292 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Plot progression, huh? How many plot-based missions did ME1 have? 5? How many did ME2 have? 5 as well?



I am also fed up with the people claiming that there was no progression to the story. In ME1, you learn that the Reapers, an ancient race is attempting to kill everyone again, and you kill their vanguard in order to stop him from activating something that would trigger the return of the Reapers.



In ME2, you learn that the Collectors are abducting human colonies, and are experimenting on them. They work for the Reapers, so the Reapers have some interest on humans. You stop them, find out that they are Protheans, and learn the true nature and motives of the Reapers. Then, you see them starting a long journey in order to return.



In ME3's teaser you see them reaping Earth.



Point being? ME2's story seems to bridge with ME3, unlike ME1. Even though I think ME1 had a great story, from a trilogy perspective 'it sucked'.

[Someone With Mass]

Whatever. I'm not interested in the Reapers, (because that kind of enemy has been done many times before) I'm more interested in the characters. And even if the plot isn't more than "gather a team and go kill these guys" I'm not complaining, because the game is still entertaining on many levels and is one of the better experiences I've had in a video game.

[TK Dude]

He bring some good points about the flaws of ME2 story, but in general I think he is nitpicky.

Though the characters are great, I play ME for Shepard's story arc.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Phaedon wrote...

Plot progression, huh? How many plot-based missions did ME1 have? 5? How many did ME2 have? 5 as well?

I am also fed up with the people claiming that there was no progression to the story. In ME1, you learn that the Reapers, an ancient race is attempting to kill everyone again, and you kill their vanguard in order to stop him from activating something that would trigger the return of the Reapers.

In ME2, you learn that the Collectors are abducting human colonies, and are experimenting on them. They work for the Reapers, so the Reapers have some interest on humans. You stop them, find out that they are Protheans, and learn the true nature and motives of the Reapers. Then, you see them starting a long journey in order to return.

In ME3's teaser you see them reaping Earth.

Point being? ME2's story seems to bridge with ME3, unlike ME1. Even though I think ME1 had a great story, from a trilogy perspective 'it sucked'.

Since we are strictly talking about Story missions here, how the hell does it bridge ME3?

As i said, if we are only talking about the story missions, do you know where ME2 gets us? The exact same place as the end of ME1. Nothing changed.

Please enlighten me where exactly ME2 took us, from a strictly story mission based perspective?

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Whatever. I'm not interested in the Reapers, (because that kind of enemy has been done many times before) I'm more interested in the characters. And even if the plot isn't more than "gather a team and go kill these guys" I'm not complaining, because the game is still entertaining on many levels and is one of the better experiences I've had in a video game.

Then why are you playing the game in the first place, Mass effect 1 and (supposedly) Mass effect 2 is about the Reapers, like wise if Mass Effect 2 is about the Characters the why is it caled Mass effect 2 if it doesn't do anything about the reapers

[Phaedon]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
Since we are strictly talking about Story missions here, how the hell does it bridge ME3?

As i said, if we are only talking about the story missions, do you know where ME2 gets us? The exact same place as the end of ME1. Nothing changed.

Please enlighten me where exactly ME2 took us, from a strictly story mission based perspective?

No we are not.

Fixers is strictly talking about 'bridging' from a 'trilogy perspective'. 

[morrie23]

Gotta agree with Gibb on this one, ME2 barely moves the Reaper plot forward at all. At the end of ME1 they are coming and Shepard wants to find out how to stop them, same is true at the end of ME2. Granted, you may have delayed them again, but we still have no idea how to stop them. I'd argue that we have no idea what the motives of the Reapers are, do they reap to reproduce? I doubt that is the true reason.

[glacier1701]

Phaedon wrote...

Plot progression, huh? How many plot-based missions did ME1 have? 5? How many did ME2 have? 5 as well?

I am also fed up with the people claiming that there was no progression to the story. In ME1, you learn that the Reapers, an ancient race is attempting to kill everyone again, and you kill their vanguard in order to stop him from activating something that would trigger the return of the Reapers.

In ME2, you learn that the Collectors are abducting human colonies, and are experimenting on them. They work for the Reapers, so the Reapers have some interest on humans. You stop them, find out that they are Protheans, and learn the true nature and motives of the Reapers. Then, you see them starting a long journey in order to return.

In ME3's teaser you see them reaping Earth.

Point being? ME2's story seems to bridge with ME3, unlike ME1. Even though I think ME1 had a great story, from a trilogy perspective 'it sucked'.

 I'll agree with Gibb_Shepard - how did the plot progress? I have done a recount of what we know at the end of ME1 and the end of ME2 and if anything ME2 just shows how stupid the Reapers are and how the plot has actually gone backwards.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Phaedon wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
Since we are strictly talking about Story missions here, how the hell does it bridge ME3?

As i said, if we are only talking about the story missions, do you know where ME2 gets us? The exact same place as the end of ME1. Nothing changed.

Please enlighten me where exactly ME2 took us, from a strictly story mission based perspective?

No we are not.

Fixers is strictly talking about 'bridging' from a 'trilogy perspective'. 

From a trilogy perspective then?

ME2 is irrelevant. I have no idea how you can say ME1 is less important in the trilogy, story wise.

ME2 from a purely story perspective, leaves us at the exact same place where ME1 left us.

[Phaedon]

morrie23 wrote...

Gotta agree with Gibb on this one, ME2 barely moves the Reaper plot forward at all. At the end of ME1 they are coming and Shepard wants to find out how to stop them, same is true at the end of ME2. Granted, you may have delayed them again, but we still have no idea how to stop them. I'd argue that we have no idea what the motives of the Reapers are, do they reap to reproduce? I doubt that is the true reason.

At least they give you a hint. What I liked of ME2's Reaper storyline (I didn't like it that much, prefered the character storyline) is that instead of 'techno gods', you know what they are.

It makes them more deep in a way, and the irony of the Protheans being turned into Collectors and helping the Reapers is interesting. Anyway, ME2 does progress the storyline, I was not excited with the way ME1 did either. A single reference to the Reapers, and the rest of the story missions revolve about you finding a mini-relay that would help their Vanguard help their return.

What ME2 is much more succesful, however, is in being a good starting point for ME3, and the final hours of the game really set ME3 very well. So yeah, regardless of what you think of the Reaper storyline, saying that ME2 sucks from a trilogy viewpoint is ridiculous. 

From a trilogy perspective then?

ME2 is irrelevant. I have no idea how you can say ME1 is less important in the trilogy, story wise.

ME2 from a purely story perspective, leaves us at the exact same place where ME1 left us.

Eh, I am surprised to hear the last sentance coming from you. We learn the true nature of the Reapers, possibly their motives, and for once they are not just some mysterious machines trying to kill everyone, like ME1 ended. Although stopping the human reaper production was hardly a good highlight to the series, one could suggest the same for stopping Sovereign. I am not arguing whether or not ME2 has a better story, but the progression and the 'bridging' is there, I am surprised that you don't see it.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:59 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Fixers0 wrote...

(...)

Yes i do, and you should do it too, All Mass effect 2 did was time killing, there was really no plot progression at all outside the scene that Shows the Reapers powering up and moving towards the Galaxy, the might as welll just have shown that footage at the start of Mass effect 2 and then started Lair of the Shadow broker.

While I support Phaedon and thoroughly believe he is one of the more interesting posters on the forum, I am compelled to agree with Fixers0 on this exact line right here.

[Vaenier]

This videos are really good. Yay, people who agree with me. And he has a awsome voice.

Everyone here agrees that ME2 was a good game with fun gameplay, good characters, and interesting missions. But the plot is missing, and the lore is wierd.

Modifié par Vaenier, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:08 .

[morrie23]

I don't think ME2 is bad, I for one don't think anyone can judge how good or bad ME2 is from a trilogy standpoint until we've all played ME3. What I will say is that IF ME3 jettisons the Collector/Prothean stuff then ME2 will turn out to be pretty redundant to the Reaper storyline (regardless of how much you like the ME2 character stories these have nothing to do with the overarching Reaper plot).



ME1 contains more that one Repear reference, there are numberous conversations through the story missions of that game that reveal more about the Repears. Hell, you even talk to a Reaper!

[Mystranna Kelteel]

ME2's story progresses, but not very much.



It's "Stop the Collectors!!" from the get-go, and that doesn't change. Learning that Harbinger is in league with them / controlling them doesn't change the conflict or the plot; we already knew they were working for the reapers.



ME1 is not a diamond of a story, but it has slightly more progression. The struggle does change; you go from stopping Saren to stopping Sovereign. And ME1 and ME2 really do leave us in almost the exact same place. At the end of ME1 we're going to stop the reapers from killing civilized space. At the end of ME2 we... are going to stop the reapers from killing civilized space, though this time we have a completely unknown "reaper data file" (which is useless to ME2's plot as of now because we don't know what it is) and we can guess that maybe they're trying to reproduce.



Now, unless ME3 is heavily focused on reaper reproduction, ME1 and ME2 were almost identical as far as bridging goes, except ME1 has the advantage of being the introductory chapter. Introducing your trilogy's villains is arguably more important than revealing a potential motive, especially when knowing said motive really doesn't seem to help us in the conflict at all.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Phaedon wrote...

From a trilogy perspective then?

ME2 is irrelevant. I have no idea how you can say ME1 is less important in the trilogy, story wise.

ME2 from a purely story perspective, leaves us at the exact same place where ME1 left us.

Eh, I am surprised to hear the last sentance coming from you. We learn the true nature of the Reapers, possibly their motives, and for once they are not just some mysterious machines trying to kill everyone, like ME1 ended. Although stopping the human reaper production was hardly a good highlight to the series, one could suggest the same for stopping Sovereign. I am not arguing whether or not ME2 has a better story, but the progression and the 'bridging' is there, I am surprised that you don't see it.

The reapers are still ridiculously mysterious, and their motives are still VERY vague. All we've learnt is that they have an interest in Humanity (The species that killed one of their own at the end of ME1, this was already heavily insinuated at during ME1's ending) and that they can reproduce during an extinction cycle. Surely their sole motive is not to reproduce? I mean seriously, if they're lifespan is infinite, why reproduce? What is the point of reproduction if they're infinite? Surely there must be a much bigger motive behind their acts of extinction, hence their true motives are still not shown. See how there are now more questions at the end of ME2 than answers.

As i said, from a strictly story based perspective, ME2 takes us a little more than a baby step. Including all the other things though, like characters and other worldly events, ME2 takes us far. But that is not the topic of discussion at the moment.

[Phaedon]

morrie23 wrote...

What I will say is that IF ME3 jettisons the Collector/Prothean stuff then ME2 will turn out to be pretty redundant to the Reaper storyline (regardless of how much you like the ME2 character stories these have nothing to do with the overarching Reaper plot).

Yeah, ofcourse, but since the trilogy viewpoint is mostly about progression and bridging, I don't think that it would be safe to assume that Bioware would screw up that badly.

ME1 contains more that one Repear reference, there are numberous conversations through the story missions of that game that reveal more about the Repears. Hell, you even talk to a Reaper!

I don't know, other than Sovereign and the audio file, I was rather disappointing with how they were mentioned in the story. It would have turned out badly if it wasn't for the beacon vision, imho.

The reapers are still ridiculously mysterious, and their motives are still VERY vague. All we've learnt is that they have an interest in Humanity (The species that killed one of their own at the end of ME1, this was already heavily insinuated at during ME1's ending) and that they can reproduce during an extinction cycle. Surely their sole motive is not to reproduce? I mean seriously, if they're lifespan is infinite, why reproduce? What is the point of reproduction if they're infinite? Surely there must be a much bigger motive behind their acts of extinction, hence their true motives are still not shown. See how there are now more questions at the end of ME2 than answers.

More questions? Nah, those always existed.While as you suggest, only hints are being given to us, concerning their motives, I consider the reveal of the true nature of the Reapers and the Protheans (half of ME1's plot was about them) as more than baby steps. Sure, it's not a huge leap, but neither ME1 nor ME2 'suck from a trilogy viewpoint'.

 But that is not the topic of discussion at the moment.

90% of my posts in this thread are directed to Fixers0's post. Smudboy? Yes, he overthinks stuff, makes terrible mistakes now and then, but all in all his analysis for both ME1/2 is valid. But I don't see why Bioware should 'look at this'.

Modifié par Phaedon, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:27 .

[morrie23]

Phaedon wrote...
Yeah, ofcourse, but since the trilogy viewpoint is mostly about progression and bridging, I don't think that it would be safe to assume that Bioware would screw up that badly.

I don't know, other than Sovereign and the audio file, I was rather disappointing with how they were mentioned in the story. It would have turned out badly if it wasn't for the beacon vision, imho.

I hope BioWare don't screw it up, but depending on the choices they make, they could make ME2 superfluous. Because of the lack of progression of the Repear plot in ME2, it really depends how BW treat the characters in the next game. If they are discarded, than what was the point of ME2? I truely hope they don't do this, if they're smart they will tie some of the characters into the Repear story.

ME1 also has Vigil, and the revelations from that conversation eclipse anything from ME2 (IMHO).

[DarthCaine]

I don't think ANYONE should look at that crap

[Dean_the_Young]

Mass Effect 1 established a threat.



Mass Effect 2 stopped an attempt by that threat, discovered far more about that threat, and established the groundwork and means to overcome the threat.



Mass Effect 3 is ending the threat.







That is as valid a trilogy structure as any other.

[glacier1701]

Phaedon wrote.....

.....snip...

[summary] We know at the end of ME2 what the Reapers are....

At the end of ME1 we knew what the Reapers were - VERY ADVANCED Artificial Intelligences encased in bigger than dreadnought sized casings that did not wish to be supplanted by organic beings. Indeed one thread throughout ME1 was this organic-machine AI conflict and what it meant.

Phaedon wrote...

It makes them more deep in a way, and the irony of the Protheans being turned into Collectors and helping the Reapers is interesting.

Not really in so far as now they are some sort of organomachine hybrid that do not wish to be supplanted by organic beings. Not any sort of deeping of their character so far as I can see just a retcon in a bid to give BW an excuse to use the slurpie machine and Reaper terminator.

Modifié par glacier1701, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Or perhaps you're shortsighted, and the patient exposition and expansions that will be in ME3 will make you look back at ME2 and go 'duh, why didn't I see that sooner.'

[DarthCaine]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or perhaps you're shortsighted, and the patient exposition and expansions that will be in ME3 will make you look back at ME2 and go 'duh, why didn't I see that sooner.'

Nah, they just like to complain. Just wait till ME3 comes and the hate threads come.

If you people think these ME2 hate threads are bad, you obviously have poor memory of ME1 threads complaining about the crappy Mako, the boring sidequests, the crappy inventory, elevators, the short length, boring characters etc.

Modifié par DarthCaine, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:33 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Phaedon wrote...

morrie23 wrote...

What I will say is that IF ME3 jettisons the Collector/Prothean stuff then ME2 will turn out to be pretty redundant to the Reaper storyline (regardless of how much you like the ME2 character stories these have nothing to do with the overarching Reaper plot).

Yeah, ofcourse, but since the trilogy viewpoint is mostly about progression and bridging, I don't think that it would be safe to assume that Bioware would screw up that badly.

ME1 contains more that one Repear reference, there are numberous conversations through the story missions of that game that reveal more about the Repears. Hell, you even talk to a Reaper!

I don't know, other than Sovereign and the audio file, I was rather disappointing with how they were mentioned in the story. It would have turned out badly if it wasn't for the beacon vision, imho.

The reapers are still ridiculously mysterious, and their motives are still VERY vague. All we've learnt is that they have an interest in Humanity (The species that killed one of their own at the end of ME1, this was already heavily insinuated at during ME1's ending) and that they can reproduce during an extinction cycle. Surely their sole motive is not to reproduce? I mean seriously, if they're lifespan is infinite, why reproduce? What is the point of reproduction if they're infinite? Surely there must be a much bigger motive behind their acts of extinction, hence their true motives are still not shown. See how there are now more questions at the end of ME2 than answers.

More questions? Nah, those always existed.While as you suggest, only hints are being given to us, concerning their motives, I consider the reveal of the true nature of the Reapers and the Protheans (half of ME1's plot was about them) as more than baby steps. Sure, it's not a huge leap, but neither ME1 nor ME2 'suck from a trilogy viewpoint'.

 But that is not the topic of discussion at the moment.

90% of my posts in this thread are directed to Fixers0's post. Smudboy? Yes, he overthinks stuff, makes terrible mistakes now and then, but all in all his analysis for both ME1/2 is valid. But I don't see why Bioware should 'look at this'.

I'm personally fine with where ME2 left us. I've accepted that ME1 was heavy on discovering the threat and pushing forward to stop that threat, while ME2 was heavy on advancing the other things in the universe (Such as the geth, characters, dark energy etc.) while letting the main plot take a back seat and basically leave it where it is.

I only give replies like that when people say that ME2's main plot did advance the overall reaper story-arch significantly, or that is as in-depth as ME1's, because that is simply not true.

As long as ME3 doesn't suddenly disregard all the things ME2 focused on (Characters, conflicts, alliances etc.), then ME2 will be a successful bridge IMO.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:35 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Or perhaps you're shortsighted, and the patient exposition and expansions that will be in ME3 will make you look back at ME2 and go 'duh, why didn't I see that sooner.'

I know ME3 could make sense of the entirety of ME2. I just hope it does.

[morrie23]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
As long as ME3 doesn't suddenly disregard all the things ME2 focused on (Characters, conflicts, alliances etc.), then ME2 will be a successful bridge IMO.

QFT.