150 réponses à ce sujet

[Sentox6]

AlanC9 wrote...
Oh, sure. I can't believe any player would take the P option, and I have no idea how they're going to deal with that later. Unless Harbinger was running a Xanatos Gambit the whole time, which I'd love to see but don't find likely.

The capture of the base itself being a Xanatos Gambit would border on being a roulette in my opinion, but it could be pulled off.

On the other hand, perhaps the entire Human Reaper plan was itself a gambit in terms of distracting and occupying the only people who are actively opposing the Reapers. Not a very satisfying explanation, but it's not like the collectors were ever going to be able to gather enough humans to build the thing anyway (and one sole reaper didn't win last time either, so why would it work this time?).

Questions, questions.

Sure. I like having lots of questions as long as there's a game left. I wouldn't mind having a few that never get answered.

Understandable. I don't mind questions left unanswered, I just feel slightly frustrated in that it seems like more new ones were raised than anything else.

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:54 .

[Spartas Husky]

Phaedon wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...
That is true... middle games have to set up for the final stuff... which I sincerely hope it iwll be 4 games instead of 3. but suggesting this game is a setup for something greater is excusing lazy storytelling. Many games that are "middle" are incredibly well done, and explain things in detail to build up for future things while still delivering a powerful and immersive experience.


Mass effect 2 was all set up not a lot fo meaninful eperiences... aside from the occasional teary moment.

What you guys don't understand is that that is not a disadvantage of middle games/movies, but a necessary part of the story curve.

I understand I am not saying a "set up" structure is not integral for sequels that find themeselves int he middle. Those games have to build a foundation for the next game. That I agree. But having an entire game of "setting up" is just being lazy. Plenty of games have been middle sequels and while they have to se tup for the upcoming third game they still deliver a powerful experience, and stand perfectly on their own.

So yes I agree ME2 needs set up time... I mean is a middle game has to have it. But that alone cannot be the sole purpose of the game, otherwise you just got a great looking game... without alot of punch to it.

Every game whether is first or last needs to have their own plot that encompasses the majority of the game. The middle game has a bit more leeway since it needs more set up time for the next but still the mayority of it has to be something besides setting up.

[bjdbwea]

I agree. And also, BioWare themselves said that ME 2 was created with the intention of making it playable as a stand-alone game as well, so that new players (and obviously the PS 3 gamers) wouldn't be at a disadvantage. But that of course means that it (also) has to work as a stand-alone game. And therefore "it's the middle part of a trilogy" is no excuse for the lack of a proper main story.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 28 janvier 2011 - 01:18 .

[Spartas Husky]

bjdbwea wrote...

I agree. And also, BioWare themselves said that ME 2 was created with the intention of making it playable as a stand-alone game as well, so that new players (and obviously the PS 3 gamers) wouldn't be at a disadvantage.

there I didn't even know bioware themselves said it.

But I mean game company lied... oh the insanity. Not the first time it has happended.

[MajorStranger]

The guy who wrote that article doesn't even have a good knowledge of the Mass Effect Universe. He say Geth are slave to the reapers while they were only following Nazarra (Sovereign) When he died they lost contact with the Geths. This is dumb, you don't like you don't play that it!

[Bourne Endeavor]

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...

Well, some people expected ME2 to be truly a sequel that continues the overarching plot against the Reapers.
It's up to ME3 if ME2 events will matter.

I believe that some people should watch this:

Extra Credits - Trilogy Story Structure

Uh, mate. You may wish to watch that video again because it sort of buried your argument. Take the Star Wars comparison and see what was lacking.

- Luke gears up and assembles a party
- C-3PO and R2-D2 because permanent party members, among others
- Gains the Millennium Falcon
- Luke develops and grows as a character due to the death of one of his allies
- Joins Rebel army
- Finds Death Star's weaknesses

See now while some of this is apparent in Mass Effect 2's main plot. There are two fundamental flaws. Shepard does not grow as character in any capacity and we do not discover the Reapers' weaknesses. Subsequently, the entire cast of ME2 can perish therefore marginalizing their involvement with the plot of Mass Effect 3.

Liara is the only character to whom can directly impact and potentially dictate further development that is not a completely new character. She is comparable to Princess Leia I suppose, although my knowledge of Star Wars is virtually nonexistent. Regardless, if Liara has a centralized role, this insinuates LotSB is plot relevant more so than ME2.

In addition, we receive various degrees of retcon. In Mass Effect, Sovereign claims, "Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

In Mass Effect 2, Harbinger is turning humans to goo to feed his Human-Reaper. This would suggest either organics are immensely important and Sovereign was lying or Harbinger is completely insane and just messing with us.

That is of course one of many issues with the main plot. There are an abundance when we target the main plot. This article highlights the majority and you discredit it not through rebuttal but instead by way of citing it "unsuccessful." Can you refute the accusations of which portions of the game is riddled with plotholes? If you cannot, then you have no argument.

We do have a team of badasses and an upgraded ship but the former may be completely removed from an active role, often cited "The Wrex Effect." Even if they are not, it does not dismiss the gapping inconsistencies of ME2's main plot. I need not reiterate any additional ones than what is mentioned already.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 28 janvier 2011 - 02:42 .

[Sentox6]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Uh, mate. You may wish to watch that video again because it sort of buried your argument. Take the Star Wars comparison and see what was lacking.

- Luke gears up and assembles a party
- C-3PO and R2-D2 because permanent party members, among others
- Gains the Millennium Falcon
- Luke develops and grows as a character due to the death of one of his allies
- Joins Rebel army
- Finds Death Star's weaknesses

I agree with the majority of your post, but to be fair the obvious rebuttal will be that you're comparing the second act of Mass Effect to the first act of Star Wars. Still, if we consider the Empire Strikes Back:

- Luke and the Rebels are now on the back foot, being pushed back by the Empire
- Luke leaves his party to further his training
- He kidnapping of his friends compel him to abandon his training and attempt to rescue them
- In his encounter with Vader, which he only just survives, he learns of his parentage

Now you can draw parallels about between the two, and they are similar in terms of the overall battle for the galaxy not making much progression, etc, but it's that last point that stands out to me the most. We see Luke train, we're introduced to the Emperor along the way, and we learn of Luke's lineage. These are all major points that develop out understanding of the protagonists and antagonists. Furthermore, we're following established characters just as much as new ones are introduced.

In ME2, Shepard really just repeats the last cycle: gather up a whole bunch of brand new people, fight against some Reaper lackeys, just with a critical Citadel relay/Death Star moment at the end.

Getting to see the Emperor is another example. We get a glimpse of a chief antagonist that has only been alluded to before. Whereas ME2 is more like meeting a new variety of stormtrooper.

Frankly, I think ME2 can't decide if it wants to be a first act or a second act, and consequently succeeds at neither.

But this whole thing has been dragged off course into a discussion about whether or not ME2 fits the mold for the accepted trilogy formula. Frankly, it's the general poorness and Swiss Cheese-like nature of the plot that I was originally thinking about when I posted this.

MajorStranger wrote...

The guy who wrote that article
doesn't even have a good knowledge of the Mass Effect Universe. He say
Geth are slave to the reapers while they were only following Nazarra
(Sovereign) When he died they lost contact with the Geths. This is
dumb, you don't like you don't play that it!

I'm sorry, but this post does you no favours. Yes, you addressed one question. What about the numerous others?

Secondly, it's entirely possible to appreciate something and still perceive its flaws. This is how things develop and improve. The attitude of "if you don't like as aspect of a game then just don't play it" is far, far too common, and is a seriously stunted way of looking at this. The author clearly states that he considers ME2 a great game, a contender for GOTY, and he has more articles on what he considers the good parts of the game than the bad parts! I linked these articles for discussion purposes.

Modifié par Sentox6, 28 janvier 2011 - 03:55 .

[Phaedon]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Uh, mate. You may wish to watch that video again because it sort of buried your argument. Take the Star Wars comparison and see what was lacking.

- Luke gears up and assembles a party
- C-3PO and R2-D2 because permanent party members, among others
- Gains the Millennium Falcon
- Luke develops and grows as a character due to the death of one of his allies
- Joins Rebel army
- Finds Death Star's weaknesses

See now while some of this is apparent in Mass Effect 2's main plot. There are two fundamental flaws. Shepard does not grow as character in any capacity and we do not discover the Reapers' weaknesses. Subsequently, the entire cast of ME2 can perish therefore marginalizing their involvement with the plot of Mass Effect 3.

Eh, no. 

The question in Star Wars was not about the origins of the enemies, because they were already known, unlike Mass Effect, with it being the overreaching question. Nice try at attempting to direct the argument specifically by mentioning about 'discovering the Reapers' weaknesses', but no, this is definitely not the main question.

Liara is the only character to whom can directly impact and potentially dictate further development that is not a completely new character. She is comparable to Princess Leia I suppose, although my knowledge of Star Wars is virtually nonexistent. Regardless, if Liara has a centralized role, this insinuates LotSB is plot relevant more so than ME2.

You suggest that the ME2 squad will not in any way help in defeating the Reapers? Eh, okay. If you say so. 

In addition, we receive various degrees of retcon. In Mass Effect, Sovereign claims, "Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

Seriously, retcon? Retcon? Retcon ?!? !1!one!?

These forums seriously need to learn that since you don't know how the conclusion of that story line ends.
You don't know what the Reapers have against organic life and to what extent they consider themselves organic, so your point is moot.

In Mass Effect 2, Harbinger is turning humans to goo to feed his Human-Reaper. This would suggest either organics are immensely important and Sovereign was lying or Harbinger is completely insane and just messing with us.

Yeah, because you don't want to cleanse something that is important? Right? Um. 

That is of course one of many issues with the main plot. There are an abundance when we target the main plot. This article highlights the majority and you discredit it not through rebuttal but instead by way of citing it "unsuccessful." Can you refute the accusations of which portions of the game is riddled with plotholes? If you cannot, then you have no argument.

Like which one, the ridiculous accusation that Shepard's ressurection would be impossible? Don't try claiming that what this community thinks as plotholes and retcons are, because this community is mostly people claiming to know everything without knowing anything.

We do have a team of badasses and an upgraded ship but the former may be completely removed from an active role, often cited "The Wrex Effect." Even if they are not, it does not dismiss the gapping inconsistencies of ME2's main plot. I need not reiterate any additional ones than what is mentioned already.

You should read the "Common misconception about ME3 squaddies" thread.

[TK Dude]

Then what's the big question for ME2, Phaedon?

[Phaedon]

TK Dude wrote...

Then what's the big question for ME2, Phaedon?

The Reapers, their motives and their origins. 

[TK Dude]

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...

Then what's the big question for ME2, Phaedon?

The Reapers, their motives and their origins. 

You might say Reaper goo machine, Human Reaper and how do they work does but it didn't have much exposition from the game.

Modifié par TK Dude, 28 janvier 2011 - 12:26 .

[Phaedon]

Exactly. It's baby steps to that. You wouldn't want the climax to be done too soon, or to not be intense enough. As for the ending creating more questions, there's a reason why this part of the curve is called 'Complication'.

[MajesticJazz]

 Act oneAct I comprises the first quarter of the screenplay (e.g., for a two-hour movie, Act I would last approximately 30 minutes). In this act, theexposition takes place and includes the introduction of the protagonist, the dramatic premise, and the dramatic situation. The inciting Incident (the event that sets the plot of the film in motion) occurs approximately halfway through the first act.[edit]Act twoAct II comprises the next two quarters of the film. The main character encounters an obstacle that prevents the character from achieving his or her dramatic need, approximately halfway through the film. The main character reaches his or her lowest point and seems farthest from fulfilling the dramatic need or objective.[edit]Act threeAct III comprises the final quarter of the film. The climax occurs as well as the dénouement, a brief period of calm at the end of a film where a state of equilibrium returns.

If Mass Effect 2 was supposed to be the "Dark 2nd Act" of the Mass Effect trilogy or the "Empire Strikes Back" of the Trilogy, then it failed!

When you look at Empire Strikes Back, it really follows the classic 2nd Act theme in that the main character (Luke Skywalker) faces odds in which it seems like he should just give up as everything is going wrong. Han was captured, the Rebel fight against the Empire isn't going anywhere (Lost the battle of Hoth), and he just finds out that Vader is his father. The end of ESB really sets the stage for something dark, like all hope is lost. We get this similar feeling at the end of Attack of the Clones and many other class 2nd Act stories.

With ME2, Shepard wasn't in a position where all is lost. He may lost some squadmates but what did Shepard go through in ME2? All the other squadmates overcame personal situations and such but what about Shepard? The ending of ME2 showed a lot of hope heading into ME3 compared to ESB and Attack of the Clones in which there seemed to be no hope. Again, even if all your squadmates die (except 2) and Cerberus gets the Collector base.....there is STILL flickers of hope heading into ME3.

So aside from just the plot, I believe Bioware's goal of making this the "Dark 2nd chapter" was a fail.

[Wulfram]

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...

Then what's the big question for ME2, Phaedon?

The Reapers, their motives and their origins. 

With the retcons, our understanding of that is less than it was after ME1

[Phaedon]

MajesticJazz wrote...

 Act oneAct I comprises the first quarter of the screenplay (e.g., for a two-hour movie, Act I would last approximately 30 minutes). In this act, theexposition takes place and includes the introduction of the protagonist, the dramatic premise, and the dramatic situation. The inciting Incident (the event that sets the plot of the film in motion) occurs approximately halfway through the first act.[edit]Act twoAct II comprises the next two quarters of the film. The main character encounters an obstacle that prevents the character from achieving his or her dramatic need, approximately halfway through the film. The main character reaches his or her lowest point and seems farthest from fulfilling the dramatic need or objective.[edit]Act threeAct III comprises the final quarter of the film. The climax occurs as well as the dénouement, a brief period of calm at the end of a film where a state of equilibrium returns.

If Mass Effect 2 was supposed to be the "Dark 2nd Act" of the Mass Effect trilogy or the "Empire Strikes Back" of the Trilogy, then it failed!

When you look at Empire Strikes Back, it really follows the classic 2nd Act theme in that the main character (Luke Skywalker) faces odds in which it seems like he should just give up as everything is going wrong. Han was captured, the Rebel fight against the Empire isn't going anywhere (Lost the battle of Hoth), and he just finds out that Vader is his father. The end of ESB really sets the stage for something dark, like all hope is lost. We get this similar feeling at the end of Attack of the Clones and many other class 2nd Act stories.

With ME2, Shepard wasn't in a position where all is lost. He may lost some squadmates but what did Shepard go through in ME2? All the other squadmates overcame personal situations and such but what about Shepard? The ending of ME2 showed a lot of hope heading into ME3 compared to ESB and Attack of the Clones in which there seemed to be no hope. Again, even if all your squadmates die (except 2) and Cerberus gets the Collector base.....there is STILL flickers of hope heading into ME3.

So aside from just the plot, I believe Bioware's goal of making this the "Dark 2nd chapter" was a fail.

Well, great, you copy/pasted an entry concerning the second act within a movie. 

This is what a second act in a trilogy means:

"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3...' 

Wulfram wrote...

With the retcons, our understanding of that is less than it was after ME1

Retcons, retcons everywhere! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

[morrie23]

I like the Twenty Sided plot analysis, granted there is some nitpicking, but Shamus makes some very good points were the main plot (ie the Repear/Collector plot) falls down. I don't believe ME2 retcons ME1 in any major way, but it does contain flaws and some inconsistencies that cause the main plot to fall apart. ME1 main plot is by now means perfect in its story, but it holds together far better than ME2 (IMHO).

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

wulf3n wrote...
But as a second act ME2 falls flat on its ass. If we accept that act 2 is gathering the neccessary resources to defeat the threat setup in Act 1, then ME2 does that by coincidence. In ME2 your not gathering resources to combat the reaprers, your gathering resources to stop the collectors, and if we assume what we've done will affect ME3, then we've managed to stop the Reapers with pure luck. Had they not sent the collectors after humans, we wouldn't have done what we have to stop the reapers.

I mean thats our second act?  we managed to get what we needed to destroy the reapers by mere chance? 

Wait, so you claim that the story writers had you recruit all of your squad just for the CB and nothing else. What proof do you have to suggest that? And if so, how can you claim that ME2 failed as a second act without the third one confirming your claims?

Moreover, the team mates aren't the only allies that Shepard starts gathering and building up in ME2. For all that we expect ME3 to be a 'recruit the armies' setup, the foundation for the future alliance against the Reapers is in large part set up in ME2. While ME1 had the Council question and the Rachni, ME2 was just as important in more regards. Our alliance with Cerberus (or not), the Quarians, the Geth, a unified Krogan race. A number of questions that can well affect our standing and ultimate alliances leading into ME2. The Shadow Broker alone should be obvious in this regards.

ME2 was also about gathering resources that could be used not just against the Collectors, but the Reapers as well. EDI and the Thannix occur, but so does a lot of the leading-edge technology from the Collectors that we saw that gave us clear benefits that we didn't have in ME1. The Reaper IFF as well: even wirthout the Collector Base intact, we gather a large amount of knowledge and Reaper-relevant technology.

ME2 wasn't just about preparing a team for the Suicide Mission, but starting to prepare the galaxy for the Reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...

Then what's the big question for ME2, Phaedon?

The Reapers, their motives and their origins. 

With the retcons, our understanding of that is less than it was after ME1

ME2 didn't retcon our understanding of the Reapers. Not least because ME1 pretty much gave us nothing to understand in the first place: not their motives, their intents, their nature, or anything else. Even the narritive fill-in device of Vigil explicitly refused to offer insights into understanding the Reapers.

We witnessed addition, not replacement. The closest thing they did to a retcon was make the 50,000 year figure a standard measurement,, and not simply the measure between us and the Protheans.

[Wulfram]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

With the retcons, our understanding of that is less than it was after ME1

ME2 didn't retcon our understanding of the Reapers. Not least because ME1 pretty much gave us nothing to understand in the first place: not their motives, their intents, their nature, or anything else. Even the narritive fill-in device of Vigil explicitly refused to offer insights into understanding the Reapers.

We witnessed addition, not replacement. The closest thing they did to a retcon was make the 50,000 year figure a standard measurement,, and not simply the measure between us and the Protheans.

They were changed from being machines to being made from human milkshakes. 

Nothing was added, because nothing we learnt explained anything.  They just got less coherent,

[Slayer299]

Phaedon wrote...
"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3...' 

Phaedon - you just proved by that example exactly why ME2's plot failed....

In Act 1 (akaME) we learned of the existence of the Reapers and what they do every 50k years.
In Act 2 (akaME2)  We recruited new allies, had some small conflicts and elements (specifically Genophage and Quarian/Geth hostilities) but as far as learning anything of substance aboiut the Reapers (other than their weird and supposed process of reproduction via smoothies). Yes, Shepard gathers personal allies and prepares for Act 3 (akaME3) nothing is learned about the overarching question of how to stop them.

So you need to explain a lot more specifically how ME2's plot succeeded by your above example, because obviously a lot of people, including myself, aren't seeing it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...


They were changed from being machines to being made from human milkshakes. 

That's not a contradiction at all.

'They can still be machines, since a machine is irrelevant towards what it's made from: you can make a car from wood, from plastic, from metal, or anything else. Organic smoothie being made into metallic substance doesn't make it any less synthetic, any more than wood make a wood-puppet organic.

Nothing was added, because nothing we learnt explained anything.  They just got less coherent,

Plenty was added, just not what some people expected. We learned about the nature of the Reaper mind (gestalt), we got an expansion of the idea of how each Reaper is an individual nation (not simply individual gestalt AI, but individual races), we learned that Reapers aren't simply 'genocide for the lols' but do have an evaluation of organic races (species worthy of ascension, which always has connotations of being a good thing, and even going to lengths to preserve a species that they couldn't ascend (the Protheans-into-collectors)), we learned that the Reapers do what they do for a reason that's good to them, not simply 'because they demand it', and we had some significant foreshadowing about Dark Matter and possible galactic decay resulting from it, which is likely tied to the Reapers.

Compared to ME1, we learned a lot more about the Reapers: what they are, and parts of why they do what they do.

[Slayer299]

@Dean-the-Younger - Whoever thought that the Reapers wiped out spacefaing civilizations for the "lulz"? It was always pretty clear that they had a reasoning for it, we just didn't know what it could be.

How do you see a species being completely altered on a genetic level into something completely else as "preserving a species". When I collected bugs as a kid and dispalyed them, that can be considering preserving, but I didn't go tinkering with the dna of the bugs I caught when I did. When you change something from A into C which is completely different you're not "preserving" anything, it ceases to be A once you've changed it. 

And isn't that true of virtually every race, that they're doing things for a reason that's good for them? That's hardly an exposition on anything with the Reapers.

The statement about Dark Matter I will agree has some significance, although the jury is out on whether the aging process on those 2 stars is due (somehow) to our influence or the Reapers.

edit - formatting fix

Modifié par Slayer299, 28 janvier 2011 - 06:54 .

[frylock23]

IMO, ME2 would have worked out much better as the beginning of the trilogy. Our problem is to stop these mysterious Collectors and that's the focus of the game. We gather our crew together with the idea of stopping the Collectors. We find out along the way that the Collectors are genetically altered Protheans, a race everyone thought extinct. So we get the question of what happened? Why are they changed like this? Then, we find out via the final mission that there is another actor, a bigger actor involved. We get a fleeting glimpse of Harby and the game ends with the menacing feeling that doom is approaching.



Now, we get ME1. Our mission is to find out what happened to the Protheans because we suspect there is something really big and really bad on the way. No one believes us, so our job is made that much harder. This is where Liara should have been introduced as a scientist who has an inkling of the bigger cycle. This is where Sovereign and the heretic geth and Saren should have popped up. In the end, we get the final battle at the Citadel along with a fuller explanation of what exactly happened to the Protheans via Vigil. And, even though we win the day against Sovereign, the losses are such that they don't feel like a victory and we know that destroying just one Reaper took the combined efforts of all the Council race and yet, we only destroyed one of the hundreds to thousands we know are coming. *cue dark ending where all seems lost*



Now, you'd have to mix and match different parts of each game's plot in order to build the effect and include the hinted at alliances that will ultimately prove useful in ME3 (rachni, geth war, Quarians, etc.), but I think this would have been a better approach to the first two games.

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Plenty was added, just not what some people expected. We learned about the nature of the Reaper mind (gestalt), we got an expansion of the idea of how each Reaper is an individual nation (not simply individual gestalt AI, but individual races), we learned that Reapers aren't simply 'genocide for the lols' but do have an evaluation of organic races (species worthy of ascension, which always has connotations of being a good thing, and even going to lengths to preserve a species that they couldn't ascend (the Protheans-into-collectors)), we learned that the Reapers do what they do for a reason that's good to them, not simply 'because they demand it', and we had some significant foreshadowing about Dark Matter and possible galactic decay resulting from it, which is likely tied to the Reapers.

Compared to ME1, we learned a lot more about the Reapers: what they are, and parts of why they do what they do.

This. Definitely this. One mistake I think people often make when claiming the Reapers were 'machines' is that they confuse their perception of facts with the facts themselves. We thought the Reapers were machines based on the ancient legends, Vigil, Saren, the Geth, etc, but Sovereign never actually refers to himself as a 'machine'. He does look down on organic life, but then he treats the Geth in much the same fashion; neither has actually achieved the pinnacle of Reaper existence, which Sovereign claims we cannot fathom.

Mass Effect 2 shows us that Reapers are in fact organic/inorganic hybrids, but nowhere in Mass Effect did we have the full grasp of the situation.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 janvier 2011 - 05:43 .

[hawat333]

ME2 plotline was weaker than it was in the first game, that's for sure.

I certainly hope though that what we've accomplished here will have consequences in ME3. Even some choices that seemed to be small could/should have a severe fallout in the trilogy, and then I'll be happy. If it was there just for the cinematicly presented scenes, then not so much.

But I still trust BioWare keeps the good ol' strategy of keeping decisions important. Even if we didn't see their immidate effect.

Decisions, decisions, that's what Mass Effect is about.