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

OW games are usually bad at that, by design. People who like OW often want to feel like they can explore at leisure.

Compare the ME1 and ME:A main plots. Both Saren and the Archon are searching for something which can End Life As We Know It. The difference is that Saren knows what he's doing, while the Archon does not. And Ryder knows it. Completing Hunting the Archon dissipates whatever urgency the main plot had, since now Ryder knows that the Archon can't use Meridian, while she can. Obviously the mechanics in both games are the same -- Saren never beats Shepard to the Conduit by enough time to win -- but the presentation is what counts here. I think ME:A did fairly welld with the problem, given these design constraints.

Side missions also dissipate urgency. After Eos it's hard to see how the AI actually fails -- they've got a whole planet available, even though it's a bit on the dry side -- so all the additional missions just work to make a good position better.

While I don't disagree, the setup didn't work for me this time. I had no issues playing something like Elder Scrolls Oblivion, but Andromeda simply didn't manage to motivate me in the same way. The first few hours are great, and the first time you experience a vault is great. Meeting the Angara is another great point in the game. But other than that, even though I played everything the game had to offer, not many things stuck with me. It didn't help that it took me more than a year to finish the game... But maybe I played the game wrong, trying to be a completionist.

The idea of the Pathfinder is a great one, but I simply cannot help but feel that the majority of the side quests and exploration were filler rather than significant. And the plot indeed lacks urgency as well. One can argue that this frees the player for exploration, but in my case it made me feel like the issues in Andromeda weren't taken as seriously as they should have been...Additionally, there comes a point where even the exploration becomes tedious, just like Dragon Age Inquisition. There are many many things to find in ME:A, but barely any of them felt like I really needed to do them. It's so obvious that they're there just to say that there is a lot of content, while there barely is any quality content. As someone with less time than ever to play video games, the game did not respect my time, and that, is a huge issue.

Now this is where I have to praise ME2. Even though the lines of main missions and side quests are blurry, the amount of quests that feel insignificant are a lot less than the ones that feel significant, and sadly, for Andromeda, it's the opposite. And when people have to write guides on how to enjoy Andromeda, something is definitely wrong. ME2 has its issues, but boring side quests is not one of them.  If it did one thing right, it's keeping the player engaged at all times. Sure, it's extremely linear... And the same wouldn't work for an open world game, but Andromeda simply lacked creativity on how to keep the player engaged. It's the same old fetch quests.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly where they failed, but my first inclination is that the majority of the sidequests were so unrewarding that it felt like the time invested in them ultimately punished you rather than rewarding you. You have advanced technology to travel to another galaxy, but you can't communicate from planet to planet and have to do backtracking to a previously visited planet all the time, just to finish a quest that ultimately gives you some experience and credits, and that's it. That is a very very very bad motivator for an open world game. In an open world, where people spend a lot of time exploring, it must be made sure that the player does not feel like he's wasting his time. And it's sad to say that I had less problem with ME1's exploration than with Andromeda. ME1 didn't have a lot to find, but at least when you found something, it was at the minimum slightly significant/rewarding. 


tl;dr
One of the most important things in a game is to not make your players feel like you're wasting their time, and that's exactly what Andromeda does for the majority of the game. 

I never played Andromeda but I watched my friend play the first two hours or so and I've seen lots of footage. I can say some good things about it but ultimately Andromeda just didn't grab my interest. Mainly I wasn't captivated by what it seemed to be going with its premise. All the other bad publicity/issues didn't help matters.

The combat looked fun and from everything I gather Andromeda's combat is a happy marriage of the combat mechanics in the rest of the trilogy. Faster and more lethal than ME1 with ME2 and ME3's weapon designs and powers, but with ME1's mobility and vast scope preserved. Too bad I hear it is very glitchy.

Something else Andromeda did that I appreciated was introduce a lot of creative visual design in its characters and their armor/clothing, adding a lot of detail and variety but without being immersion breaking. One of ME2's most subtle but immersion-breaking issues is the visual design. Cerberus logos slapped on everything, combat high heels, tons of juvenile exposed cleavage, and space suits and helmets that don't cover the entire body. The additional variety and unique aesthetics of each squad-mate was an improvement over ME1 but they went too far. Andromeda seems to have dialed that back from everything I've seen of it.

I'm late to this thread but I definitely agree. People praise ME2 as being the best, and as far as characters, it did a good job. But it changed too much. Killing Shepard right out of the gate and pushing us forward in time to be welcoming of new players made sense of course, you don't want people intimidated by the '2' on the boxart, but for a game that had a lot of its selling point in "your choices carry forward," they could've done a way better job.

ME2 has the the awkward stage of combat between all three games. It's not as bad as the wall-humping of ME1, but ME3 did everything ME2's combat did, only beter. Mass Effect 1's combat was lackluster, but I identify it directly with that game. ME2's combat feels like stripped-down and slowed-down Gears Of War and that's not a good thing.

The Collectors ended up being pretty meaningless to the trilogy overall and were a pretty one-note army of adversaries. The prothean revelation was cool at the time, but it didn't really go anywhere. The human reaper, likewise, was the least interesting final boss of the entire saga. I found Marauder Shields a better final adversary.

I think ME2 did a lot right. It had consistently the best DLC and easily the most expansive roster. But mission structure, the actual story, the scaling back of exploration and doubling up on the push into action RPG just didn't do it for me. I've yet to play Andromeda, but I wouldn't be shocked if I ended up liking it better than ME2.

^ Yeah.

Noveria works a lot better, even though you are still sinking timing into Mako driving. Probably what I wrote above could have been stated much more simply as the time spent going A to B in ME1 was what I think is the weakness, not the IFV necessarily. Although this is a chicken and egg thing, because if you plan to put a vehicle in the game you are going to make a map / mission that requires using it.

Ah well. I don't think there is much utility in trying to convince others to have the same opinions as me. ME1 and ME2 are almost different genre games. Dragon Age is even more pronounced (and I like DAO the most in that case).

The great strength of Noveria is how let lets you roleplay in Port Hanshan. You are given so many different ways to complete your objective of gaining access to the garage, each of which lets you shape what sort of Spectre your Shepard is. Really, that place displays all of Mass Effect's best quality with its expansive design and good writing.

You can help the Administrator, help the undercover cop investigating him, help Lorik, cause the Administrator and cop to kill each other, or turn over the smuggled goods. The smuggled goods could otherwise be given to the shopkeeper as he wants, or sold to the krogan, or kept for yourself. If you keep them for yourself you get ambushed the next time you walk to the Normandy from inside the Port. I love that ambush because you have enemies turn up in a "dialog area" with no warning and no transition. It's that kind of thing that gives ME1 its superior sense of realism. 

I think the only thing that might improve Noveria would be if you had the option to just march down the garage and shoot your way in if you wish. 

I've been saying it for years. Mass Effect 2 is truly where all the problems for the trilogy, and I guess by extension the whole series, truly started. While it is far and away the best stand alone experience of the series, it is imo at least, one of the worst sequels ever made. Because I personally don't care if new players don't understand whats going on in a game with a 2 on the box. If you skipped Fellowship of the Ring and started at Two Towers would you really understand whats happening? No, nor should you. If you wanna know go read Fellowship first. IMHO sequels should not try to cater to new comers. The only exception is something like Final Fantasy, where the numbers don't really imply a sequel, but merely the next game in the series. 

ME2 should have focused on a galaxy trying to unify and come together to fight the inevitable Reaper menace going on in the Meta background. While Shepard and company focus on exploring uncharted space and ancient ruins and such, trying to uncover all of the Reapers secrets, and their weaknesses with the Collectors hot on their heels, trying to destroy all of said secrets and weaknesses before Normandy can find them.

Sorry it's taken me awhile to get back here. I appreciate the response.



Ahh... I see. I didn't get that from your original comment.



Yeah, people have a wide variety of opinions about what constitutes "core gameplay".

Ditto narrative. I consider everything my character does, thinks, and says to be part of the narrative I'm co-creating in an RPG.



Therum is a rather unique world with all the lava pits and whatnot. Some of the other worlds had other environmental hazards. For my part, driving through those different environments added a great deal to my feeling of exploring alien worlds.



I would suggest that some of that is based on expectations, and that definition of core gameplay varies from game to game. I'm guessing the typical player of GTA or Need for Speed would consider driving to be a key part of the core gameplay.

But I'd agree the XP penalties send a mixed message. The only justification I can come up with for that particular decision is that the team was better protected inside the Mako.



I have mixed feelings about developer imposed narrative pacing. As games have become more cinematic, they've interjected more and more into managing more aspects of the player's experience, but I find the mediums (film and vidya games) different enough that I'm not sure it's always a good thing.

I still remember the first time the Mako dropped on Virmire. Very tropical looking, driving through water - I really enjoyed that. Still do.

The Mako reduced combat XP made sense to me. As long as you can control the range battle happens at, which is true for all but maybe two battles in the game, the Mako is invincible. Enemy shots can't reach you before you dodge, and your own shots travel too fast to miss.

The Hammerhead was actually worse. You didn't have to dodge when you could fire at enemies from a position they couldn't see.