292 réponses à ce sujet

[88mphSlayer]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

At this point, I think Halo's story has more credability.

to be fair, Halo 2 was a far bigger disaster than Mass Effect 2 could ever be

at least the additions to the trilogy via ME2 have been entertaining even if ME2 did a crappy job explaining anything, the additions to the Halo trilogy by Halo 2 were really boring

we can only hope that ME3 explains everything, or at least let us kill the council again and again and again

[Fiery Phoenix]

I agree with Slayer. At this point, ME2's only chance to justify itself as a feasible part of the trilogy is in the hands of its forthcoming successor; if ME3 doesn't explain everything, then ME2 might as well not have happened at all.

[GodWood]

I've always loved the idea of cutting back certain characters and merging them with others.

A Jacob/Zaeed hybrid (Zakob if you will) would be a much better and more fleshed out character than what Jacob and Zaeed were as individuals.

[CroGamer002]

^That!

But if they give an option to kill the Council( old or human lead one) I will ignore it.

[Phaedon]

Epic777 wrote...
me1 you you were looking for the conduit, there was something about the reapers but it was mostly stopping saren by stopping him gaining the conduit:whistle:

This, if you dismiss the Reaper plot in ME2 as 'fighting Collectors and destroying their base', then you'll have to dismiss ME1's as 'searching for the thing that will help searching for the thing that will in turn help Saren help Sovereign to help the rest of the Reapers'. Confusing? Well, I just re-finished ME1. 

ME1 wasn't about saving the galaxy more than ME2 was. In ME1, you had to stop Sovereign open the gate for more Reapers to come and reap, in ME2, you had to stop human colonies from disappearing and destroy a Reaper in the meantime.

[Praetor Knight]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I never got the Thane/Samara out of him, but the general idea of the other two was combination and to reduce excess characters (in a way that still made sense).


Jack/Miranda was Jack's past with stockholm syndrome: a terrible Cerberus experiment to make the perfect little girl, only instead of sugar, spice, and everything nice, they used genetic tampering, torture, and liberal amounts of physical and psychological abuse. A Jack who didn't escape, but rather became like Aresh in believing it all had to be worth it, and was remade into the perfect little Cerberus loyalist as a result.


Jacob/Zaeed combined Zaeed's experience/cynicism with Jacob's past and moral idealism. He's a jaded idealist who doesn't buy into the Cerberus propoganda like Jack/Miranda, but has both personal and idealistic reasons for staying on.

Hmm... I can see how that could make sense, but I still feel it would be unnecessary for these particular characters.

However if there was going to be another type of project considered, say a movie, then such changes would be necessary to streamline the project for a general audience. My main consideration would be that for a movie the audience is investing two hours or so while ME2 was like approx 28-35 hours invested.

[JamieCOTC]

I liked his analysis on the ME2 marketing, not so much for his analysis, but that one of the commentators compared ME2 to Asimov.  ME1, okay, there's a smidgen of Asimov mixed in w/ some Phillip K Dick, but ME2 is mostly Micheal Bay.

[Veen130]

Hes just a ME1 fanboy complaining about every little changed detail because its differant to his holy grail game which is "perfect" in everyway. I hate these people that don't like change. I think the story of ME2 is great, and no 6 part story analysis is gonna convince me other wise.

[Sandbox47]

What? Hey!

Look, why are we discussing this? We all know that ultimately it doesn't matter, and it is an insult more than anything else, to BioWare. (Not the criticism, they can take that, but the fact that we have to poke the flaws constantly)

I'll say this again, because some of you seem to be too preocupied with, ah.... doing nothing.

There are flaws in the story because if they were to fill in every flaw, we would be playing a very boring game where every dialogue is about codex stuff. Whom would you want to have explain to you how they brought you back to life, exactly? And why on earth would you second-guess how Joker saved the Assension, if you're the commander? Narrated, those questions make no sense.

I think that it's very plausible that not every angle is covered because that would simply mean hours of explanation on advanced science and mundane tasks.

[Sidac]

sounds llike your casual posket protector wearing nerd that cant suspend disbelief for a second. We know the plot holes are there and exist but JUST SHUT UP ALREADY! you've run this into the ground and then some.



im still suprised that no one has picked apart the final "act" i guess. If you get hardons for plot holes, there is your orgasm.....but no one has.

[Dark Glasses]

Even though I love Mass Effect series, he sure makes pretty damn good points.

[Phaedon]

JamieCOTC wrote...

I liked his analysis on the ME2 marketing, not so much for his analysis, but that one of the commentators compared ME2 to Asimov.  ME1, okay, there's a smidgen of Asimov mixed in w/ some Phillip K Dick, but ME2 is mostly Micheal Bay.

Smudboy also said at some point that ME2 didn't give him the Bladerunner feeling, unlike ME1. I facepalmed.

Omega anyone?

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 janvier 2011 - 12:15 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

88mphSlayer wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

At this point, I think Halo's story has more credability.

to be fair, Halo 2 was a far bigger disaster than Mass Effect 2 could ever be

at least the additions to the trilogy via ME2 have been entertaining even if ME2 did a crappy job explaining anything, the additions to the Halo trilogy by Halo 2 were really boring

we can only hope that ME3 explains everything, or at least let us kill the council again and again and again

Well, I don't think anyone would ever argue against that. Halo 2 is the weakest link in the trilogy. But we are talking story here, and Halo 2 had a strong story that was coherent from beginning to end.

Mass Effect 2 made as much sense as a generic summer blockbuster flick like Transformers. The story was weak, and that's why Bioware tip toes around the issue and makes up all sorts of excuses, even going so far as to say that players "just don't get it".

Everyone seems content with ignoring the weak story because everything else was so great. But it's still no excuse for a mediocre story that seems like it was designed just to get you through the game and onto the main event. See: Mass Effect 3.

That's not good game design. It really shows a lack of passion for the project on the part of the writers. Killing off Shepard and then bringing him back 5 minutes later. It was truly insulting.

[Murphy Nox]

I turned it off when he started complaining about Shepard dying,

[Phaedon]

NewMessageN00b wrote...
That's barely scratching the surface, given that it was just one location.

So? If the Terminus systems aren't a perfect description for the Bladerunner universe, then I don't know what is. Compared to the sci-fi opera setting ME1 had.

[thatguy212]

Phaedon wrote...

NewMessageN00b wrote...
That's barely scratching the surface, given that it was just one location.

So? If the Terminus systems aren't a perfect description for the Bladerunner universe, then I don't know what is. Compared to the sci-fi opera setting ME1 had.

needs more trench coats for it to be blade runner

[Phaedon]

NewMessageN00b wrote...
Even then, its feel is too bright. The moral issues were not explored at all. Just mentioned. It is not the feel of Bladerunner, if I remember it correctly at all.

Moral issues? Isn't the game a whole internal conflict of what is good and what is bad? Is keeping the base a bad thing? Should I shoot the batarians in Omega? Is brain washing the geth good or bad? What Bladerunner explored was mainly what should be considered 'pure' and a bit of another moral conflict, duty vs emotion.

[glacier1701]

Phaedon wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

I liked his analysis on the ME2 marketing, not so much for his analysis, but that one of the commentators compared ME2 to Asimov.  ME1, okay, there's a smidgen of Asimov mixed in w/ some Phillip K Dick, but ME2 is mostly Micheal Bay.

Smudboy also said at some point that ME2 didn't give him the Bladerunner feeling, unlike ME1. I facepalmed.

Omega anyone?

 Nope - I was constantly looking for this darker game we were supposed to be getting. Didnt see it to be honest.




 Oh and those who say Smud is a ME1 fanboy - he has done vids on ME1 as well.

[Babli]

Blade Runner feeling in Mass Effect 2? First time I read about this. If Omega was supposed to bring that feeling, it failed really hard. Dont get me wrong, I like Omega, although it could been bigger hub world, but Blade Runner? No.



smud makes some good points. And some wrong. But I agree with almost everything.

[SithLordExarKun]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


This is called being a fanboy/girl, where the writers are perceived incapable of doing wrong and we should accept their work regardless. Have you ever claimed a movie was awful? By your logic, I should be well within my rights to tell you "Go make a better movie or shut up." Contrastive criticism is the foundation for a superior product. If people had not complained about aspects of Mass Effect, specifically technical stuff. We would not have Mass Effect 2.

 

Wait, so accepting the story for what it is equates to being a fanboy? Jeez i wonder how many movies you spent an entire year giving "constructive criticism:.

[88mphSlayer]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

At this point, I think Halo's story has more credability.

to be fair, Halo 2 was a far bigger disaster than Mass Effect 2 could ever be

at least the additions to the trilogy via ME2 have been entertaining even if ME2 did a crappy job explaining anything, the additions to the Halo trilogy by Halo 2 were really boring

we can only hope that ME3 explains everything, or at least let us kill the council again and again and again

Well, I don't think anyone would ever argue against that. Halo 2 is the weakest link in the trilogy. But we are talking story here, and Halo 2 had a strong story that was coherent from beginning to end.

Mass Effect 2 made as much sense as a generic summer blockbuster flick like Transformers. The story was weak, and that's why Bioware tip toes around the issue and makes up all sorts of excuses, even going so far as to say that players "just don't get it".

Everyone seems content with ignoring the weak story because everything else was so great. But it's still no excuse for a mediocre story that seems like it was designed just to get you through the game and onto the main event. See: Mass Effect 3.

That's not good game design. It really shows a lack of passion for the project on the part of the writers. Killing off Shepard and then bringing him back 5 minutes later. It was truly insulting.

yeah i agree about the story, the last thing Bioware could really do is to at least explain away some of the major plot "thuds" in ME3 and just forget about it and move on, treat ME2's main story as just kind of a spin-off

and yeah i agree that they really didn't use Sheperd's death well at all, it's odd that 2 years pass and your former squadmates change a lot - but the biggest characters of Mass Effect 1: the council, Udina, Anderson, and Sheperd all don't change at all - you'd think those 4 would have changed the most, even Kaiden/Ashley have had brain transplants

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 15 janvier 2011 - 01:44 .

[Doctah T]

I think the best point the guy brought up was this; why do characters each get two quests to develop, instead of developing as you go through the main quest? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the loyalty missions and the recruitment missions for what they were. But I couldn't really enjoy them as much as I enjoyed, say, Noveria in ME1. Noveria was important to the plot. Thane's recruitment mission was awesome, but it was not important to the plot. It was important to Thane's plot, but not THE plot. Speaking personally, the first time I play a game I skip all the side quests because I'd like to see the plot unfold. To me it equates to a book of short stories. Short stories can be very well-developed, well-written, and incredible stories. But it's not the same as reading a novel (of the same quality).



My other main gripe is that ME2 had a great story, but didn't contribute to the overall story of the Mass Effect trilogy. It didn't really move the plot forward; it was more of a step sideways. In the game, the Collectors appear, and the Collectors are destroyed. The collectors were not in the first game, signifying that they were introduced as a plot element. But their destruction means that there is very little chance of connecting them to anything else happening in the plot. Overall, it feels more like filler than stuff that's actually important; an isolated plot hidden inside a plot that overall is more pressing and interesting.



Overall, I dearly love both ME1 and ME2. But unless Bioware does some very good explaining in ME3, I fear for the trilogy.