Was Mass Effect 2 really that Much Better than MEA?

I know you must really feel like you got me here, but I don't expect BioWare to listen to me. That was never the point of all this. I don't expect many to understand, but the exercise of an argument is fruitful by itself. I'm sure many years ago I thought BioWare might listen, but eventually, I learned that game companies aren't usually going to listen to their forum-goers, especially the BSN.

And Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty still make bank despite being constant, occasionally buggy rehashes of their previous iterations. Same with Transformers. Look, I'm fine with BioWare making money; that means developers are getting paid, but don't expect me to conflate financial success with artistic merit. BioWare can continue making vapid, mediocre products that sell on brand recognition and mainstream appeal alone. That's their prerogative. I'll keep coming back because I like articulating my thoughts (and have a possibly vain hope that someone might eventually challenge me with well-reasoned debate like the old days). I also think BioWare are capable of better. Their next game could be the one. The next Mass Effect could be the one. It just won't be if BioWare keep going on like this.

To say it again though: if anyone is wondering why many people still hold ME2 in high regard, it's because it was more historically meaningful than Andromeda will likely ever be.

This isn't Shakespeare we are talking about here, no.  

Still as far as video games go their story telling tend to be well above the average.  I can't really decide personally yet if MEA's story and characters are just below their usual standard or if all the other problems the game has (bugs, animations, CC) are just souring the whole package for me.  I know I don't like some of the dialogue, but I feel like if the major issues had been resolved and I had been able to connect with Sara I would have connected with the rest of the game better as well. 

So yeah, the poor presentation real drags down what might have otherwise been a fairly decent BW game.

Honestly this is the thing though, and I know this is a bit on the silly side and biased...bla bla.  

When it comes to Mass Effect Andromeda:  

A. I really like BioWare games, so the more people who complain about them, the less likely there will be a sequel.  And since I think a lot of the commentary is unfair...  

And B. Despite it may not being the best BioWare game ever, I still reaallly enjoyed Andromeda.  It still does a lot of interesting innovation and new things either rarely done in gaming, or not really done in gaming before.  So, the more people complain, about things I considered to be quite interesting...means we will go back to Shepard/ Uninteresting Side Quests/ Paragon and Renegade. 

As I said repeatedly. Bioware's stories never were Pulitzer material. They weren't the next great novel either. No game I ever played by any developer fit that description. And, frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm ready to suspend disbelief at every step of the way.

The problem this game is suffering under, in my humble opinion and as opposed to previous Bioware games, is bland character syndrome. After much hesitation, and one year after release, I decided on buying DAI. So that was the last Bioware game I played before MEA. The characters in there made me go wow and kept me hooked, although I was less than excited over other aspects of the game. So, my expectations for MEA were high when it came to characters. And that's where they managed to disappoint me. I still maintain it's a fun game, but it's an OK game, where I don't really care for the people they provided me with.

And that's really something any previous Bioware game handled much better.

Yeah, the writing in HZD seems very well thought out. The concept itself isn't exactly original, but the way it's executed is what really sells it. It hits close to home, because it deals with concepts like the overuse of technology, which is something very recent in our world. Those audio logs were so sad and so unsettling at the same time. They were only small glimpses into the past, but were more than enough to paint a picture of what kind of situation those people were in.

Anyway, great game.

It goes beyond if you just don't like them. I disliked Vivienne, hated her as a matter of fact.

It's more apathy that they're concerned with.

I think that ME2 could be considered as a revolutionary and groundbreaking game for when it got released whereas ME:A right now places itself somewhere in the middle-segment of enjoyable but ultimately-a-bit-flawed games. (This is based on the general reactions on the forums here and the professional critic scores on websites as metacritic.) ME:A still has its strong points though and even surpasses ME2 on certain aspects, like gameplay. I think that that is only logical though, given the 7 years in between the release of both games. What I do believe however, is that ME:A simply didn't improve enough and is flat out worse than ME2 in some other areas. This is especially apparent when it comes to the story. (I'm not talking about how logical the story is and if there are any plotholes, I'm talking about the place the story has in the game and how strong it is in binding players to it. ME2 was completely centered around the main plot whilst ME:A's main story almost never felt bigger than another sidequest. The game just got too clouded with all the Open World content for the story to really stand out.) It really depends on what you value in a game. They both have their strong, and weaker points. It also doesn't help for ME2 that it is an older game. I don't feel that it's that apparent right now but one can see that it is ageing in certain aspects. So for people whom are now beginning with the franchise, ME:A might and probably will come out on top as the better game. and in some aspects, it objectively is. But for people who where there when ME2 got released chances are they will still like ME2 more. Even though this is of course looking through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia in a certain way, I still think there is a grain of truth there as well. ME2 was, and in some ways still is a groundbreaking game. One which will be remembered in the lists of best videogames of all time for a long time to come. (even if you didn't like it yourself that much, this is the status the game simply has.) I'm not so sure about that with ME:A however.

So it depends on what you value in a game and when you first played a Mass Effect game. I think fans of the OT will vote more for ME2, (with some exceptions of course), but that new players will be quicker to vote for ME:A because the older games are ageing a little bit. The exceptions in the 'I played the OT first but still like ME:A more' department are probably the ones which liked ME1 more than ME2 to begin with. Both games are quite different when it comes to design and gameplay and ME1 simply more closely resembles ME:A than ME2 does. Therefore, my conclusion is that it is practically impossible to establish which game is better right now. I also don't really see the point. All I can do is point out that at the time of its release, ME2 got a lot more praise than ME:A does now. If that actually means that ME2 is the better game remains to be seen. Personal preferences, I guess.

ME2 is seen through rose-tinted goggles like you said. The things it excelled at was the quality of the narrative and the narrative pacing, the excellent dialogue and interesting characters, the cinematic feel, the quality of the main missions and the recruitment/loyalty missions. However the universe felt alot smaller as we could no longer explore planets and the hub areas were smaller than in me1, most choices were determined by dialogue rather than actions (remember in me1 on Noveria where the head of security could attack you if you went into restricted areas?), the side quests felt like filler, the ability trees were really stripped down and most of the dlc aside from 'Overlord' and 'Lair of the Shadow Broker' were average at best.

It's kinda foolish to compare the two games considering the years between releases but saying that, ME:A has the best characters skill customisation in the series whilst ME2 has the worst, it has the best combat in the series (next to ME3), the generic human squaddies are more interesting in this game than the past ones and a few of the other squaddies are arguably the best the series has produced (PeeBee, Drack and Jaal), some of the decisions you make in the game can change the political landscape and the opinions npc's have on you even if the effect in the game seems minimal. ME2 however has the better story missions, I would say only a couple of Andromeda's story missions really reaches the heights of 2 which makes all the difference as it manages to grab you and keep you engaged, the open-world feel of ME:A feels like it's in the right direction but the narrative structure isn't there and quests don't intertwine to create interesting and unique worldstates.

I don't get it.  What are we "balancing out"?

In relation to my post they quoted, yeah seriously.  That thread I linked isn't a negative or "bashing" thread.  It is a well thought out and detailed critique of the alien designs.

If the 'balancing out' is just in general to the forum overall then yeah I would get that, but then why quote me.

/shrug Whatever.  I get the feeling neither of you even looked at the thread I linked, but maybe you did.  Some people will feel the need to defend the game no matter the criticism.

If people prefer the anatomically wonky alien designs and poor modelling jobs in MEA, have at it I suppose.

I can't seem to find the poll.