The inventory was awful. All the gameplay mechanic changes were for the better.

Why was the first game better? Well it certainly wasn't for how it played. It's the story. The story of the first game was very well written, had a deep, well crafted universe and generally was the kind of game you could see a lot of sequels and spin-offs being made without feeling the need to throw words like 'cash cow' and 'milking' at it. It's also fair to say that the ending was pretty epic and reached satisfying conclusion.

Mass Effect 2 on the other hand got the 24 treatment. It was all about turning the first game on its head. It might have aimed to take the player out of comfortable familiarity and achieve something darker, but instead it was more like a self-parody. I don't know why people expected so much from the third game when the writing took such a nosedive on the second instalment.

But the way it played was vastly improved. Nothing of value was lost in the streamlining. It was intelligent streamlining as opposed to say, Oblivion's reduced options and gamepad interface compared with Morrowind.

^This. ME1 = Better story, ME2 = Better gameplay and some excellent side stories (especially Mordin's). Playing as a Vanguard in ME2 is still one of my most memorable action game moments.

Yes, because a mainstream sci-fi console RPG is aiming to be like fucking ARMA.

I said "opinions" as a substitute for agree to disagree. I found the ME2 combat, on hard difficulty with a unique class, to be very interesting and fun. You didn't. Okay, not sure what else there is to say really. I explained why I liked it.

Both games do different things well. I prefer the first but still like the second.

No, I don't hate it. Sure there were many things that weren't great about it, and I agree with some of the points brought up against it. I preferred the first one. But I also liked ME2. In the end, I look at a game and say to myself "Did I enjoy it?" If I did, then it was a good purchase for me. When it boils down to it, I enjoyed ME2, even with its flaws.

Melee classes aren't really suppose to have a whole lot of abilities. Their auras or stun/knockdown/CC are very valueable though. It's a party based game and the first thing you should do is to turn off the tactics options or whatever it was called. Command your characters one at a time for their strengths (warrior tank/DD, rogue DD/CC, mage CC/DD/healer). I've played through the game twice, once and first as a mage and the second as a ranger rogue and I could switch tactics and still come out alive. I'm not sure if you're used to party based games but you're actually suppose to rely on them as a whole and your sentence regarding that you have to seems to me that you assumed the main character is or should've been powerful enough to handle things on his/her own. That might work on easy but not on normal or harder difficulties.

Sorry for going off topic.

I hate that kind of hard mode but didn't find Mass Effect 2 to be like that at all.

/shrug

Sorry, let me clarify.

I had my aura, ok I can dig it. I had 2 power attacks in an encounter with 5-8 mobs. Ok, I can dig it. I stand there swinging my axe or sword while my party proceeds to kill the remaining 3-5 mobs while my power slowly, ever so slowly, regenerates, and I do my base attack.

I finished Origins, I just don't care for the mechanics of melee. Does it make more sense now? I liked the game enough to finish it, which I can't say the same for its sequel. However, that doesn't mean aspects of it didn't suck compared to the measures I held it to ;)

No harm no foul, I understand the concepts you're selling, and I've played party based games before. Perhaps I chose the wrong combat style for my play style, and we can leave it at that.

Back on topic: I was so impressed with Mass Effect 2 that I haven't bought 3 and probably never will. ;)

Mass Effect, the series, is over rated. The first one is arguably the best, the 2nd one sucks, and the third one was not just a huge disappointment, but a complete failure in my opinion as far as games go nowadays.

It seems like a waste of effort to hate a game - especially to the point where you create a thread about it.

People seem to enjoy hating shit, and telling other people how much the shit they like sucks, if the internet is anything to go by.

I love ME2, it's my favourite of the trilogy.

ME1 literally oozed too much "AMERICAN B-MOVIE" vibe for my tastes, graphics and gameplay felt too consolish, the story was a bit of a clichè and most characters weren't all that interesting (I also made the mistake of playing it with italian voices, Garrus sounds like a prepubescent kid in that version - then again, the voiceover for Anderson and Kaidan was excellent, maybe even better than the original). In the end I skipped a good half of it and just went on with the main plot.
All in all it didn't really catch me, but it was an extremely high quality game, different from anything I played before, and that left me wanting for more.

My first impression of ME2 wasn't exactly positive, as many others I thought Bioware dumbed down and ruined the game, but after playing a couple of hours I realised most changes were for the better. Sure, they could have just polished the old features instead of cutting them out, but hey, overall the gameplay felt much smoother and that's what matters. Likewise, I can't say scanning planets was worse than driving the fucking Mako, so I didn't it mind to see it gone - and besides, there was the Hammerhead.
Graphics were improved this time around, with vibrant colors, more detailed environments and better special effects. The OST was simply amazing too, some of my favourite themes are from ME2.
My main gripe with the game is the main campaign, or lack of thereof. With the exception of an awesome final mission it's almost as if it wasn't there at all. I really liked the subplots though, building the crew, knowing their story, getting along with them. All in all it's getting close and personal with them that made me love the game. I think I get why ME2 was a letdown for some people, but for me it was worth playing just for the characters and music.

As for ME3... well, I've been burned by the ending too, but I can't honestly call it a bad game. I can't either consider it in line with the quality of the previous games though. Obviously it was rushed, or Bioware didn't really know what to do with it anymore, or possibly both. There are too many loose ends, glitches and weird plot twists for me to think otherwise (and besides, from having read most of the leaked script I know there's a fuckton of excellent content that was either scrapped or delayed to be relased as DLC).
It's a shame, because it had so much potential. The missions on Tuchanka and Rannoch had two of the most memorable moments of my entire gaming career, that alone makes ME3 my second favourite game in the series. But the main plot only seems to go downhill from there, and the ending may have very well killed my interest in touching the singleplayer campaign ever again.
It's still baffles me though, ME3 is only a shadow of what it could have been, and I'd really like to know why.

Oh well, at last I got my money's worth with multiplayer.

ME2 was fun, atmospheric, and the combat was a huge improvement over ME1. But in other ways it was like the beginning of the end for the series. You could see the cracks starting to show - the shoddy writing, the blatant filler, inane plot lines and a lack of mature dialog. Bioware's credo at that point must have been 'you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.'

Didn't say it had to be like Arma.
Telling someone that the idea they believe in is "just an opinion" is tantamount to shitting on their opinion. Next time just tell me that you agree to disagree and it's all good.

I think that's a serious human interaction problem you have there.