{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Recon Number 54:
6/12/2013 10:51:31 PM
19
Let's face it, guys: Mass Effect 2 wasn't very good.
I'm not saying it was *terrible* but think about it:
-terrible color palette range
-side quests that lacked voice acting, dialogue options, choice
-simple, linear cities with very little to do
-the removal of inventory (not that ME1 had a good system, but it wasn't unfixable)
-the complete lack of a plot (you need to invade a homeworld, so you recruit 12 ground troops? why? and then you just blow up a base and it ends? what? what did we accomplish?)
-goofy, porno-quality romances with awkward animations
-complete segregation of gameplay and story (the combat and dialogue can only occur in the designated "combat" and "dialogue" sections)
-character is required to stick entirely either to paragon or renegade choices in order to save the whole team.
-antagonist has all the depth of Dr. Claw
-nonsensical ret-conning of lore in order to hastily justify awful gameplay changes (thermal clips)
-nonsensical, unexplainable technology simply to make the marketing more interesting (Shepard can be resurrected after suffocation + atmospheric reentry + impacting the surface of the planet)
-terminator baby boss
-a soundtrack that, while still good, has an action-movie feel rather than the utterly incredible science fiction soundtrack of ME1
Sure, the gameplay was more polished than ME1's, but it was also a lot more generic and sided more with third-person shooter elements over RPG elements. On the whole the game was a regression from ME1 that took away more than it added.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 6/12/2013 11:11:36 PMThe Arrival DLC did more to move the main plot of the series forward than Mass Effect 2 ever did. Mass Effect 2's main plot had little to do with the Reapers, you know, the main antagonist. In fact, Mass Effect 3's main plot suffered because Mass Effect 2 didn't do what it should have done. Mass Effect 1 was about discovering the Reaper threat. Mass Effect 2 should have been about finding a way to stop the Reapers. And Mass Effect 3 should have been about stopping the Reapers Instead, since Mass Effect 2 was about stopping the Collectors, Mass Effect 3 had to do a lot more and thus spread itself thin: Find a way to stop the Reapers (Crucible), gather allies, and then finally stop the Reapers. (Actually, Mass Effect 3 was more about stopping Cerberus than it was about defeating the Reapers) What the hell was the point of the Collectors, and why the hell were they the main antagonists of 2? Why kill Shepard in the beginning of the game, only to make his death meaningless and bring him back to life with a resurrection machine? Why is the Terminator-Reaper so ridiculously bad? If there's one good thing I'll say about Mass Effect 2, it's that it at least felt more like a Mass Effect game than 3 did. And I did like the portrayal of Cerberus and the Illusive Man as morally ambiguous, as opposed to the cartoon villain organization that Mass Effect 3 had.
