211 réponses à ce sujet

[guacamayus]

Saren pretty much stole the show in ME1, and then Sovereign after
Virmire. The lack of any actual conversations with Harbinger or any of
the Collectors really depersonalized the enemy for me

this, a hundred times

ps: I really disliked Harbringer, it sounded like a movie villain instead of an ancient construct with millions of minds into one. Sovereign was written much better, it actually sounded like a machine, everything from the voice actor and sound effects to the lines from the writers. It was kinda scary, Harbringer is just funny with his clear love/obssession for Shepard xD

Modifié par guacamayus, 24 mai 2011 - 01:53 .

[Alamar2078]

My biggest disappointment with ME2 was the feeling that I was no longer in control and that my decisions didn't have the long lasting impact that I was hoping for.

Getting a ship blown out from under me, cut off from the crew I was building, cut off from my LI, forced to work for Cereberus, etc. were all factors.

If you want a very specific disappointment it would be the Citadel. It didn't feel as grand & epic as it did before.

[elaf000]

Agreed, citadel was lacking the center point of interest it had in the first.
Enjoyed all the new characters from ME2 and not having to drive on every planet. I preferred the scanning and the hover instead of wheels.
All in all I enjoyed both games and was a bit disappointed have to wait until 2012 for the 3rd.

[Darkhour]

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

Yes build a squad instead and fight an unknown enemy on a truly dangerous and insurmountable suicide mission: not bad writing. Build a squad and fight an enemy that is truly just lapdogs of the major enemy in an easy and very laughable suicide mission: that's bad writing.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. ME2 should've been the first game where you start fighting the Reaper invasion directly. In that game we should've found a way to mitigate their attacks and ME3 should've been the manner we defeat them. The Collectors should've been a Mass Effect side book.

It was odd that they opted to answer all questions in the 3rd game. In the endI am left wondering what was the point of ME2. You don't come out of it any stronger, any wiser or any more prepared for the reapers.  And Arrival, and subsequently ME3, make everything you resolved in ME2 ultimately irrelevent. ME2 is merely a setup for ME3 (quarian/geth, genophage politics, citadel politics, etc.) and the collectors are just a thrown together subplot that works are the glue that keeps the real story(s) linked.

[Da Mecca]

ME2 really only serves as a warm up for ME3.

Every time I play it, I can just tell it's just filler for the grand finale.

More of an expansion than a sequel, but they couldn't charge full price for an expansion.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mediocre quality of import content. While Mass Effect, as the pioneer franchise into this 'epic carry-over RPG with CHOICES', is really setting the learning curve, it made a number of weak design choices. Between re-defining/retconning prior-character relationships (such as the Tali infatuation), needlessly Paragon-leaning cameo setups and designing, and some egregious carryover bugs/absences, the best cameo-factors were often the background characters who were ambient.

[Seboist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Mediocre quality of import content. While Mass Effect, as the pioneer franchise into this 'epic carry-over RPG with CHOICES', is really setting the learning curve, it made a number of weak design choices. Between re-defining/retconning prior-character relationships (such as the Tali infatuation), needlessly Paragon-leaning cameo setups and designing, and some egregious carryover bugs/absences, the best cameo-factors were often the background characters who were ambient.

This. 1+

Modifié par Seboist, 24 mai 2011 - 04:20 .

[Khran1505]

ME2 is a far superior game to its predecessor. Of course that doesn't mean it's immune to faults. To say it's a perfect game would be stupid. I think my biggest upset was certain character presentations.

This is a little bit of a nick-pick but when I met my two favourite squadmates from ME1 (Tali and Garrus), I expected something along the lines of a (man)hug. Something similiar to how Liara hugs you when you reunite on Illium or when Wrex delivers that ultimately heartwarming scene with a friendly handshake and shoulder clutch coupled with those three little words that define you both: "Shepard, my friend!"
Instead Tali (especially if you didn't do that side mission for her in ME1 which PS3 gamers will suffer from all the damn time) is stunned at first but quickly adjusts, completely ignoring the fact she's just seen the man/woman she loves after 2 years of believing he/she was dead. And as if that wasn't unsatisfying enough, Garrus' reunion is just as god awful if not worse. There's only ONE line of dialogue that delivers any shock before he gets over it.
I'm sorry Bioware, but really? That was the best you could do with these two? Yeah, I know Kaiden/Ashley didn't greet you in the same way (at least there was a damn handshake) but their reunion was eased in almost seamlessly. Tali and Garrus were just as important to our crew (except to xenophobes or plain haters) and they get sidelined? Because they're going to be squadmates anyway? That's no freaking excuse.

Moving onto ME2's new set of squadmates, we have Miranda. Before anyone starts, let it be known I'm indifferent about her. Infact I wouldn't mind saying I kind of like her. There's potential in a character who was designed to be perfect but feels insecure about it and believes she has to push herself to her limits to meet what's expected of her. But what did Bioware do wrong with her?

She actually does believe she's perfect. And then she contradicts herself anyway.

Miranda was created to be the perfect human and she believes she is or at least the closest to human perfection. But see there's a difference between "being designed" and "actually being". Just because the intention was to make you perfect doesn't mean it was successful. It's clear it wasn't but that doesn't stop Miranda from talking about it though it's mostly noticeable in the first conversation with her. She doesn't bring it up that much until a conversation-before-romance option.
What really caught my attention about it was how not only does she believe there's no point in hiding how she's "perfect" but then she suddenly says she isn't. This really never made much sense to me. She puts on how she is supposed to be the best of what humanity can become but then she just says what we're all thinking and that she truly isn't all she's cracked up to be. She even admits she makes mistakes and when she does they can be pretty big. This is pretty obvious when you reach the end of her loyalty mission. The only PROBLEM with this moment is when you first meet her after shooting your way through a Cerberus facility, Jacob calls her out on how she might have made the wrong decision in shooting an old companion but she berates him about how she's never wrong. It's times like this I wish there was a Renegade interrupt to just deck her in the face.

Moving onto the Arrival DLC for just a minute, this was a moment I was looking forward to until Shepard/Hackett just screw it up. Once again this is a bit of a nick-pick.

We've all been told so often that the Alliance and the Council have dismissed the Reaper threat and yet we get a call from (Badass) Hackett who reveals they have found a Reaper artifact that proves the Reaper's existence. Shepard is quick to call the admiral out on how the Alliance believe the Reapers aren't real just as much as the Council but doesn't wait for an explaination and carries on so Hackett doesn't have to answer. Why CAN'T I call the Alliance out on this? They sidelined all of my warnings about the imminent Reaper invasion and then suddenly change their minds (or at least just the part Hackett's in command of)? Bollocks, utter bollocks. I'm sorry but I can't swallow this.

Despite my complaints, ME2 still stands as one of my top favourite games of all time.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

If I were regulated to a single choice, then the main plot receives my vote. The utterly lack of continuality, proper exposition, frequent inconsistencies and plan out poor writing gave the immediately impression ME2 was merely BioWare attempting to stall for time as they did not have quite as much content to stretch a trilogy as they had anticipated. I could give a full on thesis like I have done in the past but for the moment this shall suffice. Most people are aware of the flaws in the plot, whether or not they choose to acknowledge them.

I agree I could see them it's just that a few other things bothered me more.

P.s. Was I the only one who felt like the game was SciFi Pokemon? I did not like the fact the whole game felt like I was collecting squad members and then doing a loyalty mission for each followed by a few extra quests as padding along way but then off to war. The whole game seemed tiny and pretty as it may be, in the end felt shallow and padded.

Collect members>loyalty missions>off to fight boss. Thats how it felt to me, lacking as much substance as had in ME1.

Oh, I have particular plot points that bothered me more as well. I just wrapped it all into one vague category for the benefit of the question. If I were to specify some of my grievances...

Baby Terminator
Winging it through the Omega 4 Relay
Horizon
Crew abduction (due to lack of a proper segue)
Utter lack of continuality
Squad mates being nonexistent in the plot.

And that was just the main plot. I follow the general consensus, in that a few minor inconsistencies are expected and easy enough to forgive (Mordin pulling the plot device out his ass) but they eventually begin to pile up to the point I have to ask, "Do you guys even bother to proof read this?"

Honestly, no. I made that joke to myself a few times. I love the recruitment and loyalty missions however it felt disjointed since it had virtually no bearing on the plot beyond recruiting a team whose use was never properly illustrated to begin with. It is my belief they could have done a far superior job if the recruitment and even loyalty missions developed the plot.

Some of the ideas I have had floating about involved the Warden Kuril selling prisoners to the Collectors, which would be the reason we venture to Purgatory. Consequentially, this could be a great opportunity to meet Kasumi, who we initially believe is a prisoner but escapes with relative ease. Moving forward we discover the Warden has been dealing with the Citadel and there is a strong indication not everyone is guilty. Corruption in C-Sec, possibly with Bailey being involved with as the perpetrator or set up to appear as such. I found this would give nice segue into Garrus' loyalty mission. The conclusion eventually allowing us to influence if Garrus takes over C-Sec.

Another alternative I contemplated was Mordin be forced to aid the merc groups targeting Garrus in lieu of him just having a clinic. They could force Mordin in some manner. This would create instant and intriguing tension between the two when Shepard comes into play. Garrus wants to kill Mordin for obvious reasons and you have to cool him down.

Evidently, those are rough outlines and would require much ironing out but I feel they would connect the characters to the plot or provide conflict and depth to more than one at a time.

[J0HNL3I]

The normandy's colours, I went on and was like WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MY SHIP!

[tonnactus]

antique_nova wrote...

As many squad interactions as ME1
.

I would rather write as much squad interaction as Dragon Age 2...
This game has rather low production values, short development time and yet despite having a voiced protagonist have more squad banter then both Mass Effect games together(well,the "character driven" sequel has basicly zero,this isnt hard to beat anyway).

This is somehow akward,right?

Modifié par tonnactus, 24 mai 2011 - 08:19 .

[Seboist]

tonnactus wrote...

antique_nova wrote...

As many squad interactions as ME1
.

I would rather write as much squad interaction as Dragon Age 2...
This game has rather low production values,short development time and yet despite having a voiced protagonist have more squad banter then both Mass Effect games together(well,the "character driven" sequel has basicly zero,this isnt hard to beat anyway).

Both Dragon Age games put ME to shame when it comes to squad interaction. If ME had that kind of interaction then I'd be more willing to experiment with taking people to a mission I wouldn't normally use to see the dialogue.

[tonnactus]

Seboist wrote...


Both Dragon Age games put ME to shame when it comes to squad interaction. If ME had that kind of interaction then I'd be more willing to experiment with taking people to a mission I wouldn't normally use to see the dialogue.

I took Dragon Age 2 as an example because of the voiced protagonist.Before this game came out,some people just claimed Origins had so much banter because the Warden was "silent" and couldnt be compared because of that.

[KotorEffect3]

The fact that threads like this have popped up on a consistant basis since the game came out even though it is my favorite game of all time. Now I am all for constructive criticism but once in a while it would be nice if people told the devs what they like about the game so they stick with the stuff that works.

[Cosmar]

^ Good point. However, I didn't feel like wading through hundreds of long-dead threads to read what other people said a long time ago about this topic. I thought the game was amazing and way ahead of the curve, but with a game that's so good, the bad things that do exist tend to stick out that much more at me.

In fact, every game I've played that I thought was amazing were the ones I also nitpicked on the most. Subpar games that I either hated completely or only enjoyed on a surface level of "entertainment" and then discarded after one or two playthroughs...I never nitpicked on those. I think, in a weird way, it's a compliment to the devs that so many people who love the game take the time to point out even the tiniest flaws.

That being said, what other posters said I tend to agree with also: some more character personality consistency would have been nice, as well as party banter. Even if there would have been one or two more "encounters" a la Tali vs. Legion and Jack vs. Miranda, that would have been acceptable in my book. 

As far as the "faceless" enemy goes, it seems like in ME3 we'll have some strong antagonists in TIM, Kai Leng, and hopefully Harbinger, if not other Reapers. Looking forward to it!

Modifié par Cosmar, 24 mai 2011 - 10:17 .

[Sbri]

The only time I really was upset with ME2 was Horizon. Any other complaints I had pale against Horizon. The best I could say to the VS about working for Cerberus was, "You know I would only do this for the right reason." That really sucked. I start to cringe everytime a get to the end of that mission, because I know I'm about to have to face that awful conversation again.

[Darkhour]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Between re-defining/retconning prior-character relationships (such as the Tali infatuation),

A recon would mean that Tali and Shepard did not get along and hated each other.  That simply is not the case.

There is nothing in ME1 that precludes infatuation with Shepard on Tali's part. There is enough dialog between her and Shepard to conclude that was was fond of him, assuming you were paragon toward her. Between the end of ME1 and the beginning of ME2 there is nothing storywise that would invalidate the idea that she developed a crush.

[alx119]

You know what disappointed me, I know its silly but, to be able to talk to your squad during missions. I loved to hear Wrex and Tali commentaires on the different missions in ME1, I wanted a bit more variety on sidequests and stuff, but still was enjoyable to hear Wrex saying: NO SENSE STANDING AROUND.

[Cosmar]

^ THIS. Although on a very few occasions the "talk" triggers in ME2 did provide interesting dialogue, the simple ability to get short, one- or two-sentence opinions out of your squaddies really helped ME1 feel more interactive.

[Dean_the_Young]

Darkhour wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Between re-defining/retconning prior-character relationships (such as the Tali infatuation),

A retcon would mean that Tali and Shepard did not get along and hated each other.  That simply is not the case.

There is nothing in ME1 that precludes infatuation with Shepard on Tali's part. There is enough dialog between her and Shepard to conclude that was was fond of him, assuming you were paragon toward her. Between the end of ME1 and the beginning of ME2 there is nothing storywise that would invalidate the idea that she developed a crush.

]A retcon would mean all sorts of things, depending on the
retcon. Adding in significant plot/character elements that were never
there, and then treating them as if they were (Liara in the LotSB), counts. It may not be a particular huge retcon, compared to some other infamous examples, but retroactively re-charactering someone in a sequel certainly does count.

A retcon is not simply if something previously stated was reversed: a retcon can also be the addition of elements that were never there. Tali's infatuation for any Shepard, Paragon or Renegade, male or female (via the Shadow Broker files), regardless of whether they handed over the Pilgrimage data or not, is an example of a retroactive continuity.

[Someone With Mass]

More squad banter in ME3 would be awesome.

[Da Mecca]

Personally I'm shocked that Tali could find Shepard sexually attractive/ Even Garrus.

But hey, people on this board find them sexually attractive(I will admit Tali's suit is snug in all the right places)

[Mister Ford]

lol, six more pages of a topic that's already been done ten thousand times.

So.....have we found anything new to complain about, something that would merit the creation of thread 10,001 about why ME2 sucked?

[Da Mecca]

Nobodies saying ME2 sucked, we're just listing disappointments.

The game is one of the highest rated games in history and has one countless awards.

Of course it didn't suck.