174 réponses à ce sujet

[sumoaltus]

I ran a search on all of the threads that contained an ME2 argument and there are just too many to post in, so I figured I'd make my own thread on this.

I'm sure everyone here has read millions of posts along the lines of "ME2 sucks ME1 is better", "ME2 has lost it's core RPG elements", "ME2 is too character driven", or "ME2 is too much of babysitting game than an RPG". I think a lot of the gamers and fans on this forum are missing the point of the whole second part of the trilogy concept. As all of you know, ME has been labeled as a trilogy since Casey and his team announced it. ME1 started off by introducing us all to the ME universe and it's numerous inhabitants, along with the story that will unfold before us in three seperate installments. Now, I'm not going to go too deep into the story because everyone on here has at least played ME1 once, and understands the overall synopsis. Plus, I want to avoid any spoilers that will get this thread closed.

Anyway, getting to the point. ME2 is supposed to be the so called "bridge" with in the trilogy. ME1 introduced us to key characters for the first time and the overall story, where as ME2 mainly focused on characters. Here's where my rebuttle for the countless ME2 story bashings comes into play. Based on what I'm seeing ME2 is all about building a team of deadly assassins, biotics, and warriors for the so called "suicide mission" that is stated in the description on the back cover and all over the internet. Now, I'm not going to lie, that is the game, but there is a reason why you're only recruiting a team. Look further into the future plot, you're recruiting all of these pcharacters in ME1 and ME2 to help you out in the ultimate battle for survival of the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ME3.

So how does the make ME2 sub-par or lack luster? The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy. And to me, it goes above and beyond many trilogies that I've watched. It also adds a perfect mix of shooter and RP(Role Playing) quaities. Shaping the universe is still there, exploration is still there, resources for upgrading is still there, currency is still there, important decisions and dialogue is still there, and basic shooter elements are still there. And keep in mind, All of this has been upgraded along with a more streamlined approach to upgrading and customizing. Think about it, who really wants to be toying around with five sets of weapon upgrades that have minscule differences? I'll reiterate something that has been stated countless times on this forum, inventory cluttr does not make an RPG, an RPG. Strong character development and a universe shaped solely on your decisions makes an RPG what it is supposed to be.

[Dominus]

I seriously doubt it will be the discussion to end all discussions(Haters gotta hate), but this is a healthy summarization of the ME1/ME2 debacle and some key points to why calling ME2 "lackluster" is a gross exaggeration.

[sumoaltus]

yeah I know, one can always be hopeful that the discussions will end, then what would the forums be here for?



I'm just trying to show fans who hate ME2's elements the bigger picture behind the differing plot between the two titles.

[SirKillsalot]

sumoaltus wrote...

I ran a search on all of the threads that contained an ME2 argument and there are just too many to post in, so I figured I'd make my own thread on this.

I'm sure everyone here has read millions of posts along the lines of "ME2 sucks ME1 is better", "ME2 has lost it's core RPG elements", "ME2 is too character driven", or "ME2 is too much of babysitting game than an RPG". I think a lot of the gamers and fans on this forum are missing the point of the whole second part of the trilogy concept. As all of you know, ME has been labeled as a trilogy since Casey and his team announced it. ME1 started off by introducing us all to the ME universe and it's numerous inhabitants, along with the story that will unfold before us in three seperate installments. Now, I'm not going to go too deep into the story because everyone on here has at least played ME1 once, and understands the overall synopsis. Plus, I want to avoid any spoilers that will get this thread closed.

Anyway, getting to the point. ME2 is supposed to be the so called "bridge" with in the trilogy. ME1 introduced us to key characters for the first time and the overall story, where as ME2 mainly focused on characters. Here's where my rebuttle for the countless ME2 story bashings comes into play. Based on what I'm seeing ME2 is all about building a team of deadly assassins, biotics, and warriors for the so called "suicide mission" that is stated in the description on the back cover and all over the internet. Now, I'm not going to lie, that is the game, but there is a reason why you're only recruiting a team. Look further into the future plot, you're recruiting all of these pcharacters in ME1 and ME2 to help you out in the ultimate battle for survival of the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ME3.

So how does the make ME2 sub-par or lack luster? The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy. And to me, it goes above and beyond many trilogies that I've watched. It also adds a perfect mix of shooter and RP(Role Playing) quaities. Shaping the universe is still there, exploration is still there, resources for upgrading is still there, currency is still there, important decisions and dialogue is still there, and basic shooter elements are still there. And keep in mind, All of this has been upgraded along with a more streamlined approach to upgrading and customizing. Think about it, who really wants to be toying around with five sets of weapon upgrades that have minscule differences? I'll reiterate something that has been stated countless times on this forum, inventory cluttr does not make an RPG, an RPG. Strong character development and a universe shaped solely on your decisions makes an RPG what it is supposed to be.

I Completely agree with every word.

[RekhX4]

sumoaltus wrote...

I ran a search on all of the threads that contained an ME2 argument and there are just too many to post in, so I figured I'd make my own thread on this.

I'm sure everyone here has read millions of posts along the lines of "ME2 sucks ME1 is better", "ME2 has lost it's core RPG elements", "ME2 is too character driven", or "ME2 is too much of babysitting game than an RPG". I think a lot of the gamers and fans on this forum are missing the point of the whole second part of the trilogy concept. As all of you know, ME has been labeled as a trilogy since Casey and his team announced it. ME1 started off by introducing us all to the ME universe and it's numerous inhabitants, along with the story that will unfold before us in three seperate installments. Now, I'm not going to go too deep into the story because everyone on here has at least played ME1 once, and understands the overall synopsis. Plus, I want to avoid any spoilers that will get this thread closed.

Anyway, getting to the point. ME2 is supposed to be the so called "bridge" with in the trilogy. ME1 introduced us to key characters for the first time and the overall story, where as ME2 mainly focused on characters. Here's where my rebuttle for the countless ME2 story bashings comes into play. Based on what I'm seeing ME2 is all about building a team of deadly assassins, biotics, and warriors for the so called "suicide mission" that is stated in the description on the back cover and all over the internet. Now, I'm not going to lie, that is the game, but there is a reason why you're only recruiting a team. Look further into the future plot, you're recruiting all of these pcharacters in ME1 and ME2 to help you out in the ultimate battle for survival of the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ME3.

So how does the make ME2 sub-par or lack luster? The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy. And to me, it goes above and beyond many trilogies that I've watched. It also adds a perfect mix of shooter and RP(Role Playing) quaities. Shaping the universe is still there, exploration is still there, resources for upgrading is still there, currency is still there, important decisions and dialogue is still there, and basic shooter elements are still there. And keep in mind, All of this has been upgraded along with a more streamlined approach to upgrading and customizing. Think about it, who really wants to be toying around with five sets of weapon upgrades that have minscule differences? I'll reiterate something that has been stated countless times on this forum, inventory cluttr does not make an RPG, an RPG. Strong character development and a universe shaped solely on your decisions makes an RPG what it is supposed to be.

Damn good post.

+100 points to you, my friend.

[Angel-Shinkiro]

This thread is not gonna end well.

[tonnactus]

sumoaltus wrote...

, All of this has been upgraded along with a more streamlined approach to upgrading and customizing.

This is so funny. Mass Effect 2 had as much customizing as Ghostbusters the Video game.Strictly linear upgrading without any choice(headshot upgrade before armor penetration/not possible) doesnt belong in any rpg.It is even outdated compared to a lot of shooters.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 décembre 2010 - 11:59 .

[kmcd5722]

Angel-Shinkiro wrote...

This thread is not gonna end well.

I won't start a flame war, but you sir have called it as it will be.  I just don't even know where to begin on the OP.  If you really think you can end this discussion, please read through this thread: http://social.biowar...dex/1472797/411

There are many ideas, complaints, and previously unthought of grievances between the two.  Otherwise, you haven't settled anything, other than establishing the base differences between the two, that unfortunately, are the very reasons for why people like ME2 over ME1, or vice versa.

[sumoaltus]

Here's the point I'm trying to make in this post. I really didn't see any suffering in gameplay, or plot. As I stated earlier, this game was created as merely a bridge within the main plot between 1 and 3. On another note, I'm not going to sit here and argue about opinions, because that never goes anywhere, nor does it end. But I will - obviously this is an opinion - say that I feel that everyhing has been refined the right way, and I'm not a dumb person who enjoys "dumbed down" movies or video games.



I also feel that Bioware pretty much did all they could within this bridge between ME1 and ME3. And they did it perfectly.

[habitat 67]

tonnactus wrote...

This is so funny. Mass Effect 2 had as much customizing as Ghostbusters the Video game.Strictly linear upgrading without any choice(headshot upgrade before armor penetration/not possible) doesnt belong in any rpg.It is even outdated compared to a lot of shooters.

Now I completely enjoyed my entire playthrough of Ghostbusters and wanted to enjoy it ten times more (Bill Murray dammit!) but in no way does that game match the customization of Mass Effect. They did have great witty banter though!

I'll add, and this part is more subjective, that the actual gameplay was clunky and awkward at times, and some ofthe levels were a little bit of a snooze.

ME2 gameplay flows smooth like baby oil and overall consensus is in agreement.

Modifié par habitat 67, 30 décembre 2010 - 01:15 .

[The Spamming Troll]

i think your placing way to much emphasis on the word "bridge." yeah, ME2 is the second chapter in a trilogy, but in what way is it a "bridge" for ME3. ME2 isnt exactly similar to ME1 by any means. weapons functionality was drastically changed, abilities are severely limited on higher difficulties, and the story didnt advanace one bit. ME2 barely bridges from ME1. obviously we dont know what ME3 holds, but if ME3 is more parts ME2 and less parts ME1, then i think its moving in the wrong direction.

[Iakus]

sumoaltus wrote...

I ran a search on all of the threads that contained an ME2 argument and there are just too many to post in, so I figured I'd make my own thread on this.

I'm sure everyone here has read millions of posts along the lines of "ME2 sucks ME1 is better", "ME2 has lost it's core RPG elements", "ME2 is too character driven", or "ME2 is too much of babysitting game than an RPG". I think a lot of the gamers and fans on this forum are missing the point of the whole second part of the trilogy concept. As all of you know, ME has been labeled as a trilogy since Casey and his team announced it. ME1 started off by introducing us all to the ME universe and it's numerous inhabitants, along with the story that will unfold before us in three seperate installments. Now, I'm not going to go too deep into the story because everyone on here has at least played ME1 once, and understands the overall synopsis. Plus, I want to avoid any spoilers that will get this thread closed.

Anyway, getting to the point. ME2 is supposed to be the so called "bridge" with in the trilogy. ME1 introduced us to key characters for the first time and the overall story, where as ME2 mainly focused on characters. Here's where my rebuttle for the countless ME2 story bashings comes into play. Based on what I'm seeing ME2 is all about building a team of deadly assassins, biotics, and warriors for the so called "suicide mission" that is stated in the description on the back cover and all over the internet. Now, I'm not going to lie, that is the game, but there is a reason why you're only recruiting a team. Look further into the future plot, you're recruiting all of these pcharacters in ME1 and ME2 to help you out in the ultimate battle for survival of the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ME3.

So how does the make ME2 sub-par or lack luster? The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy. And to me, it goes above and beyond many trilogies that I've watched. It also adds a perfect mix of shooter and RP(Role Playing) quaities. Shaping the universe is still there, exploration is still there, resources for upgrading is still there, currency is still there, important decisions and dialogue is still there, and basic shooter elements are still there. And keep in mind, All of this has been upgraded along with a more streamlined approach to upgrading and customizing. Think about it, who really wants to be toying around with five sets of weapon upgrades that have minscule differences? I'll reiterate something that has been stated countless times on this forum, inventory cluttr does not make an RPG, an RPG. Strong character development and a universe shaped solely on your decisions makes an RPG what it is supposed to be.

Just focusing on the bridging aspect:

Me 2 doesn't bridge well because, right off the bat, it minimizes and trivializes the events of ME 1.  ME 1 was a whole, self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end, with a thread to follow to continue the story "The Reapers are coming, and I'm gonna find a way to stop them"  ME 2, promptly cuts you off from everything that happened. Events are swept under the rug.  Friends.  allies, even enemies are marginalized.  Shepard himself is killed and the Normandy destroyed at the very beginning.  If tha't s not a heavy-handed severing of ties between storylines, I don't know what is. 

Over the course of the game, the Reapers themselves, the supposed primary antagonist in the series,  are barely mentioned.  The Collectors only slightly more so.  IF this is like The Empire Strikes Back, that's like having stormtroopers appearing in only three scenes, and Vader only in voiceover.

I'm not going to get into the ending here, since this is the no spoilers section, but I will just remind you that ME 1 had a definitive ending, yet remained open for  the rest of the trilogy.  You knew SOvereign's plan and foiled it.  Perhaps the Collectors' plan was foiled, maybe not.  We know what they were doing, but not why, what they hoped to accomplish with what they were doing.  Also, I might add, the overall polot (find a way to stop the Reapers) had not moved forth one bit.  In fact, I might go so far as to say it moved backwards in some ways.

If ME 2 showed some sort of gradual deconstruction of Shepard's fortunes, the reasons behind why his old connections now turn away from him, and his slide from "Savior of the CItadel" to obscurity, that would have made more sense and likely a better story.  Similarly if we learned more about what the Collectors were ultimately up to, perhaps even learning the truth too late and failing to stop whatever it was they were trying to accomplish (dark second act and all).  Instead we get a game that does it's very best to pretend ME 1 never happened, and an ending that gave me the distinct feeling that we're just killing time until ME 3 comes out.  How does that make this a "bridging volume?" rather than an expansion pack?

[Zombie Chow]

I respect OP tackling a controversial issue, bringing up a new "bridge" idea, then arguing it articulately.  I just have a few concerns over some fundamental points:

sumoaltus wrote...
Look further into the future plot, you're recruiting all of these pcharacters in ME1 and ME2 to help you out in the ultimate battle for survival of the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ME3.

So ME2 is only justified if all Squad Members return in ME3?  We don't know much about ME3 yet, so that's too big an assumption for me.

sumoaltus wrote...
The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy.

This...is disappointing.  It's like ME2 was just "filler".  It's like it was simply decided ME would be a trilogy and we gotta stick something in between ME1 and ME3 for the sole reason of making it a trilogy.

I'm actually being pushed towards the Haters camp over this "bridge".  I acknowledge OP's point that ME2 was a very good "bridge" if that's all it is.  But it should have been more than a mere "bridge".

[sumoaltus]

That's where the argument comes into play Zombie, the game is seen widely by many fans as nothing more than a "filler". This is what is causing most f the arguments you see on this board. It's definitely a beautiful filler, but sadly, that's what it is, even though it is still one of the greatest if not the greatest game I've ever played.



Thank you iakus for that articulate and intelligent response. I see your point exactly as far as a story goes. Yes, ME1 has a definitive beginning, middle, and end, and it does leave the remainder of the plot open. But here's the beauty of ME2. They were able to take Cerberus, an unknown splinter group, and throw them into the mix without really messing with the whole "flow" with the story. Now yes, I know the reapers weren't mentioned that much, but were they really mentioned a lot in ME1 as well?



Yes and no, it's tough to add to this without spoiling the game, but to me, most of the game was concentrated around Saren, and what has happened between his fued with Anderson in the past, and 2183. If you read Revelation what I'm talking about will make a lot more sense. ME2 wors the same way. Yes, the Reapers are the true enemy, but Shepard's focus is mainly taking down the other antagonists, the Collectors, supposed agents of the Reapers.



So in conclusion yes, ME takes a drastic turn in the second installment, but that's what a lot of mid sequel titles do before the massive conclusion of the next installment, when it all finally falls together.

[BiancoAngelo7]

OP,



if you think you're going to settle this debate by highlighting one of the main issues that people have with ME2 and why they feel it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, then I think you overestimate your capacity to put the ME1vsME2 debate to rest.



All I have to say is, if you can honestly play ME1 and then ME2 in a short time span, and then not notice everything that was taken out, gutted or in some cases "streamlined" until it was barely recognizable then you have amazing tunnel vision.



Yes, ME2 is a great game.



Yes, it had numerous improvements like combat, graphics, production values, amount of content etc.



However,



it is a horrible sequel to ME1, instead being a good/great prequel to ME3.



it has completely gutted most of the RPG elements from the GAMEPLAY that was in ME1



it has completely removed all elements of immersion replacing them with cheap industry cliches like loading screens, missino complete screens, teleporting, and PRESSS F TO END MISSION



Planet exploration and the feeling of a vast universe, and the amazing skyboxes that came with it, has been completely removed.



The galaxy map was made WORSE from ME1 to ME2, replacing an amazingly beautiful animated cutscene of the Normandy travelling between systems to moving a toy ship and "buying" fuel for it, as well as having ugly worlds with no detail and lazy descriptions for them.



I could go on.



I am sorry, but writing that short blurb that ME2 is about recruiting characters is tantamount to saying



"there should be no ME2vsME1 debate because the Devs told us on the game box that the game was going to be a bunch of side quests, and all of the other flaws and disappointments in the game are non-existent."

[sumoaltus]

skyboxes, exploration, RPG elements, and immersion are worse? I'll definitely give you that the mission complete screen was no good and it took me out of the game a bit, but the rest is very debatable. What about character emotion in ME2? I never cared more for characters if they died in any other game or movie. ME2 did such an amazing job on character development and loyalty.

[Bourne Endeavor]

The qualm many of us had with the story was it was essentially filler and is wholly dependent on Mass Effect 3 to not be rendered to obscurity. I had wished you posted this on the spoilers section so as to more acutely decisions specific plotholes and angles that were completely disregarded moments subsequent to their discovery. Instead I shall settle to argue Mass Effect 2 did not educate us on the overarching antagonist. We learn practically nothing of the Reapers and even less about the Collectors. A second act should not be filler because this gives the insinuation Bioware only possessed enough content for two and a half games and simply stretched what they had.

Allow me to play devil's advocate and spin this entirely plausible scenario. Mass Effect ushers in the invasion of the Reapers and we recruit an entirely new cast of characters to combat them. Do you recall the ending of Mass Effect? "The Reapers are coming, and I'm gonna find a way to stop them." This quote to be specific. In a matter of minutes Mass Effect 2 was disregarded, left to pointless obscurity and completely unnecessary. I could have skipped ahead to ME3 and the plot would move along unhinged.

This is the primary gripe with ME2's story. It is completely reliant upon Mass Effect 3 and at its mercy. ME3 can utilize the Collectors, Harbinger, Cerberus and/or your squad or it can cast them all aside. A sequel should never be so easily rendered obsolete to the overall plot. It was frustrating how forgotten Mass Effect was but it is at least capable by its lonesome and necessary for ME3's existence. ME2 may not be.

As it stands Mass Effect 2 has only two paths going forward. A sequel wholly dependent on its "big brother" to possess any relevance to the Reaper saga or to remain a fantastic expansion game. It will forever hold the title of a weak sequel.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 30 décembre 2010 - 03:25 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Even using the description "It's acting as the bridge" doesn't do a lot since it did a rather poor job of advancing the storyline. At the end of Mass Effect 2 you're exactly back to where Shepard left off in the first game, preparing to fend off the reaper threat. Save for a new found interest in humans, nothing is really furthered with the Reaper storyline. As it has already been said, the game felt more like a prequel to the third game than a proper sequel.



But let's put that aside for a second, let's accept that the story was used to set up the grand finale. That doesn't excuse the shallowness in universe present. The romances weren't given nearly the proper amount of time to develop, you're told but hardly shown the great effects of your actions of the first game. Ashley/Kaidan are reduced to being the same character, Garrus is still Space Batman, the Council showed absolutely no character development, the Citadel is exactly same. The list goes on. Even if the game was a set up, it still should've shown how pivotal your actions had been, instead of simply being told and receiving emails.



My final gripe is lack of character immersion with Shepard. I'm sorry, but Shepard felt way to impersonal in ME2. There's only 3 occasions where a character asks you how you feel, 1 of them being in a DLC. Unlike ME1, it hardly feel like your character grows as a person because Shepard is relegated to being the Living Emotional Crutch for the crew.

[Jacen987]

Oh brother.Same old,same old.ME1 and ME2 have different directions.Excluding gameplay,its not that one is superior,its that people just prefer one over the other.ME1 introduced us to an immense universe,and the threat looming over it.It was a race for salvation,against the clock.ME2 actually let us live in that universe,let us experience its people and culture on a more personal level without a ticking clock"Universe ends in: 03:56"It gives you a reason to care,when things start to die left and right.

Theres a certain "calm before the storm" and at the same time fatalism,about the crew and their suicide mission.The whole games purpose,is to make you feel for these troubled people and then kill them off.Tugging the Heart strings as it were.

As far as im concerned,the crew was the story.And i dont care,if those people dont return in ME3.Infact I feel many of them would not fit in the context of ME3 at all.There were aboard for the SM.Would they still stay with Shepard after that?How Long?The Reapers wont just appear after a week from ME2.Based on Retribution,there would be atleast 2 years before the attack.

Anyway the whole debate is just preference,plot-wise anyway.Its was a different direction as C.Hudson sad,and i completely approve.Infact i think ME3 needs a new direction aswell.No collecting and no race against time.

AS far as advancing the overall plot.It ackomlished that aswell.Thou not to the degree of the first,witch is only natural for a sequel.

Modifié par Jacen987, 30 décembre 2010 - 03:51 .

[Dominus]

As much as I'd like to continue having this debate, it's just adding to making the title of this thread irrelevant There's no way every single Mass Effect Fan is going to agree to one specific argument for, or against ME2's direction. I know you had good intentions, but I think we just started ANOTHER debate. Yay?



I'll say one thing, though:



"PRESS F TO END MISSION"



Yeah... that wasn't the most interesting way to end a mission. At least I didn't have to collect multi-colored keycards.

[Aidoru Kami]

Really, Mass Effect could have been one game to begin with. I'm glad this wasn't the case, however, as making it three games allowed them to improve. And get 3x the income.



Debating on Mass Effect 2's relevance to the plot of the trilogy really seems trivial at the moment. We won't really know how much it mattered until Mass Effect 3.



But here's the real issue with ME2... that nobody seems to have brought up.



BioWare wants each game to be as open as possible to new players. That's why ME2 seemed to chunk the plot of ME1 in its entirety out the window. They didn't want to have to explain the whole thing over again, despite how simple that would have been. Apparently they didn't realize that until they started making the PS3 version. I'm sure they're going to do something similar with ME3.



Either way, I love both games, though I personally love the second one more. Likely due to the fact that there's no parts of the game that I groan at as I play them. (Maaaaaaaaaakkkkkoooooooooo. And no, I don't think planet-scanning is bad. It's no different from grinding. The Mako's just horrible)

[MassEffect762]

Differing opinions are the only thing keeping this place lively imo.



Love it or hate it opinions wont change.



With that said, let the show continue....

[Iakus]

sumoaltus wrote...

Thank you iakus for that articulate and intelligent response. I see your point exactly as far as a story goes. Yes, ME1 has a definitive beginning, middle, and end, and it does leave the remainder of the plot open. But here's the beauty of ME2. They were able to take Cerberus, an unknown splinter group, and throw them into the mix without really messing with the whole "flow" with the story. Now yes, I know the reapers weren't mentioned that much, but were they really mentioned a lot in ME1 as well?

Yes and no, it's tough to add to this without spoiling the game, but to me, most of the game was concentrated around Saren, and what has happened between his fued with Anderson in the past, and 2183. If you read Revelation what I'm talking about will make a lot more sense. ME2 wors the same way. Yes, the Reapers are the true enemy, but Shepard's focus is mainly taking down the other antagonists, the Collectors, supposed agents of the Reapers.

So in conclusion yes, ME takes a drastic turn in the second installment, but that's what a lot of mid sequel titles do before the massive conclusion of the next installment, when it all finally falls together.

It is good to have a civil debate about the merits of ME 2

I'm not opposed to the introduction to Cerberus as an ally, or having to "work for the bad guys.  That part of the story was a pretty good idea, though the whole Faustian bargain thing could have been played better, imo

The problem to me is, there is no "bridge" between Council Spectre and Cerberus Ally.  Just a bolt-from-the-blue death, and a mysterious ressurection,  Wouldn't a better bridge have been a more gradual decline,  seeing Shepard 's allies leave or abandon him one by one until Cerberus was the only group that would listen to his warnings? 

re: Reapers.  Yes the Reapers don't appear  much in ME 1, but in the back of everything was "Saren is trying to bring back the Reapers"  Everything that happens ultimately came down to that.  In ME 2 we just get this vague "The Reapers are up to something" and to this day I don't know what it is.  Sure I've heard several theories, but in the end, I have no idea what, if anything, Shepard foiled beyond the Omega-4 Relay.  Given that each game is supposed to stand on it's own, I don't see that as a good thing.

Going in a new direction is all fine and good, but the path shouldn't vanish along the way.only to reappear somewhere else.

[sympathy4saren]

Original Mass Effect for the win

[--Master of All--]

OP, you're making assumptions about the plot of ME3 that may or may not prove true, and then building your arguement from them. IMO, we can't really know the purpose of ME2 until we know more about ME3.

Modifié par --Master of All--, 30 décembre 2010 - 07:13 .