That's really weird twesterm, I'm on playthrough #5 or 6 right now of ME and the ONLY problem I've seen is significant pop-in. I've had zero screen tearing and my framerate is super smooth (seems like 30 FPS at all times), and I've owned 2 360's and played it on both. This could actually be a 360 problem, sounds like there could be variations in performance from one 360 to another? Yikes!

Also, if someone didn't experience all of the problems as badly as you (take away screen tearing, frame rate drops and only maybe 3 freezes in 100+ hours of play) wouldn't it deserve a 9+?

Maybe I just got lucky, but I did not encounter any significant gamebreaking issues involving frame rate or tearing in Mass Effect 1.

In regards to your game mechanics issues, I am right there with you when it comes to a hatred of the vehicle sections. The aggravation of the controls combined with the poor physics and massive worlds requiring tedious driving with no action were frustrating to say the least. Bioware "fixed" this issue by sidesteping it and just removing it in the second game, a poor move imo since the game loses combat variety even though the vehicle combat was awful.

The issues involving the story you mentioned did not seem to effect me. Sure, the primary planets can mostly be visited in no particular order but your choices did have some effects on the characters ... Liara's rescue, for example, changes based upon the order you do the missions with her reaction to you being altered.

I understand where you are coming from in regards to big games getting a "free pass." However, I believe that the Mass Effect series, despite its issues, earns its praise. Even though Mass Effect 1 was a new IP you could argue that reviewers were just looking for any excuse to love it since it came from Bioware (which we all fell in love with after old republic games). By looking at another similiar example of Too Human (new ip, exclusive to 360, from respected Silicon Knights developer) we can see that reviewers had little trouble panning it for its many flaws.(6-6.5 scores or so which are well below Mass Effect)

Plus, I still have Mass Effect 2 (virtually untouched) and Assassin's Creed 2 (totally untouched) on my shelf this very second. I'm so engaged in my second playthrough of the two year old Mass Effect that I'm in no rush to get to those two games.

As for why some games get a free pass? I dunno. Pixies, I guess.

But if my guess were more grounded in reality, I'd say people like different things. If Mass Effect were Halo 3 with those same problems, it would definitely have gotten hammered. Being an RPG, issues like frame rate (which I didn't notice) and such were a whole lot less important. We blasted the game for it's loading during elevator rides, its driving sequences, its inventory system, and its texture pop-ins. What more do you want? The game was/is still great to me!

I think it is really a pros versus cons argument.

Reviewing isn't always objective, it is usually subjective when it comes to games. On one end, it may make us frustrated as some games may 'get a free pass', whereas it may seek to validate great gaming experiences that are flawed at times.

For me, it is like comparing Grand Theft Auto IV to Saints Row. One is far more realistic, and technically superior by great lengths. Yet when I walk back from playing both, the technically inferior game is the one I enjoyed more, and would rate higher. Is that fair to do as a reviewer? I am unsure, as I would be conflicted between stating which one is 'better' as better in any art is more subjective than objective.

Now, with something like Mass Effect, from my 5 playthroughs and ~100hrs of gametime, I think that the 90's are fair reviews for the game. Did it have glaring flaws? Absolutely. It had some atrocious issues. Yet despite its flaws, it was one of the best-told stories in gaming history. I craved each codex entry, cared about the great characters, and felt that the last 3 hours of the game (Sovereign's story arc) was bar none, the best event in my ~18 years of playing games.

So did that rescue the technical mess of Mass Effect? For me it did. Subjectively, technical aspects of a game are far lower on the totem pole than the story and lore of a title, and the gameplay qualities I enjoy (mainly RPG or simulation management).

I could list a lot of games I play that have those qualities. Deadly Premonition is a great example. Despite the horrid reviews by IGN and others, there is a growing cult following for the game's well-told story and hilariously quirky characters. Is the DP cult objective? No. But subjectively, there are a lot that enjoy the game, despite the objective flaws.

To summarize, any art form is subjective. You may not think The Dark Knight or the Mona Lisa are the best ever, but for my tastes, they were. That is why aggregates exist. That is why there are 100's of review sites. You may feel Mass Effect was overrated, but for me, it was one of the top 5 games I've played in my life. Those views eventually balance themselves out. Even then, our subjective opinions may differ even from the aggregates - parts of me think ME1 was superior to ME2, despite reviewers feeling much different.

*edit*

And for the record, I'm in total agreement with you as to befuddlement as to why Deadly Premonition got a 2.0 from IGN and a 4.1 from our very own VGC. The game rates far higher on the list for me, as it does for user aggregates. From a technical standpoint, DP is incredibly solid. No frame skips, short loading times, no pop-in, ect. All packed with a phenomenal story and a lot of 'fun'. Having played a lot of turds, I'd think I would have a crap dectector after buying Two Worlds, and DP is nothing short of cult-favorite excellence. Subjectively, though, I guess some people don't appreciate the goofiness of Deadly Premonition. However, I don't understand why they wouldn't appreciate it, and rate it low, when other games like Obscure got higher reviews....I own a large number of survival horror games from the PS2 onward, and DP is nowhere near the bottom, despite it being quite low on the review lists.

I think some expectations have been lowered by the whole "release now patch later" mentality, and i think you see some games across the board get free rides for stuff like that, big or little, especially if they *look* good, even if that means the framerate is bad.

This

I could fault Zelda for its lack of voice acting or Mario Wii for its lack of innovation but really, I'd be missing the point. If a game sets out to fulfill a specific purpose (be it story, puzzles, platforming, or what have you) then its a good game. If a FPS has a great storyline but sucks as an FPS, the score will show it. If a party game has amazing graphics and voice acting but it sucks as a party game, the score should reflect that. It's not a matter of "getting a free pass". It's a matter of delivering on expectations.

Reviewing is always subjective. Sure, some reviewers pretend to be objective in reviewing but, in reality, there have never been an objective review and never will be. So, those reviewing ME love the game so much that they decide to overlook technical issues. Heck, look at the reviews of GTA4. GTA4 is filled with bugs and technical faults and all of them were overlooked in reviews.

When I think about it... My favorite games are at least 10 years old and have a lot of bugs and are not very impressive technically. Still, I think that those are best games ever made. This is similar to what a lot reviewers are thinking when they are giving grades for games.

The thing about that though is lack voice acting is a design decision, I doubt Bioware set out to make a game that has ass frame rate and bad vehicle parts.

That's true.  But at the time, it seemed like Bioware was pushing the 360 to its limits (of course, it wasn't but it seemed like it did).  It's like Perfect Dark on the N64.  The game had technical issues but it seemed so far ahead of its time that a lot of things (once again, frame-rate and such) were mentioned but didn't effect the final review score.