What were you trying to click on?
I was getting ready to waltz over to the Destroy tube and open fire, but when I gained control of Shepard I looked around and took in the surroundings. I then noticed the Catalyst standing there and moved my cursor over him - just innocently looking at him. Then I happened to misclick. Shepard fired -
"SO BE IT!" boomed the Catalyst. The wrong ending ensued.
It's not like the original writers had any idea where they were going either.
I think that's why you kinda make it up along the way while considering all of the choices the player made. I think what really hurt the Trilogy was Shepard dying in ME2. That wasted a lot of time...
I think that's why you kinda make it up along the way while considering all of the choices the player made. I think what really hurt the Trilogy was Shepard dying in ME2. That wasted a lot of time...
It's not the only thing, but it was the first big hint that Bioware really had no idea where they were going with the story.
Hell, they could barely decide if Shepard should be an unknowing alien, a literal cyborg, or the wacky fusion of flesh and machine s/he ended up being in ME2.
I think that's why you kinda make it up along the way while considering all of the choices the player made. I think what really hurt the Trilogy was Shepard dying in ME2. That wasted a lot of time...
ME2 was the first game I played of the trilogy and the one that set me on the path of the obsession that is ME today. And I remember being honestly shocked when I found out that the protagonist dies in the first five minutes of the game. But, from where I stand, that was actually a good thing, because it invested me in the game. I just wanted to know more.
ME2 was the first game I played of the trilogy and the one that set me on the path of the obsession that is ME today. And I remember being honestly shocked when I found out that the protagonist dies in the first five minutes of the game. But, from where I stand, that was actually a good thing, because it invested me in the game. I just wanted to know more.
The thing about it is that it rushed the storyline. Taking away 2 years is a long time, and I think I would have enjoyed the game a little more if it were not a Trilogy, but a four part series. In ME2, they only left us with like a year and a half before Priority: Earth in ME3.
ME2 was the first game I played of the trilogy and the one that set me on the path of the obsession that is ME today. And I remember being honestly shocked when I found out that the protagonist dies in the first five minutes of the game. But, from where I stand, that was actually a good thing, because it invested me in the game. I just wanted to know more.
I had the same reaction, even after having played ME1 a bazillion times before ME2. I was also like, "Ohh no, Pressly??? He was just starting to come around, dammit!" ...Eh, I get attached to the characters.
The thing about it is that it rushed the storyline. Taking away 2 years is a long time, and I think I would have enjoyed the game a little more if it were not a Trilogy, but a four part series. In ME2, they only left us with like a year and a half before Priority: Earth in ME3.
All good things are three? 
I had the same reaction, even after having played ME1 a bazillion times before ME2. I was also like, "Ohh no, Pressly??? He was just starting to come around, dammit!" ...Eh, I get attached to the characters.
And then came Normandy Crash Site and that particular OSD...
All good things are three?
And then came Normandy Crash Site and that particular OSD...
Exactly. Well it was a good send-off for his character anyway.
ME2 was the first game I played of the trilogy and the one that set me on the path of the obsession that is ME today. And I remember being honestly shocked when I found out that the protagonist dies in the first five minutes of the game. But, from where I stand, that was actually a good thing, because it invested me in the game. I just wanted to know more.
Lol ME2 was my first ME game too and I just remember being so confused during the prologue. But I agree it did a great job of reeling me into the story and getting mr pumped when she was waking up in Lazarus Proj. lab.
I think that's why you kinda make it up along the way while considering all of the choices the player made. I think what really hurt the Trilogy was Shepard dying in ME2. That wasted a lot of time...
I can see why you might feel that way, but when I think about it I really like what the two year break did for the rest of Shep's crew. If it weren't for the Normandy being destroyed and the crew disintegrating, then Liara wouldn't have taken the path of becoming the Shadow Broker, Garrus as Archangel, Wrex as clan leader, the VS with their promotion, etc.
If the crew stuck together, then everyone would've remained under Shepard's shadow as long as they remained under her command. Maybe squad mates would've left to take on independent paths eventually, but then I feel like they would not become nearly as accomplished as they would have if they had two years of independence to themselves, and they might be less inclined to return to the Normandy in the future (which is not ok lol).
Lol ME2 was my first ME game too and I just remember being so confused during the prologue. But I agree it did a great job of reeling me into the story and getting mr pumped when she was waking up in Lazarus Proj. lab.
I can see why you might feel that way, but when I think about it I really like what the two year break did for the rest of Shep's crew. If it weren't for the Normandy being destroyed and the crew disintegrating, then Liara wouldn't have taken the path of becoming the Shadow Broker, Garrus as Archangel, Wrex as clan leader, the VS with their promotion, etc.
If the crew stuck together, then everyone would've remained under Shepard's shadow as long as they remained under her command. Maybe squad mates would've left to take on independent paths eventually, but then I feel like they would not become nearly as accomplished as they would have if they had two years of independence to themselves, and they might be less inclined to return to the Normandy in the future (which is not ok lol).
Nuuu!!!! I never wanted Wrex to be clan leader!!!! Well, maybe....but NUUUUU!
I can see why you might feel that way, but when I think about it I really like what the two year break did for the rest of Shep's crew. If it weren't for the Normandy being destroyed and the crew disintegrating, then Liara wouldn't have taken the path of becoming the Shadow Broker, Garrus as Archangel, Wrex as clan leader, the VS with their promotion, etc.
If the crew stuck together, then everyone would've remained under Shepard's shadow as long as they remained under her command. Maybe squad mates would've left to take on independent paths eventually, but then I feel like they would not become nearly as accomplished as they would have if they had two years of independence to themselves, and they might be less inclined to return to the Normandy in the future (which is not ok lol).
Well said. I still wonder if maybe shep didn't have to die for that to happen, though. Like... Garrus, Liara, Tali, and Wrex all joined shep to take down Saren. Once that's done they could have gone their separate ways and yet remained friends. The Alliance crew could have all been re-deployed, maybe to help keep the whole "reaper" thing under wraps.
I think that's why you kinda make it up along the way while considering all of the choices the player made. I think what really hurt the Trilogy was Shepard dying in ME2. That wasted a lot of time...
Nuuu!!!! I never wanted Wrex to be clan leader!!!! Well, maybe....but NUUUUU!
Lol well I certainly do enjoy Garrus becoming Archangel. Nothing like doubling your sex appeal by saying **** the system and becoming an ***-kicking vigilante and forming your own crime-fighting squad in one of the most corrupt space stations in the galaxy. Yes, I say.
Well said. I still wonder if maybe shep didn't have to die for that to happen, though. Like... Garrus, Liara, Tali, and Wrex all joined shep to take down Saren. Once that's done they could have gone their separate ways and yet remained friends. The Alliance crew could have all been re-deployed, maybe to help keep the whole "reaper" thing under wraps.
I thought about that. I think they were all still serving with Shep when the Normandy got destroyed, just based on dialogue wording (Like what Joker says about Shepard and the Normandy not there to keep everyone together hence their separate ways, and stuff Illusive Man says when Shep asks about the status of her old crew).
But I'm sure if the writers wanted a different plot for ME2 that didn't involve Shep being resurrected from death, they would've thought of ways to instill just as much character development for the squad mates. But ME2 is what it is, and among the things they did do right include the old squad mates' personal growth over those 2 years.
Lol well I certainly do enjoy Garrus becoming Archangel. Nothing like doubling your sex appeal by saying **** the system and becoming an ***-kicking vigilante and forming your own crime-fighting squad in one of the most corrupt space stations in the galaxy. Yes, I say.
I thought about that. I think they were all still serving with Shep when the Normandy got destroyed, just based on dialogue wording (Like what Joker says about Shepard and the Normandy not there to keep everyone together hence their separate ways, and stuff Illusive Man says when Shep asks about the status of her old crew).
But I'm sure if the writers wanted a different plot for ME2 that didn't involve Shep being resurrected from death, they would've thought of ways to instill just as much character development for the squad mates. But ME2 is what it is, and among the things they did do right include the old squad mates' personal growth over those 2 years.
At the time the Normandy SR1 is destroyed it's only been six weeks since the end of ME1, and shep and crew are on cleanup duty. It makes sense for them to still be together at that point. But over the next two years, yeah, they could have come up with all kinds of ways for the crew to separate that didn't involve shep dying.
I think that's why you kinda make it up along the way while considering all of the choices the player made. I think what really hurt the Trilogy was Shepard dying in ME2. That wasted a lot of time...
I believe having 12 squadmates when you only needed 8 to survive. And being a suicide mission, a few deaths should've been mandatory, hurt as well.
I believe having 12 squadmates when you only needed 8 to survive. And being a suicide mission, a few deaths should've been mandatory, hurt as well.
Yeah, but I need a lot of squadmates to actually not get bored of switching them around. I like the variety...
Well said. I still wonder if maybe shep didn't have to die for that to happen, though. Like... Garrus, Liara, Tali, and Wrex all joined shep to take down Saren. Once that's done they could have gone their separate ways and yet remained friends. The Alliance crew could have all been re-deployed, maybe to help keep the whole "reaper" thing under wraps.
Exactly.
It was a pointless waste to go that route when there are easier, less wtf-inducing ways than mashing the "awesome button"
I've no problem with things being made up on the fly as long as that is taking part around a strongly defined core.
They should know the BIG points and the little ones will fall into place.
Problem is that when I play Mass Effect 3 I kind of get the feeling that Bioware had no idea how they wanted the story to play out. Kind of getting stuck on "wouldn't it be cool if....?"
Yeah, but I need a lot of squadmates to actually not get bored of switching them around. I like the variety...
. Though most of time I still do find myself gravitating towards the Alliance squadmates, since the Normandy is an Alliance frigate with an all Alliance crew so it makes sense to use Alliance soldiers to go the missions with, especially Priority:Earth. Exactly.
It was a pointless waste to go that route when there are easier, less wtf-inducing ways than mashing the "awesome button"
Rule of cool took precedence at the beginning of ME2, which sadly, is where the series started going downhill. Bioware shouldn't have killed and brought back Shepard if they weren't going to use his resurrection as a main plot point over the duration of the game, instead, we get a few logs and people act as if bringing someone back from the dead is something that happens everyday.
I have no idea why Bioware didn't just go for the tried and tested coma device. It may be overused in media, but it's overused for a reason, it avoids absolute messes like the Lazarus Project.
This argument would be a lot more convincing if ME2's start -- or the whole game--had actually been unpopular.
Wait, so now popular=good?
Can I now comfortably say definitively ME3's endings are bad because they were unpopular?
This argument would be a lot more convincing if ME2's start -- or the whole game--had actually been unpopular.
This argument would be a lot more convincing if ME2's start -- or the whole game--had actually been unpopular.
I suppose this could be said for just about anything that's officially considered good by critics and audiences. I like to refer back to the Abrams Star Trek movies often, because the effect is kind of the same. Both films receive largely positive reviews from critics and have a positive consensus among the audience, yet they both have insanely bad internal logic that could not possibly stand up to any serious scrutiny. It came to the point where I wanted to laugh, but couldn't because I was annoyed. But, they excited people anyway, despite having such poorly constructed narratives. I guess it's a matter of how much people are willing to forgive a creative work's most glaring flaws. ME2 is lots of fun, and I guess that's what counts, but even though I also love the game, it frustrates me how disjointed and senseless a lot of things can feel when revisiting its story.
Retour en haut