Durgon Ironfist wrote...
I would be rather put off if they when back to the ME 1 system for talents, inventory, and combat. Furthermore I found the story well written and unlike a few posters here purposely leaving out information for a later date. From what I can tell the: "ME 2 story isn't as good as ME 1 and is full of plot holes" camp is the vast minority of the community. As for new Squad mates I would like three more: We need a Batarian would add an interesting flavor missing from the crew, our old friend from Virmire, and as for the third that's up in the air with me would leave space for someone unexpected. As for the return of Wrex and Liara I will say this(minor spoilers): one is either dead or head honcho of the Krogan; the other well we all know where she is.
If most of the story involves getting squad mates and resolving all their little problems, totally unreleated with the Collectors and ****, then everyone are lying to themselves thinking it's on par with ME1. In ME2, you don't learn anything by bites but by gulps, thus no sense of mystery, wonder or anything like this, in regards with the story can be felt by the player. There's no unravelling mystery, it's: it's this and that, finished. How is that good story telling. It's putting a twist after 5 minutes in the story, you barely had time to connect with the characters (if it has to do with characters) thus nullifying the effect. In ME2 you just learn the Collectors attacked you, they're "probably" responsible with disappearing colonists and the next thing you know, not only it's them but you know how they look like and how they kidnap these colonists. How is this good story telling? The whole game is about getting people on your team and getting ready for a suicide mission, the whole emphasis is on this. In ME1, the whole emphasis is on the story and you get teammates along the road, getting Liara was related with unravelling the geth/reaper mystery, and she's the only character you really had to find. In ME2, there's only Mordin, and even then, since you already know all you need to know about the Collectors, there's nothing about you and Mordin trying to figure something out or anything, he doesn't really add to the story but find something so the seekers can't freeze you, after that all his scientific abilities are useless. How is that good story telling?
There was TWO good twist which were most of what the big important story points were about, which actually made sense and were clever. But even then, I'm still not sure of the purpose of the collectors. Why bother making ONE human reaper when you have a whole fleet reaper fleet coming from dark space. Would ONE reaper really make a difference? And why a human one? Can it fly or anything? What would a huge terminator be able to do in space? It's just totally ridiculous. I mean, I can understand having unanswered question about something (it's potential for quality writing) but when it's about the relevance of something and how it's not ridiculous, now that is bad writing. I can understand you see good writing all around ME2, but the main story itself? It sucks.
Hell, how can you retrieve ANYTHING from Shepard when all of what if left from him is ashes? I can understand it's science fiction and how they could piece back a body and return someone to life, but dust? The ME universe started out as a space opera trying to remain realistic and explain things (codex entries, etc...) it tried to feel like a believable and plausible future and mostly succeeded with ME1, but here, it's pure fantasy disregarding common sense. EVEN as fantasy, super science fiction or whatever, never will I find it clever or "cool" to know dust got revived as a full body. Because, as you probably know it, being in space, getting attracted by the planet's gravity (which is acceleration, ie. always faster) by the time the body would've reached the atmosphere he'd already be bruned into nothing. How is that good writing?
How is killing Shepard IN THE BEGINNING OF THE GAME good? It's not clever, it's not a twist or anything, it's just there. You die, you get up as if anything happened and you're at it again, why make him die? Again, how is this good writing? I know you'll tell me there's opinions and all, but when there's big, bright writings on the wall and you ignore it, that's not an opinion. You can tell me you liked the story and I'll believe you, but you tell me it's on par with ME1's and I'll think you haven't thought about it for long. Hell, ME2 feels like a short story besides ME1 since there isn't much happening at all and answers absolutely nothing. Tell me, how is making a sequel that is almost totally disconnected is good writing? You just saved the galaxy and you could play the game without knowing it or the implications of the battle. They barely even tried to tie both stories together. Collectors are Prothean, Collectors made a human Reaper who we have no idea its role. Oh, and reapers are coming, that's not linking ME2's story's with the first, it's stating what you already knew from playing ME1. How can the second chapter of a trilogy not feel like building up on top of it? It's totally anti-climactic.
It's like, if you play all games back to back, you save the galaxy, you're all "we're going to prepare and beat the reapers" and then you go to find geth? (contradicts Shepard trying to do anything about the reapers) You die and get reanimated by Cerberus who forces the galaxy's savior and specter to help find what's happening with random disappearing colonists when there's a big Reaper menace and time is running short? How is that good story telling? At least they could integrate ME1's idea of finding a way to stop the Reapers into making "learning" about the collectors relevant from the get go. And then, ME2 finishes and you're left at the VERY SAME SPOT ME1 LEFT YOU. I just don't get it, it feels totally unsatisfying to know you waited 2 years to get something that doesn't even get the story somewhere compared to the game you played. It makes no sense.
Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 décembre 2010 - 10:44 .