209 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

And is not knowing how to defeat the villain somehow bad writing? Again, that's always the case. Either the hero knows what needs to be done from the very beginning or he figures it out on the fly at the very end.

Besides, if the hero comes up with a plan before the final installment, obviously it can't work out. Otherwise the plan becomes a spoiler.

Modifié par David7204, 16 décembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[Guy On The Moon]

Rip504 wrote...

Guy On The Moon wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

Perhaps for those whom fail to understand ME2,it may just simply be beyond your comprehension.
Perhaps not.

Also for me,Tali made ME2 and was more then enough to enjoy the game. The Quarian/Geth conflict has always been one of my fav issues within the ME series. ME2 introduced us to what we are saving.

That doesn't even make sense becaues you're only saving humans in ME2, with just common interaction with other species..which in actualaity you are saving the galaxy.

What is the galaxy to you? For some it is about saving humanity. For others it may differ. You learn about Protheans,Collectors etc. You can decide how you feel about the Geth/Quarian conflict and make choices voice your opinion. Do you help cure the Krogan or not. Do you sympathize withe Cerberus or do you see past their guise. How did the Events of Horizon effect your Shepard. You have now seen first hand what the Reapers are doing and are capable of. The absolute massacre without any emotion to show for it,a cold hard relentless approach. It expands upon Garrus,Tali,Wrex,Liara,and Ash characters,while introducing a cast of compelling characters and their connection to your Shepard. The SM and all of the choices involved. ME2 sets you deeper into the ME galaxy and gives emotion and a cause to fight for. To save the galaxy. Stopping the Collectors does help save humans. It also weakens the Reapers and helps this cycle chances. It touches on what is now becoming the Reaper war. It also expands and touches on many Alien cultures. It is a great and compelling title that ties well into the rest of the series. The DLC is very good as well. The Shadow Broker was a big question and a great mystery in ME1 and ME2. Then LotSB reveals the SB,a great and innovative reveal at that. Great combat,story,scenery etc. Then it concludes with Liara a fan fav becoming the New SB.

Arrival is just that. No matter how hard you have tried,all that you have done and seen,all of the choices and outcomes and potential outcomes,the 300,000 plus lives lost,the Reapers are coming and all that you have done and accomplished is now in jeopardy. All that you have connected to. ME2 ties you into the series,connect you with the ME universe,exposing you to a lot,and then acknowledges all is in jeopardy of being lost and it is your job to save and defend it. ME2 sets up the Reaper war in ME3. IMO.

In ME2 you are indeed taking steps to save the galaxy. Not only Humanity.

As much as we all love the story of the Genophage and the Geth/Quarian conflict it is still just a subplot of the overall plot of the series...or at least the overall plot that ME1 set out.
You saw first hand what the Reapers are capable of on Eden Prime.  You saw humans get turned into mindless husks.  You saw first hand what the Thorian did to humans and how Saren & the Reapers wanted to use it as well.  Shepard has had well enough experience with how ruthless the Reapers were before the events of ME2.  Granted at those particular times he didn't know exactly that the Reapers were involved but he soon enough learned.
I'll admit that ME2 did develop certain characters more, but if Shepard didn't have a "reason" to fight the Reapers by the end of ME1, then that's a problem.
Technically yes, stopping the Collectors does weaken the Reapers because technically anything that would not help the Reapers would count as weakening the Reapers.  But thinking on the grand scale, stopping the Collectors matter very, very little.  In the end the Reapers lost one humanoid Reaper, who granted if they actually finished it could've been more powerful than an actual Reaper but probably by not that much.  And at the state we saw it, honestly the thing sucked.

I'm not trying to compare video games but even in the Assassin's Creed series, every single game offers something to advance the overall point of the series which you learn is finding a way to stop the extinction that doomed the previous super species.  However Brotherhood and Revelations were specifically about developing Ezio and learning more about the Assassin culture, world, Templars, etc.  While each game might delve into some different subplot, it still offers something to do with the overarching plot.

I'm not discreditting the experience of ME2.  I will argue that the others are better experiences, but ME2 is still a great experience overall.  It just messes up all the important story foundations that ME1 established.

Seboist wrote...

and why the hell do I need "loyalty" to begin with? I didn't need it when doing a "suicide mission" to Ilos with one ship against a potent Geth military.

This.

[David7204]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The 'point' of Jack's loyalty mission was character development.

And what did it develop her character as? Someone who was traumatized in a laughably contrived manner by laughably one-dimensional villains. Her end-mission choice, rather than affecting future development as a killer or moving past her past, has no effect on her future role as a teacher.

It's not like it was even a mystery that she'd had a past with suffering either, given her on-ship dialogue.

I think it should it be pretty obvious that Jack is not a very reliable source for how cruel or not the Cerberus scientists were. Aside from her, the only evidence I remember on the treatment she got was the one recording the of scientist very tiredly discussing how a test failed and a bunch of kids died. How is this all 'contrived' again?

[Armass81]

Sightseeing trip around the galaxy, fighting random mercs and collecting random people to go after the collectors to save a few human colonies.

I would have made ME2 to be Citadel-Terminus Systems war with the collectors as behind the scene manipulators. Would have used alot more intrique.

Modifié par Armass81, 16 décembre 2012 - 02:11 .

[David7204]

It could have been better, yeah. But I would very heavily frown on any kind of solid plan introduced before ME 3. I want players asking "How the hell are we going to do this?," else the Reapers don't seem near as dangerous. Your suggestions are pretty good.

[ManOfSteel]

Mass Effect 2 is an incredible experience, but you're right. We learn what happened to the Protheans and how the Reapers reproduce, but that's about it.

Now that I've played every game in the trilogy and the DLC, I personally think Mass Effect 2 could have followed a plot similar to that of Leviathan. The Leviathan(s) could've explained where the Reapers come from and how they reproduce, and they could've dropped some hints about the catalyst, as they do in the DLC. They could have still involved Cerberus and The Illusive Man, and instead of a suicide mission (although the SM is one of my favourite moments in Mass Effect), Shepard could use his resources as a Spectre to investigate Leviathan. At least being a Spectre would actually mean something in ME2.

Modifié par DoomHK, 16 décembre 2012 - 02:17 .

[David7204]

It's tough to say what being Spectre 'means' given that we play as a Spectre for the entire story. We have no experience of not being a Spectre.

[SpamBot2000]

Rip504 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Arrival also started to erode the things established in ME1 (Sovereign tried for several 100 or even 1000 years to find out what was wrong with the Keepers and find a way to open the relay to dark space).

Because seizing the Citadel(the heart of Citadel space) and shutting down the relay system vs jumping into Batarian space through the Alpha relay are the same thing.

From the point of view of Invincible Cthulhu Spaceships, it pretty much is. 

ME3 went wrong partly because they did two things that don't go well together. They made the Reapers even more superpowered than before AND they brought them all into the galaxy. That's just asking for problems. Either they cannot be beaten and have to be kept out OR they are here and have to be beaten. Not both. That kind of set-up just makes the writers reach for a DeM to dig them out of the hole Mac Walters led them down into.

Mass Effect 2 was a story about the Reapers trying to find a way into the galaxy, by creating a new Reaper to do what Sovereign failed at. There's nothing inherently wrong with that story. The problem only arises when you declare that in fact the Reapers have no need for an entrance and can just cruise in whenever they choose. That would be the contribution of Arrival. 

[ManOfSteel]

David7204 wrote...

It's tough to say what being Spectre 'means' given that we play as a Spectre for the entire story. We have no experience of not being a Spectre.

What I meant was it didn't have any effect on anything. You can choose not to accept Spectre reinstatement in ME2, and it makes no difference. It allows you to pull the "I'm a Spectre" card what... twice? It went from a massive deal in ME1 to meaning nothing in ME2.

Modifié par DoomHK, 16 décembre 2012 - 02:23 .

[Armass81]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Arrival also started to erode the things established in ME1 (Sovereign tried for several 100 or even 1000 years to find out what was wrong with the Keepers and find a way to open the relay to dark space).

Because seizing the Citadel(the heart of Citadel space) and shutting down the relay system vs jumping into Batarian space through the Alpha relay are the same thing.

From the point of view of Invincible Cthulhu Spaceships, it pretty much is. 

ME3 went wrong partly because they did two things that don't go well together. They made the Reapers even more superpowered than before AND they brought them all into the galaxy. That's just asking for problems. Either they cannot be beaten and have to be kept out OR they are here and have to be beaten. Not both. That kind of set-up just makes the writers reach for a DeM to dig them out of the hole Mac Walters led them down into.

Mass Effect 2 was a story about the Reapers trying to find a way into the galaxy, by creating a new Reaper to do what Sovereign failed at. There's nothing inherently wrong with that story. The problem only arises when you declare that in fact the Reapers have no need for an entrance and can just cruise in whenever they choose. That would be the contribution of Arrival. 

The point of the human reaper was not to go after the Citadel again. The reapers would have reached alpha relay way before the human reaper would be complete. This was confirmed by the devs. It was also confirmed that they started flying towards the galaxy as soon as Sovereign failed in ME1.

Modifié par Armass81, 16 décembre 2012 - 02:25 .

[David7204]

Really? I've never done that. I'm guessing you still get the employee discount at the tourist shop.

[SpamBot2000]

Armass81 wrote...

The point of the human reaper was not to go after the Citadel again. The reapers would have reached alpha relay way before the human reaper would be complete. This was confirmed by the devs. It was also confirmed that they started flying towards the galaxy as soon as Sovereign failed in ME1.

Uh, yeah... after they changed the story, they confirmed the changed story. Not really the point, is it?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 16 décembre 2012 - 03:08 .

[Ledgend1221]

It's a game where you get to explore all of the in-universe conflicts in better detail.
Genophage, Geth and Mercs.
The reaper plot was worse then two of those.

[Lyrandori]

One theory is that Mass Effect 2 was a "silent reboot". That ME1 is self-contained (never received an actual "sequel" to this day) and that Mass Effect "2" is in essence a re-telling of some of the pre-established canon in different forms, within a "new original" game followed by its own sequel (ME3 being the sequel to ME2 but has almost nothing to do with ME1, about as much as ME2 has almost nothing to do with ME1 either).

The identity of the title is given the logical number " 2 " to let us believe it's indeed a sequel when in fact it's just a retake, or if you prefer an alternate view on the Mass Effect's universe and the "main theme" from a new (or more than one) writer's perspective. It's nothing malevolent (to name it ME2), it's just a business reason really (I.E. the naming of the games). They won't just come out and say " well guys by the way, ME2 isn't going to be a sequel after all but we're looking forward to the release! ". Won't happen like that, ever. It's of course easy to say " no no, it's a sequel, there's 2 in the title! ". But it's also easy to be confused when for example id Software publicly claims that DOOM 3 is a "retelling" (I.E. reboot) of the story told in the original DOOM, and therefor pretty much a reboot of the franchise, when in fact DOOM 3 indeed has the number 3 in it and never was, and still isn't considered a "direct sequel" to DOOM 2's events. So, why giving it the number 3? Because it sells better and also sometimes removes potential confusion (" why is this one called DOOM when we already got one called DOOM? ").

The theory concerning ME2 is comparable (although not identical) to that. But rather than just calling it say... " Mass Effect: A New Story " or " Mass Effect 2: But Not Really ", we could call it instead Mac Walters' Mass Effect. Just as much as the first game could be called Drew Karpyshyn's Mass Effect. And that doesn't imply that only "that single person" worked on it either, you'd be foolish to believe it, of course it was a team for all three games but we should already know that ourselves. And we should also know already that the lead writer would be given the main credits. It's also comparable to movie titles when sometimes you get the movie director's name prior to the movie title itself, for example.

Additionally, it's important to note that the theory does not imply that it was done on purpose nor with some sort of "malignant intent" on BioWare's side. It could have been done with knowledge that it would turn out "different" to what people "expect" (from a "sequel" to ME1) but without actually thinking (during the production of ME2) that it would turn out as an actual reboot of the franchise but would then hide that information and just name it ME2 and call it a night (or at least a "retelling" of most of the original lore into a new form). I actually think that what happened is that "the green light" was given to just "do whatever you want" with the franchise, and mere trust was given and expected (probably from EA or most of the actual ME2's and ME3's team at the time) to at least not "veer left or right" too much from the original themes and lore. But as the production of both "sequels" started then new ideas got in and the original mold had to be replaced with a new one.

What is absolute fact, however (and confirmed by Drew on his own blog) is that originally the "plan" for the main themes and elements of the series (or the "universe" of ME as a whole as depicted in the games) were not fully detailed nor were they clear either. They had nothing better than vague plans, and the building blocks of the universe was "doomed" to be modified, changed, tweaked, tempered with or added upon (or just plain removed) as the "trilogy" of Mass Effect was being made (and written). To put it in more simple terms, ME2 had a different lead writer and probably other writers got in (new ones) compared to ME1's team (which I believe was confirmed by Mac Walters in an interview or commentary, claiming indeed that the writing team for ME2 was bigger and so was ME3's writing team being bigger even, which means new writers as well).

But this is just a theory. Well, that is with some facts, at least concerning the "planning" or lack thereof - of the trilogy - which of course explains why it doesn't feel consistent, because it wasn't built from the same original mold to start with.

I made a thread about it recently: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/15185772

Overall, it's an interesting way to see things, in my opinion.

[SpamBot2000]

Lyrandori wrote...

One theory is that Mass Effect 2 was a "silent reboot". That ME1 is self-contained (never received an actual "sequel" to this day) and that Mass Effect "2" is in essence a re-telling of some of the pre-established canon in different forms, within a "new original" game followed by its own sequel (ME3 being the sequel to ME2 but has almost nothing to do with ME1, about as much as ME2 has almost nothing to do with ME1 either).

It's an interesting point. But there's the save import feature, that kind of makes ME2 a sequel in any case. 

[EnvyTB075]

To be awesome.




No really thats pretty much it, its most definitely the best of the three with the greater amount of player involvement in the character of Shepard and the best gameplay of the three, along with far more natural sounding conversations and the updated visuals just add so much detail to the galaxy that ME1 simply couldn't achieve. Had absolutely no impact on anything major but you can't tell me it wasn't awesome.

[Lyrandori]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Lyrandori wrote...

One theory is that Mass Effect 2 was a "silent reboot". That ME1 is self-contained (never received an actual "sequel" to this day) and that Mass Effect "2" is in essence a re-telling of some of the pre-established canon in different forms, within a "new original" game followed by its own sequel (ME3 being the sequel to ME2 but has almost nothing to do with ME1, about as much as ME2 has almost nothing to do with ME1 either).

It's an interesting point. But there's the save import feature, that kind of makes ME2 a sequel in any case. 

And then BioWare publicly comes and say that ME3 was built with new comers in mind. Seriously, who STARTS a trilogy at the LAST episode? I never understood why BioWare went for that, but many of the issues in ME3 are due to the fact that (yes, factually so) BioWare DID take completely new comers to the entire franchise of Mass Effect in consideration when making Mass Effect 3, the last title of a supposed trilogy. I mean I can understand doing that for the second title of a trilogy, but not the last one for crying out loud. Additionally, because indeed that's not all, you are not obliged to import your saved game from ME1 since, indeed, it's just a "feature". You can START the trilogy from ME2 (which many, many did) and just build your first Shepard from that point with ALL of the outcome from ME1 pre-established for you, courtesy of BioWare (isn't it gentle of them to do it for new comers).

For me, reboot or not (completely regardless of the theory being "true or not" which really doesn't matter for this subject that you bring up) that simple import saved game feature itself does not "make" the three games an actual follow up from the first, nor does it label nor does it "add" to the credibility of ME2 being a "sequel" to ME1. Even if ME2 IS a sequel, then what makes it so isn't the import feature since you don't have to anyway and if you don't everything that occurred in ME1 is imposed onto your newly ME2-created Shepard.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 16 décembre 2012 - 04:22 .

[giftfish]

Greylycantrope wrote...

To be forgotten clearly.

No kidding.

After the major success of ME2, who would have guessed that the advances in the storyline, not to mention the crew, would be essentially retconned in ME3?  Because, you know, that makes sense.

Dammit, now I'm grumpy again.

[Grubas]

ME2 concludes your Shepards Story. If played right, he manages to gather all inteligence necessary to warn the galaxy from the Reapers, save the colonists, stop the collectors. Albeit he and his crew die a heroic death. Their sacrifice shall be honored.

ME3 is just another Story, where the protagonist is conveniently called Shepard aswell. Though its not your Shepard, unless you played a derp Paragon. ME3 Shep in times only imitates, what your Shepard was able to deliver through 2 full games. And though he recalls the decisions Your Shep made in the past, he just lacks the eloquence to deliver similar quality.

Modifié par Grubas, 16 décembre 2012 - 04:38 .

[RogueBot]

bobbydarko wrote...

Your not missing something. But, as it's often referred to, the same can be said for star wars: empire strikes back. It's the 2nd film, it really doesn't push the rebel/sith war storyline further. You could probably watch a new hope and go right to return and get the whole "story", but like mass effect, you'd be missing out on the best one.

Actually, ME2 is considered to be UNLIKE Empire because the former doesn't push the overall story forward (much) and Empire does. Have you seen Empire? It's nearly a perfect middle act. Of all comparisons to middle chapters in trilogies you could have made, that might have been the worst one.

/nerdrant off

Modifié par RogueBot, 16 décembre 2012 - 05:22 .

[CronoDragoon]

It has the best characters, which to me is the point of the series, not the main plotline.

[Raizo]

Thanks to Mass Effect 3, Mass Effect 2 is now completely irrelevant and serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

I always knew that Mass Effect 2 was the black sheep of the trilogy since it's plot did nothing to further the Reaper storyline but I at least assumed that the main point of ME2 was to build the ultimate squad to take on the Reaper forces in ME3, then ME3 decided to completely ignore all the ME2 squadmates all together.

And the sad thing is that ME2 is my favourite game in the trilogy and now there is no longer any point to ever playing this gamer ever, ever again.

[Salarious]

bobbydarko wrote...

Your not missing something. But, as it's often referred to, the same can be said for star wars: empire strikes back. It's the 2nd film, it really doesn't push the rebel/sith war storyline further. You could probably watch a new hope and go right to return and get the whole "story", but like mass effect, you'd be missing out on the best one.

Well said. Also I think ME2 is good for a lot of background info on the universe and especially the characters.

[o Ventus]

As of ME3, nothing.

It's still the best though.