292 réponses à ce sujet

[Siegdrifa]

Busomjack wrote...

No, YOU'RE WRONG!  Those quests DO relate to the collectors since your companions finding closure in what they believe to be the twilight of their lives is a necessary step in preperation for their final battle against the Collectors. 
Even if we don't see the Collectors in the loyalty missions, every action that every character takes is due to the actions of the collectors and what must be done to stop them.

Well if you fall for it, it's up to you.
Most of this sub quest get a great story telling and and huge work in diologue writing and rtc.

But after doing this quest, Shepard don't evolve, and so less the collector.

That's why like i write in the begining of the thread, some japanese RPG were realy carfull about how to introduce personnal quest of commrade to settle the score / clear their mind, because they don't wan't the player to feel disconnected to his evolution winthin the main plot, so they are integrated usualy in subtil and smart way, letting the player helping his commrade while progressing toward his goal. At the end, your character have evolved, as your commerad, and the main plot had progressed too.

In ME2, the collectors are just drinking tea until you finish to play the subquest to get their ass kicked.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:46 .

[Busomjack]

I've stayed up way too late.

*sigh*

Alright, you win.  Mass Effect 2's plot is garbage.

Goodnight.

[ObserverStatus]

[RiouHotaru]

Spornicus wrote...

I love how people argue personal opinion for 10+ pages, and after it's all said and done no one has changed their views in the slightest.

Because it's always going to be a personal thing.  For example, iakus wants the squadmates' input on their comrades.  Which I feel wouldn't make any sense.  Maybe they did have opinions and chose not to voice them.  After all, why would Thane care about Garrus' Vendetta?  Why would Jack care about Tali's trial?  Why would Grunt care about...well, ANYONE's problem?

Interaction is fine, but it has to make SENSE.  Interaction just for interaction's sake is silly.

But you see that's my opinion.  And you won't convince me that not having those interactions hurt the story.  Just like how I feel thermal clips are just fine or that people overblow the plot holes.  The problem is that the flaws are entirely subjective.  Every person has different issues with different aspects.  Some people likewise don't have ANY issues at all.

[RiouHotaru]

iakus wrote...
How about involving the third squadmate in something other than fire support?  Or even better, how about:

Garrus:  "Shepard, I have the chematics for a weapon that could really upgrade the Normandy's firepower.  But we need some components.  I know of a Blue Suns base that may have what we need"

Shepard:  "All right, we'll make a stop there and 'aquire' what we need"

After a fun-filled romp of shooting various mercenaries and gathering components for the thanix.  Garrus is accessing a computer

Garrus:  Shepard!  You remember I told you a member of my squad sold us out?  Turns out the Blue Suns have kept tabs on that traitor!  He's on the Citadel! I want a piece of his hide!"

Same for Jack.  She knows the Teltin facility was planning to fit her with a super-amp that could boost her power for the Suicide Mission.  They make a stop to se if the place still exists.  It does, and she wants to blow the place up when they're done.  And so forth.  Tie the loyalty mission into the main story.  Make it about actually preparing for the Suicide Mission.

But this wouldn't make any sense.  Remember, the loyalty missions don't necessarily need a connection to the main plot, and most of them shouldn't be connected.  Otherwise finding out about them feels like a series of rapidly odd coincidences.

[HolyJellyfish]

The biggest problem I had with ME2 was just how damn linear it was compared to ME1. I love shooters, I enjoyed taking out some of the more time consuming elements of the game, I personally like grabbing ammo and being forced to react quickly and strategically.



I just didn't enjoy the more linear stages involved in the main plot. After Garrus and Mordin's recruitment, the whole thing became a "Okay. So all I do this ENTIRE game is just A) Pick up people and Do some loyalty thing." It is just... tooo predictable. The only things that punched me out was during Collector missions., it was hard to see those coming.

[mopotter]

Sajuro wrote...

I liked the plot, I mean I missed the squad meeting but I thought it was a coherent plot that told a rather fun story. You are just looking at ME1 with rose colored glasses.

Just looking at ME 1 with a different pair of glasses, not rose colored.  Depends on what you want in a story and game.  I read a lot of books,  and ME1 was like being a part of the book with a great story and ending.  ME2 not so much.  For me ME2 was a bunch of short stories about the team members, but it lacked the cohesiveness  I had with Kaidan, Ash and Liara, Tali, Garrus and Wrex, who were mainly involved in one story.  

Jumping from story to story was sometimes interesting and I've enjoyed playing ME2.  But I would not play ME2 just to play it, which I still do with ME1.  I play ME2 to bridge my game to ME3.  If the worst of the worst happened and they destroyed ME3 with a bad or no story and turned it into some kind of evil shooter game <_<  I'd just put ME2 up and continue to replay ME1.   I don't think this will happen with ME3, I'm really hopeful that the story will be suck me in like ME1 did.

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Because it's always going to be a personal thing.  For example, iakus wants the squadmates' input on their comrades.  Which I feel wouldn't make any sense.  Maybe they did have opinions and chose not to voice them.  After all, why would Thane care about Garrus' Vendetta?  Why would Jack care about Tali's trial?  Why would Grunt care about...well, ANYONE's problem?

Interaction is fine, but it has to make SENSE.  Interaction just for interaction's sake is silly.

Not everyone has to react to the same event.  It's true some wouldn't care about a given choice.

If Grunt's response to any particular choice was "Is anyone else hungry?" that would be fine.

But there are events in the game which I'm certain a squadmate would and should respond, but doesn't.  Both on the Normandy and on missions.  It's downright eerie to be discussung vengence with Garrus in the aircar on the Citadel, with Thane sitting in the back, completely still and silent.  Tali takes the presence of a geth and an AI on the Normandy remarkably well.  And a justicar saying nothing while a refinery full of innocent workers burns? 
It only reinforces in my mind that ME 2 is "just a game" 

RiouHotaru wrote...

But this wouldn't make any sense.  Remember, the loyalty missions don't necessarily need a connection to the main plot, and most of them shouldn't be connected.  Otherwise finding out about them feels like a series of rapidly odd coincidences.

What I was trying to convey is that in addition to the closure, what is needed is some sort of preparation.  Not 't just preparing to die, but trying to increase their odds of living.  Otherwise the game stops feeling like it's "Shepard's Story"

mopotter wrote...

Just looking at ME 1 with a different pair of glasses, not rose colored.  Depends on what you want in a story and game.  I read a lot of books,  and ME1 was like being a part of the book with a great story and ending.  ME2 not so much.  For me ME2 was a bunch of short stories about the team members, but it lacked the cohesiveness  I had with Kaidan, Ash and Liara, Tali, Garrus and Wrex, who were mainly involved in one story.  

Exactly!  The second volume to a trilogy is generally not a short story anthology!  It palys havok with the plotline!

[glacier1701]

 The ME2 story fails at many levels and these have been iterated in many other threads. Of them there are two that perhaps pertain most in this thread. Firstly the loyalty missions are badly named. They are not loyalty missions but rather FOCUS missions. This is made really clear in the case of Tali and Garrus where, during conversations, their presence, loyalty and trust is assumed right from the start of their presence on the Normandy and not from some mission. This is even more pointed if you pursue either as a LI. After all during those parts of the story trust/loyalty has to be there even before the 'loyalty' mission is done. I would say that this misnomer is why the stories we do get are all over the place because even the writers were unsure of what these mission were to accomplish.

 The second reason that is pertinent is that the main story itself is confused as to what it is supposed to be. Using the same comparison of The Dirty Dozen that BioWare itself used we can say that its as if the movie Dozen were told that they were to form the FIRST WAVE of the invasion of Europe to go over the beaches. Yet, as we know, that was not how the movie worked nor how ME2 ended. We get an epic mission which in the end turns out to be a lot smaller than its presentation to us during both the pre-release hype and pre-Omega gameplay. It did not help that the 'final' boss was ludicrous and not the boss we perhaps expected to face. It did not help that the end point of ME1 and ME2 were almost identical and that for what was done in ME2 nothing new was added to the knowledge we have on how to face the Reaper threat. All in all ME2 did not advance the plot in any significant way and that in the end is why it must be classed as inferior to ME1.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I agree with Glacier. LOTSB is really the true continuation, and it's a few-hour DLC.

[Da_Lion_Man]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I agree with Glacier. LOTSB is really the true continuation, and it's a few-hour DLC.

It took me 90 minutes on hardcore.

I also find it a bit sad how LoTSB advances the plot more than the actual game.

[Fiery Phoenix]

It's indeed sad, Lion.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Scudboy? You mean Smudboy?

I watched all of his videos, sometimes it's pretty funny how he ridiculizes some aspects of the game. I feel like he's harsh but not unreasonable, I can understand his point of view.

Why do people hate him so much?

I did not approve of some of his disingenuous assertions. Or his tone of voice.

Not to mention his habit belittling and demeaning statements towards those who don't agree with him.

[Da_Lion_Man]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Scudboy? You mean Smudboy?

I watched all of his videos, sometimes it's pretty funny how he ridiculizes some aspects of the game. I feel like he's harsh but not unreasonable, I can understand his point of view.

Why do people hate him so much?

I did not approve of some of his disingenuous assertions. Or his tone of voice.

Not to mention his habit belittling and demeaning statements towards those who don't agree with him.

I've been lurking here for quite a while and I haven't seen him insulting people... and if he did insult or ridiculized people, they were probably doing it first. 

Though he loves getting himself in arguments.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

How about involving the third squadmate in something other than fire support?  Or even better, how about:

Garrus:  "Shepard, I have the chematics for a weapon that could really upgrade the Normandy's firepower.  But we need some components.  I know of a Blue Suns base that may have what we need"

Shepard:  "All right, we'll make a stop there and 'aquire' what we need"

After a fun-filled romp of shooting various mercenaries and gathering components for the thanix.  Garrus is accessing a computer

Garrus:  Shepard!  You remember I told you a member of my squad sold us out?  Turns out the Blue Suns have kept tabs on that traitor!  He's on the Citadel! I want a piece of his hide!"

Same for Jack.  She knows the Teltin facility was planning to fit her with a super-amp that could boost her power for the Suicide Mission.  They make a stop to se if the place still exists.  It does, and she wants to blow the place up when they're done.  And so forth.  Tie the loyalty mission into the main story.  Make it about actually preparing for the Suicide Mission.

YES, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with my example using Tali.


Hmmm... we need a "director's cut" of ME2, with these kinds of ideas. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 02 décembre 2010 - 04:39 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Busomjack wrote...

And while everyone else is enjoying the Hell out of Mass Effect 2 and is highly anticipating the release of Mass Effect 3 you're going to be sitting in your dark corner, sad and alone.  You're like that one guy at every party who stands in the corner while everyone else is just looking to get buzzed, socialize and have a good time and you ask yourself how people can possibly find entertainment in such stupid things.  You said it earlier, you wish you could enjoy the game as much as most people do but you're obviously not going to convince people to join your little sob-fest since the game didn't turn out like you wanted and nobody else is going to accept your outlandish comparison of Mass Effect 2 to Deus Ex 2 which almost everyone agrees was a colossal failure.
Likewise I'll concede nobody is likely going to convince you to see things differently either so really why bother continuing this Mass Effect 2 sob story?
Your criticisms don't even have any credibility considering your lavish praise of Mass Effect 1 which has pretty much ALL of the issues regarding character interaction that you bring up in Mass Effect 2. I guess you preferred those cookie cutter, 5 minute long side missions that do nothing at all to influence the outcome of the game.

Hey, I *LIKE* ME2. 

It's better than 90+% of the video games in the last decade. 

I also think it could have been even BETTER.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...
But there are events in the game which I'm certain a squadmate would and should respond, but doesn't.  Both on the Normandy and on missions.  It's downright eerie to be discussung vengence with Garrus in the aircar on the Citadel, with Thane sitting in the back, completely still and silent.  Tali takes the presence of a geth and an AI on the Normandy remarkably well.  And a justicar saying nothing while a refinery full of innocent workers burns? 
It only reinforces in my mind that ME 2 is "just a game" 

Tali doesn't say a word when you're talking to Kenn on Omega. 

At least she has a lot to say to the Volus on the Citadel.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

HolyJellyfish wrote...

The biggest problem I had with ME2 was just how damn linear it was compared to ME1. I love shooters, I enjoyed taking out some of the more time consuming elements of the game, I personally like grabbing ammo and being forced to react quickly and strategically.



I just didn't enjoy the more linear stages involved in the main plot. After Garrus and Mordin's recruitment, the whole thing became a "Okay. So all I do this ENTIRE game is just A) Pick up people and Do some loyalty thing." It is just... tooo predictable. The only things that punched me out was during Collector missions., it was hard to see those coming.

Right, ME wasn't linear at all in comparison to ME2...

Okay, so all I did in ME's ENTIRE game is just a: prove Saren has gone rogue after he killed nihlus on Eden Prime then b: got to a few places where Saren had reportedly been, followed by c: go to Ilos and then stop Saren and sovereign on the Citadel. It was just... tooo predictable. The only thing that punched me out was during Virmire where I had to either talk-jutsu/kill Wrex and then choose between Ash and Kaiden, it was hard to see those coming.

That linear path wasn't in ME was it? Or did I actually see all that?

Of course am only saying that IF we were going to follow your chain of thought that is. See it is easy to make ME sound just as linear as you tried making ME2 sound.

Sorry but to try and claim ME2 was more linear than ME is just wrong.

The only issue I had with the ME2 story was how easy the Suicide Mission was (or more to the point how easy it is to get most/all squad out alive). I think they hyped up the 'chance that Shepard could really be dead by the end of the game' up a bit too much in this regard with how the mission plays out. Yeah you can but you really have to (intentionally) play dumb to do so. But that isn't really a story fault, that's a design fault.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Busomjack wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

Bioware would be wasting their time and resources addressing the nitpicking you've brought up, especially since the game was an huge commercial and critical success and just about nobody else cares about your issue with the game. Mass Effect 1 did have a couple pretty big problems so criticism was justified there. Mass Effect 2 really doesn't have any major issues so Bioware should just give us more of what we want with a few new twists and ideas to keep things fresh.

"So what about the first 5 pages of this thread? or the 2 dozen threads complaining about the story?"

Hogwash, all of it.

i can't tell if you're a troll or not...

What?  I don't need to read 5 pages of bickering and moaning to determine whether or not the game has a good plot.  I've played the game and experienced the plot myself, that's all the evidence I need to come to my conclusion.  I don't need to be objective about this and listen to everyone elses complaints because I don't go out of my way to find a problem with a game, that is called nitpicking.
If I don't noticed a problem then it's too small a problem for me to waste any of my life worrying about.

And yet here you are...

[sagefic]

a lot of what i would say was said by the first few posts. i would add - it's because it's not about Shepard in ME2. it's very strange that you have a story of hero, when the whole story is all about his/her crew, their problems, etc. the hero died and was brought back to life, is potentially at odds with his/her friends, lover, etc. and all he/she does is stoically shoot stuff. it's beyond distracting to have so little of shepard in a story about shepard.

[Giggles_Manically]

Besides being some bad ass leader Shepard did not do anything that only Shepard could do.

In ME1 the Prothean visions made Shepard unique and added an interesting element to him/her.



In ME2 we got nothing interesting and it was only in LOTSB where Shepard got to say anything meaningful.

[Stephanis_mirabar]

Getting back to the original line of discussion here, I also saw a fair amount of spoilers for ME2 prior to playing it and I feel it did lessen my enjoyment by some degree.  Knowing that I would run into Tali and that she would ultimately be charged with treason really made those events have a lot less impact for me, but ultimately the spoilers didn't ruin the overall story for me, the fact it was kind of weak did.

In ME2 the focus was put solidly on your team and your efforts to recruit them and gain their loyalty, with the overall story of stopping the Reapers being pushed into the background and not really being advanced at all.  I thought this was an odd choice, but I enjoyed playing ME2 as the recruitment missions were well done and most of your squadmates were interesting.  The loyalty missions themselves were well done, and the overall choices you had to make during the game to me felt harder to make even though they didn't have the sense of scale to them that the major choices in ME1 had (aside from the ending of course).  The choices were more personal, with no clear "right" choice.  All of that added up to enough to largely offset an underwhelming plot. 

Then I found out that "Loyalty" was meaningless.  I was looking forward to conflicts between characters and trying to maintain control of the volatile mix of personalities on my team.  I kept waitng to run into a situation where if a character was unloyal they would leave or betray me, only to find that in a game where so much emphasis is spent on recruiting your team and building their loyalty, none of it actualy mattered.  That to me broke the story of the game moreso than the overall weak plot. 

[Malanek]

The main problem with the ME2 story was that there wasn't enough focus on the main plot. I suspect you could play ME1 and ME3 and not miss a thing in terms of the overall story. It was character driven which can be good but it all felt a little artificial because everything was symetrical ie recruitment then loyalty. They probably had too many characters to pay them that much attention.



However the non-main plot writing was all very good. The characters and the situations they found themselves in were very interesting. Character development was much better than ME1 and it was also paced better. The world they introduced in ME1 was expanded on and filled in nicely.



I'm just hoping ME3 doesn't go down the recruit several factions then fight the reapers scenerio. That would be very unoriginal and kind of a let down to an excellent trilogy.

[Iakus]

Malanek999 wrote...

The main problem with the ME2 story was that there wasn't enough focus on the main plot. I suspect you could play ME1 and ME3 and not miss a thing in terms of the overall story. It was character driven which can be good but it all felt a little artificial because everything was symetrical ie recruitment then loyalty. They probably had too many characters to pay them that much attention.

However the non-main plot writing was all very good. The characters and the situations they found themselves in were very interesting. Character development was much better than ME1 and it was also paced better. The world they introduced in ME1 was expanded on and filled in nicely.

I'm just hoping ME3 doesn't go down the recruit several factions then fight the reapers scenerio. That would be very unoriginal and kind of a let down to an excellent trilogy.

Indeed.  There are parts of a good story in there.  Parts of several good stories, in fact.  But really, Jack may have a good arc, but when stacked with Garrus, Legion, Thane, Miranda, and so on, her story ends up getting buried in the shuffle, as does everyone else's, since there's really nothing to tie them together.  Nothing to make it one whole story instead of a bunch of game demos, however interesting those demos may be.

Modifié par iakus, 02 décembre 2010 - 10:01 .

[cdtrk65]

The tying factor is supposed to be having your crew in top mental shape before heading into the Omega 4 relay...



In some sense the story is actually better than ME1. In one you were supposed to racing against Saren, but you had time to visit every planet in the game with no effect on the story at all. (Huh, maybe Shepard only have believed the conduit was any use anyway).



In ME2 your building a squad and a ship toward a goal, sure the goal has some race elements to it, but you don't go in without real prep or equipment or you face consquence.



I've been thinking, if you flip ME2 story (obviously change some elements) and put it in one, and have ME1 story in the second game.



Game 1 (Investage missing colonies with no clue to the reapers, only discover the reapers through missions)



Game 2 (Saren goes on a rampage trying to find the conduit, and introduction and defeat of Sovereign. With surviving crew)



It just seems like the ME1 climax was much higher than ME2...



Prehaps ME3 can save its bacon by making the events of 2 mean something...