292 réponses à ce sujet

[ObserverStatus]

I thought the story quality was about the same between ME1 and ME2. Now if only I could say the same about the Starcraft series :'(

[dude527]

I don't think spoilers much affected your perception of the game. While the Prothean thing is a rather shocking development regarding the Reapers, it's moot. They're still Collectors. You still fight and kill them. It doesn't present any regret in killing them, nor does the information enhance them, or the Reapers, in any way. I think the bottom line is this:



* 10 recruitment missions

* 12 loyalty missions

* 4 DLC missions

* A various amount of side missions

* 5 missions directly related to the main plotline...



The game is very obviously made for the sidequests, particularly the characters. You have 5 main plot-related quests, and none of them reveal ANYTHING of worth. You find out the Collectors are behind this, vaguely suspect they are working for the Reapers, and you're off to find a way through the Omega 4 Relay. You then do so, and destroy everything inside. This is Mass Effect 2. If you took out everything but the main plot missions, you would have maybe 3-4 hours of gameplay, and most of it would consist of killing, not story.

[Praetor Knight]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Out of curiousity, how people in this thread are actually professional writers?

Like a stenographer?

Seriously though, would that matter? For me it would be like asking people at a wine tasting, how many people are master vinters.

But to answer your question: I'm a terrible writer, my most professional work has been grad papers in Public Administration.

And back to this Thread, I liked both stories, and each had their strengths and weaknesses. So I don't have a problem with the stories.

[wulf3n]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
It matters because when a bunch of people start ripping on somebody else's work, yet they themselves lack the talent or ability to do as good a job or better; they're just a bunch of pricks..

I don't need to be a mechanic to know my car's broken, and i don't need to know how to fix it, to complain when my mechanic f***'s it up, and still charges me for it.

If the only people that were allowed to criticize anything were those who could do it better, the world would be full of a lot of s**t, because none of the best creators would ever really get pushed to do anything better. 

[Praetor Knight]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Out of curiousity, how people in this thread are actually professional writers?

Like a stenographer?

Seriously though, would that matter? For me it would be like asking people at a wine tasting, how many people are master vinters.

But to answer your question: I'm a terrible writer, my most professional work has been grad papers in Public Administration.

And back to this Thread, I liked both stories, and each had their strengths and weaknesses. So I don't have a problem with the stories.

LOL. No, not a stenographer. Actual professional creative writers.

It matters because when a bunch of people start ripping on somebody else's work, yet they themselves lack the talent or ability to do as good a job or better; they're just a bunch of pricks.

I too enjoyed the stories. If ME3 is a combination of both games strong points, it'll be one hell of a tale.

I understand, I'm here cuz I really like both games, some comments seem to fit the dreaded definition of "trolling," so I guess some comments go beyond giving an opinion or playing devil's advocate.
I guess more forumites have to help with keeping them to a minimum.

[JeanLuc761]

Reading threads like this, I do have to wonder about something: Does nobody understand that Mass Effect 2 was designed specifically to focus on the characters rather than the overarching plotline and, in that respect, was a success? The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't sidequests, they were the focus of the game!



Yes, the "main" plot took a back seat in Mass Effect 2 but there's a damn good reason for this. Beyond introducing/expanding upon some really wonderful characters, it simultaneously introduced multiple important subplots that will need to be resolved in Mass Effect 3. The geth/quarian conflict is the shining example of this, but Mordin's involvement with the genophage is another big plot point.



I sometimes get the feeling that people are under the mindset that "Well, if it doesn't have anything to do with the Reapers then it's not important," but I don't follow that. I care about the reaper threat, but I care infinitely more about the characters and the conflicts that result from that smaller scale. I want to know what happens to the Krogan, I want to know if the quarians and the geth can work together once more, I want to know if we can unite... and THEN I want to take the fight to the Reapers and show them what for.

[Chuvvy]

Here's how you can tell that ME2s' plot is slightly awful. Reapers are not a necessary plot point in the story. It could have easily just been the collectors. ME2s' story would have been better suited for a spin off.

[Chuvvy]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

Out of curiousity, how many people in this thread are actually professional writers?

I don't need to be a writer to tell if a story is bad. That's like saying I need to be a chef to tell if food is bad.

[JeanLuc761]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
I agree. ME2 isn't a finished product either. Once all the DLC/expansions are finished then I think it's fair to look at ME2 in it's entirety and then make comparisons.

I think it will be tough to truly judge ME2's place in the trilogy until the trilogy is actually finished. 

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Eh, the problem I had with Saren is that he was introduced FAR too early in the story.  His motivations are established within the first few hours, and then BLAM.  Off we go Saren-hunting.  Then you spend the ENTIRE game with him always two or more steps ahead of you, despite the fact you seemingly score some major victories.  Only to catch up to him and actually deal him a decisive blow RIGHT at the end of the game.  And only because he's about a few steps from winning.

Actually, Saren's motives are not what you think they are.  You only learn his real reasons at Virmire, where you learn he isn't even the Big Bad at all.  The whole game you've essentially been chasing the wrong villain! 

As to dealing the decisive blow right at the end:  I'd still take that over fighting a baby Reaper.

ME2's enemy, The Collectors, being far more nebulous and unknown felt better to me.  There was always this uncertainty, this question of: "Why are they doing this?  What do they possibly gain?"  We start gathering a team, then come across the fact that the Collectors ARE in fact working for the Reapers, and have this nebulous leader known as Harbinger who has an unhealthy obsession with Shepard, but can't be killed.

Yes, nebulous and unknown are good.  Ignored, not so good.  An unknown enemy is supposed to spur you on to learn about them, find out their motives,strengths, weaknesses.  Shepard doesn't do that.  A mysterious enemy should be omnipresent, but never really there.  Their presence is felt, but never directly.  Collector presence is almost never felt at all (I don't care how many times Harbringer says "I know you feel this").  That's not mysterious.  That's conspicuously absent.

The fact that we discover things like "Collectors = Protheans" and "Collectors work for Reapers" is just icing on the cake.  The cake itself is the attempt to go through the Omega-4 Relay and stop the collectors from taking any more humans.  TIM had that set has his goal from the start: Stop the immediate Reaper plot, which could be the prelude to something sinister.  Which as it turns out, it was.  What was that plot?  We'll never know for sure, because the Reaper's Blue and Orange morality makes their intentions uncomprehendible.

The point was "build a team and prepare them for the Suicide Mission"  Except, when was there any preparation? The loyalty missions?  Those were nice "get to know the squaddie" missions.  But how did that prepare them, other than provide the artificial "don't kill me" flag?  They were side quests shifted one column over.  There was no teambuilding.  No intelligence gathering.  The only preparation I saw was upgrading the Normandy.  That means MINING PLANETS had more to do with the story than about half the game.

Did we do anything to stop the incoming invasion?  No.  Did we put an end to their scheme which could've have unknown but potentially disasterous consequences?  Yes.  And THAT, was the point of ME2.

So ME2's tagline shouldn't have been "FIght for the Lost" so much as "Killing Time Until Mass Effect 3"?

As for the loyalty missions?  Perhaps some slight integration into the plot.  But for the most part they made sense to me.  They were disconnected because of how the characters in question start them.  For example, you can't really integrate Jacob's mission into the plot.  It requires Miranda to find the distress call and route it to Jacob, or it doesn't happen.  Garrus [and also by default, Thane], have to have their contacts on the Citadel find someone important.  So me personally, I didn't have a problem with how the missions were established.

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.

[Busomjack]

That scudboy douchebag is just trying to be cool by riding on the wave of other "internet comedian" video game critics like the AVGN or Spoony.  He's a no talent amateur and his analysis is a ****** poor generalization which is worded in a way that he could use it to make anything look bad.

I could do the same. I could say that Star Wars is about some whiny kid who has magical powers that come from nowhere and he's somehow able to destroy an entire empire despite not having any prior military experience.

You can make anything sound bad if you use the right kind of language and ignore the more subtle plot details which made Mass Effect 2 such a brilliant game to begin with.

It happens every time somethig popular comes out.  Some internet basement virgin thinks he can win his 15 minutes by going against popular opinion and making hipster losers think they're more intelligent just because they hold an opinion which goes against popular belief.

If I ever see that Smudboy ****** I'm going to suplex his face to the ground and shove a copy of Mass Effect 2 so far up his *** until he begs Drew Karpyshyn, Ray Muzyka, Casey Hudson, and everyone else at Bioware for forgiveness, I swear to friggin God I will.

Modifié par Busomjack, 02 décembre 2010 - 12:35 .

[wulf3n]

JeanLuc761 wrote...
Reading threads like this, I do have to wonder about something: Does nobody understand that Mass Effect 2 was designed specifically to focus on the characters rather than the overarching plotline and, in that respect, was a success? The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't sidequests, they were the focus of the game!

Then why'd they even bother with a plot? you can say the plot isn't the point until the cows come home, but even "The Dirty Dozen" which ME2 claims to be based upon had a believable plot. it wasn't just go collect 12 people, for 2.5 hours. The development of the characters came from the preparation for the mission. The mission was always looming over head, unlike ME2 where you completely forget about the suicide mission 90% of the game.

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
Missing my point. If you can't cook something better or find a way to improve the taste, either shut up and eat your food or go somewhere else to eat.

You don't have to know how to make something better to point out what makes it bad.

Modifié par wulf3n, 02 décembre 2010 - 12:38 .

[Praetor Knight]

iakus wrote...

So ME2's tagline shouldn't have been "FIght for the Lost" so much as "Killing Time Until Mass Effect 3"?

This made me giggle

I missed the whole "Fight for the Lost" advertising, so when I came into ME2, it was without any real expectations.

The first time I saw those commercials? teasers? was when I stumbled upon some Mass Effect video like a month ago on youtube and was like Fight for the Lost? what's that? [click] oh...

[Da_Lion_Man]

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?

[Busomjack]

wulf3n, you haven't done anything to point out Mass Effect 2's lack of quality. All you've done is explain why you don't like it and really that's your loss considering almost everyone else loves it.



Perhaps you should find a new hobby.

[Iakus]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Reading threads like this, I do have to wonder about something: Does nobody understand that Mass Effect 2 was designed specifically to focus on the characters rather than the overarching plotline and, in that respect, was a success? The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't sidequests, they were the focus of the game!

Focused on character?

Which characters favored destroying the genophage cure?  Which characters favored keeping it?

At what point did Tali express uneasiness at having a geth or an AI on board the Normandy?

What does Samara have to say about Thane wanting to save Kolyat?  What does Thane have to say about Samara wanting to kill Morinth?

How do the following characters respond to Zaed setting the refinery on fire?  Garrus.  Legion.  Miranda.

Which characters counseled against killing Sidonis?  Which ones egged Garrus on?

Which characters favored arresting Jacob's father?  Which favored leaving him to his fate?  Which favored killing him?

At what point did Mordin request to examine the following?  Miranda.  Grunt.  Shepard.

The characters only came to life within their own little stories.  Outside, they were lifeless dolls.

Yes, the "main" plot took a back seat in Mass Effect 2 but there's a damn good reason for this. Beyond introducing/expanding upon some really wonderful characters, it simultaneously introduced multiple important subplots that will need to be resolved in Mass Effect 3. The geth/quarian conflict is the shining example of this, but Mordin's involvement with the genophage is another big plot point.

Yes it's all very nice.  No arguement there.  It's also all optional.

I sometimes get the feeling that people are under the mindset that "Well, if it doesn't have anything to do with the Reapers then it's not important," but I don't follow that. I care about the reaper threat, but I care infinitely more about the characters and the conflicts that result from that smaller scale. I want to know what happens to the Krogan, I want to know if the quarians and the geth can work together once more, I want to know if we can unite... and THEN I want to take the fight to the Reapers and show them what for.

The Mass Effect trilogy is supposed to be "Shepard's story"  Not " guest-starring Commander Shepard"   The squaddies shouldn't be the focus.  Not even the Reapers, really.  It should be Shepard..  In ME2, the fact that you play as Shepard is almost an afterthought.  A cosmic coincidence.  You might as well be playing as Jacob or Miranda.

[wulf3n]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...

You don't have to know how to make something better to point out what makes it bad.

Very true, but it makes your opinion useless.

How so? by knowing whats bad, artists can work on whats good.

Busomjack wrote...

wulf3n, you haven't done anything to point out Mass Effect 2's lack of quality. All you've done is explain why you don't like it and really that's your loss considering almost everyone else loves it..

Compared to all the points made by the people that love ME2 without question? And if you can't see the writing on the wall them i'm not going to be able to show you.

I'm sorry if i can't accept unclear motives, gaping plot holes, and missions that have no relevance to the game.

Modifié par wulf3n, 02 décembre 2010 - 12:47 .

[AdmiralCheez]

About what I said earlier: When I said "better villains," I meant "less Harby spamming." And when I was talking about better integration of loyalty quests into the plot, I meant more along the lines of what iakus suggested.



Another point I agree on: Constructive Criticism > Whining.