I agree that Mass Effect 2 is one of the greatest games this generation, but disagree that the 3rd-person shooter mechanics are average at best. I actually prefer a polished third-person shooter like ME2 over a FPS like Modern Warfare. You've been in combat, so you understand the significance of "cover and concealment." Tactical 3rd-person shooters allow you to utilize cover. FPS's merely provide cover for you to duck behind.

I can kind of understand where you're coming from on this. Morrowind and Oblivion have terrible gameplay, combat wise, but everything else was great. And the combat in Mass Effect was average at best.

On the other hand, I'm not quite sure I agree with the assertion that a great experience doesn't make a great game. Sure, you could disect every game to it's most basic functions, but as long as the experience is good, then the game is good. It's all about fun.

@Bryant That was kinda my point in the article I just wrote on realism in FPS's. Shooters make little attempt to create realistic scenarios, though in that sense, Mass Effect is partially excusable because it's a futuristic sci-fi setting. We accept the fact that regenerating health *might* be feasible, while in Modern Warfare, it calls attention to itself. ME's encounters were definitely scripted, and astoundingly linear, but I suppose the focus was on story, not the combat itself (that's not a criticism). Because of its story-driven nature, the linearity was a requirement--it was necessary to push the player along.

As someone with a modicum of military experience (but no combat experience), Modern Warfare's Michael Bay bombast irks me. The preposterous storylines just take me right out of the game, not to mention the inherent absurdities of regenerating health, your character's capacity for absorbing damage (and living), and the fact that you mow down thousands of enemies without breaking a sweat. All of these things serve to remind me that I'm playing a video game.

Might draw attention to the final Mass Effect 1 DLC, Pinnacle Station, a combat simulator with almost no story line. It stripped away the wonder, epic scale and crafted narrative leaving the gameplay itself to stand by itself. It was awful.

I see what you're saying but I don't agree with the idea that what we're seeing is "facade." No, the shooting in ME2 may not be top-tier, but it's not intended to be. All the stuff on top -- the "facade" as you call it -- IS the game. That's supposed to be the great stuff built on the just-okay stuff. Does every single element of a game have to stand on its own as best of its time?

I disagree with this as well. You seem to be viewing these games as nothing more than the sum of their parts. In my opinion, a truly great game means that you have an enjoyable and unforgettable experience playing, whether because of great gameplay, great story, great aesthetics or whatever. Obviously it would be preferable if every great game could present every single aspect in a unique and original way, but games like that are few and far between.

I definitely feel the same way about Mass Effect. Each of its individual features is executed with average proficiency at best, but something about the game manages to become greater than the sum of its parts. The only area where the Mass Effect games really excel is their writing. 

I kept wanting to play the games just to interact with the characters more, and the role playing situations they put you in are genuinely interesting, especially in Mass Effect 2. Those two things alone are probably what made ME2 my favorite game of 2010.

I'm going to use this post's to capture games that I think fall or will fall into the category I've established here.  

First up:  Catherine

I am pretty positive that Catherine will suffer from this syndrome as well.  I'm sure the Anime and Dating Sim portions will be interesting, but as a game, I think it won't really deliver much fun.  (I could be wrong)