815 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

Frybread76 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Therion942 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...



Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat? 

What exactly did we do to stop the reapers? Oh and can you point out which part of the story was Shepard's, you know the part where there's gross amounts of reflection and character exposition and definition of a personality?
Oh right nothing at all and none of it. Shepard may as well have not been in the game in the first place, you could have subbed him out for, let's say, Dr. Phil or the corpse of Freddie Mercury and it would have been very much the same.

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

People wouldn't have cried foul because ME is supposed to be "Shepard's story."  About Shepard's motivation, development, beliefs, etc.  We get none of that in ME2.

Is it?  Frodo is the main character in the Lord of the Rings, and yet substantial portions of the books ignore his motivation, development, beliefs, etc.  Just because Shepard is the main character doesn't mean it's all about him/her.  There are other people in the galaxy who need character development as well, and the story would be hollow if all we did was examine Shepard's character.  I admit that Shepard should have had more development, but it's not like there was nothing there.  We know how Shepard feels about Cerberus, how he/she feels about his/her crewmates, past and present.  We know that Shepard is willing to stop human colonies from being abducted by the Reapers' agents, and Shepard's beliefs are molded by the player quite often in ME2.  The difference is that this is not the main focus, and that's what's got everyone's quads in a twist.

If they basically copied the format of the first game: theres an individual that is trying to bring back the Reapers through an unknown means, and we learn all about the hero in his/her attempt to stop said individual, I guarantee people would cry even more that there was no plot progression, because it was exactly the same as the first game.  It's hard to duplicate what makes a game great without it being obvious that it's a copy.  This is a point I think most people are missing.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 08 octobre 2010 - 06:20 .

[ShadyKat]

I loved both games, but IMO, ME2 is clearly the better overall game. I just went back and replayed ME1 for the first time since I got ME2. And it was a chore to play through it after ME2. The combat is very clunky, and the copy paste missions kinda suck.

[Spazmodian]

wizardryforever wrote...

Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat?

Nope.  My first ME2 play through was with an ex-spectre who was engaged in a vague struggle against an enemy I barely had any contact with to stop a threat specific to humans localized in the terminus systems. 

[wizardryforever]

Spazmodian wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat?

Nope.  My first ME2 play through was with an ex-spectre who was engaged in a vague struggle against an enemy I barely had any contact with to stop a threat specific to humans localized in the terminus systems. 

And how much contact did you have with Saren while chasing him down?  You spoke to him once before you start chasing after him, and only twice more once you do.  Three major story missions go by in which Saren is only peripherally related.  In ME1, you have no idea of just how much a threat Saren represents until the end of the game, rather similar to the Collectors.  Saren's motivations are vague in ME1 until you chat with him on Virmire.  You know he wants to bring back the Reapers, but you have no idea what they are until the end of the game.  In ME2, you don't know what the Collectors' motivations are either, but you do know they work with/for the Reapers, kinda like Saren.  The threat seems local and relatively minor until the end, when the Human Reaper is revealed.  If that thing was completed, not only would millions of humans be dead, but it could reattempt what Sovereign did.  It would probably be more successful this time around too, since it would have learned from the mistakes of Sovereign.  And people say ME2 had nothing to do with the story. 

[Spazmodian]

wizardryforever wrote...

Spazmodian wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat?

Nope.  My first ME2 play through was with an ex-spectre who was engaged in a vague struggle against an enemy I barely had any contact with to stop a threat specific to humans localized in the terminus systems. 

And how much contact did you have with Saren while chasing him down?  You spoke to him once before you start chasing after him, and only twice more once you do.  Three major story missions go by in which Saren is only peripherally related.  In ME1, you have no idea of just how much a threat Saren represents until the end of the game, rather similar to the Collectors.  Saren's motivations are vague in ME1 until you chat with him on Virmire.  You know he wants to bring back the Reapers, but you have no idea what they are until the end of the game.  In ME2, you don't know what the Collectors' motivations are either, but you do know they work with/for the Reapers, kinda like Saren.  The threat seems local and relatively minor until the end, when the Human Reaper is revealed.  If that thing was completed, not only would millions of humans be dead, but it could reattempt what Sovereign did.  It would probably be more successful this time around too, since it would have learned from the mistakes of Sovereign.  And people say ME2 had nothing to do with the story. 

Are you mentally handicaped?  Every where you go in ME1 you are fighting the Geth and Krogans under Sarens control.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Therion942 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...



Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat? 

What exactly did we do to stop the reapers? Oh and can you point out which part of the story was Shepard's, you know the part where there's gross amounts of reflection and character exposition and definition of a personality?
Oh right nothing at all and none of it. Shepard may as well have not been in the game in the first place, you could have subbed him out for, let's say, Dr. Phil or the corpse of Freddie Mercury and it would have been very much the same.

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

People wouldn't have cried foul because ME is supposed to be "Shepard's story."  About Shepard's motivation, development, beliefs, etc.  We get none of that in ME2.

Is it?  Frodo is the main character in the Lord of the Rings, and yet substantial portions of the books ignore his motivation, development, beliefs, etc.  Just because Shepard is the main character doesn't mean it's all about him/her.  There are other people in the galaxy who need character development as well, and the story would be hollow if all we did was examine Shepard's character.  I admit that Shepard should have had more development, but it's not like there was nothing there.  We know how Shepard feels about Cerberus, how he/she feels about his/her crewmates, past and present.  We know that Shepard is willing to stop human colonies from being abducted by the Reapers' agents, and Shepard's beliefs are molded by the player quite often in ME2.  The difference is that this is not the main focus, and that's what's got everyone's quads in a twist.

If they basically copied the format of the first game: theres an individual that is trying to bring back the Reapers through an unknown means, and we learn all about the hero in his/her attempt to stop said individual, I guarantee people would cry even more that there was no plot progression, because it was exactly the same as the first game.  It's hard to duplicate what makes a game great without it being obvious that it's a copy.  This is a point I think most people are missing.

Other people in the galaxy beside the main character need development?  You mean the 12 squad mates who all can die and, therefore, might not even make it into ME3?  Brilliant.

[Nozybidaj]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

No one said Mass Effect is forever ruined due to that. The thing is ME2 is hardly relevant to the overarching plot; it paid too much attention to building a team and gaining their loyalty. ME2's story in and of itself has nothing to do with Shepard. Anyone else could have accomplished the task of building the team and going on the suicide mission. There were no moments where Shepard feels special and a critical plot device as was the case in much of ME1. Shepard was just doing business for the squad, while following TIM's leads.

Having said that, Lair of the Shadow Broker fixed that, which I think is a very good sign of progress.

Haven't bothered with LotSB so can't comment there, but....

The story of ME2 is in fact not about Shepard, agreed.  I'd dare say that the Shepard in ME2 is only cosmetically the same Shepard we played in ME1.   Not even just based on the ridiculous death and resurrection either.

In ME1 Shepard was very much a take charge, do it my way kind of guy.  Anything someone told him he couldn't do, he went out and did.  Tell him he doesn't have what it takes to stop Saren, ho goes out and does.  Tell him its impossible to stop the Reapers, he goes out and proves you wrong.  Tell him he's grounded, lock his ship up, and place the crew under guard watch and he'll break out of the frackin Citdael with ship and crew intact, stop Saren and the Reapers, and give you the finger while doing it.

In ME2:
Shep:  Hey think I can get my old team back together?
TIM:  They are like, busy, and....stuff...
Shep:  Ah, okay. /pouts

Shep:  Hey you backstabbed me!
TIM:  Not really, I knew you'd be okay.
Shep:   Phew, thats good to know.  Anything else I can do for you?
TIM:  Yeah think you can tell that ship full of people whose lives I just put in danger not to be mad at me?
Shep:  Yes sir, right away sir.

Bleh....

In the entirety of ME2 Shep did basically nothing but take order after order from the same guy responsible for one of the most traumatic events in his life (depending on background).  Did they forget to give him a backbone when they resurrected him?

The story in ME1 was just as much about the characters and introducing them and the world as much as it was about unravelling the mystery and overcoming the impossible odds.

In ME2 the story is nothing but a series a characater viginettes.  Any mystery that had a possibility of existing is erased in the first half hour, but that's okay because the plot had about as much fortitude to carry a mystery as a wet paper bag anyway.  There wasn't much of a point to the game except to introduce a series of characters and then kill them all off at the end. 

It might have served very well as a spin-off game, throw Conrad Verner in the starring role and have at it, heck I'd probably have loved it if that had been the case.  Presenting it as a sequel to the first game and the second part of a trilogy however obviously created expectations that it would, you know, carry on the story of the first game and lead us into the third.

As for it being a sequel to the first game it did absolutely nothing to advance the story.  We're still basically at the same place we were at the end of ME1, waiting to figure out how the Reapers are going to advance, while giving us a new bigger ship now with no one on it. /shrug

We don't know anything more about the Reapers, how they plan to get out of darkspace, how the plan to attack, why they want to attack, how we can stop them, or even what color briefs Shepard perfers to wear.  Characters from the first game are presented as caricatures of themselves with stupid lines like "Ah yes, the Reapers" and "I'll shove him in a coffee cup".  The entire plot of the first game is hand waved away with silly explanations like nothing being left of Harbinger to retrieve.

Far as I can tell, ME2 is nothing short of a poorly done reboot of the series that doesn't come close to living up to the standards of the first.   Like a Hollywood summer blockbuster it is shinier, it has more explosions, and a chick that likes to cuss a lot.  All substance and believablity is drained right out of it though, and just as with many of the afore mentioned Hollywood sequels, it is a shame to see creators that treat their own subject matter so insincerely. 

In the end, no reason crying over spilled milk, but it is a shame to see such great oppurtunity to do something more wasted.

Yeah kinda all over the place there, but oh well.

[Fiery Phoenix]

You totally nailed it, Nozybidaj. Bravo!

[wizardryforever]

Okay, tell me this then, Nozy:  Is ME2 a continuation of the seres or not?  If it is, then all of what you did in ME2 had a purpose, or it wouldn't be called ME2.  If it isn't, then there is no point in comparing it to ME1 since they aren't even about the same stuff anyway, right?

I'm not saying that ME2's plot was perfect, I just fail to see how it was so bad that ME3 is going to be horrible because of it.  I also fail to see how ME1 had the golden plot that was perfect in every way.  Many of the same flaws that are in ME2's plot are also in ME1's, yet people seem to conveniently forget that when comparing the two.  Whatever, it's obvious that people are just looking for reasons to hate ME2, the number one reason: it's not ME1, so it can't possibly be better in any way.

[wizardryforever]

Frybread76 wrote...

Other people in the galaxy beside the main character need development?  You mean the 12 squad mates who all can die and, therefore, might not even make it into ME3?  Brilliant.

Yep, the same way Shepard can die too.  It is meant to make you feel something when you lose those characters, and preferably not lose them in the first place.  Furthermore, speculation into what makes it into ME3 is just that, speculation.  There's no guarantee that any/all character will be completely sidelined with no impact on the story at all.

I can understand people having their faith shaken, but now it's just pessimism to assume that ME3 will suck because of ME2's plot.

[wizardryforever]

Spazmodian wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Spazmodian wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat?

Nope.  My first ME2 play through was with an ex-spectre who was engaged in a vague struggle against an enemy I barely had any contact with to stop a threat specific to humans localized in the terminus systems. 

And how much contact did you have with Saren while chasing him down?  You spoke to him once before you start chasing after him, and only twice more once you do.  Three major story missions go by in which Saren is only peripherally related.  In ME1, you have no idea of just how much a threat Saren represents until the end of the game, rather similar to the Collectors.  Saren's motivations are vague in ME1 until you chat with him on Virmire.  You know he wants to bring back the Reapers, but you have no idea what they are until the end of the game.  In ME2, you don't know what the Collectors' motivations are either, but you do know they work with/for the Reapers, kinda like Saren.  The threat seems local and relatively minor until the end, when the Human Reaper is revealed.  If that thing was completed, not only would millions of humans be dead, but it could reattempt what Sovereign did.  It would probably be more successful this time around too, since it would have learned from the mistakes of Sovereign.  And people say ME2 had nothing to do with the story. 

Are you mentally handicaped?  Every where you go in ME1 you are fighting the Geth and Krogans under Sarens control.

And what are the Geth and Krogan but mooks without a voice, enemies to be gunned down without pity?  What if said Geth and Krogan had been more circumspect in their operations?  Would that distance you from the plot to where you no longer care?  Because that seems to be the case with the Collectors.  Just because we aren't fighting them all over the galaxy people seem to think that they are irrelevant, a nuisance.  They aren't, and fighting them everywhere is not what the game is supposed to be about.  That would be a pale imitation of the first game's plot.

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

Or it could have been seen as a continuation of ME1's story.:

Paragon Shepard to Council: "Sovereign was only a vanguard. The Reaper fleet is still coming! Hundred of ships, maybe thousands! And I'm going to find some way to stop them!"

Renegade Shepard to Council: "Sovereign alone nearly wiped you out!  You won't stand a chance if the whole Reaper fleet shows up. Not unless I find a way to stop them!"

 Anderson to Council: "Shepard's right. Humanity is ready to do its part. United with the rest of the Council, we have the strength to overcome any challenge! When the reapers come, we must stand side-by-side! We must fight against them as one, and together, we will drive them back into dark space!"

Udina to Council: "Shepard's right. We're on the verge of war with an enemy unlike any the galaxy has ever known! A war for the survival of all life as we know it! Humanity is ready to do its part. We will not back down. We will not surrender. We will lead you into battle against the Reapers and drive them back into dark space

Answer:  Find a way to deal with the Reapers more permanently.  Scour the galaxy on information about them.  Study Sovereign's remains.  Take another look at Prothean artifacts, find out what you can about the last culling.  Question Vigil, study Ilos.  Find out if there were other pockets of survivors.  Unite the galaxy.  Citadel space.  The Terminus Systems. The batarians, the krogans, the geth, the quarians.  Other races we may not have met yet..  With the Alliance either standing shulder-to-shoulder or leading the charge. And above all, keep eye on ball!


What we got was a half-baked plot to kidnap millions of humans from the Terminus Systems, presumably over decades, since the numbers after two years was in the tens of thousands.  (hoping no one would notice?) All to to build a Reaper that would...do something...I guess.   Shepard gets to play recruiting officer for the strike team because...he's Shepard...or something.  The whole "Reaper invasion, cycle of destruction" thing just got put on hold so Shepard could do what amounts to a couple dozen or so DLC-style missions. 

Throughout ME 2, I keep asking myself "Very pretty, but what does this have to do with anything"?"  It's great that Bioware wanted to flesh out other characters more, but they forgot to give them a personality outside their own personal missions.

Mass Effect isn't ruined forever, though ME 3 better have enough awsome in it for two games or I'll just pretend ME 1 was a standalone game.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Other people in the galaxy beside the main character need development?  You mean the 12 squad mates who all can die and, therefore, might not even make it into ME3?  Brilliant.

Yep, the same way Shepard can die too.  It is meant to make you feel something when you lose those characters, and preferably not lose them in the first place.  Furthermore, speculation into what makes it into ME3 is just that, speculation.  There's no guarantee that any/all character will be completely sidelined with no impact on the story at all.

I can understand people having their faith shaken, but now it's just pessimism to assume that ME3 will suck because of ME2's plot.

But if Shepard dies there is no ME3.  He HAS to survive, whereas none of his crew has to except for two that probably will be reduced to cameo roles if that.

Face it, ME2 did not advance the Reaper plot line.  It wasn't even about Shepard, but his squad mates and their issues.

Modifié par Frybread76, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:28 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Okay, tell me this then, Nozy:  Is ME2 a continuation of the seres or not?  If it is, then all of what you did in ME2 had a purpose, or it wouldn't be called ME2.  If it isn't, then there is no point in comparing it to ME1 since they aren't even about the same stuff anyway, right?

I'm not saying that ME2's plot was perfect, I just fail to see how it was so bad that ME3 is going to be horrible because of it.  I also fail to see how ME1 had the golden plot that was perfect in every way.  Many of the same flaws that are in ME2's plot are also in ME1's, yet people seem to conveniently forget that when comparing the two.  Whatever, it's obvious that people are just looking for reasons to hate ME2, the number one reason: it's not ME1, so it can't possibly be better in any way.

I think I'll chime in here:

ME 2 is a continuation, but only because Bioware says it is.  The fact that you get to play as Shepard is purely incidental.  The game could have continued just fine starring someone else.  IF ME2 had been advertised as "Mass Effect:  The Hellhound" starring an Alliance marine named Hawke that Cerberus rescued from the planet Lothering, having nothing to do with ME 1 or Shepard, it could have played out virtually identically. 

ME 3 really has its work cut out for it making ME1 and ME 2 into part of a cohesive whole

[wizardryforever]

Frybread76 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Other people in the galaxy beside the main character need development?  You mean the 12 squad mates who all can die and, therefore, might not even make it into ME3?  Brilliant.

Yep, the same way Shepard can die too.  It is meant to make you feel something when you lose those characters, and preferably not lose them in the first place.  Furthermore, speculation into what makes it into ME3 is just that, speculation.  There's no guarantee that any/all character will be completely sidelined with no impact on the story at all.

I can understand people having their faith shaken, but now it's just pessimism to assume that ME3 will suck because of ME2's plot.

But if Shepard dies there is no ME3.  He HAS to survive, whereas none of his crew has to except for two that probably will be reduced to cameo roles if that.

Face it, ME2 did not advance the Reaper plot line.  It wasn't even about Shepard, but his squad mates and their issues.

Why is this automatically a bad thing?  Many, many trilogies do this, and don't get called out for being "discontinuous."  Why is ME2 worse than all of those other middle parts of trilogies?  So the plot wasn't executed very well, just because the overall story arc was put on hold does not mean that ME2 was horrible or irrelevant.

[Nozybidaj]

wizardryforever wrote...

Okay, tell me this then, Nozy:  Is ME2 a continuation of the seres or not?

As far as I am concerned?  In a word, no.  Sure it is still called Mass Effect, and it has a 2 in the title, but is it a continuation of an ongoing story?  Not really.  As Chris Priestly said long ago, back before the ME forums moved to the social site, it can be thought of as a sequel in the way Temple of Doom was a sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

They are both stories with Indiana Jones in them.  One came after the other.  That isn't exactly what I think of when I thiink "sequel" and "trilogy" though.

I'm not saying that ME2's plot was perfect, I just fail to see how it was so bad that ME3 is going to be horrible because of it. 

I don't think anyone has said ME3 will be horrible.  Just that ME2 was.

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Yep, the same way Shepard can die too.  It is meant to make you feel something when you lose those characters, and preferably not lose them in the first place.  Furthermore, speculation into what makes it into ME3 is just that, speculation.  There's no guarantee that any/all character will be completely sidelined with no impact on the story at all.

Good in theory.  But I found myself thinking of the squadmates as windup toys.  You take them off the shelf, wind them up, run them through their personal mission, then put them back on the shelf.  The rest of the game, they are lifeless dolls.  No personalities, no input.  Just mindlessly following me and shooting enemies.   ME 1 wasn't great at this, but it was still leaps and bounds ahead of ME 2

I can understand people having their faith shaken, but now it's just pessimism to assume that ME3 will suck because of ME2's plot.

Assume?  No, I hope not.  SHaken faith is indeed a better way of putting it.   I leave all assumtions behind with ME 3 specifically because of ME2.  It's taught me that literally anything could happen.  ME 2's story was such a departure of ME 1's, there's no telling which way ME 3 will go in.  It may very well be a flight simulator with rpg-like mechanics fro all I know.

And what are the Geth and Krogan but mooks without a voice, enemies to be gunned down without pity?  What if said Geth and Krogan had been more circumspect in their operations?  Would that distance you from the plot to where you no longer care?  Because that seems to be the case with the Collectors.  Just because we aren't fighting them all over the galaxy people seem to think that they are irrelevant, a nuisance.  They aren't, and fighting them everywhere is not what the game is supposed to be about.  That would be a pale imitation of the first game's plot.

It's not just that we aren't fighting them, we aren't doing anything at all about them.  Just recruiting people for some sort of mission and doing favors for them.  We aren't studying the Collectors.  We aren't looking for people that have had dealings with them.  We aren't breaking into mercenary bases to steal records of their encounters with the Collectors.  We aren't looking for samples of their technology.  We aren't looking for a connection between them and the Reapers.  And yes, we aren't fighting them.  Beating back ambushes, foiling their plans.  Mordin did more of this stuff in his clinic before recruiting him than we do in the entire game!

We don't see Saren much in ME 1, but we know that everything we do is aimed at stopping him.  We see his fingerprints everywhere.

Modifié par iakus, 08 octobre 2010 - 08:49 .

[Nozybidaj]

iakus wrote...

I think I'll chime in here:

ME 2 is a continuation, but only because Bioware says it is.  The fact that you get to play as Shepard is purely incidental.  The game could have continued just fine starring someone else.  IF ME2 had been advertised as "Mass Effect:  The Hellhound" starring an Alliance marine named Hawke that Cerberus rescued from the planet Lothering, having nothing to do with ME 1 or Shepard, it could have played out virtually identically. 

ME 3 really has its work cut out for it making ME1 and ME 2 into part of a cohesive whole

Exactly, and like I said earlier, I probably would have enjoyed the game much more too and would have waited anxioulsy for a real ME2 to come out eventually.

I don't think ME3 will (or even should) attempt to wrap all this up into one cohesive story though.  Aside from the fact that I don't think it is possible it would have to be even more trite and contrived than ME2 was to do so.  They should pick either ME1 or ME2 as their starting point and wrap things up from there while basically ignoring the other one.  There really isn't a way to wrap things up that can tie all three parts together at this point.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Other people in the galaxy beside the main character need development?  You mean the 12 squad mates who all can die and, therefore, might not even make it into ME3?  Brilliant.

Yep, the same way Shepard can die too.  It is meant to make you feel something when you lose those characters, and preferably not lose them in the first place.  Furthermore, speculation into what makes it into ME3 is just that, speculation.  There's no guarantee that any/all character will be completely sidelined with no impact on the story at all.

I can understand people having their faith shaken, but now it's just pessimism to assume that ME3 will suck because of ME2's plot.

But if Shepard dies there is no ME3.  He HAS to survive, whereas none of his crew has to except for two that probably will be reduced to cameo roles if that.

Face it, ME2 did not advance the Reaper plot line.  It wasn't even about Shepard, but his squad mates and their issues.

Why is this automatically a bad thing?  Many, many trilogies do this, and don't get called out for being "discontinuous."  Why is ME2 worse than all of those other middle parts of trilogies?  So the plot wasn't executed very well, just because the overall story arc was put on hold does not mean that ME2 was horrible or irrelevant.

You are correct.  However, many of the second films in other trilogies advance the main plot along with the smaller stories, which ME2 does not do.  We learn about Shepard's squad mates and their issues, but we learn almost nothing new about the Reapers, and we are left right back where we were at the end of ME1.

[bjdbwea]

iakus wrote...

Answer:  Find a way to deal with the Reapers more permanently.  Scour the galaxy on information about them.  Study Sovereign's remains.  Take another look at Prothean artifacts, find out what you can about the last culling.  Question Vigil, study Ilos.  Find out if there were other pockets of survivors.  Unite the galaxy.  Citadel space.  The Terminus Systems. The batarians, the krogans, the geth, the quarians.  Other races we may not have met yet..  With the Alliance either standing shulder-to-shoulder or leading the charge. And above all, keep eye on ball!

The "uniting the galaxy" part should be left for ME 3, and hopefully it will be the main objective instead of another distraction pulled out of a hat.

But ME 2 really should have been about finding out more about the reapers, and possibly a way to stop them. (I guess we found out something about them, how they are created, but if there's one thing in the story that should be quickly explained away and forgotten in ME 3, it's that ridiculous "revelation".)

[Stratgtar565]

Both games are great, but for different reasons.



In ME1:

I actually felt like I was getting somewhere. You have one main goal throughout the game, and each main mission gets you closer to that goal.

Your squad actually interacted with one another.

The story was about the characters AND the Reapers/Saren, not just one of the two.

There were more combinations of armor and weapons, and those items had an effect on performance.

The classes are much different.

Certain vehicles (...) fel clunky and handled terribly.



In ME2:

The classes feel the same, except for one or two powers.

The main plot isn't even mentioned in most levels, and if it is, it's only in a few lines.

The graphics are improved.

Every place I went to felt like a hallway instead of a planet. Exploration was cut.



Both games haves pros and cons, and it's hard for me to decide, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. It's like trying to choose between Metal Gear Solid or Civilization. They are both great, but they are also completely different games, and as such, can not be compared. I understand that because this is a series, they should at least be similair, and I agree.



I also think, "Whatever happened to the plot that was started in ME1?" Nothing really effected your ME2 experience from ME1, other than a few lines and/or cameos. Instead of hunting down the Reapers' weaknesses, you go into this 20-hour long side mission also known as Mass Effect 2.

[Vendetta11]

Jeebus....... The story wasn't THAT bad... My goodness. Sure it could have been better, but it didn't destroy anything.



But whatever, everyone has an opinion.............................................

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

It's not just that we aren't fighting them, we aren't doing anything at all about them.  Just recruiting people for some sort of mission and doing favors for them.  We aren't studying the Collectors.  We aren't looking for people that have had dealings with them.  We aren't breaking into mercenary bases to steal records of their encounters with the Collectors.  We aren't looking for samples of their technology.  We aren't looking for a connection between them and the Reapers.  And yes, we aren't fighting them.  Beating back ambushes, foiling their plans.  Mordin did more of this stuff in his clinic before recruiting him than we do in the entire game!

We don't see Saren much in ME 1, but we know that everything we do is aimed at stopping him.  We see his fingerprints everywhere.

The story was constructed in such a way that Cerberus is the one gathering intel.  TIM only calls Shepard when it's going to be dangerous, when the Collectors are actually present.  This serves a couple of purposes.  First, it makes us dependent upon TIM for intel, so that we are forced to use Cerberus to acheive our goal of fighting the Collectors and by extension, the Reapers.  Second, it means that Shepard can focus all of his/her efforts on ensuring he/she and his/her crew are prepared to fight the Collectors.  It's the same complaint that people level at the mining game, "Why am I the one doing this?  Isn't there someone else that can do it?  Do they really need a Spectre for this?"  That's why we aren't investigating the Collectors ourselves, because Cerberus is.  As much as I dislike Cerberus, it's an important plot point meant to introduce and incorporate Cerberus into the story.  Look at how TIM found the derelict Reaper, through investigation of the Great Rift on Klendagon and the weapon that made it.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

iakus wrote...

It's not just that we aren't fighting them, we aren't doing anything at all about them.  Just recruiting people for some sort of mission and doing favors for them.  We aren't studying the Collectors.  We aren't looking for people that have had dealings with them.  We aren't breaking into mercenary bases to steal records of their encounters with the Collectors.  We aren't looking for samples of their technology.  We aren't looking for a connection between them and the Reapers.  And yes, we aren't fighting them.  Beating back ambushes, foiling their plans.  Mordin did more of this stuff in his clinic before recruiting him than we do in the entire game!

We don't see Saren much in ME 1, but we know that everything we do is aimed at stopping him.  We see his fingerprints everywhere.

The story was constructed in such a way that Cerberus is the one gathering intel.  TIM only calls Shepard when it's going to be dangerous, when the Collectors are actually present.  This serves a couple of purposes.  First, it makes us dependent upon TIM for intel, so that we are forced to use Cerberus to acheive our goal of fighting the Collectors and by extension, the Reapers.  Second, it means that Shepard can focus all of his/her efforts on ensuring he/she and his/her crew are prepared to fight the Collectors.  It's the same complaint that people level at the mining game, "Why am I the one doing this?  Isn't there someone else that can do it?  Do they really need a Spectre for this?"  That's why we aren't investigating the Collectors ourselves, because Cerberus is.  As much as I dislike Cerberus, it's an important plot point meant to introduce and incorporate Cerberus into the story.  Look at how TIM found the derelict Reaper, through investigation of the Great Rift on Klendagon and the weapon that made it.

While your idea is plausible and would make sense from TIM's perspective to keep Shepard in the dark, it is a bad move from a storytelling perspective, especially when the audience is relegated to only Shepard's POV.

[wulf3n]

wizardryforever wrote...
It's the same complaint that people level at the mining game, "Why am I the one doing this?  Isn't there someone else that can do it?  Do they really need a Spectre for this?"  That's why we aren't investigating the Collectors ourselves, because Cerberus is.  As much as I dislike Cerberus, it's an important plot point meant to introduce and incorporate Cerberus into the story.  Look at how TIM found the derelict Reaper, through investigation of the Great Rift on Klendagon and the weapon that made it.

Those two things are a bit different. One is a menial task that has very little bearing on the story. The other is the entire point of the game, and the very reason Shepard is brought back from the dead. Whats next, Shepard has to clean his own weapons, because if you don't they'll jam up and your squad mates will die?

The collector story is supposed to be like a mystery story, yet we spend very little time trying to solve the mystery, and when we actually do TIM comes out and says he pretty much knew all that anyway, completely destroying any importance Shepard might have had. Ultimately TIM knew everything already, we just tagged along for the ride to make us feel "special"