Is Mass Effect 2 really that good? Or did I miss something?

I finished Mass Effect 2 a few days back. And let me say it straight out, I liked the game. And, this is not to meant to offend anyone else who thinks this game is superb. But, for the life of me, I can't see how everyone feels its one of the best games this gen or one of the best series ever made. I think it got 9.0 here on Gamespot and is around 94% on metacritic for the PC. It has to be one of the most overhyped and over-rated games ever in my opinion.

I mean, the combat is very repetitive with hardly any depth to it and I spammed Singularity+Warp(I played as Adept) with a tech in my party pretty much through the entire game.

The relationships/friendships/romanes with other characters, supposedly its strong points, felt very wooden and forced, with pretty forgettable characters. Mordin's was the only story I liked. Compare that to something like Dragon Age Origins, where I really felt that the game earned the sort of friendship that I had with Alistair.

But the worst part about the game were the levels. Maps were too small, closed off areas with cover conveniently placed everywhere, even in reaper ships, for the player to utilize. And the stages were SUPER-LINEAR. Thats the worst complaint i have with the game. There's only one way to progress within a level, that makes it worse for a game that is supposed to provide you freedom. And the story progressed pretty much the same way, only choice you have is which order to recruit members and do the side quests. Talking about the story, it wasn't too stellar either.

I thought of doing a second playthrough with a different class but I cant see what I will(or CAN) do differently. That has to be a sucker punch for a highly-rated, much-praised Bioware RPG. Contrast that to the Witcher 2, where you need AT LEAST 2 playthroughs to experience the entire thing.
Now, considering all this, and reading quite a lot of reviews and blogs around the web, I constantly get the feeling that I did something very wrong in ME2. Is it just me, or did I really miss something truly awesome about it? Or someone else feels the same way that I do?

Mass Effect 1 was much better and more suited to my liking. Atleast it had a bit more depth to it, and felt more like an RPG. ME2 was dumbed down in a lot of aspects. It just had better presentation and polish that its predecessor and I think everybody just fell for that. I don't really consider myself to be an RPG veteran but I do count Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights among my favourite games. I can't see how ME2 was developed by the same studio. Is this really where RPGs, my favourite genre is going? One comparison I constantly had in my mind while playing ME2 was Deus Ex Human Revolution, which I played just before I started ME2. I know they are different kind of games, but I couldn't shake off the feling that Deus Ex HR did every single thing better than ME2 and was a much superior game. Its also why I am not starting ME3.

Now, am I the only one that feels this way or is anyone else with me on this? If not, please point out where I went wrong with ME2.
Till then, I think i'll rather stick to Drakensang or Risen(2 days till Risen 2!) for my RPG needs. Sure they are nowhere near as praised as the "best Trilogy ever made" Mass Effect series, but atleast I'll get some freedom and depth out of them.

I finished Mass Effect 2 a few days back. And let me say it straight out, I liked the game. And, this is not to meant to offend anyone else who thinks this game is superb. But, for the life of me, I can't see how everyone feels its one of the best games this gen or one of the best series ever made. I think it got 9.0 here on Gamespot and is around 94% on metacritic for the PC. It has to be one of the most overhyped and over-rated games ever in my opinion. I mean, the combat is very repetitive with hardly any depth to it and I spammed Singularity+Warp(I played as Adept) with a tech in my party pretty much through the entire game. The relationships/friendships/romanes with other characters, supposedly its strong points, felt very wooden and forced, with pretty forgettable characters. Mordin's was the only story I liked. Compare that to something like Dragon Age Origins, where I really felt that the game earned the sort of friendship that I had with Alistair. But the worst part about the game were the levels. Maps were too small, closed off areas with cover conveniently placed everywhere, even in reaper ships, for the player to utilize. And the stages were SUPER-LINEAR. Thats the worst complaint i have with the game. There's only one way to progress within a level, that makes it worse for a game that is supposed to provide you freedom. And the story progressed pretty much the same way, only choice you have is which order to recruit members and do the side quests. Talking about the story, it wasn't too stellar either.
I thought of doing a second playthrough with a different class but I cant see what I will(or CAN) do differently. That has to be a sucker punch for a highly-rated, much-praised Bioware RPG. Contrast that to the Witcher 2, where you need AT LEAST 2 playthroughs to experience the entire thing.
Now, considering all this, and reading quite a lot of reviews and blogs around the web, I constantly get the feeling that I did something very wrong in ME2. Is it just me, or did I really miss something truly awesome about it? Or someone else feels the same way that I do?
Mass Effect 1 was much better and more suited to my liking. Atleast it had a bit more depth to it, and felt more like an RPG. ME2 was dumbed down in a lot of aspects. It just had better presentation and polish that its predecessor and I think everybody just fell for that. I don't really consider myself to be an RPG veteran but I do count Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights among my favourite games. I can't see how ME2 was developed by the same studio. Is this really where RPGs, my favourite genre is going? One comparison I constantly had in my mind while playing ME2 was Deus Ex Human Revolution, which I played just before I started ME2. I know they are different kind of games, but I couldn't shake off the feling that Deus Ex HR did every single thing better than ME2 and was a much superior game. Its also why I am not starting ME3.
Now, am I the only one that feels this way or is anyone else with me on this? If not, please point out where I went wrong with ME2.
Till then, I think i'll rather stick to Drakensang or Risen(2 days till Risen 2!) for my RPG needs. Sure they are nowhere near as praised as the "best Trilogy ever made" Mass Effect series, but atleast I'll get some freedom and depth out of them.

vivekraikkonen

Your post literally made me nauseous. Maybe if you restructure it slightly, people will be able to read it and then respond to it.

Despite its shortcomings, ME2 is my most replayed ME game due to the amount of content it has and the quality of the characters and smaller stories it has, especially with all the DLC. All the ME games have pros and cons to me, and I think ME2 had the best selection of sidequests and growing lore. I finished it about 10 times or so, using all kinds of classes and weapon combos.

So for me, ME1 had the best major plot and sense of exploration in a big universe, ME2 had the best selection of content and character growth, and ME3 has much superior combat and fixes the crap customization that was in ME2.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I loved Mass Effect 2 (in my top 10 games of all time) but I realize that not everyone will feel the same way.

I happen to hate open world games (like Grand Theft Auto) but I understand that there are tons of gamers that love them.

Different strokes for different folks.

I couldn't agree more with you TC, right down to the comparison to DA:O and only finding depth in Mordin.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I loved Mass Effect 2 (in my top 10 games of all time) but I realize that not everyone will feel the same way.

I happen to hate open world games (like Grand Theft Auto) but I understand that there are tons of gamers that love them.

Different strokes for different folks.

AR-15

Dude I perfectly appreciate you liking the game so much. Thats what I want you to point out to me- What was it in the game that made you include it in your top 10 games.
Considering its such a universally-praised and loved game, I know I'm among the very few that didn't like it as much and that makes me wonder if i missed certain key part of the game, or played/approached it wrong(which shouldn't be the case, considering its an role playing game; I should be able to play as i like and still derive pleasure out of it).

I finished Mass Effect 2 a few days back. And let me say it straight out, I liked the game. And, this is not to meant to offend anyone else who thinks this game is superb. But, for the life of me, I can't see how everyone feels its one of the best games this gen or one of the best series ever made. I think it got 9.0 here on Gamespot and is around 94% on metacritic for the PC. It has to be one of the most overhyped and over-rated games ever in my opinion.

vivekraikkonen

there is your answer

It's simple. You got overhyped, man. If you're this concerned about metacritic's rating, it can only end in disappointment on your part.

I find there are pretty much two major camps when it comes to ME2. Those who enjoyed the more RPG nature of the first game, and those who take it for what it is, and that's space opera. You're clearly of the former, while a good number make up the latter, and it's pretty much proven that ME2's gameplay is just tighter and nicer than ME1. To say anything else is flat out wrong. Though the waist-high walls of it all are hard to ignore, it's still a lot smoother than the first game. Everyone remembers how clunky combat was. I certainly do, having played it five times. Does it make ME2 streamlined? Sure. But it's not a negative unless you feel like it's an insult to your "gaming prowess", if you will.

Regarding character interactions, that's really subjective. I thought it was awesome seeing old squaddies again, and also, Yvonne Strahovski dude. If you're a big sci-fi geek, you should get excited about the whole voice cast. And I don't exactly know how you can denounce all of them as "wooden" so easily. But then again, one man's wooden is another man's stoic; my dad hates John Wayne, thinks he can't act. But I watched The Searchersand thought he was perfect for the quiet, old racist tough-guy. Fantastic performance. But anyway, I'm pretty confident in my belief that the character interaction was a good deal better than Mass Effect 1.

It's regarded so highly because it's just a solid entry into the series and an overall improvement in lacking areas. Ignoring numerical value, metacritic only suggests one thing: a lot of people agree with that assessment, is the bottom line. You don't have to be one of them. I personally tune in for the setting because you really can't get sci-fi of this calibre in any other game. There are games with stronger combat/level design in real honest-to-god shooters, but they don't have a shred of story, nor a fraction of the lore. Take your lumps and move on, I guess.

I totally agree with you the game is a stripped down version of the first. It is really repetitive with limited combat with very little depth to upgrading. I hated the removal of the inventory and the addition of scanning planets for resources to upgrade weapons. Still found the team member story arcs to be pretty fun and a good way of changing things up. I would most likely give it a 7/10. May I make one suggestion to your post and that is to use paragraphs. Winchester39

It's not that stripped down from the first because that would imply the first had depth. The first was a mediocre shooter with annoying RPG elements. It was praised far more for the atmosphere, characters, and story than it's very shallow gameplay. They tried to combine old school RPG mechanics with new age cover based shooting and failed on both aspects.

You have to realize that Mass Effect is a shooter first, an RPG second. Also, ME2 has hundreds of different choices that effect quite a bit of the game (unlike ME3). Becuase it is a shooter first, the improved shooting mechanics made a world of difference.

A deep, involving story and character development are not really exclusive to RPGs either. That's where you find them the most often because they make sense in the slower pace environment of an RPG. Just becuase game has that doesn't really make it an RPG though. Both ME2 and ME3 are 3rd person shooters with some RPG elements.

To me ME1 does the story the best and ME3 does the combat the best. So for me ME2 is the worst by default. Still a great great game but not the best in the series for me.

It's still a tie for me between ME and ME2. ME tells a good story and allows you to be a lot more flexible, but its controls are clunky and the inventory is a nightmare. ME2 has better character depth, but the lack of customisation and the lack of revisits to planets made it feel much more linear than ME.

ME3 comes in last, but that's like saying which is the worst out of a Ferrari, Porsche and Lamborghini...it's still a great game on its own merits (and is only behind by 1-2%). The Cerberus Plot Armour, half-hearted planet scanning and unsatisfactory ending manage to hold it back.

agree with most of those points. mass effect is my favourite. despite some awkward and clumsy gameplay mechanics it was carried by the perfectly paced storyline and atmosphere.

mass effect 2's story in comparison felt laboured and most of the characters were either dull or wooden. the atmosphere suffered and despite slicker mechanics, it was a disappointment to me

it's just gears of war with a dash of dating sim

To me ME1 does the story the best and ME3 does the combat the best. So for me ME2 is the worst by default. Still a great great game but not the best in the series for me.

seanmcloughlin

I agree. Been replaying ME2 to see why it is regarded by many to be the best in the series, and I just can't see it.

I agree with absolutely everything in the TC.No, ME2 is not as good as our fabulous little "professionals" would like people to believe, and the people claiming that it has the best plot/story, are straight up fools.The combat runs dry of depth fast, and the fact that your health deflates so fast + the level design, make you unable to do much more than "run, take cover, Shoot/use power", repeat, among many other problems.

Nevertheless, i found enjoyment in it.

mass effect games are great for the story, if you play them for the gameplay you are doing it wrong.

mass effect games are great for the story, if you play them for the gameplay you are doing it wrong.

Krelian-co

mass effect games are great for the story, if you play them for the gameplay you are doing it wrong.

Krelian-co

ME2 had a pretty bad story. Wasn't even a stroy, just a way to pad out the trilogy and introduce more characters really.

ME1 had the best of the story and ME3 finished the story

[QUOTE="vivekraikkonen"]

there is your answer

Krelian-co

[QUOTE="Winchester39"]I totally agree with you the game is a stripped down version of the first. It is really repetitive with limited combat with very little depth to upgrading. I hated the removal of the inventory and the addition of scanning planets for resources to upgrade weapons. Still found the team member story arcs to be pretty fun and a good way of changing things up. I would most likely give it a 7/10. May I make one suggestion to your post and that is to use paragraphs. Wasdie

It's not that stripped down from the first because that would imply the first had depth. The first was a mediocre shooter with annoying RPG elements. It was praised far more for the atmosphere, characters, and story than it's very shallow gameplay. They tried to combine old school RPG mechanics with new age cover based shooting and failed on both aspects.

You have to realize that Mass Effect is a shooter first, an RPG second. Also, ME2 has hundreds of different choices that effect quite a bit of the game (unlike ME3). Becuase it is a shooter first, the improved shooting mechanics made a world of difference.

A deep, involving story and character development are not really exclusive to RPGs either. That's where you find them the most often because they make sense in the slower pace environment of an RPG. Just becuase game has that doesn't really make it an RPG though. Both ME2 and ME3 are 3rd person shooters with some RPG elements.

I thought it was fun for one playthrough, but yeah a lot of the game was very mediocre.

I agree completely. Mass Effect 2 was pretty good but the first one was way better. It had lots of cool loot, bigger areas, and a much more compelling story arch. The antagonist is way more interesting and the stakes are much higher. They stripped out the loot, rpg elements, and added ammo for no reason anyone could freaking fathom. I agree the second one has higher production values but it is not a better game. I didn't even mind the Mako driving everyone else flipped out about. I'd rather do that any day than poke at planets over and over to get the minerals. The upgrade mechanic it ME 2 was boring as hell. There was no reason to strip out the gun skills and replace it with that. If ME 2 had all the elements of the first one but added the better shooting and graphics and had more compelling side quests and a better story it would likely be one of the greatest games ever made. *SPOILER ALERT* I also hated that they never come out and explain the system for how you lose characters at the end. They punish you for doing everything in the game because I guess you took too much time or something? How the hell does me completing everything in the game correlate to characters dieing in the end? I upgraded the ship fully but I guess that doesn't matter. First one was way better.

If Mass Effect 2 did anything right it was the ending. Unlike 3 Mass Effect 2 actually had a complete ending that finished up the games story and had you,Sheaprd, do the impossible. Your goal is to gather a team, make them loyal, go through the Omega 4 relay which only collector ships are able to pass through, destroy the collector, and return through the Omega 4 relay with your team, and you do.

It's a console game.

For a PC game it's kind of limited and small.

I loved ME2 and thought it was a 90+ game.

My advice is to get the DLC's, they make it even better. (Kasumi, Lair of Shadow Broker, Firewalker, and the equipment/weapon DLC's. Basically get all of them)

As a trilogy (play all 3 back to back) it is epic.

The best trilogy I would say, since Splinter Cell or Half Life.

If Mass Effect 2 did anything right it was the ending. Unlike 3 Mass Effect 2 actually had a complete ending that finished up the games story and had you,Sheaprd, do the impossible. Your goal is to gather a team, make them loyal, go through the Omega 4 relay which only collector ships are able to pass through, destroy the collector, and return through the Omega 4 relay with your team, and you do.

toddx77

[QUOTE="toddx77"]

If Mass Effect 2 did anything right it was the ending. Unlike 3 Mass Effect 2 actually had a complete ending that finished up the games story and had you,Sheaprd, do the impossible. Your goal is to gather a team, make them loyal, go through the Omega 4 relay which only collector ships are able to pass through, destroy the collector, and return through the Omega 4 relay with your team, and you do.

sSubZerOo

Wow, I can't believe these many people agree with me here. I expected lots of backlash actually, counteracting my every point in the original post; seeing how popular this game is.

I suppose I was over-hyped by seeing such a highly-rated bioware game that won quite a few GOTYs. Its a fairly solid game in its own right; I was probably just expecting a bit more from it after seeing all the hype around it. Hence the disappointment, hence the post.

Even forgetting about Review scores, every single reviewer across the planet praised it like the best thing in gaming. After liking the original, I believe I should be forgiven for expecting a bit more grandeur from it as every reviewer said it was a major improvement over the first in every way.

Makes me wonder if they played the same game that I did. Or are the conspiracy theories of major publishers buying out review scores actually true?? ;/

Wow, I can't believe these many people agree with me here. I expected lots of backlash actually, counteracting my every point in the original post; seeing how popular this game is.

I suppose I was over-hyped by seeing such a highly-rated bioware game that won quite a few GOTYs. Its a fairly solid game in its own right; I was probably just expecting a bit more from it after seeing all the hype around it. Hence the disappointment, hence the post.

Even forgetting about Review scores, every single reviewer across the planet praised it like the best thing in gaming. After liking the original, I believe I should be forgiven for expecting a bit more grandeur from it as every reviewer said it was a major improvement over the first in every way.

Makes me wonder if they played the same game that I did. Or are the conspiracy theories of major publishers buying out review scores actually true?? ;/

vivekraikkonen

Gamespot forums are..... Special.

But that's why i love it in here :D