174 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonathan Shepard]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

It's sub-par and lackluster because the characters who could've been fleshed out were left behind for cameos, and new characters (who were completely unnecessary and could've been combined into a single, more soulful identity) were introduced... and the plot went backwards, if anywhere at all. At the end of ME2, you know a few more people, and you cut out the Collectors from the Reapers' plans... but you're not really anywhere close to finding a way to defeat the Reapers. The key characters were essentially ignored. That's why it's a great game... but a terrible sequel. Closer to a spin-off, if anything.

Ok am getting a bit fed up of saying this or seeing someone else say this and no offence Jonathan this isn't really directed at you but this general stupid opinion some people seem to have really does need to be nipped in the bud.

In 'Empire Strikes Back' were the Rebels closer to defeating the Empire?

HELL NO!

In fact to some extent they'd taken a step back because they had their base on Hoth destroyed, had one of their upcoming leaders frozen in carbonite and another one finding out that his dad was one of the main guys of the Empire YAY!

So all these nonsensical "we didn't come closer to finding a way to stop the Reapers" kind of comments just shows some people don't seem to have a clue about how stories work. Even more so considering we DID actually once again put a block on the Reapers plans. To some extent we're doing a better job of it than the Rebels did with the Empire

I mean, if ME was following the OT to the tea, Shep would've got their ass kicked in ME2. Oh wait, s/he did at the start Oh and we got to visit a city in the clo...*coughs* erm... stars (yeah I know the Citadel could be deemed that but Omega even looks a bit like Cloud City )

Place your bets for Aria being the Lando of the series and joining us in ME3 to kick Reaper butt.

And see, there was kind of a major problem with that. The Death Star II came out of nowhere. It was just -plop- right there into the third movie's plot. But the whole movie fleshed out the EXISTING characters. Yes, we got to see the Emperor, and yes, Lando was introduced. Okay, so 2 new main characters. Not 15. (12 squadies, Aria, TIM, Collectors... we could add Harbinger and make it 16.)
Still. Where was Shepard's wit and personality put to the test? Luke had to battle with the temptation of knowing /he was the last Jedi, and the only way to reunite with his father was DEATH or turning friggin' EVIL/.
Shepard?

...well... there was Legion...
nope. Legion didn't cut it in the end. It's really not so much the plot that bothers me. That can be tied in closer during ME3 and rectified, hopefully. What bothers me is that almost no character was done justice, until LotSB. Don't get me wrong, I love ME2 as a game. Just not as a sequel. 
And there was that one thread about ME being a SW rip off... 
Well, I don't really think it should be. I know ME draws elements structure-wise from SW, but in all honesty, it didn't do too great a job. The Geth were pretty much tossed out the window for becoming as iconic as Stormtroopers, and our supposed enemy of the Collectors... well... we fight them I think 4 times in the entire game?
That's not exactly thrilling to know that most of the game even in itself is filler. I know the story was not meant to progress immensely.
But it still feels like there's too much to the Reaper threat to be dealt with in just ME3. Who knows though?
Maybe some more bridge DLC will help ME2 where it's weak right now, like LotSB did.

Modifié par Jonathan Shepard, 01 janvier 2011 - 10:54 .

[Nightwriter]

Raise your hand if you are tired of people bringing up Empire Strikes Back as a defensive argument.

*raises hand*

Okay so that's one raised hand - no wait, my dog just raised her hand. So that's two.

[glacier1701]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Karpyshyn outlined the plot of ME3 well before ME2 was even released. The execution, however, is going to be done by Walters. And execution is the most critical aspect of a story.

Yup. If all Karpyshyn did was outline the plot, then there is still too much room for Walters to screw up. Which makes me think just why the heck did BioWare decide to pull Karpyshyn out of the trilogy he created. I'm not saying I wanted Karpyshyn to write every single Mass Effect game to come, just this one trilogy.

As I edited above, perhaps someone could make a proper topic to discuss this? I think it's a legitimate concern that merits proper discussion, no?

Honestly, now I seriously feel the time this community wasted discussing petty crap like to heasink or not to heatsink was wasted time and attention when what we really want (I feel) is a really good story to immerse ouserlves into was left unchecked, undiscussed and now we may pay dearly for that mistake.

Drew left to work SW:TOR because he felt it was too good an opportunity to pass up. There have been no other remarks from ANYONE that says otherwise. In other words Drew chose to leave Mass Effect to further his own career.

[glacier1701]

Nightwriter wrote...

Raise your hand if you are tired of people bringing up Empire Strikes Back as a defensive argument.

*raises hand*

Okay so that's one raised hand - no wait, my dog just raised her hand. So that's two.

 Raises hand. There is so much out there that coudl be used it is rather sad that it is not used. Oh and Lord of the Rings is a tired cliche as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

You know what the real discussion to end all discussions of ME1 and 2 is?



The Collector Base argument.







Alright guys! Who thinks it was a smart idea to destroy the Collector Base in the face of a technologically superior galactic extinction event?

[Nightwriter]

Let it go, Dean. Let it go.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Raise your hand if you are tired of people bringing up Empire Strikes Back as a defensive argument.

*raises hand*

Okay so that's one raised hand - no wait, my dog just raised her hand. So that's two.

::raises hand also::

Luke did not freeze to death on Hoth, only to be ressurected by Jabba the Hutt and tasked to lead a band of bounty hunters and smugglers against a mysterious band of aliens in league with the Empire.  I'm pretty sure there was something to do with learning to be a Jedi and continuing the learning experience begun with old Ben Kenobi in the first movie. 

Continuation, what a concept!

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Let it go, Dean. Let it go.

You kept and/or destroyed it, didn't you?

You horrible, horrible person!

[luakel]

Nightwriter wrote...

Raise your hand if you are tired of people bringing up Empire Strikes Back as a defensive argument.

*raises hand*

Okay so that's one raised hand - no wait, my dog just raised her hand. So that's two.

Ehh,it does seem to come up alot on this type of thread, but Star Wars is one of those works that lends itself well to analogies (however tenuous they may be in this case) because everyone knows Star Wars. Sure, less well-known examples may be both more fitting and more deserving of a shout out, but less people will understand the gist of the analogy.

Then again, maybe there's some other well-known trilogy that matches up well (besides LotR)...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You kept and/or destroyed it, didn't you?

You horrible, horrible person!

I kept and destroyed the collector base. It was fun.

Modifié par luakel, 02 janvier 2011 - 01:18 .

[88mphSlayer]

ME2 is the better game but ME1's story has more pull and keeps you interested more

also i'd say Mass Effect 1's final mission was more interesting and better emphasized Shepard's ability to improvise while ME2's final mission was mostly by the numbers

still tho, these are design issues that can be addressed in ME3, i don't think it's worth trying to spin apart the entire series just to focus on components that have issues, afterall ME1 was far from perfect and had more fundamental issues than ME2

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 02 janvier 2011 - 01:32 .

[Nightwriter]

Well, I think the problem is that I found the Empire Strikes back to be a satisfying movie, and ME2 to be a somewhat unsatisfying game, so the comparison really chafes. The Empire Strikes back is able to make you feel like important stuff has happened even though the enemy hasn't been defeated yet. ME2, however...

[88mphSlayer]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, I think the problem is that I found the Empire Strikes back to be a satisfying movie, and ME2 to be a somewhat unsatisfying game, so the comparison really chafes. The Empire Strikes back is able to make you feel like important stuff has happened even though the enemy hasn't been defeated yet. ME2, however...

depends on if you think ME2 ends with the collectors or if it ends with Lair of the Shadow Broker - which definitely had an Empire vibe to it

that and it also depends on what the reapers want to do to earth in ME3, do they reaperize us even after the failure of the collectors? if so then it's really no different than Darth being Luke's father makes Darth's motives different - re: he doesn't want to kill Luke, just send him to the dark side

[Nightwriter]

I think ME2's failing isn't that it doesn't explain what the human goo Reaper was for, but that it makes me not care what the human goo Reaper was for.

[sumoaltus]

The thing that everyone has to remember is that there are a lot of variables in the mass effect universe, and that's why ME2 is - for lack of a better word - so open ended.

[albertalad]

The debate will go on. Fans of a virtual shooter will like ME2 better and fans of better character development will naturally like ME1. Personally, ME2 at least for me doesn't have the playback of ME1. Whereas ME2 had too many characters to know anyone - including former ME1 characters who didn't grow at all. The Collectors were nothing, not even a little difficult. Perhaps the most difficult character was the Shadowbroker in the entire ME2. The rest were child's play - though many hated the Mako in ME1 at least the Mako made other worlds far more expansive.



Even tough decisions in ME1 between the ladies, depending on your play-through they made you choose and that was unexpected. Then all of ME1 was virtually abandoned in ME2 - not very good sequel storytelling. More like ME1 was such as success lets throw out another, quickly while the stove is hot. NO doubt ME2 was a storyline by committee - (the saying is - A camel is a horse designed by committee.)



The camel/horse quote perfectly captures the problem when too many people have input into a product. Whereas ME2 have great graphics nothing else fits even in the storyline they delivered - felt contrived. Reapers disappeared. Council digressed. The Alliance were portrayed as small and inept and apologetic. Virtually a complete Reaper fell and advanced civilizations, many space faring races long before earth left their own system, somehow weren't smart enough to reverse engineer. Something today's Russians have been doing since World War Two almost 70 years ago. That just didn't sell and sounded stupid and downright idiotic.



One could go on and on and on - ME1 is a superior product. ME2 digressed backward into minor shootouts with petty criminal gangs - nothing more.

[BoogieManFL]

I'd say n the grand scheme of things, ME2 is about buying time, building strength and gathering information and allies for the real battle that will follow.

Modifié par BoogieManFL, 03 janvier 2011 - 01:25 .

[Iakus]

BoogieManFL wrote...

I'd say n the grand scheme of things, ME2 is about buying time, building strength and gathering information and allies for the real battle that will follow.

Except How did we buy time?  We clearly did in ME 1, but what did we do to slow the Reapers down in ME 2?  Not saying we didn't but for the life of me I don't see how.

How did we build strength?  As far as I can tell, Shep is no better off than at the end of ME 1.  Possibly worse, given the Citadel backslid on believing in the Reapers.  Shep has a ship, but he had a ship in ME 1.  Shep has a crew.  But Shep had that too.

Information:  We have...EDI's speculation and whatever was on the device Joker gave Shep.  Maybe the base, depending on your decisions.  It's not nothing, but given ME 1 ended with pieces of Sovereign, a chatty Vigil, and a Prothean base untouched by the last Reaper culling, something tells me what we learned is not going to amount to a whole lot.

Allies is the one thing I can see us actually, potentially accomplishing.  Given that these extremely varied band of bad****es could potentially provide a foot in the door for various organizations in the Mass Effect universe, depending on your choices.  We'll have to see.

[Nightwriter]

albertalad wrote...

Whereas ME2 had too many characters to know anyone - including former ME1 characters who didn't grow at all.

I have to disagree with this. I thought Tali grew exponentially. I hardly noticed her in ME1, and in ME2 she really stood out to me. Garrus, too, seemed to change as a character. In ME1 he was an idealist. By ME2, he's become a cynic.

albertalad wrote...

The Collectors were nothing, not even a little difficult.

Though I can't disagree with this.

[The Spamming Troll]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

DylanZeppelin wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


Another plausible example of proper continuality would be depicting reasons why the Reapers may not exist, at least not in the eyes of anyone excluding Shepard and her former crew. Depict scenes of Shepard's struggles, her frustration that she cannot discover efficient evidence despite engaging Sovereign. Perhaps have her even question the Reapers herself momentarily; an ample opportunity for Liara to be the voice of reason by the way. Instead of killing her for a cheap retcon, ruin her creditability. This allows Shepard to develop as a character, to go through the motions.

 

You know this is the idea that i have thought pretty much a while back. I felt Shepard is essentially an undeveloped uncompelling character. No struggles, no acts of defiance and everything that she has to do or  go through is "sure np, cool bro" and acts as if nothing has happened(you know a ship getting blowed up with you along it would drastically change even the strongest people).

Yes I thought of that too, I think Shepard can be a bit robotic with his resposes

This flaw wasn't just with ME2, i felt it was in ME1 too(at the very least it had a moment at the locker where shepard is shown frustrated). I just hope that in ME3 that shepard DOES actually have some character development. I can't take Shepard as a character seriously if she could go through so much garbage like getting her ship blowned up, council rubbing her face, being forced to work for cerberus etc etc and acts like nothing happened.

Even Reznov in COD had 10x more development and was far more compelling.

things like ME1s background related quests like the mindoir survivor or calling your mother. those small things made shepard personable.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

BoogieManFL wrote...

I'd say n the grand scheme of things, ME2 is about buying time, building strength and gathering information and allies for the real battle that will follow.

Except How did we buy time?  We clearly did in ME 1, but what did we do to slow the Reapers down in ME 2?  Not saying we didn't but for the life of me I don't see how.

How did we build strength?  As far as I can tell, Shep is no better off than at the end of ME 1.  Possibly worse, given the Citadel backslid on believing in the Reapers.  Shep has a ship, but he had a ship in ME 1.  Shep has a crew.  But Shep had that too.

Information:  We have...EDI's speculation and whatever was on the device Joker gave Shep.  Maybe the base, depending on your decisions.  It's not nothing, but given ME 1 ended with pieces of Sovereign, a chatty Vigil, and a Prothean base untouched by the last Reaper culling, something tells me what we learned is not going to amount to a whole lot.

Allies is the one thing I can see us actually, potentially accomplishing.  Given that these extremely varied band of bad****es could potentially provide a foot in the door for various organizations in the Mass Effect universe, depending on your choices.  We'll have to see.

More importantly, the game does not play as though the goal is to gather allies, and whatever ally gathering you do get done on the side gives you no sense of accomplishment from the game overall.

Which brings me to the big question: was ME2 supposed to give us a sense of accomplishment?

[Rykoth]

I think its dumb that folks have to like one or the other.



I love ME2 better for the character development, the fact it is a character story more then anything.

I love ME1 better because the flow of the story makes more sense, whereas in ME2, I'm in the Migrant Fleet one moment, and on Illium the next.

I love ME2 better because combat isn't as frustrating.

I love ME1 better because I prefer its version of hacking and such.



Both have pros and cons, but its the same universe, and quite frankly, its better then 90 percent of the garbage other game makers put out these days.

[yoda23]

ME > ME2 = ME3!

[albertalad]

Nightwriter

You are correct - perhaps the one individual who did show growth was Tali.

[Nightwriter]

They did Tali well. They did many of the loyalty missions well. I just kept screwing it all up, failing to absorb any of it because I kept asking "why". "Why are we doing this? Why am I agreeing to work with TIM? Why am I recruiting this person? Why am I going through that relay? Why do I care about those colonies? Why are you still portraying the Council as idiots? Why does character X care about the Collectors when I don't even care about the Collectors? Why is Kaidan in Phoenix armor WHY?!"