Most Underrated Game: One Year Later

I'm going to reply to multiple posts in here, and mix it all in one.

First thing's first. ME2's main story sucked. That is a fact. It is the weakest one in the trilogy, and it really isn't superior to Andromeda's main story. The best story and plot is ME1. ME2 has the best characters and character development, but is extremely thin in the plot department. Somehow people confuse that with the game having a good story, but it simply does not. Even ME3 trumps it, despite its ending. You can omit ME2 from the trilogy and follow-up with ME3, and you barely would miss anything plot-wise. That shows how empty ME2 really is plot/story-wise. The only thing that held ME2 together was the characters which were obviously great, and some lore which ultimately is background info that doesn't add much to the main events of the game.

As for Andromeda... Yes it has the best combat, yes it has the best graphics (although that's a given), yes it has a better galaxy map. No one really can say that ME1 is better in that regard, but that is not the issue. The issue of Andromeda is that it retained the same faults of other BioWare games while failing to capture the strengths of any of them. ME1 is ultimately still superior, because for one, people are comparing a game that is 10 years older to Andromeda. Times were really different then, and despite the issues that ME1 had, it still has strengths that no other Mass Effect game after it was able to match. The plot, the world, the villains... No one matches Saren as the main villain, and no one matches Sovereign either. Harbinger and the collectors were a bad joke in comparison, and so is the Archon. At least TIM in ME3 is better than them, but still can't match Saren. People can feel free to call this an opinion, but it's the depth, background and behavior of the villain in the game that determine how good they are. And those things are set in stone.

Andromeda has the same issue that Inquisition has, so much so that it's almost Dragon Age Inquisition in space. Too many useless fetch quests, and you're better off simply playing the main quest, which ultimately is good but not great. It has a weak plot just like ME2. It could not live up to the world and villains of ME1, the characters of ME2, nor the great moments of ME3. It leaves quite an empty game. If you think Andromeda is superior simply because it has better gameplay, go play the Multiplayer. Your time is better spent that way rather than trying to play the campaign. And graphics isn't really a good point considering it's 10 years newer.

Mass Effect Andromeda ultimately seems like a game that took all the negative things of each part of the trilogy and threw them together trying to be a good game. They took the corridor structure of ME2 without the great characters and tried to make it open world, included the polish of ME1 (or lack thereof), added the fetch quests of ME3 and boosted them to the level of Inquisition.

I really cannot agree that Andromeda is better than ME1. Despite all the issues ME1 had, I never became so bored that I had to wait months to want to pick it up again. But Andromeda was still more poorly received than it deserved... Sure, there were graphical issues at launch, and a few bugs, but the game is not bad by any means. It simply is inferior to all prior games as an overall package.

ME2 “story” is not much of a story but more a collection of stories kinda sorta but not really interwoven together. The collector plot is the story and it’s only 5(?) missions pre-suicide mission. Each recruitment and LM is something kinda related but not really to the main plot.

If you want an elaborate explanation, see my thread where I argue that ME2 is the least good game of the trilogy.

Short version;
Because nothing happens. At the end of ME1, the reapers are coming. At the end of ME2, the reapers are coming. You can take the Arrival DLC of ME2 and paste it after ME1, and it would still fit perfectly. 
The collectors could have been much more, but are simply useless to the trilogy. They are prothean husks. Great. But we already knew about the reapers creating husks and the protheans being the prior civilization. And it doesn't change the mission in the slightest. No plot twist.
In ME1 the story is a real chain of events that changes your missions as things go on and you gather intel. In ME2, your mission is the same through the whole game, no matter how much intel you gather. 


Info dump is lore, not main story or plot. 
All the info we had on Cerberus... Was it really necessary for ME3? I think all the info we needed to see Cerberus as an enemy in ME3 was presented in ME3 itself. Actually, it required it, considering you were part of them in ME2. Basically after the end of ME2, everything returns to the status quo of ME1, where Cerberus is simply an evil organization. 

The Geth... This is mainly Legion, which was an amazing character. If there is one thing that ME2 did give us, it's the fact that the Geth aren't really evil, which is a different view from ME1. But this would have been easily solvable without ME2. A point in ME3, show the Geth fighting the reapers, and you'll know they aren't with them. Done. ME2 is useless again. You can't do that for things in ME1, give a small alternative in the next game to negate the whole game. With ME2 you can, which shows how weakly linked its story is by itself.

Reapers... What did we learn? That the first reaper talks too much. Jokes aside... They were creating a human reaper. But I remember a huge confusion everyone had back then... Why does only the human reaper look like a human, and all other reapers look alike? Ah yes, that wasn't clearly explained. We needed a separate explanation from BioWare to understand what was going on. Poor writing. But even if you ignore that... Why was it so important to ME2 itself? It gave us a final boss battle. That's it. Oh, and it gives us the reason for the abductions. Ok, I guess. As for the importance to ME3... The reapers are converting all species to husks anyway. They could've shown the human reaper at the end of ME3 instead where they are piling all those bodies, and let you take it down then. No abductions or collectors necessary. Again, ME2 fails to be a key part within the trilogy. 

Protheans... What did ME2 tell us about the Protheans? Did it give us more than Javik? Not really... The collectors and protheans aren't even really connected. They could have made them connected, if the technology to revive Shepard could have been used to revert the husk condition from the Protheans and return them back to their normal self. That little aspect would have changed the main plot dramatically. But apparently no one thought of it. They tell you collectors are prothean husks, but, you can do nothing about it... So... Yeah. Lore, not story. For a story to be effective, it requires changes in perspective and action. ME2 does not offer changes in either. 


Everything ME2 does could have been done in either ME1 or ME3, possibly better. Only the things related directly to the characters were done better in ME2. 

As for the world being better in ME2... No... When a plague zone is accessible to you when contaminated, but then is inaccessible after it's clear, I cannot call that a great world. When I can't board my ship without leaving the planet and I have to land again just because I recruited someone, I cannot call that a great world. Both of those feel too videogamey and artificial and yanked me out of the experience multiple times. 

Ugh no just no. The story in ME1 is it's only saving grace, but its also the weakest of the 4.

You are entitled to your opinion I have stated mine.

 Yep. How does that differ from DA:O?

I'm not sure how all these other games fit into a thread about why Andromeda is underrated.

Maybe it's an Andromeda thread off day?

It always happens if a thread like this runs long enough. Game A is said to be bad because it did X, but if game B also did X and is supposedly good, it means that A can't be bad because of X.... and so on.

ME3's 'poor handling' is due to the time constraints rather than anything else. ME2 is not at fault for ME3's faults, but ME3 is not independent from ME2, because they can't do anything that significantly contradicts ME2. And ME2 is at fault for its own lack of depth in main events.


I didn't argue whether they were necessary or not. But the fact is, they are plots of side stories, not the main plot. The curing of the genophage wouldn't necessarily be gone, considering the Krogan were in the same condition in ME1. They fleshed things out in ME2, giving more details while developing Mordin's character. Again, it was character development. That it helped ME3 in the end, great. But it does not make the MAIN PLOT of ME2 great.
The MAIN PLOT of ME2 is about collectors abducting humans and Shepard stopping them with a team. Anything else is noise.
The main plot of ME1 is about Shepard achieving respect for humanity in the existing galactic community by facing multiple challenges. Anything else is noise.
The main plot of ME3 is about gathering forces and building a weapon for surviving and stopping the reaper invasion. Anything else is noise.
The main plot of Andromeda is about finding a home in a far away galaxy where evil local aliens are trying to stop you. Anything else is noise.


You're not wrong. But it's a side-element, not the main plot.


It developed two things, lore and characters. No plot. Even you say ME1 didn't develop the characters while ME2 did. And that is true. But characters are a different aspect of storytelling and are not relevant to the point of the main plot.

To clarify... If we categorize 'stories' in general as having three aspects, they would be lore, characters and plot. Then there is main lore, main characters, main plot, as well as side lore, side characters, and side plots. I am referring constantly to the main plot, while you are referring to everything else, mostly main characters and main lore, in addition to some side lore (like Collectors being Prothean husks). The difference between main and side is whether it's essential or not. In Mass Effect 1, it's quite hard to find a long list that falls in the 'side' category. One would definitely be Cerberus. But so many things are so intertwined... The issue with the crew mates in ME1 is that they can be considered side characters rather than main characters like ME2. The main characters are Shepard, Anderson, Saren, the Council and Sovereign. The rest are just there. Although, I have to say that one of the most impactful moments in ME1 is the Virmire mission. That was more character based rather than plot or lore based. So I do get why characters can greatly increase an experience. But it does not change the fact that ME2's main story and plot is borderline non-existent. That the characters give a great experience, no one can argue against. 


He was clueless because he's from a completely different time, obviously. More importantly... Why is a lore dump in ME2 fine but not in ME3? ME3 actually has the least lore dump compared to all the other games. I suspect Leviathan was made because of the ending, and they wanted to clarify more regarding what the Catalyst is. It cannot be considered lore, but is more part of the main plot, considering the importance of the role of the catalyst in the main story line. 

The recapitulate... Each game has a different focus... If we use the three categories previously mentioned... It's like this;
Mass Effect 1: Plot & Lore
Mass Effect 2: Characters & Lore
Mass Effect 3: Plot & Characters

No game is great at all of them. And Andromeda is only good at Lore.

Indeed... I do think they need to step away from that though... It's what would make the experience vastly different for players. And Dragon Age: Origins had this, at least for the first part of the game. Depending on your class, you get a completely different experience.
Honestly, ME3 would be much better if for example they simply left Rachni mission out of the game for anyone that didn't save her in ME1. Now even if you killed her in ME1, you play that same mission. That is complete nonsense.

Grissom Acadamy, I can understand it being there still with another character, because the Academy exists and someone else would have taken the role of Jack anyway. 

It's a shame that Andromeda, despite being practically fully independent from the prior games, failed to deliver on being as engaging as the prior games. They didn't have the restraints of any of the prior Mass Effect games. The new studio was likely given more than they could chew. It's still an underrated game though.