Mass Effect 2 - Crazy Stats And What They're For

IGN interviews Casey Hudson about the player metrics that BioWare is pulling from Mass Effect 2 and what they're going to do with them:

The average time to play through the game was 33 hours. PC gamers spent about an hour longer, while Xbox 360 players did 10% more loyalty missions on average. "In general, pretty much all of the data for the Xbox 360 version and the PC version are quite similar. One difference was the people who did certain loyalty missions on the Xbox versus the PC, which is kind of surprising. On the PC for example, people did Miranda's loyalty mission quite a bit, which is where she is trying to connect with her sister and it's more of a touchy-feely plot. Not a lot of Xbox 360 players did that one. But the Xbox 360 players did do Grunt's mission a lot more than PC players."

The PC players have the edge in dedication. Hudson claims that a lot of people played Mass Effect 2 more than once and about half of all players -- including those who rented or borrowed it -- who started played all of the way through to the end. Two players in particular on the PC played through 28 times. That's the current record. Four people on Xbox 360 played 23 times. If you're any of these people, please write in to us and tell us how you have so much spare time.

Click to expand...

More information.

I kind of worry about what conclusions they draw from these statistics.

I skip through dialogue, but I skip through because I've finished reading and don't want to wait for the voice to finish. I'd hate to think that was being interpreted as me not liking games having dialogue.

Similarly with the face customisation system, I go in, choose a preset and maybe alter the hair or something. I don't think I've ever spent more than a minute on a face. Do I count as using, and therefore presumably encouraging the inclusion of, this system as much as someone who spends ages getting their face just so, or do they track actual time spent too?

I'd also be curious to know if they keep track of how many times I hammer the escape key in frustration at watching an unskippable cutscene for the umpteenth time.

More and more we're trying to create something dynamic and exciting like a really great movie and we're trying to get away from dialogue…

Click to expand...

I kinda hate whoever made this decision.

I worry about conclusions they will draw as well. I'm concerned about the fact that they stated Soldier was overwhelming favorite class by a wide margin. They said they would try to use it to see how to get people use the other classes but the more natural conclusion is probably to just drop the other classes. Less work to just do one class and since the majority dont bother anyway why not streamline the experience.

Developers might not initially think this way but management does and these tools help reinforce those decisions. Bioware has been drifting in these directions for a while and EA will only help expedite it I'm sure.

Now I'm kind of feeling guilty for playing as a soldier in all my games

Soldier? That's the least appealing class guys!

I think the "Fighter" class is the most quick to understand in a lot of RPGs. People not familiar with RPGs might not be able to imagine how it could be like being a mage (or biotic), but anyone can understand what involves being a fighter.#

I don't mind the devs getting feedback about player behaviour. It's indeed useful information. I just hope they still maintain their artistic vision and do not try to develop solely to satisfy what they think the player want.

On the PC for example, people did Miranda's loyalty mission quite a bit, which is where she is trying to connect with her sister and it's more of a touchy-feely plot. Not a lot of Xbox 360 players did that one. But the Xbox 360 players did do Grunt's mission a lot more than PC players."

Click to expand...

Isn't that simply that PC players wanted to get in Miranda's pants? Nerds that we are*.

Don't ask me what it means for X360 players..


*I was tempted too, but went for Tali instead

Am I the only one who feels a little uncomfortable with game companies gathering all these stats on me and how I play? I mean, yeah, I know it's not supposed to be tied directly into my identity or anything like that, but... it gets a little weird knowing that your every move in the game is somehow being recorded, parsed, broken into stats, and sent to some stranger.

RampantCoyote said:

it gets a little weird knowing that your every move in the game is somehow being recorded, parsed, broken into stats, and sent to some stranger.

Click to expand...

Only it's not every move. They've put in specific flags that record very basic information they can use to improve games. We used to do exactly the same thing with our NWN persistent world, and the players loved it - we tracked which areas were visited the most, which quests done, how much loot was gathered, levelling rate etc. all so we could get rid of bits no-one was enjoying (or change them to make more people enjoy them) and generally help more players have more fun.

And in anycase, Mass Effect 2 is just a single player game.. you can't do anything they didn't allow you to do in the first place.

I couldn't care less what they track, as long as they use it for a good reason. So far, they haven't impressed me - and their unwillingness to carry the character build forward is not helping.

DArtagnan said:

I couldn't care less what they track, as long as they use it for a good reason. So far, they haven't impressed me - and their unwillingness to carry the character build forward is not helping.

Click to expand...

You mean in terms of level, skill points etc.?

I think you restrict yourself if you do that - you have to maintain exactly the same classes/skills etc. as before, without the possibility for changing it, and you still have to find some way of normalising power before the game starts - unless you scale monsters, which seems to be a thing-unwanted around these parts.

kalniel said:

Isn't that simply that PC players wanted to get in Miranda's pants? Nerds that we are*.

Click to expand...

Nah. My various FemSheps all wanted to put a fist through her face. As do I, actually I did find that revelation quite confusing, as I would have honestly thought Miranda was more for the "console crowd" if we go via stereotypes (i.e. Miranda is T&A fanservice).

28 times? Jeebus. Mass Effect 2 is a good game, but it's not that good.

I think most people played Soldier because it was the most powerful class by a large margin. It has access to the best weapons and the most powerful spell (adrenaline rush), the only class that doesn't need heavy weaponry while fighting Ymir mechs for example because shooting them with the assault rifle/disruptor ammo while adrenaline rushed kills them quickly. In comparison Vanguard is a mere gimmick class, fun to play but its trademark biotic charge isn't really a viable approach to combat since you can pull that trick only if the enemies are few in numbers like after you've shot the lot of them already from behind cover. Especially at the highest difficulty level there's just no way you can kill enemies quickly enough (to succeed in certain missions) unless you're a Soldier. The stupid decision to make biotics useless against armored/shielded enemies doesn't help much either.

kalniel said:

You mean in terms of level, skill points etc.?

I think you restrict yourself if you do that - you have to maintain exactly the same classes/skills etc. as before, without the possibility for changing it, and you still have to find some way of normalising power before the game starts - unless you scale monsters, which seems to be a thing-unwanted around these parts.

Click to expand...

It's not a problem if you design your character system with a strong foundation. Of course, with the crap they made for ME1 AND ME2 - I don't expect them to want to keep it intact.

If you design a robust system, with solid mechanics - it's not an issue. Other games have been doing it for years, and Bioware used to understand this with BG1 and BG2 - plus expansions.

But they've given up the interesting mechanics bit, and I'm sure they'll mess it up yet again with ME3.

However, I personally ADORE the idea of playing a single character through 3 games - with the core abilties intact. It gives me a strong motivation to replay the game, and it makes my development choices meaningful. I don't enjoy knowing that whatever I do with my character, it won't last - and that I have to basically redo everything when the next game is out.

Look to Dragon Age for another example of absolutely horrific execution of this. It seems they're going to completely abandon the first character with the sequel. So, whatever you do in terms of your origin and what not, won't mean a single thing for the next game.

It's like they're deliberately trying to ruin the sensation of having a lasting character, that's been through a lot of things. I wonder, did they ever play a long-lasting PnP campaign? Your character used to mean something.

Then again, I'm very much a mechanics dude and powergamer - and I love the idea of perpetual growth of power

DArtagnan said:

Look to Dragon Age for another example of absolutely horrific execution of this. It seems they're going to completely abandon the first character with the sequel. So, whatever you do in terms of your origin and what not, won't mean a single thing for the next game.

It's like they're deliberately trying to ruin the sensation of having a lasting character, that's been through a lot of things. I wonder, did they ever play a long-lasting PnP campaign? Your character used to mean something.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure they said you can import your save into DA2, but you're still playing as Hawke. Your choices will come into effect in DA2, although it remains to be seen how much impact they have. That's one of my problems with BioWare, the changes they give you are too big. Without going into detail, I think Dragon Age 2 is a mess, regardless of what happened with DA:O.

But then again, they've never said that Dragon Age is always about your Warden. It's quite rare now, for better or for worse, for games to carry your characters across like the "old" days.

Dwagginz said:

Pretty sure they said you can import your save into DA2, but you're still playing as Hawke. Your choices will come into effect in DA2, although it remains to be seen how much impact they have. That's one of my problems with BioWare, the changes they give you are too big. Without going into detail, I think Dragon Age 2 is a mess, regardless of what happened with DA:O.

But then again, they've never said that Dragon Age is always about your Warden. It's quite rare now, for better or for worse, for games to carry your characters across like the "old" days.

Click to expand...

Why go through all that trouble with origin stories, even so far as calling your game Dragon Age: Origins - if you don't really get to carry your character through?

No, Bioware hasn't "promised" anything - and I don't feel they owe me a single thing - so that's fine.

I'm just saying what I think is natural, and how they're going completely against that.

If other people think it's great having a single character they're forced to play, then I guess there's no problem. People didn't seem to mind "starting over" in Mass Effect 2 either, but then I was always in the minority.

I just have a certain idea of what a trilogy should be, and I think there's a good reason for that. I don't think it's a good idea to mess around with what works, but evidently Bioware thinks streamlining their games into oblivion is the way to go.

Still think it's crap, though

DArtagnan said:

Why go through all that trouble with origin stories, even so far as calling your game Dragon Age: Origins - if you don't really get to carry your character through?

Click to expand...

Because it's a nod to the 6 (7 w/ Awakening) Origins? It can be taken as the "Origin" of a story (which could be said to be The Stolen Throne) or as a reference to the various Origins.

They may have originally intended DA2 to carry on from DA:O, they might not. Either way, I think it's a good thing that you can't, especially with the choices and consequences of Awakening. That'd lead to two different games at least.

Dwagginz said:

Because it's a nod to the 6 (7 w/ Awakening) Origins? It can be taken as the "Origin" of a story (which could be said to be The Stolen Throne) or as a reference to the various Origins.

They may have originally intended DA2 to carry on from DA:O, they might not. Either way, I think it's a good thing that you can't, especially with the choices and consequences of Awakening. That'd lead to two different games at least.

Click to expand...

Well, it's up to the players to decide what they believe.

Personally, I have zero doubt in my mind that their choice is based on having the fastest possible development time, and as a result the most profit for the least effort.

Dragon Age was started back when they still had a strong vision of gameplay, and not this mass appeal cinematic approach they've been doing since ME1.

What kind of missions are "Miranda's mission" and "Grunt's mission" ?

Do these missions hint towards a bias of players on the specific platforms ?

RampantCoyote said:

Am I the only one who feels a little uncomfortable with game companies gathering all these stats on me and how I play? I mean, yeah, I know it's not supposed to be tied directly into my identity or anything like that, but… it gets a little weird knowing that your every move in the game is somehow being recorded, parsed, broken into stats, and sent to some stranger.

Click to expand...

I agree.

But : We here in Germany are a *lot* more sensitive towards "Datenschutz" than other countries seem to be, especially he U.S. - or so I thought.

(Datenschutz = "protection of [private] data")

VentilatorOfDoom said:

I think most people played Soldier because it was the most powerful class by a large margin.

Click to expand...

I assume they played it, because game business = male gamers business, still.
Or in other words : both developers & gamers are still mostly male persons.

Another assumption could be that soldiers are kind of ... glorified in the U.S. - which still is the biggest games market, I think.

Titles like "Solder Of Fortune" and "Company Of Heroes" are so much glorifying it makes me sick.
And probaly no-one in the U.S. will understand me.

So yes, I think there might be a strong bias towards the glorified "soldier" class.

I'm currently working on some kind of theory that the most powerful cultures in history have always been "warrior cultures". The Romans, for example, and the ancient Greek civilization had its ships and the Hoplit unit, and Sparta still has a cliché of THE warrior based culture ...

which means that I begin o have a tendency to think of prts of the U.S. culture of as a "warrior culture" as well - there are several puzzle pices that hint towards that. The "war" against the natives, for example, which is in my opinion from its tendency "accumulation and exploitation o land) not unlike of what the Romans actually did.

Of course, the Romans also brought some kind of civilization o the other peoples, butthat for a price. Everyone who had to be"respected" by Roman law had - for example - to become a proper Roman citizen. Otherwise he would pay tax, but have almost no rights.

Considering the wealth streams, this means to me nothing but the Romans overwhelming other peoples, accumulating half of them into their own armies in order to a) weaken them and b) to make the Roman armies even bigger - or overwhelming the next "ccountry" - and directing all of the taxes into the direction of Roma.

If you happen to know the case agauinst Verres, by which Cicero became so famous, then you probably know the tip of the iceberg of Roman decadence - which was fulled by these "wealth streams" and the overwhelming military power of them.
So, I see the Romans as a "warrior culture" nowadays (I'm currently reading myself through a thick volume of scientific articles about the Romans in Bavaria).

There are other "warrior cultures" as well, like for example I see most cultures of the Middle East as such.

And I begin to grow a tendency to see parts of the U.S. culture as a "warrior culture" as well. One thing for me that hints towards that is the right to carry a weapon. Which is unthinkable here. Carrying a weapon is losely restricted here.
Plus, we won't glorify soldiers here, because of our Nazi past.
Naming a gun "Peacemaker" is also unthinkable here.

So ... I tend to believe that u.s. gaming has several biases - or male gaming even in general. In my current theory males might hve a tendency away from diplomacy, for example, and the more, the younger people are. And younger people are the most liked target group of the "gaming business", I guess.