153 réponses à ce sujet

[Undertone]

Okay I've been out of the forums for some time now and this thread might be repeating other threads but somebody bloody explain me what was the whole point of ME2...

Now, now I know what you are thinking "What the hell is Undertone talking about? Have you not played the game?".

Well explain to me a logical reason why we are going to fight Cerberus in ME3 again... As if there weren't countless reasons why there's practically almost no plot progression in ME2 and now we get the same enemies. That pretty much counters the entire view, opinion of TIM. Why did he waste time and effort in ME2 so he fights Shepard a few months later again.

With risk of this thread going along the lines "Afraid for the plot aka Dragon Age2" - This makes no sense...

Why create a cool intelligent anti-hero/uncertain villain to make it another typical ****** mini-evil before beating the bigger evil. How cliche.

Oh and thanks again for giving another slap to the renegades. As if that's not proof enough that Bioware always will support their foster kids the paragons. So basically keeping the Base again turns out to be a bad decision just like every other practical (but supposedly evil) decision that **** up in the face of renegades because the good guys have to get it right all the time. Thanks for the rail-road. Yeah if paragons want to break of Cerberus let them do it and suffer repercussions for turning away good resources. Being a renegade however and practically handling superior tech, is there any solid logical argument for Cerberus to become enemies again? 

Modifié par Undertone, 03 mai 2011 - 10:35 .

[AdmiralCheez]

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

Yup. ME2 was largely an experiment in adjusting gameplay mechanics and piddling around with sideplots. In ME3, they plan to pick up all those sideplots and make something useful out of them, sure, but yeah, filler episode. Fun as hell, though, and I'm sure our decisions will have some relevance.

As for Cerberus: Bioware is intentionally keeping why Cerberus is after Shepard a secret because apparently it's a juicy plot twist in ME3. And seriously, the Collector base thing could still have benefits, but they aren't clear yet. Keep your pants on and wait for more info.

[Bad King]

The purpose of ME2 was to gain an important resource- a reaper factory which will give us clues, intel, and blueprints. Information that will allow us to defeat the reapers... oh wait, forgot about the Paragons.

But we cannot judge yet what effect keeping the base will have on ME3. Hell, we still don't even know why Cerberus are after Shepard. There almost certainly will be a benefit to keeping the base but we'll have to play the game to find out what that benefit will be...

Modifié par Bad King, 03 mai 2011 - 10:42 .

[crimzontearz]

Undertone wrote...

Okay I've been out of the forums for some time now and this thread might be repeating other threads but somebody bloody explain me what was the whole point of ME2...

Now, now I know what you are thinking "What the hell is Undertone talking about? Have you not played the game?".

Well explain to me a logical reason why we are going to fight Cerberus in ME3 again... As if there weren't countless reasons why there's practically almost no plot progression in ME2 and now we get the same enemies. That pretty much counters the entire view, opinion of TIM. Why did he waste time and effort in ME2 so he fights Shepard a few months later again.

With risk of this thread going along the lines "Afraid for the plot aka Dragon Age2" - This makes no sense...

Why create a cool intelligent anti-hero/uncertain villain to make it another typical ****** mini-evil before beating the bigger evil. How cliche.

Oh and thanks again for giving another slap to the renegades. As if that's not proof enough that Bioware always will support their foster kids the paragons. So basically keeping the Base again turns out to be a bad decision just like every other practical (but supposedly evil) decision that **** up in the face of renegades because the good guys have to get it right all the time. Thanks for the rail-road. Yeah if paragons want to break of Cerberus let them do it and suffer repercussions for turning away good resources. Being a renegade however and practically handling superior tech, is there any solid logical argument for Cerberus to become enemies again? 

dude..you are giving the collector base to the splinter group that is reponsible for

1: the existence of Jack
2: Akuze
3: Cloning uncontrollable Rachni soldiers + Thorian Creepers + Husks and failing at controlling them
4: PROJECT OVERLORD

seriously? You'd give THEM the collector base?

[Niddy']

crimzontearz wrote...


1: the existence of Jack

[DarthCaine]

Plus, in Retribution, it's specifically said they'll continue the Collector experiments on humans

Modifié par DarthCaine, 03 mai 2011 - 10:48 .

[Undertone]

@AdmiralCheez

You are probably correct that I should wait for more info. And yes ME2 is fun, but story and dialogue have always been the most important aspects for me when it comes to movies, games, whatever. Currently you can play ME1, skip ME2 entirely and still be up with what's going on with very few exceptions (the only one that I can maybe think of is "Oh the geth are good guys now").

I just hope the reason or plot twist is good. Because TIM is really nice and interesting character and so far ME3 contradicts everything about him that was in ME2 (work with Shepard despite methods, greater threat etc.). He is reduced to a cliche, stupid, normal mini-villain.

@Bad King

I'll hold my breath until I see this. I have yet to see a renegade decision working for the better compared to it's paragon counterpart, even though ironically it's dubbed the more practical way of doing things.

[AlexMBrennan]

Whilst this is hardly an original idea I don't quite get why you specifically chose to complain about Cerberus... They're fanatics who decided that only Shepard can defeat the Reapers (displaying a remarkable lack of uncommon sense and understanding of history). He comes across as somewhat delusional in the books (desperately trying to convince himself that he is doing the right thing). I wouldn't be surprised if TIM decided to remove Shepard once her personal fame and glory started to overshadow humanity success.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 03 mai 2011 - 10:53 .

[Someone With Mass]

ME2 is just there to expand on things, and I liked it.

[Undertone]

crimzontearz wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Okay I've been out of the forums for some time now and this thread might be repeating other threads but somebody bloody explain me what was the whole point of ME2...

Now, now I know what you are thinking "What the hell is Undertone talking about? Have you not played the game?".

Well explain to me a logical reason why we are going to fight Cerberus in ME3 again... As if there weren't countless reasons why there's practically almost no plot progression in ME2 and now we get the same enemies. That pretty much counters the entire view, opinion of TIM. Why did he waste time and effort in ME2 so he fights Shepard a few months later again.

With risk of this thread going along the lines "Afraid for the plot aka Dragon Age2" - This makes no sense...

Why create a cool intelligent anti-hero/uncertain villain to make it another typical ****** mini-evil before beating the bigger evil. How cliche.

Oh and thanks again for giving another slap to the renegades. As if that's not proof enough that Bioware always will support their foster kids the paragons. So basically keeping the Base again turns out to be a bad decision just like every other practical (but supposedly evil) decision that **** up in the face of renegades because the good guys have to get it right all the time. Thanks for the rail-road. Yeah if paragons want to break of Cerberus let them do it and suffer repercussions for turning away good resources. Being a renegade however and practically handling superior tech, is there any solid logical argument for Cerberus to become enemies again? 

dude..you are giving the collector base to the splinter group that is reponsible for

1: the existence of Jack
2: Akuze
3: Cloning uncontrollable Rachni soldiers + Thorian Creepers + Husks and failing at controlling them
4: PROJECT OVERLORD

seriously? You'd give THEM the collector base?

I'm impressed how quickly paragon bunnies are hopping on my thread. Without turning this into the kajillion thread about Keeping/Destroying the Base - it's not about who gets it, but using it it's potential and technology or not. Worst case - Humanity Dominates/Reapers lose (actually best case for me), Best case - everybody wins / reapers lose. Yada yada.

[Undertone]

Books/comics are fillers, expanded universe. Don't bring that **** into the discussion, they are irrelevant to me and already mess up the plot as it is. I'm talking in-game universe.

Sorry for double post.

Modifié par Undertone, 03 mai 2011 - 10:54 .

[Shadowrun1177]

Undertone wrote...

@AdmiralCheez

You are probably correct that I should wait for more info. And yes ME2 is fun, but story and dialogue have always been the most important aspects for me when it comes to movies, games, whatever. Currently you can play ME1, skip ME2 entirely and still be up with what's going on with very few exceptions (the only one that I can maybe think of is "Oh the geth are good guys now").

I just hope the reason or plot twist is good. Because TIM is really nice and interesting character and so far ME3 contradicts everything about him that was in ME2 (work with Shepard despite methods, greater threat etc.). He is reduced to a cliche, stupid, normal mini-villain.

@Bad King

I'll hold my breath until I see this. I have yet to see a renegade decision working for the better compared to it's paragon counterpart, even though ironically it's dubbed the more practical way of doing things.

I wouldn't use the word nice with TIM. I'll agree with interesting but not nice he always has somekind of hidden usually dark motive.

Modifié par Shadowrun1177, 03 mai 2011 - 10:56 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Keeping/Destroying the Base - it's not about who gets it, but using it it's potential and technology or not. Worst case - Humanity Dominates/Reapers lose (actually best case for me), Best case - everybody wins / reapers lose.

The fact that keeping the base is always acceptable does not imply that it is better than destroying the base.
Edit:

Books/comics are fillers, expanded universe.

Yes, let's dismiss any canon we don't like.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 03 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[Iakus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

Yup. ME2 was largely an experiment in adjusting gameplay mechanics and piddling around with sideplots. In ME3, they plan to pick up all those sideplots and make something useful out of them, sure, but yeah, filler episode. Fun as hell, though, and I'm sure our decisions will have some relevance.

Mass Effect 2:  Killing Time Until Mass Effect 3.

[MrDizazta]

Great another one of these "I hate Mass Effect 2 because it was pointless." First off we don't know to what extent Mass Effect 2's decisions have an effect on Mass Effect 3, but I am pretty sure the major decisions regrading the Genophage, the Geth/Quarian relationships, and the Collector Base are going to have a major impact on the damn story.
Also to your argument on the Antagonist, remember Saren was killed in battle with Shepard, so yeah unless a secret Turian Terrorist Organization came up with their own Lazarus Project, I suggest thinking about that for a second.
My idea is that the reason why Mass Effect 2 introduced the Collectors so that we can understand that Huskified enemies that aren't mindless zombies don't come to a shock to us. Also it allows us to understand how advance the Reaper Technology was. Hell lets just say that all middle entries of trilogies are pointless.

[AlexMBrennan]

major decisions regrading the Genophage

That mission is entirely optional.

the Geth/Quarian relationships

That's mostly optional (you do need to pick up the geth)

[lolwut666]

Modifié par lolwut666, 04 mai 2011 - 12:07 .

[crimzontearz]

Undertone wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Okay I've been out of the forums for some time now and this thread might be repeating other threads but somebody bloody explain me what was the whole point of ME2...

Now, now I know what you are thinking "What the hell is Undertone talking about? Have you not played the game?".

Well explain to me a logical reason why we are going to fight Cerberus in ME3 again... As if there weren't countless reasons why there's practically almost no plot progression in ME2 and now we get the same enemies. That pretty much counters the entire view, opinion of TIM. Why did he waste time and effort in ME2 so he fights Shepard a few months later again.

With risk of this thread going along the lines "Afraid for the plot aka Dragon Age2" - This makes no sense...

Why create a cool intelligent anti-hero/uncertain villain to make it another typical ****** mini-evil before beating the bigger evil. How cliche.

Oh and thanks again for giving another slap to the renegades. As if that's not proof enough that Bioware always will support their foster kids the paragons. So basically keeping the Base again turns out to be a bad decision just like every other practical (but supposedly evil) decision that **** up in the face of renegades because the good guys have to get it right all the time. Thanks for the rail-road. Yeah if paragons want to break of Cerberus let them do it and suffer repercussions for turning away good resources. Being a renegade however and practically handling superior tech, is there any solid logical argument for Cerberus to become enemies again? 

dude..you are giving the collector base to the splinter group that is reponsible for

1: the existence of Jack
2: Akuze
3: Cloning uncontrollable Rachni soldiers + Thorian Creepers + Husks and failing at controlling them
4: PROJECT OVERLORD

seriously? You'd give THEM the collector base?

I'm impressed how quickly paragon bunnies are hopping on my thread. Without turning this into the kajillion thread about Keeping/Destroying the Base - it's not about who gets it, but using it it's potential and technology or not. Worst case - Humanity Dominates/Reapers lose (actually best case for me), Best case - everybody wins / reapers lose. Yada yada.

lol, really? 

Using its potential? from the guys who almost cause a techno-apocalypse?

you are Assuming Cerberus will not FAIL at using it....like they failed atg everything else


I'd have kept the collector base if I could have given it to the alliance

[Undertone]

I used the word nice as in good
quality, not that TIM is actually nice person. And everybody got
their hidden agendas really.

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Keeping/Destroying the Base - it's not about who gets it,
but using it it's potential and technology or not. Worst case -
Humanity Dominates/Reapers lose (actually best case for me), Best
case - everybody wins / reapers lose.

The fact that keeping the base is always acceptable does not
imply that it is better than destroying the base.
Edit:

Books/comics are fillers, expanded universe.

Yes, let's dismiss any canon we don't like.

And you mean by this – what exactly? Two choices rarely result
in the same consequences.




I'm dismissing poorly written works that mess up the plot. If you
can't argue in-game, don't waste my time with stuff out of the game.

MrDizaztar wrote...

Great another one of these "I
hate Mass Effect 2 because it was pointless." First off we don't
know to what extent Mass Effect 2's decisions have an effect on Mass
Effect 3, but I am pretty sure the major decisions regrading the
Genophage, the Geth/Quarian relationships, and the Collector Base are
going to have a major impact on the damn story.
Also to your
argument on the Antagonist, remember Saren was killed in battle with
Shepard, so yeah unless a secret Turian Terrorist Organization came
up with their own Lazarus Project, I suggest thinking about that for
a second.
My idea is that the reason why Mass Effect 2 introduced
the Collectors so that we can understand that Huskified enemies that
aren't mindless zombies don't come to a shock to us. Also it allows
us to understand how advance the Reaper Technology was. Hell lets
just say that all middle entries of trilogies are pointless.

Do you see me saying somewhere I hate ME2? I don't it was fun, it
still is fun and it will be fun even when ME3 comes out. I'm saying
story-wise it's almost completely useless with few exceptions.
Aha those big major decisions that came from ME1 with killing the
Council or not etc. Again I'll hold my breath till I see it.

Your argument is pointless – we know already about
indoctrination, Saren is a prime example. We know already how
powerful Reaper technology is. As for your last sentence if you want
to say it, say it. I'm not claiming it though.


@crimzontearz

Dude use one of the other Keep/Save threads. Or some anti-Cerberus thread. I'm not arguing how effective Cerberus are anywhere in my thread.

Modifié par Undertone, 03 mai 2011 - 11:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

The only things I thought were horrendously written in ME2 was Horizon and the deal with the Collector ship.

I liked the rest, and can't give less of a crap if it contributes to the story or not, because the story has been done many, many times before.

[WizenSlinky0]

I'm not here to say destroying the base is a good thing. But to consider it "the practical" option is a bit of a joke. Everything that came out of that base was from sacrificing lives, human or otherwise. I can think of SO many ways for that base to backfire on Shepard.

Just like I can think of quite a few ways destroying it can.

It's not as simple as Paragon/Renegade. Useful tech or not, that base is dangerous, which makes it a double edged sword.

[AlexMBrennan]

And you mean by this – what exactly? Two choices rarely result in the same consequences.

I wanted to point out that, despite your suggestion that you had provided an argument for keeping the base, you had, in fact, not done so.

[InvaderErl]

ME2 set up the Geth/Quarian war, it introduced Harbinger, the Illusive Man, and EDI. It created the possibility of a Genophage cure via Mordin's quest, it explained where the Reapers come from, it set up and followed through on the fall of the Shadowbroker and then the rise of Liara in his place. ME2 gave us insights into the Geth that we previously lacked. They've foreshadowed the importance of Dark Energy, and gave us a slew of new characters that will be appearing the 3rd game.

Anyone that seriously believes that what happened in ME2 will just vanish into the ether is not paying attention.

/thread.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 03 mai 2011 - 11:26 .

[SLooPPy JOE]

http://social.biowar...8939/blog/5734/
I read this a while ago. It's worth checking out

Modifié par SLooPPy JOE, 03 mai 2011 - 11:26 .

[Undertone]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

And you mean by this – what exactly? Two choices rarely result in the same consequences.

I wanted to point out that, despite your suggestion that you had provided an argument for keeping the base, you had, in fact, not done so.

Geez. This thread isn't about whether or not keeping the Base is the right choice or not - from an in-game aspect. It's about Bioware validation one choice is more correct then the other since we are rail-roaded into being enemies with Cerberus.

In ME1 you can send the fleet it in or keep it to focus on Sovereign. For whatever kajilion reasons that you make your choice this turns out into 1) the galaxy loves you or 2) the galaxy hates you. The Rachni Queen, again for whatever kajillion reasons you either save her or you kill her. This again results into - she helps you/she is dead. And so on and so on.

We reach ME3 where for good/bad/evil/whatever reasons you keep or destroy the base. Well turns you are ****ed because now Cerberus is rail-roaded as the enemy again. Of course this a speculation on my part but you get where I'm beating. Every single renegade decision turns out as the wrong one or negative to Shepard despite the reasoning, which can be practical, ethical, deuschbag, evil, whatever. It's nonetheless wrong. Whereas paragon turns out right - again it could be the more ethical decision, or the most bullcrap idealistic stupid decision ever made. Either way it's always the right choice.

Get it?