847 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

I liked the opening from a cinematic standpoint. It was really powerful having the sound cut out and only hearing Shep's labored breathing as they struggled with their helmet. Then cue the title.

But from a narrative standpoint, especially since it was a poor excuse to have Shep out of action for two years and restart at level one, it was bad.

 

Well, I liked that part, presentation wise. But the resurrection premise.. It felt so unnecessary. Dying, only to be raised 2 minutes later. lol. And if they wanted Shep to die, then it should have been a cliffhanger at the end of ME1.

 

And not even having the courtesy of addressing it right. I get Jacob of all people to explain the greatest medical achievement in history. "Meat and tubes.." "The best scientists money can buy."

[Addictress]

Well maybe it's because I played the whole trilogy like a marathon for the first time in 2013...I just accepted the resurrection as an entertaining and dramatic event which did not impress me as particularly bad.

I quite enjoyed it.

But perhaps if I played ME1 in 2008....waited two years...then played ME2 as it came out....I would feel differently.

[The Night Haunter]

Well maybe it's because I played the whole trilogy like a marathon for the first time in 2013...I just accepted the resurrection as an entertaining and dramatic event which did not impress me as particularly bad.

I quite enjoyed it.

But perhaps if I played ME1 in 2008....waited two years...then played ME2 as it came out....I would feel differently.

Naw, I feel the same as you (having played each game within minutes of their release time). The resurrection was a 'normal' scifi plot to explain 2 years out of the loop and to make more plot threads. I don't think the Lazarus Project was the best thing they could've done, but at the time (and now) I had no issue with it. ME3 is really where the issues with story telling in ME became a problem, ME2's issues were mostly a completely different combat system and complete lack of character and weapon progression compared to ME1 (this is all imo of course).

[straykat]

Well maybe it's because I played the whole trilogy like a marathon for the first time in 2013...I just accepted the resurrection as an entertaining and dramatic event which did not impress me as particularly bad.

I quite enjoyed it.

But perhaps if I played ME1 in 2008....waited two years...then played ME2 as it came out....I would feel differently.

 

Yeah, I had played it almost back to back. I didn't buy ME1 until right before ME2 was released..

[Cyonan]

Not imo. ME1 had the best mechanics, but ME2 by far had the best opening, best pacing and the absolute best climax. What happened in ME2's climax was exactly what should have happened in 3's climax. I can't think of another game except maybe TLOU that delivered completely with the ending, and ME2 didn't drop the ball not once. It was strong from beginning, mid to end. Seeing all your team come together like that is exactly how ME3 should have ended with all the people you allied and helped out throughout all the games fighting the reapers. But that didn't happen.

 

Inquistion was standalone too, and it's story sucked. So that point is pretty moot. I have my doubts on Andromeda even providing half the narrative or interesting characters the trilogy did. Inquisition sure didn't. Trevelyan was no Shepard.

 

I think Mass Effect 2's biggest fault from a story standpoint is that it really didn't do anything to serve the overall Reaper arc it was supposed to be a part of. It introduced and then immediately had us defeat an enemy. I also think that they should have made it so that it was impossible to bring everybody back alive from the suicide mission.

 

The opening was also an over the top and pretty silly way to establish the collectors as a threat. Killing off Shep and then promptly bringing them back 2 minutes later really does absolutely nothing but raise a lot of questions as to why this is apparently a thing in the universe. As Straykat said, it would have been better served as a cliffhanger at the end of ME1. Otherwise, having the Collectors destroy the Normandy like they did but having Shep survive would have been less ridiculous as "Dead. 2 minute cutscene. Alive". As it is now, the player doesn't even have time to fully register what just happened before they're talking about revival.

 

I'd also say that Inquisition offered plenty of interesting companions, and it was one of its stronger points. The thing about the PC is that both Shep and the Inquisitor are meant to be a bit more blank slate characters, which means they're only as interesting as your headcanon makes them. Mass Effect was more restrictive in that area than Inquisition was.

 

Of course Mass Effect 2 still had Kasumi, so it basically wins everything right there =P

[vbibbi]

Well, I liked that part, presentation wise. But the resurrection premise.. It felt so unnecessary. Dying, only to be raised 2 minutes later. lol. And if they wanted Shep to die, then it should have been a cliffhanger at the end of ME1.
 
And not even having the courtesy of addressing it right. I get Jacob of all people to explain the greatest medical achievement in history. "Meat and tubes.." "The best scientists money can buy."

Yeah I only enjoyed up to the title screen. The entire Lazarus project forward was awful. I don't know why Shep couldn't just be in a coma for a while rather than dead. And it raised questions which were never answered and jarred with the known science of the setting.

[In Exile]

Well, I liked that part, presentation wise. But the resurrection premise.. It felt so unnecessary. Dying, only to be raised 2 minutes later. lol. And if they wanted Shep to die, then it should have been a cliffhanger at the end of ME1.

 

And not even having the courtesy of addressing it right. I get Jacob of all people to explain the greatest medical achievement in history. "Meat and tubes.." "The best scientists money can buy."

It's pretty clear they did that so that the very small number of people who take unreasonable ownership of a character would not froth at the mouth over any kind of time skip. Which they then quickly crapped all over by doing the mandatory Cerberus bit. 

[vbibbi]

I think Mass Effect 2's biggest fault from a story standpoint is that it really didn't do anything to serve the overall Reaper arc it was supposed to be a part of. It introduced and then immediately had us defeat an enemy. I also think that they should have made it so that it was impossible to bring everybody back alive from the suicide mission.
 
The opening was also an over the top and pretty silly way to establish the collectors as a threat. Killing off Shep and then promptly bringing them back 2 minutes later really does absolutely nothing but raise a lot of questions as to why this is apparently a thing in the universe. As Straykat said, it would have been better served as a cliffhanger at the end of ME1. Otherwise, having the Collectors destroy the Normandy like they did but having Shep survive would have been less ridiculous as "Dead. 2 minute cutscene. Alive". As it is now, the player doesn't even have time to fully register what just happened before they're talking about revival.
 
I'd also say that Inquisition offered plenty of interesting companions, and it was one of its stronger points. The thing about the PC is that both Shep and the Inquisitor are meant to be a bit more blank slate characters, which means they're only as interesting as your headcanon makes them. Mass Effect was more restrictive in that area than Inquisition was.
 
Of course Mass Effect 2 still had Kasumi, so it basically wins everything right there =P

Haha, I agree but it's funny you mention Kasumi because she is one of the many squad mates whom I found filler content. There was absolutely no reason to hire a thief to fight the Collectors, either before exploring their ship and learning their identity or after. Same with Thane, having both Jack and Samara as the biotic superstar. Really, Mordin is the only companion who has specific plot relevance. It would have been nice if there had been fewer companions with greater focus on each of the remaining ones, and that they would be more than tangential to the Reaper plot.

[Addictress]

I think Mass Effect 2's biggest fault from a story standpoint is that it really didn't do anything to serve the overall Reaper arc it was supposed to be a part of. It introduced and then immediately had us defeat an enemy. I also think that they should have made it so that it was impossible to bring everybody back alive from the suicide mission.

 

The opening was also an over the top and pretty silly way to establish the collectors as a threat. Killing off Shep and then promptly bringing them back 2 minutes later really does absolutely nothing but raise a lot of questions as to why this is apparently a thing in the universe. As Straykat said, it would have been better served as a cliffhanger at the end of ME1. Otherwise, having the Collectors destroy the Normandy like they did but having Shep survive would have been less ridiculous as "Dead. 2 minute cutscene. Alive". As it is now, the player doesn't even have time to fully register what just happened before they're talking about revival.

 

I'd also say that Inquisition offered plenty of interesting companions, and it was one of its stronger points. The thing about the PC is that both Shep and the Inquisitor are meant to be a bit more blank slate characters, which means they're only as interesting as your headcanon makes them. Mass Effect was more restrictive in that area than Inquisition was.

 

Of course Mass Effect 2 still had Kasumi, so it basically wins everything right there =P

Mass Effect 2 left me with such a great feeling, I do not think that structurally, it was obligated to focus on the reapers directly. In the end, the release of Harbinger after we disarm the collector base re-enforced the malevolent and menacing threat of the reapers which had at the very end of Mass effect 1 still been perceived as rather removed and impotent because of Shepard's Citadel/Sovereign victory. And so Mass Effect 2 began with enough leeway to explore a route of internal character development, overall universe and lore enrichment, before kicking it up for direct reaper confrontation in Mass Effect 3. I would argue the reason Inquisition felt so weak was because it introduced a very strong antagonist but we faced him with an under-developed protagonist and team, alongside a lot of new lore, so the drama was not as intense. Whereas in Mass Effect 3, we have all this side story in Mass Effect 2 - which, mind you, was not entirely irrelevant to the reaper threat at hand.

 

Also, there is a difference between a mistake and an intention in authoring plot points. Just because someone goes from point A, to point B, to point C, does not mean point B was a mistake. Shepard and everyone in the Milky Way is, in the course of Mass Effect 2, learning about new developments with as little information as we have. We don't really know much about the reapers. We've only seen sovereign, seen one of his agents. In Inquisition, they blow up Corypheus in our faces on the get-go. There isn't a lot of mystery or removed foreboding. Corypheus shakes our hand at Haven. "Hi, I want to open up the veil, hello, take over the world, want to become a god. This is what I plan on doing. Bye." In Mass Effect 2, we are investigating the collectors. Literally, we have no clue what's going on. And that's why the Illusive Man sends us on all these missions to investigate. So it never truly feels like we are derailed. We don't even know the track we are being derailed from. It's simply going along a journey, as a story ought to be.

[Addictress]

If it all took place in ONE comprehensive game - a game to be judged as a singular story, then I would agree that delving into collectors in the middle is a bit A.D.D. But if it is multiple games, instead of feeling A.D.D., the outcome is that we explored more of the universe, and saw more aspects of the universe and character than just one game would've allowed. ME2 is judged by itself, ME1 is judged by itself, ME3 is judged by itself. Yet, some characters, themes, and foreboding elements string them together. The result is an accumulative and immersive experience.

[Cyonan]

Haha, I agree but it's funny you mention Kasumi because she is one of the many squad mates whom I found filler content. There was absolutely no reason to hire a thief to fight the Collectors, either before exploring their ship and learning their identity or after. Same with Thane, having both Jack and Samara as the biotic superstar. Really, Mordin is the only companion who has specific plot relevance. It would have been nice if there had been fewer companions with greater focus on each of the remaining ones, and that they would be more than tangential to the Reaper plot.

 

There wasn't a reason to hire a thief, but I'm always drawn towards the character who is a bit more lighthearted about things and just overall fun to be around. It's also why Alistair and Varric are two of my favourite companions in Dragon Age.

 

 

Mass Effect 2 left me with such a great feeling, I do not think that structurally, it was obligated to focus on the reapers directly. In the end, the release of Harbinger after we disarm the collector base re-enforced the malevolent and menacing threat of the reapers which had at the very end of Mass effect 1 still been perceived as rather removed and impotent because of Shepard's Citadel/Sovereign victory. And so Mass Effect 2 began with enough leeway to explore a route of internal character development, overall universe and lore enrichment, before kicking it up for direct reaper confrontation in Mass Effect 3. I would argue the reason Inquisition felt so weak was because it introduced a very strong antagonist but we faced him with an under-developed protagonist and team, alongside a lot of new lore, so the drama was not as intense. Whereas in Mass Effect 3, we have all this side story in Mass Effect 2 - which, mind you, was not entirely irrelevant to the reaper threat at hand.

 

Also, there is a difference between a mistake and an intention in authoring plot points. Just because someone goes from point A, to point B, to point C, does not mean point B was a mistake. Shepard and everyone in the Milky Way is, in the course of Mass Effect 2, learning about new developments with as little information as we have. We don't really know much about the reapers. We've only seen sovereign, seen one of his agents. In Inquisition, they blow up Corypheus in our faces on the get-go. There isn't a lot of mystery or removed foreboding. Corypheus shakes our hand at Haven. "Hi, I want to open up the veil, hello, take over the world, want to become a god. This is what I plan on doing. Bye." In Mass Effect 2, we are investigating the collectors. Literally, we have no clue what's going on. And that's why the Illusive Man sends us on all these missions to investigate. So it never truly feels like we are derailed. We don't even know the track we are being derailed from. It's simply going along a journey, as a story ought to be.

 

Well I think Mass Effect 2 had the best character development of the series but when talking strictly about the main plot, I think there are a few issues to be had there and that it's not the perfect story other people tend to make it out to be. Not to say that it was bad or anything, it was still an extremely well done story and I like the whole "build up a team to take on the enemy" thing it had going on.

 

Inquisition on the other hand had a weak main plot but remained with strong character development. I also happen to think Shep is kind of boring as a standalone character not counting headcanon stuff, so I don't really see it as a plus over the Inquisitor who is the same way, My Inquisitor left more things open to actually be able to roleplay than Mass Effect did for Shep.

 

To clarify, Mass Effect 2 as a standalone story I think works largely great but as a piece of the trilogy it does nothing. We learn very little new about the Reapers themselves, and we do virtually nothing to prepare the galaxy for the upcoming game where we fight the Reapers. Everything is about the Collectors which are an isolated threat contained entirely within ME2. Other than Harbinger making meme worthy taunts at us, the Reapers weren't even really in Mass Effect 2.

 

Corypheus' problem was that he had a fairly strong opening and got to deliver his big evil villain speech before we were forced to destroy our own base just to get away from him, but after that we proceeded to curb stomp him at every turn. If you're going to introduce a villain that early on, I feel that he should remain a threat and not just a punching bag for the protagonist, which is ultimately what happened to him.

[Addictress]

There wasn't a reason to hire a thief, but I'm always drawn towards the character who is a bit more lighthearted about things and just overall fun to be around. It's also why Alistair and Varric are two of my favourite companions in Dragon Age.

 

 

 

Well I think Mass Effect 2 had the best character development of the series but when talking strictly about the main plot, I think there are a few issues to be had there and that it's not the perfect story other people tend to make it out to be. Not to say that it was bad or anything, it was still an extremely well done story and I like the whole "build up a team to take on the enemy" thing it had going on.

 

Inquisition on the other hand had a weak main plot but remained with strong character development. I also happen to think Shep is kind of boring as a standalone character not counting headcanon stuff, so I don't really see it as a plus over the Inquisitor who is the same way, My Inquisitor left more things open to actually be able to roleplay than Mass Effect did for Shep.

 

To clarify, Mass Effect 2 as a standalone story I think works largely great but as a piece of the trilogy it does nothing. We learn very little new about the Reapers themselves, and we do virtually nothing to prepare the galaxy for the upcoming game where we fight the Reapers. Everything is about the Collectors which are an isolated threat contained entirely within ME2. Other than Harbinger making meme worthy taunts at us, the Reapers weren't even really in Mass Effect 2.

 

Corypheus' problem was that he had a fairly strong opening and got to deliver his big evil villain speech before we were forced to destroy our own base just to get away from him, but after that we proceeded to curb stomp him at every turn. If you're going to introduce a villain that early on, I feel that he should remain a threat and not just a punching bag for the protagonist, which is ultimately what happened to him.

 

I agree with your last part about Cory

 

But I think Mass Effect 2 used the character development as its ticket into Mass Effect 3. People complain of space jesus and chosen one vibes in Mass Effect 3. I would normally agree with them. I hate chosen-one vibes too. But I feel like Mass Effect 2 legitimized it. It gave Shepard the cred to be as respected and powerful as s/he was in ME3.

 

Also, Harbinger was an agent of the reapers. It was sad. An entire race enslaved from being conquered by the reapers in a prior cycle. So sad! It re-enforces the terror of the reapers - we see their legacy. It gives us a duration of time to let the universe grow on us. And it does so with the impunity of being a standalone game, so it is not obligated to hit up the reapers ASAP.

[Cyonan]

 

I agree with your last part about Cory

 

But I think Mass Effect 2 used the character development as its ticket into Mass Effect 3. People complain of space jesus and chosen one vibes in Mass Effect 3. I would normally agree with them. I hate chosen-one vibes too. But I feel like Mass Effect 2 legitimized it. It gave Shepard the cred to be as respected and powerful as s/he was in ME3.

 

Also, Harbinger was an agent of the reapers. It was sad. An entire race enslaved from being conquered by the reapers in a prior cycle. So sad! It re-enforces the terror of the reapers - we see their legacy. It gives us a duration of time to let the universe grow on us. And it does so with the impunity of being a standalone game, so it is not obligated to hit up the reapers ASAP.

 

Mass Effect 2 doesn't really do anything to establish Shep's power that the first game didn't do. Shep is already the saviour of the galaxy at the end of ME1, and beating a random new enemy doesn't establish more power than that.

 

Other than that, Mass Effect 2 started the whole space jesus thing because Shep literally comes back from the dead. Miranda even straight up says "If we lose Shepard, Humanity might well follow" implying the whole chosen one thing. This happens in the opening minutes of the game before it has had a chance to legitimize anything.

 

Also Harbinger actually is a Reaper which is why I said they were kind of in ME2, but all he's really there for is "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL".

 

As far as things like character and universe development, that's not a strength of it being an isolated story because you could have done something that served the overall arc that also had strong character and universe development. Mass Effect 2 could have been about uniting a galaxy to get ready for the Reaper threat that shows up in Mass Effect 3 where the whole game is about actually fighting them rather than the last hour of it.

[Addictress]

Mass Effect 2 doesn't really do anything to establish Shep's power that the first game didn't do. Shep is already the saviour of the galaxy at the end of ME1, and beating a random new enemy doesn't establish more power than that.

Other than that, Mass Effect 2 started the whole space jesus thing because Shep literally comes back from the dead. Miranda even straight up says "If we lose Shepard, Humanity might well follow" implying the whole chosen one thing. This happens in the opening minutes of the game before it has had a chance to legitimize anything.

Also Harbinger actually is a Reaper which is why I said they were kind of in ME2, but all he's really there for is "ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL".

As far as things like character and universe development, that's not a strength of it being an isolated story because you could have done something that served the overall arc that also had strong character and universe development. Mass Effect 2 could have been about uniting a galaxy to get ready for the Reaper threat that shows up in Mass Effect 3 where the whole game is about actually fighting them rather than the last hour of it.

Yes, Shepard was treated as a chosen one off the bat with Miranda and the opening Lazarus project intro, but that itself is legitimizes by the Sovereign success.

But you know how it is. Sovereign could've been just a stroke of luck. A one-time thing.

Proving himself again with he collectors nailed his hero status even more. Now he can face down the reapers for suuuure.

And Harbinger's "Assuming Direct Control" persona? Badass. Totally badass. Don't know why it bothers people.

[slimgrin]

ME2 was the beginning of a tragic, comet-like crash for the series. Taken on its own, it worked. But the curse of number three put everything in clear light- Bioware had no plans for the franchise and they did a ******-poor job even after ME2. This is a big issue with video game sequels in general.  

 

So a reboot is the only way forward. 

[Cyonan]

Yes, Shepard was treated as a chosen one off the bat with Miranda and the opening Lazarus project intro, but that itself is legitimizes by the Sovereign success.

But you know how it is. Sovereign could've been just a stroke of luck. A one-time thing.

Proving himself again with he collectors nailed his hero status even more. Now he can face down the reapers for suuuure.

And Harbinger's "Assuming Direct Control" persona? Badass. Totally badass. Don't know why it bothers people.

 

If we're assuming that Sovereign might have just been a stroke of luck then that doesn't legitimize the chosen one thing and if it legitimizes his status as chosen one then we can't assume it was just a stroke of luck. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

Harbinger's persona was cool but as a villain he wasn't developed in any fashion.

 

Keep in mind my criticizing something doesn't imply the character as a whole bothers me or that I think it's bad. Saying something is flawed doesn't mean I don't think it's great.

[RoboticWater]

As far as things like character and universe development, that's not a strength of it being an isolated story because you could have done something that served the overall arc that also had strong character and universe development. Mass Effect 2 could have been about uniting a galaxy to get ready for the Reaper threat that shows up in Mass Effect 3 where the whole game is about actually fighting them rather than the last hour of it.

If ME2 resolved all of the trilogy's cultural problems, then all ME3 could be about is the Reaper conflict, and I don't think that a single conflict could sustain an entire RPG. There simply couldn't be enough going on behind the Reapers to keep the narrative constantly engaging.

 

Structurally, I think ME3 was fairly sound. Dealing with each culture's separate problems pushed the story forward while keeping it refreshing. The problem was that Cerberus was made the antagonist and not the Reapers. If all the time devoted to TIM, Kail Leng, and the rest of Cerberus' nonsense had gone to Harbinger and the Reapers' backstory, then ME3 would have been far more well-rounded.

[Cyonan]

If ME2 resolved all of the trilogy's cultural problems, then all ME3 could be about is the Reaper conflict, and I don't think that a single conflict could sustain an entire RPG. There simply couldn't be enough going on behind the Reapers to keep the narrative constantly engaging.

 

Structurally, I think ME3 was fairly sound. Dealing with each culture's separate problems pushed the story forward while keeping it refreshing. The problem was that Cerberus was made the antagonist and not the Reapers. If all the time devoted to TIM, Kail Leng, and the rest of Cerberus' nonsense had gone to Harbinger and the Reapers' backstory, then ME3 would have been far more well-rounded.

 

Maybe, though it could have been interesting to see.

 

I also think ME3 was fairly sound(ending not withstanding), although it was more of an idea to give ME2 more relevance to the trilogy as whole which is my main criticism of ME2's plot is that it does very little for the trilogy's story arc as a whole.

[Addictress]

If we're assuming that Sovereign might have just been a stroke of luck then that doesn't legitimize the chosen one thing and if it legitimizes his status as chosen one then we can't assume it was just a stroke of luck. You don't get to have it both ways.

Harbinger's persona was cool but as a villain he wasn't developed in any fashion.

Keep in mind my criticizing something doesn't imply the character as a whole bothers me or that I think it's bad. Saying something is flawed doesn't mean I don't think it's great.

I'm not saying that the Sovereign success convinced *me* of his hero status. It convinced Miranda. Actually, I personally rolled my eyes when Miranda strutted around the Illusive Man, saying how they need Shepard. I did. But that's Miranda. I didn't feel the game asked *me* to believe it yet.

By the end of ME2, though, I witnessed twin successes and was personally "convinced" that he could be a hero.

Idk.

[RoboticWater]

Maybe, though it could have been interesting to see.

Definitely, but I just can't think of an epic, narrative-driven RPG that doesn't involve solving more than a couple distinct cultural problems. Not that it couldn't be done (or hasn't), but I can't imagine it's a simple task.
 

I also think ME3 was fairly sound(ending not withstanding), although it was more of an idea to give ME2 more relevance to the trilogy as whole which is my main criticism of ME2's plot is that it does very little for the trilogy's story arc as a whole.

Plot arc, maybe not, but the personal insights into characters and their cultures established in ME2 does grant it a fair deal of relevance to the story of Mass Effect. I don't think the disputes among any of the races are something that can just be stowed away into a single game. They're ongoing problems that rest at the core of the trilogy and define Mass Effect's identity.

 

While ME2 may have taken too much of a break from the Reaper side of the narrative, it still added substance to the series. Rannoch, Tuchanka, and so many other parts of ME3's story would be significantly worse if we didn't have ME2 to establish their premises and players. Do we ignore Empire Strikes Back because it wasn't about finding the 2nd Death Star's plans and it's hero's ended up in a worse position then when they started?  No, because personal character development is far more important than that.

[Cyonan]

Plot arc, maybe not, but the personal insights into characters and their cultures established in ME2 does grant it a fair deal of relevance to the story of Mass Effect. I don't think the disputes among any of the races are something that can just be stowed away into a single game. They're ongoing problems that rest at the core of the trilogy and define Mass Effect's identity.

 

While ME2 may have taken too much of a break from the Reaper side of the narrative, it still added substance to the series. Rannoch, Tuchanka, and so many other parts of ME3's story would be significantly worse if we didn't have ME2 to establish their premises and players. Do we ignore Empire Strikes Back because it wasn't about finding the 2nd Death Star's plans and it's hero's ended up in a worse position then when they started?  No, because personal character development is far more important than that.

 

I don't get why people keep telling me about how ME2 had good character and universe building and that it was still a good story. That's arguing against a point I'm not only not making, but actively agreeing that ME2 was all those things.

 

What I am saying is that it could have furthered the trilogy's main story arc while also doing those things. The entire Collector arc felt like it was invented just to give us something to do while we wait for the Reapers to show up.

 

and yes, I would say that one could make the same criticism of ESB(although being in a worse position can still drive a plot forward, like it did in DA:I with Haven). That does not however, mean that I am by any means calling it a bad movie or saying Mass Effect 2 had a bad story.

[straykat]

I don't get why people keep telling me about how ME2 had good character and universe building and that it was still a good story. That's arguing against a point I'm not only not making, but actively agreeing that ME2 was all those things.

 

What I am saying is that it could have furthered the trilogy's main story arc while also doing those things. The entire Collector arc felt like it was invented just to give us something to do while we wait for the Reapers to show up.

 

and yes, I would say that one could make the same criticism of ESB(although being in a worse position can still drive a plot forward, like it did in DA:I with Haven). That does not however, mean that I am by any means calling it a bad movie or saying Mass Effect 2 had a bad story.

 

I agree that the Collectors fell flat.  ME2 was fun while it lasted, but it also frustrates me.

 

I don't know what Drew K would have pulled out of his hat, but I'm willing to bet he would have addressed it better than Mac did in ME3. I think they treated ME3 almost like a blank slate. And they promoted it as such too ("Best place to start!"). Which is ridiculous. Only the games industry is this silly. You'd never see the tail end of a film trilogy promote itself that way -- let alone be written that way.

[Mdizzletr0n]

The theme here seems to be that damn near none of the factions or groups in ME or DA, have a single clue about anything in between them. At least we know what to expect in that area of MEA's story. Lol.

Not imo. ME1 had the best mechanics, but ME2 by far had the best opening, best pacing and the absolute best climax. What happened in ME2's climax was exactly what should have happened in 3's climax. I can't think of another game except maybe TLOU that delivered completely with the ending, and ME2 didn't drop the ball not once. It was strong from beginning, mid to end. Seeing all your team come together like that is exactly how ME3 should have ended with all the people you allied and helped out throughout all the games fighting the reapers. But that didn't happen.
 
Inquistion was standalone too, and it's story sucked. So that point is pretty moot. I have my doubts on Andromeda even providing half the narrative or interesting characters the trilogy did. Inquisition sure didn't. Trevelyan was no Shepard.

That's not saying much. Shepard wasn't all that good of a character either. So is that another thing to expect? A protagonist that's damn near the most boring character in the entire narrative? Hopefully, this new protagonist will have at least some semblance of a personality. No matter which way they're played. Good, bad and in between.

[vbibbi]

And Harbinger's "Assuming Direct Control" persona? Badass. Totally badass. Don't know why it bothers people.

 

Some of Harby's lines were pretty cheesy, though, and silly when we realize it's a ginormous Reaper taunting one human. It's like a schoolyard bully putting way too much energy into taunting someone less powerful than themselves.

 

That said, thinking now about Harbinger assuming direct control of Collectors, it reminds me of something...of cybernetic Saren being commanded by Sovereign. And guess what happened when we killed a possessed Saren? The Reaper's shields went down and allowed us to destroy the ship. Why couldn't one of the outcomes of ME2 be finding the technology aboard the Collector base that shows how a Reaper directly controls a cybernetic organism and use that knowledge to attack Reapers? Sure it's not a one button kill all solution, just evening the playing field a bit, but at least it calls back to the first game rather than rely on the Crucible which came from left field in the last game.

 

We could even use it in the current endings. Since Shep is now partially cybernetic, maybe the Crucible/Citadel/Catalyst can be adapted to channel this "direct control" energy through Shep's body and into all remaining Reapers. That would have made a lot more sense than the current space beams of magic we have, IMO.

[Linkenski]

They will create a story that is cinematically the same length as DAI but slightly better contextualize it in the exploration aspect (hopefully) and make more complete companion subplots. I hope that's how it turns out.

 

There's no way we're looking at a ME2/3-like campaign approach though. It's not going to be 20 hours of epic setpieces and movie-like cinematics all the time, I don't think. Being an "exploration-driven" game there has to be some kind of tradeoff.

 

I wish Bioware had the guts to lower their presentation like in ME1 or DAO just to excuse creating more cutscenes in lower fidelity though. I know part of the reason they skimp on their cinematics is because they have to look proper (even though they don't anyway) and movie-like and that is a lot of resources that goes into that, so there are other areas where spending money is more precious for total gameplay value.

 

Also, bear in mind that if all cutscenes of DA:I had been great and the overarching story had been amazing I would've loved DA:I. The reason I don't is because it was this jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none kind of game where it had a story that felt shallow, then it had companion quests that were even more shallow, the companions themselves weren't developed enough, the protagonist wasn't developed, the antagonist was a joke, the dramaturgy was completely bonkers throughout the entire thing and then there was the 60-hour MMO fetch quest that at least did what it was trying to do to great effect but ultimately isn't for me.