Hear hear, AC is a classic... the benchmark for all games of this ilk.

Because Mass Effect 2 is the best TURN BASED STRATEGY GAME ever. Really.

BEST. SF. CADENCE. EVER.

"A suspicious mind is a healthy mind."

That video was bad.....and the embarrassing humour made it even worse.....and you WANT something like that in games??

Loved AC.

Seconded. A game from which every strategy game developer can and should learn

Lol i dont know what you think is wrong with the cutscene in AC, it certainly had the best ones i have ever seen in a game. Not that the artwork was that great, but i simply loved the humorous to philosophical comments in them and everything fitted so well together.

gameplay

AC's gameplay has not been duplicated to this day. The noticeable exception being civ 2. The more recent iterations of the civ series have taken a step backwards in some respects. Anyways, since EWOM is not a duplicate of AC it won't do us any good to talk about the specific features of the game, rather one should focus on what the effect those features has on AC. 

factions

What did AC do so right about it's factions? The factions were completely static. That is to say, the benefits and drawbacks of each faction was completely immutable. You picked your faction and that was what you were stuck with.

This worked well with AC because it was done so well. Each faction played differently. There were builders, rushers, hybrids, momentum, peace-loving, war-loving, opportunistic etc. Playing Morgan faction and playing Lord's believers was basically like playing two different games. In fact, you don't learn how to play AC as much as you learn how to play a faction in AC. This is good. This fundamental level of difference gives life to the game. Sometimes I don't feel like playing Yang's AC so I play Morgan's AC. This level of difference is what keeps people playing. The most appropriate example for this is DOTA and HON. You have styles, carry, support, push and beneath that you have heroes - a sandwraith plays entirely differently than a swiftblade, despite both of them sharing the same archtype. This sort of layering is what made AC factions so great.

A brief intermission from AC gushing:

The absolutely best system in a game like this has to be fall from heaven a civ4 mod. You have your preset factions but you have leaders that you can change it slightly. I don't think FoH implemented this nearly as well as it should have been but the concept allows for that layering balanced approach of preset factions with a bit of customization on the part of the player.

Unit design

I saw a thread awhile back about how the unit designer should function. Copy AC, seriously.

The amazing thing about unit design is that it allows the player to tailor units to overcome a specific challenge in that game. For example, you are Morgan, happy to make your energy and live peacefully until you discover your neighbor happens to be a bloodlusted eco-feminist named Gaia. You change your gameplay and pick different techs but most importantly, you change your units. You replace all your stock units with ones most resistant to Gaia's strategy. 

A system like this allows the player to come up with creative solutions to problems.

Probe teams

This is an absolutely crucial unit that should be carried over. The probe team allows the player to come up with truly creative solutions that most game designers think is impossible. This singular unit allows you to shift how you play the game. Take Morgan for example, you can choose to play a more conservative way with conventional units or you can choose to sacrifice your entire military and play only with probe teams as a sort of bribe everyone free market army.

What is the probe team though? The probe team is a unit with a set of scripted abilities. I'm sure everyone is familiar so I won't list the skill set but you should reflect upon the different roles the probe team can play. Without a doubt, EWOM is a game made for probe teams.

Naming convention

I talked about this briefly in my first post (I think) but what makes the AC naming convention so great is the utility and ease.

You have a default name for your customized unit that follows a formula. The unit's actual properties determine the flavor name. So for example, picking  X weapon for your unit might result in the prefix "Shock" while picking Y armor would result in "Probability" as the base and  abilities  A and B "AAA garrison" the suffix. So in the end your unit name would be something like Shock probability AAA garrison. -I don't think that is a possible combo-

The main point here is that while the player can customize the name if they want. A system is in place that adds life to the game world and has a gameplay purpose.  

depth

With balanced factions comes depth. You can employ actual different strategies to win. A big problem is that game developers mistake the choice between right clicking someones city with axemen or swordsmen as some sort of depth. Players tacitly see through this.

The hard part here is balance. Without balance there is no depth. Everyone on multiplayer will tend towards the strategy they can win with. Even if they personally dislike the type of game that makes them play.

So how do you let builders build and rushers rush in the same game? Hard work. Balance is a numbers game that requires testing and refinement. 

I loved AC and AC:AC was one of the best games I have ever played, and I like the points you are trying to make about the importance of faction uniqueness, yet however when you compare Mass Effect 2 and AC I just feel like we are talking about apples and oranges here.

Mass Effect is an enjoyable game to a great deal of people, just the same as how AC is an enjoyable game to a lot of people. They each have something that people are looking for in their games and I think you end up  losing a lot of the point you were trying to make when you are having to go so far out of your way to compare things so different.

Lets try and keep things in perspective, Mass Effect 2 is a FPS/RPG hybrid and AC is a TBS. That alone should clue people into the fact that they are going for different objectives here. The purpose of the two different cut scenes are vastly different, the AC cut scene isn't trying to progress the plot, convey any character development, or reward you for winning a boss battle. Similarly, the ME2 cut scene isn't trying to break up an otherwise constant environment, it isn't there to reward you for many turns spent not making formers, and it certainly isn't meant to be funny in a cheeky way. ( You should have picked Cloning Vats to make example if anything) I know you have claimed your post isn't about the cut scenes, then you claimed they were just lumped in to look cool, then you went behind your back and told us they actually advance the narrative in some way. It really can't be both. However the argument you make, while it might be a valid point is a weak argument because it hangs upon comparing these two things that serve such a different purpose that it is really almost misleading.

So please please lets not compare apples and oranges.

You completely missed the point of what he was saying and don't seem to handle constructive criticism and so revert to insulting him.

Comparing ME2 cutscenes to AC cutscenes is idiotic and hurts your point.  If you didn't include that then the post would be much more coherent and useful. 

I greatly enjoyed ME2's cutscenes and thought they were very well done.  I also greatly enjoyed AC's cutscenes and thought they were also very well done.  They have completely different goals and motivations so comparing them is useless.  Comparing cutscenes from Civ4 potentially could have been useful since they have similiar motivations and goals of the cutscenes.

When it comes down to it, I'd take ME2 over AC if I  had to choose between one.  There's been lots of other great turn based strategy games, but ME2 has been the most enjoyable game of its genre for me....  so trying to show that it is poorly made/designed/cheesy/etc just seems silly and shows that you enjoy TBS but not roleplaying shooters and don't understand them/like them and are just trying to bash them.

Frankly, the comparison of ME2 to  AC is less painful than your responses and insults to people who point out that they shouldn't be compared and act like you're the only one who knows what they are talking about and everyone else should be quiet and not "publicize your opinions on what you fail to comprehend."

At a certain point, basic communication comes before your sense of internet outrage.

You hold this idea that ME2 cannot be compared to any game. You haven't explained why any of the points I made are wrong.

ME2 has the goal of advancing it's narrative, especially the cut-scene I link where everything is 'wrapped up' You might not recognize this because the scene is so weighed down by platitudes on top of platitudes.

AC uses its cut-scenes in a smarter way to advance its narrative. 

RPGs and Action are both my favorite genres. Deus Ex happens to be my favorite PC game.

This shouldn't have to be said but I think you need this spelled out: A critical view on something you think is the cat's meow should not be taken as a personal insult. You don't need to get defensive and start accusing me of being too dumb to understand your tastes. I also thought transformers was a terrible movie, I also think I "get it"  

I never once compared ME2 to AC. I only pointed out a very specific instance of how narrative is advanced. You only think I compared them because you are so infatuated with this perceived attack on 'your game' that your ability to properly read shuts down. 

One of the most wonderful things about Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri (SMAC) was how the factions interacted.  The static nature of the seven factions, seen primarily in their social engineering agendas, meant you would nearly always be at war with two factions, aligned with two other factions, with the final two being up in the air.  This was a fantastic way to color the game and bring the player into the game world; from turn one the player knew who were his enemies and who would likely be his allies.

Another excellent element was the attention to detail.  For example, squares east of a tall mountain had more rainfall than those on the west side of the summit. Bang, right there, without being told, you knew which direction the jet stream of Chiron blew, and it was consistent throughout the world.

Chiron itself (aka Planet) was incredible.  Over the course of the game, it went from a weird, alien environment to a character in and of itself.  Chiron was like the Gaia hypothesis on crack, and we loved it for that.  How could forget the first time you built Voice of the Planet and the mind worms went freaking crazy, tearing through previously placid areas with a vengeance?

Which brings me to my final point, the narrative.  Unlike most 4X games, SMAC had a clear story and narrative that was expanded upon through the game.  Through the secret project cutscences, the little quotes from getting a tech or constructing a building, and from the weird “Conversations with Planet” interludes, you learned how the Unity crew lived on Chiron.  These were told mainly through anecdotes that made the player imagine the context, and they never talked down to the player with endless exposition.  What’s more, there was an ending to the narrative, Transcendence, but you didn’t have to end that way.  Consequently the player received the benefit of a good story, but also was able to freely choose the destiny for his little electronic avatars.  That was fantastic.

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled.
But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any
particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in
a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events
of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose
meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

-- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

Construction voice-over for the Bioenhancement Center in SMAC

Honestly, if we really want to get into Mass Effect, I felt it had some really very well done scenes. The main dialog scenes show an incredible level of polish with very human motions. You'll be watching someone talk about something meaningless, and then his hands move in just the right way, it's uncanny. It's not just technical superiority, but the care and attention to detail that could come with any reasonable level of video quality that struck me the most.

AC videos I could take or leave, though they're a lot better than the Civ IV ones. But I guess I'm just not responding the way the OP is to them. Brain aneuryism? Rather uncalled for.