Mass Effect 2 took the franchise to a
jarringly different direction from the Trekkie sensibilities of the original.
Andromeda is suppsoed to be an olive branch to the disenfranchised, but like DA:I they may not fully reconcile either camps or commit to one direction.
(I don't know what I want myself though)
That's an interesting analogy but I generally dislike these types of analyses, they tend to ignore the evidence contrary to their own opinion, and the author speaks with an air of authority that wasn't really earned. There are few analyses that are truly comprehensive, and this is definitely not one of them.
It uses LOTR, the ring/power and Sauron as an example of a consistent, running theme throughout the trilogy, and then says that ME2 fails to do so, while pointing out some (only partially factual) examples.
This ignores the themes that do cross over; the Reapers/Mass Relay technology/synthetic omniscience being one, the Reapers pawns (first Geth, then Collectors, then full on Reaper armies) beinga nother. That's a much more comparable example to the LOTR example, since these are the primary themes and factions of each franchise, rather than the secondary themes used in the comparison. I can also play this game:
Ilos was a suicide mission, where the crew had to spend time preparing for it both physically and mentally. ME2 dialled that up to 11. ME3 reduced the importance of the final mission throughout the plot but dialled the stakes to 11.
A lot of ME1 focused on the Attican Traverse, with the Terminus systems in mind. ME2 expanded that to focus primarily on the Terminus systems. That's also developed in ME3 where inner and outer council space is the primary focus. That's another consistency, while still allowing the sequels to be different.
All the negativity about ME2 ignores the fact that like Halo 2, it greatly expanded the size of the universe, showed new perspectives from previously defeated foes, and while ME2 did not have much of a central plot, it was absolutely still based upon exploration.
ME1 had Shepard going into areas nobody has ever reached in thousands of years, same as Mass Effect 2. While there was more planetary exploration in Mass Effect 1 and a certain atmosphere, Mass Effect 2 had hub worlds; that neither the player nor the protagonist had been to, and that in itself is a form of discovery and exploration, in an indirect way. Tuchanka felt different from Omega, which was also quite different from Illium.
It's not quite the same magic of the first game, but a lot of that is to do with the fact that Mass Effect's writing, art direction and level design was a more childlike, naive way of looking at the universe, and I mean that as a compliment in the highest regard. Mass Effect 2 is the more gritty, multiple perspectives adolescent view of a very complicated galaxy. Mass Effect 3 for the most part pulled off an increasingly depressing adult view of being on the side of a losing war. None of this in any of the games was perfect, but to claim that the future games as bad because they don't match the first is a tired argument, I've seen it a million times more with Halo and at times it feels overly contrarian. It's also not the opinion of the majority of players either, if anyone cares.
