426 réponses à ce sujet

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

NO WAY!

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 22 janvier 2013 - 04:40 .

[Kileyan]

The entire story of ME2 is pretty much pointless in the scheme of things, but some of the characters are really great. I wouldn't say it is pointless. The entire game was worth Grunt, my reunion with Garrus and my introduction to Mordin.

ME2 was a wasted opportunity. It should have been about Cerberus, our Shep fighting them as a main goal with some closure. Rather than just sucking up to Cerberus and fighting some reaper dudes who didn't matter in the slightest since they were coming anyway.

We should have ended Cerberus as a final "boss" in ME2, and ME3 should have been...........well different:)

[darkway1]

I can't quite grasp the logic of this thread,Mass2 is the bench mark for Mass games,loads of characters,hubs,romances,locations etc and maintained the real mystery and threat of the reapers......I like to think of it as the "...Continuing Adventures of Shepard".....a perfect blue print for future Mass games.

Its Mass3 that's the problem.

[Saito404]

Without both ME2 and ME3.

[Seboist]

Saito404 wrote...

Without both ME2 and ME3.

Indeed, ME2 was the death knell of the trilogy with it's disregard for continuity and failure to advance the plot and ME3 was the coup de grace.

[anokie]

¨The massive terminator rip off robot near the end of me2 killed my will to play it again.

[CynicalShep]

Nope, it's not. They made ME3 pretty disconnected from it but ME2 was a good game

imho

[Lars Honeytoast]

Hmm. The question is kind of loaded. There's really no doubt that that main plot would have been more interesting without ME2. But the universe of Mass Effect wouldn't have been as great. We only understood citadel space through 1, and the terminus systems really are as much of a part of the universe as citadel space is.

That being said, the terminus systems didn't play much of a role in ME3, so maybe that's why so many people (not myself) were disappointed in ME3. Many of the things that were built up in 2 weren't utilized in 3.

That's the debate though I suppose. Either ME2 introduced (and focused) on an unimportant setting for the Mass Effect trilogy, or ME3 didn't focus enough on an important part of that universe.

I, for one, have found ME2 to be the less important of the 3, which while introducing better storytelling and combat, lost that feel of a cohesive universe, which is ultimately more important to me. 3 further expanded combat as well as storytelling, and brought me back to the universe I loved so much in 1. It just had the unfortunate obligation of trying to fit all of these elements of the terminus back into citadel space, and so it inevitably didn't feel as cohesive.

It's a damn shame really, but I understand how tricky that must have been for Bioware. I'll still be watching what they put out in the future.

[thefallen2far]

Yes, I think the trilogy as it is would be better without 2 in the sense that it lowers the quality of the entire franchise, but improves the quality of the final game. It would be more forgettable and uninteresting as a franchise without what is argueably the best game of the franchise, but I will admit it would be better as a gimmicky hyped up pop franchise without 2. It'd be your average hyped franchise like Max Payne or Hitman in which has a following but no fan base nor cultural identification, You could even say that 3 would be better if 1 never existed.

I'd rather not have 3, all things considered.  I'd rather fight Terminator Reaper with a mako in an elevator than have to deal with Star Jar and that circular, nonsensical, shoehorned "an eighth grader could come up with a better excuse" logic again.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 22 janvier 2013 - 06:09 .

[Seboist]

anokie wrote...

¨The massive terminator rip off robot near the end of me2 killed my will to play it again.

It also ripped off a Contra 3 boss.

[Lars Honeytoast]

Yeah, the human-fetal-reaper was a terrible turn as well. The cuttlefish design made sense for all of eternity, but you killing one of us has now made us realize humanoid is the way to go? Bleh.

[Mcfly616]

To answer the question posed in the title of the thread: Yes! Absolutely.

It was completely disconnected from ME1, and was the catalyst for all of the issues that came to fruition in ME3.

If anything ME3 was a step in the right direction compared to ME2. ME2 with its clunky controls, lack of RPG skill progression, lack of exploration, and most notably the glorified side-story that was the Collectors. ME2 stalled plot development and wasted time, giving ME3 an even tighter window of telling the entire tale of the Reaper threat/invasion/war/origins/and end.....

Had the Collectors never been written in, and the onus was kept on the Reapers....ME2 would not have been a waste. While the characters are something to be marvelled, the story/game/trilogy would've been better off had ME2 not veered off the path and went on a side-quest with dumbed down features

[Dean_the_Young]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

So wait, to fix ME3, we ditch the game that came first? That's a horrible idea. Here's a good idea, create a third volume in the franchise that fits with what we have!

How?

ME1 and ME2 were not only remarkably different in construction and direction, but ME2 didn't even have the courtesy to build upon the main themes and plots established in ME1. While ME2 certainly did an admirable job in expanding upon the Genophage, Quarians, and Geth, these were ultimately three sidequests and three characters out of dozens. The rest of ME2 ranged from irrelevant (Jack, Jacob, Thane) to downright counterproductive (ending the game with the option of destroying the Collector Base, and thus ensuring that it couldn't be used as a key plot driver in the future).

The ME trilogy is a great example of  lack of sufficient forward planning, but ME2 is the greater outlier in the series.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Which still leaves us with the problem I was talking about, which had nothing to do with Cerberus or diplomacy. Was it a mistake to assume that Meltemph's reply to me had something to do with what I was talking about?

Well, what' you were saying isn't a problem. Was it a problem during ME2 to have that many squaddies? No. Then it wouldn't be an issue for ME3.

And what if we said 'yes'?

There are a lot of contexts in which something can be cool and fun and seem to work in the short-run, but be flawed in the long run.

People enjoyed the ME2 companions, but by and large most of them were irrelevant to the plot and few gave any foreshadowing of a basis for being important in the future. That lack of criticality was then bolded, italicized, and underlined when the developers went and made each and every one of those companions potentially killable... which isn't a problem in ME2 since the companions stop having a role after the Suicide Mission, but is kind of a big deal for all planning and writing afterwards.

It's a simple fact that the game will have to continue on regardless. Either the series would go in huge divergences, a massive resource cost and style Bioware has never promised or attempted, or the roles become marginalized as each and every character needs to have a potential substitute to replace them... and when each and every character can be substituted, they lose their ability to drive or dictate the plot. No Mordin, you have another Salarian interested in curing the genophage. No Miranda... well, you don't need Miranda.

ME2's greatest flaw was making a game dependent on its characters, and then resolving it in a way that sabotaged the utility and relevance of those characters for all future games.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Yes, ME2's decision to focus on 12 squadmates (which were all killable, reducing their potential future role) and their personal stories meant that the main-plot was not advanced sufficiently and also gave ME3 the impossible task, of not only trying to give all characters screentime, but to also conclude the main-plot.

ME2 was nothing more than a writers' playground, where they did whatever they wanted with no real regard for the fact that it was a trilogy.  ME2 might have been a great game, but it was a terrible sequel.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 22 janvier 2013 - 11:39 .

[Seboist]

The main plot was not only not advanced but regressed with "ah yes reapers".

ME would have been better in hindsight if ME1's ending was the Reapers being trapped in dark space permanently given the Ed Wood and comic book level nonsense that came after.

[Nightwriter]

Well, if they hadn't made ME2 I wouldn't be so crushed by the ME2 character treatment in ME3. So, I dunno. Maybe?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seboist wrote...

The main plot was not only not advanced but regressed with "ah yes reapers".

ME would have been better in hindsight if ME1's ending was the Reapers being trapped in dark space permanently given the Ed Wood and comic book level nonsense that came after.

To be fair. If that was the case, I would imagine you and I's alternative selves would just complain about how the Reaper plot was dropped.

[78stonewobble]

Just upon me2 itself.

Even though I like (lets round up to love it along with me1) I do find some of the general critique aimed at me2 valid.

For me the things that it did good (or atleast I view as good) outweighed what it did bad (or I view as bad).

Yeah, the terminator was stupid. Yeah, at times I felt like all I did was take care of people's personal lives FOR them. Yeah, it didn't further the reaper arch very much or shut up cerberus for good. Yeah, the the character options and inventory were too simplified... And lots of other stuff.

It just doesn't outweigh the good stuff I got in the game. So I find the game good.

[Seboist]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The main plot was not only not advanced but regressed with "ah yes reapers".

ME would have been better in hindsight if ME1's ending was the Reapers being trapped in dark space permanently given the Ed Wood and comic book level nonsense that came after.

To be fair. If that was the case, I would imagine you and I's alternative selves would just complain about how the Reaper plot was dropped.

Well, I was never too fond of the main Reaper plot even at the height of my ME fandom. I preferred acting as Hackett's thug and doing the Alliance's various dirty work(going death squad against Major Kyle's compound was awesome) rather than fighting ancient big bad evil. In my first playthrough I was scheming throughout the game to try to overthrow the council(I let the Rachni queen go in an attempt to use them against them.)

What I DID like about the Reaper plot was that it offered the potential for a decent "what are you willing to do to save the galaxy?" theme but we all saw how the Renegade "path" went.

[Ieldra]

@OP:
No way. ME2 is what saved the trilogy for me. Without ME2 and its shades of grey, without its characters, the trilogy  would not be my story anymore. I'd rather that ME3 builds on what ME2 started with, in tone if not in plot, of course. ME2 needed to have a bigger role in the main storyline, but ME3 should've extended the "shades of grey" theme of ME2 instead of going for the usual ham-fisted good vs. evil. *That* would make the endings appear less disconnected from the rest of the game as well.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:10 .

[Steelcan]

No