426 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabraxal]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

ME2 was one of the greatest games I've ever played. The trilogy need that small-scale entry into the series, and it was executed perfectly.

ME2 is a great game as a standalone game, I will not argue that - but when the 2nd installment of a trilogy does nothing to advance the main plot as a whole (and throws it off the rails) - we've got serious problems.

Again... the outline was there to follow, but ME3 didn't follow it.  That is the only reason any here are saying ME2 did little to progress the plot.  It could have, but ME3 pretty much ignored everything set up in ME2.  About the only thing ME3 did to explain ME2 was that the goofication of organics seems to be uploading them into Reaper form to preserve.  Everything else was pretty much just dropped with that ending.  You can't fault ME2 for ME3 failing to follow the outline that was there.

[wright1978]

Belisarius25 wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

Like I said before you can't blame ME2 for what ME3 failed to do.

Sure you can, if ME2's setup is poorly done.

For example, many/most people agree that ME2's squadmates didn't get much/enough attention in ME3, but that's also in large part due to the fact that Bioware included way too big of a roster (particularly when you add on Kasumi and Zaeed) and then made them all killable. Bioware then has to deal with the consequences of having a lot of 'important' characters who might or might not be dead, as well as romances, possibly whether they were loyal or not, etc.

So, ME3 did fail (in my mind) with regards to how it handled the ME2 squad, but the real issue was born in ME2 and I can't see a reasonable way for ME3 to have dealt with it (you can't put a lot of focus on all the characters, so someone's going to get left out)

I'll agree with you that ME2 had too many squaddies. As you say ME3 failed in regards how it handled them though and in its own desperation to add a new set of squaddies of its own. Lots of problems are about selling individual game rather than creating a trilogy.

[Steelcan]

I'd rather 6 ME2 quality games that do nothing to advance the plot but are still engrossing and just fun to play.

ME2 was built by the characters and environment it had, not by its weak main plot or laughable villain scheme.

ME3 didnt have engaging characters or an engrossing setting. The ME2 characters we enjoyed so much were left to rot while Liara, EDI, the VS and James were thrown at us with super glue. It did have a laughable villain scheme also.

[Seboist]

Kabraxal wrote...

BringBackNihlus wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

ME2 was one of the greatest games I've ever played. The trilogy need that small-scale entry into the series, and it was executed perfectly.

ME2 is a great game as a standalone game, I will not argue that - but when the 2nd installment of a trilogy does nothing to advance the main plot as a whole (and throws it off the rails) - we've got serious problems.

Again... the outline was there to follow, but ME3 didn't follow it.  That is the only reason any here are saying ME2 did little to progress the plot.  It could have, but ME3 pretty much ignored everything set up in ME2.  About the only thing ME3 did to explain ME2 was that the goofication of organics seems to be uploading them into Reaper form to preserve.  Everything else was pretty much just dropped with that ending.  You can't fault ME2 for ME3 failing to follow the outline that was there.

ME2 has no "outline". It ends where it begins with the galaxy no better prepared to face the reapers.

The Collectors were a complete joke of an enemy who were too weak to have ever processed the entire human race to build their space terminator.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Agreed. If anything, I would say that ME3 feels more like a sequel to ME1 than ME2 ever did. ME2 was great, but it felt like it's own story and sort of a spin off that just happened to include Shepard and his crew.

[Obadiah]

ME1 - Learn about the universe
ME2 - Learn about the people
ME3 - Learn secrets / War story

[DirtyBird627]

For all its problems, ME2 is the only one out of the series that I go back and play regularly. Its semi-standalone nature serves it well in that regard. As far as I'm concerned, ME2 is mass effect. For me, 3 is disappointing for many reasons, 1 is good story-wise but the gameplay is a little dated compared to the later games imo.

[Belisarius25]

Don't get me wrong, I generally really enjoy playing ME2. I just think it's a bit silly to try to pin everything on the other games of the trilogy and pretend it didn't contribute a good deal to the problems in ME3.

Steelcan wrote...

The ME2 characters we enjoyed so much were left to rot while Liara, EDI, the VS and James were thrown at us with super glue. .

The problem with this argument is you could easily reword it to say;

The ME1 characters we enjoyed so much were left to rot while a large group of random characters, inconsistently developed and with varied importance to the plot, were thrown at us with super glue.

(not to mention there was absolutely no way ME3 was going to happen without Liara being an important part, I mean they even gave her an important DLC in the installment she was supposedly mostly written out of).

That's why the large number of new characters in ME2 was an issue - you've now added a lot of new characters of varying popularity and "importance", some with romances as well, and you need to resolve their stories along with the characters you didn't include from ME1. It was a mess and it's not all that surprising that ME3 couldn't deal with it

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the Dark Energy plot, I'm not sure why people find it so compelling. It didn't get that much foreshadowing and was planned to result in a "sacrifice humanity" or "kill the reapers and hope you can stop it" ending, which doesn't strike me as particularly more satisfying than the ME3 endings we got.

In addition, if we're using the "if one game sets something up, then the following game has to follow up on it directly", then ME2 didn't do a very good job of following up on the threat of the Reapers, as you end up fighting their flunkies (and taunting Harbinger) for the entire game and don't see any Reaper vessels until the very end, despite the oncoming Reaper invasion clearly being the big threat/plot point in ME1. (also see the dumbing down of the Council; it's fine if they want to cover things up/not alarm people, but it was patently stupid that they apparently sit around largely doing nothing).

Modifié par Belisarius25, 24 janvier 2013 - 10:51 .

[Caihn]

Belisarius25 wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

Like I said before you can't blame ME2 for what ME3 failed to do.

Sure you can, if ME2's setup is poorly done.

For example, many/most people agree that ME2's squadmates didn't get much/enough attention in ME3, but that's also in large part due to the fact that Bioware included way too big of a roster (particularly when you add on Kasumi and Zaeed) and then made them all killable. Bioware then has to deal with the consequences of having a lot of 'important' characters who might or might not be dead, as well as romances, possibly whether they were loyal or not, etc.

So, ME3 did fail (in my mind) with regards to how it handled the ME2 squad, but the real issue was born in ME2 and I can't see a reasonable way for ME3 to have dealt with it (you can't put a lot of focus on all the characters, so someone's going to get left out)

With one additional year of development, more characters would have the amount of content and the attention they deserve.
They didn't have the time and the ressources to do it so they made a choice : focus on the more popular characters .. nobody will care about the complains of the few fans of the other characters.

ME2 is not to blame. ME3 is just a poor sequel.

[Bourne Endeavor]

ME3 suffered from the abundance of loose ends it required to tie up. Shamus Young had what I found an excellent suggestion, in that the Genophage and/or the Geth/Quarian conflict should have become a centralized plot, perhaps even ME2's entire focus, thus allowing ME3 to dedicate itself to the Reapers instead of the rather trivial busy work we end up doing.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

ME2 had too many characters that were too much alike. Bioware should have combined a few of them so that hey wouldn't run into this problem later on in ME3.

[Kabraxal]

Seboist wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

BringBackNihlus wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

ME2 was one of the greatest games I've ever played. The trilogy need that small-scale entry into the series, and it was executed perfectly.

ME2 is a great game as a standalone game, I will not argue that - but when the 2nd installment of a trilogy does nothing to advance the main plot as a whole (and throws it off the rails) - we've got serious problems.

Again... the outline was there to follow, but ME3 didn't follow it.  That is the only reason any here are saying ME2 did little to progress the plot.  It could have, but ME3 pretty much ignored everything set up in ME2.  About the only thing ME3 did to explain ME2 was that the goofication of organics seems to be uploading them into Reaper form to preserve.  Everything else was pretty much just dropped with that ending.  You can't fault ME2 for ME3 failing to follow the outline that was there.

ME2 has no "outline". It ends where it begins with the galaxy no better prepared to face the reapers.

The Collectors were a complete joke of an enemy who were too weak to have ever processed the entire human race to build their space terminator.

There were the hints of the dark energy story that was dropped, there was some hinting at what the Reapers could be, and there was a sense of a growing understanding and ability to resist.  For a middle entry into a sequel, that is actually a lot.  Very few middle entries tend to progress as much as the first entry and final entry.  I can't actually name one that does off the top of my head.  It's meant to be the transition from the starting point to the end.  If ME3 had actually taken some of those hints and used them then we wouldn't even be arguing this.  But ME3 took very little of either of the last two games and ran with it... of course, we should have realised this when they said "then end of the trilogy is the perfect starting point for new fans" essentially <_<

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Kabraxal wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

BringBackNihlus wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

ME2 was one of the greatest games I've ever played. The trilogy need that small-scale entry into the series, and it was executed perfectly.

ME2 is a great game as a standalone game, I will not argue that - but when the 2nd installment of a trilogy does nothing to advance the main plot as a whole (and throws it off the rails) - we've got serious problems.

Again... the outline was there to follow, but ME3 didn't follow it.  That is the only reason any here are saying ME2 did little to progress the plot.  It could have, but ME3 pretty much ignored everything set up in ME2.  About the only thing ME3 did to explain ME2 was that the goofication of organics seems to be uploading them into Reaper form to preserve.  Everything else was pretty much just dropped with that ending.  You can't fault ME2 for ME3 failing to follow the outline that was there.

ME2 has no "outline". It ends where it begins with the galaxy no better prepared to face the reapers.

The Collectors were a complete joke of an enemy who were too weak to have ever processed the entire human race to build their space terminator.

There were the hints of the dark energy story that was dropped, there was some hinting at what the Reapers could be, and there was a sense of a growing understanding and ability to resist.  For a middle entry into a sequel, that is actually a lot.  Very few middle entries tend to progress as much as the first entry and final entry.  I can't actually name one that does off the top of my head.  It's meant to be the transition from the starting point to the end.  If ME3 had actually taken some of those hints and used them then we wouldn't even be arguing this.  But ME3 took very little of either of the last two games and ran with it... of course, we should have realised this when they said "then end of the trilogy is the perfect starting point for new fans" essentially <_<

Hints are not outlines.

[10K]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...



There were the hints of the dark energy story that was dropped, there was some hinting at what the Reapers could be, and there was a sense of a growing understanding and ability to resist.  For a middle entry into a sequel, that is actually a lot.  Very few middle entries tend to progress as much as the first entry and final entry.  I can't actually name one that does off the top of my head.  It's meant to be the transition from the starting point to the end.  If ME3 had actually taken some of those hints and used them then we wouldn't even be arguing this.  But ME3 took very little of either of the last two games and ran with it... of course, we should have realised this when they said "then end of the trilogy is the perfect starting point for new fans" essentially <_<

Hints are not outlines.

Hint, outline, it doesn't matter. We knew that ME2 was setting up the dark energy theory, and ME3 failed to incorporate it into it's story.

[wright1978]

Ways ME2 took the story forward and ME3 ignored/regressed. Off the top of my head

Shep: got to develop as a character outside of the Alliance bubble, whether that was to stay true to thel to alliance principles or become disllusioned with the Alliance. Me3 washed this away characterisation.

Cerberus, took them from cannon fodder material, into a complex rich organisation led by a charismatic leader who could play a role in combating reapers. ME3 reverted them back into cannon fodder. Rewrote ME2 crew as all patsies, including high level long term cerberus operative.

Reaper Tech: IFF, combating collector swarms, Improved armor and weaponry(Thanix cannons), collector base tech.

New Reaper antagonist; Harbinger which ME3 dropped and went with little boy blue.

Synthetics: Further Insight into geth/quarian conflict and new understanding about geth, Introduction of new friendly AI EDI. ME3 geth side with reapers after saying they'd rejected old machines, wish to upload reaper code.

Foreshadowed dark energy dilemma which was dropped in ME3

Shadowbroker: Revealed and resolved the shadowbroker mystery and set up a new base of operation.
ME3 destroyed said base.

Arrival: Shep stops reaper intrusion(rather silly i know). Me3 Has shep locked up for 6 months(so why did i pay for that awful arrival then. Maybe it set up a trial/court marshall. Oh wait no that's not in ME3 either.

[wright1978]

Belisarius25 wrote...

In addition, if we're using the "if one game sets something up, then the following game has to follow up on it directly", then ME2 didn't do a very good job of following up on the threat of the Reapers, as you end up fighting their flunkies (and taunting Harbinger) for the entire game and don't see any Reaper vessels until the very end, despite the oncoming Reaper invasion clearly being the big threat/plot point in ME1. (also see the dumbing down of the Council; it's fine if they want to cover things up/not alarm people, but it was patently stupid that they apparently sit around largely doing nothing).

Sorry but as far as i'm concerned ME2 does follow up ME1's plot. Reapers are believed to be behind abduction of human colonies. You investigate and stop them. It introduces a new villain to fill the void left by sovereign. As for the council denial is a perfectly understandable emotion and blaming the known figures of Saren and Geth is much easier than trying to believe in sentient malovent reapers. M2 is a blocking move before the main invasion and sure it possibly might have been better to have the invasion last 2 games. I doubt they wanted to have a cliffhanger ending though.

[Belisarius25]

wright1978 wrote...

Belisarius25 wrote...

In addition, if we're using the "if one game sets something up, then the following game has to follow up on it directly", then ME2 didn't do a very good job of following up on the threat of the Reapers, as you end up fighting their flunkies (and taunting Harbinger) for the entire game and don't see any Reaper vessels until the very end, despite the oncoming Reaper invasion clearly being the big threat/plot point in ME1. (also see the dumbing down of the Council; it's fine if they want to cover things up/not alarm people, but it was patently stupid that they apparently sit around largely doing nothing).

Sorry but as far as i'm concerned ME2 does follow up ME1's plot. Reapers are believed to be behind abduction of human colonies. You investigate and stop them. It introduces a new villain to fill the void left by sovereign. As for the council denial is a perfectly understandable emotion and blaming the known figures of Saren and Geth is much easier than trying to believe in sentient malovent reapers. M2 is a blocking move before the main invasion and sure it possibly might have been better to have the invasion last 2 games. I doubt they wanted to have a cliffhanger ending though.

How does ME2 follow up the main plot of ME1 (the Reapers are coming and the galaxy needs to be prepared) by turning the entire focus on (1) Playing psychiatrist to your crew and (2) Spending the entire game fighting the Collectors and their one ship/human reaper? The Reapers are basically completely in the background, Shepard's busy with the Collectors and every other government/organization puts on a dunce hat and decides to do nothing to prepare for the Reapers.

Sure, denying the Reapers publicly makes some sense for the Council, but they have a dead Reaper at the Citadel (and the Asari have a Prothean beacon, the Turians are supposedly a hyper-militarized society, the humans are supposedly rapidly developing, etc.) and all you get is "Ah, yes, 'Reapers'"? That doesn't make sense and basically turns every government into short-sighted morons who sit around doing nothing until the very last minute (the Garrus task force post-ME2 for the Turians, Hackett, I guess the Volus dreadnought maybe?)

Also, when do the Reapers get blamed for the abduction of the colonists? Cerberus/TIM aren't sure who's behind it, the Alliance thinks it might be Cerberus but isn't sure either, and the Council/everyone else doesn't care at all.

Sorry, I don't see how ME2 follows up the main plot of ME1 well at all. The Reapers/preparing for the invasion (i.e. perhaps using ME2 to start building alliances that have effects in ME3) get sidelined to track down the kidnapping of the colonists by the Collectors, the various governments do nothing, etc. Then, in the very last scene of the game, bam! Reapers are here, and you have Arrival.

TLDR: Again, my point isn't that ME2 is a bad game - I enjoy it a lot - it's that I think it's illogical to pretend that ME3 is the sole cause and reason for everything that went wrong or is the only example of questionable editing/narrative control in the series.

Modifié par Belisarius25, 24 janvier 2013 - 11:18 .

[wright1978]

I certainly won't argue ME2 was the perfect follow up to the reapers attempted invasion. But without starting the invasion full on in ME2, fighting an advanced scout force of reaper agents was understandably chosen, whilst expanding on all the other story areas in ME1 free of a full out war.

I have no defence for Arrival. It's a C**p DLC. Equally there is no defence for having the alliance scratching their arses for 6 months at the cost of all those batarians lives.

[Seboist]

J. Reezy wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...



There were the hints of the dark energy story that was dropped, there was some hinting at what the Reapers could be, and there was a sense of a growing understanding and ability to resist.  For a middle entry into a sequel, that is actually a lot.  Very few middle entries tend to progress as much as the first entry and final entry.  I can't actually name one that does off the top of my head.  It's meant to be the transition from the starting point to the end.  If ME3 had actually taken some of those hints and used them then we wouldn't even be arguing this.  But ME3 took very little of either of the last two games and ran with it... of course, we should have realised this when they said "then end of the trilogy is the perfect starting point for new fans" essentially <_<

Hints are not outlines.

Hint, outline, it doesn't matter. We knew that ME2 was setting up the dark energy theory, and ME3 failed to incorporate it into it's story.

A few mentions and that's a set up?

A few easily missable mentions no less. Parasini could be dead in ME1 and Reegar killed on Haestrom before he says anything about it in Tali's LM(on top of THAT mission being optional).

[warblewobble]

I understand the criticism that ME2 feels like more of a 'side story' in terms of its relevance, but boy is it one excellent diversion.

I'd say ME1 and ME3 have plots that are more story-driven (the overarching impending/ongoing conflict with the reapers) while ME2's story is character-driven. It's more about the individuals who compose your squad and their smaller, more personal stories than the larger problems of the galaxy.

I really enjoyed the game's structure- adventuring around recruiting your dirty dozen hardcore squadmates was great fun and the loyalty missions were optional side quests that nevertheless felt like they completely belonged plot-wise and had a lot of meat to them.

Also, the whole last mission was one of the best I've ever played in a game and it really let you feel like all your time and preparation paid off. (Even if you didn't do so well, it drove home the point that there were consequences to your choices.)

I'll even go so far as to say that ME2 does matter to ME3 because it gives you the potential to have many personal connections to former comrades who are now embroiled in the conflict one way or another.

[HiddenInWar]

 Mass Effect 2 wasn't even about the collectors. It was about the struggle that the characters faced and how the relationship between those characters can make it through anything. Mass Effect is subtly one of those "by the power of friendship, we can conquer anything!" venues, and ME2 was to explore that even further. 

[TurianRebel212]

Okay, so I'm gonna start by saying ME2 is not only what I consider the best ME game and probably the best action RPG ever made, but it's my favorite game of all time. So the answer is. No. The trilogy would be better if the ending was better written. TRUE STORY. Still love ME3 tho.