iGamer Reviews: Mass Effect (Infiltrator)

Published by EA.

Developed by Iron Monkey Studios.

For iOS and Android.

Mass_Effect_Infiltrator_01

And now in this issue of iGamer, I tackle one of the many mobile-games that were really just made to help promote big budget console and PC titles. But can Mass Effect: Infiltrator, stand up on its own? Let’s see and find out.

 

The Story

Like any good tie-in game, Iron Monkey Studios tries to carve a strong connection with its parent title. As such, Mass Effect: Infiltrator runs parallel to the story of Mass Effect 3, as you play the Cerberus operative “Randall Ezno”. To those that are not in-tune with the Mass Effect story, it should be noted that Cerberus is a pro-human terrorist organization, attempting to propagate the superiority of the human race. In what could be one of the most heavy-handed methods of storytelling, Randall becomes disillusioned with his organization and dedicates himself to bring down his former employers in his quest for contrived revenge.

While the storyline itself is entertaining enough, I feel that it bears mentioning that the key event that sets the story in motion is just painfully contrived, and the acting ranges from generic B-movie performance to outright awkward sounding. While it’s something I’ve come to expect from the studios, I’m definitely not giving them any bonus points for this.


mass-effect-infiltrator-iphone-screen05_656x369

The Gameplay

Mass_Effect_Infiltrator_Screenshots_13287387688099

That said, I feel the gameplay is able to pick up the loose ends that the story leaves hanging. The controls are tight, responsive, and intuitive, which is no easy feat for a mobile title that gives you direct control of a character. You fire your weapon by clicking on your opponent, and then moving the reticle that appears onto your target. Depending on the weapon you use, the reticle will change. With the exception of the sniper rifle, your weapon will fire automatically and you focus mostly on the aiming. Headshots kill the enemy faster, and when you run the risk of your weapons overheating, the incentive to aim there is high enough without actually punishing you if it seems too difficult.

Along with that, the biotic (space magic) abilities are diverse and add more utility to your character. Just like the main Mass Effect titles, this is intended to provide options on how you build your character, asĀ either Combat, Biotic, or Tech. Of course, in Infiltrator, this only actually translates as two and a half styles of play. Replacing “Tech” skills is a “Stealth” style of play. However, the Stealth function of the game is facilitated by a cloaking device that makes your character completely invisible. That said, investing in stealth mostly just makes your cloaking device recharge faster. As such, investing entirely in the stealth tree is hardly plausible by itself. Nevertheless, it canĀ be used well in tandem with combat skills and biotics.

As an added tie-in, you can find “intel” throughout the game, which can either be sold for credits or uploaded to the Systems Alliance, which can translate into Assets for your character in Mass Effect 3. While not especially interesting, it is a nice feature.

Conclusion

Infiltration

 

The Mass Effect Infiltrator is an entertaining title that costs about as much as its worth, being 7$ on Google Play and $7.50 in the U.S. iOS app store. I’m even willing to go so far as to say that it’s worth those two extra quarters if you want to play it on your iOS device, however as a product from EA, I feel like there is really something lacking for a big-name title like Mass Effect.

That’s all for now, Riknas, signing off! (Sorry I keep forgetting about this and the buffalo)

 

49e01cb0c9fcdc560c3ed080d9331616

Community: You’re Doing It Wrong (Archive)

My father once told me, if I have nothing to say, I should not bother saying anything at all. However, this is also the same person who told me to go play in traffic, so I’ve since decided that his wisdom is as practical as shoving a fork into an electrical outlet. However I suppose I will make a disclaimer in saying the following words are composed of not-nice things, to which some may call, “mean”.

You see dear reader, both you and I are online gamers. As such, we have the inherent good nature of being connected to each other via this online community. This is something that MMOs especially have as one of their major positives. By being part of an MMO, you become inexplicably connected to your community. You connect with the people on the forums, you connect with the people in your guild, the guilds have their coalitions, and you’ve developed a connection tolerance to the people who never shut up in global or zone chat. It’s really quite charming, don’t you think?

It seems only natural that other game companies have been green with envy as they wished they had such a heavily layered community that tries to get so intimately involved with them. Tell me, when was the last time you heard of the players who all partied together as they hopped on with EA and asked about their next MADDEN game? If you can tell me, I’d actually rather you didn’t, and I would encourage you to realize you are the minority, and to note that I hate you. I also request you take your keyboard, place it on the floor, and step on it until the keys stop working.

Obviously game journalists try to talk to developers, it’s part of their job and its something they are very passionate about. But for the most part MMOs and a few exceptions rarely have such strong bonds. This is especially the case where the games are single player. Honestly, how much interaction do you expect to milk out of people playing Assassin’s Creed? And the developers are catching onto the answer: Not much.We are seeing this evidenced primarily by Bioware (And their infamous DLC fueled by Bioware Points , Bungie with their Halo Waypoint, and most recenty Ubisoft pushing forward U Play. With the exception of Bungie, I would say this, “You’re doing it wrong.”

Now am I not against progress (Or whatever you want to call it), fostering brand awareness/loyalty is not a crime, and I could not stop it anymore than I could stop the sun from setting or the wind from blowing, or from Cold Play making the same album over, and over (Yes. That’s my one music joke for the year).

But that doesn’t mean I can’t point out the flaws in their methodology. The first obvious problem, would be the flawed attempts at advertising, which essentially equates to the fact that there aren’t enough. Never while playing Assassins Creed 2 did I learn of “U Play”, instead I was only perplexed by the occasional “U” that popped up on my screen. I then shrugged, assuming it had something to do with one of my achievements, and moved along. Meanwhile, BioWare took a step in the right direction by essentially handing you a free piece of content, to whet (Yes, there is an “H’ in this case) but ultimately falls short in the actual page execution where they insist on letting you buy more than you can actually use. From a design perspective it makes sense to have there ahead of time as a placeholder; someone might even buy more than they need ahead of time! To this, I present an image to illustrate their understanding of PR:

To all, with the exception of the extremely thick, letting you buy more than you can do anything with makes you look bad. Even if you are money grubbing, you’re not supposed to tell me up front. Most importantly, it makes you look like you’re not sure what you’re doing. Both Bioware and Ubisoft try to push out these new ideas with only one game to back it up; it’s agonizingly obvious their testing it out instead of taking a confident move forwards. Perhaps I sympathize too much with typically Asian business ideologies, but implementing an idea with only one thing backing it is horribly uninspiring. Like the 3D Vision technology Nvidia is trying to ram down our throats. Sure, some people want to be on top, but who wants to buy into a technology no one is really using right now? I don’t care how you want to approach it, but I would recommend a stronger show of confidence in a project. One method would be to spearhead it with one new game while seeding in retro-active content for earlier games, though this may be a bit of work logistically speaking. On the other hand, designing games with this in mind sounds far more plausible; Assassins Creed 2 has it, and the latest Splinter Cell will no doubt have it as well, couldn’t you wait for both to come out first to make a better impression?

Come on guys, let’s shape up.

/Rant