'verse"). The game is polished to death, and it shows. Way, way better than Dragon Age. (Truth be told, it deserves a 10 for the "I Remember Me" quest only.)

I just think Mass Effect 2 is on par :)

Great discussion, anyhow!

Forgot to say: Jon Irenicus

Forgot to say: Jon Irenicus was great because he was a tragic villain. He was a complete monster, but you could understand his pain (as a pariah, as a rejected lover). Saren... who could feel for him, really? Well, again, just an opinion.

Sorry for the double post!

I hope Bio reads this

Great article. You've done a good job articulating the persistent, nagging issue I've felt with this game.

I loved the first game and having beat this one, can say I love it too, but...

I recently did Jack's sidequest and though I tried my damndest to get into it and care about the turmoil she was going through- I couldn't. I hadn't really spent any time with her on other missions (I was busy juggling all the other characters).

I also think it speaks volumes that if you go onto the official forums, there's still quite a few folks clamoring for the original squad (and especially the original love interests) to get a better returning role in the conclusion to the trilogy. I don't necessarily think the old crew was better written than the new one - maybe even the opposite - but you got to know each one way better. You felt like you were part of a team, whereas in the sequel you feel like you're just the figurehead at the front of an army.

Estoc wrote: (Truth be

Estoc wrote:

(Truth be told, it deserves a 10 for the "I Remember Me" quest only.)

Absolutely. I didn't come across that mission until my 2nd or 3rd playthrough and being simply a conversation mission, it was emotionally overwhelming. I haven't seen something like that in ME2 yet.

About 20 hours in as well and I'm still enjoying the game immensely though I find what is compelling to play now is the characters more so then the quest-
Where the first one had the space opera tone, this one now has muscicians before the show atmosphere. There is no need to present an overarching antagonist like Saren because 9 out of 10 people all ready now who the bad guy is (remember, I'm still playing the game...) so why try and reestablish their evilness over another 40 hours?
All the characters are an instrument of exploring the ME lore that was established and never had the light of day. Hell, just listening to Zaeed tell about almost getting strangled to death by a Hanar made my night.

Is it as good as the first? I don't know. It will never make me feel the same that ME1 made me feel, I know this. However, I don't think it's trying to.

It is true though, has made for some good discussion/reading though

Wait just a minute....

I appreciated your comments about this game. Considering our mutual affinity for the first ME, I wanted to revisit your site to see your thoughts on ME2. I understand that this isn't your "review" of the game per se, but it certainly has significant indications of your feelings on the game itself, and the overall quality of the product. I'd like to put aside the plot/story structure discussion for another time. That's another avenue that could be parsed out for days on end, and is largely a matter of personal preference. I'll go ahead and say that I generally disagree with your complaints and leave it at that for now. What concerns me at the outset is that your lengthy discussion and impressions post IGNORES ENTIRELY the issue of ME1's technical problems - Most noteably the glaring texture pop-in and awful framerate. Those issues alone detracted a great deal from the GAMEPLAY of ME1. I think that there is no debate whatsoever that Bioware has gone to painstaking lengths in order to make this game immensely more playable, purely from a technical standpoint. As this is a GAME, I think that any impressions/reviews/commentaries on this game from a review website do a disservice to the reader if they do not point out this substantial improvement. It directly affects the gameplay experience. Games are not just about story. If they were, they'd be movies. I think that the ME1 experience was a fantastic, but deeply flawed, ride. The technical improvements alone in this chapter of the trilogy enhance the experience to a large degree. Ignoring that aspect while devoting paragraph upon paragraph to story structure issues seems somewhat disengenuous to a discussion of the product as a whole.

Madness?

Estoc wrote:

You didn't know who Jon Irenicus was? And you liked Mass Effect better than KOTOR? Well, that's more than sacrilege, at this point. THIS IS MADNESS!

Madness? THIS IS SPARTA! (scnr ;))

The Many Failures of Mass Effect 2

I've written an article titled The Many Failures of Mass Effect 2, an in-depth analysis of Bioware's latest RPG that not only dissects the game but takes game critics to task for letting obvious flaws slide by without notice or comment. Surprisingly, the article is being met with a favorable response, as I think people find it a fair analysis and not a typical fanboy rant.

The Many Failures of Mass Effect 2

http://www.infoaddict.com/the-many-failures-of-mass-effect-2

My thoughts almost exactly

"As I go through the game and complete these missions, I can't help but get the sense that each one would be improved and feel much more significant if there were just less of them."

Imagine how much more fleshed out the characters would be if there were less of them.
Imagine if their situations and motivations tied into the main plot.
Imagine if Shepard was actually important...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Code of Conduct

Comments are subject to approval/deletion based on the following criteria:
1) Treat all users with respect.
2) Post with an open-mind.
3) Do not insult and/or harass users.
4) Do not incite flame wars.
5) Do not troll and/or feed the trolls.
6) No excessive whining and/or complaining.

Please report any offensive posts here.

For more video game discussion with the our online community, become a member of our forum.

Our Game Review Philosophy and Ratings Explanations.

About Us | Privacy Policy | Review Game | Contact Us | Twitter | Facebook |  RSS
Copyright 1999–2010 GameCritics.com. All rights reserved.