While I can understand disappointment in the lack of expansion and disconnection of some of the concepts introduced in ME1, for all we know, ME3 will have an even greater connection to the story elements of ME2 than it does ME1. Won't really know until details of the plot are leaked.
All ME1 does is introduce people to this new universe Bioware has created and the threat the player will be facing in the next two games. As a direct fight against the Reapers would be the culmination of the entire plotline, it was unlikely they'd have direct involvement with the events of the middle game in a trilogy.
You could fault ME2 for going in a direction that you personally feel was a poor continuation of events. There have been plenty of series where I've wanted to throw something across the room when the story took a turn that I felt was cheap compared to what they could have done. I could talk for hours about what could have been. But in the end, that's never going to be the story that's told. They developers took it along a different path and I either accept it and hope for better. Or I spend countless hours complaining about how they have ruined all my expectations and destroyed my only chance of happiness.
I already did the countless hours of complaining on a series that I felt somehow failed me. Entertaining at first, but in hindsight, I wonder why it took me so long to move on.
So as ME2 didn't ruin my life, I'm either going to attempt constructive criticism on what I didn't like in the hopes it leads to improvements in ME3. Or I'm going to discuss the setting and plot as it's presented to me. Not as a plothole, there's nothing I can do about it, but simply as it is. The Collectors were building a human Reaper? Lame. But what can we get out of that as to the Reapers intentions? Why suddenly go for a human Reaper instead of beginning work on an Asari Reaper a couple thousand years sooner?
Hate on Plot
Débuté par
MadInfiltrator
, juil. 12 2010 12:25
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:23
InvaderErl
-
- Members
- 3 884 messages
Wow, this thread's actually being extremely reasonable.
Awesome.
Awesome.
#28
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:24
maegi46
-
- Members
- 273 messages
2 seemed to continue on just fine to me from where 1 left off. We learned why the Protheans all dissappeared, they weren't perfect enough for whatever reason and were genetically mutated into mindless slaves, the Collectors. The only part I question about that whole thing is why the Collectors were never mentioned in 1. They just seemed to "be" in 2 without feeling like they were logically explained. They have obviously been around for years..since they are at least DNA wise, whats left of the missing Prothean race. So why didn't they get mentioned in 1? Shrugs
I don't feel like that broke the game, just the immersion somewhat. I can live with it because it's still a good game, the Reapers are still pulling the strings, that part didn't change.
At the end when Harbinger says "releasing control", it shows a Reaper hanging from the ships ceiling, or looked that way to me. Which suggests the Reapers were really in direct control using the Collectors as puppets/minions.
So Harbinger must really be a Reaper?
I don't feel like that broke the game, just the immersion somewhat. I can live with it because it's still a good game, the Reapers are still pulling the strings, that part didn't change.
At the end when Harbinger says "releasing control", it shows a Reaper hanging from the ships ceiling, or looked that way to me. Which suggests the Reapers were really in direct control using the Collectors as puppets/minions.
So Harbinger must really be a Reaper?
Modifié par maegi46, 12 juillet 2010 - 01:25 .
#29
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:25
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
Look, I do get what you are saying.Shandepared wrote...
MadInfiltrator wrote...
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.
Going into the first game we don't even know about the Reapers (well we wouldn't if Bioware had a better marketing team). At the start everyone believes the Protheans created the Citadel and mass relays and then Shepard thinks the Reapers wiped the Protheans out. We think that Sovereign is just a ship.
Later we are surprised to learn that the Protheanss did not create the Citadel or mass relays and that Sovereign is not merely a ship but an actual sentient Reaper. The stakes are raised further when we realize what the Conduit is and what Sovereign/Saren plan to do with it. The drama here comes from the fact that Shepard's actions in the next forty minutes or so will determine whether or not all of galactic civilization is destroyed.
We are also made privy to the real legacy of the Protheans. They didn't build the Citadel or the mass relays, but what they did do was undermine the Reapers with their final act. The Protheans' actions are the only thing that has made Shepard's journey possible.
Once we see Sovereign attack the Citadel fleet we start to realize how serious this threat is. Even in stopping Sovereign that solitary Reaper has decimated the Citadel and Alliance fleets. Worse yet Sovereign implied there may be many more Reapers waiting in dark space. How can we possibly hope to stop them?
So, do you see what I mean? Mass Effect 2 doesn't have any twists or revelations that can compete with the twists and revelations in the first game. I'm not saying the first game is written perfectly either. It has plenty of plot holes and bad writing. However what it does well are the twists and the build-up for a formidable and intimidating enemy. It has a lot of dram and tension when we talk to Sovereign and when we chase after Saren at Ilos.
MadInfiltrator wrote...
In the second, we learned about how they reproduce, what happened to the enslaved Protheans, etc...
Yes but you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. Neither of these two revelations change anything. Knowing how the Reapers reproduce doesn't affect the overall threat which must be overcome unless it presents a new threat or an opportunity for attack. It changes nothing because we knew already that the Reapers were going to destroy our civilization and kill us all. Now we know that in the process they'll make a Reaper out of us... but how does that affect what we have to do? It doesn't.
We do learn things in the second game. Does it change who the Reapers are? No. But we find out more about them, questions are answered.
We have to see what happens in the next game. The second game is not supposed to completely deconstruct the Reapers. It is about how the Collectors are connected to them. It is also supposed to restructure the universe in anticipation for the third. I don't mind that you wanted more to happen. But try to be more patient.
#30
Guest_3mi_*
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:28
Guest_3mi_*
Guest_3mi_*
-
- Guests
I'll probably be bashed for this, but IMHO I have generally found the second book/game/film/whatever in a trilogy the weakest.
Personal examples being: The Girl Who Played With Fire - Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy - I largely do not remember the book, yet the first and third books are fantastic, and very memorable. The second focused a lot on character/relationship development, though, and the leading up to the catastrophic events which are found in the third.
Grass For His Pillow - Lian Hearn's Tales of the Otori trilogy - whilst these remain some of my favourite books of all time, and I could probably recite the entire first book, and recall most of the third, the second - no matter how soon after I've read it - remains hazy to me, and slightly less interesting/gripping. However, the second book focused a lot on relationships, especially between the two main characters, and their slow, yet heart-wrenching struggle for "survival". The country it is set in was also fleshed out a great deal, with it's history and culture being embellished in a way that was only alluded to in the first.
Even in music, A Beautiful Lie - 30 Second to Mars' second album of their self-called 'trilogy' was easily their weakest album for me, whereas normally they're the type of band who could s*** and I'd love it. This second album saw them following the trend at the time, but was an album that talked of struggles, and battles, and even though some of their most commercial songs were on this second album, some of their (personally) deepest did too. Their image had changed, and it was as though we were being introduced to new, very different, sides to them.
This is all my opinion though, I'm not trying to say this is true in every scenario or case - these just came to me as I was making my point. The first in a trilogy is meant to be 'epic'; it needs to draw in readers/listeners/players, all of whom will have never experienced it before. Therefore it needs a lot of good stuff going for it.
The second installment can often play it safe - some people who've never heard of the first will buy it on a fluke, whereas others will buy it (more commonly) because they loved the first, regardless. In most of the cases I can think of, the second part of a trilogy acted as a "filler", as in it pads out the characters/plot of the first, without moving too far on ahead with any one idea, leaving everything open for the 'killer finish'. Some people (a la the haters of the plot on this forum) find this too slow, because they were expecting the fast pace/gripping excitement/introduction of new characters/whatever it was that they loved so much from the first one.
Of course, all of this is *gross* generalisation, because no one can base their entire opinion on trilogies based on four or more experiences. This is just how I've come to see it over the years - and sadly, I'm still waiting to be proved wrong - although I do truly believe Mass Effect has the potential to do so.
I am one of the (seeming few) people on this forum who still loved Mass Effect 2 as much as the first. I mean, I personally struggle to find fault with it. It offered (and delivered) a fantastic experience to me, which is why people play games, isn't it? I find it ridiculous that people can talk of 'plot-holes' when the story is still going, it hasn't finished yet. Sure, if in the third we don't find out certain facts, then we can scream our heads off about plot-holes, or forgotten sidequests, or whatever, but until then, we really do not know what BioWare are cooking up. Of course it's OK to speculate - isn't that why we're all here anyway? - but not to criticise. Not yet.
Well, this post turned out to be horribly longer than I thought, so for all of you who (for the better) have just scrolled to the bottom of my post hoping for a short summary, here it is: I absolutely love Mass Effect 2's plot - yes, as much as the first - and you'll see no hate from me. The second of a trilogy is often seen as weaker - or, to others, a 'filler'.
Now I seriously need to sleep.
Personal examples being: The Girl Who Played With Fire - Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy - I largely do not remember the book, yet the first and third books are fantastic, and very memorable. The second focused a lot on character/relationship development, though, and the leading up to the catastrophic events which are found in the third.
Grass For His Pillow - Lian Hearn's Tales of the Otori trilogy - whilst these remain some of my favourite books of all time, and I could probably recite the entire first book, and recall most of the third, the second - no matter how soon after I've read it - remains hazy to me, and slightly less interesting/gripping. However, the second book focused a lot on relationships, especially between the two main characters, and their slow, yet heart-wrenching struggle for "survival". The country it is set in was also fleshed out a great deal, with it's history and culture being embellished in a way that was only alluded to in the first.
Even in music, A Beautiful Lie - 30 Second to Mars' second album of their self-called 'trilogy' was easily their weakest album for me, whereas normally they're the type of band who could s*** and I'd love it. This second album saw them following the trend at the time, but was an album that talked of struggles, and battles, and even though some of their most commercial songs were on this second album, some of their (personally) deepest did too. Their image had changed, and it was as though we were being introduced to new, very different, sides to them.
This is all my opinion though, I'm not trying to say this is true in every scenario or case - these just came to me as I was making my point. The first in a trilogy is meant to be 'epic'; it needs to draw in readers/listeners/players, all of whom will have never experienced it before. Therefore it needs a lot of good stuff going for it.
The second installment can often play it safe - some people who've never heard of the first will buy it on a fluke, whereas others will buy it (more commonly) because they loved the first, regardless. In most of the cases I can think of, the second part of a trilogy acted as a "filler", as in it pads out the characters/plot of the first, without moving too far on ahead with any one idea, leaving everything open for the 'killer finish'. Some people (a la the haters of the plot on this forum) find this too slow, because they were expecting the fast pace/gripping excitement/introduction of new characters/whatever it was that they loved so much from the first one.
Of course, all of this is *gross* generalisation, because no one can base their entire opinion on trilogies based on four or more experiences. This is just how I've come to see it over the years - and sadly, I'm still waiting to be proved wrong - although I do truly believe Mass Effect has the potential to do so.
I am one of the (seeming few) people on this forum who still loved Mass Effect 2 as much as the first. I mean, I personally struggle to find fault with it. It offered (and delivered) a fantastic experience to me, which is why people play games, isn't it? I find it ridiculous that people can talk of 'plot-holes' when the story is still going, it hasn't finished yet. Sure, if in the third we don't find out certain facts, then we can scream our heads off about plot-holes, or forgotten sidequests, or whatever, but until then, we really do not know what BioWare are cooking up. Of course it's OK to speculate - isn't that why we're all here anyway? - but not to criticise. Not yet.
Well, this post turned out to be horribly longer than I thought, so for all of you who (for the better) have just scrolled to the bottom of my post hoping for a short summary, here it is: I absolutely love Mass Effect 2's plot - yes, as much as the first - and you'll see no hate from me. The second of a trilogy is often seen as weaker - or, to others, a 'filler'.
Now I seriously need to sleep.
#31
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:28
InvaderErl
-
- Members
- 3 884 messages
maegi46 wrote...
2 seemed to continue on just fine to me from where 1 left off. We learned why the Protheans all dissappeared, they weren't perfect enough for whatever reason and were genetically mutated into mindless slaves, the Collectors. The only part I question about that whole thing is why the Collectors were never mentioned in 1. They just seemed to "be" in 2 without feeling like they were logically explained. They have obviously been around for years..since they are at least DNA wise, whats left of the missing Prothean race. So why didn't they get mentioned in 1? Shrugs
I don't feel like that broke the game, just the immersion somewhat. I can live with it because it's still a good game, the Reapers are still pulling the strings, that part didn't change.
At the end when Harbinger says "releasing control", it shows a Reaper hanging from the ships ceiling, or looked that way to me. Which suggests the Reapers were really in direct control using the Collectors as puppets/minions.
So Harbinger must really be a Reaper?
The Collectors are extremely secretive, their only dealings with the rest of the galaxy pre-ME2 is to negotiate deals for biological samples.
and Harbinger IS a Reaper, so you're spot on there.
Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 juillet 2010 - 01:36 .
#32
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:28
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
ME2 is a plot driven story. There just simply isn't a plot. Unless you want to argue ME2 is a TIM driven story.Jzadek72 wrote...
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
The character vignettes are singular, independent entities, loosely connected to TIM, save Mordin. I'd give examples of character driven stories, but I don't think that would change your mind.
#33
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:30
FuturePasTimeCE
-
- Members
- 2 691 messages
that's like expecting every james bond film to be a a complete sequel to the last... where as each film installment is uber awesome, separately in story still
#34
Guest_worm_burner_*
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:37
Guest_worm_burner_*
Guest_worm_burner_*
-
- Guests
I think many people simply felt as if the second game just didnt continue the way the first one ended. Ending of ME1: the reapers are still out there, Shepard will find a way to stop them. Beginning of ME2: humans are being abducted so go fight some mercenaries. While the collector missions in ME2 were very well done, the didnt seem as if they were the true enemy until late in the game. And yes I know in ME1 Sovereign isnt revealed until late in the game, but you have the sense that you are chasing down Saren throughout the game. The plot in ME2 seems disjointed and revolves too much on the loyalty missions and not the Reaper plot from ME1. Now I do not want another ME1, I like the gameplay changes and new characters, but rather I wanted a clear continuation from the end of the first game.
That being said I still really enjoy ME2 and it is one of my favorite games.
That being said I still really enjoy ME2 and it is one of my favorite games.
#35
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:40
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
I think I'm just gonna put some of it out there. At least what I want to say.
Yes, the second is usually the least story focused. But i still loved the plot. I know some of you think that the focus being taken off the Reapers sucked. But I liked fighting the Collectors. I liked where it all went. I liked how it put a lot more focus on the rest of the universe. I liked the characters way more. It needed to spread out.
If you just hated the Human-Reaper, and you thought the story was just stupid, that there is no substance, I won;t argue with you, because sometimes people just don't like things.
But to those who don;t like the direction, but liked the plot, just have a little more respect for it's role in the trilogy.
Yes, the second is usually the least story focused. But i still loved the plot. I know some of you think that the focus being taken off the Reapers sucked. But I liked fighting the Collectors. I liked where it all went. I liked how it put a lot more focus on the rest of the universe. I liked the characters way more. It needed to spread out.
If you just hated the Human-Reaper, and you thought the story was just stupid, that there is no substance, I won;t argue with you, because sometimes people just don't like things.
But to those who don;t like the direction, but liked the plot, just have a little more respect for it's role in the trilogy.
#36
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:40
FourSixEight
-
- Members
- 349 messages
I didn't make this, but whomever did deserves a medal.
#37
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:42
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
MadInfiltrator wrote...
I think I'm just gonna put some of it out there. At least what I want to say.
Yes, the second is usually the least story focused. But i still loved the plot. I know some of you think that the focus being taken off the Reapers sucked. But I liked fighting the Collectors. I liked where it all went. I liked how it put a lot more focus on the rest of the universe. I liked the characters way more. It needed to spread out.
If you just hated the Human-Reaper, and you thought the story was just stupid, that there is no substance, I won;t argue with you, because sometimes people just don't like things.
But to those who don;t like the direction, but liked the plot, just have a little more respect for it's role in the trilogy.
And exactly what is its role in the trilogy that we should have more respect for?
#38
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:48
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
worm_burner wrote...
I think many people simply felt as if the second game just didnt continue the way the first one ended. Ending of ME1: the reapers are still out there, Shepard will find a way to stop them. Beginning of ME2: humans are being abducted so go fight some mercenaries. While the collector missions in ME2 were very well done, the didnt seem as if they were the true enemy until late in the game. And yes I know in ME1 Sovereign isnt revealed until late in the game, but you have the sense that you are chasing down Saren throughout the game. The plot in ME2 seems disjointed and revolves too much on the loyalty missions and not the Reaper plot from ME1. Now I do not want another ME1, I like the gameplay changes and new characters, but rather I wanted a clear continuation from the end of the first game.
That being said I still really enjoy ME2 and it is one of my favorite games.
I don't mind the focus on preparation rather than an antagonist plot. If it had a Saren, then it would have pissed me off. But a few more shots back to the Collectors would have helped, at least before Horizon. After then it is a non-issue.
#39
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:51
Pacifien
-
- Members
- 11 527 messages
ME2 is a character driven story amidsts a frame story.smudboy wrote...
ME2 is a plot driven story. There just simply isn't a plot. Unless you want to argue ME2 is a TIM driven story.
#40
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:56
InvaderErl
-
- Members
- 3 884 messages
Following that, I'd like to say the increased focus on the team let the writers explore some themes and motifs among the crew that I found enjoyable.
Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 juillet 2010 - 02:02 .
#41
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 01:57
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Pacifien wrote...
ME2 is a character driven story amidsts a frame story.smudboy wrote...
ME2 is a plot driven story. There just simply isn't a plot. Unless you want to argue ME2 is a TIM driven story.
Although a frame story can be a character driven story, in ME2's case, it's either a plot driven frame story or it isn't. You would be correct in stating it's a frame story.
Thus "ME2 is a frame story, with character driven stories within."
#42
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:01
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
I won't argue with you, because I acknowledge that you have serious issues with the game. Go ahead. I hated Bioshock. I loathed it. And everyone else loves it. But I won't stoop to not answering your question.smudboy wrote...
MadInfiltrator wrote...
I think I'm just gonna put some of it out there. At least what I want to say.
Yes, the second is usually the least story focused. But i still loved the plot. I know some of you think that the focus being taken off the Reapers sucked. But I liked fighting the Collectors. I liked where it all went. I liked how it put a lot more focus on the rest of the universe. I liked the characters way more. It needed to spread out.
If you just hated the Human-Reaper, and you thought the story was just stupid, that there is no substance, I won;t argue with you, because sometimes people just don't like things.
But to those who don;t like the direction, but liked the plot, just have a little more respect for it's role in the trilogy.
And exactly what is its role in the trilogy that we should have more respect for?
The second part of the trilogy is about what the the protagonists do more than the antagonists. It also spreads out the story. It focuses on shifting the balances of power, establishing the setting for the third game. The final conflict may have less of the impact of the first, but it reveals something that plays seriously into the next installment.
#43
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:04
Throw_this_away
-
- Members
- 1 020 messages
If you look it up, "plot" is a term that is very flexible and thus just about anything can constitute a plot by true definition. Weather or not a plot is good or not is opinion. I think ME2 had a great plot, as did ME1. ME1 had a more "traditional" plot, Me2 was more character focused.
#44
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:09
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
Right.Throw_this_away wrote...
If you look it up, "plot" is a term that is very flexible and thus just about anything can constitute a plot by true definition. Weather or not a plot is good or not is opinion. I think ME2 had a great plot, as did ME1. ME1 had a more "traditional" plot, Me2 was more character focused.
1. Shepard V. Saren (Sovreign)
2. Team V Collectors
Both plots. Both different. Both awesome.
#45
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:09
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
I just want you to answer the question.MadInfiltrator wrote...
I won't argue with you, because I acknowledge that you have serious issues with the game. Go ahead. I hated Bioshock. I loathed it. And everyone else loves it. But I won't stoop to not answering your question.
The second part of the trilogy is about what the the protagonists do more than the antagonists. It also spreads out the story. It focuses on shifting the balances of power, establishing the setting for the third game. The final conflict may have less of the impact of the first, but it reveals something that plays seriously into the next installment.
You just listed what you believe the second part of a trilogy should do. Any story can arguably be about anything in any context in relation to previous or future installments. But the question still stands: what part of ME2 should we respect?
#46
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:15
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
smudboy wrote...
I just want you to answer the question.MadInfiltrator wrote...
I won't argue with you, because I acknowledge that you have serious issues with the game. Go ahead. I hated Bioshock. I loathed it. And everyone else loves it. But I won't stoop to not answering your question.
The second part of the trilogy is about what the the protagonists do more than the antagonists. It also spreads out the story. It focuses on shifting the balances of power, establishing the setting for the third game. The final conflict may have less of the impact of the first, but it reveals something that plays seriously into the next installment.
You just listed what you believe the second part of a trilogy should do. Any story can arguably be about anything in any context in relation to previous or future installments. But the question still stands: what part of ME2 should we respect?
Respect it's trying to fit into the role of the second installment. It's being what's best for the trilogy. And it was awesome anyway. I think we should leave this though, we obviously don't agree.
#47
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:18
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
Well you want us to respect something. Now all you're saying is that because ME2 has a "2", and that a 3rd is coming, we should respect it? Could you give us better, actual reasons please? Cause I'm not sure whether I should be respecting ME2, or your idea of what a "2" in a trilogy should be of (and whether ME2 was successful at that.)MadInfiltrator wrote...
Respect it's trying to fit into the role of the second installment. It's being what's best for the trilogy. And it was awesome anyway. I think we should leave this though, we obviously don't agree.
#48
Guest_3mi_*
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:21
Guest_3mi_*
Guest_3mi_*
-
- Guests
MadInfiltrator wrote...
Right.Throw_this_away wrote...
If you look it up, "plot" is a term that is very flexible and thus just about anything can constitute a plot by true definition. Weather or not a plot is good or not is opinion. I think ME2 had a great plot, as did ME1. ME1 had a more "traditional" plot, Me2 was more character focused.
1. Shepard V. Saren (Sovreign)
2. Team V Collectors
Both plots. Both different. Both awesome.
/support
#49
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:24
InvaderErl
-
- Members
- 3 884 messages
smudboy wrote...
Well you want us to respect something.
No, he said -
MadInfiltrator wrote...
If you just hated the
Human-Reaper, and you thought the story was just stupid, that there is
no substance, I won;t argue with you, because sometimes people just
don't like things.
But to those who don;t like the direction, but
liked the plot, just have a little more respect for it's role in the
trilogy.
Since you do not fall in the latter hasn't he already made a conceit for your point of view? He's hardly demanding you cowtow to his point of view.
Modifié par InvaderErl, 12 juillet 2010 - 02:25 .
#50
Posté 12 juillet 2010 - 02:26
MadInfiltrator
-
- Members
- 135 messages
smudboy wrote...
Well you want us to respect something. Now all you're saying is that because ME2 has a "2", and that a 3rd is coming, we should respect it? Could you give us better, actual reasons please? Cause I'm not sure whether I should be respecting ME2, or your idea of what a "2" in a trilogy should be of (and whether ME2 was successful at that.)MadInfiltrator wrote...
Respect it's trying to fit into the role of the second installment. It's being what's best for the trilogy. And it was awesome anyway. I think we should leave this though, we obviously don't agree.
No, what I'm saying is that a lot of people are mad it's not the same style of story telling as the first, and that is just a failure on Bioware's part, while they are trying to make it a different way, and that you should be able to look at it that way. If you just hate everything about it, then this is not meant for you. Dick.
