555 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

I'm not arguing that it's the second game BioWare has produced under the Mass Effect brand.  I am arguing that the plot does not connect from the previous installment, because the end result of ME2 puts the scene and conditions in almost exactly the same circumstances at the end of the first, without developing any plot elements from the first. 

So how does Star Wars Episode V differ in its role as a sequel based on the criteria you have just listed?

[Kijin]

smudboy wrote...

Kijin wrote...
Why do I think the plot in ME1 is bad? I believe I've already indirectly answered this. It brought nothing new to the table. It was simply a cliched space opera. Mass Effect 1 had a similar plot to LoTR, except set in space. If you are looking for some kind of empirical evidence, I'm afraid it's just an opinion. Similarly, this semantical nonsense about Mass Effect 2 not being a true sequel is also just an opinion. It has the same name, it has the same characters, those characters fight against the same enemy - ergo, it's a sequel.

So you didn't like the plot of ME1 because it's been done before?  Every story that has been told, has already done so.  What, are you expecting some new genre, a new stereotype, new everything?

I don't recall ever seeing any story that is 50% original.  Or even 5% original.  Are you not liking something because it didn't blow your imagination away of storytelling stereotypes and themes?

Might I ask what story does?

You wanted to know how it was a continuation. I gave it to you. I could have given you a more detailed explanation, but the sparse details I gave you are proof that it is a continuation. If Mass Effect had starred a different main character, and if that main character had been fighting against a completely different opponent, then it would not have been a sequel. But it's the same man (or a clone, depending on your view) fighting against the Reapers. 

So your argument is because it has the same protagonist, ergo, sequel?  Additionally if we had a different opposing force/main enemy, then it wouldn't be a sequel?

Yes, I do realize my plot synopsis is painfully short. Yes, the plot is more complicated than I have given it credit for in my posts in this thread, but I've played both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 repeatedly, and I have never felt that the story in either game were all that great. If I was inclined, I could write a long, detailed list of my misgivings about the plot in both games, but I don't need to do so, if I'm merely attempting to demonstrate the obvious reality - ME 2 is a sequel. Maybe it does a poor job of continuing the story from the original game, but it still makes the attempt - thus it's a sequel. 

I'm not arguing that it's the second game BioWare has produced under the Mass Effect brand.  I am arguing that the plot does not connect from the previous installment, because the end result of ME2 puts the scene and conditions in almost exactly the same circumstances at the end of the first, without developing any plot elements from the first.  In fact it throws them out the window by rebooting the series in the first 10 minutes.  This is the first of many errors that turn ME2's plot to kill itself, let alone creating a frame story about multiple side characters that commit 0 to both plots.

Your argument is because both plots are bad, ME2's more so, so it doesn't make any damn difference because they're both crap, so who cares?  Well then, thanks for your opinion.  Please stop replying, I'm not going to learn anything from you, and I'm now no longer interested in explaining things.

Ah, there's nothing like the sight of good ol' internet rage. 

My problem with Mass Effect 1 lies in the fact that the Reapers are given no reason for their actions, aside from their desire to destroy all organic life. They have no motivation, no desire, and aside from Saren the player has no interaction with them. In Mass Effect 1, I was far more interested in why Saren would want to fight alongside the Reapers, than the Reapers themselves. The Reapers were a nameless, faceless evil that in Mass Effect 1 never seemed to threaten the player. They spent the entire game fighting the player by proxy, through Saren and the Geth. The Geth also were not a compelling enemy. In ME 1, they were simply robots who were being controlled by Saren. Saren was the only antagonist in Mass Effect 1 that was threatening. He was also the only antagonist who wac actually compelling. Saren as a character was done well. The Motivations of Shepard and his allies were also done well, as were the reactions of the different alien races, all of which cared to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe this is a personal flaw, but I simply cannot care about the Reapers when they are a faceless threat. I am given no reason to care about them, and every reason to care about Saren.

This trend continues in Mass Effect 2. For the most part, the Reapers stay out of the plot. Mass Effect 2 does shake things up by introducing Harbinger, but he is never explored as a character. He is also never really given a personality. Mass Effect 2 had the same flaws that Mass Effect 1 had; the motivations of the Reapers were never fully explored, and they were never made compelling. As much as I did not appreciate the plot of Mass Effect 1, I do actually prefer its story over Mass Effect 2 simply because the sequel had no compelling or threatening antagonist. Although most of the enemies in ME 1 were uncompelling, the original game at least had Saren. ME 2 had no such villain. They were all faceless grunts. I was given no reason to care, and so I don't. Not only that, the fact that Shepard was brought back to life in the beginning of ME 2 means that the game lacks dramatic tension - even if I screw up the final mission, Cerberus could easily just rebuild Shepard all over again.

Yes, I do think it's a problem that the player spends most of the game in ME 2 either recruiting or helping the side characters, but these characters will return at a later date, in ME 3 or possibly ME 4-6 (which I do think they'll make - 4-6 probably will just feature a different enemy, with a different protagonist). 

You claim that ME 2 did not develop the plot of ME 1. I agree. The problem is, ME 1 did not even develop the plot of ME 1. My personal gripes about the story of both games aside, I do think that both games are great. The core gameplay is good enough that I can forgive the story. 

In terms of ME 2 connecting from the previous story, my argument isn't that 'both games are crap, so it doesn't matter'. You are arguing that Mass Effect 2 did a poor job of developing the plot (or rather, that it failed to do so at all). I am arguing that the same can be said of Mass Effect 1. It seems to me that the presentation of the story in the ME series is far more important than the actual story itself.

[pprrff]

ME2 can be called ME1's sequel simply because they are both Shepard's stories. He is like d'Artagnan, and his adventures can be enjoyed as stand alone installments, but are connected by various threads. Not every serial story must be a Star Wars or LOTR, Sherlock Holmes doesn't fight the same villains every time.

And it's bit of a strech to say Collectors are something out of no where. Their ultimate purpose is still a mystery. For all we know they are not done yet, and will come back with a proper explaination of why we had to chase them around galaxy. Writing them off as some contrived enemy just for ME2 to have a story is premature.

Sorry i changed the post a bit, I posted When I wasn't done writing.

Modifié par pprrff, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:16 .

[wulf3n]

pprrff wrote...

With the save import and everything implemented, this game is as good as it can get in terms continuing from the first one.

I found it kind of gimmicky to be honest. None of my decisions really mattered. though i understand why, and believe that they will change that by ME3.

pprrff wrote...
ME2 can be called ME1's sequel simply because they are both Shepard's stories. He is like d'Artagnan, and his adventures can be enjoyed as stand alone installments, but are connected by various threads. Not every serial story must be a Star Wars or LOTR, Sherlock Holmes doesn't fight the same villains every time.

True but i think Mass Effect was designed to be a single grand story encompassing 3 games. So  because the Overall story didn't really evolve in ME2, it really doesn't matter if you played it or not, as you don't know much more than you did at the end of ME1

[Xeranx]

 I'm not a writer, I'd like to be one, but for right now I'm not a writer.  

I think the story would have been better if Bioware didn't just kill off possible story extenders.  When speaking to Vigil in ME he says that the protheans left behind weren't enough to support viable population.  I thought that was such an unfortunate move by Bioware.  The obvious need for survival would come in as well as the obvious mechanism which I don't think Bioware wanted to touch on.  My first time during that Vigil sequence I had the idea that the Protheans would do all that's necessary to ensure their survival.  A kind of giving the Reapers the bird if you will.  It would have said a great many things about the Protheans beyond the beacon they had established on other worlds.  It also could have brought about the idea of genetic engineering and modification that seems to exists now.

Now take all that and bring it to ME2.  Liara as the new shadow broker could have been trying to get a lead on any prothean still left alive.  The events with Shepard's body could have still happened and she could have been cryptic as she was, but she would have made a statement about getting back to you later.  It also could have tied in the guy she was working with in the comics.  Liara could have spoken to Ashley/Kaiden and given them some sort of heads up and because of everything Liara's working on it could have cleared up a lot of confusion which leads to:  the use of the word faithful and not cheating in regards to ME LIs.  I mean, call you a traitor and then wish you luck at the same time?  What gives?

With regards to Cerberus I would have had TIM do as he has been doing and have everything with the council and such go as it did.  So events play out as they have and when you get to the collector base you see the pods and such ( I can't see how I could avoid all the mercenary fights that occur so I won't touch that).  And when people start being liquified you are convinced that the collectors are evil incarnate up until the fight with the human reaper and you ready a charge.  The Illusive man gets to talk to you and when you cut him off he appears again this time speaking in a different voice (I know it's contirved).  

You learn that the protheans still exist though they're small in number.  The drones you fought are just that, drones.  No life.  Just merely constructs to do what they're programmed to do and pull you in so the head prothean can talk to you about their plan without TIM being in on it.  They were trying to collect as many people as possible should the reapers succeed and wipe out all life.  That they learned from their past mistakes with the stasis pods and have better means of insuring the survival of everyone they pick up and that they weren't just collecting humans, but all races.  All this is done in an attempt to properly ensure the survival of every species when the next 50k year mark rolls around and the Reapers find themselves face to face with people they had supposedly wiped out who happen to be much stronger in terms of weaponry and more intelligent than their ancestors were 50k years ago.  As to the disintegration of the humans in the pods, they were Cerberus loyalists who wouldn't get with the program and tried to sabotage the prothean's plans.

I know there's very little coherency here, and some might find it painful to read, but I typed this out as I thought it up and I think it would have made ME2 better in that it would later be a good comparison (as I can see it now) to ESB.

[Iakus]

Kijin wrote...


My problem with Mass Effect 1 lies in the fact that the Reapers are given no reason for their actions, aside from their desire to destroy all organic life. They have no motivation, no desire, and aside from Saren the player has no interaction with them. In Mass Effect 1, I was far more interested in why Saren would want to fight alongside the Reapers, than the Reapers themselves. The Reapers were a nameless, faceless evil that in Mass Effect 1 never seemed to threaten the player. They spent the entire game fighting the player by proxy, through Saren and the Geth. The Geth also were not a compelling enemy. In ME 1, they were simply robots who were being controlled by Saren. Saren was the only antagonist in Mass Effect 1 that was threatening. He was also the only antagonist who wac actually compelling. Saren as a character was done well. The Motivations of Shepard and his allies were also done well, as were the reactions of the different alien races, all of which cared to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe this is a personal flaw, but I simply cannot care about the Reapers when they are a faceless threat. I am given no reason to care about them, and every reason to care about Saren.

This trend continues in Mass Effect 2. For the most part, the Reapers stay out of the plot. Mass Effect 2 does shake things up by introducing Harbinger, but he is never explored as a character. He is also never really given a personality. Mass Effect 2 had the same flaws that Mass Effect 1 had; the motivations of the Reapers were never fully explored, and they were never made compelling. As much as I did not appreciate the plot of Mass Effect 1, I do actually prefer its story over Mass Effect 2 simply because the sequel had no compelling or threatening antagonist. Although most of the enemies in ME 1 were uncompelling, the original game at least had Saren. ME 2 had no such villain. They were all faceless grunts. I was given no reason to care, and so I don't. Not only that, the fact that Shepard was brought back to life in the beginning of ME 2 means that the game lacks dramatic tension - even if I screw up the final mission, Cerberus could easily just rebuild Shepard all over again.

This is why I expected ME 1 to be "Discover the enemy"  ME 2 to be "Learn about the enemy" and ME 3 to be "Fight the enemy.  I think ME 1 did the first part failry well.  The geth are just proxies, Saren teh face, the "real" villain is te mysterious Reapers.  Where do they come from? Why do they want to destroy all organic life?  What are they exactly and how can we stop them?  First stop them from harvesting the galaxy!  With Shep's final speech at the end of ME1 I expected us to learn a lot more in ME 2.  Instead we get Collectors   And almost no anwers to the Reaper questions.

If the series as a whole is going to make any sense, they'll need to shoehorn in a lot of material into ME 3.  Or have a lot of expository dialogues with EDI

[FlyinElk212]

Xeranx wrote...

I know there's very little coherency here, and some might find it painful to read, but I typed this out as I thought it up and I think it would have made ME2 better in that it would later be a good comparison (as I can see it now) to ESB.

Don't worry, I read your whole post, I just wanted to quote the last bit as to not hurt reader's eyes. I dig the angle you went for, kind of painting the Collectors as a sort of "Noah's Arc" esque storyline with collecting a few people to ensure survival against the Reapers. It would have made the Protheans so much more interesting, and would actually give meaning to ME2's "plot twist" in the Collectors being Protheans (which, as it stands now, is less of a twist and more of an, "Oh. Well that's unfortunate.").

The one thing I see that makes that idea problematic is Cerberus/TIM's angle. Okay, so the "collectors" that are liquifying humans are a rebellious section of Cerberus...to what end? Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they are a cult group simply bent on universal domination, and happened to stumble across a Reaper-making machine, realizing that the power would come from human liquification? And perhaps TIM knew about this all along, but wanted to stop this rebel group simply so Shepard could give him that control instead against the Reapers (that would explain why he "knows so much", and didn't want to tell Shepard the outright truth).

However, if that were the case, ME2 would divulge slightly from the "stop the reapers" storyline, which is why i understand Bioware's insistance on making the Reapers the ultimate badguys. If this were the case, ME2's story could be removed altogether, and would seem nothing more than a glorified DLC/expansion pack. It's a solid idea, but it needs a little more development.

Anyways, semi-back on topic, while i do agree that Bioware misses the boat on a lot of opportunities (including the Prothean race), a lot of what happens in ME2 exemplifies this. The supposed "plot twists" in the story seem like nothing more than filler, nothing that really changes the entire plot, or motives of our heroes or enemies. In short, ME2's plot seems like it could've been told a lot more quickly and concisely--which is why I would have preferred they done something with the plot similar to what you've suggested.

[Onyx Jaguar]

They answered what they used Organics for

[FlyinElk212]

iakus wrote...

This is why I expected ME 1 to be "Discover the enemy"  ME 2 to be "Learn about the enemy" and ME 3 to be "Fight the enemy.  I think ME 1 did the first part failry well.  The geth are just proxies, Saren teh face, the "real" villain is te mysterious Reapers.  Where do they come from? Why do they want to destroy all organic life?  What are they exactly and how can we stop them?  First stop them from harvesting the galaxy!  With Shep's final speech at the end of ME1 I expected us to learn a lot more in ME 2.  Instead we get Collectors   And almost no anwers to the Reaper questions.

If the series as a whole is going to make any sense, they'll need to shoehorn in a lot of material into ME 3.  Or have a lot of expository dialogues with EDI

You would THINK that this sentiment would be painfully obvious to Bioware, yet they insist on not following this format. I'm with you, my friend--I'm extremely curious/worried as to what Bioware's gonna do for game 3. How they're gonna fit in learning the motivations of our enemies, and our means to stop said enemy, with all the little backstories of our squadmates and the aliens race conflicts within the galaxy, is beyond me.

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

This is why I expected ME 1 to be "Discover the enemy"  ME 2 to be "Learn about the enemy" and ME 3 to be "Fight the enemy.  I think ME 1 did the first part failry well.  The geth are just proxies, Saren teh face, the "real" villain is te mysterious Reapers.  Where do they come from? Why do they want to destroy all organic life?  What are they exactly and how can we stop them?  First stop them from harvesting the galaxy!  With Shep's final speech at the end of ME1 I expected us to learn a lot more in ME 2.  Instead we get Collectors   And almost no anwers to the Reaper questions.

If the series as a whole is going to make any sense, they'll need to shoehorn in a lot of material into ME 3.  Or have a lot of expository dialogues with EDI

Well, we learned that the Reapers are filled with thousands of programs (the personalities of the ascended organics maybe) and that they are a hybrid of machine and organic life. 

We know that they encourage organic life to grow and evolve until the point where they are numerous and advanced enough to be harvested to create new Reapers.

We know that the Protheans were never harvested (either being too few or resisted too much and too many were killed) to create new Reapers and that they, like the caretakers on the station, were genetically modified to be a slave race.

We've learned that their return in Part 3 will have something to do with dark energy.

I think part 2 was very much like TTT in LoTR. Lots of new characters, some character development, a secondary villian defeated (Sauraman was a stooge). I agree that the pacing was off but the overreaction and neurotic nitpicking of a few people on this forum is a little nuts. 

[Kijin]

iakus wrote...

Kijin wrote...


My problem with Mass Effect 1 lies in the fact that the Reapers are given no reason for their actions, aside from their desire to destroy all organic life. They have no motivation, no desire, and aside from Saren the player has no interaction with them. In Mass Effect 1, I was far more interested in why Saren would want to fight alongside the Reapers, than the Reapers themselves. The Reapers were a nameless, faceless evil that in Mass Effect 1 never seemed to threaten the player. They spent the entire game fighting the player by proxy, through Saren and the Geth. The Geth also were not a compelling enemy. In ME 1, they were simply robots who were being controlled by Saren. Saren was the only antagonist in Mass Effect 1 that was threatening. He was also the only antagonist who wac actually compelling. Saren as a character was done well. The Motivations of Shepard and his allies were also done well, as were the reactions of the different alien races, all of which cared to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe this is a personal flaw, but I simply cannot care about the Reapers when they are a faceless threat. I am given no reason to care about them, and every reason to care about Saren.

This trend continues in Mass Effect 2. For the most part, the Reapers stay out of the plot. Mass Effect 2 does shake things up by introducing Harbinger, but he is never explored as a character. He is also never really given a personality. Mass Effect 2 had the same flaws that Mass Effect 1 had; the motivations of the Reapers were never fully explored, and they were never made compelling. As much as I did not appreciate the plot of Mass Effect 1, I do actually prefer its story over Mass Effect 2 simply because the sequel had no compelling or threatening antagonist. Although most of the enemies in ME 1 were uncompelling, the original game at least had Saren. ME 2 had no such villain. They were all faceless grunts. I was given no reason to care, and so I don't. Not only that, the fact that Shepard was brought back to life in the beginning of ME 2 means that the game lacks dramatic tension - even if I screw up the final mission, Cerberus could easily just rebuild Shepard all over again.

This is why I expected ME 1 to be "Discover the enemy"  ME 2 to be "Learn about the enemy" and ME 3 to be "Fight the enemy.  I think ME 1 did the first part failry well.  The geth are just proxies, Saren teh face, the "real" villain is te mysterious Reapers.  Where do they come from? Why do they want to destroy all organic life?  What are they exactly and how can we stop them?  First stop them from harvesting the galaxy!  With Shep's final speech at the end of ME1 I expected us to learn a lot more in ME 2.  Instead we get Collectors   And almost no anwers to the Reaper questions.

If the series as a whole is going to make any sense, they'll need to shoehorn in a lot of material into ME 3.  Or have a lot of expository dialogues with EDI

There is actually a third possibility; that being the Mass Effect series continues beyond ME 3, and the Reapers return as the perennial threat. Considering how profitable ME 1 and 2 were, it is unlikely that they would want to stop at ME 3. The lore is deep enough that they could easily extend the series with little problems (this is assuming that ME 4 begins with a new protagonist).  

Something I forgot to mention in the post you quoted is the fact that - while yes we got the Collectors, their particular motivations were never explored in great detail either. We know just as much about the Collectors as we do about the Reapers - almost nothing. 

[Onyx Jaguar]

That is the major failing of ME as a trilogy as it tries to emulate the LOTR (or even Star Wars) plot strand which is only one unifying story. It worked for LOTR because it was one story hacked into three pieces. ME should be a trilogy of three connected but largely independent stories. The first one succeeded in this, the second one however hangs in the balance between the first and the third if it ever gets released.

[Reptilian Rob]

[Onyx Jaguar]

no

[Reptilian Rob]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

no

[theelementslayer]

Il Divo wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

Hey smudboy, you ever going to reply to my post or have you given up and declared that my last post was too hard for you to rebuke?

Don't be too proud of yourself. Someone dropping out of an argument because they don't see any point does not somehow mean you've 'won'. It's a pyrrhic victory at best. Hell, I'm on your side and find myself unable to comprehend most of your comments.

Nah Im just trying to ****** him off. At the beginning I had an actual argument but near the end I was just bulls**ting to see what he would do. And it was entertaining. You know goad him a bit

[Xeranx]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I know there's very little coherency here, and some might find it painful to read, but I typed this out as I thought it up and I think it would have made ME2 better in that it would later be a good comparison (as I can see it now) to ESB.

The one thing I see that makes that idea problematic is Cerberus/TIM's angle. Okay, so the "collectors" that are liquifying humans are a rebellious section of Cerberus...to what end? Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they are a cult group simply bent on universal domination, and happened to stumble across a Reaper-making machine, realizing that the power would come from human liquification? And perhaps TIM knew about this all along, but wanted to stop this rebel group simply so Shepard could give him that control instead against the Reapers (that would explain why he "knows so much", and didn't want to tell Shepard the outright truth).

It's not that the collectors liquifying the humans are segments of Cerberus, but rather they are liquifying Ceberus operatives who aren't with the program of being put into hibernation (stasis) until the threat had passed.  What I was trying to portray was a potential anti-TIM.  TIM is all about human dominance at any cost, and the prothean (call him general for now) is all about the survivability of the galaxy's inhabitants at any cost.

If I remember correctly, it was said that the protheans and humans were similar with their DNA structure so what could have been in that slush mix would have largely been byproducts of failed collector drones and the Cerberus operatives who were bent on destroying the Prothean's progress at the collector base to get free.  So using that, the reaper making machine would be a huge fake out for TIM.  That's why I wouldn't want to touch on the way it played out with Cerberus.  Also someone mentioned that TIM could have had dossiers on people he thought would have been a threat to him (considering he got Shepard's body away from the Shadow Broker) and this would have been the best way to take them out if need be.  If Shepard had believed what TIM said and aligned the crew with Cerberus it'd be a win, and if not and they all died at the collector base and left the base intact it'd still be a win.  If I allowed myself to think like TIM 4 billion plus credits being the cost for human dominance in the galaxy would be incredibly inexpensive.

FlyinElk212 wrote...
Anyways, semi-back on topic, while i do agree that Bioware misses the boat on a lot of opportunities (including the Prothean race), a lot of what happens in ME2 exemplifies this. The supposed "plot twists" in the story seem like nothing more than filler, nothing that really changes the entire plot, or motives of our heroes or enemies. In short, ME2's plot seems like it could've been told a lot more quickly and concisely--which is why I would have preferred they done something with the plot similar to what you've suggested.

Thanks. =)

Modifié par Xeranx, 20 juillet 2010 - 07:39 .

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Well, we learned that the Reapers are filled with thousands of programs (the personalities of the ascended organics maybe) and that they are a hybrid of machine and organic life. 

We know that they encourage organic life to grow and evolve until the point where they are numerous and advanced enough to be harvested to create new Reapers.

We know that the Protheans were never harvested (either being too few or resisted too much and too many were killed) to create new Reapers and that they, like the caretakers on the station, were genetically modified to be a slave race.

We've learned that their return in Part 3 will have something to do with dark energy.

I think part 2 was very much like TTT in LoTR. Lots of new characters, some character development, a secondary villian defeated (Sauraman was a stooge). I agree that the pacing was off but the overreaction and neurotic nitpicking of a few people on this forum is a little nuts. 

Actually most of this is speculation. 

We don't know that they are "filled with thousands of programs"  That's extrapolation from Sovereign's "we are each a nation" speech.

It's also an assumption that advanced organic life is needed to make a Reaper.  Why is  22nd century humanity more suitable than  Stone Age Neanderthals?

It's also speculation (though one I share) that dark energy will be important in ME 3.  So far there is no connection between it and the Reapers.

What we did learn is that 1) Reapers someow have an organic component that is necessary to make new Reapers. and 2) Protheans were altered by the Reapers to become Collectors. Both of these came in infodumps by EDI rather than through any real investigation on Shepard's part.

We learned nothing about:
Reaper origins, indoctrination, interactions with each other, past cullings.  We have no idea how the will reenter the Milky Way galaxy.  We have no weapons, or even ideas for weapons that would level the playing field against them.  Heck the Citadel has already backslid on believing in them, leaving Shepard in a worse position than ME 1.  In the end, we know very little more about reapers after ME2 than we did in ME1

[Iakus]

Kijin wrote...

There is actually a third possibility; that being the Mass Effect series continues beyond ME 3, and the Reapers return as the perennial threat. Considering how profitable ME 1 and 2 were, it is unlikely that they would want to stop at ME 3. The lore is deep enough that they could easily extend the series with little problems (this is assuming that ME 4 begins with a new protagonist).  

Something I forgot to mention in the post you quoted is the fact that - while yes we got the Collectors, their particular motivations were never explored in great detail either. We know just as much about the Collectors as we do about the Reapers - almost nothing. 

This is a possibility.  But I believe it was said that ME3 would complete "Shepard's story"  Is Mass Effect continued, it would be through someone else's pov.

That said, ME 2 might have gone over better with me if it had been from a different perspective, another marine ) saved by Cerberus to stop the Collectors while Shep was off looking for ways to stop the Reapers.  Or even Jacob for male characters and Miranda for female.

[darth_lopez]

Kijin wrote...

smudboy wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...

smudboy wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...
If you cannot see how ME 1 and ME 2 connect then you do have some sort of problem. you sir need alot of therapy.

oh on a side note at least i get the basic concept of a sequel and what makes a sequel a sequel. you have alot Alot of work to do with that. Enjoy your picture books come back when you have some common sense.

Thank you.  I do need help.  I feel you are the best one to help me, since you know what makes a sequel a sequel.

So please tell me: what makes ME2 a sequel to ME1?

obviously the continuing story line. i've already explained it to you you just don't seem to get it. go get your head checked.

Could you tell me what the continuing story line is then?  I fear even having checked my head several times I still need it explained.  Thanks.

The plot in both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 was sparse. Before we forget, the plot of Mass Effect 1 was that an ancient race of 'evil' machines awoken and they attempted to destroy all organic life in the galaxy. The 'evil villain' who wants to destroy everything' is hardly an original plot, but most people seemed to be satisfied with it. The 'ancient evil' in Mass Effect 1 were the Reapers, and the game told you next to nothing about them. In the original game, the Reapers were never involved until the very end; they instead choose to intervene through Saren and the enslaved Geth. 

Mass Effect 2 had a similar plot. Instead of working through Saren and the Geth, the Reapers instead chose to work through the Collectors. Instead of attempting to destroy all organic life, the Reapers were trying to create a human Reaper (which presumably would help them in the aforementioned task of destroying all organic life). We receive some new details about the Reapers, but nothing earth shattering. As per usual, the Reapers only show up at the very end of the game. 

Mass Effect 2 is a sequel, by virtue of the fact that we know they were responsible both for Saren and the Geth in Mass Effect 1, and the Collectors abducting human colonies in Mass Effect 2. While Mass Effect 2 may be a sequel, it is not a very good sequel. I do admit, while I think the game is great, the plot of Mass Effect 2 is bland - but so was the plot of Mass Effect 1. 

Now you might argue, and I would probably agree, that Mass Effect 2 does a poor job of developing the plot. This is true; we learn little about the Reapers and their motivations in Mass Effect 2 other than their insatiable need to destroy all life in the galaxy (Which is hardly an original motivation). This does not change the fact that Mass Effect 2 clearly attempts to continue the storyline that began in Mass Effect 1. I have read a lot of your posts, and you seem very intelligent, but I cannot understand for the life of me while you are arguing semantics in a vein hope of proving that Mass Effect 2 is not a sequel, when the number after the title should be all the evidence you need.

Someone who gets it.

@smud why do you not comprehend the english that i am speaking? it is not unintelligible. and i said nearly the same thing as this guy.  you do seriously need your head checked if you are willing to argue this long over something that has been proven. ME 2 is a Sequel to ME 1 the story does continue to develop from the first even if it was pulled off poorly (except i thought it was a good sequel to each his own). So how can you seriously sit there trying to say it isn't a sequel?

[darth_lopez]

glacier1701 wrote...

Darth,

I too would like to hear your opinion on what a sequel is and why ME2 IS the proper sequel to ME1. Personally I think its the wrong story and adds nothing to what we know. You could throw it out and be no worse off than you were at the end of ME1. That says to me that ME2 is filler and nothing more.

i've already stated numerous times in plain english. my opinion find it. IF you can't get it your either the same troll as smud boy or you need to get your head checked out just as badly as smud boy because obviously there is something wrong with the part of your brains that defines continuity and allows you to understand English properly.

[darth_lopez]

iakus wrote...

Kijin wrote...

There is actually a third possibility; that being the Mass Effect series continues beyond ME 3, and the Reapers return as the perennial threat. Considering how profitable ME 1 and 2 were, it is unlikely that they would want to stop at ME 3. The lore is deep enough that they could easily extend the series with little problems (this is assuming that ME 4 begins with a new protagonist).  

Something I forgot to mention in the post you quoted is the fact that - while yes we got the Collectors, their particular motivations were never explored in great detail either. We know just as much about the Collectors as we do about the Reapers - almost nothing. 

This is a possibility.  But I believe it was said that ME3 would complete "Shepard's story"  Is Mass Effect continued, it would be through someone else's pov.

That said, ME 2 might have gone over better with me if it had been from a different perspective, another marine ) saved by Cerberus to stop the Collectors while Shep was off looking for ways to stop the Reapers.  Or even Jacob for male characters and Miranda for female.

shepards story may just be that shepards attempts to combat the reapers. i know the majority of us are expecting some miracle on the field to stop them and end the shepard reaper arch as a whole but i think shepard may very well die in ME 3 with out stopping the reaper threat.

EDIT:Srry for the trible post not very good at copy and paste on this forum.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 20 juillet 2010 - 08:17 .

[smudboy]

darth_lopez wrote...
Someone who gets it.

@smud why do you not comprehend the english that i am speaking? it is not unintelligible. and i said nearly the same thing as this guy.  you do seriously need your head checked if you are willing to argue this long over something that has been proven. ME 2 is a Sequel to ME 1 the story does continue to develop from the first even if it was pulled off poorly (except i thought it was a good sequel to each his own). So how can you seriously sit there trying to say it isn't a sequel?

I do not comprehend the English you are intending to speak, nor write.  I am not only stupid, but ignorant to the ways of your mind.

I have had my head examinted several times.  I am still lost.  This is probably because I am self-examining.

Please show the connection in simple, non-paragraph/non-rambling answers.  Point form would work.  Thank you kindly.

[Amyntas]

My only problem with ME2's plot is that I often don't feel like I have enough information to make a moral choice. Do I keep the Collector base to help humanity in the fight against the Reapers or do I destroy the base to keep Cerberus from becoming too powerful? How should I know what consequences my actions will have? There just isn't enough information to make a judgment. If Cerberus is responsible for torturing biotic children and all the other crap they have been accused of, then yes, destroying the base makes sense. But the game always allows the possibility that Cerberus has been falsely accused and it's all just a bunch of conspiracy theories. How should I know...

[Iakus]

darth_lopez wrote...

shepards story may just be that shepards attempts to combat the reapers. i know the majority of us are expecting some miracle on the field to stop them and end the shepard reaper arch as a whole but i think shepard may very well die in ME 3 with out stopping the reaper threat.

At this point, it would take a miracle to effectively combat the Reapers, given that pretty much all the lead time Shep bought for the galaxy was, um, "urinated" away after ME 1.

Shep's death may be an ending to ME 3, but I doubt it will be the "canon" ending.  I mean Shep dying:  been there, done that.  The emotional impact would definitely be dulled with repetition.

Modifié par iakus, 20 juillet 2010 - 08:43 .