In-depth article the takes game critics to task and dissects the many design failures of Mass Effect 2. Worth a read, even if you completely disagree.  
 

I agree with some of the points made in this article, but it is rather poorly written and amusingly misinformed - the bit about "several TV shows recently, like Rome and the new Spartacus, wherein all the Romans have a British accent" cracks me up, especially - that has been a convention in Roman epics since the beginning of Hollywood.
 
I'd also say that a lot of the design decisions criticized really just boil down to personal taste. I personally don't want to have to scour the environment for hours, picking up every useless piece garbage I find, hoping to come across something useful one day. I think the streamlining is a GOOD thing. Same with the game allowing you to choose how tactical you want to be in battle. Yes, you can play it like a cover-based shooter, on the lower difficulties at least, but you'll be a lot more effective if you use your powers every once in a while.

what you quoted is enough for me to know i dont need to read this article.

" @turbomonkey138: why is that?  Why post a stupid screenshot and offer nothing to the conversation?  If you actually read the article....pretty much every single point he makes is completely true.  But, also, pretty much ever single point he brought up has already been said by other people on these forums.  Particularly the way the missions are structured is something I said before.  I found it rather repetitive that you go and pick up a new squad mate and then do a loyalty mission.  In the end, the main quest....the Collectors part of the story almost feels like a subplot to you meeting other characters.  But, as I said before, I enjoyed the game.  The game was fun.  I'm playing it a 2nd time.  So, in the end...that's what matters the most I suppose. "

Interesting.... but most of what he points out are minor annoyances. It isn't a perfect game, but it is deserving of the reviews it has been getting. And am I crazy? i don't mind scanning planets that much.

I found the article to be quite precise.

" @handlas said:

" @turbomonkey138: why is that?  Why post a stupid screenshot and offer nothing to the conversation?  If you actually read the article....pretty much every single point he makes is completely true.  But, also, pretty much ever single point he brought up has already been said by other people on these forums.  Particularly the way the missions are structured is something I said before.  I found it rather repetitive that you go and pick up a new squad mate and then do a loyalty mission.  In the end, the main quest....the Collectors part of the story almost feels like a subplot to you meeting other characters.  But, as I said before, I enjoyed the game.  The game was fun.  I'm playing it a 2nd time.  So, in the end...that's what matters the most I suppose. "

By true you mean opinionated? "

Most of his points are valid. Still a very enjoyable game though.

The article isn't all that good m8 :P
 
I agree that planet scanning was a bit boring, but is hardly a game breaking experience, you don't want to get more resources so you can get you new upgrade?
Then lower the difficulty!

The Article does make some good points, however, it seems alot of the things mentioned are blown up and presented in a way to make the reader believe the problems are gamebreakers, when really they ain't. 
Of course there a points in the article that are absolutely ridiculous like ''Mass Effect 2 might as well play itself as well, why should I bother? ''. 
Did this guy play the game on Normal or something >_>.

There are definitely some good points, but just because a game scores well during review doesn't mean that the reviewers have no problems with it.  No game is perfect.  As for the idea that Mass Effect 2 "plays itself", well, this is essentially Gears of War.  I'd hate to say it, but who gives a tenth of a fuck about the gameplay?  It's all about the story, dialogue and characters.

I agree with the mission design issues and the room layouts, the hacking and planet surveying games could be improved, merchants could be more interesting, but there is way too much bullshit nitpicking going on in this article.  The complaints about the alien design and speech could be applied to Star Trek too, and both universes feature magical 'auto translators' to salvage dialogue.  The author also believes running all over a room to find a switch would be more immersive than having switches outline with the little technical looking blue boxes, but I'm willing to bet that if Bioware had started out without those little boxes this author would be complaining that it was too easy to overlook switches and data pads.  Every character having a secondary mission is a problem?  The missions were designed to get you personally involved with every character on a one to one basis.  Any character lacking one of these missions would have come off more hollow than the characters who did, and any character who had more than one would seem like a designer favorite.  I don't think there's any winning going on with this author's suggestions about how Bioware could improve the formula.  
 
Certain aspects of game design can simply never be perfect, so you make compromises for accessibility or immersion.  Lean any given direction and someone will criticize it for not leaning the other direction.  Some of these criticisms are totally legit, but for the most part this guy just wants to be on the fringe to get attention on forums.  If you've actually completed the game from start to finish and consider it mediocre because the room layouts and hacking minigames need to be improved you may be looking in the wrong places for content.  If these elements didn't actually detract from the strength of the story or the character development, say by being so frustrating or boring that you lost immersion in the world or wanted to quit, I can't imagine they should actually eat away at a game's review score.  I notice the author doesn't give any examples of perfect games, or even reference specific features from previous bioware games, even though he seems to go off about how great bioware has been in the past.

The intro made me not want to read it, so good job writer!

I'm usually not one to criticize articles, but that seemed overly long winded and more "HEY LOOK I'M BEING EDGY! NOW KEEP GOING ON TO OTHER PAGES TO KEEP GIVING ME MONEY!"   
Yes, those points are true, but the explanations of them just feel like a rant. 

I like how this article finds the minor annoyances and manages to completely ignore the best aspects of the game.  That's what true journalism is about anyway, sensationalism for ratings(website hits, whatever).  Some of the things he dislikes are valid points to make about the game, but his entire framing of the article is poor.  The last line is quite amusing:
 
 "Bioware needs to regroup, refocus, and figure out how to truly deliver a next-generation RPG without resorting to the same tricks that have propped the genre up on crutches for far too long. They are more than capable of delivering a masterpiece of design, as evidenced by Dragon Age, which is four times the game of Mass Effect 1 & 2…combined, albeit with its own set of design problems."
 
Propping up dragon age as the masterpiece of design he wants to see is amusing at best.  If I wanted to be as general and sensationalist as him, i could easily point out a "list of 56 things" wrong with dragon age.  Instead, I choose to be satisfied with both, ME2 being a little more my cup of tea but I'll enjoy my time with both games.  Im glad I don't care what other people's opinions are much, if he chooses to be so thoroughly disappointed with the game as he is, then more power to him.  I'll be happily enjoying the game, flaws and all, for at least another dozen or so hours.  :)  His closing remark dismissing all disagreement with his platform tells me all I need to know about this guy as a journalist. 

"Bioware needs to regroup, refocus, and figure out how to truly deliver a next-generation RPG without resorting to the same tricks that have propped the genre up on crutches for far too long." 
 
I agree with it hands down!    

The guy most be moonlighting from his job at Kotaku.  This kind of trolling is something I only really expect to see from them.  Their points are overblown, or just plain wrong.  The point of seeing cover and knowing that combat is coming is an "issue" with EVERY third person shooter out there.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have cover to get behind.

" @withateethuh said:

" @handlas said:

" @turbomonkey138: why is that?  Why post a stupid screenshot and offer nothing to the conversation?  If you actually read the article....pretty much every single point he makes is completely true.  But, also, pretty much ever single point he brought up has already been said by other people on these forums.  Particularly the way the missions are structured is something I said before.  I found it rather repetitive that you go and pick up a new squad mate and then do a loyalty mission.  In the end, the main quest....the Collectors part of the story almost feels like a subplot to you meeting other characters.  But, as I said before, I enjoyed the game.  The game was fun.  I'm playing it a 2nd time.  So, in the end...that's what matters the most I suppose. "

By true you mean opinionated? "

Read the article...  I love you people that say "I'm not gonna read the article" and then comment your OPINION about it.  (which is 3 of you thus far...4 now) His first issue with ME2.  The planet scanning.  No one can argue that this isnt boring and a waste of time.  Except Gametrailers who thought "it is a fun minigame!"  Of course there will always be those whiners that have issues with popular games simply because they are popular.  But if he brings up legitimate issues, I see no reason to dismiss it like some of you.  He starts the article by showing that a developer on the game says that they never receive criticism on their games and he is giving it to them. "

" The guy most be moonlighting from his job at Kotaku.  This kind of trolling is something I only really expect to see from them.  Their points are overblown, or just plain wrong.  The point of seeing cover and knowing that combat is coming is an "issue" with EVERY third person shooter out there.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have cover to get behind. "

Lately it seems like Mass Effect 2 has turned into a drunken one night stand. Drunken with excitement, the game took me for the ride of my life. But in the next week or so I'm beginning to notice the few blemishes and problems. But even then, the game is easily one of the best games I've played lately. I do agree with how the handled the loyaltly quests. Each quest is interesting in its own way, but the process to get them is uninteresting.

" @GeneralTurkle: I don't think it is a big deal either but it is a needless thing, imo, that feels tacked on because they needed a way to make the universe feel larger and a way for the player to get the needed resources for upgrades.  At least make the scanner bigger!  I'm much happier when I'm just collecting resources from crates and such while playing missions.  some of you act like this guy is saying it is the worst game ever tho.  I simply see it as him pointing out the shortcomings when the first couple of paragraphs show that the devs feel they never get criticism.  I'm surprised he didn't bring up the dialogue system and the "choices" you make at the end of the game. "

ME2 is a game that is better than the sum of its parts. Sure, the planet scanning is a little tedious. Sure, the combat boils down to walk into an obvious corridor for combat, shoot and use a couple powers and move on. But really, who gives a shit. I actually enjoyed the Mako sections in the first game for crying out loud. These are minor quibbles. Should Bioware fix some of these with their next game? Of course! But saying that the game is terrible because it isn't perfect is batshit crazynuts. 
 
I personally felt like they streamlined some of the RPG elements a little too far, as well as having relatively formulaic "gain a person and do their backstory mission." Also, all of the inventory items are too simple and not filled out at all. But you know what? Its all fixed with: "I had reach, she had flexibility."
 
The dialogue is fucking wonderful and delivered so well that you can't help but enjoy the rest of the game because of it. Sure, its not perfect, but dear lord is it worth those trite annoyances.

While I can agree with planet scanning be boring and to me worse than the mako. Many of his points are so subjective that they're not relevant to me so what he sees as failure I don't. If he approached this article more objectively and less what would have made a great game to him and only him I could take this more seriously. As it is it's just one guy whining.

I agree with a lot of what he says, but for a guy criticizing the press about hyperbole he sure does play up the contrarian role with some of his own.  "If a PC player has to hit the ESC button to bring up a menu just so he or she can then select Party Stats or looks at quests…you have failed in fundamental interface design."  Come on.  Really?  And "Develop alien languages for at least a few major species so your game doesn’t feel so culturally and racially vacant."  That just baffles me.  First, did he just skip all the dialogue and set design?  I found Krogans, Asari, and Quarians were all rife with culture and history.  And is he seriously suggesting that Bioware should have them start speaking something else, now... at this point?  Wouldn't that be a little out of place in the universe that they've already established?

Personally, everything that most people are criticizing about the game as a "weakness" or a "stripping of depth", I found to be vast improvements.  In the end, both Mass Effect 1 and 2 were more about the characterization and the choices the player was forced to make which made them great games; the first game's gameplay was actually very... clumsy.  Everything from the inventory, to the shooting was just unpolished and it made it feel like a crawl as you tried to get to another section where you'd get to express yourself with more dialogue trees.  This game went by in a flash; 30 hours of gameplay; because the shooting and other elements of the game were just so much improved.  
 
I'm not saying this game doesn't deserve some criticism, and I can see where some people might completely hate the new changes.  I just know I personally had a much funner, more profound, and more enjoyable experience overall with this game.

I agree with some of his points.  Scanning planets was a horrible idea.  The level design telegraphed impending battles to the players.  The research and upgrade interface could have been more organized.
 
How that equates to a complete mess of a game though is beyond me.  I found his point about the "British Romans Effect" to particularly have no merit.  The Drell bubbling voices (signifying their connection to underwater organisms), the Elcor speech habits, and the slow pronunciation of the Volus (due to their breathing apparatuses) show the diversity of these creatures.
 
What makes this article a complete annoyance though is his inflammatory tone.  He indulges himself in the idea that these problems are absolute truths.  He completely disregards other reviewers as "rabid fanboys" and insults fans of this game:
 

I highly recommend you don’t read any actual reviews, because my brethren in the journalism community are rabid fanboys who unfortunately have bylines. You also won’t find much at Metacritic because they de-list any site that has review scores that are not within some arbitrary average, which defeats the entire purpose of aggregate reviews when you remove low scores.

So Ray, that leaves you and me…and few lonely stragglers shouted down in forum posts. Besides, the public has spoken with their wallets: they love Mass Effect 2. Then again, people love the Transformers movies. There is no accounting for taste, but there is bookkeeping when it comes to quality.

Wait, what?!  You mean Mass Effect 2 isn't a perfect game?  Um, yeah no kidding.  It's a great game in my opinion, but like a lot of great games there is room for improvement.  I'm not finished yet, but so far I've encountered some texture pop in again, odd facial animations, cameras that go through the heads of characters and one bug that required a save-reload.  I was on a mission to locate a data pad and I used my grenade launcher in the preceding battle on the enemy.  Well, I blew some oversized crates into an area that I don't think you are supposed to have access to granting me access.  The data pad then disappeared and I was locked in the room.  In all games I keep a rotation of 3 saves plus the auto-save, so I wasn't too put out.  If I was just using the auto-save however, it would have required a complete restart.  
 
Yeah, the mining is boring, but unlike Mass Effect 1, it's not frustrating.  I'll take the monotony of scanning for resources over the inconsistency of the MAKO anyway.  Having said that I still felt a little teary when I saw the bucket o' bolts again.  
 
Some of the dialog trees feel a bit too compartmentalized, but overall I am very surprised at how the conversation dial flows within the game.  It's much smoother than last time and I've been briskly moving through character interactions this time around because they feel so natural most of the time.  In ME1, I'd listen to each choice because some conversations seemed to grant XP.  Not having to worry about such trivialities, I take a more consistent role-play with my Shepard.  
 
I read the article and right from the start you can see that the author has a bone to pick with Bioware.  From the 2nd paragraph...

"Bioware is one of a select number of game companies that receives a +3 modifier in review scores. So take an average game that would normally receive a 7, add Bioware’s name to the box, and oila! Instant 10."

"Just because one character has a back-story mission doesn’t mean every character needs one." 

The title of this article should be renamed: I Have a Few Issues With Mass Effect 2 So I Will Use Them to Oppose The Mainstream Critical Opinion and In Turn Unjustifiably Bash A Game That Is Extremely Well Made 
 
No?  It doesn't really roll off the tongue nicely... I guess I'm not cut out for journalism...

I'm been playing through Mass Effect 1 because I've never played it and to be frank, it's more of a "complete mess" than ME2.

These POS posts need to stop about people saying ME2 doesn't deserve this, doesn't deserve that. If you actually play the game you'll know how awesome it is.

I am guilty of giving an inconsequential gaming site unnecessary hits. 
 
To call the author's critique nit-picky would be putting it lightly.  While he is entitled to his opinion, the author feels like he is grasping at straws for most of his arguments and the result makes the article reek of an ulterior agenda. 
 
His silliest argument to me was the British Romans Effect.  Without some tangible human-like traits or parallels to human culture it becomes very hard to build player sympathy for all the alien races.  So is the need to communicate properly. Since much of Mass Effect's appeal is based on relationships, how are players to feel that bond or rivalry with the various alien races if they are presented as too alien?  Instead of a cast of interesting characters & situations, you're left with a museum exhibit.  Every sci-fi property follows these storytelling contrivances in one way or another (yes even our beloved Star Trek & Star Wars); the author is just singling out Mass Effect to prove his point. 
 
In short: this article is poopy

If these are the only "major" issues that exist in ME2 then I would argue that it is infact a VERY VERY good game. Everything that is brought up in the are minor problems, and some of them come completely down to personal preference. The writer doesn't like the UI, that's fine, I personally love it. The only thing I can definitely agree with in the article is that the planet scanning is absolutely TERRIBLE. I have to force myself when I play the game to scan planets in between missions and by the time I am done scanning the first one, I am absolutely sick of it already.  It seems that the author wrote that to cause some controversy and get some hits for the site moreso than anything.

You know I should be annoyed by all the small things which distract from the overall experience but I'm not. It's because the overall story and experience is good enough that it just glosses over those small things.

Even with all the points in the article being true, Mass Effect 2 is still an incredible game. It competently holds up against other third-person shooters, and far exceeds any other game in my experience that tries to combine a third-person shooter genre with the RPG genre. This article is simply nitpicking every small little flaw in the game, and in my opinion it borders on the line of pettiness.

Mass Effect 2 is in my oppinion a great game with major flaws, here are three "things" that I consider issues... 
 
1. Combat areas are extremly obvious, you always know when there is gonna be a fight. 
  
2. Mineral mining, suprise surprise. 
 
3. Loading times! Even inside the normandy there is load times for each section of the ship, its just very annoying. I understand its because they fail at getting the textures right, but its a very annoying solution... 
 
4. No fun in manageing your powers, and the way you upgrade guns are very boring. 
  
There is a few things I didnt like when playing it. 
 
As long BioWare keeps doing stuff like Dragon Age I couldnt care less what they do with their console titles, just pray it sells well so they can fund their next real PC RPG! :)

" After reading the article, it just seems like a ton of user reviews that you would see on any site.  "This game has some minor details I don't like so it's THE WORST GAME EVAAAR!!"  More like "The Many Nitpicks of Mass Effect 2." "

Some valid points, but they way that guy writes makes me rage.
 
ME2 is one of my favorite games in a long time.
 So, fuck that guy.

I love how there's been nonstop lately, everyone basically jumping out of no where to point out how 'not perfect' and flawed this game is. No one is saying its perfect if they like it, they just like it. I really don't get it, like its a big deal.

" ME2 is a game that is better than the sum of its parts. "

I didn't read it, but by the title it's obviously a sensationalist article to grab peoples attention.

Way to be that guy to shit on a great game because it's not "perfect". I'll play the defense attorney for ME. 
 
 "Mass Effect 3 Improvement: Develop alien languages for at least a few major species so your game doesn’t feel so culturally and racially vacant."
 
-Totally valid. However, wouldn't all alien races have their own language? It would take you out of the experience more if you had to constantly read subtitles while Grunt is speaking Krogan. 
 
 "Mass Effect 3 Improvement: Make your zones of combat seamless with the overall design of the map. A player should not be able to visually determine when combat is going to happen, where it’s going to happen, and how it will play out. Avoid crates and low-walls as the only two objects within a combat zone and show me some original ideas."
 
-Game's have to have some level of "gamey". Tell me one action-game that doesn't have some sort of audio/visual que combat is happening that isn't totally busted, and /bow to you.
 
 "Mass Effect 3 Improvement: Challenge yourself to create Mass Effect 3 without a single Log Book or character recording. Show me action, show me memories, let me investigate back-stories or details on my own. Let me participate as a player, not as a passive listener. If you can’t tell your story through character action and environmental reality then you don’t have a story worth telling."
 
-Major RPGs have always had an extreme backround for the hardcore to look into. A lot of people probably don't care that Asari's are a unisex race, and for those of us seeking more of this great universe, it's there for us. What other avenue would you prefer? The original Star Wars films never really explained how/why the Jedi were conceived, and what the name of Yoda's race is, but it's out there for the nerds...like me. 
 
" Mass Effect 3 Improvement: Overhaul the interface yet again. If a PC player has to hit the ESC button to bring up a menu just so he or she can then select Party Stats or looks at quests…you have failed in fundamental interface design."
 
-I don't really have anything to say other than I don't understand this statement. Have you personally built better interfaces? Would you prefer auto-leveling? You come accross as a person you wants as little gamey-ness in their videogames as possible. While that's personal taste, that level of design merely doesn't exist in this generation. Perhaps you should gt into design and come up with UI systems to better integrate into our experiences.
 
 "Mass Effect 3 Improvements: Abandon the framing of objects and force the player to actually explore and investigate. Add tons of interactive objects so the player has options as to how they want to play."
 
I 100% agree. ME could use some more fidelity in the environments. Last I checked, you can't beat 100%
 
 "Mass Effect 3 Improvements: Go ahead and keep the hacking concept, just reign it in. Devise new ways for the player to interact with the environment that make sense within the context of the game, not as tacked-on time-wasters."
 
The game did have too much hacking. 
 
 
"Mass Effect 3 Improvements: Don’t be so process/system driven. Just because one character has a back-story mission doesn’t mean every character needs one. Better yet, back-story missions should evolve naturally as an outgrowth of player interaction and exploration, not a canned mission for every character on offer."
 
The loyalty missions were arguably the whole point of the game and offer some of the best story arcs for individual characters in a game I've played in a long time. 
 
" Mass Effect 3 Improvements: Overhaul combat yet again. Perhaps the third time will be a charm. Make the player work for victory and reward strategy. As it stands, combat in Mass Effect 2 is a weak illusion."
 
This isn't Rainbow Six, dog. However, ME 2 could've utilized some more complexity in the combat on the normal difficulty mode. 
 
I don't know if you wrote this or not. I was just pretending to write to the author either way...
Besides, what good writer uses an image from the wrong game? Way to use a Mass Effect 1 image for an article regarding the sequel, guy.