There isn't any of the new characters I don't like (yes, even Jacob), but balance and a central plot are still important. Otherwise it is just 'tales from the ME universe', and may well be worth reading but it isn't really ME2.
They are not 'presenting the story' in ME2, they are presenting a series of vaguely related short stories. That makes me curious. Is the head writer in ME2 primarily a comic book writer or primarily a novelist? ME1 was Drew, who seems to be a novelist. Comics tend to be much more episodic or at least much shorter arcs.
In addition, this trilogy is supposed to be "Shepard's story" yet all these personal missions seem to be "Random Mass Effect universe story, with special guest star Commander Shepard"
There isn't any of the new characters I don't like (yes, even Jacob), but balance and a central plot are still important. Otherwise it is just 'tales from the ME universe', and may well be worth reading but it isn't really ME2.
They are not 'presenting the story' in ME2, they are presenting a series of vaguely related short stories. That makes me curious. Is the head writer in ME2 primarily a comic book writer or primarily a novelist? ME1 was Drew, who seems to be a novelist. Comics tend to be much more episodic or at least much shorter arcs.
In addition, this trilogy is supposed to be "Shepard's story" yet all these personal missions seem to be "Random Mass Effect universe story, with special guest star Commander Shepard"
Exactly. In fact, Shepard gets set aside constantly. Cerberus tells him 'do this' so he does with no real questioning or conditions, the Council tells him they have 'dismissed' the Reapers, even Joker dismisses him in favour of TIM. It is kind of surprising his office isn't replaced with a cubicle.
Well, perhaps I'd have a better opinion of her if she actually came in and discussed things rather than making snide comments in interviews and presentations about those who disagree with her methods. It's because of her comments (combined with her GDC presentation) that I came to that conclusion and said that.
I fail to see why she needs to answer to you personally.
Well, perhaps I'd have a better opinion of her if she actually came in and discussed things rather than making snide comments in interviews and presentations about those who disagree with her methods. It's because of her comments (combined with her GDC presentation) that I came to that conclusion and said that.
I fail to see why she needs to answer to you personally.
Terror's statement in that first line does not make the kind of statement you're trying to say it does or it might do. Many people state that they would feel happier about a political candidate if they discussed things that were/are important to them. It in no way implies that they want that politician to address them personally.
Trying to allege such a stance as a matter of getting a reaction (in this case one that is most likely to be negative in regards to the addressee) when it's not expressly stated is called baiting.
Exactly. In fact, Shepard gets set aside constantly. Cerberus tells him 'do this' so he does with no real questioning or conditions, the Council tells him they have 'dismissed' the Reapers, even Joker dismisses him in favour of TIM. It is kind of surprising his office isn't replaced with a cubicle.
Oh my God, when you people learn it's not possible to play agaist story. It's like saying in ME1, I don't want to be specter, I don't want to go after Saren. Why doesn't game allow me other options. Player can NEVER play agaist story, so basicly all what you seem to say is, "I did not like the story".
Exactly. In fact, Shepard gets set aside constantly. Cerberus tells him 'do this' so he does with no real questioning or conditions, the Council tells him they have 'dismissed' the Reapers, even Joker dismisses him in favour of TIM. It is kind of surprising his office isn't replaced with a cubicle.
Oh my God, when you people learn it's not possible to play agaist story. It's like saying in ME1, I don't want to be specter, I don't want to go after Saren. Why doesn't game allow me other options. Player can NEVER play agaist story, so basicly all what you seem to say is, "I did not like the story".
You would have a point if the way Shepard is treated in ME2 made sense in the context of ME1. There is plenty of good literature where the protaganist gets the job done despite being overlooked or taken for granted or even outright used by those around him.
The issue is that even though there was some of that in ME1, Shep was sitll appointed Spectre, still given the leeway the position affords, and in the end seemed to vindicated by council acceptance.
In ME2, that all gets tossed aside as if it didn't happen, and Shepard starts working with an enemy essentially without question or even contemplation of rebellion.
You can act as an apologist for that all you want. It may not have bothered you at all. But if you are going to debate this, please at least try to understand the complaint rather than just writing it off like that.
Exactly. In fact, Shepard gets set aside constantly. Cerberus tells him 'do this' so he does with no real questioning or conditions, the Council tells him they have 'dismissed' the Reapers, even Joker dismisses him in favour of TIM. It is kind of surprising his office isn't replaced with a cubicle.
Oh my God, when you people learn it's not possible to play agaist story. It's like saying in ME1, I don't want to be specter, I don't want to go after Saren. Why doesn't game allow me other options. Player can NEVER play agaist story, so basicly all what you seem to say is, "I did not like the story".
You would have a point if the way Shepard is treated in ME2 made sense in the context of ME1
Now you say that "I liked ME1 story, I don't like ME2 story, because it doesn't continue ME1 story", because bla, bla and bla".
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think ME2 story was that good, but you complain is totally based what you like and has nothing to do anything else. Was kotor 2 continuing Kotor 1 story, will DA2 continuing DAO story. Only real thing you say here is "I did not like ME2 story". That's all what you say and can say.
There is no point the try to go around the issue, because that's your issue. My character in ME2 never worked for TIM, She worked with TIM to solve issue as using TIM's resources and was Specter while doing it. It's players own attitude how they deal situation what affects this. How ever, You can't ever play agaist story. Meaning you are forced in ME2 play with TIM, because that's part of story. Exactly same way you are forced to be Specter in ME1 and play it's part.
Well, perhaps I'd have a better opinion of her if she actually came in and discussed things rather than making snide comments in interviews and presentations about those who disagree with her methods. It's because of her comments (combined with her GDC presentation) that I came to that conclusion and said that.
I fail to see why she needs to answer to you personally.
Could you please take this meaningless intervention elsewhere? That's not even what this is about.
Unless you actually read everything and see where we're coming from, don't bother commenting on anything we say and making a joke out of yourself. Thank you.
Exactly. In fact, Shepard gets set aside constantly. Cerberus tells him 'do this' so he does with no real questioning or conditions, the Council tells him they have 'dismissed' the Reapers, even Joker dismisses him in favour of TIM. It is kind of surprising his office isn't replaced with a cubicle.
Oh my God, when you people learn it's not possible to play agaist story. It's like saying in ME1, I don't want to be specter, I don't want to go after Saren. Why doesn't game allow me other options. Player can NEVER play agaist story, so basicly all what you seem to say is, "I did not like the story".
You would have a point if the way Shepard is treated in ME2 made sense in the context of ME1. There is plenty of good literature where the protaganist gets the job done despite being overlooked or taken for granted or even outright used by those around him.
The issue is that even though there was some of that in ME1, Shep was sitll appointed Spectre, still given the leeway the position affords, and in the end seemed to vindicated by council acceptance.
In ME2, that all gets tossed aside as if it didn't happen, and Shepard starts working with an enemy essentially without question or even contemplation of rebellion.
You can act as an apologist for that all you want. It may not have bothered you at all. But if you are going to debate this, please at least try to understand the complaint rather than just writing it off like that.
actually: no.
1. TM tells you you can go to the council/use any other resources. 2. you do, they dismiss you but allow you to retain your SPECTRE status (if you want it) and investigate it anyway - without their explicit knowledge, which is exactly how spectres are supposed to operate.
they don't like the intimation of you working for cerberus, but given your accomplishments they are willing to overlook it, if you are proven right - and guess what: you are!
everyone says the council act dumb: they do, as politicians go they are pretty on-target, but they give you just enough rope to do the job/hang yourself, so they aren't that dumb.
You would have a point if the way Shepard is treated in ME2 made sense in the context of ME1. There is plenty of good literature where the protaganist gets the job done despite being overlooked or taken for granted or even outright used by those around him.
So how did Shepard fail to get the job done in ME2? As the Protagonist, he is forced to deal with setbacks but ultimately does succeed in his goal.
The issue is that even though there was some of that in ME1, Shep was sitll appointed Spectre, still given the leeway the position affords, and in the end seemed to vindicated by council acceptance.
Seemed being the key word here. This comes down to whether you like where the story/setting headed. I personally enjoyed it due to the contrast with Mass Effect's setting.
ME1: Shepard operates on the large scale working for large governments. He enjoys the power of Spectre status which allows him to go anywhere or do anything, which is the basic premise for his investigation of Saren.
ME2: Enter Collectors. Shepard dies and returns to find that pretty much all his hard work went nowhere. His ship is gone, Council disbelieves him, and the only individuals who bsupport him are terrorists. Shepard now operates in Terminus where no one really gives a damn about Spectre status, something I enjoyed greatly because the awesome title in Mass Effect now felt hollow.
In ME2, that all gets tossed aside as if it didn't happen, and Shepard starts working with an enemy essentially without question or even contemplation of rebellion.
Without question? Contemplation of rebellion? How many babies ultimately did TIM require Shepard to murder? How many colonies were you asked to burn down? I often see this criticism and I honestly do not understand it. Until the Collector Base, TIM does not order you to take a single controversial form of action. If anything, he does affirm that you are in charge of the operation and provides information/advice accordingly.
As such, I fail to see why stabbing your only ally in the back is considered to be prudent. Certainly, Shepard could have offered more resistance due to Kahoku, experiments, etc. However, having just woken up to discover that the Council has backpedaled on the Reapers and I am left without a ship, crew, and resources I don't see where 'rebellion' enters the picture.
1. TM tells you you can go to the council/use any other resources. 2. you do, they dismiss you but allow you to retain your SPECTRE status (if you want it) and investigate it anyway - without their explicit knowledge, which is exactly how spectres are supposed to operate.
they don't like the intimation of you working for cerberus, but given your accomplishments they are willing to overlook it, if you are proven right - and guess what: you are!
everyone says the council act dumb: they do, as politicians go they are pretty on-target, but they give you just enough rope to do the job/hang yourself, so they aren't that dumb.
Really.. if you woke up in a strange place, you would take everything you were told as gospel and simply agree to work with those there, even if you your last memories include them being an enemy organization involved in activites that were questionable at best? Sure TIM says you can go anywhere you want.. after leaking reprots and undermining your ability to do so.
And when you went to said council, you wouldn't renounce said organization and at least consider turning the Normandy over to Council inspectors? If nothing else to clean out the bugs? You wouldn't even consider that?
And what do you mean 'without their explicit knowledge?' You report in to the council constantly in ME1. Maybe the plot works for you, but it doesn't for me. Sorry.
So how did Shepard fail to get the job done in ME2? As the Protagonist, he is forced to deal with setbacks but ultimately does succeed in his goal.
Congrats on missing the point entirely. Of course he succeeds if you beat the game. The criticism is regarding how he succeeds and lack of continuity. Saying 'Woot! He won in ME1 and won in ME2, therefore there is continuity' seems a little weak.
Seemed being the key word here. This comes down to whether you like where the story/setting headed. I personally enjoyed it due to the contrast with Mass Effect's setting.
ME1: Shepard operates on the large scale working for large governments. He enjoys the power of Spectre status which allows him to go anywhere or do anything, which is the basic premise for his investigation of Saren.
ME2: Enter Collectors. Shepard dies and returns to find that pretty much all his hard work went nowhere. His ship is gone, Council disbelieves him, and the only individuals who bsupport him are terrorists. Shepard now operates in Terminus where no one really gives a damn about Spectre status, something I enjoyed greatly because the awesome title in Mass Effect now felt hollow.
The point is the Council has no reason to disbelieve him to that degree. They didn't reject him to that degree in ME1. Why after being proven right (at least as far as the level of threat Saren represented, and the threat via Ilos) is he less respected. I can understand them still being skeptical, but it is beyond that. He can retain the Spectre position, but gets no resources.
And it is not just a question of how the Council reacts to Shepard. It is Shepard's sudden willingness out of the blue to accept Cerberus and TIM. It is how Shepard reacts to the Council. When the subject of his Spectre status comes up, his only concern regarding reinstatement is whether he would have to make reports. What in blazes? And the Council don't even want reports? Why wouldn't they? Even if they disbelieve them, they could still get useful data.
Without question? Contemplation of rebellion? How many babies ultimately did TIM require Shepard to murder? How many colonies were you asked to burn down? I often see this criticism and I honestly do not understand it. Until the Collector Base, TIM does not order you to take a single controversial form of action. If anything, he does affirm that you are in charge of the operation and provides information/advice accordingly.
Straw man much? TIM requires you to withhold information from the council and alliance. He forbids you from warning them about the derelect collector ship and openly admits to deliberately decieving them regarding same. He sets Shepard up and Shepard defends him. There is no option of sending IFF data (once decrypted) back to the Alliance and/or Council. The list goes on. Cerberus doesn't have to ask Shepard to 'kill babies.'
As such, I fail to see why stabbing your only ally in the back is considered to be prudent. Certainly, Shepard could have offered more resistance due to Kahoku, experiments, etc. However, having just woken up to discover that the Council has backpedaled on the Reapers and I am left without a ship, crew, and resources I don't see where 'rebellion' enters the picture.
An ally that set you up at least twice (undermining you with the Council by leaking information even before you are conscious that you are working with Cerberus, and not warning you of the collector ship trap) is not neccessarily an ally.
Does this really come down to you think this is a great game because you agree with Cerberus? Can you at least understand that those of us who don't might disagree?
Mass Effect 2 has an untraditional structure, "building the team" as your narrative thrust rather than just being relegated to the first act like in many games. Was there a worry that people wouldn't get it or would be waiting for the "real game" to start?
We knew it was a risk and something different. You're right, the story of Mass Effect 2 is very much about how you get ready for a mission by building a team and understanding who they are, and about learning the magnitude of what you're facing. The funny thing is that people will say "other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there." But that is the story. In other media, you find stories that are about so many different kinds of things, different structures. In movies you find there are stories about how someone gathers a team and makes them well equipped and well trained.
Part of what's great about a role playing game is that you have the choice of going off and doing other side stories, but that can be a problem, and that was one of the pieces of feedback we had about Mass Effect 1, that because the core story had so much intensity and pressure around it, when you would go off and do a side mission, it didn't have that kind of intensity and it wasn't directly linked as part of the story. That's where that Dirty Dozen team building structure addressed a lot of that on a fundamental level. If much of what you're doing in the game is recruiting a team and making them loyal to you and getting them equipped, then you have lots of missions, but every one of them will change whether or not someone's loyal to you in the end, or if they're even there or not. So something like helping Miranda find her sister, which is more emotional, kind of a touchy-feely story, ties back into this suicide mission in a way that makes sense because her mind is clear and she's totally loyal to you.
Of course, where the teambuilding takes place is still an unanswered question for me. And it goes beyond coincidence that everyone "just happens" to have a personal mission which needs to be done or they'll be unfocused and die.
Wow. This was actually very eye-opening.
Don't they understand that if the game focuses only on characters, the why of focusing on these characters is crucial?
Don't they understand that if the whole story is recruiting characters for a mission, the why of that mission - the whole mission itself, in fact - is incredibly important?
The mission is... weird. If my mission is weird, it throws absolutely everything else off - including the characters, great though they may be.
Don't they understand that if the game focuses only on characters, the why of focusing on these characters is crucial?
Don't they understand that if the whole story is recruiting characters for a mission, the why of that mission - the whole mission itself, in fact - is incredibly important?
The mission is... weird. If my mission is weird, it throws absolutely everything else off - including the characters, great though they may be.
You'd think they'd understand that. But apparantly we're wrong.
The game is perfect. It's a documented fact. We're just haters who wants to carry dozens of suits of armor around. Haven't you heard?
Congrats on missing the point entirely. Of course he succeeds if you beat the game. The criticism is regarding how he succeeds and lack of continuity. Saying 'Woot! He won in ME1 and won in ME2, therefore there is continuity' seems a little weak.
Shepard wins in Mass Effect-Council believes him-they backpedal-Shepard goes to look for more proof of Reapers-Shepard dies-Council says 'Woops! Reapers never existed!'. Hell, it works even better as Renegade, but regardless it seems to make sense to me.
The point is the Council has no reason to disbelieve him to that degree. They didn't reject him to that degree in ME1. Why after being proven right (at least as far as the level of threat Saren represented, and the threat via Ilos) is he less respected. I can understand them still being skeptical, but it is beyond that. He can retain the Spectre position, but gets no resources.
Combination of things:
1) If Renegade, Udina/Anderson are the only ones who declare that they will stop the Reapers-before a human Council is even formed. Anderson still believes you and Udina has been proven to be a lying snake, no more reason is needed.
2) If Paragon, political backfire. The two engineers in Normandy SR-2 actually comment on this, saying how the Council backpedaled on the Reaper threat. Before, Shepard was some crazy with no evidence/weight to support him besides visions. Now, there is actual proof of Reapers (or at least giant space ships) meaning Shepard is more dangerous, since he seems intent on starting a war. The Council ultimately chooses tenacity in the belief Shepard is wrong. Hell, just considering the repercussions of believing this, I'd rethink my stance on it too.
And it is not just a question of how the Council reacts to Shepard. It is Shepard's sudden willingness out of the blue to accept Cerberus and TIM. It is how Shepard reacts to the Council. When the subject of his Spectre status comes up, his only concern regarding reinstatement is whether he would have to make reports. What in blazes? And the Council don't even want reports? Why wouldn't they? Even if they disbelieve them, they could still get useful data.
They want him out of the picture. Period. They don't want reports; that's why they send him into Terminus.
Straw man much? TIM requires you to withhold information from the council and alliance. He forbids you from warning them about the derelect collector ship and openly admits to deliberately decieving them regarding same. He sets Shepard up and Shepard defends him. There is no option of sending IFF data (once decrypted) back to the Alliance and/or Council. The list goes on. Cerberus doesn't have to ask Shepard to 'kill babies.'
Where is this order to withhold information? He stops the Turians from getting involved so Shepard can get what he needs. I don't see the problem. You complain he sets Shepard up, but his reasoning is logical, a sentiment Mordin ultimately agrees with. Nobody is asking you to trust Illusive Man.
An ally that set you up at least twice (undermining you with the Council by leaking information even before you are conscious that you are working with Cerberus, and not warning you of the collector ship trap) is not neccessarily an ally.
So please provide your alternative hypothesis. I'm curious here. You want hints of rebellion. What is the plan, chief? Council disavows you and you want to bring down your information network. How is this keeping the bigger picture in sight?
Ultimate point: you are not supposed to trust Illusive Man. He is not here to be buddy-buddy with you, he's here to get things done. If you notice, that's why your interactions with him are structurally different than with the Council. You can ignore them; you can't ignore TIM who provides your mission briefings most of the time.
Does this really come down to you think this is a great game because you agree with Cerberus? Can you at least understand that those of us who don't might disagree?
I didn't like working for the Council. Sure, I put up with it because Mass Effect was a great game in the end, but II don't recall any point in the game where I was allowed to go rogue, ditch Spectre status, and usurp the government with the support of the human alliance.
iakus wrote... Of course, where the teambuilding takes place is still an unanswered question for me. And it goes beyond coincidence that everyone "just happens" to have a personal mission which needs to be done or they'll be unfocused and die.
This is really my main complaint about the story. There is no team building, there is only Shepard + Squad member building. They really needed to get all squad mates interacting with each other(which I really hope they do in ME3), like the meetings in ME1(only better! ^.^).
And what do you mean 'without their explicit knowledge?' You report in to the council constantly in ME1. Maybe the plot works for you, but it doesn't for me. Sorry.
that's because in me1 you didn't get to act like a spectre - you are still shoehorned into the alliance, for one - one of me1's many failings.
The point is the Council has no reason to disbelieve him to that degree. They didn't reject him to that degree in ME1. Why after being proven right (at least as far as the level of threat Saren represented, and the threat via Ilos) is he less respected. I can understand them still being skeptical, but it is beyond that. He can retain the Spectre position, but gets no resources.
Combination of things:
1) If Renegade, Udina/Anderson are the only ones who declare that they will stop the Reapers-before a human Council is even formed. Anderson still believes you and Udina has been proven to be a lying snake, no more reason is needed.
2) If Paragon, political backfire. The two engineers in Normandy SR-2 actually comment on this, saying how the Council backpedaled on the Reaper threat. Before, Shepard was some crazy with no evidence/weight to support him besides visions. Now, there is actual proof of Reapers (or at least giant space ships) meaning Shepard is more dangerous, since he seems intent on starting a war. The Council ultimately chooses tenacity in the belief Shepard is wrong. Hell, just considering the repercussions of believing this, I'd rethink my stance on it too.
Except Shepard has proven to be accurate in everything the Council was warned about in ME 1. Saren's crimes, the beacon, the Mu Relay, Ilos, the Conduit, and, yes, the Reapers.
I have posited three possible responses from the Council that could explain their unwillingness to talk to Shepard about the Reapers that would make more sense:
1 Shepard's working for Cerberus, so they can't trust him/her 2 They believe that with Sovereign dead and the Keepers modified to ignore the signal, the Reaper threat is permanently dealt with 3 They are working on something, but true to bureauracies all over t galaxy, they're stuck in committee and nothing has been decided yet.
At the moment, I hold out a faint hope that the "real" answer is #1, and that the turian Councillor was simply laying it on too thick. But at this point, it makes them sound less like weaslly polititcans and more like bumbling idiots. More cariactures of politicians than politicians in truth.
They want him out of the picture. Period. They don't want reports; that's why they send him into Terminus.
The problem is Shepard doesn't react strongly to the Council's response. Nothing is made of the fact that Cerberus leaked (erroneous) information that Shepard was working for Cerberus before Shepard even woke up. Shepard never gets a chance to say "Hey, wait a minute...!" Shepard's own defense of working alongside Cerberus is...lacking... (for a guy who seems to have the ability to bend people to his will, my Shep sure can't seem to get the right words out when it really counts)
And what do you mean 'without their explicit knowledge?' You report in to the council constantly in ME1. Maybe the plot works for you, but it doesn't for me. Sorry.
that's because in me1 you didn't get to act like a spectre - you are still shoehorned into the alliance, for one - one of me1's many failings.
I'm reasonably certain most Spectres don't cut off the Council in mid-report.
Shepard wins in Mass Effect-Council believes him-they backpedal-Shepard goes to look for more proof of Reapers-Shepard dies-Council says 'Woops! Reapers never existed!'. Hell, it works even better as Renegade, but regardless it seems to make sense to me.
Did we play the same game? Shep wasn't sent out to find more evidence of Reapers. He was on Geth cleanup duty. Regardless, there is no reason for the council to backpedal to Shepard. You are still ignoring the fact that they give him less credit in ME2. They don't even want him investigating the Collectors. They aren't blaming the so called Citadel War on him, so they aren't accusing him of having started any wars in ME1. They also completely reverse their position regarding the Terminus systems. In ME1 it was 'don't you dare go there!' In ME2 it is 'don't you dare leave there!'
Combination of things:
1) If Renegade, Udina/Anderson are the only ones who declare that they will stop the Reapers-before a human Council is even formed. Anderson still believes you and Udina has been proven to be a lying snake, no more reason is needed.
2) If Paragon, political backfire. The two engineers in Normandy SR-2 actually comment on this, saying how the Council backpedaled on the Reaper threat. Before, Shepard was some crazy with no evidence/weight to support him besides visions. Now, there is actual proof of Reapers (or at least giant space ships) meaning Shepard is more dangerous, since he seems intent on starting a war. The Council ultimately chooses tenacity in the belief Shepard is wrong. Hell, just considering the repercussions of believing this, I'd rethink my stance on it too.
Starting a war with who, exactly? They need to rebuild the fleets anyway, so why wouldn't they use the Reapers as an excuse? Or at least the Geth? They are not even up to pre Citadel War strength yet, and if there is political fallout it is more likely over their unreadiness than over the costs of having a navy in the first place (unless the DA is destroyed, in which case the Asari decide maintaining a Navy is best left to the Turians).
They want him out of the picture. Period. They don't want reports; that's why they send him into Terminus.
Reports don't have to go past their desks. In ME1 he reported directly to them. Not to a secretary, not to anyone else. And not reporting to them doesn't prohibit Shep from reporting to others (TIM, reporters, Aria, etc). It isn't 'wanting him out of the picture.' It is completely dismissing any information he might provide. That is vastly different.
Where is this order to withhold information? He stops the Turians from getting involved so Shepard can get what he needs. I don't see the problem. You complain he sets Shepard up, but his reasoning is logical, a sentiment Mordin ultimately agrees with. Nobody is asking you to trust Illusive Man.
Pardon? He doesn't 'withhold information', he merely prevents the Turians from getting it? Have you been trying out for the role of Udina's understudy or something?
And YES, we are being asked to trust TIM. Right from the very beginning Shep is told 'come get on this shuttle it's your only chance to survive. He is even told this one corridor away from the control centre for the bots that are presenting the threat allegedly forcing him to leave. He doesn't find a communications room. He doesn't commondeer the shuttle. He doesn't even say 'I'll hear you out, but I am not getting on that shuttle just because you tell me I have to.'
When TIM withholds the info regarding the collector ship, he defends TIM to his crew.
So please provide your alternative hypothesis. I'm curious here. You want hints of rebellion. What is the plan, chief? Council disavows you and you want to bring down your information network. How is this keeping the bigger picture in sight?
Hypothesis? Pardon? Shepard doesn't even try to work with the Council other than saying 'but the Collectors are working with the Reapers.' He doesn't say 'but the Collectors might not stop with humans, Saren didn't.' He doesn't say 'look, I don't like the situation with Cerberus. Whether you believe me or not and even whether I am right or not about the Reapers, I proved my worth against Saren, trust me to investigate this with an open mind.
There is no offer of a polygraph or Asari equivalent regarding when he awoke, which could prove he wasn't working with Cerberus for the last two years and instead has been set up to appear that way.
There is nothing but I am working with Cerberus now, live with it.
Ultimate point: you are not supposed to trust Illusive Man. He is not here to be buddy-buddy with you, he's here to get things done. If you notice, that's why your interactions with him are structurally different than with the Council. You can ignore them; you can't ignore TIM who provides your mission briefings most of the time.
Of course you can't ignore them. The game is written that way. You can't even refuse to go into the meetings without Joker refusing to lay in a course. It isn't EDI that refuses, it isn't TIM remotely shutting the Normandy down, it is Joker! Can you please explain that one???
Does this really come down to you think this is a great game because you agree with Cerberus? Can you at least understand that those of us who don't might disagree?
I didn't like working for the Council. Sure, I put up with it because Mass Effect was a great game in the end, but II don't recall any point in the game where I was allowed to go rogue, ditch Spectre status, and usurp the government with the support of the human alliance.
As I thought. It seems like you didn't like those aspects of ME1, so now you are defending what is essentially a e-write that gives you the setting you prefer to have had all along. That doesn't change the fact that it is inconsistant with ME1. And you were allowed to go rogue in ME1. You could cut the Council off, and in the end disobey their orders as well as Udina's. You still don't 'have the support of the System Alliance in usurping the government' in ME2. You have Cerberus, but that is a different thing. Note that you could support the pro human party in ME1.
Did you want ME (1 or 2) to be all about taking over the Alliance and Council without the Reaper plot at all then?
And what do you mean 'without their explicit knowledge?' You report in to the council constantly in ME1. Maybe the plot works for you, but it doesn't for me. Sorry.
that's because in me1 you didn't get to act like a spectre - you are still shoehorned into the alliance, for one - one of me1's many failings.
You have a strange definition of 'acting like a Spectre.' You figure Spectres are completely separate from government? 'Subject only to the Council' still means 'subject to the Council.'
Also Hackett tells you pretty much every time "I realize you are outside our command these days, but could you please look in on this anyway?" Being asked nicely with no obligations is hardly 'shoehorned.'
So, I saw a number of interesting topics, but since I'm a bit late to the party due to work and all, I'll just pick up immediately:
1) Mass Effect Movie:
I saw that a lot of people are of the opinion "we don't want it." Which I think is a lie. You do want it, but because you're sure it'll be bad, you're playing it safe. Which is understandable. Video games movies are often hit and miss, with a tendency to fall into the miss category. But while several video game movies bomb in a horrible fashion (Alone In The Dark, both House of The Deads, both Street Fighters), others are quite good, though definitely not film of the year (the first Mortal Kombat, the first Tomb Raider, and Silent Hill). The problem with most video game movies, is the interpretation and reference of the source material. For example, the Silent Hill movie was a huge hit for fans of the series...whereas everyone else who didn't know the source was left confused and tilting their head. Mass Effect is a huge setting, and thus it would be difficult to make a purely standalone movie. Also we fans have certain expectations, like who's going to VA who and so on. And while Bioware is personally overseeing the movie, we all expect something to go wrong.
2) Developer Attention:
I took a peek over at the DA forum boards and holy crap, you're right. BUT, I think I know where this attention is coming from. Does anyone remember back when ME2 was just a series of trailers and interviews, sprinkled with a few livestream interviews and video feeds? Does anyone remember the old forum board? The developers were all OVER that one at the time, and even after the move, they still made frequent appearances. Why? Because ME2 was something totally new, an almost literal overhaul of ME1. The same could be said of DA2. It's so different from DAO, that it could be classified as almost a completely different game. DA2 is to DAO, as ME2 was to ME1. So for me, I understand the devs spending more time over there. ME3 is much anticipated, but it's not likely to be such a huge departure from ME2. I'm sure once DA2 is out, their attention will come back this way.
3) General disappointment/dissatisfaction:
Like Nightwriter, I've found a few things that bug me or that I feel could've been improved, but overall the game still feels like a marked improvement over the original. What I like about this thread as opposed to some of the others, is the fact we're being civil, among other things. I find myself annoyed by threads where the whole purpose is to find every little possible inconsistency and deviation and blow it wide open into something that ruins the game. I'm so glad we can avoid that.
Now, on different note, someone commented on loyalty missions feeling silly? I disagree. I mean, each of the characters you recruited had some underlying issue related to them or their past, which came to a head in their loyalty mission, and was relevant to them. What did bug me? Jacob's loyalty. Why? Not because it was bad. Or badly written or planned. It's that it could've been avoided completely if Miranda hadn't forwarded him the distress signal. And I get the feeling I needed to play ME: Galaxy to understand her reasoning. Oh well, small nitpick on my part. Carry on!
3) General disappointment/dissatisfaction: Like Nightwriter, I've found a few things that bug me or that I feel could've been improved, but overall the game still feels like a marked improvement over the original. What I like about this thread as opposed to some of the others, is the fact we're being civil, among other things. I find myself annoyed by threads where the whole purpose is to find every little possible inconsistency and deviation and blow it wide open into something that ruins the game. I'm so glad we can avoid that.
If this really was played just as a stand alone game, without there being an ME3 tied to it and without ME1, I would have actually felt even more disappointed at the overall plot.
If it had been the first in the trilogy, I would have liked it a lot better.
If it had been only a two game series, without ME2 it would have been passable. As the second, it just feels like filler.
The individual recruitment and loyalty missions are good, but it is a collection of good short stories whereas ME1 was a great novel. Hence I feel disappointed....
So, I saw a number of interesting topics, but since I'm a bit late to the party due to work and all, I'll just pick up immediately:
1) Mass Effect Movie: I saw that a lot of people are of the opinion "we don't want it." Which I think is a lie. You do want it, but because you're sure it'll be bad, you're playing it safe. Which is understandable. Video games movies are often hit and miss, with a tendency to fall into the miss category. But while several video game movies bomb in a horrible fashion (Alone In The Dark, both House of The Deads, both Street Fighters), others are quite good, though definitely not film of the year (the first Mortal Kombat, the first Tomb Raider, and Silent Hill). The problem with most video game movies, is the interpretation and reference of the source material. For example, the Silent Hill movie was a huge hit for fans of the series...whereas everyone else who didn't know the source was left confused and tilting their head. Mass Effect is a huge setting, and thus it would be difficult to make a purely standalone movie. Also we fans have certain expectations, like who's going to VA who and so on. And while Bioware is personally overseeing the movie, we all expect something to go wrong.
THhs is perhaps true. a good Mass Effect movie would be, well, good. But I have yet to see a movie based on a video game that I cared for. At all. Including the examples you cited 9though that's my opinion) So until such a movie does come out, I'll view any attempt to make Mass Effect into one with treipidation
Besides, i always saw ME 1 at least, as more of an entire season from a tv show.
3) General disappointment/dissatisfaction: Like Nightwriter, I've found a few things that bug me or that I feel could've been improved, but overall the game still feels like a marked improvement over the original. What I like about this thread as opposed to some of the others, is the fact we're being civil, among other things. I find myself annoyed by threads where the whole purpose is to find every little possible inconsistency and deviation and blow it wide open into something that ruins the game. I'm so glad we can avoid that.
Thanks for calling us civil. Debate can get spirited, but I think we've stayed fairly polite If nothing else, if a developer is reading, I figure they're more likely to take rational discourse seriously when it comes time to plan out ME 3, or ME 2 DLC. It's not enough to simply say you don't like ME 2. Gotta explain the whats and whys and so on.
Now, on different note, someone commented on loyalty missions feeling silly? I disagree. I mean, each of the characters you recruited had some underlying issue related to them or their past, which came to a head in their loyalty mission, and was relevant to them. What did bug me? Jacob's loyalty. Why? Not because it was bad. Or badly written or planned. It's that it could've been avoided completely if Miranda hadn't forwarded him the distress signal. And I get the feeling I needed to play ME: Galaxy to understand her reasoning. Oh well, small nitpick on my part. Carry on!
Ah, story-based discussion!
Problem with the loyalty missions:
Primarily, they have nothing to do with the main mission. It's basically Shepard going off with a squadmate (and a silent third party member) to go off and solve a personal problem. The story itself may be good. But what does it have to do with "preparing the team for the mission"? How does it build cohesion amongst these very different characters? How does it build loyalty amongst the group and the cause, rather than purely towards Shepard?
I'll give a couple of examples:
Jack's loyalty mission involved blowing up the Teltin facility, where she had been brutalized as a child. Now it gives a pretty horrific look at her life as a Cerberus lab rat, and shed some doubt about her memories of the escape. But how much more meaningful would a mission revolve around Jack is trying to acclimate herself towards working with a group? Working out her trust issues? Wouldn't that fit in much better as a "prepare the team" misson? Imagine Shepard escorting Jack around a Terminus world, Jack trying to hold a conversation with somone without swearing or breaking anything, trying to act "civilized" when something goes down. Afterwards, if you earn her loyalty, she feels more comfortable working with a team.
Or Garrus. He has the plans for the thanix cannon. But maybe instead of simply mining for parts, we could have gone off and raided a Blue Suns facility for components to build it. And while there, learn the current wherabouts of one Sidonis...
Retour en haut
