174 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

So, here is what I hear you saying, as short as possible.

1. You would like ME series stories to continue eatch others.
2. You liked ME1 story, but not ME2 story.

Personally I think I get you point, but I don't see ME2 the way you do. You look situation little like ME2 stories was waste of time and ME1 was everyting what matters. In my opinion ME1 opened story and it was great, but also ME2 added new stuff to it too. Example I know alot more about cerberus, collectors and other races in Mass Effect universe now. Mass Effect 2 may not continue the orginal goal directly and may even put Shepard in position where player did not want to be, but life isn't allways fair. It will be very interesting to see where story goes in ME3.

1 Yes
2 It's a bit more complicated.  I liked the idea, and some of the material.  I just think it was put together poorly.

I can't honestly say ME 2 was a waste of time.  Not until ME 3 comes out at any rate.  I can say that it seems to be a waste of time because, in the end, we have no idea what was accomplished.  The Collectors are the main "villains" for this game, but we spend mosdt of the game fighting mercenaries and very little actually learning about the Collectors, their goals, or their motives.  We're building a team for some nebulous goal to "take the fight to the Collectors.  But in the end.  What did we accomplish, besides the actual building fo the team?  There's no sense of accomplishment.  No sense of failure failure.  No sense in how this fits in with the overall story.  It's just a lot of stuff that happened.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Huh? ME1 wasn't about "buying time." It was about preventing total Reaper victory. If anyone's trivializing what Shep did in the first game it's you.

Indeed, preventing the Reapers from ending all advanced life in the galaxy was the end goal.  I suppose I should rephrase and say that that stopping Saren was the only thing that Shepard did that mattered.  Everything else, every step he took in ME 1, was marginalized and rendered trivial.   How he got to that point, the entire story that was ME 1. mattered not at all as far as the ME 2 story is concerned.  In fact, it's been argued (and I somewhat agree) that ME 2 could have had an entirely different protagonist and it would not have significantly altered the story.

And in the end, Shepard did not prevent a Reaper victory.  He stopped the relay from opening.  Reaperfest was postponed.  Once the Reapers find another way into the galaxy, the cycle begins again.  Shepard bought the galaxy time. Time which we learn was utterly wasted.

You like this better. I'm indifferent, except that I think your method would need even more cutscene time before the player can take meaningful action.

Likely it would.  I'm no writer, but what I put down here was an example of what I would think would have been a smoother transition from ME 1 to ME 2, rather than the abrupt and heavy handed treatment we got (imo, of course)

So what Shepard has accomplished in ME2 is questionable, and your improvement is to make his results.... even more questionable? 

I'd argue that it would make the Reaper plans more mysterious, but Shepard's results more clearly a failure.  Again, I'm no writer, but I would think that in a standalone story a chapter should end with a clear sense of victory or defeat.  That something happened, for good or for ill, that advances the story to the next stage.  I do not see how that happened in the ending we got for ME 2.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Indeed, preventing the Reapers from ending all advanced life in the galaxy was the end goal.  I suppose I should rephrase and say that that stopping Saren was the only thing that Shepard did that mattered.  Everything else, every step he took in ME 1, was marginalized and rendered trivial.   How he got to that point, the entire story that was ME 1. mattered not at all as far as the ME 2 story is concerned.  In fact, it's been argued (and I somewhat agree) that ME 2 could have had an entirely different protagonist and it would not have significantly altered the story.

And in the end, Shepard did not prevent a Reaper victory.  He stopped the relay from opening.  Reaperfest was postponed.  Once the Reapers find another way into the galaxy, the cycle begins again.  Shepard bought the galaxy time. Time which we learn was utterly wasted.

OK, put it that way and I follow you. I don't really see any of this as a problem, though. Shepard can't avoid blowing up Virmire, but all that does is preserve the Krogan status quo. He does or doesn't save the Rachni, which will play out in ME3. Whatever happens on Feros isn't very important. And so on.

So what Shepard has accomplished in ME2 is questionable, and your improvement is to make his results.... even more questionable? 

I'd argue that it would make the Reaper plans more mysterious, but Shepard's results more clearly a failure.  Again, I'm no writer, but I would think that in a standalone story a chapter should end with a clear sense of victory or defeat.  That something happened, for good or for ill, that advances the story to the next stage.  I do not see how that happened in the ending we got for ME 2.

I know it keeps coming up, but was the ending of Empire Strikes Back clear-cut in that way?

So it looks like the ME2 plot gave you the opposite of what you want. More explanation of the Reapers (which you'd rather not have?), but a minor victory rather than a major victory or defeat.

This all may depend on your expectations in fiction. I'm partial to, say, Gene Wolfe, who never wraps up a middle volume with much of a resolution. Usually just more questions, or sometimes something that destabilizes the whole preceding narrative.

[Terror_K]

To put this as succinctly as possible, ME2 is simply too far removed from ME1 to be a really good sequel, both when it comes to narrative and to gameplay.

The game was dubbed as a trilogy, but it really doesn't come across as it since the whole plot seems to deviate so much from the original and things that seemed important in the original game simply aren't in ME2, and are either swept under the rug, pushed waaaay into the background or simply made insignificant to the point of pointlessness. The whole thing lacks decent flow and the thing that should be the main focus and story (The Reapers/Collectors) is basically the B-Story and takes too much of a backseat to all these largely unrelated companion quests. I blame this mostly on the fact that BioWare was too concerned about making each game able to stand on it's own so any player can just jump in anywhere rather than making a proper trilogy that actually relies on the previous game to truly work. The whole so-called "trilogy" seems less like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and more like the first three Alien or Indiana Jones movie, where despite the import stuff only a few threads carry through beyond the main character. This isn't necessarily bad, but doesn't make for a good, proper trilogy and instead merely makes for three seperate games that are only really a trilogy because there's three of them in the end. And while much of this links to ones expectations of the series as much as anything, when devs are constantly nodding whenever the Star Wars link is made they're not helping in painting the wrong picture.

Gameplay wise there's a lot of things that have been said countless times regarding the toning down of RPG factors in ME2 over ME1. While it is true that "cluttered inventory" doesn't make an RPG, that's a rather trite and tired argument to make in ME2's defense, because having an "inventory" doesn't automatically mean the presence of a cluttered, ME1-esque one. Too many times ME2 defenders point to ME1's lacklustre inventory as if it is the be-all, end-all of all inventories and that there's no other alternatives other than to strip it completely, despite the fact that there are far more inventories out there in games that work well than there are ME1 style ones that don't. On top of that, inventory is one of the least of ME2's problems, and it's things like customisation, variation and progression that have suffered more. Not to mention an overall shift in style and presentation.

[Vena_86]

Just because something is there doesn't make it good.
Yes there are resources for upgrades, so there is some progression on paper. But it feels pointless and is not really involving the player.
Yes there is a currency but there is no live behind it, since everything is in a designated location in a very linear game.
And sorry, I don't see how walking from A to B in linear corridor levels can be considered exploration.

I always find arguments like this funny when someone states this is there and you can do this and ME2 is still a RPG and lalala. What matters is the diversity and quality of elements, may they be shooter or RPG related. ME2, just like ME1, is lacking in several departments and that comes from plain comparison of individual mechanics to those in countless other games and not just from theory. Some areas need little refinement, some are serverely lacking for no reason.
ME2 was a great game but with many unfortuante shortcommings and did not only improve the ME experience as you would expect, but also take away from it, which will always induce disappointment. You can not just end a discussion like this, because people will always try to summarize and oversimplify on their own.

ME1 and ME2 are two games made up from many pieces, some of them are connected some can be looked at individually. But that is too complicated apparently, so people just tend to pick either ME1 or ME2 and just argue without understanding or atleast hearing the arguments of the opposite party.
I don't want ME3 to be a ME1 copy or a ME2 copy. I want to it have the strengths of both without their weaknesses and the ME1 vs ME2 discussions are often just turning out to be personal internet fights instead of educated game design discussions.

Modifié par Vena_86, 01 janvier 2011 - 12:58 .

[sumoaltus]

Terror_K wrote...

To put this as succinctly as possible, ME2 is simply too far removed from ME1 to be a really good sequel, both when it comes to narrative and to gameplay.

The game was dubbed as a trilogy, but it really doesn't come across as it since the whole plot seems to deviate so much from the original and things that seemed important in the original game simply aren't in ME2, and are either swept under the rug, pushed waaaay into the background or simply made insignificant to the point of pointlessness. The whole thing lacks decent flow and the thing that should be the main focus and story (The Reapers/Collectors) is basically the B-Story and takes too much of a backseat to all these largely unrelated companion quests. I blame this mostly on the fact that BioWare was too concerned about making each game able to stand on it's own so any player can just jump in anywhere rather than making a proper trilogy that actually relies on the previous game to truly work. The whole so-called "trilogy" seems less like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and more like the first three Alien or Indiana Jones movie, where despite the import stuff only a few threads carry through beyond the main character. This isn't necessarily bad, but doesn't make for a good, proper trilogy and instead merely makes for three seperate games that are only really a trilogy because there's three of them in the end. And while much of this links to ones expectations of the series as much as anything, when devs are constantly nodding whenever the Star Wars link is made they're not helping in painting the wrong picture.

Gameplay wise there's a lot of things that have been said countless times regarding the toning down of RPG factors in ME2 over ME1. While it is true that "cluttered inventory" doesn't make an RPG, that's a rather trite and tired argument to make in ME2's defense, because having an "inventory" doesn't automatically mean the presence of a cluttered, ME1-esque one. Too many times ME2 defenders point to ME1's lacklustre inventory as if it is the be-all, end-all of all inventories and that there's no other alternatives other than to strip it completely, despite the fact that there are far more inventories out there in games that work well than there are ME1 style ones that don't. On top of that, inventory is one of the least of ME2's problems, and it's things like customisation, variation and progression that have suffered more. Not to mention an overall shift in style and presentation.

I'm still not seeing where ME2 was remove from ME1. ME2 is a continuation of ME1 and picks up two years after it's predecessor left off. Shepard is searching outside of coucil space for any remaining Geth forces when his/her ship is attacked by an unknown enemy - at that juncture - who becomes known once the Lazarus project is complete and it is brought to Shepards attention by the illusive man.

Now yes, the entire game is based off of recruiting characters in Order to save humans from abduction and recreation into a human shaped "Reaper". Now, at this point I can not predict what will occur in ME3. But, if Bioware is smart, they will make everyone that you recruited and made loyal, and every side mission you did a significant portion of ME3. Furthermore, I can tell you right now that by rule of trilogy we probably will be witnessing a lot of aspects from ME1 in ME3.

Trust me, everyone we recruited and every main point that we went over in ME2 will have something to do with ME3. Remember the news that we got earlier about there being more than a thousand variables from ME1 and ME2. So that should solidify that what we have done in the past 2 titles will matter in this final installment.

[Nightwriter]

Lumikki wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I think iakus means that we never find out what the Reapers were even planning to do with the human Reaper larva.

Of course not, because story ended before we got the information. In many tv-series we don't learn everyting, because it's in next season or episode. Sometimes even some stuff will never be revealed. What's the problem with that?

I suppose it's that the human Reaper felt like another Wilson - a plot device to be cast aside, unexplained, after it had served its purpose in the story.

Still totally open for a perfectly good explanation in ME3, though.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

OK, put it that way and I follow you. I don't really see any of this as a problem, though. Shepard can't avoid blowing up Virmire, but all that does is preserve the Krogan status quo. He does or doesn't save the Rachni, which will play out in ME3. Whatever happens on Feros isn't very important. And so on.

Granted most of the decisions were unimportant, big-picture wise.  But several were important either to the galaxy at large or to Shepard personally.  To continue with the example you gave, Shep couldn't avoid setting the nuke on VIrmire, but Ash and Kaiden's survival are..  Yet even in their brief cameo, their dialogue is virtually identical.  Dr Saleon, Garrus' personal mission in ME 1, where Shep can nudge Garrus in one direction or another, has no effect on his personality in ME 2.   Then there's all the Cerberus missions in the game.  .ME1's preservice history and profile alters dialogue and even a couple of quests.  And those are events that never actually took place in the game!

I know it keeps coming up, but was the ending of Empire Strikes Back clear-cut in that way?

So it looks like the ME2 plot gave you the opposite of what you want. More explanation of the Reapers (which you'd rather not have?), but a minor victory rather than a major victory or defeat.

This all may depend on your expectations in fiction. I'm partial to, say, Gene Wolfe, who never wraps up a middle volume with much of a resolution. Usually just more questions, or sometimes something that destabilizes the whole preceding narrative.

Empire Strikes back, the Rebels got their ::insert choice of anatomy here:: handed to them.  Han got frozen and carted away, An unprepared Luke faced Vader for the first time and lost his lightsaber, his hand, and nearly his life.  Then got hit with a revelation that made him doubt everything he had been told.  The fact that (most of) the main characters managed to escape Vader's trap was pretty much the only victory the heroes could claim.  Even then it was only because Vader "altered the deal" with Lando one too many times.  The Empire ahd a clear, though not total, win there.

Major or minor, victory or defeat, what I wanted was a clear one.  In the end, I have no idea if what Shepard did affected anything.  Seriously, did Harbringer sound more concerned or annoyed at the end?  Did we foil a plot, buy more time, or only encourage the Reapers to take more drastic measures?  Did Shepard in fact accelerate the Reaper timetable?  I simply do not know.

My reading preferences run more along the lines of David Weber (Honor Harrington) Jim Butcher (Dresden FIles, Codex Alera) and Brandon Sanderson (Mistborn)  In these series, each story builds upon what came before.  .  Not everything is tied up in a neat bow (sometimes ther is in fact a twist at the end), but the immediate situation in each book  is pretty much resolved.  Rarely do they end in a cliffhanger.  But past events get mentioned, previous characters return.  Internal logic and continuity  is maintained.  Mass Effect 1 had such an ending.  Mass Effect 2 did not.

[Iakus]

sumoaltus wrote...

I'm still not seeing where ME2 was remove from ME1. ME2 is a continuation of ME1 and picks up two years after it's predecessor left off. Shepard is searching outside of coucil space for any remaining Geth forces when his/her ship is attacked by an unknown enemy - at that juncture - who becomes known once the Lazarus project is complete and it is brought to Shepards attention by the illusive man.

I'm not gonna go too in-depth here becuase I've done it at length in other threads.  I just want to point out that Shep's death and the Lazarus project is a great example of what I find wroing with ME 2.  A heavy handed,  inexplicible plot device that serves no other purpose than to provide a reset button to the series..  In my opinion, of course.

Now yes, the entire game is based off of recruiting characters in Order to save humans from abduction and recreation into a human shaped "Reaper". Now, at this point I can not predict what will occur in ME3. But, if Bioware is smart, they will make everyone that you recruited and made loyal, and every side mission you did a significant portion of ME3. Furthermore, I can tell you right now that by rule of trilogy we probably will be witnessing a lot of aspects from ME1 in ME3.

 
I hope so.  I really do. 

Trust me, everyone we recruited and every main point that we went over in ME2 will have something to do with ME3. Remember the news that we got earlier about there being more than a thousand variables from ME1 and ME2. So that should solidify that what we have done in the past 2 titles will matter in this final installment.

I seem to recall Bioware claiming that 700 variables went into Mass Effect 2.  Of course the new comic kinda shows us how many of those actually mattered.  Here's hoping ME 3 is different.

[Nightwriter]

Is the problem really about plot advancement? The game rubbed me the wrong way very early on, long before I knew of any human Reaper and its unclear purpose.

[Terror_K]

sumoaltus wrote...

I'm still not seeing where ME2 was remove from ME1. ME2 is a continuation of ME1 and picks up two years after it's predecessor left off. Shepard is searching outside of coucil space for any remaining Geth forces when his/her ship is attacked by an unknown enemy - at that juncture - who becomes known once the Lazarus project is complete and it is brought to Shepards attention by the illusive man.

It's barely a continuation at all. The only factors that really get continued are Shepard and The Reaper plotline, and the former isn't that dependent on ME1 beyond the main goal and the latter isn't really advanced that much at all beyond a couple of big reveals.

Most of the things that seemed important in ME1 are --as I said-- either swept under the rug, pushed aside or made completely insignificant in ME2. Working for the Council and their fate is pretty much meaningless since they're pretty much reduced to a small cameo in ME2 if they lived and the only factor in the entire universe that seems to be affected by it are how the aliens on The Citadel treat you, despite being something that should have major changes on the universe. Becoming a Spectre in the first game was one of the most poignant, heroic and epic moments in the game... a true milestone and defining factor for Shepard, and in ME2 it's pretty much meaningless and it doesn't really seem to matter if you regain your Spectre status or not. The Alliance are barely a factor at all in ME2 despite you supposedly being an Alliance soldier.

The only character who seems to matter at all is Shepard. Your mentor from the first game is reduced to a cameo on The Citadel that you don't even need to do. Your companions from ME1 besides Garrus and Tali are reduced to bad cameos, where your previous actions barely affected a thing, with Ashley and Kaidian being weak subtitutes for each other, while Wrex just gets replaced by Evil Mirror Universe Wrex and that's about all. Killing Shiala or not makes little difference as if she's not there it's just a Zhu's Hope colonist replacing her in the exact same role. It took a DLC to give Liara proper exploration.

Overall the game doesn't feel like a proper, natural continuation at all. It certainly doesn't feel like the second part of a trilogy. Narrative and plot wise it doesn't feel like going from A New Hope to The Empire Strikes Back... it feels more like going from The Phantom Menace to The Empire Strikes Back.

Now yes, the entire game is based off of recruiting characters in Order to save humans from abduction and recreation into a human shaped "Reaper". Now, at this point I can not predict what will occur in ME3. But, if Bioware is smart, they will make everyone that you recruited and made loyal, and every side mission you did a significant portion of ME3. Furthermore, I can tell you right now that by rule of trilogy we probably will be witnessing a lot of aspects from ME1 in ME3.

Trust me, everyone we recruited and every main point that we went over in ME2 will have something to do with ME3. Remember the news that we got earlier about there being more than a thousand variables from ME1 and ME2. So that should solidify that what we have done in the past 2 titles will matter in this final installment.

That's pure speculation on your part. I find it hard to believe that in less than a year and in less time between ME2 and ME3 than there was between ME1 and ME2 that we're actually going to get a truly deep and satisfactory level of choices and consequences in the final game. I find it even harder to believe that our ME2 crew are going to play pivotal or even midly important roles at all since any and all of them could die. These are both especially hard to believe considering the grandiose claims of BioWare on how deep and involved the transfer between ME1 and ME2 were going to be and then what the end product really was, as well as the fact that they're already said that ME3 is as much a standalone game as it is a sequel once again.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 janvier 2011 - 03:00 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Is the problem really about plot advancement? The game rubbed me the wrong way very early on, long before I knew of any human Reaper and its unclear purpose.

It's one problem amongst several.  I'm choosing to limit myself because this is the no-spoilers forum

[Nightwriter]

Very well then, my response to the OP is: it wasn't the unfinished components of ME2 that bothered me. It was the finished ones.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Granted most of the decisions were unimportant, big-picture wise.  But several were important either to the galaxy at large or to Shepard personally.  To continue with the example you gave, Shep couldn't avoid setting the nuke on VIrmire, but Ash and Kaiden's survival are..  Yet even in their brief cameo, their dialogue is virtually identical.  Dr Saleon, Garrus' personal mission in ME 1, where Shep can nudge Garrus in one direction or another, has no effect on his personality in ME 2.   Then there's all the Cerberus missions in the game.  .ME1's preservice history and profile alters dialogue and even a couple of quests.  And those are events that never actually took place in the game!

So it's the small picture stuff you're talking about. From the saves it looks like Bio decided to track conversations on the Normandy for Garrus's P/R influence rather than what specifically happens with Saleon, but I'm not aware of any actual differences in Garrus' behavior.  I wonder if alternate dialogue is actually in the game but implementation is bugged or cancelled -- that's verifiably true for some things in DAO, so I'd hardly be surprised if the same is true in ME2.

Empire Strikes back, the Rebels got their ::insert choice of anatomy here:: handed to them.  Han got frozen and carted away, An unprepared Luke faced Vader for the first time and lost his lightsaber, his hand, and nearly his life.  Then got hit with a revelation that made him doubt everything he had been told.  The fact that (most of) the main characters managed to escape Vader's trap was pretty much the only victory the heroes could claim.  Even then it was only because Vader "altered the deal" with Lando one too many times.  The Empire ahd a clear, though not total, win there.

That wasn't my take on the battle. I didn't see the Empire advancing any strategic goals there. They pushed the Rebels off a planet, but the Rebels had transferred bases before.  Sure, they inflicted some ground casualties and knocked out a few snowspeeders, but that's not much of a victory; it doesn't look like they inflicted any damage on the Rebel space fighter strength and of course the Rebel cap ships weren't even present. It always read to me like one of those Vietnam-era battles where we (i.e., the U.S.) racked up a fair body count but didn't accomplish anything of substance. Sure, it could have been a crushing defeat. But it wasn't.

And the final result of the rest of it is essentially a draw. Luke loses a hand (replaced) and Han's out of play for a bit. -- I phrase it like that since we know they're going right after him. There's no ME parallel for the psych issues of the Vader reveal. Which may have a lot to do with the impact of ESB, of course.

Major or minor, victory or defeat, what I wanted was a clear one.  In the end, I have no idea if what Shepard did affected anything.  Seriously, did Harbringer sound more concerned or annoyed at the end?  Did we foil a plot, buy more time, or only encourage the Reapers to take more drastic measures?  Did Shepard in fact accelerate the Reaper timetable?  I simply do not know.

My reading preferences run more along the lines of David Weber (Honor Harrington) Jim Butcher (Dresden FIles, Codex Alera) and Brandon Sanderson (Mistborn)  In these series, each story builds upon what came before.  .  Not everything is tied up in a neat bow (sometimes ther is in fact a twist at the end), but the immediate situation in each book  is pretty much resolved.  Rarely do they end in a cliffhanger.  But past events get mentioned, previous characters return.  Internal logic and continuity  is maintained.  Mass Effect 1 had such an ending.  Mass Effect 2 did not.

So yeah, it looks like simply different tastes.

[Bryy_Miller]

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 sorry. You lost me at "my original plan was to post the same thing in every single existing ME thread".

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
 while Wrex just gets replaced by Evil Mirror Universe Wrex and that's about all.

Meaning he's changed into a good guy in ME2?

[SithLordExarKun]

OP, you shouldn't really bother trying to settle this dispute. its 2011 and some people still haven't moved on with their lives yet.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 01 janvier 2011 - 03:58 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

So it's the small picture stuff you're talking about. From the saves it looks like Bio decided to track conversations on the Normandy for Garrus's P/R influence rather than what specifically happens with Saleon, but I'm not aware of any actual differences in Garrus' behavior.  I wonder if alternate dialogue is actually in the game but implementation is bugged or cancelled -- that's verifiably true for some things in DAO, so I'd hardly be surprised if the same is true in ME2.

Big things, small things.  The point is that no things seemed to resonate in ME 2.  It seems more or less coincidental that the player character in each game happens to be named "Commander Shepard" as it only would have taken minor rewrites to make it "Commander Shepard"  and "Commander Hawke" starring in the two games.  It seems that in many cases, regardless of how you acted in ME 1, the result is still the same in ME 2.  Some choices, I understand will not reach fruition until ME 3.  But there are still choices that should have had a more immediate impact.  Garrus being the first that came to mind.  I don't know of any bugs or cancelled dialogue in his case.  It just seems that he always ends up the same person.

And no I don't consider the copious amounts of emails you get to be an effect.

And the final result of the rest of it is essentially a draw. Luke loses a hand (replaced) and Han's out of play for a bit. -- I phrase it like that since we know they're going right after him. There's no ME parallel for the psych issues of the Vader reveal. Which may have a lot to do with the impact of ESB, of course.

My impression is that the Rebellion had been on the run since Yavin, since they no longer had a hidden base.  They've spent the last couple of years running, hiding, being found, and running again.  They were entirely on the defensive.  And in the end, the heroes managed to not get killed or captured (most of them, for long)

And you're right about the Vader reveal having an impact on the movie.  I believe the Collector reveal could have done the trick, but like the time Shepard bought the Councill, it was utterly wasted.

So yeah, it looks like simply different tastes.

Perhaps it is.  But I still believe that ME 2 had a half-finished feel to it.  Combined with more specific problems I had with the story itself, I'm going to have to put ME 3 under a microscope to decide if it's a game I want to buy at all.  I find that having to do with with  Bioware, of all companies, to be  very sad.

[Nightwriter]

Oh, I'm definitely going to buy ME3. ME2 didn't ruin the series for me. It felt like a lump of well-dressed flesh without a skeleton, but it was not without its merits, and you know ME3 isn't going to imitate its non story focused plot.

The game took a few missteps - its poor handling of our alliance with Cerberus, the alienation of your former allies, the silly-willy human goo plot, the "do, don't think" feel - but those missteps were only missteps to my poor subjective brain.

[DarthCaine]

There's no discussion. I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. The End

Modifié par DarthCaine, 01 janvier 2011 - 04:45 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Oh, I'm definitely going to buy ME3. ME2 didn't ruin the series for me. It felt like a lump of well-dressed flesh without a skeleton, but it was not without its merits, and you know ME3 isn't going to imitate its non story focused plot.

The game took a few missteps - its poor handling of our alliance with Cerberus, the alienation of your former allies, the silly-willy human goo plot, the "do, don't think" feel - but those missteps were only missteps to my poor subjective brain.

Unfortunately, ME 2 really shook my faith in the series and it's ability to remain consistent.  All the things you mentioned I have no reason to think won't continue.  ME 2 is, after all, a well-nigh perfect game, right?

I thought I knew what I was geting when I preordered ME 2.  I had, after all, played ME 1 and it was the same company and all.  I can't blindly trust that Bioware can deliver a satisfactory story anymore.  Trust is a currency that's hard to earn and easily spent.   If indeed ME 3 is "more of the same", not just in bridging material and game continuity, but more of the other problems I have...well, I can't say I'll never buy it.  But if I did, it would be from a bargain bin a year or so later.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I may return with a more detailed response on what I think later, but for now, I wanted to say that ME2 is not dead, because there is still ME3 and it's entirely up to ME3 to make ME2 mean something and reduce its innumerable plotholes. This is quite literally a near-death situation on ME2's part, which is completely reliant upon how its successor is handled. As far as I'm concerned, Lair of the Shadow Broker is the true ME2, and ME2 is not ME2.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Unfortunately, ME 2 really shook my faith in the series and it's ability to remain consistent.  All the things you mentioned I have no reason to think won't continue.  ME 2 is, after all, a well-nigh perfect game, right?

I thought I knew what I was geting when I preordered ME 2.  I had, after all, played ME 1 and it was the same company and all.  I can't blindly trust that Bioware can deliver a satisfactory story anymore.  Trust is a currency that's hard to earn and easily spent.   If indeed ME 3 is "more of the same", not just in bridging material and game continuity, but more of the other problems I have...well, I can't say I'll never buy it.  But if I did, it would be from a bargain bin a year or so later.

Come on, iakus! Cheer up. BioWare has had months and months to absorb fan feedback for ME2. Do you really think none of that is going to count? That they're going to make another game that makes the same mistakes?

ME3 is the end of the series, it can let it all hang out, choice outcomes can go crazy and every issue can be resolved.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Nightwriter wrote...

(...)
Come on, iakus! Cheer up. BioWare has had months and months to absorb fan feedback for ME2. Do you really think none of that is going to count? That they're going to make another game that makes the same mistakes?

ME3 is the end of the series, it can let it all hang out, choice outcomes can go crazy and every issue can be resolved.

The thing is, the guy who's writing ME3 is a comic writer, and he's the same guy who wrote ME2's main story. Also, this guy consults the Mass Effect Wiki to get his facts straight during the writing process. Furthermore, he didn't lay a single hand on LOTSB, but merely reviewed it.

/rant

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 01 janvier 2011 - 05:42 .

[Nightwriter]

Nightwriter's ME3 hopes: born 2010, died 2011, killed brutally by one Fiery Phoenix, who was never apprehended.