25 réponses à ce sujet

[SuperMegaWolf]

ME2 is an awesome game with great characters and fun gameplay but something about it always dissapointed me. I was bothered by the lore retconning and the logic in the ME universe being weaker. Those aren't really big issues though. It was something else that caused vexeation. I've been thinking about it and finally it dawned on me. ME2 focuses on small conflicts. Its "story" isn't focused on stopping or finding out how to stop the reapers. It focuses on character interacting instead of advancing the reaper plot.

Don't get me wrong, the characters are great but ME2 lacks the grand scale / universe wide scope in its main story thread. It doesn't really do anything to advance the trilogy's plot and I think the whole series suffers because of it.

Has anyone else noticed this?

[cap and gown]

Many people have noticed this. OTOH, many people think this is why ME2 is the best: because the Reapers are almost non-existent. The Reaper plot line was doomed to failure from the beginning. All powerful machines that are impossible to stop and kill everything every 50k years? Try squareing that circle. Try explaining their motivations in any logical way. Try figuring out how we are supposed to defeat an undefeatable enemy. This is why the ending of ME3 falls apart.

[brad2240]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Its "story" isn't focused on stopping or finding out how to stop the reapers. It focuses on character interacting instead of advancing the reaper plot.

The overarching story of ME 2 is the same as ME 1: stop the agents of the Reapers.

In ME 1, Saren and the Geth are attacking human colony worlds and Shepard is tasked with finding out why and stopping them. He fights the Geth, which are foot soldiers for the Reapers, until the very end when he directly confronts a Reaper creature.

In ME 2, the Collectors are attacking human colony worlds and Shepard is tasked with finding out why and stopping them. He fights the Collectors, which are foot soldiers for the Reapers, until the very end when he directly confronts a Reaper creature. 

See what I'm getting at?

I disagree that ME 2 doesn't advance the Reaper plot. It does, it tells the story of the next stage of the Reapers' assault on the galaxy. 

Yes, it does put a greater emphasis on the characters and sometimes to the detriment of the game's story. The loyalty missions, which I think are very good individually, remove any sense of urgency to the plot. This is on top of things like the "mission debriefing" screen which already make the game feel more like a game and less like a cohesive narrative. 

I don't think the focus on the characters hurt the overall ME plot in and of itself, I think that ME 3's failure to follow through on that focus did. We spent a whole game getting to know some of the most awesome characters in the ME universe and then saw them reduced to mere cameos in ME 3. If 3 had actually allowed more of them to have a significant effect on the plot, to join the squad or to meaningfully carry through the romances,  then 2 would not feel as divergent. 

Look at what the writers achieved with Mordin and Legion. Their roles in ME 3 were considered by many to be the highlights of the game. If Mordin and Legion aren't present in their respective story arcs the events have much less impact and that's because we got to know those characters through ME 2. It shows us what could have, and IMO should have, happened with the other squadmates. 

So I think ME 2 has a weaker and less cohesive plot than 1 & 3, and suffers from too little carry-through, but as part of the overall story of the trilogy it fits fine and trying to remove or ignore it does more harm than good. 
 

[cap and gown]

I am not sure about the lack of urgency. The game took me by surprise when it forced me into missions on Horizon and the Collector ship. I was expecting something like Skyrim where you can do any mission at any time. One can easily see that there will be down time between fights with the Collectors as Cerberus tries to figure out how to get through the Omega 4 relay, so the loyalty missions fit into that time from. Just think of the 5 mission limit between Horizon and the Collector ship. That 5 mission interlude of not dealing with the Collectors can be accounted for by the fact that we just have to wait for them to show up again.

OTOH, I think we should have had more interactions with the Collectors than we do. These interactions could have advanced our knowledge of the Collectors and how to deal with them. Maybe we learn some new tech, or something, each time we fight them. I would have preferred more fights with the Collectors than random gangs.

Also, I think a real problem with the game that shows itself in ME3 is that there were too many squad mates, each of whom could die. That led to just too many variables for them all to amount to more than just a cameo in ME3. Keeping the number of squadies down and limiting how many of them could die would have reduced the number of variables you would have to deal with in the next game.

Modifié par cap and gown, 03 novembre 2013 - 02:05 .

[capn233]

ME2 does focus more on the characters, which ironically made it a better overall than either of the other two games.

One other thing to keep in mind: in ME1 you fought Reaper proxies. In ME2 you... fight Reaper proxies.

And as for the main line missions, in ME1 they were:

Eden Prime
Citadel
Therum
Noveria
Feros
Virmire
Citadel II (Narrative only, essentially)
Illos
Citadel III

ME2 mainline missions:

Lazarus Station
Freedom's Progress
[4 recruitment missions]*
Horizon
[5 whatever missions]
Disabled Collector Cruiser
Derelict Reaper
Suicide Mission

While ME1 has a couple more "mainline" missions, several of them are very heavy on narrative with minimal fighting (Citadel I, and Citadel II which has none), or have substantial chunks spent on driving around...

ME2 did have less "mainline" missions, unless you count the required four recruitment missions before Horizon (Professor, Archangel, Convict, Warlord). Incidentally, 2 have ties to Collectors (Professor and Warlord). This was however mostly a hardware limitation since this requirement was used to mask switching disks on console. The game was originally intended to be even more open in whether or not you recruited squad members, and would have allowed you access to all immediately (except a certain Geth platform). Even so, after Horizon, you technically do not have to do any more recruitment or loyalty missions, they are in fact optional. The game in final release form was structured to be more open ended than ME1, even if most always wanted "the best ending" which usually meant playing more missions.

It also isn't uncommon for those that didn't like the Collector plot to follow up with the suggestion that Shepard should have been "preparing for the Reapers" in some manner during ME2. People tend to point to the fact that the council acknowledges the Reaper threat at the end of ME1 but ignores it to start ME2. It is unclear to me how you would craft a plotline that would lead to decent gameplay if you are running around preparing for something, especially if you have the support of the leadership. What would the conflict be? I imagine you could make something like this work if... you ran into yet unknown Reaper proxy forces. Wait, that sounds familiar...

[brad2240]

cap and gown wrote...

I am not sure about the lack of urgency. The game took me by surprise when it forced me into missions on Horizon and the Collector ship. I was expecting something like Skyrim where you can do any mission at any time. One can easily see that there will be down time between fights with the Collectors as Cerberus tries to figure out how to get through the Omega 4 relay, so the loyalty missions fit into that time from. Just think of the 5 mission limit between Horizon and the Collector ship. That 5 mission interlude of not dealing with the Collectors can be accounted for by the fact that we just have to wait for them to show up again.

But you also have 3 more squadmates to recruit after Horizon. And right after the Collector ship you're told to go to the derelict Reaper, which starts the final countdown to going through the Omega 4 relay. So most of the loyalty missions are done prior to the derelict, as are any merc missions you have. So the derelict is just hanging there, waiting for Shepard whenever he wants it. That's totally at odds with the forced scheduling of other main story missions.

To clarify, I don't think ME 2 is guilty of anything here that other RPGs don't do. It's a genre standard to put off missions that advance the story while you complete sidequests that don't. But I think in this case it's made more jarring by the fact that other parts of the game are on a forced timetable. It's a reason, IMO, some people think the game doesn't fit the ME story which, as you said, isn't a new concept.

Out of curiosity, have you ever done a play-through only doing the minimum required missions? It goes against the grain as most players want to be completionists, and doing this will mean not maxing your levels or weapons out, skipping loyalties, and characters dying on the Suicide Mission. But I thought it made the story very interesting, and was an exercise in whose loyalties I would do and who would survive.

OTOH, I think we should have had more interactions with the Collectors than we do. These interactions could have advanced our knowledge of the Collectors and how to deal with them. Maybe we learn some new tech, or something, each time we fight them. I would have preferred more fights with the Collectors than random gangs.

Absolutely 100% agree. If the Collectors had the presence that the Geth did in ME 1, I would probably be saying that 2 has the best story in the trilogy.

Also, I think a real problem with the game that shows itself in ME3 is that there were too many squad mates, each of whom could die. That led to just too many variables for them all to amount to more than just a cameo in ME3. Keeping the number of squadies down and limiting how many of them could die would have reduced the number of variables you would have to deal with in the next game.

Possibly, but I feel like BW could have done it. There's already plenty of dialogue in the game you won't hear if certain people didn't survive and already precedent with Tali and Garrus for squadmates not surviving and not being replaced in the roster. Yes, it would have made the game bigger, yes it would have cost more and taken more time. But it definitely would have made the game better and fans of those characters happier.

[cap and gown]

brad2240 wrote...

But you also have 3 more squadmates to recruit after Horizon. And right after the Collector ship you're told to go to the derelict Reaper, which starts the final countdown to going through the Omega 4 relay. So most of the loyalty missions are done prior to the derelict, as are any merc missions you have. So the derelict is just hanging there, waiting for Shepard whenever he wants it. That's totally at odds with the forced scheduling of other main story missions.

I agree. That is why I think we should have had more fights with the Collectors. For instance, after the Collector ship, we get another 5 missions and then are forced into a fight with the Collectors (Fehl Prime? Ferris Fields?) and there we perhaps capture the designs for an IFF, but something is wrong with it, so we need to work on it. Then maybe another 5 mission interlude, and so on.

[Yezdigerd]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

ME2 is an awesome game with great characters and fun gameplay but something about it always dissapointed me. I was bothered by the lore retconning and the logic in the ME universe being weaker. Those aren't really big issues though. It was something else that caused vexeation. I've been thinking about it and finally it dawned on me. ME2 focuses on small conflicts. Its "story" isn't focused on stopping or finding out how to stop the reapers.

I found this lull perfectly fine in the light of ME1 story. The narrative of that story implied that the citadel was the only viable conduit to dark space, that the control of the mass relays and the alpha strike on the galactic leadership were crucial parts of the reapers masterplan. In other words the defeat of Sovereign was a devastating blow to the reapers. For all we know they might not be able to reach us for centuries and when they did they would face a galaxy that for the first time ever would be able to offer them organized resistance and a real war instead of a turkey shoot.

So in light of that worrying about the small things like the plight of human colonists and the collector abductions makes sense. The reapers are no longer an immediate threat.
Then the trainwreck starts with Arrival. It only take 2 years for the reapers to reach the galaxy which turn the entire premise of ME1 into nonsense and the narrative moves into an alternate universe with ME3.

That said the main plot of ME2 is the weakest part of a great game. but it's weak as in banal, not as in absurd.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 04 novembre 2013 - 03:04 .

[cap and gown]

Yezdigerd wrote...


Then the trainwreck starts with Arrival. It only take 2 years for the reapers to reach the galaxy which turn the entire premise of ME1 into nonsense and the narrative moves into an alternate universe with ME3.

They could have been flying in for the last 2000 years. The Rachni wars were 2k years ago and apparently were sparked by Sovereign becoming frustrated that the Citadel wasn't responding. If Sovereign was getting antsy, then it seems reasonable that the alarm clock for the guys out in dark space had already gone off and when they woke up found they couldn't jump in like before, so they started the long trek in through mass relay-less FTL.

Also note that the final scene of the SM shows them flying in. Though it looks like they are alot further out than the Alpha Relay incident would suggest.

Modifié par cap and gown, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:20 .

[Yezdigerd]

If the Reapers been traveling to our galaxy for 2000 years, They would be 2000 years from the relay in darkspace linking to citadel that Sovereign is desperate to open, Which implies that Sovereign, despite it's guardian status,is clueless on basic procedures regarding a communications breakdown and that it's machinations that supply the plot of Me1 was idiocy.

[cap and gown]

Hey, these are Reapers. They are perfect, the pinnacle of evolution. They have no beginning, no end. There's no way they could have anticipated break downs of any kind. Who makes back up plans if your primary plans always work?

Actually, I have always wondered why people like the ME1 story so much. The whole point of the story is to find an ancient alien artifact that turns out to do something we (and Saren) could do at the beginning of the game. Also, how did the mini-mass relay on the Citadel get there? Built before the invasion? The Reapers would have noticed it and destroyed it. After the invasion? How? By someone taking it there in a space ship? Um, then why weren't they the ones to alter the keepers? Why send out a galaxy wide alert to come to Ilos, just so when you get here you can use the Conduit to go to the Citadel? Shouldn't the message have told people to go directly to the Citadel?

And people complain about the end of ME3?????

Modifié par cap and gown, 04 novembre 2013 - 10:56 .

[capn233]

Leviathan hints that the Rachni wars were instigated by the Leviathans, not the Reapers. At least that was a competing hypothesis put forward by Bryson.

The ending of ME2 / Arrival is sort of a retconn. You are supposed to assume that after Sovereign failed the Reapers began to travel to the Alpha relay. Arrival is the only major plot point of the ME2 story that I don't care to defend.

The Citadel monument was put there by the Protheans working on the Ilos project to reverse engineer a relay. It would have been present on the Citadel before the invasion. Before the ME3 plot, there wasn't any reason to believe that the Keepers would have destroyed everything on the Citadel. They just adapted systems to be usable by the organics that find it. They are also semi-autonomous and probably did not report to the Reapers that the monument was there. Sovereign likely did not learn about the Conduit until after Saren found his first beacon, which was after the signal failed to activate the relay.

The Ilos team sent a message across the beacons long after the invasion and around the time they went through the Conduit to sabotage the Keepers. The point of the message was to try and contact any Prothean survivors and let them know about the mission, not to get them to travel to the Citadel.

[Yezdigerd]

I think Me1 story is just outstanding and grows organically as do the characters. First the hunt for Saren, and the uncertainty of the reaper dreams, then the Sovereign reveal then the Vigil and the entire cosmic scale of the story. The villains have depth and and create the illusion of reacting to what you did..
I got the feeling I actually was figuring things out while travelling the galaxy.and looking back the pieces fit.
All of which the latter games lacked, Me3 to an absurd degree. I'm surprised it's mainly the ending people have problem with. I lost any interest or immersion in ME3 when the reapers millenia spanning masterplan in Me1 is shown to be absolutely unnecessary and apparently never even was convinient, since no shutdown of the relay system was ever attempted.
I don't even understand why anyone interested in the ME universe would care about which color to pick in the end.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 04 novembre 2013 - 05:09 .

[capn233]

ME1 is structured much more like a mystery than the later games. It has a little bit of noir in space, although it is even more like a Bond movie, IMO.

[cap and gown]

capn233 wrote...

ME1 is structured much more like a mystery than the later games. It has a little bit of noir in space, although it is even more like a Bond movie, IMO.

ME2 struck me as having quite a bit of the 007 feel.

I know others may disagree, but I think the series would be better if it was structured like the Bond series. Continuing characters, but a new, self-contained story line each time, with, of course, many carry overs from previous games.

[YouKnowMyName]

[quote]capn233 wrote...

ME2 does focus more on the characters, which ironically made it a better overall than either of the other two games.

[quote]

That is extremely subjective. Some of us actually liked The Reaper Plot and the sense of mystery that ME1 provided. Characters wasn't the reason I began to play Mass Effect. No, it was the plot, the political intrigue, and the mystery which drew me in. While characters are important, I don't like that this took priority in ME2.

As for each game being stand-alone; Yes, I agree the triology would have benefited from being more self-contained. OR bioware could have planned out the story and the ending from the start, like they should have done. Not the details, but the big things. Hopefully bioware will make ME4 self-contained with some references to the trilogy spread throughout the game.

I also hope they bring a little of the mystery from ME1 back to life.

[SuperMegaWolf]

cap and gown wrote...

Many people have noticed this. OTOH, many people think this is why ME2 is the best: because the Reapers are almost non-existent. The Reaper plot line was doomed to failure from the beginning. All powerful machines that are impossible to stop and kill everything every 50k years? Try squareing that circle. Try explaining their motivations in any logical way. Try figuring out how we are supposed to defeat an undefeatable enemy. This is why the ending of ME3 falls apart.

I don't know why so many people hold the belief that the reapers are "all powerful" and "impossible to stop" (perhaps they didn't play the first game). Neither of those things are established in ME1. Vigil implies that they can be vunerable. The game even ends with the sentiment that Shepherd will find a way to stop them.

[SuperMegaWolf]

I've been reading up on plot structure and ME2 definitely drops the ball story wise. On top of that it does a 180 on the "Sliding Scale Of Plot Versus Characters" which, from what I can gather, you should never do mid-story (if anyone has examples of this being done well please post them). The way its written the second game should be a separate romp in the mass effect universe and not part of the reaper story arc trilogy.

[brad2240]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

I don't know why so many people hold the belief that the reapers are "all powerful" and "impossible to stop" (perhaps they didn't play the first game). Neither of those things are established in ME1.

No, this point is driven home over and over again throughout the whole trilogy. ME 1 establishes that the Reapers wiped out the most powerful and advanced race in the known history of the galaxy. In the final battle, it took the combined strength of the Citadel and human fleets to destroy one single Reaper.

ME 3 shows us that even the combined power of every fleet in the galaxy isn't enough to beat the Reapers in direct combat without the help of an untested super-weapon.

Ideas and evidence that the Reapers are all-powerful are prevalent throughout the entire trilogy. Players didn't just make it up.

The way its written the second game should be a separate romp in the mass effect universe and not part of the reaper story arc trilogy.

I disagree. The Collectors are direct agents of the Reapers, and their attacks on human colonies are the next stage of the Reaper invasion. Shepard has to stop this just like he stopped the first stage. 

The may have changed the focus to a more "dirty dozen in space" type of thing, but the game builds on the premise of ME 1 and sets the stage for ME 3. It has it's flaws, the story could have been a bit tighter, but it does the job and fits the overall story of the trilogy. 

[capn233]

Most of that is still overblown since about the same amount of time is dedicated to the Collector plot in ME2 as is dedicated to the Saren plot in ME1.

It is also a game and not a novel or movie. It does not proceed linearly with a set length each time it is "experienced." Nearly all of the crew character development and missions are optional.

[Yezdigerd]

brad2240 wrote...
No, this point is driven home over and over again throughout the whole trilogy. ME 1 establishes that the Reapers wiped out the most powerful and advanced race in the known history of the galaxy.

They did but in Me1 and Me2 the reapers accomplish this through guile. Their control of the mass relays and the citadel are presented as of corner stones in their harvesting strategy.
The protheans and the other precursors could very well have had a 100 times the armed might of the reapers, yet with the reapers in control of the mass relays their ability to defend themselves would be nonexistent. This was one the reasons I liked the reapers in Me1 their weapons were intelligence an indoctrination, brute force was the last resort.
I mean if someone is so powerful that they can't be opposed why bother using guile?
My big issue is that if reapers are so overpoweringly invincible as in ME3, what was the purpose of developing the cultures in paths they desire, the hibernation in dark space etc, I thought the mass relays were there for the reasons Sovereign told us, ergo the reapers would suffer without the control of them, They don't, hence they are meaningless and Sovereign was gibbering or lied. Vigil talks about hope if we could prevent the alpha strike on the citadel. Which I took to mean that the possession of it and the mass relays are crucial, which would give our galaxy a chance to oppose the reapers that the previous civilizations never had. Except again Me3, showed there never were any hope and the awesome Vigil misjudged the reapers totally despite obeserving them for hundreds of years.

In the final battle, it took the combined strength of the Citadel and human fleets to destroy one single Reaper.

One reaper and what was apparently a Geth fleet so massive the council considered Sovereign a geth construct. A reaper that according to Vigil feared a frontal assault on the citadel, and can be defeated without the loss a single capital ship.
Why anyone would conclude that the reapers are de facto invincible from this is beyond me.

ME 3 shows us that even the combined power of every fleet in the galaxy isn't enough to beat the Reapers in direct combat without the help of an untested super-weapon.

Yes Me3 did ..

Ideas and evidence that the Reapers are all-powerful are prevalent throughout the entire trilogy. Players didn't just make it up.

I think you are confusing being described as invincible with actually being this. All big bads in any story is described as invincible and that resistance against them is futile. But this is merely a dramaturgy so the hero's victory becomes a more satisfying accomplishment,. Sauron never wins because having the big powerful guy smacking down the helpless little guy just isn't an interesting story. Me1 ends with the invincible reapers defeated. Me2 ends with a suicide mission no one died on. Me3 ends with Goliath killing David.

I disagree. The Collectors are direct agents of the Reapers, and their attacks on human colonies are the next stage of the Reaper invasion. Shepard has to stop this just like he stopped the first stage.

Why? the reapers are invincible, why bother caring when the human colonists are harvested? The only thing that makes sense is defying all odds and trying to find a magical reaper off button, or party until the reapers comes and kill you.

Modifié par Yezdigerd, 06 novembre 2013 - 02:37 .

[brad2240]

Ok.

[SuperMegaWolf]

brad2240 wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

I don't know why so many people hold the belief that the reapers are "all powerful" and "impossible to stop" (perhaps they didn't play the first game). Neither of those things are established in ME1.

No, this point is driven home over and over again throughout the whole trilogy. ME 1 establishes that the Reapers wiped out the most powerful and advanced race in the known history of the galaxy. In the final battle, it took the combined strength of the Citadel and human fleets to destroy one single Reaper.

ME 3 shows us that even the combined power of every fleet in the galaxy isn't enough to beat the Reapers in direct combat without the help of an untested super-weapon.

Ideas and evidence that the Reapers are all-powerful are prevalent throughout the entire trilogy. Players didn't just make it up.

I was actually just pointing out that in ME1 the reapers weren't
impossible to beat. I was refuting the idea that ME1 'wrote the series into a
corner' by introducing the reapers. They're never made out to be impossible to stop in the first game.

brad2240 wrote...

The way its written the second game should be a separate romp in the mass effect universe and not part of the reaper story arc trilogy.

I disagree. The Collectors are direct agents of the Reapers, and their attacks on human colonies are the next stage of the Reaper invasion. Shepard has to stop this just like he stopped the first stage. 

The may have changed the focus to a more "dirty dozen in space" type of thing, but the game builds on the premise of ME 1 and sets the stage for ME 3. It has it's flaws, the story could have been a bit tighter, but it does the job and fits the overall story of the trilogy.

I understand you feel this way but the story problem with ME2 is a matter of fact. From a story telling standpoint ME2's direction makes no sense. Plotwise it doesn't acomplish what the second act of a story must acomplish in order for the rest of the story to be complete.

[capn233]

Reapers in ME1 were characterized as near impossible to stop. Vigil says that Sovereign isn't invincible, but he is the most powerful ship in the galaxy by a significant margin.

Guile was a large component of the Reaper strategy, hiding their existence, launching a surprise attack at what is setup to become the center of galactic government in each cycle, etc... but the other component is technological superiority. Reapers force technological evolution along the lines they see fit and do not allow each cycle to progress to the point of parity or even near parity.

In general though, ME1 sets up the Reaper threat as something that is near impossible to defeat, as no cycle had done it before. The only way to have a chance was to trap them in dark space by preventing the Citadel relay from being opened.

Sovereign did have a massive Geth fleet with him, and he probably could not stand up to the combined Citadel fleet in a prolonged engagement, but this is actually left somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, you have Vigil's testimony that Sovereign needed allies since a Reaper is not invincible, but on the other the Geth may have been used more as a distraction and risk mitigation so that Sovereign could get inside the Citadel and shut the fleet outside, leaving him essentially zero resistance inside.

ME1 also makes it unclear if the 5th Fleet's sustained fire finally broke through Sovereign's barriers, but this was later "clarified" that it was indeed Shepard's actions fighting possessed Saren that dropped his barriers allowing the 5th Fleet to actually damage him.

[brad2240]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

From a story telling standpoint ME2's direction makes no sense. Plotwise it doesn't acomplish what the second act of a story must acomplish in order for the rest of the story to be complete.

Could you explain this a little more please? In what way does the direction make no sense? What does it fail to accomplish that it should have?