462 réponses à ce sujet

[przemichal]

If ME2 was pointless - many people on this forums say so - why not consider also ME1 pointless? I mean, the Reapers are going to invade the Milky Way anyway, so what's the point of ME1? Isn't it just as pointless as stopping the Collectors? One will say: it developed the world etc. etc. But ME2 did as well; in fact, in ME2 we had even more insight into ME world than in ME1. I know that one can argue; but come to think about it I'm pretty sure it did more for developing the setting than ME1; it did all the things ME1 done and more; if you're a PS3 player you will surely know what I mean. You'll say it revealed nothing new; but in fact it did. (Like: it gave us a lot of insight into Cerberus, for example.) Let's be honest, when playing ME1 you knew NOTHING about the asari, quarians, krogans; you only knew what your crew told you (and God those conversations were BORING!). What do you think?

Modifié par przemichal, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:43 .

[JeanLuc761]

I think the biggest problem here is that a lot of people are acting like they know ME2 is completely worthless, even though we haven't seen Mass Effect 3.



Folks, it is impossible to know how well the middle part of the trilogy fits into the overall story without knowing the beginning and ending as well.

[Bullets McDeath]

I agree. Neither game is "pointless", although the argument for ME2 being "pointless" has at least some basis in logic, but it really depends on what the setup for ME3 is and how everything goes down in that game. I think the problem is that for the most part, ME2 raises more questions than it answers... not uncommon for the middle part of a trilogy. Take all that, add in 2 cups of fresh internet, and you have a giant ****storm about nothing.

[marshalleck]

I guess it was time for this daily thread to pop up.

[Undertone]

Oh please. You could have at least used the other thread that's just few scrolls away then being a troll.

[marshalleck]

http://social.biowar...3/index/5809726

[Doctah T]

 Mass Effect 1 introduced the Reapers. It was the beginning of the plot. ME2 was pointless because it doesn't build off the plot of ME1, and it doesn't add anything in the end. After ME2, you're in the exact same spot as you were in after ME1; the Reapers are coming, some time. You don't learn anything about the Reapers or their plan. And its plot is almost completely isolated form the first game - if there were no first game, Mass Effect 2 would be fine as a stand-alone title.

[przemichal]

Undertone wrote...

Oh please. You could have at least used the other thread that's just few scrolls away then being a troll.

I take it as you mean you're more into necroposting than trolling. If this topic is **** to you, you just let it die, man.

Modifié par przemichal, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:50 .

[bjdbwea]

It depends on what the point was supposed to be.

If the point was to create a true successor to the first part of the series, a game that continues and advances the story, a game that delivers the same atmosphere and depth, then yes, ME 2 was pointless.

If the point was to create a game that's as compatible as possible with the mainstream and common console shooter standards, and also as easily accessible to new players as possible even at the cost of sacrificing coherence and continuity, then no, ME 2 was not pointless.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:50 .

[Captain Crash]

Its not pointless at all. I think people were just expecting more as the main quest itself was really short. Most the time you spent solving your teams problems.

Shepard: "Im going to need an Army or a really good team".

After all the work you did getting them loyal the army would probably have been easier.  But then there wouldn't have been a game!

Anyway I enjoyed ME2.  Its just the end that I try to wipe from my mind! 

Modifié par Captain Crash, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[przemichal]

Doctah T wrote...

Mass Effect 1 introduced the Reapers. It was the beginning of the plot. ME2 was pointless because it doesn't build off the plot of ME1, and it doesn't add anything in the end. After ME2, you're in the exact same spot as you were in after ME1; the Reapers are coming, some time. You don't learn anything about the Reapers or their plan. And its plot is almost completely isolated form the first game - if there were no first game, Mass Effect 2 would be fine as a stand-alone title.

Well didn't you learn anything new by ME2? You surely know what it was with those melting bodies in Shep's visions. And you know more about Cerberus, about every species; you learn a lot about the Protheans fate. You now know that the Reapers are interested in humans. Do you think that ME3 could handle it - deliver those infos to you - all alone? If it's just a "stage-setter", it's not less a stage-setter than ME1; and if ME1 is just the main plot for you, why not take a look at some of those: http://tvtropes.org/...Main/LivingShip (or some other sci-fi tropes used)?

Modifié par przemichal, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:55 .

[Silmane]

bjdbwea wrote...

It depends on what the point was supposed to be.

If the point was to create a true successor to the first part of the series, a game that continues and advances the story, a game that delivers the same atmosphere and depth, then yes, ME 2 was pointless.

If the point was to create a game that's as compatible as possible with the mainstream and common console shooter standards, and also as easily accessible to new players as possible even at the cost of sacrificing coherence and continuity, then no, ME 2 was not pointless.

Daaaaaaaaamnnnnnnnnnnn.

[GodWood]

przemichal wrote...
Let's be honest, when playing ME1 you knew NOTHING about the asari, quarians, krogans; you only knew what your crew told you (and God those conversations were BORING!).

I loved learning about the aliens and their culture and as a matter of fact enjoyed it way more than any of the combat sections.
Besides, companions aren't the only source of information on races as there happens to be a massive codex of information for the player to read.

[JeanLuc761]

Doctah T wrote...

 Mass Effect 1 introduced the Reapers. It was the beginning of the plot. ME2 was pointless because it doesn't build off the plot of ME1, and it doesn't add anything in the end. After ME2, you're in the exact same spot as you were in after ME1; the Reapers are coming, some time. You don't learn anything about the Reapers or their plan. And its plot is almost completely isolated form the first game - if there were no first game, Mass Effect 2 would be fine as a stand-alone title.

I would have disagree.  In no particular order, Mass Effect 2 gave us this:
1) A functional, if loose understanding of why the Reapers do what they do.
2) Explain the mystery of the Protheans.
3) Far greater insight into the quarian/geth conflict, which will undoubtably have repercussions in Mass Effect 3.
4) A very personal insight into the genophage project.
5) A better understanding of Cerberus and their place in society.
6) Took care of the Shadow Broker subplot (DLC, obviously).
7) Gave us a reason to care about our teammates, which will hopefully mean they're sticking around for ME3.

[Ioini]

ME2 was about Shepard being a Pokemon Trainer and had to collect the most rare Pokemons out there and had to travel across the galaxy for them.

But seriously that's what it felt like, LOTSB had a more decent plot then the main plot. Shadow Broker sent probes to the Omega 4 Relay, why didn't Cerberus? Is TIM an idiot? Probably.

Modifié par Ioini, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:01 .

[przemichal]

GodWood wrote...

przemichal wrote...
Let's be honest, when playing ME1 you knew NOTHING about the asari, quarians, krogans; you only knew what your crew told you (and God those conversations were BORING!).

I loved learning about the aliens and their culture and as a matter of fact enjoyed it way more than any of the combat sections.
Besides, companions aren't the only source of information on races as there happens to be a massive codex of information for the player to read.

Yeah but the codex was updated mostly thanks to conversations. Anyway. Isn't visiting a place much more fun than just hearing about it? (Like the Migrant Fleet; come on, I know that design sucked there, but wasn't it fun to met the Admiralty Board in person?) In ME2 the characters (I mean your team) play - in a way - the same role that they did in ME1: they are here so you can learn a lot of infos. Only this time, it's shown to you, you can see it yourself. (But I'll give you that - ME1 combat was also boring as hell. I mean, the whole game looks so boring now; I've just finished it again yesterday and I'm not playing it again anytime soon for sure.)

[Sith Reaper]

Doctah T wrote...

 Mass Effect 1 introduced the Reapers. It was the beginning of the plot. ME2 was pointless because it doesn't build off the plot of ME1, and it doesn't add anything in the end. After ME2, you're in the exact same spot as you were in after ME1; the Reapers are coming, some time. You don't learn anything about the Reapers or their plan. And its plot is almost completely isolated form the first game - if there were no first game, Mass Effect 2 would be fine as a stand-alone title.

I disagree. 

Mass Effect 2 developed the story, and was actually quite important in the context of Mass Effect 3. The development of characters, and their survival, I predict will have quite an impact on Mass Effect 3. Who knows what their survival will entail? The game is not out, so we cannot know, but we can kind of see what is building for the next game.

I also reckon part of the game was, through stopping the Collectors, changing the world around you. The krogan genophage cure, the quarian/geth war, and other important choices are made through the characters on the side of stopping the Collectors - that, I believe, is an enormous part of Mass Effect 2's importance.

Next - it gave us a deeper look at the universe. We saw the asari, we saw the krogan, we saw the quarians, we saw the colonies and Terminus Systems - we saw things that were not yet explored. This in its self is a great part of Mass Effect 2's importance.

I believe that many wanted to see more of a direct confrontation with the Reapers, but how can Shepard do that? At the end of Mass Effect 1, we know the Reapers are still coming - but how is Shepard supposed to find them? I think that is part of Mass Effect 2's importance as well. Through Mass Effect 1, we know what the Reapers are, and what they do - in Mass Effect 2, we see why and what really happens to the subjugated species. I believe that what we see in terms of the Collectors and Reapers in Mass Effect 2 (species twisted or turned into husks, harvested into Reapers, Harbinger's role, seeing more of the mystery of the Reapers in the Base and derelict Reaper) is going to be re-connected in Mass Effect 3. Not only for us to find out what really created the Reapers, what they do, and why, but also so Shepard can stop them.

Further more, the Reaper plot is the over-arching plot of the series, but it takes time to develop. Saren and the Collectors were both immediate threats that Shepard had to deal with - and by doing so, Shepard learns more and more about the Reapers. It is my belief that Mass Effect 3 will connect it all, so Shepard can find a way to stop them once and for all. 

P.S. Can't we just like both Mass Effects for once? I seem to see a lot of "Mass Effect 1 had better ____" "But Mass Effect 2 has ____" as if they are from completely separate series. It's actually perplexing why there is such a division.

Modifié par Sith Reaper, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:13 .

[przemichal]

Ioini wrote...
But seriously that's what it felt like, LOTSB had a more decent plot then the main plot. Shadow Broker sent probes to the Omega 4 Relay, why didn't Cerberus? Is TIM an idiot? Probably.

Well he only says it if you destroyed (or kept) the base (means you're playing LOTSB after the main quest). Also, I guess that the Broker had the information needed to pass the relay because Shepard and his crew obtained it from the derelict Reaper and he could SOMEHOW steal it from the Normandy (so that he knew how to configure his probes so they could pass the relay's IFF test). You know, he has some footage from Normandy SR2's armory; there's no reason why he couldn't also obtain the IFF parameters. (Or maybe - I'm not sure - the Broker only says that he is GOING to scavenge the remains? I don't quite remember.)

Modifié par przemichal, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:09 .

[GodWood]

przemichal wrote...

GodWood wrote...

przemichal wrote...
Let's be honest, when playing ME1 you knew NOTHING about the asari, quarians, krogans; you only knew what your crew told you (and God those conversations were BORING!).

I loved learning about the aliens and their culture and as a matter of fact enjoyed it way more than any of the combat sections.
Besides, companions aren't the only source of information on races as there happens to be a massive codex of information for the player to read.

Yeah but the codex was updated mostly thanks to conversations.

And the codex would expand on what was said by the companion ten fold.

Anyway. Isn't visiting a place much more fun than just hearing about it?

Visiting a place is enjoyable but that does not mean hearing about it is 'boring' like you stated.

[przemichal]

GodWood wrote...

przemichal wrote...

GodWood wrote...

przemichal wrote...
Let's be honest, when playing ME1 you knew NOTHING about the asari, quarians, krogans; you only knew what your crew told you (and God those conversations were BORING!).

I loved learning about the aliens and their culture and as a matter of fact enjoyed it way more than any of the combat sections.
Besides, companions aren't the only source of information on races as there happens to be a massive codex of information for the player to read.

Yeah but the codex was updated mostly thanks to conversations.

And the codex would expand on what was said by the companion ten fold.

Anyway. Isn't visiting a place much more fun than just hearing about it?

Visiting a place is enjoyable but that does not mean hearing about it is 'boring' like you stated.

I mean, don't you think those conversations are so so so unrealistic that any consciouss writer should erase them once they're done and think about putting something - I mean really anything - instead? Because if my experience is not mistaking me, real life conversations are more like pulling the trigger than reading a book and those in ME1 are more like reading a book (or listening to one). (But well, those are ofc ones of the best pieces of conversations in the history of video games until 2008, so I'll pass, let's leave them alone as they are.)

[Doctah T]

To be fair, I misspoke in order to directly answer the OP's question.

Mass Effect 2 isn't pointless, but I feel its main story was. The side missions added things: more understanding of the geth/quarian confilct, the rewriting/destruction of the heretic geth, the genophage... All of those things are in side missions. Important? Definitely, but they're not part of ME2's plot. That aside, nearly any sequel will provide more information about the setting and the important plot elements.

I didn't necessarily want to fight a Reaper, or find a weapon to fight them, or any of those other things that people think should have happened. But a little more insight would have been nice. The smoothie concept gave us a why, but a very, very shaky one. It raises more questions then answers. 

All that said, the only thing from the main plot that will carry over into the next game is the decision whether or not to keep the Collector base. It feels like another sidequest.

Edit: I'd also like to state that I do love both Mass Effects, probably ME2 a little moreso than the first. But in my opinion, ME2 had some shortcomings, story-wise. Unfortunately, after getting cozy with ME2's combat system, I have trouble playing more than an hour and a half into ME1 without losing interest. Which blows, I love the game and the combat is such a small aspect of the experience that it seems a silly thing for me to lose interest over.

Modifié par Doctah T, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:41 .

[GodWood]

przemichal wrote...
I mean, don't you think those conversations are so so so unrealistic that any consciouss writer should erase them once they're done and think about putting something - I mean really anything - instead? Because if my experience is not mistaking me, real life conversations are more like pulling the trigger than reading a book and those in ME1 are more like reading a book (or listening to one).

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Ioini]

przemichal wrote...

Ioini wrote...
But seriously that's what it felt like, LOTSB had a more decent plot then the main plot. Shadow Broker sent probes to the Omega 4 Relay, why didn't Cerberus? Is TIM an idiot? Probably.

Well he only says it if you destroyed (or kept) the base (means you're playing LOTSB after the main quest). Also, I guess that the Broker had the information needed to pass the relay because Shepard and his crew obtained it from the derelict Reaper and he could SOMEHOW steal it from the Normandy (so that he knew how to configure his probes so they could pass the relay's IFF test). You know, he has some footage from Normandy SR2's armory; there's no reason why he couldn't also obtain the IFF parameters. (Or maybe - I'm not sure - the Broker only says that he is GOING to scavenge the remains? I don't quite remember.)

Yes, broker did say he was going to salvage the remains of the Collector Base implying that you've destroyed the base. I am sure he observed how the IFF works and uses his improvised technology on his probes so he could sent to the Omega 4 Relay. But that wasn't really explained, just my own theroy.

[Slayer299]

Mass Effect was pointless only in that it did not move the plot (the Reapers) forward any. We learned that the Protheans were turned into Collectors, but it was done in such a throw away manner that it made very little impact. You're on the CS when you find this out, one of your squadmates makes a comment and then you move on so you can kill things and that's that.

Learning about the Asari, Krogan, Quarians, Geth was good, it fleshed them out from ME1 and usually quite enjoyable, but the entire mission felt like a side quest right up until the DR, then the HB and finally the SM. Those 3 I quite enjoyed because they had some relevence.

In the long term ME2 did not tell you anything beyond the Protheans and their interest in humanity, that's not a lot considering now we need to squeeze that into ME3. In effect we know nothing more than we did at the end of ME1, I think that is a lot (including me) of what bothers people criticizing ME2 being pointless plot-wise.

[The Unfallen]

I agree, Mass Effect 2 was nowhere pointless. I still prefer the original though. Mass Effect 2 lacked that whole "space feel", which drew me in in the first place.