While I really enjoy ME2 and think it does deserve the GotY awards it got I agree with this sentiment that there is nothing that really defines the game as an RPG to me.  An RPG should have base stats (more than the action game staple of "health, special meter, damage") and the ability to increase those base stats through gaining experience.  

ME2 lets you gain experience but this doesn't increase any base stats as far as I could tell beyond damage and health.  Mostly experience is used to increase the effectiveness of abilities which is the same as gaining red orbs in God of War.

And I don't agree that a dialogue system is a defining aspect of an RPG because those have been in Adventure games forever and noone thinks of those as RPGs.  

So in summation: ME2 is fantastic and I am not trying to undermine that in any way, but I don't think it's an RPG.

This is a difficult question for Mass Effect 2, because it calls into question what constitutes the term "RPG" in this context.

It needs to be noted that leveling, in itself, doesn't actually increase your stats at all. If you were to do nothing but level without spending your levels or researching abd buying upgrades, you would end the game at level 30 with the exact same set of stats and abilities that you started with. The only ways to increase your health, shields, and damage are through your class specialization and through buying upgrades that affect those stats directly. Now you can use your skill specializations to affect stats in different ways (like damage increase and CC with Inferno Ammo) but I don't think that's quite what we're talking about.

That said, an alternative leveling system does not disclude a game from being an RPG; Skyrim's levels will only directly affect your health, magicka, and faitgue, while all your other stats (and even those three, to a smaller extent) will be determined by your skill point allocation. Granted it doesn't use Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system or the d20 stat distributions, but ME2 does still have limited stat control and tech/skill progression. In that respect it's not much of an RPG but it still qualifies, I should think.

As to the dialogue system: no, it's not really an all-inclusive part of the RPG schema, and not every game with a dialogue system is going to be an RPG, but it still represents a part of what makes RPGs what they are in that you're able to define Shepard through them, even if it's not in a particularly meaningful way. Character interaction is one half of the roleplaying equation that gave birth to video game RPGs, and it shouldn't be discounted as a contributing genre factor.

That said

ME2? Most overrated? Hogwash and poppycock! That game is super duper. Super. Duper.

Crysis 2 (for 2011)

every reviewer seemed to gloss over its multitude glitches and bugs. (i have mentioned these in great depth before, i dont want to do it agian here)

and it had a lot. i cant understand how ign said its the best shooter so far.

every reviewer glanced over the average multiplayer.

also bulletstorm: 5 hour campaign, though new type of combat, it gets broring and repetitive, also multiplayer is nothing, again that gets completely over looked, and then it get the same score as Killzone 3.

Underrated: Killzone 3. perfect gameplay. 9 hour campaign. perfect multiplayer. no bugs or glitches. but of course this game gets nitpicked and scrutinized for the smallest little things, especially in areas the above games got a pass on

While I don't totally agree with your opinion on Bulletstorm, I totally agree on Killzone and crysis. It's so sad to see many reviewers passing over important performance issues becuase it looks pretty. Sure, some games get a pass, but glitches are not one of those forgiveable things.  

I don't mean to sound like a fanboy (I promise!), but I notice Sony games tend to be the most harshly criticised, and I can't figure out why.  Hell, Portal 2 is better on PS3 than it is on 360 yet it got lower Metacritic and Gamerankings scores.  I just don't get that. Killzone is every bit as epic and refined as Call of Duty and even better than Gears of War, but look how that turned out.  Gears and CoD both sold better and got better reviews, and I cannot figure out why.  

Of course this isn't a console debate :P

Killzone 2-3.

Two of the worst FPS campaigns ive played all year. It only satisfies the casual masses.

God of War 3. I tried to like the game but I guess I am not really into button mashing shit.