211 réponses à ce sujet

[Ye Olde Gamer]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.I see in no way that ME2 was poorly written and inconsistan. The story was about preparing for a suicide mission, and thus to stay that way for the entire game.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but my complaints about the main story mostly come down to two things.

First, the suicide mission winds up being a serious anti-climax.  We spend the entire game hearing about how tough the mission is going to be, how advanced the Collectors are, and how they're clearly part of the Reapers' plans.  But what happens in the end? We steal a 37 million year old passcard that somehow still works, jump blind through the Relay, blunder into all the Collector's defenses and crash on their station, all with a skelton crew... yet it doesn't matter.  We still bullrush our way through them as though they were paper dolls.  Hell, even if we don't upgrade or prepare for the mission, we still pull it off. So where was the danger?  If all it takes to WTFOMGPWNZ the Collectors is an stolen key, they clearly weren't a serious threat to begin with.  So the whole "Suicide Mission" angle feels like much ado about nothing.

The second, much bigger problem is that the whole Collector plot is a complete waste of time.  The big reveal is that they were trying to build a Reaper; even if they weren't doing so in the most ridiculous manner imagineable, what's the big deal about that?  We already blew up Sovereign, so clearly this one Reaper isn't going to pose a real threat on its own.  Besides, thanks to Arrival, we know the actual Reaper armada will be here long before the Collectors could finish theirs.  So what exactly have we accomplished by blowing up the Collector Base?  As near as I can tell, nothing (well, other than hearing the kickass soundtrack). 

In my opinion, that makes ME2 completely pointless unless our squad plays a major part in fighting the Reapers in ME3.  The problem with that is that our whole squad could die in the mission, so they can't be plot integral to ME3.  I'm hoping BioWare finds a way to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

There are other problems with the story (the constant railroading, Shepard's unnecessary death/rebirth, the fact that none of our choices in ME1 seems to have mattered to name a few), but those could have been tolerated if the overall story of ME2 delivered.

2. As much as I can see your point, Doing the arrival plot for the entire story for ME2 would minimalize one of ME2 biggest strenghts, expantion of the universes lore. People forget that in ME1 you were stuck with Human colonies,
the citidel, and a bunch of empty planets. In ME2, their more populated areas to got and more lore added on to the story of ME2.

I don't see why expanding the Arrival plot wouldn't let us see the sights.  At the very least, we'd get to see and experience Batarian space.  That way, we might actually feel something when we're forced to annihilate one of their colonies.

[Dean_the_Young]

Darkhour wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Characterization is not made by the absence of evidence disproving something.

 
That wasn't my point.  You see, you are claiming that some kind of retcon took place which would indicate that it is explicitely stating or prepresented in some manner that Tali is not intersted in Shepard at any point in ME1.  This is not the case.

I've already made my position that retroactively adding things that are not there, and treating them as if they always were, whether they are exclusively denied or not, is also a retcon.

Other people disagree with you and take some dialog, as well as the way she delivers said dialog, to demonstrate a growing affection toward Shepard. Not saying any opinion is more valid than another, but both sides are merely personal perception; not hard fact. You speak as if there is some hard evidence proving she wasn't interested. If you disagree with my conclusion concerning your viewpoint, then on what basis can you claim any retcon took place?

I have, at no point, said there was evidence that she was NOT interested. I have said that there was no evidence that she was, and that ME2's assertion that there was amounts to a retcon.

What dialog in particular gives you the impression that she had a crush on Shepard from "the start", which I presume to mean when they first meet.

Liara's dialogue if you have romanced Tali.

What exactly does she say. Word for word. You simply saying "her dialog" doesn't help your case. Because I can say her ME1 dialog demonstrates a crush. Would that be enough to convince you?

This site lacks a good eyeroll.

In the post-mission sit-down with Liara during Lair of the Shadow Broker, Liara will comment on Shepard's current love interest. There are quotes for every ME2 romance option. In the case of Tali, Liara will refer to that even she, as socially awkward as she was, recognized Tali's attraction. If Shepard asks why no one mentioned it in ME1, at least a ditched Liara (romanced ME1, dumped ME2) will say that she didn't want the competition.

She isn't credited with harboring romantic feelings from "the start". Your point is mute.

Layer of the shadow broker does just that.

You say respect, someone else says infatuation.

That only holds true for stalkers and obsesees. Infatuation is a category that can only be claimed by distinct behaviors. It can not be claimed or inferred without corroborating evidence.

You made it. You can deny it all you want, but in the end of the day that is exactly what you are conveying rather that is your intention or not. It seems to me that you are claiming that Tali not developing a crush on Shepard in ME1 is a fact. If you're not, then you have no argument.

Alas, no I didn't. No matter how many times you claim so, an argument and position you defined but I did not make remains a strawman argument.

I inferred that by your logic they were retconned as well. And it was in the form of a question. A strawman would be me stating that you said something you did not say (and proceeding to tear down "your" false position). I asked a question which you opted to ignore.

Except my logic made no such conclusion. Your invention of logic and assigning it to me is what makes it a strawman.

Do you understand now?

Yeah: if you were half as clever as you think you are, you'd be twice as reasonable.

[Fiery Phoenix]

iakus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

More squad banter in ME3 would be awesome.

Agreed

Indeed!

[fivefingaslap18]

dreman9999 wrote...

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Retconning what exactly.

They changed over the years. How is developing as a person a retcon?

So Garrus, Wrex, Tali, Liara, Fist, Helena Blake, Shiala, Gianna Parasini were retconned? And Luke Skywalker was retconned in Return of the Jedi? Obi Wan was retconned in A New Hope. Anakin was retconned in Revenge of the Sith? I could go on. 

What bothers me more is that people seem to forget the way Liz Stroka voiced Tali too in ME1. If you listen to the character whenever she greets Shepard and when Shepard leaves: there is love there. Tali was never a confident character sexually. She is smart and believes in herself, yes, but not sexually. She is shy that way. I know these people and the impish love shows through in the speech. To think that it's not there at all is almost blasphemous. Listen to her voice acting for ME1 again. Her character may have been more confident in the sequel, but that's by bad writing. Part of the reason why I fell in love with Tali in the 1st game was because of her speech. Her adorable sullen talks after you would leave and her euphoric tone when she would see you come and talk to her like she mattered to you.

Tali was always supposed to be a love interest if you look at the voice acting. If you don't, Tali is just another crew member.

I begining to think that you think everything is bad writing. As for Tali is ME1, Sexually she made no indication or refecance to anything sexual at all. Just to the fact that she did not like being in her suit all the time. The simple fact that she evolved in this is just character growth. Is she to stay in hibernation as a character for two years? As anyone stay exactly the same for two years? Are you the exact same person from two yers age? I know I'm not. If character growth is a recon, then every character ever made is a recon.

I think what you see is different than what I see about Tali. I think it was always there, you think it's growth as a person. To each his own. I'm not naive and believe that people are static. Besides which, you also imply that I called it a retcon. I don't think it's a retcon at all if the actor implied it. Also, the world can see things two sides to a situation just like anything they read.

Case in point. I see a person angry and yelling at someone. You see the same thing happen. There might be two different reasons to our justification as to why the person is angry and yelling at someone. Such as I think this person is yelling and angry at this person for not listening to him for a thousand times this person has said something to the other person. You see a man who is just being rude and shouldn't be yelling.

Point is, we both see two different reasons to the action. I also don't think everything is bad writing. You just love the 2nd installment much more than me. Also, I don't subscribe that every story has to follow that path. However, when you are playing a game like that of Mass Effect, we either play as the hero in the hero's path or we play as the Greek Tragic character in the Tragic Character Story Arc.

There is of course also a 3rd form of storytelling which is event happens, event ends. Now to the next event. This is good for telling a morality story such as Huckleberry Finn , which uses this format. However, what is more likely to be the story format Mass Effect follows since gamers don't like to have their characters they play killed off and also because you are playing the protagonist?

I rest my case.

[Mister Ford]

Cosmar wrote...

Mister Ford wrote...

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?

Sigh...yet another person who has completely missed the point and obviously not read any posts in this thread. Gets kind of tiring.

Read every post up to the where I posted, and now obviously a few after that.  And I haven't read anything that hasn't been posted many, many, many times before.

Fwiw, I actualy agreed with your OP.  I thought the Derelict Reaper was a missed opportunity to do something really cool, and it ended up looking like any other ship or station.  But whether you intended it or not, any thread like this will turn into "what I don't like about ME2", "ME1 vs ME2", or "why ME2 sucked" -- all of which have been done to death.  Obviously you felt you had something new to say and that this thread would be different from the others, but it isn't.  But apparently there are plenty of people who will simply never tire of this topic -- I expect we will still be seeing this even after ME3 releases and the trilogy concludes --  so knock yourselves out.

[Darkhour]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I've already made my position that retroactively adding things that are not there, and treating them as if they always were, whether they are exclusively denied or not, is also a retcon.

I have, at no point, said there was evidence that she was NOT interested. I have said that there was no evidence that she was, and that ME2's assertion that there was amounts to a retcon.

That is your opinion. How you can justify calling something a retcon based solely on your own personal opinion and interpretation of events is beyond me.  That's like me saying Conrad Verner was retconned because, based on my interpretation of events in ME1, I personally thought he would give up trying to be like Shepard.

An example of an actual retcon: In DA:O qunari where tall, golden tanned men with white hair and a fiery glow to their eyes.  Qunari in DA2 are tall, super muscular, grey skinned, white haired men with horns and normal eyes.

True retcon: That was this. This contradicts that. Therefore, it was retconned.
All you are saying is, "I think this. That contradicts what I think. Ergo, it is a retcon."

In the post-mission sit-down with Liara during Lair of the Shadow Broker, Liara will comment on Shepard's current love interest. There are quotes for every ME2 romance option. In the case of Tali, Liara will refer to that even she, as socially awkward as she was, recognized Tali's attraction. If Shepard asks why no one mentioned it in ME1, at least a ditched Liara (romanced ME1, dumped ME2) will say that she didn't want the competition.

Many players recognized Tali's attraction to Shepard as well. I understand you did not, but your interpretation of Tali's feelings toward Shepard are opinion, not fact. Within the context of the game world, Shepard did not notice this either as he is somewhat surprsied when Kelly mentions it.  As there is nothing in ME1 explicitely stating that Tali did not develope a crush on Shepard, it would be presumptuous f or you or me to claim to know what was going on in Tali's head.

A retcon is a factual change. Not a hypothetical change.

Layer of the shadow broker does just that.

Developed a crush during ME1 is not the same as love at first sight. And you have no evidence that she did not have a crush on Shepard. However, the writters have given us proof that she did.

To put it more bluntly. Nobody cares about your opinion.

That only holds true for stalkers and obsesees. Infatuation is a category that can only be claimed by distinct behaviors. It can not be claimed or inferred without corroborating evidence.

That is incorrect. Infatuation is a feeling; a state of mind. It is not defined by any particular action.  I woman doesn't have finger herself in front of you while staring you down to be infatuated with you. Do you openly declare your sexual attraction to every man and/or woman you find attractive? Of course not. So why does Tali have to openly make passes at Shepard to find him attractive?

Alas, no I didn't. No matter how many times you claim so, an argument and position you defined but I did not make remains a strawman argument.

Sweet, then you have no argument. I win.

Except my logic made no such conclusion.

Appearently it did.  I don't think you quite grasp the concept that your intent is not necessarily supported by what you type.  You can write an ambiguous poem about river, but a reader may interpret it as being about a subway system. That reader isn't necessarily wrong. If the words can be understood to referrence a subway then that's what the poem is about... to that reader. What you wrote is what is important. Your intent is irrelevent.   

Your invention of logic and assigning it to me is what makes it a strawman.

Logic is logic. You say the sky is blue. I infer that ocean is blue. I don't have to invent anything. In this example your logic dictates that the ocean is blue rather you intend that conclusion or not.
 

Modifié par Darkhour, 25 mai 2011 - 11:00 .

[dreman9999]

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Retconning what exactly.

They changed over the years. How is developing as a person a retcon?

So Garrus, Wrex, Tali, Liara, Fist, Helena Blake, Shiala, Gianna Parasini were retconned? And Luke Skywalker was retconned in Return of the Jedi? Obi Wan was retconned in A New Hope. Anakin was retconned in Revenge of the Sith? I could go on. 

What bothers me more is that people seem to forget the way Liz Stroka voiced Tali too in ME1. If you listen to the character whenever she greets Shepard and when Shepard leaves: there is love there. Tali was never a confident character sexually. She is smart and believes in herself, yes, but not sexually. She is shy that way. I know these people and the impish love shows through in the speech. To think that it's not there at all is almost blasphemous. Listen to her voice acting for ME1 again. Her character may have been more confident in the sequel, but that's by bad writing. Part of the reason why I fell in love with Tali in the 1st game was because of her speech. Her adorable sullen talks after you would leave and her euphoric tone when she would see you come and talk to her like she mattered to you.

Tali was always supposed to be a love interest if you look at the voice acting. If you don't, Tali is just another crew member.

I begining to think that you think everything is bad writing. As for Tali is ME1, Sexually she made no indication or refecance to anything sexual at all. Just to the fact that she did not like being in her suit all the time. The simple fact that she evolved in this is just character growth. Is she to stay in hibernation as a character for two years? As anyone stay exactly the same for two years? Are you the exact same person from two yers age? I know I'm not. If character growth is a recon, then every character ever made is a recon.

I think what you see is different than what I see about Tali. I think it was always there, you think it's growth as a person. To each his own. I'm not naive and believe that people are static. Besides which, you also imply that I called it a retcon. I don't think it's a retcon at all if the actor implied it. Also, the world can see things two sides to a situation just like anything they read.

Case in point. I see a person angry and yelling at someone. You see the same thing happen. There might be two different reasons to our justification as to why the person is angry and yelling at someone. Such as I think this person is yelling and angry at this person for not listening to him for a thousand times this person has said something to the other person. You see a man who is just being rude and shouldn't be yelling.

Point is, we both see two different reasons to the action. I also don't think everything is bad writing. You just love the 2nd installment much more than me. Also, I don't subscribe that every story has to follow that path. However, when you are playing a game like that of Mass Effect, we either play as the hero in the hero's path or we play as the Greek Tragic character in the Tragic Character Story Arc.

There is of course also a 3rd form of storytelling which is event happens, event ends. Now to the next event. This is good for telling a morality story such as Huckleberry Finn , which uses this format. However, what is more likely to be the story format Mass Effect follows since gamers don't like to have their characters they play killed off and also because you are playing the protagonist?

I rest my case.

.......So you point is that we see thing differnently.... Ok, I understand that but you still have show how Tali liking Sheperd is bad writing or most of your points as bad writing. Though their are points of bad writing but that's with the start and end of the suicide mission. Everything else is fine. Thing is that with this forum, it came to the point that statements of bad writing, plot wholes, and statements of characters are out of character is like peter crying wolf. Too many people say it, and most of the cases it's untrue. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean it bad, you don't have control over everything just like life, and if you don't like that aspect of the plot or character, ignore it.

[dreman9999]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.I see in no way that ME2 was poorly written and inconsistan. The story was about preparing for a suicide mission, and thus to stay that way for the entire game.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but my complaints about the main story mostly come down to two things.

First, the suicide mission winds up being a serious anti-climax.  We spend the entire game hearing about how tough the mission is going to be, how advanced the Collectors are, and how they're clearly part of the Reapers' plans.  But what happens in the end? We steal a 37 million year old passcard that somehow still works, jump blind through the Relay, blunder into all the Collector's defenses and crash on their station, all with a skelton crew... yet it doesn't matter.  We still bullrush our way through them as though they were paper dolls.  Hell, even if we don't upgrade or prepare for the mission, we still pull it off. So where was the danger?  If all it takes to WTFOMGPWNZ the Collectors is an stolen key, they clearly weren't a serious threat to begin with.  So the whole "Suicide Mission" angle feels like much ado about nothing.

The second, much bigger problem is that the whole Collector plot is a complete waste of time.  The big reveal is that they were trying to build a Reaper; even if they weren't doing so in the most ridiculous manner imagineable, what's the big deal about that?  We already blew up Sovereign, so clearly this one Reaper isn't going to pose a real threat on its own.  Besides, thanks to Arrival, we know the actual Reaper armada will be here long before the Collectors could finish theirs.  So what exactly have we accomplished by blowing up the Collector Base?  As near as I can tell, nothing (well, other than hearing the kickass soundtrack). 

In my opinion, that makes ME2 completely pointless unless our squad plays a major part in fighting the Reapers in ME3.  The problem with that is that our whole squad could die in the mission, so they can't be plot integral to ME3.  I'm hoping BioWare finds a way to surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

There are other problems with the story (the constant railroading, Shepard's unnecessary death/rebirth, the fact that none of our choices in ME1 seems to have mattered to name a few), but those could have been tolerated if the overall story of ME2 delivered.

2. As much as I can see your point, Doing the arrival plot for the entire story for ME2 would minimalize one of ME2 biggest strenghts, expantion of the universes lore. People forget that in ME1 you were stuck with Human colonies,
the citidel, and a bunch of empty planets. In ME2, their more populated areas to got and more lore added on to the story of ME2.

I don't see why expanding the Arrival plot wouldn't let us see the sights.  At the very least, we'd get to see and experience Batarian space.  That way, we might actually feel something when we're forced to annihilate one of their colonies.

1.
The suicide mission was one that many people
had a hard time with. Yes, it's hard to kill everyone but their were
more people who  lost people their first try than people who kept
everyone alive. Back it the first week of realise of the game they were many people who thought thane was the best choice to hack the door. In my play through, Mordin live because of a mer fluke.
I brought him with me because I wanted someone that was anti-armor. 
Now it's easy because we know what to do. But the first time your were
on the edge of your set the entire time....Just like Virmire. I was not underwhelming, just that once you go through it once you fully understand it and your not taken off guard

Also, with the collector plot was not
pointless.....It was the first official start of the invasion of the
reapers. They were collecting humans to study genetically and expandthe
reapers number, which is your facing anyone in war is a thing you
don't what to allow your enemy to do. The fact they were creation a
reaper out of human was not bad writing at all....I was the design of
the reaper that was the problem. Now the first time you saw a colonist
or Kelly get grinded up in the suicide mission, you were shocked, everyone was shock by it.....But then you saw the design of the reaper ...which looked like a mentally
ill terminator or the last boss of Contra 3.  In short , it was a bad
cliche boss. The first time I saw it, I said to myself,"I bet it's
going to shoot fire balls out of it's mouth." As a joke.....It did not disappoint...
It was the design that was bad.....Not the fact that it was made from
humans. The fact, that you can't tell me why it bad writing to make it
out of human makes it clear that it's not bad writing. The rushed the
last boss fight design and it shows.
2.the reson, why it would destory the expantion of lore is that everything would be focus on the reapers, peoples live would stop because of it, their would be not point to see other parts of the galexy because you would alway be  finding away to stop the reaper. You would not see the culture of anything because all of it would be put away to get ready for war. You'll not see the details of the galexy because  no one would care for the details, this means no Blasto adverts on illium, no mad bartarian on Omega, not going to afterlife, and no Cerburus news network. It would just bewar...

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 mai 2011 - 04:34 .

[Ye Olde Gamer]

1.
The suicide mission was one that many people
had a hard time with. Yes, it's hard to kill everyone but their were
more people who  lost people their first try than people who kept
everyone alive. Back it the first week of realise of the game they were many people who thought thane was the best choice to hack the door. In my play through, Mordin live because of a mer fluke.
I brought him with me because I wanted someone that was anti-armor. 
Now it's easy because we know what to do. But the first time your were
on the edge of your set the entire time....Just like Virmire. I was not underwhelming, just that once you go through it once you fully understand it and your not taken off guard

I'm not saying it's too easy to keep everyone alive (though it is easy, as long as you've completed everything before hitting the derelict Reaper).  I'm saying you'll always destroy/capture the Collector Base regardless of how half-baked your assault plan is.  You can take a stock frigate, with a disloyal skeleton crew, jump through the Omega 4 Relay completely blind, assign people to the wrong tasks at every opportunity, and you'll STILL wipe out the Collectors.

I understand that unwinnable game states have fallen into disuse since Sierra's heyday, but really, they should have found some sort of compromise here.  Even demanding we get at least one Ship upgrade before launching the mission would have helped.  I mean, if the Normandy can destroy the Collector ship so effortlessly, why don't we have the option to fight the damn thing the first two times we encounter it?

Also, with the collector plot was not
pointless.....It was the first official start of the invasion of the
reapers. They were collecting humans to study genetically and expandthe
reapers number, which is your facing anyone in war is a thing you
don't what to allow your enemy to do.

Seriously, so what?  The Collectors are no threat on their own.  Their little science project only matters if the Reapers show up.  So either we stop the Reapers themselves, or we all get wiped out.  Either way, the Collectors are a trivial side issue.

It's the equivilent of Lex Luthor forming a crack squad of supervillains to hunt down Lois Lane, purely so she won't be able to call Superman.  Then revealing that the next issue will have Lex fight Superman anyway.  What exactly was the point?

The fact they were creation a
reaper out of human was not bad writing at all....I was the design of
the reaper that was the problem. Now the first time you saw a colonist
or Kelly get grinded up in the suicide mission, you were shocked, everyone was shock by it.....But then you saw the design of the reaper ...which looked like a mentally
ill terminator or the last boss of Contra 3.  In short , it was a bad
cliche boss. The first time I saw it, I said to myself,"I bet it's
going to shoot fire balls out of it's mouth." As a joke.....It did not disappoint...
It was the design that was bad.....Not the fact that it was made from
humans. The fact, that you can't tell me why it bad writing to make it
out of human makes it clear that it's not bad writing. The rushed the
last boss fight design and it shows.

It's bad writing because human-paste is a terrible building material.  It has poor tensile strength, low durability, and outgasses (a lot) in a vacuum.  Furthermore, it would have been far easier for the Collectors to grow that goo in a lab, rather than capture and render down humans for it.

Now, I absolutely agree that the design of the baby reaper was a huge problem as well.  But I really don't see any advantage to the soylant green approach.  If they want the Reapers to incorporate humanity into themselves, the writers should come up with a way to do that which makes at least a little bit of sense. 

2.the reson, why it would destory the expantion of lore is that everything would be focus on the reapers, peoples live would stop because of it, their would be not point to see other parts of the galexy because you would alway be  finding away to stop the reaper. You would not see the culture of anything because all of it would be put away to get ready for war. You'll not see the details of the galexy because  no one would care for the details, this means no Blasto adverts on illium, no mad bartarian on Omega, not going to afterlife, and no Cerburus news network. It would just bewar...

I don't think you understand what I'm suggesting.  There wouldn't be any war, because you still wouldn't be fighting the Reapers.  You'd wind up destroying the Alpha Relay to delay them, just like in Arrival.  We'd just have more time to set up to the situation (rather than have Kenson explain it to use right before betraying us), and a chance for your crew/patrons to react to it.  (Ideally, the story would also explain why the extra few months delay will matter, but that's a separate complaint!).

Part of the goal would be to build up to the revelation that the Reapers have awakened.  So for the first (and possibly second) act, the game wouldn't feel any different.  It would only be in the process of investigating the Collectors that you'd learn the truth.  Plenty of time to see the sights.

So I don't see the downside.  Honestly, it sounds like you're saying the game works well because the Collectors AREN'T a threat, and thus we can safely ignore them in favor of wasting time on Omega, etc.  I really don't think that was the intent.

[dreman9999]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

1.
The suicide mission was one that many people
had a hard time with. Yes, it's hard to kill everyone but their were
more people who  lost people their first try than people who kept
everyone alive. Back it the first week of realise of the game they were many people who thought thane was the best choice to hack the door. In my play through, Mordin live because of a mer fluke.
I brought him with me because I wanted someone that was anti-armor. 
Now it's easy because we know what to do. But the first time your were
on the edge of your set the entire time....Just like Virmire. I was not underwhelming, just that once you go through it once you fully understand it and your not taken off guard

I'm not saying it's too easy to keep everyone alive (though it is easy, as long as you've completed everything before hitting the derelict Reaper).  I'm saying you'll always destroy/capture the Collector Base regardless of how half-baked your assault plan is.  You can take a stock frigate, with a disloyal skeleton crew, jump through the Omega 4 Relay completely blind, assign people to the wrong tasks at every opportunity, and you'll STILL wipe out the Collectors.

I understand that unwinnable game states have fallen into disuse since Sierra's heyday, but really, they should have found some sort of compromise here.  Even demanding we get at least one Ship upgrade before launching the mission would have helped.  I mean, if the Normandy can destroy the Collector ship so effortlessly, why don't we have the option to fight the damn thing the first two times we encounter it?

Also, with the collector plot was not
pointless.....It was the first official start of the invasion of the
reapers. They were collecting humans to study genetically and expandthe
reapers number, which is your facing anyone in war is a thing you
don't what to allow your enemy to do.

Seriously, so what?  The Collectors are no threat on their own.  Their little science project only matters if the Reapers show up.  So either we stop the Reapers themselves, or we all get wiped out.  Either way, the Collectors are a trivial side issue.

It's the equivilent of Lex Luthor forming a crack squad of supervillains to hunt down Lois Lane, purely so she won't be able to call Superman.  Then revealing that the next issue will have Lex fight Superman anyway.  What exactly was the point?

The fact they were creation a
reaper out of human was not bad writing at all....I was the design of
the reaper that was the problem. Now the first time you saw a colonist
or Kelly get grinded up in the suicide mission, you were shocked, everyone was shock by it.....But then you saw the design of the reaper ...which looked like a mentally
ill terminator or the last boss of Contra 3.  In short , it was a bad
cliche boss. The first time I saw it, I said to myself,"I bet it's
going to shoot fire balls out of it's mouth." As a joke.....It did not disappoint...
It was the design that was bad.....Not the fact that it was made from
humans. The fact, that you can't tell me why it bad writing to make it
out of human makes it clear that it's not bad writing. The rushed the
last boss fight design and it shows.

It's bad writing because human-paste is a terrible building material.  It has poor tensile strength, low durability, and outgasses (a lot) in a vacuum.  Furthermore, it would have been far easier for the Collectors to grow that goo in a lab, rather than capture and render down humans for it.

Now, I absolutely agree that the design of the baby reaper was a huge problem as well.  But I really don't see any advantage to the soylant green approach.  If they want the Reapers to incorporate humanity into themselves, the writers should come up with a way to do that which makes at least a little bit of sense. 

2.the reson, why it would destory the expantion of lore is that everything would be focus on the reapers, peoples live would stop because of it, their would be not point to see other parts of the galexy because you would alway be  finding away to stop the reaper. You would not see the culture of anything because all of it would be put away to get ready for war. You'll not see the details of the galexy because  no one would care for the details, this means no Blasto adverts on illium, no mad bartarian on Omega, not going to afterlife, and no Cerburus news network. It would just bewar...

I don't think you understand what I'm suggesting.  There wouldn't be any war, because you still wouldn't be fighting the Reapers.  You'd wind up destroying the Alpha Relay to delay them, just like in Arrival.  We'd just have more time to set up to the situation (rather than have Kenson explain it to use right before betraying us), and a chance for your crew/patrons to react to it.  (Ideally, the story would also explain why the extra few months delay will matter, but that's a separate complaint!).

Part of the goal would be to build up to the revelation that the Reapers have awakened.  So for the first (and possibly second) act, the game wouldn't feel any different.  It would only be in the process of investigating the Collectors that you'd learn the truth.  Plenty of time to see the sights.

So I don't see the downside.  Honestly, it sounds like you're saying the game works well because the Collectors AREN'T a threat, and thus we can safely ignore them in favor of wasting time on Omega, etc.  I really don't think that was the intent.

1. You know that's not true at all, and you know that. Sure you can wipe them out, not easily, but you can wipe them out but you barly get to the base, you barely get thought the swarms, and you barely get out on time.....due to to having the lates tech at your side. Having the collecter die no matter what is not bad writing. It's like saying the ending of ME1 is bad because Seran always dies. And we did not have the tech to fight and win the two time we faced ihe ship.
2.Yes, the collector were a theat on their own...They were taking out entire colonies on their own making the first step of the invasion. Add on that the fact that the reaper come  2 months later and bam, what everythey were doing would have been 10 times worse if left alown. The fact remains, that they were starting an invasion for the reapers is the strongest and only reason need to attack them. I sound like your ok with just letting them just walk up an start setting up cannon on earths moon. The thing with the collector is the same thing.

3.So your say that ME2 should of been ME3.....Because that what your saying......That would limit the lore as well. you be doing the same thing as I said before, getting ready for war. And the cliff hanger would be horriblely Halo 2 like. A strong no to that Idea.
4. If human as such bad build material.....How  come scions are so hard to kill? The reapers find a way to do it with biosintetic fusion and makethe tuffes things ever. Lore wise, it fits. They can make what ever they want out of anything they want.

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 mai 2011 - 07:33 .

[Ship.wreck_]

What the hell are you guys talking about? Is this even related to the topic anymore?

[008Zulu]

I found two things disappointing;
1- When Shepard gets tanked at Kasumi's bar and EDI directs him to the toilets, he doesn't puke his guts out.
2- Shepard knows Cerberus are the bad guys, and yet we get no opportunity (early on) to tell TIM to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Ship.wreck_]

They named SR2 "Normandy".

I'm no expert on the subject, well actually I kinda am, but even if I wasn't:

Who the f*ck names ships after sunken ships!??!?!?!?!?!!!???

I know, why don't we call it the "Crash and Burn"? Or the "Flying Jinx"!

[Ye Olde Gamer]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. You know that's not true at all, and you know that. Sure you can wipe them out, not easily, but you can wipe them out but you barly get to the base, you barely get thought the swarms, and you barely get out on time.....due to to having the lates tech at your side. Having the collecter die no matter what is not bad writing. It's like saying the ending of ME1 is bad because Seran always dies. And we did not have the tech to fight and win the two time we faced ihe ship.

When we first encounter the Collectors on Horizon, it's quite possible to have upgraded the Normandy's weapons and armor.  By the time we encounter their 'derelict' ship, we can have the shield upgrade, too.  So yes, we did have the tech to fight them straight up.  Yet for some reason, even though the Normandy was at battle stations while the Collector ship was just powering up, we immediately flee the area rather than try to fight.

Moreover, we aren't required to upgrade the Normandy at all to succeed in the Suicide Mission!  So we're expected to believe that a fully upgraded Normandy must flee from an unready Collector ship on one hand, yet a badly damaged, stock Normandy will automatically destroy that same Collector ship during the Suicide Mission.  It makes no sense, and is clearly happening do to lazy writer fiat.

2.Yes, the collector were a theat on their own...They were taking out entire colonies on their own making the first step of the invasion. Add on that the fact that the reaper come  2 months later and bam, what everythey were doing would have been 10 times worse if left alown. The fact remains, that they were starting an invasion for the reapers is the strongest and only reason need to attack them. I sound like your ok with just letting them just walk up an start setting up cannon on earths moon. The thing with the collector is the same thing.

The Collectors are a threat, but only on the level of the Batarian slavers or rogue mercs.  That is, they're a danger to undefended colonies, and could easily be dealt with by a standard military force.  Their only trump card is the seeker swarms, and a) we find a solutiuon to those in the first act, and that doesn't matter in ship-to-ship combat. 

So why all the fuss?  Why don't we just get the Alliance to send a ship or two to intercept and destroy the Collector ship?  Beats me.  ME2 deserved an antagonist that warrants putting together a crack team.  Instead, we get also rans.

3.So your say that ME2 should of been ME3.....Because that what your saying......That would limit the lore as well. you be doing the same thing as I said before, getting ready for war. And the cliff hanger would be horriblely Halo 2 like. A strong no to that Idea.

Where did you get that idea?  I'm saying the plot of Arrival should have been the plot of ME2, and I'll add that the plot of ME2 should probably have been a DLC.

Neither of those would involve the plot of ME3.

4. If human as such bad build material.....How  come scions are so hard to kill? The reapers find a way to do it with biosintetic fusion and makethe tuffes things ever. Lore wise, it fits. They can make what ever they want out of anything they want.

I never liked the Husks, even in ME1.  They seemed like a nonsensical fit in the ME universe.  So if it were up to me, the Scions wouldn't exist either.  That said, are they really all that tough?  YMIRs seem tougher, and they're made out of good old fashioned metal.  Go figure.

Anyway, my point to all this is that I found ME2 disappointing because, in the end, it doesn't seem to accomplish much.  We face an underwhelming adversary with a plan so unambitious that even if it came to fruition, it's hard to see how it would have affected the next game. 

Bear in mind, I enjoyed ME2.  It was a fun ride, thanks in large part to a great cast of characters.  I just wish the trip wasn't a big circle that left us back where we started.

[Golden Owl]

Cosmar wrote...

So, what was your biggest disappointment/letdown in ME2? I'm not talking about vague/general details, nor is this a comparison with ME1...what, in ME2 alone, in and of itself, were you disappointed with?

I was disappointed with the derelict Reaper. I thought it could have been handled better. I didn't like how everyone was so casual about it. TIM, Shepard, the team...they all just seemed like, "Oh, a dead 37-million year old Reaper. Mmkay. *yawn*"

I thought it could have been more menacing and dramatic, and I really would have liked to see/discover the "specimens" the dead science team were researching. The whole episode just seemed so nonchalant and rushed that it really downplayed the Reapers in general for me.

For me, pretty much just working for Cerberus.

[Fredvdp]

The user interface on PC. No menu shortcuts, no double click and no scrolling through text using the mouse wheel.

[dreman9999]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. You know that's not true at all, and you know that. Sure you can wipe them out, not easily, but you can wipe them out but you barly get to the base, you barely get thought the swarms, and you barely get out on time.....due to to having the lates tech at your side. Having the collecter die no matter what is not bad writing. It's like saying the ending of ME1 is bad because Seran always dies. And we did not have the tech to fight and win the two time we faced ihe ship.

When we first encounter the Collectors on Horizon, it's quite possible to have upgraded the Normandy's weapons and armor.  By the time we encounter their 'derelict' ship, we can have the shield upgrade, too.  So yes, we did have the tech to fight them straight up.  Yet for some reason, even though the Normandy was at battle stations while the Collector ship was just powering up, we immediately flee the area rather than try to fight.

Moreover, we aren't required to upgrade the Normandy at all to succeed in the Suicide Mission!  So we're expected to believe that a fully upgraded Normandy must flee from an unready Collector ship on one hand, yet a badly damaged, stock Normandy will automatically destroy that same Collector ship during the Suicide Mission.  It makes no sense, and is clearly happening do to lazy writer fiat.

2.Yes, the collector were a theat on their own...They were taking out entire colonies on their own making the first step of the invasion. Add on that the fact that the reaper come  2 months later and bam, what everythey were doing would have been 10 times worse if left alown. The fact remains, that they were starting an invasion for the reapers is the strongest and only reason need to attack them. I sound like your ok with just letting them just walk up an start setting up cannon on earths moon. The thing with the collector is the same thing.

The Collectors are a threat, but only on the level of the Batarian slavers or rogue mercs.  That is, they're a danger to undefended colonies, and could easily be dealt with by a standard military force.  Their only trump card is the seeker swarms, and a) we find a solutiuon to those in the first act, and that doesn't matter in ship-to-ship combat. 

So why all the fuss?  Why don't we just get the Alliance to send a ship or two to intercept and destroy the Collector ship?  Beats me.  ME2 deserved an antagonist that warrants putting together a crack team.  Instead, we get also rans.

3.So your say that ME2 should of been ME3.....Because that what your saying......That would limit the lore as well. you be doing the same thing as I said before, getting ready for war. And the cliff hanger would be horriblely Halo 2 like. A strong no to that Idea.

Where did you get that idea?  I'm saying the plot of Arrival should have been the plot of ME2, and I'll add that the plot of ME2 should probably have been a DLC.

Neither of those would involve the plot of ME3.

4. If human as such bad build material.....How  come scions are so hard to kill? The reapers find a way to do it with biosintetic fusion and makethe tuffes things ever. Lore wise, it fits. They can make what ever they want out of anything they want.

I never liked the Husks, even in ME1.  They seemed like a nonsensical fit in the ME universe.  So if it were up to me, the Scions wouldn't exist either.  That said, are they really all that tough?  YMIRs seem tougher, and they're made out of good old fashioned metal.  Go figure.

Anyway, my point to all this is that I found ME2 disappointing because, in the end, it doesn't seem to accomplish much.  We face an underwhelming adversary with a plan so unambitious that even if it came to fruition, it's hard to see how it would have affected the next game. 

Bear in mind, I enjoyed ME2.  It was a fun ride, thanks in large part to a great cast of characters.  I just wish the trip wasn't a big circle that left us back where we started.

1. You don't have the new kinetic barriers untill after Horrision and not everyone would have all the tech to take them on at the derlict ship.
As for the suidie mission, it about getting as much of your team their. The way it set up, you could do it with the SR1 but lose a good chunk of the crew....a crewthat are the best of the best at what they do. So being able to get there with no upgrade is not big deal and it not easy for the ship to do ether. Just as an Thane who was impaled due a close up attack on the collecter ship with reagular weopons.
2.No not at the same level.  Mercs are not perparing for a war to take out the entire galexy or taking up a huge amount of humans at once.The simple fact that they work for the reapers and are laying the ground plan to start the invasion is the only reason to stop them. It may not be an immediat threat but it's still a theat.
3.No, the plot of the Arrial is just to get started for ME3. You would just gather Armies and look up info to stop the reapers.
You would not get extra Lore because of this. That why BW when out of their way to make ME 3 games.
4.Scions are tough.....They're hard to kill and they can kill you with 2 shots. To de heavy damage you have to use heavy weopons, or trapsthe take them out..... And then theirs the Praetorian....[/b] It made harison hard to pass for alot of  people. Add on the fact the they can will flesh to make Mass effect fields and hoe hard the Husk were in ME1 and you'll see it not a bad idea to use tech and human flesh to make a reaper. Especially when thr reapers can getthe flesh to de wat ever they want. Also, the part as sw in the end of ME2 was just the core.

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 mai 2011 - 04:07 .

[alperez]

Like others there were many things that dissappointed me in me2, some things i can forgive though because they may have looked good on paper (but played out badly like the human reaper) or because they may be resolved in me3 thereby making gripes obsolete (choices we made and the impact they have).

The story itself and the plotline and whether or not its good or bad is imo a moot point because it can still be resolved rather easily in me3. If there are genuine consequences to how you played and interacted with people that affect how things are done in me3 then me2 would work as a storyline that much better. We have moments that may come back and bite us in the ass or help us out bigtime (krogan cure, collector base, tali, legion etc) so until we see how they are handled in me3 i think we have to pause before condemning me2's storyline.

The same with the whole SM setup, if the consequences of not getting everyone out alive actually do affect us in me3 and if the squad we made in me2 play a large role if they are alive then me2 as a setup works that much better and as a second act in a trilogy becomes that much more important.

But there are other things i find myself getting annoyed at that no matter what i just can't explain away or find any justifiable reasoning for.

1. squadmates being underutilised, we are told from the get go that we need these particular people to succeed and yet the truth is we only need some of them. This to me is one of the biggest letdowns of me2.

Why make it imperative that we need all these people and then not at least create a distinct role for each of them? (i know some could die before the SM or not be recruited) but what in the end is the point of some of the squad. Thane is a good example of this, an expert assassin that we must recruit and yet at no point in the game do we A. Need an Assassin or B. utilise any abilty that Thane alone has.

This is true with a lot of the squadmates and to me just kills a large part of me2.

The other thing is the lack overall of dialogue for shepard or for squadmates to actually portray them as living breathing things and not just plot points. For shepard we have the whole working with cerberus and the horizon and anderson/council encounters where because of how we were expected to play all dialogue and choice where completely removed.

I understand we must do as they want us to do and the story is linear but at least make it seem like the shepard i control is in fact my shepard and hasn't suddenly devolped amnesia or worse stupidity.

But its even worse with the squadmates, Tali and Garrus barely recognise the fact that i'm just meeting with Liara or Wrex and barely comment on Horizon (so its not just shepard this amnesia affects then) and then to make it worse despite their past history with Shepard and cerberus they barely speak of the fact that shepard is working for cerberus and don't at any time decide to actually speak of it to shepard baring the first mention of it.

As for the other squadmates, we get some better fleshing out of their characters but again its the lack of dialogue or the right dialogue that kills the experience. Even if they are fleshed out properly (and you have to romance them to do this mostly) by the time you've got to know them and formed a relationship of any sort with them they have nothing to say.

Which brings me on to my biggest single gripe.

Sorry shepard i'm busy calibrating.

Seriously is there a more annoying phrase or point of me2 then when you reach the end of conversations and thats all you get, the standard i'm busy can't talk line, i understand there is only limited dialogue and at some point its gone but at the very least there should have been one conversation post SM and one post romance conclussion.

If i romance a character to the end point of that romance and then speak to that character again i'm taking back to the pre-romance line which makes no sense whatsoever, seriously this is completely retarded. I understand why its there (to allow you to break off the romance) but really a unique post romance conversation with the option to break it off would at least make more sense and not have been that difficult to do.

Oh and lastly the romance arc being the only way to get to know characters and making it impossible to just say no and still get a decent level of conversation from a squadmate is seriously annoying.

Try speaking to Jack after saying no and you'll see how badly this plays out.

[vanslyke85]

how little free roaming there was anywhere. I know illium and omega had a bunch of that but it seems way too pathwayed and forced. and the complete lack of it on the citadel was absurd. it wasnt even half the amount of space as the first. very disappointed when I saw that.

[I Vigil I]

biggest disappointment for me was the fact there was no epic faunts music for the credits

[Ship.wreck_]

laecraft wrote...
 Paragon Shepard is so easily distracted.

I WANT THIS AS MY SIG!

[lolwut666]

Dealing with Cerberus was ****.

I can't stand 'em.