Why ME2 is the least good game in the trilogy for me
Jun 1, 2018 1:27:59 GMT
MPApr2012, Hanako Ikezawa, and 12 more like this
Post by Ascend on Jun 1, 2018 1:27:59 GMT
So... ME2 is seen as the best Mass Effect game of all time... I really disagree about that, and I'm going to tell you why. You don't have to agree with everything, but, there are some aspects of these games that no one can really disagree on, because that is how the game is structured. Whether they're important to you or not is where these things come into play.
I will not be comparing to Mass Effect Andromeda, because I haven't finished that one yet (don't judge me lol). Most comparisons will be ME1 vs ME2, with some ME3 in there... It's gonna be a huge wall of text, so I hope you like reading. And, huge spoilers ahead, if these are important at this point (I doubt it, but don't say I didn't warn you).
tl;dr
ME1 has many advantages over ME2 (so does ME3). ME3 is always receiving too much hatred, and ME2 is receiving too much praise. ME1's strengths are too often ignored.
Let's start with ME1 vs ME2.
ME1 had something ME2 didn't have... And to me it's something very important, despite being very simple. And that is... Fights could happen anywhere.
It sounds petty, but, it made the world feel alive rather than a videogame. For example, take the Citadel, particularly Chora's Den. Just a club, right? Well, fights happened there... You were ambushed on your way there.. Take Feros.. Just a colony, right? Well, fights happened there as well.
Point is, the levels supported both combat and exploration at the same time. In ME2, these things were pretty much always completely separate, and the combat levels were sealed off from exploring once you completed a mission, which imho sucked. The missions themselves in ME2 might've been more interesting, but the setup of missions in ME1 felt like a part of the world, and that also made them more immersive than ME2 missions because of the unexpected dynamics and engagement. You could visit a peaceful place once and have that same place be a bullet fest moments later. That stuff just doesn't happen in ME2.
I remember the first time I played ME2, and being completely annoyed by the plague zone on Omega after recruiting Mordin, and finding out I couldn't go back in there again to explore how the place changed after clearing the plague.. I mean, there's a plague where no one is allowed to exit or enter, and you can go in after some effort. The plague is cleared and it's safe after completing the mission, and suddenly the place is off-limits to you? What kind of nonsense is that? If this was ME1, you would go back there and see how the place changed and talk to a bunch of people. And that's where I started feeling the restraints of the game compared to ME1, and having all places feel small. Not only the Citadel, but also Omega, Illium and Tuchanka. Sure, they were big if you take the combat levels into account, but very small on the exploration side, especially since a lot of the levels in ME1 that you couldn't visit again, had you driving around in the Mako. Think about finding Liara, or the Virmire mission etc. It still had an exploration taste to it, even if it was a linear combat mission in essence. It felt big and immersive. That's one of the reasons I liked the Overlord DLC in ME2, because it was slightly closer to ME1 in that regard.. But ME2 felt like a really linear and restraining game in general. ME1 didn't do it for everything, but it did it in enough places to make the world feel alive, rather than videogamey.
The first time I played ME2, and I recruited Mordin, the game teleported me to the Normandy and we were suddenly in orbit. I had to land again to go get Archangel, and that simply annoyed me. It didn't feel like a continuity, but as a bunch of pieces thrown together that just happened to work. That's how I felt the whole time playing game actually, while ME1 felt like a continuous game.. In ME1 you can go inside your ship while still docked. If you simply want to go in and check something, it doesn't involve taking off into space and landing again 1 minute later. Let's just say that ME1 felt like a very delicious food on one plate, while ME2 felt like eating each ingredient of that same food separately from separate plates.
I also had no problem with the elevators in ME1.. Your characters would interact with each other in there and you'd hear galaxy news on the radio, which was often times fun to hear considering they often announced things that were happening in-game to you, and also somethings inform you of new things. You only had to actually use each elevator once (except the one to the Normandy) because if you didn't like them you could quick travel using the skycar taxi and you'd get a short loading screen instead. So I think the elevator hate was blown out of proportion, but it does make a fun meme. I also loved the feeling that you could get lost on the Citadel when you started out in ME1. It made it feel big, which ultimately left a permanent impression of a large world. ME2 nor ME3 gave me that.
Yes, fighting Cerberus in ME1 was repetitive, and all bases looked the same, and that was obviously less repetitive in ME2. The sidemissions in ME2 are arguably better than ME1, but in ME1 there's a clear distinction between side missions and the core story. In ME2 those lines are pretty blurry. I don't know which approach is better, although the core story of ME1 is infinitely better.
You know, I wonder why they didn't just let us pilot one of those drop shuttles in ME2. It seems like a perfect vehicle for exploration. Yeah. It wouldn't be too hard to simply mount some simple guns on the thing.. Would make more sense than finding this full working Hammerhead vehicle on a deserted planet in the middle of a freaking volcanic eruption... I mean, the drop shuttles are known to be durable.. So.. Instead of having place for 14 people, let it have 4 people, mount some guns and a scanner on it if you wish, and boom, you have a full working exploration vehicle. It could've even been another side-mission or whatever.. Upgrading it just like you were upgrading the Normandy. No need for this weird Hammerhead thing. But meh.. The Hammerhead worked too, except in ME3 we get to learn that it was lost.
Sorry. I'm ranting. Back on topic xD
I loved the Mako. For some reason, when people think of the Mako they only think of the barren planets, but they forget that it also played a key role in the exploration of the level design on core planets and main story of the first game. The main missions on Feros, Virmire, Ilos, Therum all used the Mako and did a brilliant job too. The missions would be a lot more dull without it.
It once again added to the scale and immersion. Despite its weird controls, it really felt like a space vehicle. I felt like I was piloting a rover on Mars.
Then there's performance...
Yeah the stable framerate and improved combat was most welcome in ME2. It was necessary actually. Releasing the second game just as buggy and clunky would've been a huge failure. I just felt a little disappointed that it came at the expense of other things, especially because they were so small and added so much to the immersion.
Skill trees barely had any variety for example...
Going back to the story... The main storyline in ME2 sucks.. Let's see, for the first game this is the summary of the main plot:
- Humans are newbies and the council and races do not trust them
- You were trying to join the council to help the alliance and humans get a higher status among the other races
- You discovered that a spectre has gone rogue
- You tried to convince the council he has gone rogue, but they didn't listen
- You needed to get proof to show them
- You got it, and they told you to go after him
- You needed to find where he was
- You needed to find out why he was working with the Geth
- You needed to find out where he got that huge space ship
- Then you found out the Geth nor Saren were the real issue, but a reaper was
- You found out not all the beliefs about Protheans building everything were true
- You tried to warn the council about the reapers, but again they didn't listen
- You needed to break the rules to stop the reaper
- You get ready to keep fighting the reapers that are still to come
That was the ME1 story in a nutshell. Note that I left a lot of the stuff out, like Noveria mission etc.. The story goes a lot deeper than that, but, that's the main plot. What's the main ME2 story?
- You died by an attack from some unknown vessel
- Cerberus brought you back because human colonies are disappearing
- You need to find out why
- You find out the collectors are taking them with the same vessel that killed you
- You need to find out why
- You find out the collectors are actually genetically re-engineered protheans by the reapers
- You find out they are creating a human reaper
- Kill the human reaper
- You get ready to keep fighting the reapers that are still to come
We didn't learn anything significant about the reapers in the whole second game, nor did we gain anything significant (maybe the new Normandy O.o), while that's where the first one left off. We were supposed to be preparing for the next coming invasion, gathering resources and information about the reapers to protect ourselves.
Instead, the council is turning you away again, you barely have contact with the alliance, and you're out there working for an organization with a bad reputation for no apparent reason (except the one where they revived you, but, why did you have to die in the first place?)... And even worse, the illusive man simply tells you no one does anything about it. You should've at least been able to go and talk to the council multiple times, finding evidence etc, and then after they keep turning you away, go back to the illusive man... That would have drastically improved the story.
At the end of the game, you apparently got some info on Harbinger, but, it was never addressed HOW you got that information, nor what information it is. That really makes the story appear detached, shallow and neglected compared to the first game.. They should've had some kind of better way to tell how you got it and what exactly it is...
How people can argue that ME2 somehow has the best plot is beyond me. It's definitely the worst of the trilogy. I left the sidestories out. The main story is still collectors vs humans through the whole game, and there was never a plot twist. The first game had many more important stuff going on. When you thought you knew your enemy, it turned out to be someone else. At the beginning you think, oh it's the geth, then you think, oh, it's saren and the geth, and then you think, wait, it's actually Sovereign. The Geth and Saren are just pawns.
In the 2nd game, the collectors are your enemies the whole time, and yet, they fail to be truly scary, which is what they were going for. In the end, you find out it's the reapers again (no surprise there), but, aside from the last boss battle and final dark space scene with all the reapers approaching, there was no real threat other than the collectors. Some issues of your team mates.. But, you gotta admit, if they couldn't die, you probably wouldn't go through all the trouble of making all of them loyal... Well, maybe you would, but, you gotta understand, that they are not really a part of the main story, but side-stories. If they die, they don't really impact ME2's plot itself, but, ME3 instead... And at the time, the terminator reaper brought forth a lot of confusion (like, why does it look human while all other reapers look the same), but there aren't many people that regard that as important for some reason.
Don't get me wrong. Mass Effect 2 added a lot of details and expanded the knowledge about the whole universe further, so the lore got a nice upgrade. But, the main plot itself is the one that simply is lacking. The game has so many set-ups for the 3rd game, but at the same time they kind of forgot the core story a little bit. Basically, you spend most of your time with your team mates, solving their problems. Basically "side-issues" compared to the real threat.. And then we have the ignored dark energy stuff of ME3, but whatever.
In ME1 a lot of things had more importance. The story was unpredictable and everything happened for a reason. As an example, your accident with the prothean beacon at the beginning of the game is what gave you the visions, which triggered your interest to find out what they mean, is what made the council doubtful of you because they saw them as delusional dreams, it was the reason to get cypher to understand the vision better, which allowed you to understand the messages on Ilos left by the protheans etc. The beginning is connected to the end in all ways.
The Cypher was one of the most important things about the Mass Effect Universe and Shepard in particular. And then...
In ME2, you never really use the cypher, and lots of things seem backwards. It's like they didn't really know how to continue the story.. So they thought of improvements to the mechanics instead, and then tacked the story on there later. ME2 story can be completely ignored if you look at it. At the end of ME2, the collectors are destroyed (not to mention ME2 didn't use the cypher at all), so no more relevance to them in the next installment, and whether or not you keep the base, cerberus will come after you in ME3, the reapers are still coming. You could literally skip ME2 and start with ME3, and the only thing you'd actually miss is the new characters, and a few details that could be easily implemented in the codex or in a single mission in ME3. It's the same reason people were saying that the Arrival DLC undermines the whole ME2 game story-wise.. Arrival could've also been used at the end of ME1 and would've worked perfectly.
Case and point, ME2 should have gone beyond "the reapers are coming" since ME1 already did that. "The reapers are here" would have been a better step, and then leave the fighting of the reapers to ME3.
Don't get me wrong.. ME2 is still one of my fav games this gen, but, ME1 is higher on my list because of the story.. I'm not trying to hate on ME2, I do have fond memories of it and I really do like it. It also has Lair of the Shadow Broker, which is one of the best DLCs ever. I do think ME2 as a whole is the worst of the trilogy though, or I should say, least good. ME3 has a superior banter system for example, plus deeper combat and so on.. I'll just list everything below instead of making this a bigger wall of text on how ME2 is inferior to ME3.
Overall...
- ME1 had barren planets which were tedious to explore, shooting mechanics were crap, cover mechanics were crap, all classes played almost the same, had a bunch of time-wasting elevator rides, terrible performance and pop-in issues, tedious inventory and skill tree system, weapons overheating bug, getting stuck in environments, annoying mini-games..
- ME2 had almost no RPG mechanics whatsoever, main story sucked compared to ME1, was mainly a bunch of side quests, planet scanning was a drag (imo worse than mako), barely any exploration because of way too small locations (Citadel, Omega and so on), awful loading times, repetitive mini games, predictable fighting environments, becoming stuck in environments, apathetic characters (barely interacted with each other), lack of weapons and armor.
- ME3 has inferior journal, less exploration than ME1, confusing ending, glitches like teleporting characters, lip-sync issues, ME1 import issues, too much disc swapping (X360 only), too many shallow side quests, slightly less choice during conversations.
On the flipside..
- ME1 had the best overall story, the most exploration, the deepest RPG elements and conversations, the most immersion.
- ME2 had improved shooting mechanics, better sidequests, better DLC support, better performance, better animations in conversations, better graphics, better action, better and more character support, each class was really unique.
- ME3 had improved cover-based mechanics over ME2, more verticality in gameplay, more cinematic moments, more variety in enemies, more emotional peaks and valleys, slightly deeper RPG elements than ME2 (weapon mods, skill trees etc), bigger Citadel, best interaction between characters, more variety in weapons..
Reading what people in general have been saying and comparing it to the pros and cons of all three, it doesn't seem that people hate ME3 because it's actually worse. It's because they disliked the ending that they're nitpicking about everything in ME3, even if it's superior than in the prior ones in many (if not most) ways. The issues of the other two listed above are not somehow irrelevant. You can easily love ME3 for what it is and simply forget about the ending for a second, but most people have chosen otherwise. I don't really get the hate for ME3 specifically while the other ones also had huge flaws, if not bigger flaws... But whatever.
ME2 is overrated, because... For some reason, people are very forgiving with this game. Maybe it was the polish... But, planet Scanning was one of the worst game mechanics in the trilogy. It became basically a 3rd person shooter with some RPG mechanics. Initially Liara was left hanging as only having a few lines on Ilium, which left a lot of players feeling empty or even angry. They made it up with Lair of the Shadow Broker... But for ME3, the Citadel DLC is the equivalent for the ending of ME3, and yet, people weren't as forgiving towards that game... ME2's strength is what the AAA industry suffers from, which is mass appeal.
ME1 is the pinnacle... Because it was pure. Yes, it was a mess, but, it was a beautiful mess. It is a game that succeeded despite its long list of annoyances and issues, and that shows how powerful the world was in this game. People love to focus on the issues it has, but they forget how powerful its strengths were. If we add those same issues to ME2 and ME3, both of them would have failed miserably, in a similar way to what happened to Andromeda. Andromeda is in fact in a much better state than ME1 ever was. Why did Andromeda fail and why did ME1 succeed? Times are different, of course, so that plays a role, but I think it's another reason;
Because, Andromeda, and also all the other games in the trilogy lack something. They lack what ME1 has; character.
I will not be comparing to Mass Effect Andromeda, because I haven't finished that one yet (don't judge me lol). Most comparisons will be ME1 vs ME2, with some ME3 in there... It's gonna be a huge wall of text, so I hope you like reading. And, huge spoilers ahead, if these are important at this point (I doubt it, but don't say I didn't warn you).
tl;dr
ME1 has many advantages over ME2 (so does ME3). ME3 is always receiving too much hatred, and ME2 is receiving too much praise. ME1's strengths are too often ignored.
Let's start with ME1 vs ME2.
ME1 had something ME2 didn't have... And to me it's something very important, despite being very simple. And that is... Fights could happen anywhere.
It sounds petty, but, it made the world feel alive rather than a videogame. For example, take the Citadel, particularly Chora's Den. Just a club, right? Well, fights happened there... You were ambushed on your way there.. Take Feros.. Just a colony, right? Well, fights happened there as well.
Point is, the levels supported both combat and exploration at the same time. In ME2, these things were pretty much always completely separate, and the combat levels were sealed off from exploring once you completed a mission, which imho sucked. The missions themselves in ME2 might've been more interesting, but the setup of missions in ME1 felt like a part of the world, and that also made them more immersive than ME2 missions because of the unexpected dynamics and engagement. You could visit a peaceful place once and have that same place be a bullet fest moments later. That stuff just doesn't happen in ME2.
I remember the first time I played ME2, and being completely annoyed by the plague zone on Omega after recruiting Mordin, and finding out I couldn't go back in there again to explore how the place changed after clearing the plague.. I mean, there's a plague where no one is allowed to exit or enter, and you can go in after some effort. The plague is cleared and it's safe after completing the mission, and suddenly the place is off-limits to you? What kind of nonsense is that? If this was ME1, you would go back there and see how the place changed and talk to a bunch of people. And that's where I started feeling the restraints of the game compared to ME1, and having all places feel small. Not only the Citadel, but also Omega, Illium and Tuchanka. Sure, they were big if you take the combat levels into account, but very small on the exploration side, especially since a lot of the levels in ME1 that you couldn't visit again, had you driving around in the Mako. Think about finding Liara, or the Virmire mission etc. It still had an exploration taste to it, even if it was a linear combat mission in essence. It felt big and immersive. That's one of the reasons I liked the Overlord DLC in ME2, because it was slightly closer to ME1 in that regard.. But ME2 felt like a really linear and restraining game in general. ME1 didn't do it for everything, but it did it in enough places to make the world feel alive, rather than videogamey.
The first time I played ME2, and I recruited Mordin, the game teleported me to the Normandy and we were suddenly in orbit. I had to land again to go get Archangel, and that simply annoyed me. It didn't feel like a continuity, but as a bunch of pieces thrown together that just happened to work. That's how I felt the whole time playing game actually, while ME1 felt like a continuous game.. In ME1 you can go inside your ship while still docked. If you simply want to go in and check something, it doesn't involve taking off into space and landing again 1 minute later. Let's just say that ME1 felt like a very delicious food on one plate, while ME2 felt like eating each ingredient of that same food separately from separate plates.
I also had no problem with the elevators in ME1.. Your characters would interact with each other in there and you'd hear galaxy news on the radio, which was often times fun to hear considering they often announced things that were happening in-game to you, and also somethings inform you of new things. You only had to actually use each elevator once (except the one to the Normandy) because if you didn't like them you could quick travel using the skycar taxi and you'd get a short loading screen instead. So I think the elevator hate was blown out of proportion, but it does make a fun meme. I also loved the feeling that you could get lost on the Citadel when you started out in ME1. It made it feel big, which ultimately left a permanent impression of a large world. ME2 nor ME3 gave me that.
Yes, fighting Cerberus in ME1 was repetitive, and all bases looked the same, and that was obviously less repetitive in ME2. The sidemissions in ME2 are arguably better than ME1, but in ME1 there's a clear distinction between side missions and the core story. In ME2 those lines are pretty blurry. I don't know which approach is better, although the core story of ME1 is infinitely better.
You know, I wonder why they didn't just let us pilot one of those drop shuttles in ME2. It seems like a perfect vehicle for exploration. Yeah. It wouldn't be too hard to simply mount some simple guns on the thing.. Would make more sense than finding this full working Hammerhead vehicle on a deserted planet in the middle of a freaking volcanic eruption... I mean, the drop shuttles are known to be durable.. So.. Instead of having place for 14 people, let it have 4 people, mount some guns and a scanner on it if you wish, and boom, you have a full working exploration vehicle. It could've even been another side-mission or whatever.. Upgrading it just like you were upgrading the Normandy. No need for this weird Hammerhead thing. But meh.. The Hammerhead worked too, except in ME3 we get to learn that it was lost.
Sorry. I'm ranting. Back on topic xD
I loved the Mako. For some reason, when people think of the Mako they only think of the barren planets, but they forget that it also played a key role in the exploration of the level design on core planets and main story of the first game. The main missions on Feros, Virmire, Ilos, Therum all used the Mako and did a brilliant job too. The missions would be a lot more dull without it.
It once again added to the scale and immersion. Despite its weird controls, it really felt like a space vehicle. I felt like I was piloting a rover on Mars.
Then there's performance...
Yeah the stable framerate and improved combat was most welcome in ME2. It was necessary actually. Releasing the second game just as buggy and clunky would've been a huge failure. I just felt a little disappointed that it came at the expense of other things, especially because they were so small and added so much to the immersion.
Skill trees barely had any variety for example...
Going back to the story... The main storyline in ME2 sucks.. Let's see, for the first game this is the summary of the main plot:
- Humans are newbies and the council and races do not trust them
- You were trying to join the council to help the alliance and humans get a higher status among the other races
- You discovered that a spectre has gone rogue
- You tried to convince the council he has gone rogue, but they didn't listen
- You needed to get proof to show them
- You got it, and they told you to go after him
- You needed to find where he was
- You needed to find out why he was working with the Geth
- You needed to find out where he got that huge space ship
- Then you found out the Geth nor Saren were the real issue, but a reaper was
- You found out not all the beliefs about Protheans building everything were true
- You tried to warn the council about the reapers, but again they didn't listen
- You needed to break the rules to stop the reaper
- You get ready to keep fighting the reapers that are still to come
That was the ME1 story in a nutshell. Note that I left a lot of the stuff out, like Noveria mission etc.. The story goes a lot deeper than that, but, that's the main plot. What's the main ME2 story?
- You died by an attack from some unknown vessel
- Cerberus brought you back because human colonies are disappearing
- You need to find out why
- You find out the collectors are taking them with the same vessel that killed you
- You need to find out why
- You find out the collectors are actually genetically re-engineered protheans by the reapers
- You find out they are creating a human reaper
- Kill the human reaper
- You get ready to keep fighting the reapers that are still to come
We didn't learn anything significant about the reapers in the whole second game, nor did we gain anything significant (maybe the new Normandy O.o), while that's where the first one left off. We were supposed to be preparing for the next coming invasion, gathering resources and information about the reapers to protect ourselves.
Instead, the council is turning you away again, you barely have contact with the alliance, and you're out there working for an organization with a bad reputation for no apparent reason (except the one where they revived you, but, why did you have to die in the first place?)... And even worse, the illusive man simply tells you no one does anything about it. You should've at least been able to go and talk to the council multiple times, finding evidence etc, and then after they keep turning you away, go back to the illusive man... That would have drastically improved the story.
At the end of the game, you apparently got some info on Harbinger, but, it was never addressed HOW you got that information, nor what information it is. That really makes the story appear detached, shallow and neglected compared to the first game.. They should've had some kind of better way to tell how you got it and what exactly it is...
How people can argue that ME2 somehow has the best plot is beyond me. It's definitely the worst of the trilogy. I left the sidestories out. The main story is still collectors vs humans through the whole game, and there was never a plot twist. The first game had many more important stuff going on. When you thought you knew your enemy, it turned out to be someone else. At the beginning you think, oh it's the geth, then you think, oh, it's saren and the geth, and then you think, wait, it's actually Sovereign. The Geth and Saren are just pawns.
In the 2nd game, the collectors are your enemies the whole time, and yet, they fail to be truly scary, which is what they were going for. In the end, you find out it's the reapers again (no surprise there), but, aside from the last boss battle and final dark space scene with all the reapers approaching, there was no real threat other than the collectors. Some issues of your team mates.. But, you gotta admit, if they couldn't die, you probably wouldn't go through all the trouble of making all of them loyal... Well, maybe you would, but, you gotta understand, that they are not really a part of the main story, but side-stories. If they die, they don't really impact ME2's plot itself, but, ME3 instead... And at the time, the terminator reaper brought forth a lot of confusion (like, why does it look human while all other reapers look the same), but there aren't many people that regard that as important for some reason.
Don't get me wrong. Mass Effect 2 added a lot of details and expanded the knowledge about the whole universe further, so the lore got a nice upgrade. But, the main plot itself is the one that simply is lacking. The game has so many set-ups for the 3rd game, but at the same time they kind of forgot the core story a little bit. Basically, you spend most of your time with your team mates, solving their problems. Basically "side-issues" compared to the real threat.. And then we have the ignored dark energy stuff of ME3, but whatever.
In ME1 a lot of things had more importance. The story was unpredictable and everything happened for a reason. As an example, your accident with the prothean beacon at the beginning of the game is what gave you the visions, which triggered your interest to find out what they mean, is what made the council doubtful of you because they saw them as delusional dreams, it was the reason to get cypher to understand the vision better, which allowed you to understand the messages on Ilos left by the protheans etc. The beginning is connected to the end in all ways.
The Cypher was one of the most important things about the Mass Effect Universe and Shepard in particular. And then...
In ME2, you never really use the cypher, and lots of things seem backwards. It's like they didn't really know how to continue the story.. So they thought of improvements to the mechanics instead, and then tacked the story on there later. ME2 story can be completely ignored if you look at it. At the end of ME2, the collectors are destroyed (not to mention ME2 didn't use the cypher at all), so no more relevance to them in the next installment, and whether or not you keep the base, cerberus will come after you in ME3, the reapers are still coming. You could literally skip ME2 and start with ME3, and the only thing you'd actually miss is the new characters, and a few details that could be easily implemented in the codex or in a single mission in ME3. It's the same reason people were saying that the Arrival DLC undermines the whole ME2 game story-wise.. Arrival could've also been used at the end of ME1 and would've worked perfectly.
Case and point, ME2 should have gone beyond "the reapers are coming" since ME1 already did that. "The reapers are here" would have been a better step, and then leave the fighting of the reapers to ME3.
Don't get me wrong.. ME2 is still one of my fav games this gen, but, ME1 is higher on my list because of the story.. I'm not trying to hate on ME2, I do have fond memories of it and I really do like it. It also has Lair of the Shadow Broker, which is one of the best DLCs ever. I do think ME2 as a whole is the worst of the trilogy though, or I should say, least good. ME3 has a superior banter system for example, plus deeper combat and so on.. I'll just list everything below instead of making this a bigger wall of text on how ME2 is inferior to ME3.
Overall...
- ME1 had barren planets which were tedious to explore, shooting mechanics were crap, cover mechanics were crap, all classes played almost the same, had a bunch of time-wasting elevator rides, terrible performance and pop-in issues, tedious inventory and skill tree system, weapons overheating bug, getting stuck in environments, annoying mini-games..
- ME2 had almost no RPG mechanics whatsoever, main story sucked compared to ME1, was mainly a bunch of side quests, planet scanning was a drag (imo worse than mako), barely any exploration because of way too small locations (Citadel, Omega and so on), awful loading times, repetitive mini games, predictable fighting environments, becoming stuck in environments, apathetic characters (barely interacted with each other), lack of weapons and armor.
- ME3 has inferior journal, less exploration than ME1, confusing ending, glitches like teleporting characters, lip-sync issues, ME1 import issues, too much disc swapping (X360 only), too many shallow side quests, slightly less choice during conversations.
On the flipside..
- ME1 had the best overall story, the most exploration, the deepest RPG elements and conversations, the most immersion.
- ME2 had improved shooting mechanics, better sidequests, better DLC support, better performance, better animations in conversations, better graphics, better action, better and more character support, each class was really unique.
- ME3 had improved cover-based mechanics over ME2, more verticality in gameplay, more cinematic moments, more variety in enemies, more emotional peaks and valleys, slightly deeper RPG elements than ME2 (weapon mods, skill trees etc), bigger Citadel, best interaction between characters, more variety in weapons..
Reading what people in general have been saying and comparing it to the pros and cons of all three, it doesn't seem that people hate ME3 because it's actually worse. It's because they disliked the ending that they're nitpicking about everything in ME3, even if it's superior than in the prior ones in many (if not most) ways. The issues of the other two listed above are not somehow irrelevant. You can easily love ME3 for what it is and simply forget about the ending for a second, but most people have chosen otherwise. I don't really get the hate for ME3 specifically while the other ones also had huge flaws, if not bigger flaws... But whatever.
ME2 is overrated, because... For some reason, people are very forgiving with this game. Maybe it was the polish... But, planet Scanning was one of the worst game mechanics in the trilogy. It became basically a 3rd person shooter with some RPG mechanics. Initially Liara was left hanging as only having a few lines on Ilium, which left a lot of players feeling empty or even angry. They made it up with Lair of the Shadow Broker... But for ME3, the Citadel DLC is the equivalent for the ending of ME3, and yet, people weren't as forgiving towards that game... ME2's strength is what the AAA industry suffers from, which is mass appeal.
ME1 is the pinnacle... Because it was pure. Yes, it was a mess, but, it was a beautiful mess. It is a game that succeeded despite its long list of annoyances and issues, and that shows how powerful the world was in this game. People love to focus on the issues it has, but they forget how powerful its strengths were. If we add those same issues to ME2 and ME3, both of them would have failed miserably, in a similar way to what happened to Andromeda. Andromeda is in fact in a much better state than ME1 ever was. Why did Andromeda fail and why did ME1 succeed? Times are different, of course, so that plays a role, but I think it's another reason;
Because, Andromeda, and also all the other games in the trilogy lack something. They lack what ME1 has; character.
