having played through the entire trilogy twice in the past 2 weeks, I can say that it was absolutely foreshadowed since the first game, that the Reapers were not going to be defeated by conventional means....so....F4H bandicoot wrote...
They only made that poibt in 3. Everything else I have done suggests otherwise.
Why Does everyone think ME2 was SO amazing??
Débuté par
Xemnas07
, juil. 18 2012 10:08
#176
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:10
Mcfly616
-
- Members
- 8 998 messages
Retour en haut
#177
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:12
Xemnas07
-
- Members
- 377 messages
Mcfly616 wrote...
having played through the entire trilogy twice in the past 2 weeks, I can say that it was absolutely foreshadowed since the first game, that the Reapers were not going to be defeated by conventional means....so....F4H bandicoot wrote...
They only made that poibt in 3. Everything else I have done suggests otherwise.
+10
#178
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:13
F4H bandicoot
-
- Members
- 1 247 messages
And what is your definition of conventional?
#179
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:13
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
[quote]Xemnas07 wrote...
One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then.[/quote]
Strawman argument. ME2 wasn't the end of the franchise, and by that time, there was far mroe than enough time to plan ways to include the ME1 cast in ME3. By the end, there should be ample content for each major character, which there is objectively not.
[quote]Another huge complaint was that your choices from ME2 (Collector base choice, rachni, etc.) had little to no impact in ME3...... What? NOT ONE SINGLE choice from ME1 was reflected with great significant impact on ME2, the only choices that were really apparent was your choice of councilor and whether you saved the council or saved the humans, and those had VERY little impact on the game as a whole.[/quote]
Baseless argument. Again, ME2 didn't close out the trilogy, and not every subplot was meant to come to a close.
[quote]Yet another complaint was that ME3 voided everything from ME1, are you kididng? the ENTIRE main plot of ME2 had NOTHING to do with what happened in ME1, and the story archs are kinda side-lined (such as Wrex being Clan Urdnot's leader) and were only gave a mention in a convo with said character. The only thing ME2 added to the story as a whole was that the Protheans were turned into slaves.... okay? Cool. Couldnt put that into a DLC?[/quote]
Were you expecting them to defeat the Reapers before the climax of the trilogy? Why didn't Luke the defeat the Emperor in Empire Strikes Back?
[quote]People complain that the RPG factor was dumbed down in ME3 and forgotten..... again, HUH? in ME2, there was almost NO rpg factor, Besides having more Dialogue choices in convos than ME3 (which people complained ruined the flow of a dramatic scene) everything else was even less RPG than ME3. For example, that leveling system was a lot more simple and less complex, less choices, less points, less levels, etc. There was less armor choice and a LOT less weapon choice with NO mods whatsoever. The only real RPG factor was the upgrades, and those were hell to get as you had to scan countless planets for minerals.[/quote]
I've never seen this complained about. If anything, people say it was improved over ME2.
[quote]The combat system was good, but got kinda boring; take cover, shoot til it's dead, move up, repeat. They improved the combat system GREATLY with better maps and a dive roll. ADDING A DIVE ROLL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GENERIC SHOOTER!! THERE IS A REASON IT IS A SUCCESSFUL GAMEPLAY MECHANIC!! The roll simply makes for better and more exhilirating combat.[/quote]
ME3's combat is ME2's combat, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls and flips. Yay?
[quote]The last complaint is that ME3 was too short; about 25 hrs on insanity and completionist playthrough. ME2 was 30 hours as the same, and HALF the game dealt with loyalty missions which had NOTHING to do with the main story. Sure the loyalty of your team affected the outcome of the suicide mission, but that's ALL it did for ME2. Don't get me wrong, I liked the loyalty mission aspect, but when HALF the game (15hrs, maybe less) is based on them, that just sidelines the main plot, which again, had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from ME1 and added NOTHING to the overall plot of the trilogy. Oh, and ME2 was not about fighting Reapers (people complain that ME3 was about fighting Cerberus, not reapers) it was about fighting the collectors, and besides Husks and the occasional Harby possession, there was no fighting of the Reapers.[/quote]
You are fully aware that almost all of the marketing for ME2, as well as the comments ON THE BACK OF THE BOX FOR THE GAME are about building your team and earning their loyalty, right?
If you want to go that route, none of the games in the trilogy involved you fighting Reapers. In ME1 you fought geth, not Reapers. In ME2 you fought the Collectors, not Reapers. In ME3 you fight Cerberus, not Reapers. Never mind that, out of the 3, the Collectors are the sub-enemy with the deepest connection to the Reapers.
[quote]At least ME3 concludes MOST of the story archs that started ME1, and FOCUSES specifically on that. Granted it did not continue the Collector Base/Baby Reaper arch.[/quote]
The hell does this have to do with ME2?
[quote]ME2 was also quite buggy.[/quote]
So were ME1 and ME3. What's your point?
[/b][quote][b]Also, ME2 never really moved me or gave me goosebumps, except for Miranda saying, "I don't have that fire that youd do." etc, and Grunt saying "Shepard is my battlemaster, he has no match." ME3 moved me to tears, and gave me goosebumps every 2 seconds and made me jump for joy at times. Much better writing and focus on dialogue, char interactions, and action imo.[/quote]
You say this like it's fact, which it sure as sh*t isn't.
[quote]Now, ignoring ME3 endings, cuz I agree they sucked, and besides ME2 having more dialogue choices, are these NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUES people have with ME3? Or am I missing something? Hypocritical, dontcha think?[/quote]
No, they aren't. They might seem that way, but only because you're horribly miscontstruing thme to fit your argument.
[quote]In my opinion, people are letting their feelings for the endings affect how they feel about the rest of the game, causing them to ignore that ME2 had many of the same flaws, yet everyone praises ME2.[/quote]
Not even remotely "everyone" is praising ME2.
One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then.[/quote]
Strawman argument. ME2 wasn't the end of the franchise, and by that time, there was far mroe than enough time to plan ways to include the ME1 cast in ME3. By the end, there should be ample content for each major character, which there is objectively not.
[quote]Another huge complaint was that your choices from ME2 (Collector base choice, rachni, etc.) had little to no impact in ME3...... What? NOT ONE SINGLE choice from ME1 was reflected with great significant impact on ME2, the only choices that were really apparent was your choice of councilor and whether you saved the council or saved the humans, and those had VERY little impact on the game as a whole.[/quote]
Baseless argument. Again, ME2 didn't close out the trilogy, and not every subplot was meant to come to a close.
[quote]Yet another complaint was that ME3 voided everything from ME1, are you kididng? the ENTIRE main plot of ME2 had NOTHING to do with what happened in ME1, and the story archs are kinda side-lined (such as Wrex being Clan Urdnot's leader) and were only gave a mention in a convo with said character. The only thing ME2 added to the story as a whole was that the Protheans were turned into slaves.... okay? Cool. Couldnt put that into a DLC?[/quote]
Were you expecting them to defeat the Reapers before the climax of the trilogy? Why didn't Luke the defeat the Emperor in Empire Strikes Back?
[quote]People complain that the RPG factor was dumbed down in ME3 and forgotten..... again, HUH? in ME2, there was almost NO rpg factor, Besides having more Dialogue choices in convos than ME3 (which people complained ruined the flow of a dramatic scene) everything else was even less RPG than ME3. For example, that leveling system was a lot more simple and less complex, less choices, less points, less levels, etc. There was less armor choice and a LOT less weapon choice with NO mods whatsoever. The only real RPG factor was the upgrades, and those were hell to get as you had to scan countless planets for minerals.[/quote]
I've never seen this complained about. If anything, people say it was improved over ME2.
[quote]The combat system was good, but got kinda boring; take cover, shoot til it's dead, move up, repeat. They improved the combat system GREATLY with better maps and a dive roll. ADDING A DIVE ROLL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GENERIC SHOOTER!! THERE IS A REASON IT IS A SUCCESSFUL GAMEPLAY MECHANIC!! The roll simply makes for better and more exhilirating combat.[/quote]
ME3's combat is ME2's combat, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls and flips. Yay?
[quote]The last complaint is that ME3 was too short; about 25 hrs on insanity and completionist playthrough. ME2 was 30 hours as the same, and HALF the game dealt with loyalty missions which had NOTHING to do with the main story. Sure the loyalty of your team affected the outcome of the suicide mission, but that's ALL it did for ME2. Don't get me wrong, I liked the loyalty mission aspect, but when HALF the game (15hrs, maybe less) is based on them, that just sidelines the main plot, which again, had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from ME1 and added NOTHING to the overall plot of the trilogy. Oh, and ME2 was not about fighting Reapers (people complain that ME3 was about fighting Cerberus, not reapers) it was about fighting the collectors, and besides Husks and the occasional Harby possession, there was no fighting of the Reapers.[/quote]
You are fully aware that almost all of the marketing for ME2, as well as the comments ON THE BACK OF THE BOX FOR THE GAME are about building your team and earning their loyalty, right?
If you want to go that route, none of the games in the trilogy involved you fighting Reapers. In ME1 you fought geth, not Reapers. In ME2 you fought the Collectors, not Reapers. In ME3 you fight Cerberus, not Reapers. Never mind that, out of the 3, the Collectors are the sub-enemy with the deepest connection to the Reapers.
[quote]At least ME3 concludes MOST of the story archs that started ME1, and FOCUSES specifically on that. Granted it did not continue the Collector Base/Baby Reaper arch.[/quote]
The hell does this have to do with ME2?
[quote]ME2 was also quite buggy.[/quote]
So were ME1 and ME3. What's your point?
[/b][quote][b]Also, ME2 never really moved me or gave me goosebumps, except for Miranda saying, "I don't have that fire that youd do." etc, and Grunt saying "Shepard is my battlemaster, he has no match." ME3 moved me to tears, and gave me goosebumps every 2 seconds and made me jump for joy at times. Much better writing and focus on dialogue, char interactions, and action imo.[/quote]
You say this like it's fact, which it sure as sh*t isn't.
[quote]Now, ignoring ME3 endings, cuz I agree they sucked, and besides ME2 having more dialogue choices, are these NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUES people have with ME3? Or am I missing something? Hypocritical, dontcha think?[/quote]
No, they aren't. They might seem that way, but only because you're horribly miscontstruing thme to fit your argument.
[quote]In my opinion, people are letting their feelings for the endings affect how they feel about the rest of the game, causing them to ignore that ME2 had many of the same flaws, yet everyone praises ME2.[/quote]
Not even remotely "everyone" is praising ME2.
Modifié par o Ventus, 19 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .
#180
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:17
krasnoarmeets
-
- Members
- 721 messages
KiwiQuiche wrote...
I think ME2 fairly sucked in plot as well, but at least my Shepard would shut up and let me choose her response most of the time.
To elaborate; yes the whole ME2 plot made no gorram sense; you basically wasted a crapton of time you should have been using to prepare/warn people about the reapers. But oh nope, human colonies NOES so that means ignoring the reapers and going off to kill some huskified Protheans 'cause that isn't stupid or illogical at all.
ME3 concludes most of the story arcs from ME1? Like which ones, besides stupid things like Conrad and the Matriarch Writings? I think the would Rachni and killing the Council thing had little to no impact.
Killing the rachni queen and the council had no implications whatsoever.
You killed the rachni queen and they still pop up regardless of your choice. WTF?! So, it didn't matter then? I just ended up having basically the same conversation with a different bug,,, Killing the council, no implications either. Either way, the story pans out in exactly the same way... WTF?! No one's peed about that? Sure it makes for a bit of an awkward conversation at one point, but that's it. No plot deviation. Why not? Laziness.
#181
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:18
Xemnas07
-
- Members
- 377 messages
[quote]o Ventus wrote...
[quote]Xemnas07 wrote...
One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then.[/quote]
Strawman argument. ME2 wasn't the end of the franchise, and by that time, there was far mroe than enough time to plan ways to include the ME1 cast in ME3. By the end, there should be ample content for each major character, which there is objectively not.
[quote]Another huge complaint was that your choices from ME2 (Collector base choice, rachni, etc.) had little to no impact in ME3...... What? NOT ONE SINGLE choice from ME1 was reflected with great significant impact on ME2, the only choices that were really apparent was your choice of councilor and whether you saved the council or saved the humans, and those had VERY little impact on the game as a whole.[/quote]
Baseless argument. Again, ME2 didn't close out the trilogy, and not every subplot was meant to come to a close.
[quote]Yet another complaint was that ME3 voided everything from ME1, are you kididng? the ENTIRE main plot of ME2 had NOTHING to do with what happened in ME1, and the story archs are kinda side-lined (such as Wrex being Clan Urdnot's leader) and were only gave a mention in a convo with said character. The only thing ME2 added to the story as a whole was that the Protheans were turned into slaves.... okay? Cool. Couldnt put that into a DLC?[/quote]
Were you expecting them to defeat the Reapers before the climax of the trilogy? Why didn't Luke the defeat the Emperor in Empire Strikes Back?
[quote]People complain that the RPG factor was dumbed down in ME3 and forgotten..... again, HUH? in ME2, there was almost NO rpg factor, Besides having more Dialogue choices in convos than ME3 (which people complained ruined the flow of a dramatic scene) everything else was even less RPG than ME3. For example, that leveling system was a lot more simple and less complex, less choices, less points, less levels, etc. There was less armor choice and a LOT less weapon choice with NO mods whatsoever. The only real RPG factor was the upgrades, and those were hell to get as you had to scan countless planets for minerals.[/quote]
I've never seen this complained about. If anything, people say it was improved over ME2.
[quote]The combat system was good, but got kinda boring; take cover, shoot til it's dead, move up, repeat. They improved the combat system GREATLY with better maps and a dive roll. ADDING A DIVE ROLL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GENERIC SHOOTER!! THERE IS A REASON IT IS A SUCCESSFUL GAMEPLAY MECHANIC!! The roll simply makes for better and more exhilirating combat.[/quote]
ME3's combat is ME2's combat, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls and flips. Yay?
[quote]The last complaint is that ME3 was too short; about 25 hrs on insanity and completionist playthrough. ME2 was 30 hours as the same, and HALF the game dealt with loyalty missions which had NOTHING to do with the main story. Sure the loyalty of your team affected the outcome of the suicide mission, but that's ALL it did for ME2. Don't get me wrong, I liked the loyalty mission aspect, but when HALF the game (15hrs, maybe less) is based on them, that just sidelines the main plot, which again, had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from ME1 and added NOTHING to the overall plot of the trilogy. Oh, and ME2 was not about fighting Reapers (people complain that ME3 was about fighting Cerberus, not reapers) it was about fighting the collectors, and besides Husks and the occasional Harby possession, there was no fighting of the Reapers.[/quote]
You are fully aware that almost all of the marketing for ME2, as well as the comments ON THE BACK OF THE BOX FOR THE GAME are about building your team and earning their loyalty, right?
If you want to go that route, none of the games in the trilogy involved you fighting Reapers. In ME1 you fought geth, not Reapers. In ME2 you fought the Collectors, not Reapers. In ME3 you fight Cerberus, not Reapers. Never mind that, out of the 3, the Collectors are the sub-enemy with the deepest connection to the Reapers.
[quote]At least ME3 concludes MOST of the story archs that started ME1, and FOCUSES specifically on that. Granted it did not continue the Collector Base/Baby Reaper arch.[/quote]
The hell does this have to do with ME2?
[quote]ME2 was also quite buggy.[/quote]
So were ME1 and ME3. What's your point?
[/b]
[quote][b]Also, ME2 never really moved me or gave me goosebumps, except for Miranda saying, "I don't have that fire that youd do." etc, and Grunt saying "Shepard is my battlemaster, he has no match." ME3 moved me to tears, and gave me goosebumps every 2 seconds and made me jump for joy at times. Much better writing and focus on dialogue, char interactions, and action imo.[/quote]
You say this like it's fact, which it sure as sh*t isn't.
[quote]Now, ignoring ME3 endings, cuz I agree they sucked, and besides ME2 having more dialogue choices, are these NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUES people have with ME3? Or am I missing something? Hypocritical, dontcha think?[/quote]
No, they aren't. They might seem that way, but only because you're horribly miscontstruing thme to fit your argument.
[quote]In my opinion, people are letting their feelings for the endings affect how they feel about the rest of the game, causing them to ignore that ME2 had many of the same flaws, yet everyone praises ME2.[/quote]
Not even remotely "everyone" is praising ME2.
[/quote]
sigh, ive been arguing this thread for 2 hours, not gonna post long reply. in short, ME2 had nothing to do with anything, continued nothing from me1, and is more of a large DLC than a continuation to the ME story. POint is, people are ignoring the fact that the faws they point out about ME3 are in ME2. while no, you didnt need to defeat the reapers in ME2, the very least they could have done was make you fight the actualy enemy in the game, colelctors, but they didnt even do that; you spend 9/10 of the game fight mercs on loyalty missions that had nothing to do with even the ME2 plot itself.
[quote]Xemnas07 wrote...
One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then.[/quote]
Strawman argument. ME2 wasn't the end of the franchise, and by that time, there was far mroe than enough time to plan ways to include the ME1 cast in ME3. By the end, there should be ample content for each major character, which there is objectively not.
[quote]Another huge complaint was that your choices from ME2 (Collector base choice, rachni, etc.) had little to no impact in ME3...... What? NOT ONE SINGLE choice from ME1 was reflected with great significant impact on ME2, the only choices that were really apparent was your choice of councilor and whether you saved the council or saved the humans, and those had VERY little impact on the game as a whole.[/quote]
Baseless argument. Again, ME2 didn't close out the trilogy, and not every subplot was meant to come to a close.
[quote]Yet another complaint was that ME3 voided everything from ME1, are you kididng? the ENTIRE main plot of ME2 had NOTHING to do with what happened in ME1, and the story archs are kinda side-lined (such as Wrex being Clan Urdnot's leader) and were only gave a mention in a convo with said character. The only thing ME2 added to the story as a whole was that the Protheans were turned into slaves.... okay? Cool. Couldnt put that into a DLC?[/quote]
Were you expecting them to defeat the Reapers before the climax of the trilogy? Why didn't Luke the defeat the Emperor in Empire Strikes Back?
[quote]People complain that the RPG factor was dumbed down in ME3 and forgotten..... again, HUH? in ME2, there was almost NO rpg factor, Besides having more Dialogue choices in convos than ME3 (which people complained ruined the flow of a dramatic scene) everything else was even less RPG than ME3. For example, that leveling system was a lot more simple and less complex, less choices, less points, less levels, etc. There was less armor choice and a LOT less weapon choice with NO mods whatsoever. The only real RPG factor was the upgrades, and those were hell to get as you had to scan countless planets for minerals.[/quote]
I've never seen this complained about. If anything, people say it was improved over ME2.
[quote]The combat system was good, but got kinda boring; take cover, shoot til it's dead, move up, repeat. They improved the combat system GREATLY with better maps and a dive roll. ADDING A DIVE ROLL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GENERIC SHOOTER!! THERE IS A REASON IT IS A SUCCESSFUL GAMEPLAY MECHANIC!! The roll simply makes for better and more exhilirating combat.[/quote]
ME3's combat is ME2's combat, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls and flips. Yay?
[quote]The last complaint is that ME3 was too short; about 25 hrs on insanity and completionist playthrough. ME2 was 30 hours as the same, and HALF the game dealt with loyalty missions which had NOTHING to do with the main story. Sure the loyalty of your team affected the outcome of the suicide mission, but that's ALL it did for ME2. Don't get me wrong, I liked the loyalty mission aspect, but when HALF the game (15hrs, maybe less) is based on them, that just sidelines the main plot, which again, had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from ME1 and added NOTHING to the overall plot of the trilogy. Oh, and ME2 was not about fighting Reapers (people complain that ME3 was about fighting Cerberus, not reapers) it was about fighting the collectors, and besides Husks and the occasional Harby possession, there was no fighting of the Reapers.[/quote]
You are fully aware that almost all of the marketing for ME2, as well as the comments ON THE BACK OF THE BOX FOR THE GAME are about building your team and earning their loyalty, right?
If you want to go that route, none of the games in the trilogy involved you fighting Reapers. In ME1 you fought geth, not Reapers. In ME2 you fought the Collectors, not Reapers. In ME3 you fight Cerberus, not Reapers. Never mind that, out of the 3, the Collectors are the sub-enemy with the deepest connection to the Reapers.
[quote]At least ME3 concludes MOST of the story archs that started ME1, and FOCUSES specifically on that. Granted it did not continue the Collector Base/Baby Reaper arch.[/quote]
The hell does this have to do with ME2?
[quote]ME2 was also quite buggy.[/quote]
So were ME1 and ME3. What's your point?
[/b]
[quote][b]Also, ME2 never really moved me or gave me goosebumps, except for Miranda saying, "I don't have that fire that youd do." etc, and Grunt saying "Shepard is my battlemaster, he has no match." ME3 moved me to tears, and gave me goosebumps every 2 seconds and made me jump for joy at times. Much better writing and focus on dialogue, char interactions, and action imo.[/quote]
You say this like it's fact, which it sure as sh*t isn't.
[quote]Now, ignoring ME3 endings, cuz I agree they sucked, and besides ME2 having more dialogue choices, are these NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUES people have with ME3? Or am I missing something? Hypocritical, dontcha think?[/quote]
No, they aren't. They might seem that way, but only because you're horribly miscontstruing thme to fit your argument.
[quote]In my opinion, people are letting their feelings for the endings affect how they feel about the rest of the game, causing them to ignore that ME2 had many of the same flaws, yet everyone praises ME2.[/quote]
Not even remotely "everyone" is praising ME2.
[/quote]
sigh, ive been arguing this thread for 2 hours, not gonna post long reply. in short, ME2 had nothing to do with anything, continued nothing from me1, and is more of a large DLC than a continuation to the ME story. POint is, people are ignoring the fact that the faws they point out about ME3 are in ME2. while no, you didnt need to defeat the reapers in ME2, the very least they could have done was make you fight the actualy enemy in the game, colelctors, but they didnt even do that; you spend 9/10 of the game fight mercs on loyalty missions that had nothing to do with even the ME2 plot itself.
#182
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:18
Ryoten
-
- Members
- 866 messages
I feel that Mass Effect 2 was better than sex. The plot was fine. Story was fine. Characters were fine. Gameplay was fine.
#183
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:20
s17tabris
-
- Members
- 622 messages
ME2 was far from perfect but at least it didn't make Shep seem like a complete ******.
#184
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:23
krasnoarmeets
-
- Members
- 721 messages
Who cares if helping Gavin Hossle, the ramblings of Matriarch Dilinaga and an Elkoss combine license get you 4 additional asset points? Woo hoo. The story is basically identical regardless of who lived or died, which ever choices you made in previous games have no bearing on the story in Mass Effect 3. Case in point is whether or not you preserved or destroyed the collector base in ME2. Cerberus should have become a lot more powerful if you preserved it, but not if you destroyed it. This choice makes no difference whatsoever except for a few lines of dialogue. This is completely absurd and a perfect example of lazy writers.
#185
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:23
F4H bandicoot
-
- Members
- 1 247 messages
The collectors were also pretty interesting. Their plot showed the repear tactics and methods.
#186
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:26
ackalaya3
-
- Members
- 44 messages
Erm... He mentioned Tali, but CTRL+F didn't bring up any matches for Garrus....
#187
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:26
Xemnas07
-
- Members
- 377 messages
ackalaya3 wrote...
Erm... He mentioned Tali, but CTRL+F didn't bring up any matches for Garrus....
ahh sorry, forgot about garrus, good point
#188
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:29
robertthebard
-
- Members
- 6 108 messages
It was very definitely mishandled. Which is why I just disregard it and die in London.F4H bandicoot wrote...
A superweapon is fine, if believable
ME 2 really irked me, and it started with being spaced, and then brought back to life. Then it got to "You always have a choice Shepard, accept that you don't, you either work for me, or uninstall the game" (insert moustache twist here).
Freedom's Progress, Miranda: Kidnap the crazy Quarian, and let's torture him for information. If she had a moustache, she'd twist it. Then there was Jacob, erm, huh?
It progressed from there, adding to my "I don't want to work for Cerberus, when do I get to leave" stress. Of course, we can't talk about plot holes in ME 2. "Diplomacy is fine, but difficult when people already perceive you as a threat"--paraphrasing mine--and yet, we can land at any port we want to in a ship flying Cerberus colors. My final crew at Ilos was Shep, Ash and Liara, and yet Ash acted like I'd always been a terrorist when I see her, which carries over to 3, geesh, I wanted a renegade bullet in the brainpan before we ever got off the elevator on Mars.
Overall, I enjoyed 3 more than 2, but while I felt 1 had a better story line, I enjoyed 2 over 1 for the gameplay mechanics, which were then added to, but butchered in 3. I don't know who's bright idea it was to tie everything to the space bar, but it sure made some situations interesting, to say the least.
#189
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:32
Urbynwyldcat
-
- Members
- 412 messages
Because it's awesome in every aspect.
#190
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:36
robertthebard
-
- Members
- 6 108 messages
Didn't it? You spend part of ME 1 fighting tooth and nail with Cerberus, and all of ME 2 working for somebody that had been trying to kill you. Yep, move along, nothing to see here.arr0whead wrote...
ME2 was far from perfect but at least it didn't make Shep seem like a complete ******.
#191
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:43
Wompoo
-
- Members
- 767 messages
Personally I didn't think much of ME2 overall. Especially the Terminator boss on super steroids at the end, bobbing around like a puppet on strings playing peek a boo. It did however have some good moments and at times very good VO acting strengthened by the writing team (although some dialogue felt like it was ran through Fox for approval first). My main dislike was it felt like an old hub based game, coupled with the time sink scanning (at least it wasn't the abomination from ME1 the Mako and planet exploration). It suffered as all the ME games have, from horrid PC texturing, bleeding and horrendous female walking animations that looked more like a bow legged haemorrhoid, splayed footed, or the arms stuck out like they are doing a peck spread.
ME 3 also had way to much padding, and no where near enough content (the Citadel... boring and the resource scanning for a less then a stellar out come RGB). However ME 3, excluding the atrocious ending (unless you consider a 2 year old's finger painting to be art), did give several excellent story areas. Overall I think they dropped the ball on the last 2 (a BW trade mark of late, DA2, ME2, ME3), completely as they felt rushed featureless rpg/action type games. I would say neither felt complete or deserving of an epic title. They should be spending less on PR hyperbole and more on actual content. In the end I really felt both ME2 and 3 were average games bolstered by the BW name only (a cow they will not be able to milk forever). I think they are both a sign of just how poor gaming is becoming in general. I have fonder memories of Never Winters Nights and that is saying something, not necessarily positive.
ME 3 also had way to much padding, and no where near enough content (the Citadel... boring and the resource scanning for a less then a stellar out come RGB). However ME 3, excluding the atrocious ending (unless you consider a 2 year old's finger painting to be art), did give several excellent story areas. Overall I think they dropped the ball on the last 2 (a BW trade mark of late, DA2, ME2, ME3), completely as they felt rushed featureless rpg/action type games. I would say neither felt complete or deserving of an epic title. They should be spending less on PR hyperbole and more on actual content. In the end I really felt both ME2 and 3 were average games bolstered by the BW name only (a cow they will not be able to milk forever). I think they are both a sign of just how poor gaming is becoming in general. I have fonder memories of Never Winters Nights and that is saying something, not necessarily positive.
Modifié par Wompoo, 19 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .
#192
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 01:56
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
Xemnas07 wrote...
sigh, ive been arguing this thread for 2 hours, not gonna post long reply. in short, ME2 had nothing to do with anything, continued nothing from me1, and is more of a large DLC than a continuation to the ME story. POint is, people are ignoring the fact that the faws they point out about ME3 are in ME2. while no, you didnt need to defeat the reapers in ME2, the very least they could have done was make you fight the actualy enemy in the game, colelctors, but they didnt even do that; you spend 9/10 of the game fight mercs on loyalty missions that had nothing to do with even the ME2 plot itself.
You didn't address a single one of my points.
Right.
#193
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:00
wantedman dan
-
- Members
- 3 605 messages
OP: EVERYBODY QUICK, forget about the abomination that was ME3 by remembering how terrible ME2 was!
#194
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:03
Apple Lantern
-
- Members
- 392 messages
Xemnas07 wrote...
Nyxeris wrote...
Mass Effect 2 not taking into account a lot of the decisions from its predecessor is fine because it isn't the end of the series. BioWare had a whole other game to make those decisions mean something.
Another thing is that many believe that ME2's plot was building toward the Dark Energy ending, but due to that ending being scrapped, it makes ME2 pointless aside from character development. This is why there are no complaints about this with ME2, but there are in ME3's plot.
The RPG element was improved and I don't see that complaint anywhere, really.
youre saying ME3 improved the RPG element?
Yeah, I am. Definitely when compared to ME2.
#195
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:07
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
One thing I forgot to mention earlier, ME2 was building up to the now-scrapped dark energy plot.
So yes, in a sense, ME3 is what rendered ME2 effectively pointless.
So yes, in a sense, ME3 is what rendered ME2 effectively pointless.
#196
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:08
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
o Ventus wrote...
One thing I forgot to mention earlier, ME2 was building up to the now-scrapped dark energy plot.
So yes, in a sense, ME3 is what rendered ME2 effectively pointless.
I heard that was fake. It sprouted from the Something Awful forums.
Apparently Karpyshyn himself came and dispelled the rumors.
#197
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:08
Q45T
-
- Members
- 9 messages
In comparison to ME3... ME2 is really great.
#198
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:11
sistersafetypin
-
- Members
- 2 413 messages
tl:dr Because it's better than ME3
#199
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:11
Xemnas07
-
- Members
- 377 messages
o Ventus wrote...
Strawman argument. ME2 wasn't the end of the franchise, and by that time, there was far mroe than enough time to plan ways to include the ME1 cast in ME3. By the end, there should be ample content for each major character, which there is objectively not.
Youre kidding right? you expected them to have a squad of 20-25 peopl in the final game? Sorry, thats a little ridiculous, the point of this argument was that ME1 cast was shelved, and no one complained about it, although most returned in ME3 ie. ash, liara, tali and garrus. But everyone complains when they shelve the ME2 cast. However, the ME2 cast had very decent cameos as in miranda, thane, grunt, mordin, while the ME1 cast had none in ME2,
o Ventus wrote...
Baseless argument. Again, ME2 didn't close out the trilogy, and not every subplot was meant to come to a close.
so youre saying that cuz a game that is supposed to be based solely on the game before it and the choices you made, isnt supposed to continue the story of the game before it? What? Even star wars, which are movies, not games tailored to your choices and how you play, follow the one before it in some way, continuing the story. ME2 did not do this, but instead went off on a side story that had nothing to do with anything and had nothing from me1 reflected in it. the main plot in ME2 could have easily been done in a DLC, not an entire, pointless game.
o Ventus wrote...
Were you expecting them to defeat the Reapers before the climax of the trilogy? Why didn't Luke the defeat the Emperor in Empire Strikes Back?
If you want to go that route, none of the games in the trilogy involved you fighting Reapers. In ME1 you fought geth, not Reapers. In ME2 you fought the Collectors, not Reapers. In ME3 you fight Cerberus, not Reapers. Never mind that, out of the 3, the Collectors are the sub-enemy with the deepest connection to the Reapers.
No they did not have to beat the reapers in the 2nd game, but was it necessary to dedicat an entire game to an enemy that could be wiped out with a crew of 12? No. Collectors have the deepest connection youre kidding. THeyre uselss, they were enslaved left over protheans that kinda collected crap from the galaxy, and now harvest humans for a human reaper. The geth were more of a threat, and the geth were used only as a means to intoduce you to the reapers, which was the entire point of ME1, what are the collectors for? they reveal almost nothing about the reapers but rather about the protheans, which again, has NO affect on ANYTHING in the trilogy. at most you think, "oh, poor guys" and thats it. again, could have been done in a dlc.
o Ventus wrote...
You are fully aware that almost all of the marketing for ME2, as well as the comments ON THE BACK OF THE BOX FOR THE GAME are about building your team and earning their loyalty, right?
ok cool, so abandon the main plot of ME2, which is already pointless, for char develope and loyalty missions? Dont get me wrong, i liked the missions, but when they take as much if not more time than the main plot, thats called FILLER, and is completely useless in the grand scheme of the trilogy.
o Ventus wrote...
The hell does this have to do with ME2?
everything, cuz ME2 continued NOTING from ME1, (again, see above comments as to why this is important) and peopel complained the ME3 abandoned everything, when in fact, is not true. Excluding the endings, the amount of variables that affect the outcome of your story archs is staggering. Mordin says something different when he sacrifices himself to cure the genophage depending on how much you talked to him in ME2. Such a small and minute variable, taken into account by BW. I say they did well, again, excluding the endings.
o Ventus wrote...
ME3's combat is ME2's combat, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls and flips. Yay?
the dive roll and diff maps mean you have to actually MOVE around, strategize, get out from cover, avoid, attack, instead of jut being able to sit behind a wall like in ME1 and 2 and shooting til its dead, moving up to the next wall and repeating. The fact that it looks awkward is moot and irrelevant as long as it works.
o Ventus wrote...
You say this like it's fact, which it sure as sh*t isn't.
which is why i added it in an EDIT and put imo (in my opinion, in case you didnt know) at the end of it, so please, read everything before you speak.
#200
Posté 19 juillet 2012 - 02:11
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
Taboo-XX wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
One thing I forgot to mention earlier, ME2 was building up to the now-scrapped dark energy plot.
So yes, in a sense, ME3 is what rendered ME2 effectively pointless.
I heard that was fake. It sprouted from the Something Awful forums.
Apparently Karpyshyn himself came and dispelled the rumors.
Source?
I've heard numerous times that Karpyshyn even pitched a rough outline for the dark energy plot before he transferred to SWTOR.
