Oddly, the same trend of ignoring "flaws" is there when comparing new games to old: forgetting about the "flaws" in the old games (often the exact same "flaws" that are in the new).
I've just recently gotten back into gaming, I had taken a one year sabbatical - a week back I told my GF she had become boring and repetitive… It didn't end well for me.
Anyway, tangent aside, I have not really noticed the aforementioned phenomena. At least not to the same extent I've seen the glossing over of painfully obvious flaws from current mainstream "review"(aka advertisement) sites.
-OT-
IMO, their wishlist, rather, thinly veiled criticism of ME2 leaves something to be desired…
-Mini-games-
*Across the board they were arguably worse or at best no more enjoyable than the first.
*Hacking*Trivial and repetitive. It quickly became a boring chore done only for the credits. Almost as bad as Oblivion's "lock picking".
*Scanning planets for resources* Holy crap this was bad. Fortunately you only have to scan enough to afford researching various upgrades. Unfortunately that much scanning is still incredibly tedious.
1)Single, easily solvable, solution games become repetitive fast. ME2's match the shapes is guilty of this beyond any doubt. It would have been better to come up with a truly dynamic game system(think chess, checkers, scrabble ect) which doesn't have to be completely original or mindbogglingly difficult. But abandoning a highly repetitive(simple, static, single solution) hacking/lockpicking mini-game is preferable to keeping it. Mini-games should not be a chore/job with the only impetus being some kind of in game monetary or material reward. Variability, complexity and increased challenge as a game progresses(ME2's hacking got easier most likely as a response by devs to it's immutable monotony) is definitely a difficult proposition… But I think it's doable.
*Possible solution to hacking* I think a scalable pseudo-holographic jenga (and for the sake of variety possibly a simon) inspired mini-game could have been fun, at least in moderation. Perhaps save the tough mini-game puzzles for the big "rewards/payouts".
2)Scanning the planets. Again repetitive and unrewarding to the point of absolute tedium. You have a freaking AI! Why can't it scan?!? It should become automatic, at least once you've bought the upgraded scanner anyway…
-Combat-
*At first I found the "seek out a chest high object/wall and take cover" combat somewhat enjoyable. It almost felt like a quasi turn based system, seek cover -> wait for enemy to stop firing or reload -> open fire. Rinse and repeat ad naseum. The Insanity difficulty setting only lengthened the amount of time it took to complete a fight sequence. Ultimately, all the fights felt the same. Which lost it's appeal quickly.
*No jumping or crouching capabilities.
*Vanguard's charge can, at times, allows one to fly through static objects. While at other times declare there's a line of sight issue that just isn't there…
*Thermal clips complaint 1* A big issue here as they function more like ammo. If you have a weapon that will entirely consume a thermal clip after say 50 shots and you have 5 thermal clips that equates to 250 possible shots. However, from a mechanics perspective reloading a new thermal clip when one has 15 shots left should not leave you with 215 shots in your "ammo reserve". You should have only 200, aka 4 unused thermal clips left.
*Thermal clips complaint 2* The geth and Collectors have significantly different tech, why would they need/use the same thermal clips? This complaint also goes to "heavy ammo" - why is all heavy ammo interchangeable when the heavy weapons, per their descriptions, fire different projectiles??? It may seem like nitpicking but(IMHO) scifi is all about plausibility and pushing related boundaries. The whole thermal clip/heavy weapon ammo issue kills immersion(for me at least). The mechanics have been simplified and coalesced into such a basic/interchangeable format their believability is beyond fiction. In fact the purpose of such a system is to make it easier, either for the player or from a development perspective(perhaps even a little of both).
*By limiting power usage to only one given power per action/round adepts are not nearly as effective as say Soldiers, Infiltrators or Vanguards.
-Area Design-
*Completely straight forward, in this respect ME2 is incredibly predictable even more so than the first(as annoying as the Mako was - at least you could drive around and potentially run across an unmarked structure, thresher maw, ect). There is only one direction, and that is straight forward(literally), even moreso when doors behind you lock/become inaccessible.
-Plot/Story-
*You were killed off at the start of ME2 just to be brought back to life by Cerberus. Why? There could have been any number of ways that you joined Cerberus. The alliance's involvement with Shepard's work in ME2 was all but written out, some kind of fall out over not doing enough to address the reaper threat would have been a better transition to working as a Cerberus operative. But no, we're supposed to believe that Cerberus a group with multiple independent cells simultaneously working multiple angles to further their agenda put all their eggs in one basket? Billions bringing you back to life over the course of 2 years and billions more on Normandy 2.0! Just doesn't jive.
*Well, GI was right about one thing… ME2 = Formulaic. Admittedly most of the loyalty missions were at a minimum somewhat interesting: Samara, Jack, Mordin, Legion, Grunt and Tali's especially. It would have been nice if the approach were varied though. I would have found it preferable if some of the squad members responded to Shepard's status/actions. Would a justicar really trust a purely renegade character to help with her Raison D'etre? Hell, would she even join you in the first place on nothing more than your word? I know shepard is the quintessential hero, but gaining everyone's loyalty and keeping them all alive on what was supposedly a suicide mission is just too fairy tail for my tastes.
*The illusive man, ignoring any plot holes/inconsistencies, he's one of the more intriguing characters in ME2. Hopefully we learn more about him and his ultimate designs/intentions for humanity. Also would like to see him take a personal stake in attempting to hunt down Shepard(assuming you blew up the Collector base).
*Given how much our dear Commander Shepard gets around I was displeased to learn that we still get no real "base". Is it not feasible/plausible that taking over a complex full of mercs/general baddies on a remote/unexplored planet could become a staging ground for Shepard's great crusade?
-Character development/Squad mates-
*Complaint numero uno: Shepard always instigates any meaningful conversation with his crew mates. The sole exception being when told by Chambers someone wants to talk. Dynamic interactions would be a plus. IE squad/crew mates initiate conversation.
*Too many of the NPCs are romance-able. If you're going to do romance, do it right. The available romances felt contrived, they were beyond lame delving into the realm atrociously stupid.
-Game Universe, Exploration-
*Ok, let me just preface this by stating my love for Sci-Fi, ME is undoubtedly RPG light(IMO, considering the potential given it's Sci-Fi setting, this is regrettable)… Regardless, the IP/universe they created makes up for it and then some.
*The lack of in game appearances across both ME1 and ME2 by females of the various alien species truly breaks immersion. IIRC, they explain why Salarian females are rarely seen in space. But what about the Krogan, Volus, Batarian or Elcor?
-The big conclusion-
"Mass Effect 3 should complete the story of Commander Shepard and the Reaper threat."
As my father used to say when someone stated the obvious, "No shit Sherlock."
I could write a lot more but I'm tired, hungry, horny and my mana is running low… Never a good combination.
