(2016 Discussion) Mass Effect 2

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

The first two acts of the game and about the early half of the last act were great. However, before the development of the end was finalized, Drew Karpyshyn was pulled out of ME development and put to work on SWTOR. This move right here is the reason IMO for the major disconnect between the end half of the last act and nearly all of the events of ME3.
I firmly believe had Drew been allowed to finish out his work on Mass Effect, we'd have had a better story and less or no disconnect in the lore of the series from the end of ME2 through ME3.
From the interviews with Drew, he had in mind a lot more tie in for Dark Matter and biotics and the Reapers but then he was pulled off and put on another project and all that development was more or less scrapped.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

While I enjoyed ME2 overall, it was not without its faults. Smaller maps, less exploration and the inclusion of thermal sinks were all poorly handled. My biggest complaint with that game however, was being forced to join a terrorist organisation in a way that made absolutely no sense.

All that said, the game did streamline a lot of what ME1 made feel bloated. Most of which I liked. Less pointless sidequests was a welcome change. It felt like less of a grindy game, the scanning minigame kind of shoots a hole in that until you realise that just targeting the rich only planets gave you more materials than you will ever need.

I liked this game better than ME3.

 

[llsaidknockyouout]

The only thing I disliked about Mass Effect 2 was that 90% of the areas were indoors. Granted, this allowed for more focus to be had for the graphics. There was one level (a Jacob mission, I think) that was outdoors and it was a beautiful area and my reaction was something like "OH YESS THE SUUNNN!!!!"

 

[Bob_McMillan]

It's the only Mass Effect game I've played, and I loved it. I'm a big fan of third person shooters, the setting and characters were just bonuses for me.

 

[llsaidknockyouout]

Yes, it's the one I recommend people who don't have time for all 3.

 

[votemarvel]

Where to start. Ah the combat, yes.

I hated the changes to the combat with the exception of a separate melee button. We went from classes that could all become godly to the balance pushed heavily in favour of the gun based classes.

Biotics were rendered next to useless by the new shield and armour system for the enemies. As an Adept you were stuck behind one of the numerous chest high walls spamming biotic combos, which in the end was worthless because the guns took down shields and armour quicker.

I liked that the dice roll was hidden behind a fake real time cover in the first game, yes you had to level up but that's the point of a Bioware RPG, oddly Dragon Age II gets praised for doing the exact same thing. I felt real progress in Mass Effect 1, whereas in ME2 I once played through without levelling up a thing and it made no difference whatsoever. Plus the enemies could actually miss in ME1, unlike in ME2 where everyone but the heavies had pin-point accuracy.

Also I don't get what was 'clunky' about the first game's combat that needed changing, to me it has by far the smoothest combat. I always had an option available to me, unlike in ME2 where there was a shared cooldown (absolutely stupid for combined classes such as the Sentinel), and who was the idiot who decided ammo types should be a power?

Thermal clips? Put in simply to give shooter fans the ability to reload. How the hell is coming from weapons that never run out of ammo to weapons that can run out an advancement? Yes I know they say that the clips aren't ammo but we all know that was the intention.

Shields, what the hell happened to Shepard's shields? An enemy can breath heavily on Shepard and they fall, got to give us a reason to look at the sides of those chest high walls I suppose.

Level design. Dear lord you could tell that combat was coming from a mile away because those lovely chest high walls were sitting there at the end of a corridor.

After all that you may think I dislike the game but that couldn't be further from the truth, I really enjoy it. The interrupt system added a new dimension to the conversations, sometimes it's better not to take them.

The armour customisation for Shepard was great, don't know why they removed that option for your squad though.

Characters were all great, but boy did Bioware want FemShep and Jacob to hook up.

Story was disjointed, it felt like a TV show more than a movie, but I never really felt that any of it was bad (well maybe the proto-Reaper at the end.)

Got to run back to work now but I'll be back. I love discussing the Mass Effect series.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

I played it for like an hour and quit it.

I find very shallow gameplay mechanics. its basically gears of war with dialouges system. waste of time.

 

[IceForce]

I actually thought it was pretty alright.

Say what you will about ME2, but it had the best ending of all 3 games. It actually rewarded you for doing 'side' quests and purchasing upgrades, and punished you for not doing these things. Your choices and actions (or perhaps lack of actions) actually have consequences.
And they didn't resort to that stupid 'Ending-o-matic 3000' bullshit where you simply pick a button (or color) at the end and that's your ending.

I still to this day cannot fathom how Bioware managed to absolutely nail such a good ending with ME2, only to screw up the ending royally in literally the very next game. It's like they regressed.

 

[IceForce]

Okay, now that I've posted something on-topic, I have to ask...

(2016 Discussion)

What's up with this? You don't need this on every thread you make. It's got so ubiquitous now that this "(2016 Discussion)" thing has almost taken over the Gaming board.

We can see the date your thread was created; it's in the thin grey bar above your post.
Also, all the old threads have been locked, so you don't have to worry about your new threads getting mixed up with the old ones.

Point is, you really don't need this prefix on the beginning of every thread. If you want to talk about a game, just talk about it. Nevermind the date.

 

[TravelerSF]

It's difficult to say, but I doubt ME3 would've had as much of an impact without it. It was the "smaller" story and focused on building your relationship with the characters, and those relationships payed off in ME3. It also did this a lot better than ME did. The firs game relied heavily on dialogue dumps, while ME2 integrated player choices, character quests and better animation sequences into the mix. I mean it's difficult to say for sure, and I love the cast of the first game as much as the second, but I think it had a big impact on building the emotional core of the series.

 

[Sharia]

The game was such a let down for me. The first game was already a little disappointing for what Bioware was known for and capable of, but the direction of this sequel was the nail in the coffin for me.

If the more action orientated direction was not bad enough, the general story/plot really sealed the deal. Mass Effect 1 had a pretty decent, if not cliche, sci-fi plot, with good pacing and an interesting main villain. ME2 however was a snore chore in recruitment that made the whole game forgettable and hard to enjoy.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Okay, now that I've posted something on-topic, I have to ask...

(2016 Discussion)

What's up with this? You don't need this on every thread you make. It's got so ubiquitous now that this "(2016 Discussion)" thing has almost taken over the Gaming board.

We can see the date your thread was created; it's in the thin grey bar above your post.
Also, all the old threads have been locked, so you don't have to worry about your new threads getting mixed up with the old ones.

Point is, you really don't need this prefix on the beginning of every thread. If you want to talk about a game, just talk about it. Nevermind the date.

It apears that its just another OPs weekly "2016 discussion" thread.

 

[Dizchu]

I played through all three Mass Effects a few months ago in quick succession so I feel I have a pretty balanced perspective.

I feel that Mass Effect 2 is the most consistent of the three. In terms of story Mass Effect 3 was a lot more inconsistent and in terms of gameplay Mass Effect 1 was a lot more inconsistent. Well, ME1 did have consistent (copy-pasted) level designs, but that doesn't count. The final boss absolutely sucked but the suicide mission buildup to that was incredible and I felt like my choices were extremely important.

But you know what the best thing about Mass Effect 2 is? Mass Effect 3. The two have a lot more in common than 1 and 2 do especially when it comes to the decisions you make. Your experience in Mass Effect 2 has a massive effect (groan) on the third game in a way I have never seen in any other series. The characters that die in the suicide mission will not show up in the third game despite each of them having an involvement in the plot if they survived.

I find this to be the most remarkable thing about the series and I know people like to rag on Mass Effect 3, but compared to the other two games ME3 has the most content that the player may never even experience due to their actions in previous games.

To me each game is equal in terms of quality, they each have a different set of pros and cons that balances them out in terms of overall quality. But I would say that Mass Effect 2 is the most important game in the series considering the huge amount of variables it influences in the third game.

 

[Sharia]

Okay, now that I've posted something on-topic, I have to ask...

(2016 Discussion)

What's up with this? You don't need this on every thread you make. It's got so ubiquitous now that this "(2016 Discussion)" thing has almost taken over the Gaming board.

We can see the date your thread was created; it's in the thin grey bar above your post.
Also, all the old threads have been locked, so you don't have to worry about your new threads getting mixed up with the old ones.

Point is, you really don't need this prefix on the beginning of every thread. If you want to talk about a game, just talk about it. Nevermind the date.

I see it not as clarification of the date, but instead highlighting that this is 2016's thoughts on a game that came out a while ago. While I don't always see why, peoples thoughts on a game do seem to change over time.

 

[Roboshi]

I played through all three Mass Effects a few months ago in quick succession so I feel I have a pretty balanced perspective.

I feel that Mass Effect 2 is the most consistent of the three. In terms of story Mass Effect 3 was a lot more inconsistent and in terms of gameplay Mass Effect 1 was a lot more inconsistent. Well, ME1 did have consistent (copy-pasted) level designs, but that doesn't count. The final boss absolutely sucked but the suicide mission buildup to that was incredible and I felt like my choices were extremely important.

But you know what the best thing about Mass Effect 2 is? Mass Effect 3. The two have a lot more in common than 1 and 2 do especially when it comes to the decisions you make. Your experience in Mass Effect 2 has a massive effect (groan) on the third game in a way I have never seen in any other series. The characters that die in the suicide mission will not show up in the third game despite each of them having an involvement in the plot if they survived.

I find this to be the most remarkable thing about the series and I know people like to rag on Mass Effect 3, but compared to the other two games ME3 has the most content that the player may never even experience due to their actions in previous games.

To me each game is equal in terms of quality, they each have a different set of pros and cons that balances them out in terms of overall quality. But I would say that Mass Effect 2 is the most important game in the series considering the huge amount of variables it influences in the third game.

This is probably my view as well on the ME series and I prefer to think of ME3 as one LOONG ending to ME2. As the entire game was the consequences for your actions and the ending being dependant on how strong those choices left you.

 

[Dizchu]

This is probably my view as well on the ME series and I prefer to think of ME3 as one LOONG ending to ME2. As the entire game was the consequences for your actions and the ending being dependant on how strong those choices left you.

Yeah I mostly see the Mass Effect series as Mass Effect 1 (a stand-alone game) and Mass Effects 2 and 3 (a two-part sequel).

 

[Glongpre]

mako

Which was shit.

inventory

Double shit with a side of bacon.

Yeah they weren't the best, that's why I said they needed some refinement, some revision, not to completely scrap the idea altogether. It was super annoying to deal with the inventory, but I love games where you find weapons and armour, like Diablo, Kotor, etc. And the mako helped with the scale thing I was talking about.

weapons system

I can never decide what was more annoying: not being able to use the weapon at all, or using it and being so fucking hopeless without sinking precious points into it that it made no odds. Removing customization was a terrible idea, but the customization in ME1 was honestly kind of shit to begin with since it was based on RNG created items.

I never had that problem with the system. It fits in well with RPGs. Someone isn't just going to be a proficient sniper on their first try using a sniper rifle, that needs a time investment, which the level system tries to emulate.
Most RPGs have randomly created items, so I don't see the problem. Maybe they should have added unique ones. That would have actually been cool to find some ancient prothean schematics for a rifle, or having Wrex drop a unique shotgun when he is killed (but of course, you can only find it on your first playthrough, because after that you would make sure he would never be killed).

and the main story was really lackluster.

It probably would have been better if they hadn't changed their proposed endings for ME3 that related to Dark Energy - should have just rode the leak.

That maybe would have fixed ME3. But ME2 had a terrible main story, it didn't move the story forward at all. I will link a blog at the end where a guy gets into why it doesn't work. I enjoyed the read.

The things it got rid of only needed some refinement. It also lost a lot of it's scale.

Scale. This is a thing that honestly baffles me with the list of complaints levied at ME2 and ME3. The scale is preventing galactic extinction, so no while you're on the ticking clock it would be highly inappropriate to shuffle down to random planets to do doughnuts in the world's worst IFV while whole colonies of people are disappearing, even more so while the Reapers are setting fire to whole planets.

That's not what scale means. That is something you can show scale with. Scale would be the mission on Therum, or the driving on Noveria, or the driving on Feros, etc. It shows you how large the world is, but it lets you see for yourself the kind of distance. The dude I linked also gets into that at one point.
The elevators also helped, even though they were tedious. But honestly, they are the exact same as a loading screen, and I would rather have the elevators than a loading screen. Loading screens take you out of immersion.


PS. For anyone interested, this is a great read for how the series went downhill story wise. http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27792

 

[SomethingWorse]

It is a good game.

But I didn't think it was a worthy successor to ME1. I was very disappointed.
It got rid of too many things like the mako, inventory, weapons system, and the main story was really lackluster. The things it got rid of only needed some refinement. It also lost a lot of it's scale.

So disappointed.

Yeah, speaking as a fan of actual RPGs, I was kinda sad that ME 2 was basically just a shooter. I liked the slow tactical style.

The story in 2, however, I think was bit better. I loved the new characters, particularly the good doctor. Romance was still meh.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

in terms of story, i felt the 2nd showed too much. in the 1st, the reapers were an unknown, Lovecaftian horror

 

[Burnsidhe]

From a gameplay point of view, it was a large improvement over Mass Effect.

Even the simplified inventory management was almost perfect: you're in a *technological* society, why do you have to loot every scrap of potentially valuable crap off of enemy bodies like you're in the aftermath of a medieval battlefield? The only important things are credits and information. Stuff can be manufactured, almost at will.

Yes, the thermal clip nonsense was painful. "We need to add an ammo system since we're changing it into a cover-based shooter and the recharge over time function breaks because of the SMG weapons we want to introduce." They could have gotten around that problem by, you know, not introducing the SMG that no one really used anyway.

But it failed horrendously when it came to the story. Yes, failed. Seamus Young has a Mass Effect Retrospective series which points out the massive shift in tone and understanding between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. It went from a detail based, finely crafted story where elements presented early on (and I'm not just talking about the Conduit) become significant in the story later; to a "durr Drama!" soap opera based around family issues and "Humans are Special!" propaganda. The shift in tone is horrible, moving from "humans are resented newcomers who don't really fit in to galactic civilization" to "human issues should be THE galactic priority for EVERYONE".

The Reapers don't even make an appearance except in a thirty second cutscene at the end and at the end of some DLC that you might or might not purchase. And worse, they go from "mysterious space cthulhu with unknown motives" to "fourteen year old boy hurling childish taunts at the player who's slaughtering his pawns over and over and over."

The set up at the end of Mass Effect perfectly laid out the parameters of a sequel. Shepard has a team, she has a ship, she has a mission, and she has the support of the Council and the Alliance. There's even a vague path to follow; the second game in the series SHOULD have been about finding out more about the Reapers and their weaknesses, exploring prothean and other precursor sites to find hints, clues, anything to fight the ominous space cuttlefish. All the while learning about other alien cultures in order to build connections and prepare for the day when the invasion happens.

So what happens immediately in Mass Effect 2? Shepard dies, she loses her ship, she loses her team, she is forced to lose the support of the Council and the Alliance, and her mission is hijacked to deal with the major agenda of a terrorist organization rather than finding out *a way to stop the Reapers*.