462 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Again, I don't think it's that ME2 was pointless. I think it simply did not have a strong plot. We did accomplish our goal, but because the plot felt weak the accomplishment felt weak as well.

[wulf3n]

Wulfram wrote...
Sending Liara to Ilos would have made sense.  But fighting the only known agents of the reapers is a logical thing for Shepard to be doing.

Actually Tali would be the best one to go off fighting geth, as shes the only person we know of to succesfully pull information from a geth platform.

Shepard isn't the only person in the galaxy who can fight geth. Shepard should be using his spectre priveleges to source new leads.

Modifié par wulf3n, 08 février 2011 - 11:04 .

[TRISTAN WERBE]

no i paid money

[AkiKishi]

wulf3n wrote...
Even before you die, they still get you going after geth, rather than let you go off to find out more about reapers. All im saying is a little exposition on why would be nice.

More a difference between the goa'uld at the start of the series, and the end. They go from being the ultimate threat in the galaxy to little more than an annoyance.

I recall from somewhere hearing  that was a cover story,not sure though.Honestly I tend to just turn the TV on until the intro is over after the first time. 

That makes perfect sense. At the start the Goa'ld are unknown. Over the course of the series SG1 finds allies and ways to fight them, which makes them seem less of a threat. If you have ever played the UFO series of games it's very much the same pattern.

After playing ME2 I see the Reapers of less of a threat in much the same way. Since we now know they can be killed in a way that does not require infinite stupidity on their part like in ME1.

[Whatever42]

Nightwriter wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME2 is simply parallel to ME1 in structure because we are experiencing the game from the renegade-side faction instead of the paragon-side faction. That is entirely intentional. It is like playing part 1 of the campaign as the human faction and part 2 as the orc faction, except we get to keep the same character.

During both games we can resist our faction and at the end we can set both factions back and advance the other.

In ME3, we get to choose which faction triumphs. Its all pointed and deliberate.

Storywise, the plot against the Reapers does advance, we gain new allies, we learn more about the enemy. Its actually a very nice construction overall.

The Problem is, is that Mass effect 2 lacked three fundamental element's for a good story.
1. depth
2.  tone
3. Cohesion.

The problem isn't much the story (even though the whole Collector/harbinger plot as poorly written) or the Character's it self, it is the way they are tolled to us.

Well said.

I would say also that if we change factions abruptly, it is important to the story that our character reacts to the change.

Nightwriter, you have a point but I don't see Fixer's point. The story had as much depth as space opera stories have. Heck, moreso. This isn't war and peace. Did the Matrix have depth? Did Star Wars have depth? The story has good construction, the villains motivations *seem* a bit shallow but that's space opera, the characters are definately 3 dimensional, though.

Tone was fine. When you went from the council faction to the Cerberus faction, the tone reflected that. The music and colors reflected it. The dialogue relected it. Again, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

I admit that the change in faction was jarring, and I suspect that's what you are reacting to here as well, Nightwriter. You felt perhaps that Shepard should have had the option to struggle more?

Now I'm not going to argue that Bioware did it well or perhaps shouldn't have spent more time there. I found the transition a little annoying, I confess. I was annoyed that that was all the face time I got with Anderson and the VS and perhaps more time with them would have made the transition more natural - maybe if Anderson even encouraged me to work from within Cerberus, my motivations would have been more clear.

That is definitely a failure in the writing, at least in the way I experienced the story. I understand that a movie/vido game isn't going to have the depth of a novel but that did effect my experience negatively. But that's a far cry from saying ME2 was pointless. It was generally a well-written, well constructed part of the whole story. It had good dialgoue, good characters (whether or not you wanted more game mechanics of random chatter), a parrallel structure to the first where you got to experience the new faction, and story advancement with new reveals and a new villain.

I'm not going to ask any paragon to enjoy working for Cerberus, I'm not going to tell people to like the reveal or like the villain, but I still can't see this broader attack claiming that the whole thing was jumbled or pointless. I thought it was very well-done.

/wave Il Divo Nice to be back spamming the boards!

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 08 février 2011 - 01:07 .

[bjdbwea]

AlanC9 wrote...

So you wanted ME2 to end with us knowing how to defeat the Reapers, and in ME3 we would execute our plan? Really?

Yes, and why not? Shepard said it clearly at the end of ME 1: "The reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find a way to stop them." And that's exactly what ME 2 should have been about. It goes without saying that in ME 3, not everything would go according to the plan, there would still have been enough room for setbacks and surprises.

But actually it wouldn't even have been necessary for Shepard to actually know of a way to stop the reapers at the end of ME 2. From a storytelling perspective, as others have mentioned, the second part of the trilogy should perhaps have ended with the good side being at a disadvantage and facing seemingly overwhelming opposition. The short sequence with the advancing reapers at the end of the game is of course not nearly enough to portray that. But anyway, even if Shepard would not yet have found a way to stop the reapers, the search should have been the focus of the game.

There was never any need for the writers to pull a new enemy out of their collective hat, nor to reset the rest of the story. Of course it might make sense for them for commercial reasons, to prevent the new players and the PS 3 gamers from starting the series at a disadvantage. But why should we, as the players and customers, care about that? BioWare promised a trilogy, but what they have delivered with ME 2 is not a continuation, but a restart. But what's perhaps worst about that, is that even as a stand-alone game, the story in ME 2 is not good. Even if we would accept ME 2 for the restart that it is, the writing should have been much better.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 février 2011 - 05:38 .

[AkiKishi]

bjdbwea wrote...
Yes, and why not? Shepard said it clearly at the end of ME 1: "The reapers are still out there, and I'm going to find a way to stop them." And that's exactly what ME 2 should have been about. It goes without saying that in ME 3, not everything would go according to the plan, there would still have been enough room for setbacks and surprises.

But actually it wouldn't even have been necessary for Shepard to actually know of a way to stop the reapers at the end of ME 2. From a storytelling perspective, as others have mentioned, the second part of the trilogy should perhaps have ended with the good side being at a disadvantage and facing seemingly overwhelming opposition. The short sequence with the advancing reapers at the end of the game is of course not nearly enough to portray that. But anyway, even if Shepard would not yet have found a way to stop the reapers, the search should have been the focus of the game.

There was never any need for the writers to pull a new enemy out of their collective hat, nor to reset the rest of the story. Of course it might make sense for them for commercial reasons, to prevent the new players and the PS 3 gamers from starting the series at a disadvantage. But why should we, as the players and customers, care about that? BioWare promised a trilogy, but what they have delivered with ME 2 is not a continuation, but a restart. But what's perhaps worst about that, is that even as a stand-alone game, the story in ME 2 is not good. Even if we would accept the ME 2 for the restart that it is, the writing should have been much better.

What ME2 did for me more than anything was to make the Reapers a lot less scary. In ME they were an unknown. ME2 shed light on them, and in that respect is it very much a continuation of ME1. Prior to ME2 the only way you could defeat a Reaper was if it did something incredibly stupid.

In ME2 we blew through Reaper tech that was previously invincible , we killed 2 Reapers (albeit a baby and geriatric) and overall made the Reapers something not to be feared. It gave a feeling this was a battle that could be won.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 08 février 2011 - 04:54 .

[bjdbwea]

BobSmith101 wrote...

What ME2 did for me more than anything was to make the Reapers a lot less scary. In ME they were an unknown. ME2 shed light on them, and in that respect is it very much a continuation of ME1. Prior to ME2 the only way you could defeat a Reaper was if it did something incredibly stupid.

In ME2 we blew through Reaper tech that was previously invincible , we killed 2 Reapers (albeit a baby and geriatric) and overall made the Reapers something not to be feared. It gave a feeling this was a battle that could be won.

Less scary, and more ridiculous. Let's face it, the fight with the human reaper was a complete joke. Only there to showcase the gameplay and let players who care about that feel like they were doing something really "cool". But from a story perspective, it makes no sense and contradicts ME 1. Of course it was always a problem for the writers that ME 1 portrayed the reapers as so mighty and virtually unstoppable. Since there has to be the possibility for a happy ending in ME 3, it was always necessary to give the Shepard and the galaxy some means to achieve victory. It always required very good writing to make this convincing. But ME 2 is far from being that.

We can only hope that the writers for ME 3 will come up with more thought out ideas. Judging from the first trailer, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be certain. It seems as if they're continuing to weaken the reapers, further back-pedaling from the initial vision, making the reapers become a more ordinary enemy, in order to be able to get away with ordinary writing.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 février 2011 - 05:56 .

[Fixers0]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Nightwriter, you have a point but I don't see Fixer's point. The story had as much depth as space opera stories have. Heck, moreso. This isn't war and peace. Did the Matrix have depth? Did Star Wars have depth? The story has good construction, the villains motivations *seem* a bit shallow but that's space opera, the characters are definately 3 dimensional, though.

Tone was fine. When you went from the council faction to the Cerberus faction, the tone reflected that. The music and colors reflected it. The dialogue relected it. Again, I'm not sure where this is coming from.

I admit that the change in faction was jarring, and I suspect that's what you are reacting to here as well, Nightwriter. You felt perhaps that Shepard should have had the option to struggle more?

Now I'm not going to argue that Bioware did it well or perhaps shouldn't have spent more time there. I found the transition a little annoying, I confess. I was annoyed that that was all the face time I got with Anderson and the VS and perhaps more time with them would have made the transition more natural - maybe if Anderson even encouraged me to work from within Cerberus, my motivations would have been more clear.

That is definitely a failure in the writing, at least in the way I experienced the story. I understand that a movie/vido game isn't going to have the depth of a novel but that did effect my experience negatively. But that's a far cry from saying ME2 was pointless. It was generally a well-written, well constructed part of the whole story. It had good dialgoue, good characters (whether or not you wanted more game mechanics of random chatter), a parrallel structure to the first where you got to experience the new faction, and story advancement with new reveals and a new villain.

I'm not going to ask any paragon to enjoy working for Cerberus, I'm not going to tell people to like the reveal or like the villain, but I still can't see this broader attack claiming that the whole thing was jumbled or pointless. I thought it was very well-done.

/wave Il Divo Nice to be back spamming the boards!

If you don't get my point i suggest watching this analysis of Mass effect 2 character's, just watch part 1 and then skip to part 15 and 16.

He Basically tells us altough the Characters were well written and develop good, they have nothing to do with the main plot and that we recruit them for no good reason, we are just told to do so,  This is enforced by the fact that we are never recieved a proper goal and that not even a vague understaning or a supposed plan is ever givem to us recruiting people just to act as soldiers is completly mindless.

On other thing to note is that Characters only seem to live in their own story, their canned Recruitment and loyalty mission are okay, but outside that they could be replaced by anyone.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Fixers0, 08 février 2011 - 06:35 .

[AkiKishi]

bjdbwea wrote...

Less scary, and more ridiculous. Let's face it, the fight with the human reaper was a complete joke. Only there to showcase the gameplay and let players who care about that feel like they were doing something really "cool". But from a story perspective, it makes no sense and contradicts ME 1. Of course it was always a problem for the writers that ME 1 portrayed the reapers as so mighty and virtually unstoppable. Since there has to be the possibility for a happy ending in ME 3, it was always necessary to give the Shepard and the galaxy some means to achieve victory. It always required very good writing to make this convincing. But ME 2 is far from being that.

We can only hope that the writers for ME 3 will come up with more thought out ideas. Judging from the first trailer, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be certain. It seems as if they're continuing to weaken the reapers, further back-pedaling from the initial vision, making the reapers become a more ordinary enemy, in order to be able to get away with ordinary writing.

No dissagrement with me on that one the T-800 was indeed a joke. I don't think it really contradicts ME1, rather sheds light on it. By ME3 there has to be a way to beat the Reapers whatever it is, they can't stay boogeymen for ever.

That's always going to be the case if you add huge numbers of things. The greater the number the weaker they must be in order to make them beatable. I think a lot of people may have overlooked that while playing ME2.

Fixers0 wrote...

On other thing to note is that Characters only seem to live in their own story, their canned Recruitment and loyalty mission are okay, but outside that they could be replaced by anyone.

That's true of almost any character. Even Shepard could be replaced with a little story tweaking. The only time a character is essential to the story is if they have a connection that only they can make the plot come to pass. Baldurs Gate requiring a Child of Baal for example. Alistair being needed in DA is another.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 08 février 2011 - 06:33 .

[Praetor Knight]

Nightwriter wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

The Problem is, is that Mass effect 2 lacked three fundamental element's for a good story.
1. depth
2.  tone
3. Cohesion.

The problem isn't much the story (even though the whole Collector/harbinger plot as poorly written) or the Character's it self, it is the way they are tolled to us.

Well said.

I would say also that if we change factions abruptly, it is important to the story that our character reacts to the change.

I dunno, but my Shep had a delayed reaction and destroyed the Collector Base
The pent up fury hit Shep like a ton of bricks



But what did we want out of ME2?

I came into the series blind, I followed no advertising for both games and I have enjoyed the ME universe.

Both games seem to have depth, a tone and seem to be cohesive with their stories, so I guess I'll just agree to disagree that there was a lack of those elements in ME2's story.

I guess it were just different then what was expected or desired?

[Whatever42]

Fixers0 wrote...
If you don't get my point i suggest watching this analysis of Mass effect 2 character's, just watch part 1 and then skip to part 15 and 16.

He Basically tells us altough the Characters were well written and develop good, they have nothing to do with the main plot and that we recruit them for no good reason, we are just told to do so,  This is enforced by the fact that we are never recieved a proper goal and that not even a vague understaning or a supposed plan is ever givem to us recruiting people just to act as soldiers is completly mindless.

On other thing to note is that Characters only seem to live in their own story, their canned Recruitment and loyalty mission are okay, but outside that they could be replaced by anyone.

www.youtube.com/watch

I'm well aware of smudboy. No, the character personal problems have nothing to do with the main mission. They are side-plots only loosely tied to the success of the main mission. The main mission, to figure out the motives of the Collectors and then stop them are crystal clear. I never had any problem understanding that. Heck, ME1 was more confusing; what the heck is a conduit?

But lets compare ME1 to ME2. Both games had the same number of core missions that moved the plot forward against Sovereign and the Collectors. However, in ME1, we had useless cookie-cutter side missions piped to us by General Hackett that had less than nothing to do with the main mission. In ME2, our missions are about our team and are loosely tied to the success of the main mission - wrapping up their loose ends before the big finish.

In ME1, the characters were even more random. A young C-Sec officer? A child Quarian on her pilgramage? An undisciplined Krogan who shoots our prisoners and doesn't follow orders? At least most of the crew in ME2 is picked because of their skills: Mordin, Thane, Kasumi, etc. A few are random like Grunt but there are no witless children involved.

But I'm not going to hack on either game.  It's an RPG. In RPGs, we pick up party members. They are usually varied, to keep things entertaining. We could have dropped the whole team and just ran with Noble team but then other people would have just screamed louder.

In RPGs, we have side missions. In ME2, they were tied to our crew instead of cleaning up random AIs. I would regard that as a step forward. But again, typical RPG mechanic. You meet people. You run missions for people. We should praise ME2 for at least give it some sort of tie in.

I really can't see where most of this comes from.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 08 février 2011 - 07:03 .

[Fixers0]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I'm well aware of smudboy. No, the character personal problems have nothing to do with the main mission. They are side-plots only loosely tied to the success of the main mission. The main mission, to figure out the motives of the Collectors and then stop them are crystal clear. I never had any problem understanding that. Heck, ME1 was more confusing; what the heck is a conduit?

You seem to forget the point that in Mass effect 1 the plot is slowy build up to the final confrontation, we constantly learn more about what is going on and while Mass effect 1 had less characters, less Characters mission or less interesting backstory's, the overall plot is vastly more interesting because we can focuss on the main plot, this added depth to story, with Mass effect 2 there is just a suicde mission from which we learn nothing. 

But lets compare ME1 to ME2. Both games had the same number of core missions that moved the plot forward against Sovereign and the Collectors. However, in ME1, we had useless cookie-cutter side missions piped to us by General Hackett that had less than nothing to do with the main mission. In ME2, our missions are about our team and are loosely tied to the success of the main mission - wrapping up their loose ends before the big finish.

This is because the side mission are side missions, Mass effect 1 mission Feros or Novaria were much better then Mass effect 2 Horizon or Derlict Reaper, each map had it's own inter contained story in which often linked to the main linked to the main plot, to only Main plot Mission outside the suicide mission that is interestting was the Collector ship, because it include some discovery.

In ME1, the characters were even more random. A young C-Sec officer? A child Quarian on her pilgramage? An undisciplined Krogan who shoots our prisoners and doesn't follow orders? At least most of the crew in ME2 is picked because of their skills: Mordin, Thane, Kasumi, etc. A few are random like Grunt but there are no witless children involved.

Almost every Squadmate in Mass effect 2 had a background of Criminality,Murder,Terrorisim etc. Characters like,Jack Thane and Kasumi were all criminals, People i won't want on my ship, we were forced to recruit them for no good reason, since the goal was never explained to us.

But I'm not going to hack on either game.  It's an RPG. In RPGs, we pick up party members. They are usually varied, to keep things entertaining. We could have dropped the whole team and just ran with Noble team but then other people would have just screamed louder.

True enough, if we would be able to choose on the crew and who is not.

In RPGs, we have side missions. In ME2, they were tied to our crew instead of cleaning up random AIs. I would regard that as a step forward. But again, typical RPG mechanic. You meet people. You run missions for people. We should praise ME2 for at least give it some sort of tie in.

Why would you see that as step forward, In Mass effect one the main plot was way more interesting then the Characters/ in Mass effect 2 the Characters were there more interesting then the main plot, but that doesn't mean that having more characters side mission makes the game have more reason, we just do things because we were tolled to do, All the Characters Magicaly have a daddy issue in which they need help from Shepard  to clean it up 

I really can't see where most of this comes from.

Just look at the Video's from Smudboy

[Moiaussi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

No dissagrement with me on that one the T-800 was indeed a joke. I don't think it really contradicts ME1, rather sheds light on it. By ME3 there has to be a way to beat the Reapers whatever it is, they can't stay boogeymen for ever.

That's always going to be the case if you add huge numbers of things. The greater the number the weaker they must be in order to make them beatable. I think a lot of people may have overlooked that while playing ME2.

That presupposes that the main character is intended to fight them directly. Consider LotR. They never fought Sauron himself, only his forces, and only as a distraction to draw troops out of Mordor to make the ringbearer's job easier. The first Starblazers series consisted almost entirely of one long series of running battles, trying to get the Yamato to the race who transmitted the plans for FTL drives to Earth.

If in ME3 Shepard is taking on DN's other than as captain of a ship or commander of a fleet, it will be even sillier than the end of ME2.

Fixers0 wrote...

On other thing to note is that Characters only seem to live in their own story, their canned Recruitment and loyalty mission are okay, but outside that they could be replaced by anyone.

That's true of almost any character. Even Shepard could be replaced with a little story tweaking. The only time a character is essential to the story is if they have a connection that only they can make the plot come to pass. Baldurs Gate requiring a Child of Baal for example. Alistair being needed in DA is another.

But that is exactly the point. In ME1, Shepard had the knowledge from the beacon, which was instrumental to the plot. By the end of ME1, he also had the cypher, which not only allowed him to fully understand the message from the beacon but also gave him additional knowledge such as an understanding of the prothean language.

In ME2, that is completely ignored and Shepard is for all intents and purposes 'just a marine.'

In ME1, Liara has the ability to help SHepard reconcile cypher to beacon images. She is also a prothean expert, which helps. Because of the structure of the plot, the squad all have ties to the main plot.

In ME2, Tali doesn't seem to have any professional opinion regarding legion's loyalty mission. She offers the blatantly obvious strategic concern about the Geth becoming stronger on reunification, but nothing on the viability of such a virus (or anti-virus). Mordin has ties with the main plot but the others not so much.

[AkiKishi]

Fixers0 wrote...

Almost every Squadmate in Mass effect 2 had a background of Criminality,Murder,Terrorisim etc. Characters like,Jack Thane and Kasumi were all criminals, People i won't want on my ship, we were forced to recruit them for no good reason, since the goal was never explained to us.

Do people not pay attention anymore ? You are going on what was supposed to be a suicide mission. Ok it was more like a walk in the park as it turned out but that was the intent.

You needed the best of the best which is why you were going all over the place recruiting them and then making sure they were totally focused on the mission by solving whatever issues they may have had.Seems fairly straightforward.

[AkiKishi]

Moiaussi wrote...

That presupposes that the main character is intended to fight them directly. Consider LotR. They never fought Sauron himself, only his forces, and only as a distraction to draw troops out of Mordor to make the ringbearer's job easier. The first Starblazers series consisted almost entirely of one long series of running battles, trying to get the Yamato to the race who transmitted the plans for FTL drives to Earth.

Sauron could not join the battle because he could only take coporeal form with the one ring since the sinking of Numenor.

I expect that the fleet will serve a similiar purpose. However the fleet must also be able to give them a fight in the same way the distraction force in front of Mordor did. If the Reapers were on the same level as Sovereign was in the cutscene in ME , that's not going to happen. The Reapers have gotten comparitively weaker because of that.

Thanks to ME2 we have the tools now to make that plausable.

[Fixers0]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Almost every Squadmate in Mass effect 2 had a background of Criminality,Murder,Terrorisim etc. Characters like,Jack Thane and Kasumi were all criminals, People i won't want on my ship, we were forced to recruit them for no good reason, since the goal was never explained to us.

Do people not pay attention anymore ? You are going on what was supposed to be a suicide mission. Ok it was more like a walk in the park as it turned out but that was the intent.

You needed the best of the best which is why you were going all over the place recruiting them and then making sure they were totally focused on the mission by solving whatever issues they may have had.Seems fairly straightforward.

A suicide Mission from which we know nothing about the only thing we do is recruiting characters, why not gather information or equipment?

[Whatever42]

You seem to forget the point that in Mass effect 1 the plot is slowy build up to the final confrontation, we constantly learn more about what is going on and while Mass effect 1 had less characters, less Characters mission or less interesting backstory's, the overall plot is vastly more interesting because we can focuss on the main plot, this added depth to story, with Mass effect 2 there is just a suicde mission from which we learn nothing.

So... you're saying ME1 is better because the side missions are pointless? Interesting argument. I never saw that coming. I completely disagree, of course. And we do learn much throughout the game:


[*]Colonies have gone missing
[*]We learn about the collectors kidnapping the colonists (Horizon)
[*]We learn that the collectors are experimenting on other races (Omega)
[*]We learn about Harbinger (Freedom's Progress)
[*]We learn that the Collectors we are fighting are the people who killed us at the beginning (Collecter ship mission)
[*]We learn that the Collectors intend to harvest millions of humans (Collector ship mission)
[*]We learn that the Collectors are Protheans (Collector ship mission) and today are devoid of society or culture (Mordin)
[*]We learn that 37 million years ago, a Reaper was killed by a super weapon (IFF mission)
[*]We learn that even dead Reapers omit an indocrination field (IFF mission, and I think this is imporant)
[*]We learn that the Collector Base is at the centre of the Milky Way and has staggeringly powerful mass effect fields (analysing IFF data) 
[*]We learn learn that the base at the center of the Milky way has likely been there far longer than the Collectors (SM)
[*]We learn the fate of the colonists and how Reapers reproduce (SM)
[*]We learn about Harbingers views on ascension (throughout game)[/list]I could go on and on but I won't.

"This is because the side mission are side missions, Mass effect 1 mission Feros or Novaria were much better then Mass effect 2 Horizon or Derlict Reaper, each map had it's own inter contained story in which often linked to the main linked to the main plot, to only Main plot Mission outside the suicide mission that is interestting was the Collector ship, because it include some discovery.

Feros and Novaria had nothing to do with Saren or Soveriegn other than the piece of information you discovered at the end. You think that is more pertinent than missions where you fight through Collector traps and explore dead reapers? I really have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

Almost every Squadmate in Mass effect 2 had a background of Criminality,Murder,Terrorisim etc. Characters like,Jack Thane and Kasumi were all criminals, People i won't want on my ship, we were forced to recruit them for no good reason, since the goal was never explained to us.

I didn't want a quarian child or a whiney junior C-Sec officer. I can understand that you didn't want to play your Paragon Shepard in a renegade environment. And I will agree that the motivations could have been stronger. I agreed on that point in more detail above so I won't rehash it.

I will add that playing a renegade Shepard in a paragon environment (first game) is more fun because renegades like pissing people off. Paragons want everyone to love them, so they don't get the same joy out of screwing with TIM. And the council took it far more personally, TIM rolled with it more. Maybe if he raged a little, paragon would be more fun for you.

Why would you see that as step forward, In Mass effect one the main plot was way more interesting then the Characters/ in Mass effect 2 the Characters were there more interesting then the main plot, but that doesn't mean that having more characters side mission makes the game have more reason, we just do things because we were tolled to do, All the Characters Magicaly have a daddy issue in which they need help from Shepard  to clean it up 

I can make snide remarks about ME1 as well. Stupid alliance can't do one thing on their own? Garrus really needs to stop whining about his daddy forcing him into C-Sec.

But I will say that the plot was more interesting in ME1. Visions, the conduit, Saren... the ending was epic and Shepard was a big goddam hero. ME2 was grittier, more personal, more... renegade. The villains were better in ME1, the sovereign conversation was spooky. Saren was awesome. Harbinger... not so much.

ME1 in ways was more enjoyable for me. ME2 in other ways was more enjoyable for me. I can understand why someone would prefer ME1 to ME2, honestly. But many people really are stretching it too far. ME2 is well structured within the overall story. It does advance the story. The characters are interesting. The reveals are interesting. It may not have been what some people wanted and there may be the odd flaw in the presentation but generally, some of the criticism on this board is really, really stretching it.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 08 février 2011 - 08:18 .

[AkiKishi]

Fixers0 wrote...

A suicide Mission from which we know nothing about the only thing we do is recruiting characters, why not gather information or equipment?

TIM tells you were to go, you "gather" the Reaper IFF if that counts, plus the upgrades both personal and for the ship and whatever you buy.  Looks like you did do those things.

[Praetor Knight]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

A suicide Mission from which we know nothing about the only thing we do is recruiting characters, why not gather information or equipment?

TIM tells you were to go, you "gather" the Reaper IFF if that counts, plus the upgrades both personal and for the ship and whatever you buy.  Looks like you did do those things.

@ Fixers0, And Mordin for the Counter-Measure. Okeer for Collector Knowledge, but got Grunt (who is a great consolation prize by the way ) and then you get Ship upgrades from the contacts that squadmates have.

[Suron]

ME2 was was one HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE sidequest....



it's "plot" (for lack of better term) was in no way solid enough to be the basis for the entire game.



pointless? no because collectors were abducting human colonies..had to be dealt with..but a TOTAL departure from what the trilogy is about...the Reapers.



How did it move the story forward? that's right..it didn't.



The death and subsequent revival of Shepard was one of, if not the worse, decisions made in any story setting...there is NO POINT to it. If you did it to shove us down Cerberus throat..same thing coulda been done by simply NOT KILLING shepard..but having the Council give the SAME stonewalling over not believing in the Reapers to shove us to Cerberus as they were the ONLY ONES DOING ANYTHING....much better story, made more sense..and doesn't leave us with idiotic crap.



So what happened in ME2 that furthered the main overall plot? The Reapers invading?



End of ME1-> Reapers are coming as Sovereign failed.

End of ME2-> Yep Reapers still coming but we took care of the side-quest that was the Collectors.



ME2 wasn't totally pointless..but it did NOTHING to further the story.

[allankles]

 Wow. I can't believe people are actually seriously arguing that the whole game is pointless simply because the Reapers will attack Earth in the end game. We don't even know if that accounts for the whole Reaper armada, either way, where did people think the story was leading? Did you expect not to fight the Reapers directly after ME 2?

Harbinger tells us in the end that all Shepard's efforts upto that point are pointless, that the Reapers are still coming. We're even shown evidence of their fleets on the move.

The point of ME 2 as I saw it was to save humanity from the Collectors. Largely because of Shepard's interference in ME 1, the Collectors begin targeting humans to create a new Reaper. We're even told that the Collectors have enough capacity to target Earth eventually.

Given their deadly technology, (Seeker Swarms) it becomes a matter of great urgency to stop the Collectors before they achieve mass genocide on humanity. ME 2 is all about humans specifically becoming the victims of an inhuman threat. 

What makes the Collectors even more insidious than Saren and Sovereign ever were is that we have no idea what their ultimate goal is until we hit the Collector Ship, and even after that we have no idea that a human reaper is being created.

[Praetor Knight]

That's a great way to put it allankles.



I dunno where the grief comes from, but I'll say again, I know I like both games.

[Fixers0]

I'm not saying, that lack of Side mission made Mass Effect 1's story better, i said that in Mass effect 1 the plot is slowy build up to the final confrontation and with less other stuff to think about we can focuss on the main story.
In Mass effect 2 you got twelve seperated characters story's going on, that might be interesting but ultimatly pointless to the conclusion of the main plot.

How many of does those discoveries are important to the final conclusion, and how many of those  discoveries are even worth paying antention to?
that list might look pretty impresive, but  The whole Collector plot is a interesting as as a college graduation, it was just so bad written and explained during the game  that i didn't  bother caring about it.
The Derelict Reaper is underused it was just 20 minutes of pew pew and that's it, if we would sweep the collecor plot away and set the Derelict Reapers as main focus of the game, Discovering it's secrets and finding away to crack it, but in reality we just shoot at a blue sparkling ball. yawn, and that is supposed to be the main opposing force?
At the end none of it realy matters as i dismiss the whole collector plot as just one giant big sidequest that was there to kill time until the reapers come.

Point is the whole Collector/harbinger plot that could have some potention if executed right was put behind the Characters story's it feels like the the Collector mission were written in an afternoon by someone who want's to clutter it full with little details and is not afraid to retcon facts.

I strongly disagree with Mass effect 2 being pointless, the thing is the Collector plot was just to bland and uniteressting that they decided to put some really awesome characters on the forground while putting the Collector plot on the background, we just have to live with it, but to me Mass Effect contributed very little to story from the Orginal Mass Effect.

Modifié par Fixers0, 08 février 2011 - 08:44 .

[allankles]

Suron wrote...


pointless? no because collectors were abducting human colonies..had to be dealt with..but a TOTAL departure from what the trilogy is about...the Reapers.

How did it move the story forward? that's right..it didn't.

Which is wrong, since the Collectors were directly controlled by the Reapers. And since when does stopping the genocide of billions of humans become a side quest?

It moved the story forward by giving us a more solid handle on galactic politics. It gave as allies, as opposed to damping us into the end game without substantial back up going in.

So now we'll go into ME 3 knowing full well the Quarians, the Geth and the Rachni will behind us, not counting the 5 military Council races. After ME 1 we had nothing resembling a fight plan. After ME 2 with the data gleaned off of intact Reapers and Prothean/Collector/Reaper technology we have a better idea of how we might fight an armada of Reapers.