Why is everyone hating on ME2? Come on people.If Andromeda will be a new trilogy and they want to make a cliffhanger ending that's fine, but the cliffhanger needs to be well done and the game must have a satisfying ending.
Even if the plot of ME2 kinda sucks, the cliffhanger was well done, got me super excited for ME3 and was epic.
Please give us a new trilogy.
I'm hoping this isn't the beginning of another trilogy and is simply the start of a new approach towards stand-alone, self-contained stories with each individual installment. So, I'm certainly not in favor of cliffhangers. The franchise now spans multiple galaxies, and every individual in it (trillions in this case) is on their own journey with their own story to tell. Ideally, each game from here on out, will give us a different type of protagonist, with a different background and occupation, facing a different kind of threat in a different type of narrative.
Didn't they say MEA will be the first chapter of a new trilogy? If so, expect some loose ends at Andromeda's conclusion to be handled in the next game.
No, I don't think so. For now it's just one game but I really hope MEA will be awesome and then they will be able to do a new trilogy. With hope, they already have a large picture of what they can eventually do for the next 2 games.
Why is everyone hating on ME2? Come on people.
Well, tbh, I was also disappointed by ME2.
1 / all the things they skipped on the gameplay/menu, as a RPG fan I was just in shock "my...beautiful... inventory... what... happened???" XD
2 / the beginning of the game, cerberus bring you to life and you're obliged to work for TIM. Honestly I wasn't fine with this at all. It made me feel unconfortable during the whole game. I also hate when he sends you obligatory missions you can't postpone later on the game... well, I can't help, I hate TIM and he's everywhere on ME2.
3/ in term of story, I think ME1 and 3 are far better and well written.
Now I liked the game, don't misunderstand me and there's also good things, I do like big team of playable characters we had or the loyalty missions for example (and well ....Garrus was a LI XD) but I just liked ME1 and 3 better, that's all~
And to answer the question, I like how ME1 was done, so I want an ending for the game. But I'm not against unresolved questions that open a path for the plot of the next game.
Why is everyone hating on ME2? Come on people.
The atrocious plot, maybe. Or the glorified side-story of a narrative that essentially spins its tires and treads water, leaving us no more prepared than we were at the end of ME1. Could be the clunky tps combat/cover system. Or the sexualization of every female squadmate. Or babysitting 12 children who can't handle their own personal problems.
All in all, a good individual game. As well as a complete and utter failure as the bridge of a trilogy.
Why is everyone hating on ME2? Come on people.
I'm not hating on ME2, i'm just telling the truth.
Whatever man. That game got me into mass effect. I loved it. I want to have more of that mass effect 2 feel. And DLC. It was 2009 and they fuel Ed the problems with three. It was more challenging though. A good challenge.The atrocious plot, maybe. Or the glorified side-story of a narrative that essentially spins its tires and treads water, leaving us no more prepared than we were at the end of ME1. Could be the clunky tps combat/cover system. Or the sexualization of every female squadmate. Or babysitting 12 children who can't handle their own personal problems.
All in all, a good individual game. As well as a complete and utter failure as the bridge of a trilogy.
Your TruthI'm not hating on ME2, i'm just telling the truth.
Why is everyone hating on ME2? Come on people.
It's a lovely game, it's a great deal of fun, in sit down and play it terms it's by far my favourite of the three. It also crashes progress in the overarching plot to a halt, creates a few teasers that go no where, generates a ton of mostly irrelevant dangling plot threads that then eat about a third of ME3 as it tries to resolve them meaning not only does it not progress the story it goes on to impede future progression in the story. I love it dearly and it's a wonderful game, but it needed a serious rewrite to integrate it into the trilogy.
I didn't mind. I like the collectors and the ending was the best. Well both were good.It's a lovely game, it's a great deal of fun, in sit down and play it terms it's by far my favourite of the three. It also crashes progress in the overarching plot to a halt, creates a few teasers that go no where, generates a ton of mostly irrelevant dangling plot threads that then eat about a third of ME3 as it tries to resolve them meaning not only does it not progress the story it goes on to impede future progression in the story. I love it dearly and it's a wonderful game, but it needed a serious rewrite to integrate it into the trilogy.
I would prefer if Andromeda was a stand alone game. I don't want another trilogy. I'm afraid it would end up like ME 1-3 with to many changes to lore and overal plot between installments. It made the whole thing feel disconnected.
So, my question is, would you prefer if Andromeda was more in line with ME1 by the end of which nearly everything will be resolved so a sequel can start "fresh" OR ME2 style where the ending would point at sequel but would leave many loose ends to be resolved by a sequel?
This one.
Let the sequel to Andromeda be like ME2. Or better yet, a blend between 2 and 3, but without the general air of pessimism, nor the obligation of fixing loose ends.
Retour en haut