555 réponses à ce sujet

[MadInfiltrator]

I've been seeing lately a lot of criticism towards the plot of the second game. I feel like all of a sudden, people are just turning on Mass Effect 2 because they have far off, beloved memories of the first, and would bring down the second to justify that.

Now it may seem like I am dismissing the first game, I am just saying that I don't see how people can use the first plot to bring down the second, saying the first was more akin to so and so sci fi, while 2 was like this and that. 

What  I'm trying to say is that both plots are the two best I've probably ever seen in videogames, and that the evidence some people use to try and dissect either is almost completely defunct. I challenge anyone to find a serious issue with either story, as I seriously don't consider it to be a possibility.


As for the reasons some people have a panicky, "they're destroying the series", reaction to the second game's plot, I have a few reasons why I think a very vocal group is suddenly freaking out.

- The Art Style
  Mass Effect 2 features a much more grounded, "filled out", art style than the first game. Shepard's armor seems much moe complete, more robust, and a departure from the first game, which I thought was frankly not the coolest, and every set seemed too uniform. The diversity, and more colorful, fuller costume designs probably reminded people too much of common dress in our time, and less of the future. Bioware embraced contemporry influence more in the second game, and while for most was just a way to see the improved visuals, and gave them a stronger sense of understanding for the universe, a move like this could obviously push some people from recognizing it as a "pure sci fi". For me, and I think most, it did not change how I viewed the universe, it just made it more pleasant to look at. Mass Effect 1 had a lot of, actually, too much, thick white and a sort of dull blue to it.
- The Story's Angle
  For many people, the first game had the right sci fi feel where everything sort of came through the Council, Shepard's place as a Spectre defined the character, and this one sided approach gave a strong sense of uniformity to the character, and drove home the idea of the "Citadel Society" and it's paramount importance to everything. While taking this more traditional setting for sci fi, it was easy to get people into the universe. But the second game spread out the universe, and explored more of the ins and outs. With a focus on Cerberus, more than one hub world, and prominent roles for merc groups, criminals, black ops, and assassins, this different approach to the same universe leaves the possibility for "purists" to dislike the story.

I think the people who don't like the story should take these things into account, at least try to look past the art, and see it in a perspective that acknowledges both viewpoints (Council and Criminals), may very well fit in the same universe.

[Soverign 666]

I agree I also feel that people have nothing better to do on these forums so they try and think up plot holes for the sake of a disscussion not that theres anything wrong with that otherwise these forums would be dead

[MadInfiltrator]

Soverign 666 wrote...

I agree I also feel that people have nothing better to do on these forums so they try and think up plot holes for the sake of a disscussion not that theres anything wrong with that otherwise these forums would be dead

Word. I think a lot of people are upset that questions were unanswered, and they accuse these of being plot holes. Yes there are things left unsaid, but it's for a reason. It's not a plot hole.

[InvaderErl]

Keep in mind the vocal minority.

This is not to say any and all complaints are invalid but generally speaking those who feel more negative are statistically more likely to make their voices heard - look at the Dragon Age 2 uproar and only tiny tidbits have been released on that game, fans tend to be either hot/cold in their reactions.  This is really the only place on the net that I've seen any kind of real backlash against Mass Effect and Bioware in general and even then polls on this site and the such tend to lean with a larger positive reaction than negative - hence the vocal minority.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 juillet 2010 - 12:44 .

[havoc373]

the only thing that kind of pulled me out of the story in ME1 was the fact that everyone you talked to seemed to be aware of Saren's name the fact he was stripped of his spectre status and that he had allied himself with the geth. not once did i see a person ingame go: Who is Saren? i mean i would think that there are more turians named saren. how would everyone who you talked to know that you mean saren arturius the spectre. i mean i thought spectre's were a covert group. their actions are not publicised. that always really bothered me about ME!. Although i definetly liked the story that aspect just kept pulling me out of it.



in mass effect two there is atleast some acknowledgement of collectors being a myth in common circles.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

How many threads do we need to about the plot?

[MadInfiltrator]

InvaderErl wrote...

Keep in mind the vocal minority.

This is not to say any and all complaints are invalid but generally speaking those who feel more negative are statistically more likely to make their voices heard - look at the Dragon Age 2 uproar and only tiny tidbits have been released on that game.  This is really the only place on the net that I've seen any kind of real backlash against Mass Effect and Bioware in general. 

I don't really know where you're coming from, because I don't actually know anything about DA2. But what I'm trying to say is a few people are upset about the ME2 story, but I think that is incredibly similar to the first. But I won't argue for gameplay, if that's what you mean. I love it, and it is definitely not bad in any way, but I can see how it may not be what you're looking for. I totally agree that if you have problems, let it out. I'm just irked by some of the questions people are raising.

But just wondering, what is it about DA2 that people are mad about?

[InvaderErl]

From what I can understand, DA2 is going the Mass Effect route with a fixed protagonist and this is being used as a rallying cry that they're going to turn Dragon Age into Mass Effect even though there's been nothing outside of a few blurbs, a few of which indicating the gameplay is going to stay largely the same (at least on the PC).

All I'm saying is not everybody is going to like everything, and the people who don't have been proven to make their voices heard, often loudly and in some cases this makes it look like outrage may be more widespread than it is, especially when it does seem that more or less most people enjoyed said thing. Hence, the vocal minority.

ME1 had a great deal of its own complaints, many of which mirror the one's hurled at ME2 - so I think some of it is just fans being their usual selves. Some people have legitimate grievances and that's fair enough - but anything no matter how objectively good it may be is going to have somebody who utterly hates it because the appeal of media is not universal.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 juillet 2010 - 12:56 .

[MadInfiltrator]

Shandepared wrote...

I don't like the story because it does not expand upon what was set up in the first game. It doesn't do anything to change the nature of the problem faced by the protagonists. It lacks a good villain and the two twists that are used are both meaningless at best and just dumb at worst.

Knowing that the Collectors are Protheans changes nothing... beyond that though it seems like a totally unnecessary addition to the Prothean mythos.

The revelation that Reapers harvest organics to produce more Reapers again changes nothing; we still have to stop them from wiping us out.

What would have been a nice twist is learning where the Reapers came from, how many there are, and how much time we have left until they get here.

There Collectors are a nice concept, but the problem with them is a lack of foreshadowing. If they had been set-up in the first game they'd work much better as antagonists. Another problem that I already pointed out is their connection to the Protheans. It just doesn't gel very well with the Reaper plot. It would have made more sense if the Collectors were related to the Keepers, perhaps indicating that they were engineered from the same species. That would set-up a nice revelation further along where we learn who created the Reapers, when, and why. Perhaps in the process pointing out a weakness or some sort of formidable obstacle that Shepard will have to overcome in the future to end the threat.

While I understand that you may not like the Collectors, it's when people say, "Nothing happened". By your logic, in the first game, all we learn is that the Reapers kill everything, which would make it pretty awful. In the second, we learned about how they reproduce, what happened to the enslaved Protheans, etc... I think a lot of what you wanted to know is being saved for the third game. Just remember that this is a traditional trilogy format, you can't waste all the mystery before the last installment. Besides, the second game is more about Shepard than the Reapers. Part 2 is about the shifting of positions, and establishing the Reapers as a fully fleshed out, advancing threat.

[Spornicus]

People will FIND something to complain about. They'll contradict themselves and think up problems in everything.

[MadInfiltrator]

Shandepared wrote...
There Collectors are a nice concept, but the problem with them is a lack of foreshadowing. If they had been set-up in the first game they'd work much better as antagonists. Another problem that I already pointed out is their connection to the Protheans. It just doesn't gel very well with the Reaper plot. It would have made more sense if the Collectors were related to the Keepers, perhaps indicating that they were engineered from the same species. That would set-up a nice revelation further along where we learn who created the Reapers, when, and why. Perhaps in the process pointing out a weakness or some sort of formidable obstacle that Shepard will have to overcome in the future to end the threat.

I actually do feel like they could have hinted at the connections between Collector and Prothean. They did sort of punch in the face with it. If they had left a bit of a hint, it would have made me anticipate it more, keep guessing, but it doesn't bother me.

[kglaser]

I think the story was better in ME1 than in ME2. However, I'm sure this partially relates to the newness of the whole thing in 1 vs. 2, and I am also confident that BW will blow our minds with ME3. Having said all that, I love both 1 and 2. Plus, the lighting was *much* better in 2 than 1.

[InvaderErl]

MadInfiltrator wrote...
 Part 2 is about the shifting of positions,

I think this is something a lot of people do tend to overlook, ME2 does have the job of prepping things for ME3 and so people that were looking for total conclusion are going to be upset.

The game sets up the Krogan rebuilding, the Geth vs. Quarian war, Dark Energy, Harbinger, the Reaper "reproduction" cycle, the idea that the Alliance already knows about the Reapers (Kasumi) and a couple of other bits and pieces here and there that are definitely going to show in 3.

[MadInfiltrator]

kglaser wrote...

I think the story was better in ME1 than in ME2. However, I'm sure this partially relates to the newness of the whole thing in 1 vs. 2, and I am also confident that BW will blow our minds with ME3. Having said all that, I love both 1 and 2. Plus, the lighting was *much* better in 2 than 1.

I do think that the revelation of the Reapers has more kick than the Collectors. But the execution definitely was paced better in 2. Can't deny ME1's last 45 minutes though.

[kglaser]

MadInfiltrator wrote...
Can't deny ME1's last 45 minutes though.

Nor I.  Although the suicide mission in ME2 was one of the most exciting gaming sequences I've ever played.

[MadInfiltrator]

kglaser wrote...

MadInfiltrator wrote...
Can't deny ME1's last 45 minutes though.

Nor I.  Although the suicide mission in ME2 was one of the most exciting gaming sequences I've ever played.

While the first had size and that epic battle, WITH HACKETT AND A FEW OF HIS AWESOME LINES, the SM had tension that very, very, very games, or movies, can touch. It just put you on the edge of your seat and drove you right through.

[kglaser]

MadInfiltrator wrote...

kglaser wrote...

MadInfiltrator wrote...
Can't deny ME1's last 45 minutes though.

Nor I.  Although the suicide mission in ME2 was one of the most exciting gaming sequences I've ever played.

While the first had size and that epic battle, WITH HACKETT AND A FEW OF HIS AWESOME LINES, the SM had tension that very, very, very games, or movies, can touch. It just put you on the edge of your seat and drove you right through.

+1.  One of my most memorable gaming moments and one of the best reasons to replay ME2 yet again.
And, Lance Henriksen's voice = <3.

[smudboy]

MadInfiltrator wrote...

I've been seeing lately a lot of criticism towards the plot of the second game. I feel like all of a sudden, people are just turning on Mass Effect 2 because they have far off, beloved memories of the first, and would bring down the second to justify that.

No.

I cannot hate what isn't there.

[Jzadek72]

I'm usually the first to step in when you get people complaining about it, but I will admit that in overall story, ME1 wins. What these people can't seem to grasp is the fact that the style of story telling used in ME2 is different - it focuses on character's induvidual stories. So while ME1's plot was better, I still prefer ME2's story because, while different, it was not inferior, merely character driven rather than plot-driven.
And to those people who do that Sci-fi comparison thing to justify that ME1 is "superior", well have a taste of your own medicine. The science fiction novel Hyperion is widely acclaimed as one of the best sci-fis ever, and has been said by some to be better even than Asimov. And it uses the same style of story telling as... Mass Effect 2.

/rant

[InvaderErl]

kglaser wrote...

MadInfiltrator wrote...

kglaser wrote...

MadInfiltrator wrote...
Can't deny ME1's last 45 minutes though.

Nor I.  Although the suicide mission in ME2 was one of the most exciting gaming sequences I've ever played.

While the first had size and that epic battle, WITH HACKETT AND A FEW OF HIS AWESOME LINES, the SM had tension that very, very, very games, or movies, can touch. It just put you on the edge of your seat and drove you right through.

+1.  One of my most memorable gaming moments and one of the best reasons to replay ME2 yet again.
And, Lance Henriksen's voice = <3.

I played the AvP game and not even Henrickson could save it.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .

[kglaser]

Then it must have been irredeemable, indeed.