139 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

I like ME3 a bit more, but they're both top ten games for me.

[SilJeff]

Over all, it is my favorite. But plot/story-wise, I think it is still the worst.

 

 

May not have the best gameplay of the three, nor the best sense of exploration of the three, but it has a good blend of the two

[Farangbaa]

I do not have to worry about the Reapers as much

 

How the *@#^*@# is that a good thing?

 

The games are about stopping them.

[JeffZero]

The rest of his post strongly insinuates differing tastes; indeed, if there were a game with as rich a space setting involving downing margaritas, I dare say any imminent Reaper invasion in his galaxy would not be halted.

 

But yeah, some people just find other elements of the narrative more engaging, regardless.

[OPM_Lunacy]

I like ME3 a bit more, but they're both top ten games for me.

 

I would say Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 are top ten games 

 

I like the team of Mass Effect 2: the team you have to assemble is very nice: everybody has his own past, experience, way of communicating, love interest in you, etc. 

Of course you can also find that in Mass Effect 3 (and more or less in Mass Effect 1), but in 2, the team is still the best, in my opinion of course 

[Larry-3]

How the *@#^*@# is that a good thing?

 

The games are about stopping them.

 

Ha, well not everyone enjoys collecting war assets or being chased around the galaxy map but octopus things,

[Jukaga]

How the *@#^*@# is that a good thing?

 

The games are about stopping them.

Because the Reapers are the weakest part of the setting. It's a very rich setting that's fun to explore at your own pace which is something that ME2 allows you to do.

[MagicalMaster]

How the *@#^*@# is that a good thing?

 

The games are about stopping them.

 

Because the Reapers suck as an enemy.  Look at what happened in ME3: "Uh...uh...MAGICAL PLOT DEVICE!"  They're simply beyond the scope of what can be reasonably fought.  Conventional armies don't matter.  Special forces don't matter.  Reverse engineered Reaper technology with a galactic fleet doesn't matter.  You lose except for the Crucible according to the authors.  They're not interesting to fight precisely because they cannot be fought.

 

ME2, though, is about a foe you CAN take on with the right preparation and choices.  It still has the best ending sequence of any game I've ever seen in terms of making your choices affect what happens.

[CptFalconPunch]

Because the Reapers suck as an enemy.  Look at what happened in ME3: "Uh...uh...MAGICAL PLOT DEVICE!"  They're simply beyond the scope of what can be reasonably fought.  Conventional armies don't matter.  Special forces don't matter.  Reverse engineered Reaper technology with a galactic fleet doesn't matter.  You lose except for the Crucible according to the authors.  They're not interesting to fight precisely because they cannot be fought.

 

ME2, though, is about a foe you CAN take on with the right preparation and choices.  It still has the best ending sequence of any game I've ever seen in terms of making your choices affect what happens.

 

Just because it was resolved in a unsatisfactory way doesn't mean they "sucked". In ME1 Sovereign looked unbeatable but still we won. And that was a lot more satisfactory than the collectors, who can literally be killed in 2 shots and then kill their reaper with a handguns.

The problem was, the fact that ME2 was pointless, and we never looked for a way to beat them. So ME3 had to take care of ME2's shortcomings. 

 

ME1 revolved around the reapers, all that while giving us room to explore the most. Then ME2 discarded everything, and only the people who don't care about the story like you were able to enjoy it fully. It is very weird to see people have such perspectives, especially over  a Bioware game.

[Ravensword]

My favorite moment in ME2:

[MagicalMaster]

Just because it was resolved in a unsatisfactory way doesn't mean they "sucked". In ME1 Sovereign looked unbeatable but still we won.

 

According to the Devs, we only won because...somehow...killing the Sovereign-possessed Saren husk disabled all of Sovereign's shields.  Exactly how killing one small thing it was controlling (in addition to doing *minor* things like fighting a fleet) disabled all of its shields was never explained.  That battle with Shepard should have been a fraction of a percent of its processing power.

 

The problem was, the fact that ME2 was pointless, and we never looked for a way to beat them. So ME3 had to take care of ME2's shortcomings. 

 

So how should have ME2 gone in your view?

 

ME1 revolved around the reapers, all that while giving us room to explore the most.

 

If you gave Geth the power of indoctrination, had them trying to wipe out civilization every 50,000 years, and had them trying to use Saren to invade the heart of political power, basically nothing would have changed about the plot of ME.  The idea of godlike sentient starships was not necessary to the plot at all.

 

Then ME2 discarded everything, and only the people who don't care about the story like you were able to enjoy it fully. It is very weird to see people have such perspectives, especially over  a Bioware game.

 

And why do you think I don't care about the story?  I might not care about the *Reapers* but that hardly means I don't care about the story.

 

I mean, is DA:O a terrible game because it only deals stopping one Blight versus breaking the cycle and ending the Darkspawn threat?  The story of "Special forces soldier overcomes obstacles and assembles crack team to assault a mysterious alien race abducting entire colonies" is interesting to me, and then you throw in all the individual character sub plots and all the minor plots for side quests.

[SNascimento]

ME2 has the best narrative in the trilogy. 

And I'll just say this: anyone who says stuff in the lines that Mass Effect 2 was pointless in commiting a crime against the human race. Just make this experiment: image Tuchanka mission, the highlight of Mass Effect 3, without Mordin or any Mordin relate mission/dialogue from ME2. Or the Quarian/Geth arc without Legion and Tali related stuff from ME2. And that's just the surface.

But the important thing about ME2 is that it was with it that Mass Effect became Mass Effect. Before ME2, Mass Effect wasn't a top tier franchise, ME1 didn't have the same effect games like Bioshock and The Last of Us did, ME2 however, did. And Mass Effect changed from a series with potential to a consolidate name in the gaming industry.

[JeffZero]

I would say Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 are top ten games 

 

I like the team of Mass Effect 2: the team you have to assemble is very nice: everybody has his own past, experience, way of communicating, love interest in you, etc. 

Of course you can also find that in Mass Effect 3 (and more or less in Mass Effect 1), but in 2, the team is still the best, in my opinion of course 

 

Heh, well said. ME1 is around 14th or so for me, but still amazing, yeah.

[CptFalconPunch]

According to the Devs, we only won because...somehow...killing the Sovereign-possessed Saren husk disabled all of Sovereign's shields.  Exactly how killing one small thing it was controlling (in addition to doing *minor* things like fighting a fleet) disabled all of its shields was never explained.  That battle with Shepard should have been a fraction of a percent of its processing power.

Of course, because possession can be as deadly for a god as it can be for anyone else. Sovereign's desperation was portrayed, which, for a god, is really interesting to witness.
Do note that sovereign isn't only a machine, it has a mind.

So how should have ME2 gone in your view?

Throwing a 1 year lond party sounds like a better plot than ME2. ME2 is basically:
1) Ignore the machine gods that are coming to kill us all.
2) Focus on one of their weakest minions, who are of no threat to the galaxy and can be killed in 2 shots from a small ship, AA guns and anything else.
3) Bullrush into the galactic core without investigating anything, risking everyone's lives.

However here is a good story: Go after the shadow broker with liara. Have her be your informant, instead of TIM, find way to stop reapers so the next game doesn't have to do that, and can focus on resolving the issue.

Common sense.

Discover problem -> find a way to solve problem -> Apply solution. ME2 partakes in none of these. Ergo its completely pointless.

If you gave Geth the power of indoctrination, had them trying to wipe out civilization every 50,000 years, and had them trying to use Saren to invade the heart of political power, basically nothing would have changed about the plot of ME.  The idea of godlike sentient starships was not necessary to the plot at all.

The Geth exist only in this cycle. The reapers do not.
And the Geth aren't Lovecraftian inspired. If you don't like Lovecraf-ish stories, its either a preference or you can't pay attention to the narrative. But this is one of the most important things that sets mass effect apart from other sci-fi.

And why do you think I don't care about the story?  I might not care about the *Reapers* but that hardly means I don't care about the story.

If you paid attention you would see the flaws in ME2's narrative, which are obvious, but if you like a game then hear critics say good things about it, you don't really have to think about things any further.

I haven't played DA:O yet, I'll ceretainly get to it sometime. Perhaps next summer, I hear its quite long.

[CptFalconPunch]

ME2 has the best narrative in the trilogy. 

And I'll just say this: anyone who says stuff in the lines that Mass Effect 2 was pointless in commiting a crime against the human race. Just make this experiment: image Tuchanka mission, the highlight of Mass Effect 3, without Mordin or any Mordin relate mission/dialogue from ME2. Or the Quarian/Geth arc without Legion and Tali related stuff from ME2. And that's just the surface.

But the important thing about ME2 is that it was with it that Mass Effect became Mass Effect. Before ME2, Mass Effect wasn't a top tier franchise, ME1 didn't have the same effect games like Bioshock and The Last of Us did, ME2 however, did. And Mass Effect changed from a series with potential to a consolidate name in the gaming industry.

ME1 is the best game then, because, according to your logic, it created everything. Every single race, the best characters int he ttilogy, the locations and much more. Imagine Tuchanca, ME3's highlight, without Wrex.

As for the rest, all I see is projection. You should like a game for yourself, instead of trying to use its recognition to fuel your love for it. You're throwing games like Bioshock and last of us as masterpieces I have to take for granted? Because both games are mediocre for me.


Unless you're trolling, huh, shoulda thought that earlier...

[Probe Away]

Hi CaptFP,

While much of what you say about ME2s flaws has merit, you can't keep going on about Shep ignoring the reapers because that simply isn't true.

Right at the start TIM tells you that he is sure the Collectors are working for the Reapers. Granted, his evidence is vague (something about the patterns being there if you look close enough) but it is clearly a lead on the Reapers.

Sure, Shep could have ignored TIM and flown off with Liara to fight the SB (although EDI, Miranda, Jacob and the Cerberus crew might have had something to say about that) but why would you do that? If you want to pursue the Reaper threat then it makes sense to follow the lead that TIM hands you on a silver platter.

If you don't like the plot or the changes from ME1-2 then that's fine, each to their own - you've more than made your point in that respect! - but it sounds like you just want to take the Normandy off Cerberus because you don't like the direction BW took the game.

For me, ME2 is just the most fun game to play in the series. Not because it is flawless but in spite of its flaws. The amazing variety in locations through the Terminus Systems more than outweighed the more linear side missions, the streamlined RPG elements and any issues with the plot, and gave me more of a sense of adventure than the repetitive settings in ME1.

[CptFalconPunch]

Hi CaptFP,

While much of what you say about ME2s flaws has merit, you can't keep going on about Shep ignoring the reapers because that simply isn't true.

Right at the start TIM tells you that he is sure the Collectors are working for the Reapers. Granted, his evidence is vague (something about the patterns being there if you look close enough) but it is clearly a lead on the Reapers.

Sure, Shep could have ignored TIM and flown off with Liara to fight the SB (although EDI, Miranda, Jacob and the Cerberus crew might have had something to say about that) but why would you do that? If you want to pursue the Reaper threat then it makes sense to follow the lead that TIM hands you on a silver platter.

If you don't like the plot or the changes from ME1-2 then that's fine, each to their own - you've more than made your point in that respect! - but it sounds like you just want to take the Normandy off Cerberus because you don't like the direction BW took the game.

For me, ME2 is just the most fun game to play in the series. Not because it is flawless but in spite of its flaws. The amazing variety in locations through the Terminus Systems more than outweighed the more linear side missions, the streamlined RPG elements and any issues with the plot, and gave me more of a sense of adventure than the repetitive settings in ME1.

I'm not trying to devalue the whole of ME2, I like it.

But there is no denying it. Whether we defeat the collectors or not, it is utterly pointless, and we make absolytely no steps towards defeating the reapers. And the collectors themselves pose no greater threat than any other enemy out there. The batarians in ME1 posed a greater threat than them.

The same weirdness lies with cerberus. They pop out of nowhere, and I'm supposed to accept them because Bioware released comics and books about them?
Furthermore, I'm not saying to completely blow off TIM, he is an informant, but "working" under him and doing everything he says is... out of character and plot.

A good sequel doesn't "change" the plot, it ties back to the original and moves from there on. Mass effect 2 used everything ME1 created, the races, the music, the locations, the characters, the setting, the combat etc. Yet where ME1 shined, the story and the plot, ME2 just ignores it. I would be fine if ME2 was a standalone but it's not. It is a part of a trilogy and it doesn't do its job well at that.

Outside the story and the plot in ME2, everything else is great.

[MagicalMaster]

Of course, because possession can be as deadly for a god as it can be for anyone else. Sovereign's desperation was portrayed, which, for a god, is really interesting to witness.
Do note that sovereign isn't only a machine, it has a mind.

 

And I'm willing to bet that focusing on fighting an entire fleet outside requires a lot more focus than controlling a tiny robot body.  I mean, seriously.  I never bought that aspect of the ending and I still don't buy it -- even if it WAS due to Sovereign's "mind" then it still had automated processes controlling shields and weapons, so it shouldn't have suddenly lost all power.

 

I'm willing to give it a pass because it's still an awesome sequence in general once you get to the actual Citadel...but that doesn't mean that specific part made any sense.

 

Throwing a 1 year lond party sounds like a better plot than ME2. ME2 is basically:
1) Ignore the machine gods that are coming to kill us all.
2) Focus on one of their weakest minions, who are of no threat to the galaxy and can be killed in 2 shots from a small ship, AA guns and anything else.
3) Bullrush into the galactic core without investigating anything, risking everyone's lives.

 

The Council and everyone else wanted to ignore it after Shepard got killed by the Collectors.  Easier to pretend it doesn't exist since it actually happening seems very unlikely to everyone else.  Shepard's trying to follow up on a possible lead and, by the way, stop hundreds of thousands of colonists from dying.  I mean, imagine if entire towns in the middle of US just started vanishing -- not defended military bases or anything, but still thousands of people each time.

 

Yes, that's small scale next to the Reapers destroying everything but that's considered to be a long way off.

 

I do agree on the galactic core bit, but you can handwave that as the Reaper IFF not easily being replicated or something (though the fact Cerberus suddenly has a bunch of ships travel to the base if you preserve it makes that problematic).  If you really prefer then imagine drone scouts were sent through but quickly destroyed by the Oculi (sp?), doesn't really change anything.

 

However here is a good story: Go after the shadow broker with liara. Have her be your informant, instead of TIM, find way to stop reapers so the next game doesn't have to do that, and can focus on resolving the issue.

 

So basically ME3's plot (build Crucible) without the actual Reaper invasion?

 

Or did you have something better than that?

 

The Geth exist only in this cycle. The reapers do not.
And the Geth aren't Lovecraftian inspired. If you don't like Lovecraf-ish stories, its either a preference or you can't pay attention to the narrative. But this is one of the most important things that sets mass effect apart from other sci-fi.

 

The Geth didn't *have* to exist only in this cycle, they could easily be cleansing organic life and have been created millions of years ago.  The idea of Reapers was not essential to the galaxy of races and technology that is ME.  I don't mind Lovecraft-ish stories, but I never considered it essential to Mass Effect.

 

I mean, imagine if the Collectors in ME2 were just a threat in and of themselves, no grand threat of Reapers.  ME2 would still be an interesting and amazing game due to the setting and characters (assuming you introduced stuff properly since you'd lack ME).

 

If you paid attention you would see the flaws in ME2's narrative, which are obvious, but if you like a game then hear critics say good things about it, you don't really have to think about things any further.

I haven't played DA:O yet, I'll ceretainly get to it sometime. Perhaps next summer, I hear its quite long.

 

I like how you're equating "wasn't bothered by some holes in ME2's narrative" to "don't think about games at all."  Most games have narrative flaws, including ME, the question is to the degree of which they matter.  Yes, ME2's central narrative was weaker but the character narrative and general setting was amazing.

 

DA:O is really long.  Like really, really, I got bored out of my mind and just wanted it to be over long.  Over 100 hours on my only playthrough and I have no inclination to replay it...and I've played ME and ME2 each at least half a dozen times through.

 

As for the rest, all I see is projection. You should like a game for yourself, instead of trying to use its recognition to fuel your love for it. You're throwing games like Bioshock and last of us as masterpieces I have to take for granted? Because both games are mediocre for me.

 

Whether *you* liked the games does not determine whether they're extremely popular and influential in general.

 

Gave me more of a sense of adventure than the repetitive settings in ME1.

You mean you didn't like walking into the same structure 50 different times in ME1? >.>

 

But there is no denying it. Whether we defeat the collectors or not, it is utterly pointless, and we make absolytely no steps towards defeating the reapers.

 

But we do understand and see far more of the galaxy from issues like the genophage to Quarian culture to Geth ethics to Justicars and beyond.

 

We also set the Reapers back, apparently the general idea is they were using the Collectors to build another Reaper to attempt what Sovereign did...again.  Whether or not you buy that the Collectors could pull it off doesn't change the fact that was the stated idea.

 

The same weirdness lies with cerberus. They pop out of nowhere, and I'm supposed to accept them because Bioware released comics and books about them?
Furthermore, I'm not saying to completely blow off TIM, he is an informant, but "working" under him and doing everything he says is... out of character and plot.

 

Cerberus played a major role in quite a few side quests in ME -- did you just completely miss them?

 

Exactly what did TIM say to do that Shepard did bother you so much?  The mandatory main plot missions?  I figured you'd be HAPPY with those -- they're actually presented as "this stuff is happening RIGHT NOW and needs to be dealt with."

[Probe Away]

The real problem lies with ME3. Because the game begins with the reapers invading a totally unprepared galaxy and you don't even find out about the crucible until the invasion is underway, it renders Shep's actions in ME1 and 2 pretty pointless. You're not much better off than you would have been had Sovereign succeeded.

ME3 could have partly resolved the issue by making the collector tech or the destruction of the collectors consequential. That would have made ME1 (delaying the reapers) and ME2 critical to defeating the reapers in ME3. Instead, they decided that the reapers were just going to invade like nothing happened.

[CptFalconPunch]

The real problem lies with ME3. Because the game begins with the reapers invading a totally unprepared galaxy and you don't even find out about the crucible until the invasion is underway, it renders Shep's actions in ME1 and 2 pretty pointless. You're not much better off than you would have been had Sovereign succeeded.

ME3 could have partly resolved the issue by making the collector tech or the destruction of the collectors consequential. That would have made ME1 (delaying the reapers) and ME2 critical to defeating the reapers in ME3. Instead, they decided that the reapers were just going to invade like nothing happened.

 
No, you're shifting the blame from ME2 to ME3. ME3 has its own faults, like the rest. But, at the end of ME2, you can see the reapers at our borders, so there is no time. The reapers arriving in an unprepared galaxy is entablished from ME2, yet you're blaming ME3 for being unprepared while we did nothing to prepare in ME2. 
 
Discovering the problem -> finding a solution -> applying the solution. ME1 is the first, ME3 is the second and third stage. ME2 does nothing... 

As for the collector base, it would make sense if Bioware found a way to clone themselves and make 2 games simultaneously.
The sheer fact that we have a chance to destroy the base takes the idea you said out of the question. The collector base was as consequential as the rachni and any other major choice we did in ME1.
No matter how important you make the collector base, you have to give the players who destroyed it a way to beat the reapers. Which is what ME3 is.

[CptFalconPunch]

"The Council and everyone else wanted to ignore it after Shepard got killed by the Collectors.  Easier to pretend it doesn't exist since it actually happening seems very unlikely to everyone else.  Shepard's trying to follow up on a possible lead and, by the way, stop hundreds of thousands of colonists from dying.  I mean, imagine if entire towns in the middle of US just started vanishing -- not defended military bases or anything, but still thousands of people each time.

 
Yes, that's small scale next to the Reapers destroying everything but that's considered to be a long way off.
 
I do agree on the galactic core bit, but you can handwave that as the Reaper IFF not easily being replicated or something (though the fact Cerberus suddenly has a bunch of ships travel to the base if you preserve it makes that problematic).  If you really prefer then imagine drone scouts were sent through but quickly destroyed by the Oculi (sp?), doesn't really change anything."

 

 

Which brings up more plot weirdness. Why did the council change their minds when they said with certainty they are going to stop the reapers with shepard at the end of ME1?
Why is the alliance not doing anything about hundrends of thousands of colonists dissapearing? You'd think by making the parralel of US cities you would take the army into account, or the police at least.
Why was there no investigation on the replay?
And so on. This is cheap writing, a thing both ME2 and 3 suffer from.

If you really like the game though, you can have the energy to headcannon all of these and shut some plot holes, but it isn't my job to do that. If it was I would say that ME3's ending is great.

 

 

"So basically ME3's plot (build Crucible) without the actual Reaper invasion?
 
Or did you have something better than that?"

 

No, we can keept he crucible, a Deux Ex machina isn't a bad thing by default. Its execution in ME3 isn't what I would want.
If we had a game (ME2) were we took some steps forward in building and finding the solution it would "feel" like a good one. So imagine we're scouring the galaxy for these things, putting a lot of work in searching and building it bit by bit.
And the way we build it, or the percentage, can have consequences in the third game. Perhaps if you don't choose A option, the weapon fires slower causing the krogans/salarians etc etc to die/diminish or anything else. You can keep the Deus Ex machina, all while keeping the sense of agency, without color options.

"The Geth didn't *have* to exist only in this cycle, they could easily be cleansing organic life and have been created millions of years ago.  The idea of Reapers was not essential to the galaxy of races and technology that is ME.  I don't mind Lovecraft-ish stories, but I never considered it essential to Mass Effect.
 
I mean, imagine if the Collectors in ME2 were just a threat in and of themselves, no grand threat of Reapers.  ME2 would still be an interesting and amazing game due to the setting and characters (assuming you introduced stuff properly since you'd lack ME)."

You can get rid of almost anything if you want to. Any character, any location. But getting rid of pre-entablished plot/story in a sequel isn't objectively, a good thing to do. I'd be perfectly fine with ME2 not have reapers in it, IF ME1 hadn't entablished that.

But still I do love the reapers as an enemy, the conversation with sovereign gave me a completely new taste of sci-fi. Read this if you want to get in my mind a bit more: http://io9.com/58861...-our-generation
 

"I like how you're equating "wasn't bothered by some holes in ME2's narrative" to "don't think about games at all."  Most games have narrative flaws, including ME, the question is to the degree of which they matter.  Yes, ME2's central narrative was weaker but the character narrative and general setting was amazing."

The character narrative was greater yes, but its completely unconnected to the main story/plot.
Funny thing is, this is the saving grace of ME2. It quarantines the good narrative from the bad narrative pretty well. For the most part. Going back to cerberus and fighting the collectors ruins everything again.

In ME1, character development was occuring thoughout the missions. Wrex, ashley/kaidan on virmire and liara on noveria. Sadly Garrus and Tali lacked.

 

"Whether *you* liked the games does not determine whether they're extremely popular and influential in general."

 

Where on earth did I say any different? You missed the point completely there.

 

"You mean you didn't like walking into the same structure 50 different times in ME1? >.>"

 

You mean you didn't like walking down linear corridors shooting down endless enemies with your guns and solving the same skilless puzzles over and over? Oh and that planet scanning was so great. And the lack of vehicles. It really gave the foot combat the repetitiveness we all needed.
 
"But we do understand and see far more of the galaxy from issues like the genophage to Quarian culture to Geth ethics to Justicars and beyond."
 

Those are my favorite parts of the game, and have nothing to do with the main storyline.

 

"We also set the Reapers back, apparently the general idea is they were using the Collectors to build another Reaper to attempt what Sovereign did...again.  Whether or not you buy that the Collectors could pull it off doesn't change the fact that was the stated idea."

 

That is headcannon. But, lets say you're right, why are the reapers are shown on the borders of our galaxy at the end of ME2?

Are they coming for tourism? It takes years to travel from dark space to our galaxy.

And the citadel master control is destroyed. How are they gonna do it? Along with the tightened security?

The game never builds upon this idea though. So its pointless to discuss it.

 

"Cerberus played a major role in quite a few side quests in ME -- did you just completely miss them?"

 

No, I didn't. I did miss the options to ask them how does everyone know a "secret" organization, although I know the answer, its in the books and comics :/

I also seem to have completely missed the option to ask them about kahoku, my unit they obliterated with the thresher maw etc.

And the sidequests in ME1, are... not too important. So the "major role" falls into a completely unimportant one.

 

"Exactly what did TIM say to do that Shepard did bother you so much?  The mandatory main plot missions?  I figured you'd be HAPPY with those -- they're actually presented as "this stuff is happening RIGHT NOW and needs to be dealt with."

 

TIM- "Shepard you're gonna work for me and be under my command and supervision"

Shepard- "No, I see no reason to be under your command, or supervision, you can however be my informant, thanks for the ship"

TIM- "Do as I say"

Shepard-"Yes"

 

TIM- "Shepard, a collector ship has parked over there, go and investigate"

Shepard-"No, its obviously a trap"

TIM- "Do it"

Shepard-"Yes"

 

TIM- "Shepard, i just happened to stumble on a 33 million year old reaper on my way to starbucks"

Shepard- "Seems legit"

TIM- "Go and investigate"

Shepard- "Good idea, this is a great chance to get the alliance and the council on our side."

TIM- "No, you don't get to show them the reaper"

Shepard- "Okay"

 

[Probe Away]

"No, you're shifting the blame from ME2 to ME3. ME3 has its own faults, like the rest. But, at the end of ME2, you can see the reapers at our borders, so there is no time. The reapers arriving in an unprepared galaxy is entablished from ME2, yet you're blaming ME3 for being unprepared while we did nothing to prepare in ME2.

Discovering the problem -> finding a solution -> applying the solution. ME1 is the first, ME3 is the second and third stage. ME2 does nothing...

As for the collector base, it would make sense if Bioware found a way to clone themselves and make 2 games simultaneously.
The sheer fact that we have a chance to destroy the base takes the idea you said out of the question. The collector base was as consequential as the rachni and any other major choice we did in ME1.
No matter how important you make the collector base, you have to give the players who destroyed it a way to beat the reapers. Which is what ME3 is."

I'm not shifting anything. A bit of intelligent writing in ME3 could have made any number if things you did in ME2 important - discovering the collectors, finding a derelict reaper, salvaging collector tech - even if the base was destroyed.

There could have been alternate missions in ME3 to deal with the collector base choice. Eg one to find something that is still needed to construct the crucible if the base was destroyed, one to recover crucible data from indoctrinated scientists if you saved the base. That's just off the top of my head.

And how many famous trilogies actually follow that formula? LOTR doesn't. Star Wars doesn't. You can have a second part of a trilogy that doesn't greatly advance the plot, provided it introduces or develops other aspects, such as characters or sub-plots. ME2 advances the genophage arc and the Quarian-Geth arc, as well as introducing characters who SHOULD have played important roles in stopping the reapers in 3.

Yes, ME2's plot has flaws, but you are exaggerating them to make your point (hence your last post re TIM and Shep).

[SNascimento]

ME1 is the best game then, because, according to your logic, it created everything. Every single race, the best characters int he ttilogy, the locations and much more. Imagine Tuchanca, ME3's highlight, without Wrex.

As for the rest, all I see is projection. You should like a game for yourself, instead of trying to use its recognition to fuel your love for it. You're throwing games like Bioshock and last of us as masterpieces I have to take for granted? Because both games are mediocre for me.


Unless you're trolling, huh, shoulda thought that earlier...

"I don't agree with what you're saying therefore you're trolling"

Nice attitude. 

[Dale]

ME2 is my favoriteas well. Especially all about Legion and how it changed my view of the geth.

 

And it has Thane in it. He is by far the best fictional character...ever.

My MOST:

 

• Likeable – Garrus
• Boring – Jacob
• Interesting – Mordin
• Loveable – Kelly
• Funny - Joker
• Obnoxious – Grunt (but I still love this knucklehead)
• Mysterious & intriguing - Legion

 

Likewise Friera, Legion was my most intriguing & mysterious character which mirrors to my [very] passionate corresponding Quarians.  One of my 2 [super] gripes with Bioware was making their faceplates perpetually opaque (unnecessary indoors).  

 

Without Legion & the Quarians (IMHEO)  the MEU would be very mediocre.   In ME3, Legion and the reconciliation of Geth & Quarians were fully exploited.   That was the most satisfying part of the series to me – and the best writing (of the BWT). 

 

At Tali’s trial (before playing ME3), I thought Admiral Koris was an unmitigated JERK!   Wow!   I was wrong!   ME3 showed the other side where the Quarians & Geth could have wiped each other out (following the warring admirals) – which could have resulted in little (or no) help with the reaper invasion.  BTY-funny how some Quarians have an “accent” (like Tali) and others don’t – like John Wayne.

 

Next time you play ME2, recruit Legion EARLY – but before, do a special SAVE and make note (since you need to return to this save).   Doing an EARLY recruit of Legion automatically installs the IFF which means the Normandy is raided by the Collectors – and the longer you spend time doing “other stuff” the more they die (in the stasis pods) during the final mission.    If saving everyone is your goal, then you must return to your [documented] SAVE and recruit Legion last.

 

The point is – have some fun by recruiting Legion EARLY in the game, take him to meet the Council, then watch the sparks fly taking Legion to Tali’s trial.   Carefully pay attention to the dialogue between Koris & Legion (quicksave & play all possibilities on the conversation wheel).  Don’t forget to dialogue with everyone AFTER the trial.  Then take Legion to do Overlord.   Legion is a RIOT!

 

The MEU is sadly lacking for surprises.   On Vermire, Rana escapes the blast (utility pod) but A/K doesn’t – even after the 3-4 minute BLAB dialogue between Shep & Saren.    Wouldn’t it be neat to see A/K show up in the middle of ME3? 

 

Likewise, Geth are not destroyed by immobilizing their hardware platform.   This was made EXPLCITLY plain in ME2 & especially in ME3.  You destroy Geth by destroying their software.   Surely – someplace – somewhere – Legion must have backed himself up & could be reinstated (without the final memories, of course).   It would be cool to see a “surprise” Legion reappear in ME4 – and say “howdy” to Airlock Javik.

[Vazgen]

I have to say, Mass Effect 2 plot is the weakest of all three. It has great writing and amazing characters which make the game a blast to play but remove those characters and the game will end up much weaker than same ME1 and ME3. Get a companion, make him loyal, get another. 2 or 3 missions in-between where you actually fight the main villain faction (Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF). 

The characters make the game and if there is something Bioware does good, it's the characters. You get attached to characters completely new in the universe and it really gives the Suicide Mission that great feel when you trust your squadmates and they trust you to get them out alive. You get to know them better, discover their flaws and strengths and learn to like or dislike them. ME2 also has the best hub worlds in the series - Omega and Illium and that feel of visiting new worlds is still there. ME3 has no such feeling, every world you visit is a warzone. However, Mass Effect 3 is the most emotionally engaging game of all three. There were a lot of moments that hit me right in the feels, making me sad, happy, angry, guilty... And many of them are connected to the characters introduced in ME2 - another testament to the exceptional writing of those squadmates.