121 réponses à ce sujet

[Sundance31us]

Captain Filibuster wrote...

you bring up some good points but RPG fans complain about everything

This statement is so true it hurts.

[onelifecrisis]

I started reading but I must say it's a rather rambling post. It lacks any sense of direction. I skipped to the end to see if there was a Conclusion or Summary or TLDR but instead there's just a note saying "I could keep going but I think I'll stop here". Not a good sign, so for now...

tl;dr

[BatmanPWNS]

They should have just had Shepard kidnapped instead of the whole 'Die and come back' thing.

[Andorfiend]

Why do people post to announce they have no attention spans?

TL,DR:
Why?

[CroGamer002]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

But then there would be no reason for Paragon Shepard to work with Cerberus.


So hence entire work for Cerberus plot wouldn't work, which Bioware aimed for.

Considering how many people hated that, I wouldn't consider it a bad thing.

It'd give the option to work with them.

And that was the whole point.

You had no option since if you didn't do it, Reapers would have an edge with Collectors around and many colonist would suffer.
You had to make a tough decision without going in blindly.

I mean, only Cerberus bother to do anything with Collectors( which is like one of their very few good things they ever did) and was capable to do it.

So if you stayed with Council and/or Alliance, you would do jacksh*t in ME2.

Hell, you wouldn't even do Arrival since you wouldn't have "KIA" public status and have some ship with stealth engine to sneak to Bahak system( and that's with passing through Terminus Systems and Batarian Hegemony territory) unnoticed without Alliance insignia.

[zsom]

@CptData

I really disagree with you, but I'm afraid to answer, because you seem exactly like a guy who really likes to argue . So I'll keep my answer as short as possible.

Companions and main plot: No link between them what so ever. BG1 had zero companions actually relevant to the plot. DAO had 2, NWN had 0, KotOR had 1. Companions aren't redundant just because the main plot doesn't need them. They are there to give you options, to allow you to play with the squad you choose, so none of them are redundant.

Plot holes: what you see as one, is your opinion and not a fact. I am happy with how they brought Shep back to life, and frankly I like it a lot more than your version... sorry

VS: I also wanted a DLC like LotSB with the VS, well... we didn't get one. Get over it.
Morinth: I don't see the reason why they should have expanded her character more. You can be killed by her if you choose her instead of Samara. I think that is enough consequence for an average companion.

Edited: Typo

Modifié par zsom, 30 novembre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Sgt Stryker]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

They should have just had Shepard kidnapped instead of the whole 'Die and come back' thing.

Or have him suffer a critical injury and make the rest of the galaxy think he's dead.

[Labrev]

 I think that ME2 was a stepping-stone to ME3 more than anything else. Little advancement in the story, but I don't think that was the focus. It gave Shepard a chance to build some valuable "connections" to people who could be useful in ME3. For example: Jacob/Miranda (for ME3 Cerberus sub-plot), Legion (geth sub-plot), Mordin and perhaps Grunt (krogan sub-plot). Tali, as a holdover from ME1, contributes in her own right with her quarians ties. Truthfully, Garrus is not really essential, but hey. It also allowed for some big-decisions to be made that could impact ME3's outcome as well (from genophage-data to Collector Base).

Grunt is a bit of a head-scratcher because he figures into some big plan by Okeer but it's not entirely clear what that is. I hope they pick up on it in ME3 because it could potentially be interesting, otherwise it'll just go down as a throwaway plot-device to get a krogan squaddie in ME2.

With other non-essentials, I think the small roles make sense, even if their fanbases don't like it. I agree with you about less-means-more. They should not sacrifice efforts on pigenholing the squad back into big roles to make everyone happy, they should focus on the big picture.

That's why I generally reject the notion that Bioware's MO is fan-pandering. They're knowingly ingoring lots of things that a lot of fans are asking for to go about with it their own way, as it should be.

Nonetheless, having read through most of the leaks I'm quite happy about what they are doing with most of the non-essentials, like Samara and even Jack as a Jack fan. They are fairly being included with good and relevent roles into ME3. I'm OK with not getting Jack as a permanent squadmate because I think they've given her story-arc its due without trying to force her into the big pic (but not all Jack fans agree nor are happy as I am).


Sadly, I think you're very right about the things like Lazarus and Horizon. Very poor writing moments, and is left lots of questions in the plo so they could force things like Shepard working for Cerberus/VS non-involvement, and those problemsdo linger a bit into ME3.

Not only that, but the effect it has on the main-character becomes a bit disappointing. Shepard comes back from the dead, but has no regard for his/her previous LI, wtf?? That's why I can't romance Ashley or play Spacer for a canon playthrough, but it still feels very jerk-offish that I make no effort to contact Kaidan either. Horizon is still OK for me since it has a nice dramatic touch to the story, but that's in large part because the VS is not my LI. If he/she is, then it's just sad for those players.

So yeah, I agree with most of it. And in general, that's kind of the way I feel about the series as a whole: it's not as good a game as its lauded to be by most people for great story and depth in choices. But then it's also not as bad as some people say either *looks at BSN trolls, they know who they are*. But where it's good, it's REALLY good.

[Ticktank]

I can't disagree with your analytical post and thank you for taking the effort to write it. In essence, BW's intentions for ME2 were ambitious and well-meant, but they unfortunately ended up biting off more than they could chew, and the indigestion is starting to show in ME3, given whatever info & leaks we have.

Its pretty much certain at this point that most if not all the ME2 squadmates (with the exception of Tali and Garrus) will not be active squadmembers, and this is going to ****** off the more passionate fans of the excluded characters.

I'd like to be forward looking here however. IMO, there are two things BW can do to damage control, the first of which they have apparently ruled out:

1. Make ME2 squaddies (who had a cameo/non-squad role in the main ME3 storyline) appear in multiplayer missions. BW has already said that the MP missions will be staged at the same areas in single player e.g. Tuchanka, Omega. It'd thus be great if a character specific to that area be present during the mission, either as your squad-leader or even just giving orders/ranting over the radio.

2. DLC for characters who have personal matters large/complicated enough to warrant said DLC. Along the lines of Liara ~ LotSB. This IMO will greatly compensate for their unavailability as squadmates in the main campaign. Without spoiling things, I can see Miranda, Wrex, Jack or even NPCs like Aria having enough issues 'on the side' for a DLC. Not being able to access these DLC missions if that particular squadmate died in ME2 is a small issue; thats what multiple careers are for.

Hoping BW will at least read this and consider.

Modifié par Ticktank, 30 novembre 2011 - 06:21 .

[Someone With Mass]

Mesina2 wrote...

And that was the whole point.

You had no option since if you didn't do it, Reapers would have an edge with Collectors around and many colonist would suffer.
You had to make a tough decision without going in blindly.

I mean, only Cerberus bother to do anything with Collectors( which is like one of their very few good things they ever did) and was capable to do it.

So if you stayed with Council and/or Alliance, you would do jacksh*t in ME2.

Hell, you wouldn't even do Arrival since you wouldn't have "KIA" public status and have some ship with stealth engine to sneak to Bahak system( and that's with passing through Terminus Systems and Batarian Hegemony territory) unnoticed without Alliance insignia.

Well, had they left some characters out to focus on the Collectors some more, it'd have been great.

[Yezdigerd]

[quote]CptData wrote...
Why and how does it backfire?[/quote]

The problem isn't the large cast.The problem is that all of them can die. If only say Tali/legion or Miranda/Jack Garrus/Miranda could have died, without Shepard dying, things it would be much easier. Best would have
been if deaths had been scripted beyond player control.

[quote]You can call it “missing feature” or claim it “does happen off screen” or “Cerberus was blocking outgoing messages” but that’s not correct. Reaction of Ashley or Kaidan shows Shepard never tried to contact them.[/quote]

It would have been nice. mostly how to explain why Shepard turns to Cerberus, if Shepard tries to talk to Andersson etc and the collector threat was dismissed then joining Cerberus makes sense. That talking with Mom can play out off screen. You can ask Andersson about the VS and be stonewalled so your complaint about that is sorted as well. [/quote]


[quote]Death of Shepard[/quote]

Pointless and poor storytelling but I don't see the plothole. Unless you wonder why postmortem brain reconstruction
isn’t followed up since there should be some interest.


[quote]The one who talked down Saren and Wrex fails when talking to the VS. [/quote]

Well I would say the VS PMS-aggression was a greater problem then Shepard’s Derp responses.The storytellers
want to cut the VS off because every time s/he appear it doubles cost for half the payoff. Hence why Liara gets a DLC but not them. Which is why all might-be-dead squadmates will suffer so in ME3.


[quote]Easy. Since the main plot of ME2 got riddled by plot holes, the plot appears to be unfinished. Basically it’s just a
mission about gathering allies and kicking someone’s ass to oblivion: it’s not  the most sophisticated plot, at least it’s entertaining.[/quote]

The problem with the ME2 plot isn’t holes, it’s that there is no plot beyond what you just wrote. Smudboy made a
lot of good points here, most of what you do in ME2 have no relevance at all to stopping the collectors.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 30 novembre 2011 - 06:35 .

[Alex_SM]

I don't think the "Die and come back" thing was a bad one, but it would be easy to just have the collector's attacking colonies, the alliance and the council saying they couldn't do anything because it happens outside it's space and Cerberus being the only organization willing to help Shepard. They just need to spend some time of the game to put Shepard in a position wjere he is willing to accept their help. 

And you can still have your crew lost around the galaxy, because after all the Sarens fuzz went cold the team was broken (Ash called by the alliance, Tali by the Quarians, Garrus returned to Seg C and eventually went rogue... etc..).

Modifié par Alex_SM, 30 novembre 2011 - 06:26 .

[Alex_SM]

For me the main problem of ME2 is that ME3 is most likely to turn it irrelevant.

ME was relevant for the story on it's own, but ME2 is totally a build up for ME3.

To justify it's existence, ME2 needs some of it's elements to be key points in ME3:

-ME2 Squad (you spent like 75% of the game building your team, it MUST be relevant in the following game)
-Haestrom sun (too much focus during Tali's mission to just ignore it).
-Collector's base (or information about it if it gets destroyed).

If ME3 makes those key points, then ME2 plot is worth. If ME3 just doesn't take those into account, then ME2 story is a time filler.

[Troika0]

I'm inclined to stand behind everything Saphra Deden wrote with the exception of Mass Effects themes not having changed since the series never had any to begin with.

I'm also suprised you would consider Jack being more redundant than Samara. Certainly Jack is a pretty poorly written character (completely overdone), but her story at least features a Cerberus connection. That alone is more than Samara has; her shallow spiritualism doesn't intersect with any overarching narrative ideas at all.

Modifié par Troika0, 30 novembre 2011 - 06:46 .

[CerberusWarrior]

Well its sad when Bioware all but says with all the info for 3 that ME 2 was a side quest and not even really part of the ME Universe . If it was part of the story the ME 2 squad would at least have some members on the squad in 3 . but no its a ME 1 / Vs filled squad in 3

[Sgt Stryker]

CerberusWarrior wrote...

Well its sad when Bioware all but says with all the info for 3 that ME 2 was a side quest and not even really part of the ME Universe . If it was part of the story the ME 2 squad would at least have some members on the squad in 3 . but no its a ME 1 / Vs filled squad in 3

ME2 is not a fanfic.

[CptData]

Thank you guys for the feedback. I'll address some of the postings with a
short answer and will try to explain why I think so and not
differently.

Captain Filibuster wrote...

you bring up some good points but RPG fans complain about everything

Indeed.
Must say, I wrote this stuff from writer's PoV, not as a gamer. That's
difficult to separate, but that was my intention. That's why I didn't
spent much time on features - I just named some missing ones and why
they could have been important, not more.

Mesina2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I
agree that the death was a pretty bad move. Could've just said "Two
years after the battle of the Citadel" and then give people different
reasons to leave or another event that held the tension for a little
longer than five minutes, like the Collector attack.

But then there would be no reason for Paragon Shepard to work with Cerberus.


So hence entire work for Cerberus plot wouldn't work, which Bioware aimed for.

I believe the Cerberus plot could have worked without Shepard's death. I think I mentioned that Shepard could be used as special agent infiltrating Cerberus. S/he is a Spectre but still reports to the Alliance and so far, Cerberus is part of internal affairs of the Alliance. Could have worked. The difference between "Paragon" and "Renegade" is, that a renegade!Shepard could defect to Cerberus (because s/he believes Cerberus can deal better with the Reapers) while a paragon!Shepard -might- believe that but stays loyal to the Alliance and the Council.

Works fine for me, but that's just my opinion.

Andorfiend wrote...

I read it all. I'm not sure I agree completely.

Once
you accept that ME 2 was the Dirty Dozen in Space, then the structure
and characters follow. The characters ARE the point of a Dirty Dozen
movie.

Besides, I'd challange your priority on the Biotics. Jack
furthers the plot/theme by illustrating what totally incompetant ****s
Cerberus are. What does Samara/Morinth do to further the plot or
illustrate the universe? She's an Asari paladin. Nice to know they have
them, but it doesn't have much to do with Shepards story.

Aside
from that... yes. there are a lot of plot holes, and some of them just
seem to be either lazy writing or a simply failure for the new team to
read the codex from ME 1.

Accepted.
However, I think we had enough evidence in ME1 Cerberus can not be trusted and has a tendency to do ungodly deeds. Violating several children for their goals makes them just even more evil - actually, Cerberus felt like "Space N*zis" in Jack's LM. There is no good in experimentation with children, not a bit. Must say, after doing that mission I wished so hard I could simply leave Cerberus and go back to the Alliance, not without blasting the Minute Man station sky high ... errr ... yes.

Besides that - since it came up several times, I think Samara is a bit more interesting than Jack, but needs more character development like most characters in ME2. Could say the same about Jack, but we already have one human biotic in the crew (Miranda), Samara is a nice variety.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Interesting post, CptData. You are
right on the money for the most part. Though I don't know why you would
choose Samara over Jack. Jack has so much more personality. Samara is so
****ing boring and monotone. Just my opinion though.

I
understand that Bioware wanted a game where Shepard puts together a
large team, but in retrospect I don't think it worked well and I don't
think it was a good idea. ME2 as a whole feels like a big waste to me,
if an entertaining and mostly satisfying one.

Characters are wasted, time was wasted, concepts were wasted.

The
game absolutely needed a smaller squad roster and a tighter focus on
the main plot. The main plot as well needed to move the over-arching
plot of the series forward as well. This is something ME2 failed to do.

Shepard's
goals and knowledge by the end of ME2 are no different than they were
at the beginning. We know a tiny bit more about the Reapers, but nothing
that actually changes how we view them or how we will fight them. The
themes haven't changed, the nature of the conflict is the same.

Nice synopsis, especially the "colored part" (done by me).

The main plot feels a bit too short, especially compared against ME1. Yes, you can stretch the game to up to fourty hours without much boring moments (while you had several such moments in ME1, especially since every planet looks the same), but you spent far too much time NOT doing that mission. I thought time is essential? Why does Shepard spend months to gather a team, even more months to make them loyal before taking on the Collectors? I don't get it.

To make things worse - and that's no fault of that DLC - "Arrival" makes the plot of ME2 pretty much useless. The Reapers are coming. They're close. At the end of that DLC you know they're here, all they need is to go to the next Mass Relay. Somehow a lot of tension gets taken away, especially when you do Arrival before the SM. There's no point to concentrate on the Collectors anymore - they're not much of a threat with only one Cruiser compared against a full armada of Reapers. All you need is to take that evidence (mission log?) to Hackett, tell him what happened, face the music and prepare the fleet. 'nuff said.

onelifecrisis wrote...

I started reading but I must say
it's a rather rambling post. It lacks any sense of direction. I skipped
to the end to see if there was a Conclusion or Summary or TLDR but
instead there's just a note saying "I could keep going but I think I'll
stop here". Not a good sign, so for now...

tl;dr

Direction is "Characters", "Plot Holes", "Features". I stopped because I ran out of time at work - it took full six hours to write & correct it. I could write a second part if you like, including a synopsis, I'm sure it'll be so long no one will spend time to read it.

However, my focus was on "plot holes" and "characters" and that has been done.

zsom wrote...

@CptData

I really disagree with you,
but I'm afraid to answer, because you seem exactly like a guy who really
likes to argue . So I'll keep my answer as short as possible.

Companions
and main plot: No link between them what so ever. BG1 had zero
companions actually relevant to the plot. DAO had 2, NWN had 0, KotOR
had 1. Companions aren't redundant just because the main plot doesn't
need them. They are there to give you options, to allow you to play with
the squad you choose, so none of them are redundant.

Plot holes:
what you see as one, is your opinion and not a fact. I am happy with
how they brought Shep back to life, and frankly I like it a lot more
than your version... sorry

VS: I also wanted a DLC like LotSB with the VS, well... we didn't get one. Get over it.
Morinth:
I don't see the reason why they should have expanded here character
more. You can be killed by her if you choose her instead of Samara. I
think that is enough consequence for an average companion.

Of couse - you can disagree

And I concur - characters do NOT need to be linked directly to the plot. However, if you get a full bunch of characters not linked to the story, why including them as main characters? I concur if you say "Gianna Parasini has not much to do with the plot": yes, that's right. But most of the ME2 cast has even less influence on the main story than Gianna who at least was needed in ME1 to get rid of that Administrator (paragon option if I remember correctly). She's no member of your party, won't ever become one, was never intended to become one at any given point in the series. However, she got almost more development than some of the main cast in ME2 - why that?

About plot holes: I think they're pretty much visible to everyone and I picked just some of them. Of course you can say "BW intended to leave space for player's imagination" - that's something I accept. However, if you can park the entire fifth fleet in a plot hole, there's a tad too much space for "player's imagination", don't you think?


Okay, that's for now, I can smell burnt gyros ...

[CptData]

This one needs an extra posting:

Yezdigerd wrote...

CptData wrote...
Why and how does it backfire?

The problem isn't the large cast.The problem is that all of them can die. If only say Tali/legion or Miranda/Jack Garrus/Miranda could have died, without Shepard dying, things it would be much easier. Best would have
been if deaths had been scripted beyond player control.

I can't concur. If any squadmates deaths are scripted and can't be avoided, the entire "decide and shape destiny" part gets obsolete. I want to be able to decide who to save and who not. Of course, I'll try everything to get all of Shepard's friends and comrades through the game.

The problem is: out of 12 available squadmates 12 can die. Means: ALL of them. And even if two survive, there's no rule those two have to be the same in every playthrough, therefore ME3 must handle all squadmates of ME2 as "could be dead". If you try to write a plot relying on those characters, you'll end in situations you can't solve anymore. Or you need "replacements" like "Gali" and "Tarrus" - which feels like cheating.

With a reduced roster in ME2 BW wouldn't need to write missions and story elements for 12 squadmates but maybe for just 7 or 8. That means more capacity for other elements of the game. Scripted deaths & survival of certain members would have done the same if you say only A, B and C will make it through the game, but then we're back at the point that the player's decision have no influence at all.

You can call it “missing feature” or claim it “does happen off screen” or “Cerberus was blocking outgoing messages” but that’s not correct. Reaction of Ashley or Kaidan shows Shepard never tried to contact them.

It would have been nice. mostly how to explain why Shepard turns to Cerberus, if Shepard tries to talk to Andersson etc and the collector threat was dismissed then joining Cerberus makes sense. That talking with Mom can play out off screen. You can ask Andersson about the VS and be stonewalled so your complaint about that is sorted as well.

Stonewalling makes only sense before Horizon and only when talking about the mission. Since Anderson does react differently as soon as you're done with Horizon, why is it IMPOSSIBLE to ask him for a meeting with the VS? That option should have been given post Horizon.

Death of Shepard

Pointless and poor storytelling but I don't see the plothole. Unless you wonder why postmortem brain reconstruction isn’t followed up since there should be some interest.

The plot hole is regarding the missing explanation of Shepard's returning mind (greybox?). It is ALSO at the same time some kind of plot device to make Shepard to an agent of Cerberus. Also a "plot hole" but only if you consider Shepard's death as "plot device" - without that death, there's no way Shepard would work for Cerberus except s/he infiltrates said organization.

The entire "Lazarus" plot is odd and doesn't belong to the ME universe since it feels like magic in an universe that relies on "authentic" technology and science.

The one who talked down Saren and Wrex fails when talking to the VS.

Well I would say the VS PMS-aggression was a greater problem then Shepard’s Derp responses.The storytellers
want to cut the VS off because every time s/he appear it doubles cost for half the payoff. Hence why Liara gets a DLC but not them. Which is why all might-be-dead squadmates will suffer so in ME3.

They could easily add the VS to the story plot without producing any extra costs by reducing the roster of ME2 cast by two characters. They had the time and money to create a new squad double the size of the old one full of characters which are just there to fit the number.

Easy. Since the main plot of ME2 got riddled by plot holes, the plot appears to be unfinished. Basically it’s just a mission about gathering allies and kicking someone’s ass to oblivion: it’s not  the most sophisticated plot, at least it’s entertaining.

The problem with the ME2 plot isn’t holes, it’s that there is no plot beyond what you just wrote. Smudboy made a
lot of good points here, most of what you do in ME2 have no relevance at all to stopping the collectors.

I don't listen to Smudboy, but I'm sure he made some points too. Maybe even more.

[lauda69]

i agree that there are many plot holes in the game but if you acually talk to the characters in your part some of the ones you say area fillers have quite a bit of depth, for the large size of your crew, samara, jack, miranda, mordin, thane, legion,.
could they have been written better, yes
could the main story had more content, yes
did shepards death create a big plot hole mabye, there are details that get explain in the shadow broker dlc, and its a sci fi game mabye they can bring back the brain with minimal damge, you area immediatly frozen after you plummet from space

[zsom]

CptData wrote...
...
Of couse - you can disagree

And I concur - characters do NOT need to be linked directly to the plot. However, if you get a full bunch of characters not linked to the story, why including them as main characters? I concur if you say "Gianna Parasini has not much to do with the plot": yes, that's right. But most of the ME2 cast has even less influence on the main story than Gianna who at least was needed in ME1 to get rid of that Administrator (paragon option if I remember correctly). She's no member of your party, won't ever become one, was never intended to become one at any given point in the series. However, she got almost more development than some of the main cast in ME2 - why that?

About plot holes: I think they're pretty much visible to everyone and I picked just some of them. Of course you can say "BW intended to leave space for player's imagination" - that's something I accept. However, if you can park the entire fifth fleet in a plot hole, there's a tad too much space for "player's imagination", don't you think?
Okay, that's for now, I can smell burnt gyros ...

Well NPCs are there to drive the plot, you get most of your quests (main and side) from them. While companions are there, as I already said, to give you options.
If you don't like one of them, then you can choose the other. Dislike Garrus, but still need a sniper? Take Legion or Thane. Dislike Cerberus but still need a tank? Take Grunt.

And again every single rpg made by Bioware is full to the rim with companions (not NPCs!) which are totally replaceable. Most of them have nothing to do with the plot.
Example: in BG1 two of the most powerful clerics are Viconia or Branwen. Neither of them are very closely attached to the main plot. Branwen at least has a common enemy with you, but you just stumble across Viconia. Still neither of them was redundant. Branwen was more of a warrior, while Viconia usually died from 2 hits, but had more spells. And that gave you options. The same applies for ME2 as well.

Also: mmmhh gyros... how I love that.

Modifié par zsom, 30 novembre 2011 - 07:39 .

[FlyinElk212]

Aw man. I was pretty disappointed when I read this topic. I was expecting something along the lines of, "The series is suffering because ME2's cut content is sorely needed. The Citadel extra content would've...[blah blah blahdy blah]." or "The fight between Grunt/Mordin that got cut from ME2 would've been perfect for setting up ______ in ME3". You know?

Instead we get a criticism thread of ME2 that looks very familiar. I think you should either change the topic headline, because it's a little misleading, or this topic should be moved to the Mass Effect 2 subforum.

[Computer_God91]

 tl;dr

[Someone With Mass]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

CerberusWarrior wrote...

Well its sad when Bioware all but says with all the info for 3 that ME 2 was a side quest and not even really part of the ME Universe . If it was part of the story the ME 2 squad would at least have some members on the squad in 3 . but no its a ME 1 / Vs filled squad in 3

ME2 is not a fanfic.

No, he's just mad because Cerberus actually turned out to be evil.

Big shock, when TIM is doing everything that defines a villain except twirling his mustache at you.

[Had-to-say]

When recruitment missions are too similar, the execution of the mission gets tiresome too familiar and predictable. I will travel to said planet and recruit said character, rinse and repeat. I just wish recruitment could be more organic.