Why ME2 is the least good game in the trilogy for me

In terms of gampelay I'm not really sure how I feel about ME1 vs ME2, taken as a whole that is. Ultimately I really like many of ME1's concepts but wish they had been better realized in a sequel rather than cut. That said, I think that the combat in ME2 is better. There is a greater feedback, flashier effects, more diverse enemy classes, and the weapons are all designed better.

However, I do miss the organic feel of ME1's combat, the unity of level design in which each area was believably connected and designed in such a way that dialogue and shootouts could occur on the fly. Something else I miss from ME1's combat was all those big open spaces you could fight in on the uncharted worlds. You'd come across a pirate bunker and then have a few options; just charge in with the Mako and hope to take everything out before being destroyed? Soften it up with the Mako from a distance and then go in on foot? Sniper from afar, ducking in and out of cover, using the terrain to shield you? Perhaps you drive up a nearby mountain and rain down hell from above, or you completely flank the enemy base and assault it from a more favorable direction? I also kind of miss those long range artillery battles with the Mako and various enemies with heavy hitting weapons.

Of-course in some ways ME1's combat was faster; it was a bad call I think to nerf biotics in ME2. Where is the fun in biotics if you can't use them except on enemies that are already near dead? They are so much more useful in ME1 against its tankier enemies. Spring forward with your shotgun, use lift on the first enemey, run under him, hit throw with the second baddie, cast singularity on the next two, and then blast the fifth with your carnage shot! Damn that is so fun in ME1 but ME2 has no equivalent.

That said, these aspects of ME1 are fun but are all clunky, so I repeat that I wanted to see them refined in ME2 rather than shifted completely. ME2's weapons, and yes its ammo, could have worked just as well in a system more similar to ME1. Perhaps what Andromeda did? Making cover the focus of combat was not necessary and turned the game into a shooting gallery.

I'm not really sure that I agree that ME2 had better sidequests; I mean I wouldn't consider the squad stuff side content because it is the bulk of the game. In fact, ME2's side content is actually a lot weaker than ME1's in terms of roleplaying and story-telling. In ME1 many sidequests are fully voiced with conversations with many choices with many NPC's, often with Shepard being given choices to make so that the player can roleplay and shape their Shepard's style and personality. The combat environments are very samey, but I'd rather have decent if clunky combat and a great story with sensible and believable world building. The Uncharted Worlds are a bit barren, but they also gave ME1 a real sense of scale. It feels so much more massive than ME2 or ME2. It actually feels like you are exploring space.

In the end, I prefer ME1 to ME2 because ME1 is a more comprehensible and consistent universe. It's characters, its visual design, its music, its quest content, and its story all fit together a lot better than they do in ME2. This all comes together to make ME1 feel just a bit more believable and permit the player to take it just a bit more seriously. There plenty of positives to the changes ME2 made, but I feel it shifted the setting away from medium science fiction into pop-sci, which primed it to become action schlock in ME3.