462 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidac]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

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.

This is a forum kind sir! This is not the place for logical thinking! It is a place for jumping to conclusions and whining about things you barely pay attention to!

Modifié par Sidac, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:19 .

[padaE]

I feel that the better answer to this is something that some reasonable people already talked about. You really can't tell if ME2 advanced the plot or not untill we finish the trilogy.

.

Other than that, there is a couple of reason that could explain why ME2 has this image of 'pointless'. One of them is them is that die hard ME1 fans with can't accept changes try to bash ME2 in every posible way. So of course they will say the story is bad.

.

Other one witch I have to think more about is that in ME1 the threat was not the reaperS but the reaper, sovereign and Saren, so when we kill both the manace is dealt with, ME1 felt much more like a complet history. However, is ME2 we have much clearly the picture that the real threat to the galaxy are the reapers. The collectors are just an indirect threat, therefore in some way we really don't deal any direct damage, or at least that is the impression most people have, the consequences of our action in ME2 will only be clear in ME3, going back to the first thing I said in this post.

[shnizzler93]

No.



/thread

[xlavaina]

ME2 established the fleshed out characters that are almost undoubtedly going to be at your side in ME3. I honestly don't see how thats pointless.

[Slayer299]

@padae - but why should we have to wait for ME3 to find out if ME2 advanced the plot? Shouldn't we already know that by the end of ME2? That seems to be like saying you had a cheeseburger for lunch but you have to wait for dinner to find out if it was any good....

[SandTrout]

In ME2, we kneecapped another apparent attempt by the Reapers to gain easy access to the galaxy, gained a strong new ship, recruited a team of the most skilled killers in the galaxy (game mechanics not withstanding), and made several important contacts that could prove useful when the Reapers finally hit. We also learned more about the Reapers, the Mass Relay network, the political shape of the galaxy, and a whole lot about the team recruited by Shepard.
I'm getting sick of people claiming that ME2 didn't advance the plot. We just haven't seen the end to which the plot has been advanced.

Modifié par SandTrout, 24 janvier 2011 - 05:04 .

[Slayer299]

Juromaro wrote...
ME2 with sov dead the reapers needed another gate keeper to try and re-open the citadel so they could come faster, with that destroyed they have to hoof it from dark space.
O.o

Juromaro, who was going to open the citadel? The Collectors? Nope, they'd get their butts handed to them by virtually any navy (Alliance or CC) with only 1 ship. Harby? Nope. If you mean the baby-termi-reaper, I don't see how considering EDI states it would take millions more to finish it.

[Iakus]

SandTrout wrote...

In ME2, we kneecapped another apparent attempt by the Reapers to gain easy access to the galaxy

How did we do that exactly?  We fought a baby Reaper, but how was that going to let the Reapers back into the galaxy? 

gained a strong new ship

Had one in ME 1.  Only thing you gain from this is the upgrades you put on it and a spiffy new Cerberus logo.

recruited a team of the most skilled killers in the galaxy (game mechanics not withstanding)

Had one of those in ME 1 too.  ME 2 team is just bigger.  And snazzier dressers. 

made several important contacts that could prove useful when the Reapers finally hit.

This is true.  I'm curious to see how this might play out in ME 3.

We also learned more about the Reapers,

Mostly speculation on EDI's part.

the Mass Relay network,

 
???

the political shape of the galaxy

 
The Migrant Fleet, Tuchanka and...three major merc groups?

and a whole lot about the team recruited by Shepard

A team so cohesive that Shepard is the only person they talk to?.

I'm getting sick of people claiming that ME2 didn't advance the plot. We just haven't seen the end to which the plot has been advanced.

ME 1 you know exactly how much the plot advanced.  ME 2 is basically so much speculation.  You shouldn't need to read the sequel to know the value of the story you just read.

[SandTrout]

iakus wrote...
How did we do that exactly?  We fought a baby Reaper, but how was that going to let the Reapers back into the galaxy?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the Human Reaper was going to be, but everyone's best guess is that it was going to be Sovereign replacement.

Had one in ME 1.  Only thing you gain from this is the upgrades you put on it and a spiffy new Cerberus logo.

SR1 was torn to peaces by the Collector ship without so much as getting a chance to shoot back. Even the non-upgraded SR2 proved to be more than a match for the same ship in a roughly fair fight. The upgrades count as part of the plot progression as well.

Had one of those in ME 1 too.  ME 2 team is just bigger.  And snazzier dressers.

Yep, and this one is loyal only to Shepard, without any complications like an oath of server to the alliance or anything like that. Same goes for the SR2's crew.

Mostly speculation on EDI's part.

Also whatever data was recovered by from the CB, IFF, and Derelict Reaper. Besides, EDI's primary pursose, in a storytelling sense, is to provide that kind of information to the audience.

???

The inacuracies of Mass Relay transit are not inherent to the technology itself, but rather, were introduced to them by the Reapers, which would have allowed them a significant strategic advantage in a war. With the IFF in the hands of Cerberus, at least the Alliance is likely to have access to the relay's alternate protocols that allow for high-precission transit.

The Migrant Fleet, Tuchanka and...three major merc groups?

Also that the Council is not taking overt action against the Reapers, how Humanity's place on the council is working out, anti-human sentiment on the Citadel, and Omega in general

A team so cohesive that Shepard is the only person they talk to?

This is not true. Even though the necessities of the game mechanics have the team members in the same spots 100% of the time that they're not on mission doesn't mean that they don't interact. Kelly obviously has conversations with them thoughout their stay on board, and Kasumi seems to be quite social as well. When you take them on missions and to hub worlds, they banter back and forth as well. In truth, we don't know how much the team socializes with each other, but it's obviously not 0, with the possible exception of Jack, but she's ****ed in the head anyways.

ME 1 you know exactly how much the plot advanced.  ME 2 is basically so much speculation.  You shouldn't need to read the sequel to know the value of the story you just read.

I value the story of ME2 plenty, but it's not really the story of ME2 that people complain about, but rather, its significance in the overarching story of the ME trillogy. The story itself is fine, and we even got the big "Luke, I am your father" reveal about the Reaper's motives. I think that the reason some people are not satified with the game's story is because the Human Reaper seemed comical to them, tainting the big reveal that the story was building up to.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I think some of you guys are confusing main story with depth and insight.

To put it simply, ME1 introduced you to the universe and, above all, introduced the Reapers, which makes it a bold opening in the trilogy since it gives rise to the entire premise of the overarching plot; that is, stop the Reapers. On the other hand, ME2 expanded upon the universe introduced by ME1; that is to say, it gave you more insight on the different races, different locations, plot devices such as dark energy, quarian-geth politics, the genophage and the krogan, etc. You also got to actually see some of the things that were merely mentioned in ME1. That is what we call depth and enrichment; ME2 did a great job in this regard.

However, as far as the main story goes, that is, the overarching plot, which was introduced by ME1, ME2 does little to nothing that actually advances the plot; instead, it looks at the smaller things I mentioned above. It wasn't until LOTSB that we got to see some actual development for the overarching plot. The two hours you spend in LOTSB are far more important to the main plot than the ~30 or so hours you spend in the main story of ME2.

In the end, both sides of the fence are correct. We're simply arguing over different premises.

[Moiaussi]

SandTrout wrote...

SR1 was torn to peaces by the Collector ship without so much as getting a chance to shoot back. Even the non-upgraded SR2 proved to be more than a match for the same ship in a roughly fair fight. The upgrades count as part of the plot progression as well.

The SR1 was torn to pieces because Joker thought he could fight it with the ship's ass. In the cut scene, he had plenty of warning and was calm and in control of the ship until it was hit.

Instead of the common sense maneuver of accelerating and maintaining distance, something the Normandy should have been able to do easily, he let a cruiser close with his rear. Based on what we saw in ME1, a Reaper-tech cruiser doing that should have been able to vapourize the Normandy. Instead it took two passes and let the majority of the crew bail.

It was so underpowered compared to Sovereign that part of me wonders if the entire collector thing was just a hoax TIM cooked up to get Shepard on side (which would explain why TIM had all the intel.. he wrote it).

Regardless, the SR1 never actually engaged the Collector ship. We have no clue how it would have faired. Frigate vs Cruiser it should have expected to go down though even at equal tech.

Yep, and this one is loyal only to Shepard, without any complications like an oath of server to the alliance or anything like that. Same goes for the SR2's crew.

And yet the VS's only reason for disloyalty is Shepard suddenly working with Cerberus, and even then they send an apology email after the reunion. Who, precisely, was disloyal in the SR1's crew?

Also whatever data was recovered by from the CB, IFF, and Derelict Reaper. Besides, EDI's primary pursose, in a storytelling sense, is to provide that kind of information to the audience.

And pulling data out of a hat. Where did EDI get prothean dna for a baseline?

The inacuracies of Mass Relay transit are not inherent to the technology itself, but rather, were introduced to them by the Reapers, which would have allowed them a significant strategic advantage in a war. With the IFF in the hands of Cerberus, at least the Alliance is likely to have access to the relay's alternate protocols that allow for high-precission transit.

What 'inaccuracies?' We already knew the Reapers built the relays. They built this one with an extra lock. If you don't transmit the key, you don't come out the other end. Simple. No great mystery revealed.

Also that the Council is not taking overt action against the Reapers, how Humanity's place on the council is working out, anti-human sentiment on the Citadel, and Omega in general

The lack of overt action against the reapers is almost a retcon, and the rest of it isn't anything we didn't already see in ME1. We may not have seen prejudice against humans on Omega first hand but we had no reason not to expect it given similar prejudices elsewhere.

This is not true. Even though the necessities of the game mechanics have the team members in the same spots 100% of the time that they're not on mission doesn't mean that they don't interact. Kelly obviously has conversations with them thoughout their stay on board, and Kasumi seems to be quite social as well. When you take them on missions and to hub worlds, they banter back and forth as well. In truth, we don't know how much the team socializes with each other, but it's obviously not 0, with the possible exception of Jack, but she's ****ed in the head anyways.

Kelly has one liner observations, most of which are pretty obvious and some just a bit off base. None of them relate to the plot, or help sort out problems between them. In fact, despite the fact she is ship's councellor, any time there is a conflict she tells Shep to handle it.

I value the story of ME2 plenty, but it's not really the story of ME2 that people complain about, but rather, its significance in the overarching story of the ME trillogy. The story itself is fine, and we even got the big "Luke, I am your father" reveal about the Reaper's motives. I think that the reason some people are not satified with the game's story is because the Human Reaper seemed comical to them, tainting the big reveal that the story was building up to.

Wow, you equate learning about luke (and leah)'s heritage to learning the reapers are into human slushies? If it works for you to that level it works for you, but not sure many would agree with that comparason.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Sidac wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

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.

This is a forum kind sir! This is not the place for logical thinking! It is a place for jumping to conclusions and whining about things you barely pay attention to!

you forgot - it is also the place for whining about things you pay WAY TOO MUCH attention to!

[didymos1120]

Moiaussi wrote...

Where did EDI get prothean dna for a baseline?

I guess you forgot about the conversation on the Collector ship, where it's made clear that all sorts of genetic fragments have been recovered from various ruins and the like. So the answer would be "From the hard work of galactic archaeologists."

What 'inaccuracies?' We already knew the Reapers built the relays. They built this one with an extra lock. If you don't transmit the key, you don't come out the other end. Simple. No great mystery revealed.

No you do. You just don't stay in one piece for very long. Or did you not notice the countless fragments of previous, and unsuccessful, voyagers through the relay?

Modifié par didymos1120, 24 janvier 2011 - 11:41 .

[Nozybidaj]

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.

^^ This.

Really though it will all depends on ME3.  ME1 and ME2 have so little to do with each other that one of them will end up being pointless once ME3 is over.  Which one depends on which of the 2 stories ME3 continues.

[Gabey5]

to me i think trilogies like a game of b-ball.



me1- is the drive up the court

me2 is the jump

me3 is the slam

[Nozybidaj]

Gabey5 wrote...

to me i think trilogies like a game of b-ball.

me1- is the drive up the court
me2 is the jump
me3 is the slam

Go with a movie analogy, to me:

ME1 was SW: A New Hope
ME2 was IJ and the Temple of Doom
Will ME3 be Return of the Jedi, Last Crusade, or a different movie all together?  No one knows....

[Lewie]

If your pc or console blew up and you lost your saves... that would be fine.

[AdmiralCheez]

In ME1, the Reapers tried to invade, but Shepard stopped them. In ME3, they invade anyway.

BOY ME1 SURE WAS POINTLESS HERP DERP.

No seriously, we can't see how much either one really mattered until we play ME3.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 25 janvier 2011 - 02:36 .

[Moiaussi]

Sidac wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

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.

This is a forum kind sir! This is not the place for logical thinking! It is a place for jumping to conclusions and whining about things you barely pay attention to!

Pardon, but two towers and empire strikes back both left people eagerly anticipating return of the king and return of the jedi. Some even consider empire strikes back to be the best part of the trilogy.

Even clone wars advanced its trio more than ME2.

So no clue where you are coming from here other than blind rationalization and/or wishful thinking.....

[Moiaussi]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

In ME1, the Reapers tried to invade, but Shepard stopped them. In ME3, they invade anyway.

BOY ME1 SURE WAS POINTLESS HERP DERP.

No seriously, we can't see how much either one really mattered until we play ME3.

In ME1, we stopped the Reaper vanguard, giving us a fighting chance and time to prepare.

In ME2, we.... stopped a reaper plan consisting of one easily defeated cruiser.

In ME3, we stop the main reaper invasion. Since we stopped their first attempt in ME1, in ME3 we still hold the citadel, and therefore still have control of the relays and don't have massive communications and strategic movement limitations.

ME1 was Pearl and the Battle of Brittain.

ME2 was a minor skirmish barely noteworthy in the course of the war.

ME3 is the push for Japan and/or Berlin.

HERP DERP indeed.

[AdmiralCheez]

Moiaussi wrote...

Pardon, but two towers and empire strikes back both left people eagerly anticipating return of the king and return of the jedi.

Remember that giant Reaper fleet at the end?  Cuz it totally made me want ME3 like RITE NAO.

Some even consider empire strikes back to be the best part of the trilogy.

And some consider ME2 better than ME1.

Even clone wars advanced its trio more than ME2.

And ME2 worked as a nice interlude in which you began rallying allies, learned more about the universe, and picked up hints about how ME3's going to turn out.

So no clue where you are coming from here other than blind rationalization and/or wishful thinking.....

So no clue what you're arguing other than ME1 IS SO MUCH BETTER BAAAAWWWW....

Call it blasphemy, but I love 'em both.

[FeelTheMighty]

Moiaussi wrote...

Sidac wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

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.

This is a forum kind sir! This is not the place for logical thinking! It is a place for jumping to conclusions and whining about things you barely pay attention to!

Pardon, but two towers and empire strikes back both left people eagerly anticipating return of the king and return of the jedi. Some even consider empire strikes back to be the best part of the trilogy.

Even clone wars advanced its trio more than ME2.

So no clue where you are coming from here other than blind rationalization and/or wishful thinking.....

I dunno, using some of the logic I see in these threads, you have to hate on the Empire Strikes Back for not ACTUALLY "advancing" the reveal of how to defeat the Empire. I mean, people complain about ME2 not giving us a better idea of how the Reapers are going to be defeated...so why not hate on Empire for that same thing?


Also, was it this game or ME1 where we learned that the Rachni were controlled by the Reapers?

[AdmiralCheez]

Moiaussi wrote...

In ME1, we stopped the Reaper vanguard, giving us a fighting chance and time to prepare.

Too bad Shep and TIMmy-boy were the only ones preparing...

In ME2, we.... stopped a reaper plan consisting of one easily defeated cruiser.

We also saved humanity, made several potential allies, and knocked a hole in the Reaper's resources.

In ME3, we stop the main reaper invasion. Since we stopped their first attempt in ME1, in ME3 we still hold the citadel, and therefore still have control of the relays and don't have massive communications and strategic movement limitations.

And In ME2, we've either obtained their technology (meaning we can match them) or crippled their efforts to bolster their ranks.

ME1 was Pearl and the Battle of Brittain.

Britain has two Ts in it now?  But it's an interesting analogy.  Let's call it the "flashy opening act."

ME2 was a minor skirmish barely noteworthy in the course of the war.

Wars are rarely won by battles alone.  ME2 was intellegence-gathering, geurilla attacks, preparation for the coming storm.  A "breather" before sh*t hits the fan.

ME3 is the push for Japan and/or Berlin.

That metaphorical comparison is not epic enough for what this damn game had better deliver.

HERP DERP indeed.

Indeed, my friend.  Indeed. *pats Moiaussi on the back*

[SandTrout]

Moiaussi, you have several facts that incorrect in your post, so I'll address those because even I will admit some parts are up for debate.
1) It has been mentioned from the codex in ME1, and conversation with EDI on the topic, that Mass Relay transit is subject to 'drift' in the end point. Exhibit A and Exhibit B. The reason that no ship has ever RETURNED from transiting the O-4 relay is because there is only a relatively small safe-zone on the other end, and attempting transit w/o the IFF would likely result in being sucked into one of the densely packed black hole or exploding starts that make up the galactic core. This shows that you have had a failure in comprehending the dialogue in the game.
2) The galactic community has been studying the (albeit, scarce) remains of the Prothean empire for, quite literally, centuries. After only 50,000 years, there would still be genetic samples that would be left from fossils and the like. These genetic baselines would have been freely accessible on the extranet, assuming that EDI didn't already have the data in a database because it could be relevant to her job, considering the Protheans were the last species to fall to the Reapers. This is a simple failure of critical thinking on your part.
3) The VS mentioned that they were upset about Shepard's Cerberus allegiance, but they also mentioned that they were loyal to the Alliance first. This again shows a lack of dialogue comprehension on your part.

Modifié par SandTrout, 25 janvier 2011 - 03:09 .