185 réponses à ce sujet

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

exactly. Many people have argued this many, many times before and it simply is not a good story.



Like you said, the character stories were the focus and were good, but had no connection the main plot, with few exceptions. You ended up exactly where you started.



It has certainly shaken my faith in Bioware's story-telling capabilities.

[IrishSpectre257]

This question can't be answered yet.



If the entire ME2 squad, or at least most of it, returns for ME3, then ME2 won't be useless. ME2 focused on giving Shepard a powerful new squad, and allowing the player to get to know them. It also provided a few revelations about the main plot. It makes way for ME3 to come along and focus entirely on the main plot.

[thatbwoyblu]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

If the entire ME2 squad, or at least most of it, returns for ME3, then ME2 won't be useless. ME2 focused on giving Shepard a powerful new squad, and allowing the player to get to know them. It also provided a few revelations about the main plot. It makes way for ME3 to come along and focus entirely on the main plot.

Bingo we have a winner.Now chill with the "ME2 Story Sucks" complaints please.

[88mphSlayer]

depends on how important Cerberus is to ME3

[Ryzaki]

Depends on who returns in ME3.



But at the moment I really feel that it was an unnecessary reboot. Hopefully BW proves me wrong.

[TelexFerra]

Character stories were the main plot



view the collector missions like you would an add on

[omgbecky]

It was needed for entertainment purposes!

[Black-Xero]

I didn't think it was worthless(you didn't really say that but I'm guessing that's what you meant) because it sets up ME3.Shows the advancement of the Reaper in the end,more about Cerberus and Shepard's new squad.The first starts it and the second sets up for the end.

[Manic Sheep]

We don't know yet. Once ME3 is released we will be able to see how everything fits together. Until then we have no idea how relevant the events of ME2 will be. Most of the game focused on character development...there is probably a reason for that. Honesty the 2nd instalment of a trilogy always seems to be the weakest and lacks the most direction. This is not unusual, people just need to relax and wait and see what happens.

[Iakus]

Perhaps it is a setup for ME 3. But then the question becomes:

How does ME 2 stand as its own game?  Or as an ME 1 sequel?

Modifié par iakus, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:54 .

[88mphSlayer]

omgbecky wrote...

It was needed for entertainment purposes!

it was needed for making the series AAA quality

[samurai crusade]

A little difficult to explain why it is important in a no spoilers thread.... but we learn more about the Reapers intentions. More about the Geth. More about life outside of Council Space. More about that mysterious group you may have fought in side missions, Cerberus. More about the ME universe.

[AllenShepard]

The point of ME2 was to strengthen Shepard's resolve. The 2nd chapter in this type of story revolves around the main character, not the threat. Shepard had to be tested. His ability to lead had to be tested. Everything that happened in ME2 conditioned the character to be brought into the third chapter. Without the ME2, Shepard's victory in ME3 would be hollow.



There's almost always a negative response to the 2nd release in stories like Shepard's because the typical audience doesn't yet see it in the context of the trilogy. I would wager most of the people who are disappointed with ME2's story will feel differently a couple years down the road.

[Gleym]

AllenShepard wrote...

The point of ME2 was to strengthen Shepard's resolve. The 2nd chapter in this type of story revolves around the main character, not the threat. Shepard had to be tested. His ability to lead had to be tested. Everything that happened in ME2 conditioned the character to be brought into the third chapter. Without the ME2, Shepard's victory in ME3 would be hollow.

There's almost always a negative response to the 2nd release in stories like Shepard's because the typical audience doesn't yet see it in the context of the trilogy. I would wager most of the people who are disappointed with ME2's story will feel differently a couple years down the road.

..Wah? There wasn't a single thing in ME2 that had anything to do with Shepard whatsoever. Shepard received ZERO development as a character in that game, not even a batting of the eye as to the fact that he freakin' DIED and was resurrected. Just a couple of 'o I were teh dead lulz' jokes and then it's shrugged off like nothing happened at all.

ME2 was all about the side-characters. It had nothing to do with the Reaper threat and even less to do with Shepard. The whole rationale that 'oh, but the ending of ME2 shows the Reapers flying in from dark space' is also completely meaningless because we KNEW they were already doing that - Shepard said so at the end of ME1.

[didymos1120]

Ryzaki wrote...

But at the moment I really feel that it was an unnecessary reboot.

Ah, another word rapidly approaching "meaningless buzzword" territory due to abuse and misuse, like "retcon", "immersion", and "plothole".  Reboot = Starting the entire story over from square one.  ME2? Did not do that.  Not a reboot. It's a direct sequel, and there are tons of references to the events of ME1, even trivial ones.

[Gleym]

Technically, it can count as a reboot, since it was clearly designed so that you could play it without ever having played the first one. If a game does not rely on its predecessor to act as its storytelling fold, then it may as well be a reboot. Mind you, I'd hate it if they pulled that stunt on the freaking third act of all things. If you're coming into a trilogy on the third act, you'd have to be some kind of moron.

[AllenShepard]

Gleym wrote...

AllenShepard wrote...

The point of ME2 was to strengthen Shepard's resolve. The 2nd chapter in this type of story revolves around the main character, not the threat. Shepard had to be tested. His ability to lead had to be tested. Everything that happened in ME2 conditioned the character to be brought into the third chapter. Without the ME2, Shepard's victory in ME3 would be hollow.

There's almost always a negative response to the 2nd release in stories like Shepard's because the typical audience doesn't yet see it in the context of the trilogy. I would wager most of the people who are disappointed with ME2's story will feel differently a couple years down the road.

..Wah? There wasn't a single thing in ME2 that had anything to do with Shepard whatsoever. Shepard received ZERO development as a character in that game, not even a batting of the eye as to the fact that he freakin' DIED and was resurrected. Just a couple of 'o I were teh dead lulz' jokes and then it's shrugged off like nothing happened at all.

ME2 was all about the side-characters. It had nothing to do with the Reaper threat and even less to do with Shepard. The whole rationale that 'oh, but the ending of ME2 shows the Reapers flying in from dark space' is also completely meaningless because we KNEW they were already doing that - Shepard said so at the end of ME1.

   You saying Shepard's attitude didn't change at all? 
   In ME1 Shepard was an idealistic young soldier. Sure he had grit, he's a soldier but everything that was happening was an adventure for him. It was all new. The tone of Shepard and the first game as a whole more SO many times lighter than ME2. 
   In almost every instance of dialogue in ME2, Shepard is a mad son of a ****. Putting guns in people's faces, barking commands. He was a moral shining star in ME1. The intent of ME2 was to show Shepard's dark side and show what he can do if he has to.
   The clarity may not be perfect because of the Paragon/Renegade system but it's still there. The contrast between the two games is what makes the kind of Shepard you play in 3 so important. If you jumped straight from 1 to 3 you would miss all the entire dark side of the story and you'd start as the same damn character you began with. ME2 added the depth to Shepard and the series that is going to give 3 the impact it will have.

Forgive my long ass post.

[Bogsnot1]

Oh look. Its this thread again. You can say that about the 2nd part of a lot of trilogies. LotR, Star Wars, etc.

ME2 is following a well established precedent in "getting to know the characters". If your not a fan of that sort of story, I suggest you withold from buying the 2nd part of any game that is set to be a trilogy.

[Dougy Fresh]

ya i just see it as a precursor to the awesomeness of ME3 and i think that it will help expand ME3 and make it deeper and richer



but it wasnt completely useless it still had a lot of storyline to it with discovering the true fate of the protheans and whether or not your shep made it through the suicide mission or not.... it could have huge ramification in ME3.



plus Mass Effect was concieved as a trilogy

[Collider]

If the characters we recruited do not matter in ME3, then yes, it will probably essentially be useless.

[Stupidus]

You guys are looking way too much into things. Enjoy the game, and try to find one better with as convincingly made story, lore and world made. And don't saw WoW, because that lore is ****ED.