The rule in story telling is to ignore the plot and focus on the characters.
We actually talked about this last night in my fiction workshop--this very thing. The point isn't that the PLOT is any more or less basic. The point is that the characters are engaging and well rounded and they create the personality of the world.
Never mind that each planet that you visit has its own clear culture and vibe. That each group behaves like an organism and not like a plot function. You can learn about a group and get a notion of how they'll behave because things are so well woven.
The Krogan genophage colors their culture and their early rise to technology (and ultimate mismanagement of technology) is mirrored in the landscapes of their world.
The short lifespans of the Solarians helps us understand their sometimes reckless need to discover and test.
The believable play of good vs. evil being blurred by an even greater force (that threatens both) is one we've seen before--but we get to see (and often choose) how we let these unsavory alliances change us and how they change the way we're perceived.
Is the plot the most original we've ever seen? No. But are the characters put into this familiar scape and allowed to transform it into something greater and more meaningful? Absolutely. If you're willing to invest the time.
Could I ever go back to Mass Effect 1 after this game? Not a chance.

That's what bugs me most about Bioware's recent games. I always get the impression that they could (and most likely would like to) create much less clichéd, much deeper and interesting stories, but are afraid that the public would not accept it. They have these well developed universes, with loads of dialogue and backstory, and then they use the old good-versus-evil, save-the-world cliché as something like an anchor or hook for the players. Maybe they are right, and creating a more unusual story would cost them sales, but it's still a crying shame.

"you mean you're a blind fanboy who won't play it just because it isn't made by Nintendo?"
you like both games,but i don't :)

actually, I can, and fully intend to.
I like making jokes, obviously this has nothing to do with nintendo..
that's why I look forward to DLC, where they can do something like that, because people already bought the game, and they're going to feel like they didn't get the full experience if they don't buy the dlc... dlc is a good avenue for exploration.

What the first Mass Effect (and presumably the second one, although I've only played it for a few hours) did well was not the overall story, which was only slightly above video game average, but the overall presentation of the setting. Good voice acting, hard science fiction (to a degree) and above all fairly believable dialogue were what made the first Mass Effect such a memorable game in my eyes.
It's also one of those games where bad graphics would have really hurt the overall experience. Graphics do matter when they make a setting believable.
I'd say it is possible to make a good story with low focus on characters; Mass Effect certainly leans that way, with its focus on hard science fiction, although a better example would be Final Fantasy XII, in my opinion. I personally thought the story was brilliant, but I can see why so many felt different, considering how the main characters were, well, believable. Too much focus on relationships can undermine the story.
But I digress from the topic. As far as I can tell the reviewer dislikes the game and is nitpicking about it while subtly insulting people who feel different. Each to his own, I say; is it a perfect game? Of course not; the fact that the obvious rough edges are gone has made some more subtle flaws all the more visible. But it's still a great game with some of the best characterization I've seen in a video game - even if the overall plot is more or less on hold (and probably average) for most of the game as far as I can tell.
As they said in a review, or possibly two, I read: it's the party members who are the story of the game.
It's nice to have well-rounded characters in a game - it's not often you get a character in a video game that doesn't come off as unbelievably uncaring about killing, nor as superlatively eccentric (most of the NWN2 cast) just because the writer(s) needed someone memorable.
Dammit, off-topic again.

Yep, there's lots of potential there, just like in episodic gaming. Unfortunately, most developers seem to see it as just an opportunity to squeeze a few more bucks out of their game. Understandably considering the development time and budget of modern games, but maybe a bit shortsighted.

My point is that there are only basic plots. That's the nature of plot.
Here's a post from Penny Arcade that says a little of what I feel about it:
"Each morning now, when I arrive at the office, there is a wholly organic powwow which congeals around nine-thirty or so. The purpose of this event is to describe with incredible granularity the events of the prior evening's explorations of Mass Effect 2. I've longed for this kind of thing, and I haven't really had it since Knights of the Old Republic - also (not coincidentally) a BioWare title. The difference here is that the circle of people who can enjoy Mass Effect 2 is more vast than it's ever been. They just kept twisting shit off of it until they were left with much broader appeal as a game while simultaneously mastering some vigorous new form of narrative propulsion.
These conversations are a huge part of what I love about the game, and they're a direct result of letting people approach Mass Effect 2 on their own terms."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/

Well, I already had my level 60 character to import so I'd done everything there was to do.
I don't think I could go back to the previous game with the Mako planet trips that were all too similar, the far more limited cover system, the awkward inventory system and the relatively shallow universe (which has been brought to life in Mass Effect 2).
It' still recommend ME1 to anyone starting out, but I'd encourage them to play it first. Not only for narrative, but to maximize the appreciation for the first title--I just don't think the first title would stand up as well if you played them out of order.
Ask me again in eight years when I'm feeling nostalgic.

Oh yes, that's what I liked about it, too! That they were going for seriousness and believability. Older Bioware games (and most RPGs, I guess) have too many characters and quests that simply function as comic relief. I've heard criticism that Mass Effect is taking itself too seriously, but that's not a bad thing for me. Games often tend to surrender to ironic over the top writing, as if the developers either recognize that they are lacking in that regard, or because they fear being ridiculed.
Maybe every plot can be distilled down to a few basic templates. The "save the world from the evil robots/undead/orcs..." stuff still feels overtly cheap and frankly not very involving to me. Sure, you can still have dozens of fascinating side stories, but Mass Effect does spend a huge amount of time with it's main arch. I'm jaded of saving the world. I've done it so often! The much more personal nature of the main story of Planescape: Torment or the Baldur's Gate series has really engaged me, for example.

Plot and story are different things. Yes, it has a generic overarching middle-of-a-space-opera-trilogy general plotline. But the character development is surprising and deep. ME1 was definitely more plot-centered, if that's what you guys are still arguing about, but ME2 has sort of specialized storytelling to fit the gaming medium by making it more personal and character driven. I am not enthralled with saving the universe from the reapers, but I am absolutely caught up in the small dramas and victories and failures of my team, and the large majority of their stories (i'm talking mostly about the loyalty missions) are undeniably original and imaginative.

I mostly agree with you, but thought I'd bring some theory into it. I'll quote from William Gass on this one:
"History is often written as a story so that it can seem to have a purpose, to be on its way somewhere; because stories deny that life is no more than an endlessly muddled middle; they beg each length of it to have a beginning and end like a ballgame or banquet. Stories are sneaky justifications. You can buy stories at the store, where they are a dime a dozen. Stories are interesting only when they are floors in buildings. Stories are a bore. What one wants to do with stories is screw them up. Stories ought to be in pictures. They're wonderful to see. Still, a little story gets into everything. Thank the ghosts of Fictions past for that."
In short? Plot and story are in cahoots. In fact, in a Guide to Narrative Craft (edited by Janet Burroway) she claims that the difference between story and plot are as follows:
Plot: A series of events deliberately arranged so as to reveal their dramatic, thematic and emotional significance.
Story: a series of events recorded in their chronological order.
Neither of those has anything to do with what we like about good fiction. I could present a generic basic narrative (using plot or story) and you might not be able to tell me which novel or film or game I'm talking about. However, if I said the name of any of the items it COULD be, you would probably find yourself moved by an immediate emotional response that has NOTHING to do with the bottom line.
No one cares about "boy meets girl" or "stranger comes to town". No one even cares that there will be x number of dramatic moments that the boy and girl toy with one another before getting together, nor do they care that the stranger will save the town after conflict and trial. We know these things will happen and all we care about is how these things are handled by each individual.
Characters interacting within the bounds of our sneaky justifications. That's what creates memorable narrative. Otherwise we wouldn't care about sunsets or water because they've rarely got anything to do with plot or story. Yet, somehow, we might remember that a character wore a certain type of coat or hat, even if it said nothing about the forward motion of a plot or story and only a little something about the periphery.
This is clearer now that you've spent more of your own intellect discussing this topic. Before you hadn't.
Still, if we're talking about whether or not your opinion is supported, it seems pretty clear that you're in the extreme minority. No big deal, I hate Halo and yet it still plugs on towards immortality.

Ok Stoney, you know I love you, but it's not really rhetorically sound to be making a lot of the points you've made without playing the game. Before you were talking about ME1, which was fine because you've played it, but now you are saying things like 'it doesn't deserve' when talking about ME2 and you have yet to experience it. Which is what Bill O'Reilly does when he talks about any videogame.
Ouch, sorry, that was a really harsh comparison.

good stuff. i hope you meant to agree with me because it really sounds like you do.
i'm saying that the smaller (in scope) stories of the characters, which are fleshed out and have good plots of their own, are enough to make up for the lack of an intriguing plot arch. i can get caught up in their trials and tribulations and play the game for their sake, the general plotline just being a justification for putting all those stories together.

Yep, where I said mostly was just to create space. I know that quoting a very cynical viewpoint like Gass might not fly with everyone's notion of fiction. I was more trying not to step on your toes by drawing you into a very liberal and semi-jaded notion of story by suggesting that his ideas supported your thoughts and mine simultaneously.
I agree with what you said, but because what I was posting meant you might not agree with me, I figured err on the side of caution.

I like the argument, but it's not always true. Both plot and story play very critical and central roles at times, but you could argue that they become characters interacting in fiction. It isn't always true that all we care about is how things are handled by individuals. Many times individuals are pawns used to illustrate a much larger picture.

Err yeah, some of his points have a degree of validity (planet scanning being one of the most notable, it needs some skill based task) but the majority is just stuff he didn't like rather than things that were actually BAD
If he likes a pixel hunter adventure then thats fine but I imagine the vast majority of gamers wouldn't have appreciated it.
Likewise the hacking was a bit slow, dull and overused. It should have been rarer with higher rewards
"Why does a store only sell a handful of items? And of those items, the overwhelming majority are completely useless, like dopey items for your Captain’s Cabin that you’ll look at once and never again" Much the same can be said about stores in the real world, the universe doesn't exist to suit one taste
He has a point about combat being fairly telegraphed by the appearance of cover but every game since the "invention" of cover has had that problem, Uncharted springs immediately to mind, there might as well be a flashing sign saying "You are now entering a combat zone, please drive carefully".
The way he describes the lack of complexity and false encouragement of tactics implies he played it on either casual or normal difficulty. Play it on insane and then get back to me about whether tactics matter
He also seems to assume that 10/10 means perfect rather than just excellent or 'does exactly what it says on the tin'