I think that the reason of the great dissapointment of ME2's story is because of the lack of great revelations.
In ME1 in every major plot mission we had a great revelation that we kept thinking about as we were starting the next mission
Explanation:
Eden Prime: Shepard's vision
Exposing Saren: The existance of the Reapers
Feros: The Thorian creature, the full vision and Sovereign's indoctrination abilities
Noveria: The survival of the Rchnai and Sovereign's indoctrination abilities ( If this mission is done before Feros )
Therum: The Cycle of Extintion
Vermire: Sovereign's revelations
Ilos: Vigil's revelations
in ME2 BioWare replaced the revelations with interesting personal stories( Most of them anyway ) and for some people it's just not enough
There are 2 reasons for this:
1. ME1 had 7 main story missions while ME2 has 26 ( including DLC ) and it's just impossible to make so many important plot points
2. Mr Hudson stated that they don't want to answer all the interesting quastions in ME2 because they are keeping them for ME3 so those of you who are dissapointed have nothing to worry about in the next game as everything you've been wiating for will be there:D
The reason why most people are dissapointed of ME2's story and why they're going to like ME3
Débuté par
Sheepie Crusher
, sept. 21 2010 04:27
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 04:30
Mister Mida
-
- Members
- 3 239 messages
Interesting point of view. I agree for the most part, but you may want to add the fact that many of the disappointed players feel the plot/story of ME2 felt like something of a reboot of the series.
#3
Guest_Aotearas_*
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 04:36
Guest_Aotearas_*
Guest_Aotearas_*
-
- Guests
Nope, ... the reason I think ME2 story's is inferiour to ME1's is that they fail to create any feelings of threat. Because besides the moments you do actually fight the Collectors, they are completely uninvolved. All you do for 95% of the game is fighting mercs. The specific characters and their development is just fine, I really like that, but the last scene before the credits is the only real motivating sequence of the whole game. Don't get me wrong. The game is addictive and I played through it about 14 times now and am still going, but there simply is no menace. Collectors are just as good an enemy like the Vorcha. Threat/Tension creation simply failed bigtime. There is no reason to actually care for those missing colonies other than it is the second part of a trilogy and in the long run the Reapers have to do with it. But the Collectors are a hand-wave enemy. The moment you completed the mission you encoutered them, they are forgotten until you fight them again.
#4
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 04:43
Talogrungi
-
- Members
- 1 679 messages
The ME2 story does kind of suffer from the "middle of the trilogy" syndrome.
You know what's going down, and also know that it won't be resolved by the end of the game. Add to that, a new enemy whose defeat doesn't advance the plot, the resurrection theme and human reaper that were not very well received, and forcing the player to work alongside a terrorist organisation.
Opinions differ, of course, and I enjoyed the game, but the plotline certainly wasn't as epic as the first.
You know what's going down, and also know that it won't be resolved by the end of the game. Add to that, a new enemy whose defeat doesn't advance the plot, the resurrection theme and human reaper that were not very well received, and forcing the player to work alongside a terrorist organisation.
Opinions differ, of course, and I enjoyed the game, but the plotline certainly wasn't as epic as the first.
#5
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 04:50
Whatever42
-
- Members
- 3 143 messages
Most of the complaining I have heard about is the lack of continuity from ME1 - the reboot of the plot and all the characters ticked people off.
My major complaint was the pacing. Between the collector ship and the final mission, all the energy just seems to drain from the story. With a couple less characters and a couple more main plot-driven mission to keep the tension up, it would have been fine.
My major complaint was the pacing. Between the collector ship and the final mission, all the energy just seems to drain from the story. With a couple less characters and a couple more main plot-driven mission to keep the tension up, it would have been fine.
#6
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 05:10
kaimanaMM
-
- Members
- 929 messages
I think ME2 is a fantastic game and I absolutely love it, but I'm with Neofelis on this one.
The Collectors were kind of an 'ehhh' enemy. We know they're abducting colonists, we don't really know why, but we assume it's not for an ice cream social. Throughout the game, they show up out of the blue, put some people in pods and we always show up five minutes late. We don't learn anything major about them until the revelation that they're omgprotheans (which, if you'd been into the story and discussed it with anyone, you probably could have put two and two together) and then the ending sequence. They're an ambiguous group that does enigmatic things and I honestly expected us to run into them more often than we did. And we didn't.
A good comparison I think (if you've played DA:O) : Darkspawn = Collectors, Archdemon = Reaper(s), Saren = Loghain.
The Collectors were kind of an 'ehhh' enemy. We know they're abducting colonists, we don't really know why, but we assume it's not for an ice cream social. Throughout the game, they show up out of the blue, put some people in pods and we always show up five minutes late. We don't learn anything major about them until the revelation that they're omgprotheans (which, if you'd been into the story and discussed it with anyone, you probably could have put two and two together) and then the ending sequence. They're an ambiguous group that does enigmatic things and I honestly expected us to run into them more often than we did. And we didn't.
A good comparison I think (if you've played DA:O) : Darkspawn = Collectors, Archdemon = Reaper(s), Saren = Loghain.
Modifié par kaimanaMM, 21 septembre 2010 - 05:12 .
#7
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 05:12
khevan
-
- Members
- 779 messages
I've said this in other threads, and I wasn't immediately boo'ed down, so I think I may be on to something.
Mass Effect 2's plotline failed not so much because of the writing, but because of game design, or at least a combination of the two elements.
With ME2, Bioware wanted a character driven story, a "Dirty Dozen" if you will. Within each seperate mission, BW did a good job of telling that particular story, the story of the character you're either recruiting or helping out to gain their loyalty. The problem is that character driven stories suck for video games.
Character driven stories require connection between the various plotlines. There needs to be something tying everything together. ME2 used the Collectors and the missing colonists to try to tie this whole thing together, but because of the sheer number of character driven missions, the overall story arc got lost in the shuffle. And since the game was designed to have a good bit of sandbox gameplay, there's nothing else that can connect the various character threads together. If the game was more linear, more plot elements could be used to tie the characters together. Certain squadmates could have had comments, or moments, or whatever that tied their story in with that of another squadmate. That would have provided continuity, and kept the game from seeming like a series of unrelated missions. But, that would have failed because the playerbase would have complained that they were being rail-roaded thru the plot, and I would have agreed, to a certain extent.
You are led by the hand thru the plot of ME2 at various points, but between those points, you can recruit squadmates in the order of your choosing, do their loyalty missions when you want to, etc. Because BW wanted to give the playerbase that level of gameplay freedom, the storylines necessarily had to suffer. You couldn't write lines for, example, Mordin during Grunt's recruitment (more Genophage talk would have been cool, and tied the two stories together), because there's a very good chance that players went and got Grunt first, or even if they got Mordin first, there's no guarantee that they'd take Mordin when going to get Grunt.
BW did what they could, by giving squadmates a single line here and there, but a line or two doesn't equal a conversation when it comes to character development and story cohesion.
I think BW did an amazing job given the limitations of the style of story and gameplay they tried to use. I just think it failed in a fairly spectacular way. Don't get me wrong, I love ME2, I've played it at least 10 times now and I don't see that slowing down any time soon. I just don't think ME2 is flawless, because that's obviously not the case.
Mass Effect 2's plotline failed not so much because of the writing, but because of game design, or at least a combination of the two elements.
With ME2, Bioware wanted a character driven story, a "Dirty Dozen" if you will. Within each seperate mission, BW did a good job of telling that particular story, the story of the character you're either recruiting or helping out to gain their loyalty. The problem is that character driven stories suck for video games.
Character driven stories require connection between the various plotlines. There needs to be something tying everything together. ME2 used the Collectors and the missing colonists to try to tie this whole thing together, but because of the sheer number of character driven missions, the overall story arc got lost in the shuffle. And since the game was designed to have a good bit of sandbox gameplay, there's nothing else that can connect the various character threads together. If the game was more linear, more plot elements could be used to tie the characters together. Certain squadmates could have had comments, or moments, or whatever that tied their story in with that of another squadmate. That would have provided continuity, and kept the game from seeming like a series of unrelated missions. But, that would have failed because the playerbase would have complained that they were being rail-roaded thru the plot, and I would have agreed, to a certain extent.
You are led by the hand thru the plot of ME2 at various points, but between those points, you can recruit squadmates in the order of your choosing, do their loyalty missions when you want to, etc. Because BW wanted to give the playerbase that level of gameplay freedom, the storylines necessarily had to suffer. You couldn't write lines for, example, Mordin during Grunt's recruitment (more Genophage talk would have been cool, and tied the two stories together), because there's a very good chance that players went and got Grunt first, or even if they got Mordin first, there's no guarantee that they'd take Mordin when going to get Grunt.
BW did what they could, by giving squadmates a single line here and there, but a line or two doesn't equal a conversation when it comes to character development and story cohesion.
I think BW did an amazing job given the limitations of the style of story and gameplay they tried to use. I just think it failed in a fairly spectacular way. Don't get me wrong, I love ME2, I've played it at least 10 times now and I don't see that slowing down any time soon. I just don't think ME2 is flawless, because that's obviously not the case.
Modifié par khevan, 21 septembre 2010 - 05:13 .
#9
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 05:16
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
I think ME2 story is all right in essence, but extremely badly told.
Too many plot holes, coming from the Rule of Cool overrides, too much sense sacrificed to make it a "cinematic experience" (and a M.Bay-style at that), and the attempts to tailor it all to the audience's expectations, whatever the developers though them to have been. Plus the awfully raced through ending, which I think simply got cut short due to the release deadline.
Take the StarCraft 2 story for example. It provides exactly it - the "cinematic experience". Because the writers at Blizzard seem to have had a very clear understanding of what they wanted it to be - a space western - and with very simple methods they made it be.
Too many plot holes, coming from the Rule of Cool overrides, too much sense sacrificed to make it a "cinematic experience" (and a M.Bay-style at that), and the attempts to tailor it all to the audience's expectations, whatever the developers though them to have been. Plus the awfully raced through ending, which I think simply got cut short due to the release deadline.
Take the StarCraft 2 story for example. It provides exactly it - the "cinematic experience". Because the writers at Blizzard seem to have had a very clear understanding of what they wanted it to be - a space western - and with very simple methods they made it be.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 21 septembre 2010 - 05:18 .
#10
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 05:19
PsyrenY
-
- Members
- 5 238 messages
In addition to "middle of the trilogy syndrome" - ME2 also lacked a "faced villain." Saren was an excellent foil - always one step ahead, filled with unreasoning hatred for humanity, every story planet you went to made you realize how vast his resources were... Defeating him always felt very satisfying.
Compare to ME2: You never come face to face with Harbinger, and even when you find out that he (it?)is actually a reaper, you still know nothing about him. No matter how many collectors you mow down, you never get the sense that you are doing anything to affect him, nor do you especially care. He is just another obstacle.
Compare to ME2: You never come face to face with Harbinger, and even when you find out that he (it?)is actually a reaper, you still know nothing about him. No matter how many collectors you mow down, you never get the sense that you are doing anything to affect him, nor do you especially care. He is just another obstacle.
#11
Posté 21 septembre 2010 - 05:39
Mister Mida
-
- Members
- 3 239 messages
To be honest: as a story for a video game, ME2's story does the job. It gives context while playing the game. However, Bioware is (or was?) known for delivering great story based games, while gameplay usually is just standard. Now with ME2, the tables seem to have turned. The gameplay was solid and better designed overall (although I don't agree with some changes (thermal clips!)), but the main story was just standard. Does that mean good gameplay and good story can't be combined? I don't know.
I've often heard the excuse that ME2 is the middle act of the trilogy and it is expected to be worse than ME (1). 'Wait for ME3 and it will all make sense', I've heard often as well. I personally think that's a bit of complacent thinking. It seems it has been overally accepted that in a trilogy the second act should be worse compared to the other parts. Maybe that's the reason writers don't want to put that much effort in the middle part. If Bioware wanted to push boundaries with ME2, they should have broken that thinking process of the 'sucking middle act' and put at least as much effort to it as they did with ME (1). Maybe they did, but it didn't work out. It feels rather weird that ME2's latest DLC LotSB's story was better than any random Collector mission.
I've often heard the excuse that ME2 is the middle act of the trilogy and it is expected to be worse than ME (1). 'Wait for ME3 and it will all make sense', I've heard often as well. I personally think that's a bit of complacent thinking. It seems it has been overally accepted that in a trilogy the second act should be worse compared to the other parts. Maybe that's the reason writers don't want to put that much effort in the middle part. If Bioware wanted to push boundaries with ME2, they should have broken that thinking process of the 'sucking middle act' and put at least as much effort to it as they did with ME (1). Maybe they did, but it didn't work out. It feels rather weird that ME2's latest DLC LotSB's story was better than any random Collector mission.
#12
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 01:52
Dragonikus
-
- Members
- 31 messages
Well, to be honest I was not disappointed by the story at all.
I was expecting something epic and I got what I wanted.
I am only affraid that because of my expectations ME3 may not be as good.
I was expecting something epic and I got what I wanted.
I am only affraid that because of my expectations ME3 may not be as good.
#13
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 02:02
Greed1914
-
- Members
- 2 638 messages
Optimystic_X wrote...
In addition to "middle of the trilogy syndrome" - ME2 also lacked a "faced villain." Saren was an excellent foil - always one step ahead, filled with unreasoning hatred for humanity, every story planet you went to made you realize how vast his resources were... Defeating him always felt very satisfying.
Compare to ME2: You never come face to face with Harbinger, and even when you find out that he (it?)is actually a reaper, you still know nothing about him. No matter how many collectors you mow down, you never get the sense that you are doing anything to affect him, nor do you especially care. He is just another obstacle.
This.
#14
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 02:11
Fishy
-
- Members
- 5 819 messages
ME2 was more of a build-up for Mass Effect 3 .
In ME3 we will Learn
-Why the Reaper want Shepard body
-Why the collector were harvesting human
-Who's really the Illusive Man
-What about the Giant Human Reaper
Basicly ME2 was more about building Allies for ME3 also
Against or with Cerberus
Against or with the Council
Against or With the Alliance(I see a DLC coming for this)
Against or with the Flotilla and Tali
Against or with the Geth
ME2 might have more DLC or they could even add an expansion .Because seriously i don't know how they can cover everything else with 1 remaining game.
In ME3 we will Learn
-Why the Reaper want Shepard body
-Why the collector were harvesting human
-Who's really the Illusive Man
-What about the Giant Human Reaper
Basicly ME2 was more about building Allies for ME3 also
Against or with Cerberus
Against or with the Council
Against or With the Alliance(I see a DLC coming for this)
Against or with the Flotilla and Tali
Against or with the Geth
ME2 might have more DLC or they could even add an expansion .Because seriously i don't know how they can cover everything else with 1 remaining game.
Modifié par Suprez30, 22 septembre 2010 - 02:12 .
#15
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 02:17
MrFob
-
- Members
- 5 412 messages
I think khevan is right in that BW did a great job with most of the individual character stories but not such a good job in tying it all together.And Neofelis certainly has a point in that the collectors get forgotten throughout the game and are not very threatening or interesting until the very end.
What I don't understand is why the character missions are so distant from the main plot. Couldn't they have mixed it together somehow? E.g., Jacobs Father could have been on a colony/ship that sends a distress call because it is attacked by collectors. Ohkeer could still have worked with them to create Grunt. For that matter, the role for the collectors could have been expanded to be agents for the reapers beyond just abducting colonists. They might have captured Mordin to elarn more about the genophage, etc. etc. The possibilities are endless. Don't get me wrong, I like the game as it is, I just think it was a mistake to separate the character from the main plot so completely. In ME1, each character is integrated somehow into the overall mission (Garrus on the citadel, Liara on Therum, Wrex on Virmire, Ahs/Kaiden on Eden Prime and on Virmire, Tali on the citadel and because we are fighting Geth all the time. I very much wish to see tht kind of integration again in ME3.
What I don't understand is why the character missions are so distant from the main plot. Couldn't they have mixed it together somehow? E.g., Jacobs Father could have been on a colony/ship that sends a distress call because it is attacked by collectors. Ohkeer could still have worked with them to create Grunt. For that matter, the role for the collectors could have been expanded to be agents for the reapers beyond just abducting colonists. They might have captured Mordin to elarn more about the genophage, etc. etc. The possibilities are endless. Don't get me wrong, I like the game as it is, I just think it was a mistake to separate the character from the main plot so completely. In ME1, each character is integrated somehow into the overall mission (Garrus on the citadel, Liara on Therum, Wrex on Virmire, Ahs/Kaiden on Eden Prime and on Virmire, Tali on the citadel and because we are fighting Geth all the time. I very much wish to see tht kind of integration again in ME3.
#16
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 02:58
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Suprez30 wrote...
Against or With the Alliance(I see a DLC coming for this)
Funny, how the "bridging DLC" LOTSB didn't have a "Big Choice". But expected. So no.
#17
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 02:58
Giggles_Manically
-
- Members
- 13 708 messages
Still was pretty awsome though.Zulu_DFA wrote...
Suprez30 wrote...
Against or With the Alliance(I see a DLC coming for this)
Funny, how the "bridging DLC" LOTSB didn't have a "Big Choice". But expected. So no.
It did have quite a few lines about past choice though,
#18
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 03:03
Lurker 2277
-
- Members
- 78 messages
Suprez30 wrote...
ME2 was more of a build-up for Mass Effect 3 .
In ME3 we will Learn
-Why the Reaper want Shepard body
-Why the collector were harvesting human
-Who's really the Illusive Man
-What about the Giant Human Reaper
Basicly ME2 was more about building Allies for ME3 also
Against or with Cerberus
Against or with the Council
Against or With the Alliance(I see a DLC coming for this)
Against or with the Flotilla and Tali
Against or with the Geth
ME2 might have more DLC or they could even add an expansion .Because seriously i don't know how they can cover everything else with 1 remaining game.
um
. . . we do know why the collectors were harvesting humans and what the human reaper was about.
#19
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 03:12
MassEffect762
-
- Members
- 2 193 messages
Most my opinions have been posted above, all I know is Bioware best put all their blood, sweat and tears into ME3.
#20
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 03:45
casedawgz
-
- Members
- 2 864 messages
Everybody talks about "middle of the trilogy syndrome." Can someone name for me a middle entry in a respected trilogy that was actually afflicted with this? I'm drawing blanks, because all I can think of are the Two Towers, which owned the Fellowship, Empire Strikes Back, which owned the whole franchise, and Godfather 2, which owned modern cinema as a whole.
#21
Guest_Shandepared_*
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 04:05
Guest_Shandepared_*
Guest_Shandepared_*
-
- Guests
Sheepie Crusher wrote...
I think that the reason of the great dissapointment of ME2's story is because of the lack of great revelations.
Yeah, pretty much. The plot didn't advance at all. Honestly Legion and Tali's loyalty missions got me more excited about the future than the Collectors did.
#22
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 05:54
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
The story was unsatisfying for so many reasons. Can we really narrow it down to just one?
- It fails to create feelings of threat.
- They never get you mentally or emotionally onboard with the story.
- The game doesn’t know whether it’s supposed to be about the characters or the Collectors, and in confusion makes a grab at both and fails.
- The plot is not terribly interactive; you move through the story as if on a conveyor belt.
- The plot restart is handled sloppily enough that you feel like the whole thread of the story has been lost.
- The story itself goes nowhere and achieves nothing. You wonder why it’s there.
- The necessity of working with Cerberus is never illustrated and feels impotent.
- They try to create drama about working with the "darker" side, but the drama feels impotent.
- Shepard focuses so much on other characters in this game that he/she no longer feels like an actual person.
- It fails to create feelings of threat.
- They never get you mentally or emotionally onboard with the story.
- The game doesn’t know whether it’s supposed to be about the characters or the Collectors, and in confusion makes a grab at both and fails.
- The plot is not terribly interactive; you move through the story as if on a conveyor belt.
- The plot restart is handled sloppily enough that you feel like the whole thread of the story has been lost.
- The story itself goes nowhere and achieves nothing. You wonder why it’s there.
- The necessity of working with Cerberus is never illustrated and feels impotent.
- They try to create drama about working with the "darker" side, but the drama feels impotent.
- Shepard focuses so much on other characters in this game that he/she no longer feels like an actual person.
#23
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 12:05
Major Truth
-
- Members
- 412 messages
Talogrungi wrote...
The ME2 story does kind of suffer from the "middle of the trilogy" syndrome.
You know what's going down, and also know that it won't be resolved by the end of the game. Add to that, a new enemy whose defeat doesn't advance the plot, the resurrection theme and human reaper that were not very well received, and forcing the player to work alongside a terrorist organisation.
Opinions differ, of course, and I enjoyed the game, but the plotline certainly wasn't as epic as the first.
I agree. Thes second part of a trilogy is always the most difficult. I think ME2 was a great success considering
#24
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 12:15
Zan Mura
-
- Members
- 476 messages
@OP: Simple yet spot on. That's exactly what my problem with ME2 was. Though I would by far consider it the better game out of these two, the main plot in ME2 was utterly unsurprising and unremarkable. Not a single twist, not even the attempt. Where in ME1 the story and main plot was the element that carried the game, in ME2 it was nothing but an excuse for doing the quests surrounding it.
I really hope ME3 brings back these big revelations and twists. The galaxy is at stake after all, I want it to be more than just the obvious "gather X people and go shoot them in area Y". Like in ME1, I want completely new exotic races, big decisions and events, defining moments that change Shepards' life etc. Me want!
I really hope ME3 brings back these big revelations and twists. The galaxy is at stake after all, I want it to be more than just the obvious "gather X people and go shoot them in area Y". Like in ME1, I want completely new exotic races, big decisions and events, defining moments that change Shepards' life etc. Me want!
Modifié par Zan Mura, 22 septembre 2010 - 12:17 .
#25
Posté 22 septembre 2010 - 01:02
Breakdown Boy
-
- Members
- 790 messages
I don't agree, the story is really wide and plot holes will exist, it's easy for us in hindsight to say, "hey you missed a spot" or "hey this doesn't make sense". They sold over 1,6 million copies and almost every fan has played the game ten or more times, this equates to million of observations and nitpicking. How many writers dit Bioware have in their team?
I say stop focusing on stupid plot holes that are common place in every story. Use your imagination?
Also stop compairing ME2 to Star Craft 2; the lazy buggars at Blizzard spent 12 years to create 1/3 of game with only one race in the single player campaign as well as making us pay for their sluggish effort; +/- $70. While Bioware has in the last couple of years brought out some of the best RPG's I've ever played.
I say stop focusing on stupid plot holes that are common place in every story. Use your imagination?
Also stop compairing ME2 to Star Craft 2; the lazy buggars at Blizzard spent 12 years to create 1/3 of game with only one race in the single player campaign as well as making us pay for their sluggish effort; +/- $70. While Bioware has in the last couple of years brought out some of the best RPG's I've ever played.
