580 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

111987 wrote...
Shepard was described as "meat and tubes". So his body definitely wasn't intact.

Plus the damage from Alchera's low temperatures would have caused neural decay.

There is simply no way Shepard's brain was perfectly preserved. Meaning his memories shouldn't be intact either.

1) Did I say that he wasn't meat and tubes? I have seen full bodies who have just been the victims of decay. They are not good looking either.

2) Everything would have caused neural decay. If, however, submarines, vehicles first introduced in sci-fi can exist a few centuries later, then so can fixing neural decay. I have seen people bring thermodynamics and quantum mechanics into this, but they are wrong because no one said that Shepard made a 100% recovery.

In fact, Shepard is full of metalic thingies here and there.

3) Why would Alchera's temperature cause more damage? If Shepard's ME2 helmet can withstand the cold, why no the ME1 one?

4) If Locard's principle is to be taken literally, then any exchange should leave some data around. Data that could by itself, help restructuring Shepard's brain. It's quite laughable how few things we know about how the brain operates as a single unit anyway.

[Nightwriter]

The game presents us with a throwaway enemy, which naturally makes it hard to feel a sense of accomplishment. I would've vastly preferred a scenario where we knew about the existence of the Collector base ahead of time, and seizing it was our ultimate objective. Saving the colonies would be important and desirable, but secondary in the grand scheme of things.

[Spanky Magoo]

Yea it kinda blows about the me2 squaddies I came to like (far more than the me1 crew) but im still hopeful, as for ME2 Its my favorite game right now and It was far better than I hoped. I am a little dissappointed however with building the most badass crew in the galaxy to fight the reapers in ME2 and now im going to be stuck with the vs, vega and tali ugh, but its war so Shepards got to make due with the scrubs I guess.

[Andorfiend]

Calinstel wrote...

These changes upset/irritated many many fans and in the end, ME2 failed to explain just why. It is that lack of clear explanation that is at the root of all arguments.

I think it doesn't help that they slap you in the face with the changes in the 1st 30 seconds of the game while making it clear that they will explain nothing.

Shepard: "I don't have a thermal clip for this pistol!"
Me: Really? Giving that thermal clips were invented during the 2 years you spent dead, how do you even know they exist?

On the other hand, that could be considered evidence that whatever project Lazarus did, they did do some mental tinkering, because how else could Shepard know what a thermal clip was? Of course, they never followed up on that plot element either, even as Shepard stares at his glowing scars in the mirror

[111987]

Phaedon wrote...

111987 wrote...
Shepard was described as "meat and tubes". So his body definitely wasn't intact.

Plus the damage from Alchera's low temperatures would have caused neural decay.

There is simply no way Shepard's brain was perfectly preserved. Meaning his memories shouldn't be intact either.

1) Did I say that he wasn't meat and tubes? I have seen full bodies who have just been the victims of decay. They are not good looking either.

2) Everything would have caused neural decay. If, however, submarines, vehicles first introduced in sci-fi can exist a few centuries later, then so can fixing neural decay. I have seen people bring thermodynamics and quantum mechanics into this, but they are wrong because no one said that Shepard made a 100% recovery.

In fact, Shepard is full of metalic thingies here and there.

3) Why would Alchera's temperature cause more damage? If Shepard's ME2 helmet can withstand the cold, why no the ME1 one?

4) If Locard's principle is to be taken literally, then any exchange should leave some data around. Data that could by itself, help restructuring Shepard's brain. It's quite laughable how few things we know about how the brain operates as a single unit anyway.

1. I never said you said he was meat and tubes I brought that up because that means Shepard's brain wasn't intact, as your were implying in the original post.

2. Shepard's memories did make a full recovery, which they should not have.

3. Well we saw in ME1 how the suits could only take a few minutes of cold temperatures before it simply became too cold (and you started losing health). The same would be the case here.

4. Where did this idea even come from???

ANYWAYS, like I said I really don't care, so let's just drop this debate.

[H00plehead]

I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.

There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:

The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?

The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.

Am I off in my analysis?

Modifié par H00plehead, 06 décembre 2011 - 05:14 .

[onelifecrisis]

H00plehead wrote...

I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.

There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:

The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?

The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.

Am I off in my analysis?

Not "off", but for me personally, I just want to say that I never set out with the intention of analysing a story, I just try to enjoy it. When a story is good there's no need for any analysis. When a story doesn't make sense to me, when I have no idea why the things I'm seeing/hearing/reading are happening, then I have no choice but to analyse the story to try to make sense of it. Sometimes a story that doesn't seem to make sense actually does make sense when you stop being a "passive consumer" and think about it. Other times it just falls apart (I'm looking at you, ME2).

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 06 décembre 2011 - 04:27 .

[111987]

H00plehead wrote...

I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.

There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:

The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?

The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.

Am I off in my analysis?

Personally I see both 'groups' in myself. I am critical of Mass Effect 2, but I try to avoid a snowball effect. For example, I don't like how the Lazarus Project was handled, but my thought process isn't "The lazarus project sucked...which means Shepard's death was stupid...meaning I hate the Collectors...so why did we have to recruit all these squadmates for the idiotic Collector foe...I HATE MASS EFFECT 2 AND BIOWARE!!!"

As long as I enjoy the game and story, I'll take a more laid back approach.

[AlexXIV]

H00plehead wrote...

I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.

There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:

The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?

The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.

Am I off in my analysis?

I think it is a good analysis and I fit in the 2nd category. I have no problem with the story because I enjoyed it, no matter how irrelevant it was to ME1 or ME3. If it's just a filler then it was a pretty good one and worth every cent and second I spent on it. All I can say is sry for those who don't feel that way.

Maybe I should also add that I was a bit disappointed in ME1 actually because of lack of companion interaction, which ME2 made up for. Maybe that's why I don't mind the thinner main storyline. If you take ME and ME2 together I feel not much lacking and I can overlook a few plots in the story that ... well ... better not be there or should have been done differently.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 04:36 .

[DiebytheSword]

111987 wrote...

H00plehead wrote...

I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.

There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:

The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?

The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.

Am I off in my analysis?

Personally I see both 'groups' in myself. I am critical of Mass Effect 2, but I try to avoid a snowball effect. For example, I don't like how the Lazarus Project was handled, but my thought process isn't "The lazarus project sucked...which means Shepard's death was stupid...meaning I hate the Collectors...so why did we have to recruit all these squadmates for the idiotic Collector foe...I HATE MASS EFFECT 2 AND BIOWARE!!!"

As long as I enjoy the game and story, I'll take a more laid back approach.

This so much.  There were things in both Mass Effects that I didn't like, but in the end I liked the package as a  whole and didn't allow the broken stuff to ruin the game for me.

I'm not paid to do game reviews and be critical, I enjoy my time in the ME universe despite the occasional facepalm.

[Candidate 88766]

AlexXIV wrote...

H00plehead wrote...

I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.

There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:

The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?

The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.

Am I off in my analysis?

I think it is a good analysis and I fit in the 2nd category. I have no problem with the story because I enjoyed it, no matter how irrelevant it was to ME1 or ME3. If it's just a filler then it was a pretty good one and worth every cent and second I spent on it. All I can say is sry for those who don't feel that way.

Maybe I should also add that I was a bit disappointed in ME1 actually because of lack of companion interaction, which ME2 made up for. Maybe that's why I don't mind the thinner main storyline. If you take ME and ME2 together I feel not much lacking and I can overlook a few plots in the story that ... well ... better not be there or should have been done differently.

Yeah I feel kinda the same. Regardless of how relevant it was to the Reaper storyline I still found it enjoyable, and I personally found the characters in ME2 to be so much better than those in ME1 that I was willing to look past the thinner overall story because the character stories more than made up for that, imo.

I don't mind that it didn't advance the plot hugely - I had a great time playing it, and still do, and frankly thats what I found important. It added plenty to the ME universe, and expanded on what I thought was already ME1's strongest point - the characters - so I can forgive it not also expanding vastly on the Reaper storyline. Besides, ME1 was mainly about Saren and the Geth and ME2 was mainly about the Collectors and your squad - the Reapers were always going to be left until part three.

[H00plehead]

Okay, I'm glad people are so amenable to my observation. I honestly tried hard not to word it in such a way that would immediately offend and turn off people, especially those in group 2 who I, perhaps inadvisable, referred to as passive consumers (I realize no one likes having their beliefs or motivations questioned or marginalized, but I couldn't think of a more inviting way of putting it. There was no malice or smugness intended).

For my part, I have to stand with the group that feels Mass Effect 2 doesn't stand up well to critical analysis. In fact, I'd say the whole series is a bit of a logical quagmire. I did however enjoy ME2's side stories, which comprise the bulk of the game, and how they were structured. Having everything so compartmentalized made it, for me, easy to forget the larger plots problems and just enjoy the smaller subplots for their own sake, despite them not really having much thematically in common with one another.

[AlexXIV]

H00plehead wrote...

Okay, I'm glad people are so amenable to my observation. I honestly tried hard not to word it in such a way that would immediately offend and turn off people, especially those in group 2 who I, perhaps inadvisable, referred to as passive consumers (I realize no one likes having their beliefs or motivations questioned or marginalized, but I couldn't think of a more inviting way of putting it. There was no malice or smugness intended).

For my part, I have to stand with the group that feels Mass Effect 2 doesn't stand up well to critical analysis. In fact, I'd say the whole series is a bit of a logical quagmire. I did however enjoy ME2's side stories, which comprise the bulk of the game, and how they were structured. Having everything so compartmentalized made it, for me, easy to forget the larger plots problems and just enjoy the smaller subplots for their own sake, despite them not really having much thematically in common with one another.

Well in the first moment I was a bit offended tbh. Passive is not really what I want to be. But tbh if you like something, will you be overly critic about some minor flaws? I don't think so. I mean if you start to critisize all and everything, even in things you like, then you will have a very sad and unsatisfying life.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 05:04 .

[LinksOcarina]

111987 wrote...

Adugan wrote...

The thing with the collectors is, that there was no hint of them in ME1, and not a trace left in ME3. They were a plot mechanism that simply disappears, since you can even destroy their base. Potentially nothing will remain of them in ME3.

The bolded part is what I feel is the Collector's main problem. If they had been foreshadowed, or there had been a sidequest about them, it wouldn't have felt so out of the blue and fillerish.

I am a page late, but why would Shepard and company find evidence of the Collectors when the original plan (Saren/Geth/Mass Effect Relay) was still in motion? We wouldn't see the Collectors because they are a 1) Rare sight to begin with for the galaxy and 2) Only do unusual trading for fringe groups in the Terminus systems. 

So even a mission showing them in Mass Effect would be out of place; because there is no reason for the Reapers to use the Collectors as a backup plan since they were so confident on the fac t that they would succeed.

And since the Collectors are technically modified Protheans, it makes sense to use them as a plan B after Shepard and company stops Soverign and the Geth. It also makes sensen why there would be no more of them, mainly because they are all kind of connected with a hive-mind mentality, as we saw with Harbringer controlling the main drone until it's death.

So from a narrative standpoint, bringing them in during the second chapter makes sense, since in the first chapter they would cause a continuity error for the games timeline. The only reason the collectors were involved is because Shepard stopped them. This is also why Shepard was targetted first, and why during his years dead they flourished by keeping things quiet and abducting colonies en-masse.

So in effect, the Collectors are a huge threat, but an unseen one that way, one that Shepard stops because he hits the collectors base of operations.

[111987]

[quote]LinksOcarina wrote...

[quote]111987 wrote...

[quote]Adugan wrote...

The thing with the collectors is, that there was no hint of them in ME1, and not a trace left in ME3. They were a plot mechanism that simply disappears, since you can even destroy their base. Potentially nothing will remain of them in ME3.[/quote]

The bolded part is what I feel is the Collector's main problem. If they had been foreshadowed, or there had been a sidequest about them, it wouldn't have felt so out of the blue and fillerish.

[/quote]

I am a page late, but why would Shepard and company find evidence of the Collectors when the original plan (Saren/Geth/Mass Effect Relay) was still in motion? We wouldn't see the Collectors because they are a 1) Rare sight to begin with for the galaxy and 2) Only do unusual trading for fringe groups in the Terminus systems. [/quote]

The Collectors were still around during the events of ME1, just not actively engaged in the Reaper's plot. A mission idea could have been as simple as taking out a group of Collectors trying to make a deal with some slavers, which then unlocks a Codex entry.

That way, they are introduced, but nothing is known about them still. We have no idea who they are, what they want, their connection with the Reapers, etc...


[/quote]

[onelifecrisis]

[quote]111987 wrote...

[quote]LinksOcarina wrote...

[quote]111987 wrote...

[quote]Adugan wrote...

The thing with the collectors is, that there was no hint of them in ME1, and not a trace left in ME3. They were a plot mechanism that simply disappears, since you can even destroy their base. Potentially nothing will remain of them in ME3.[/quote]

The bolded part is what I feel is the Collector's main problem. If they had been foreshadowed, or there had been a sidequest about them, it wouldn't have felt so out of the blue and fillerish.

[/quote]

I am a page late, but why would Shepard and company find evidence of the Collectors when the original plan (Saren/Geth/Mass Effect Relay) was still in motion? We wouldn't see the Collectors because they are a 1) Rare sight to begin with for the galaxy and 2) Only do unusual trading for fringe groups in the Terminus systems. [/quote]

The Collectors were still around during the events of ME1, just not actively engaged in the Reaper's plot. A mission idea could have been as simple as taking out a group of Collectors trying to make a deal with some slavers, which then unlocks a Codex entry.

That way, they are introduced, but nothing is known about them still. We have no idea who they are, what they want, their connection with the Reapers, etc...


[/quote]
[/quote]

I like the idea of a collector mission or reference in ME1, but for me it'd be better if a connection to the reapers was mentioned up front. One of the most facepalmworthy moments in ME2, for me, was when Shepard says to TIM "how do you know the reapers are involved" and TIM replies "it's buried in the data" and Shepard, unbelievably, accepts TIM's word for it.

[Someone With Mass]

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

111987 wrote...

Adugan wrote...

The thing with the collectors is, that there was no hint of them in ME1, and not a trace left in ME3. They were a plot mechanism that simply disappears, since you can even destroy their base. Potentially nothing will remain of them in ME3.

The bolded part is what I feel is the Collector's main problem. If they had been foreshadowed, or there had been a sidequest about them, it wouldn't have felt so out of the blue and fillerish.

I am a page late, but why would Shepard and company find evidence of the Collectors when the original plan (Saren/Geth/Mass Effect Relay) was still in motion? We wouldn't see the Collectors because they are a 1) Rare sight to begin with for the galaxy and 2) Only do unusual trading for fringe groups in the Terminus systems. 

So even a mission showing them in Mass Effect would be out of place; because there is no reason for the Reapers to use the Collectors as a backup plan since they were so confident on the fac t that they would succeed.

And since the Collectors are technically modified Protheans, it makes sense to use them as a plan B after Shepard and company stops Soverign and the Geth. It also makes sensen why there would be no more of them, mainly because they are all kind of connected with a hive-mind mentality, as we saw with Harbringer controlling the main drone until it's death.

So from a narrative standpoint, bringing them in during the second chapter makes sense, since in the first chapter they would cause a continuity error for the games timeline. The only reason the collectors were involved is because Shepard stopped them. This is also why Shepard was targetted first, and why during his years dead they flourished by keeping things quiet and abducting colonies en-masse.

So in effect, the Collectors are a huge threat, but an unseen one that way, one that Shepard stops because he hits the collectors base of operations.

The thing is that, from a narrative standpoint, you don't even need to include them in the plot. Just a few mentions of Collectors and perhaps a small sidemission containing exposition on who they are (rarely-seen insectoid species) and where they originate from (from beyond an unexplored mass relay in the Terminus Systems) would have been enough. Foreshadowing the existence of ME2's main villain in ME1... there's no reason that Bioware couldn't have written in a mission to serve that purpose.

[AlexXIV]

If we're honest it doesn't matter much whether the Collectors are mentioned in ME1 or not. Some people don't like that Bioware was 'lazy' (as in a bit neglecting) on the main plot in favor of companion and side quests. I think it's ok to be disappointed if you expected more. I also think it's ok what Bioware actually did. I don't know what they promised in advertising, that's a bit of a bad habit maybe from Bioware to promise stuff they don't deliver. But being someone who jumped late on the ME train and therefore missed all of the advertising I love the game as it is.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 05:32 .

[Thompson family]

Re: OP

The point of ME2 was to show Cerberus' transformation from a fringe group into a major antagonist in ME3.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter.

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 06 décembre 2011 - 05:36 .

[onelifecrisis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

A lot of people work to not be noticed and yet somehow end up getting very noticed indeed. Aria knows about Shepard before he even gets to Omega. TIM knows how to find the SB, knows where a dead reaper is, and (crucially to this point) knows about the Collectors before Shepard does. Okeer also seems to know about the Collector attacks. The SB knows just about everything about everyone (he even knew about the reapers before Shepard did, somehow). Liara knows where to find Thane. Secrets are very badly kept in the ME universe.

Also,

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter. 

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

^ what he said.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 06 décembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Nathander Von Eric]

What was the point of ME2?

*Sputters* Did you see that a....*Cough cough* ......that but?

Will that great but...er.....I mean Miranda be back for ME3?

Hmmm.....let me just check here.........Yes? Yes.

Ahh. Right then. No worries mate. I'm good.

In all seriousness. As much as I loved ME1, and I really did love it, I really liked the direction ME2 went and enjoyed the story, characters and game play even more.

[Yezdigerd]

IsaacShep wrote...
Destroying the Collectors & Human-Reaper does make the difference. But it's ME3 spoilers territory, so don't expect people to talk about it here.

Even if killing the babyreaper will end up traumatizing them into incapacity, there is no indication of it in the ME2 story. Any difference will be accidental not impacting the story of ME2 itself.

The Two towers is a great example of act 2 done right. The heroes never confront Sauron or his power directly. Frodo negotiates a way into Mordor(viewed as a near impossible thing, yet required to destroy the ring, and Gandalf and co eliminates Saruman that was to keep Rohan pinned, while Sauron dealt with Gondor.  Both things are instrumental to the resolution of the story and makes sense. You never need to ask what was the point of fighting Saruman.