Most Underrated Game: One Year Later

Story wasn't the only reason it is regarded as the absolute pinnacle of the series. Characterization, spectacle, pacing, intrigue. Harbinger was no Saren, but the collectors were a strong presence, helped by the brilliant direction, pacing and atmosphere of ME2. It's because of this that they were probably the scariest and most ominous faction in ME after the Reapers themselves of course. So Harbinger's weakness was lessened by a sheer frightening enemy. Walking on that ship, seeing all those pods, people melted into slop and tossed in a corner, having them invade the Normandy and take everyone, ripping apart others. It's one of those rare moments when the sheer power of art direction and atmosphere can make up for characterization. Honestly the Harbinger didn't even need to speak, the atmosphere did it all. It's something the Kett failed at. Or rather the directors, because they never felt threatening, not once. I just kept thinking, oh look at these adorable teletubbies being all evil and what not, cute.

You can ignore everything else about the game and write it off as "solving companion issues", but you must also do the same with the original game which really didn't take off until near the climax. Before that, it was mostly blindly chasing Saren around the galaxy, and trying to convince the council to remove the sticks from their arse over, and over. Which led you to repeat landscapes and cargo holds. It's dlc also didn't really add anything of importance to the game. ME1 was great because everything was fresh, unknown, when we discovered the truth the impact was huge. But looking back at the game, it depended far too much on that reveal, it wasn't strong throughout. Andromeda is no outright improvement over that, but it is the only thing I will give it over ME1. Though, take a few points down because of the Dragon Age Inquisition level model, so about the same.

And you're right Ahglock, it did make it a better game. It made it personal, we got to see all our hard work pay off in a huge spectacle, and no other in the series matched it. Hell few game endings in general matched it. If ME2 was as fault at anything, it was being too good, and Bio couldn't top it. I don't agree with the "any character can die" model ruining ME3, aside from Garrus and Tali, they didn't really use many of those characters much in 3 enough for them to impact it in a huge way (to many people's dismay). I mean Mordin had the most important role out of all the ME2 companions. The other's could have easily been written around, Miranda, Jack, Thane etc. Heck Thane was already dying in 2, and just setup to die in 3 anyway. Have a last hoorah lol. They setup 3 to be this personal experience with our core team, the originals. But I mean, we didn't really get that experience. Garrus and Liara were already pretty much established in 2. Tali has the most development with Shepard. Kaidan/Ashely were still as useless and poorly written as ever (thank god for 2 excluding them for most of the game). They just became a spectre. So, i'm just not feeling it, ME3 was the fault of ME3. And when you look back at ME3, all of it's greatest moments were because of ME2 and the characters it setup. Nothing else stands out about ME3 but it closing off character arcs setup by ME2. It doesn't stand up on it's own, and that imo was it's major problem not just the ending as everyone says. They could have made a better game. ME2 wasn't stopping them. ME2 did not force Bioware to create James Vega or turn Joker into some lovesick puppy over a bot for basically the whole game. These were Bioware's decisions. Those resources could've been used on developing good arcs, and good characters. Or you know maybe making core characters like Garrus, and Liara have better roles. Because their two missions were 2 of the most disapointing, for two characters who have been with us from the beginning.

What's the worst ME2 run any of you have ever had without actively trying to kill people?

I once played a no-ME1 import game with no metagaming, all decisions purely RP, Reaper IFF forced after Collector Ship, and N7 missions had to be done when scanned. My initial squadmate pickup order was the reverse of my usual; I started at the Citadel and worked backwards, picking up Mordin last. Since I didn't need minerals until then, I did all my scanning and thus N7s while on the clock. This resulted in very few loyalty missions. Worse still, Tali's mission triggered before I got her shield upgrade, and you can't get it after that without doing her mission. The upshot was that Jack, Mordin, Garrus, Tali, Zaeed, and Thane all died on the SM.

I decided to go full FailShep with that one. Ashley died during Priority: The Citadel II, the quarians were destroyed at Rannoch, and Shepard Refused rather than pick Control.

Story was NOT the reason it is regarded as the pinnacle of the series, because the story is borderline non-existent.

The bold ones are indeed strengths in ME2, although intrigue is debateble...
As for the collectors being the scariest after the reapers... What? Which other main enemy is there, other than the reapers and the collectors in the trilogy? The Geth in ME1 were scarier than the collectors in ME2 btw. If the whole list is Reapers, Collectors and Kett, getting second place is not a compliment.


This is true. But chasing Saren around the galaxy is part of its strength too, not a weakness like you portray it. It's a strength because during that chasing you discover a bunch of key components.


Ew. Makes want to puke. The ending is great, yes. But I can't consider anything being too good when a plague zone is accessible and after it being cleared it becoming inaccessible. That is a hugely flawed game design, and it was an immersion killer for me. I would never ever categorize ME2's main fault as being too good. I always find it funny how Dragon Age 2 is criticized for being claustrophobic, while ME2 never is, while being extremely similar in level design. But whatever. 
Thing is, ME2's weaknesses have been turned into memes. The assuming control meme for example, and more importantly, constant calibrations of Garrus is a huge flaw with the game. It applies to all your crew mates, not just Garrus. But it was turned into a fun meme and suddenly everyone forgets how flawed that system really was. It's the equivalent of everyone forgetting the flaws with the endings of ME3 because Marauder Shields is a meme. Yeah. It doesn't work like that. Except for the ones that have excess fanaticism for ME2.


How can you blame ME3 for ME2 having a bunch of plot holes and cliffhangers? What were they supposed to do? Not resolve them? 
I don't get the hate for James Vega.
Joker's role of falling in love with EDI is to give the ending more weight. 
The role of Garrus was to be your war buddy, and he fulfills that role perfectly.
Liara's role is also quite perfect in my view. Her role is key even, considering her role in discovering the Crucible, and also spreading a backup message throughout the galaxy in case of failure.
As for Ashley and Kaiden, you can thank ME2 for not developing them. 

Is that the reason, wordcount?

What's the excuse for Garrus? Miranda, Jack and Thane have more of an impact in ME3 than Garrus did? Is it because he's an ME1 character?

Is that the same reason used for the Citadel dlc? There were no ME2 squadmates on the roster, but Bioware was able to put Wrex on the roster? Was it because he was an ME1 character?

Does that wordcount reason apply  to Samantha, Miranda, Steve and Jack not being able to escort Shepard during the casino mission? 

Sam and Steve may be minor for you, but they have more of an impact in the game than Garrus. He was there because he was in ME1 even if he doesn't have to be recruited. The ME2 characters, even Conrad Verner, add something to ME3 whereas Garrus added nothing. So, what major role did Garrus have in ME3?

As far as Sam and Steve not being squadmates. Is that suppose to mean something? The crew are just as important. I find most of the crew more interesting than some of the squadmates.

Yes its Bioware game to do as they please, but I don't agree with what they did.

If he's such a war buddy for you, why didn't he provide cover fire for Shepard at the end of the mission when helping the ex-Cerberus scientists? Its quite embarrassing that its Jacob or the other guy being the one providing cover fire. Maybe he didn't provide any cover fire because he was busy with calibrations. Or maybe he was taking notes so he would know what to do the next time Shepard needs cover fire.

So because some guy says Garrus is an awesome war buddy, I'm suppose to agree? Hahaha, no.
As far as the scene in London. So what? There is Shepard without Vakarian. I know, I've done it many times.

Or Kelly not even being in that darn DLC, literally being the only LI not put in. 

Just because you and others like a character doesn't mean I have to. Starting to get the idea?

Maybe they just couldn't figure out a way for Garrus to have impact, given the plot design. Or maybe he had it but lost out when the Citadel parts of the game were cut and restructured.

I'm not sure I'd say that Jack has much impact. Grissom Academy plays mostly the same with or without her, although the results are slightly different.

Dunno about the Citadel design. I only just bought it and haven't got far enough in ME3 to see it yet.

Going back to Andromeda... All its characters and squad mates are so bland... If I had to put them in a list from best to worst...;

Peebee (most hate her, I like her)
Suvi
Jaal
Drack
Everyone else
Liam

Jack has an impact through war assets. Even though it's a small amount, it could make the difference between having the breath scene or not depending on the player's playthrough. The other thing is without her being in ME3, Ensign Prangley is killed.