91 réponses à ce sujet

[Chained_Creator]

I can't wait to see how the galaxy is going to deal with that Reaper fleet.



Going on a cruise to unite all the various races and get them to go on a massive fleet building spree?

[ComTrav]

I liked the individual character arcs and plots a lot in ME2, and I think characterization is better done in most cases, but I agree that the overarching narrative of the game wasn't as well done.



ME2 IMO is more about exploring and deepening aspects of the ME2 universe. Having introduced certain concepts in ME1, they can play around with them a little in ME2. Different perspectives on the genophage, the geth, and other parts of the world are explored in much more depth.



The whole point of doing ME2 loyalty missions is so you're invested enough in the characters to worry if they live or die. I think the whole point of ME2 as a whole is to get you more invested in the galaxy, so if you have a Suicide Mission write large in ME3 you really will have to struggle to decide whether the Krogans or the Quarians are the ones who have to 'crawl through the vents'.

[Vandrayke]

Chained_Creator wrote...

I can't wait to see how the galaxy is going to deal with that Reaper fleet.

Going on a cruise to unite all the various races and get them to go on a massive fleet building spree?

hopefully accompanied by a betrayal from an ally to keep it interesting

[Moonbox]

Vandrayke wrote...

What made the first story more gripping is that it was all new to all players.  So everywhere you looked, you were finding out something new, and that is always cool.  There was also an obvious antagonist you had to deal with all the time. 

ME2 had to move Shepard into position for the already-inked conclusion, which I thought it did pretty well.  The stage is set, we know the players, and we are all prepped for the epic finale. 

My question, however, is that did we even need ME2?  It didn't add ANYTHING to the story.  It added some characters and side quests but it largely threw everything you did in the first game away  and introduced a bunch of largely irrelevant and unrelated characters at us for IMO no reason.  The collectors themselves were pretty contrived and useless to the story.  What really reveals this as a bad 2nd part (as story goes only) is that realistically NOTHING has changed since ME1.  You could take the Collectors right out of the story arc and nothing is missed.  You're in LITERALLY the exact same spot you left off.

ME2 could have been handled in so many better ways.  You knew the Reapers were coming from ME1.  The whole game could have revolved around problems you needed to fix BEFORE they got there or resolving conflicts amongst the races.  They could have done SO many things but instead they chose to introduce (and subsequently destroy) a pointless new antagonist largely unrelated to anything that happened in the first game.  

[SunfighterG8]

InvaderErl wrote...

Normandy vs Collectors > Battle for the Citadel.

The ship tangling with the Drone ships, taking out the cruiser and finally crashing into the surface of the station were simply epic.

All of which you pretty much have no control over, except for upgrades..so you might as well been watching a movie. Pointless gameplay IMHO. Id like more real gameplay less watching videos in ME3.

[Nautica773]

Moonbox wrote...
My question, however, is that did we even need ME2?  It didn't add ANYTHING to the story.  It added some characters and side quests but it largely threw everything you did in the first game away  and introduced a bunch of largely irrelevant and unrelated characters at us for IMO no reason.

No, we didn't need ME2. That's why I feel it should have been a stand alone story. As it is, it contributes nothing to the trilogy, and is nothing in of itself.  

ME2 could have been handled in so many better ways.  You knew the Reapers were coming from ME1.  The whole game could have revolved around problems you needed to fix BEFORE they got there or resolving conflicts amongst the races.  They could have done SO many things but instead they chose to introduce (and subsequently destroy) a pointless new antagonist largely unrelated to anything that happened in the first game.  

If they had done that for 2, they would be left with nothing for 3. Expect the finale to be preparing for the Reaper arrival and their subsequent defeat (plus, what you suggest isn't a self contained story either and would likely be really boring or confusing if you hadn't played the first game). 

[albertalad]

I agree with the weak story line as compared with ME1. While its not a bad shooter overall - the never ending killing at the expense of story is disappointing. We all knew the Collectors were the issue early in the game - no surprise - no mystery. The ME1 crew storyline was childish at best in ME2 - the council storyline even worse. Would have been better for Sheppard to be working undercover with the full knowledge of the council while maintaining the present public posture.



The character level in this game is weak at best and the story truly sucks - even the ending seemed flat at best - hard to feel magnificent about that. ME 1 ending was everything one could ever hope to achieve and you cared - hard to care in ME 2. Love interests from ME 1 were downright dumb - couldn't even walk out and talk with Sheppard. For instance whoever may have been monitoring Liara would then have already known Sheppard was her love the Observer would have passed that along - and whatever monitoring devices inside her offer would then know Sheppard did the hacking - duh!



To have no one except Anderson give a crap is asking the entire universe to forget Sovereign which no one does in ME 2 (they tell you enough times about that battle) except the council and your ME1 characters - I really miss voice communications with the Alliance and other - the emails are a silly way to communicate and you can't answer back - duh?



Improvements in mineral hunting - ship upgrades - even guns were not as good as ME 1. A little hard to take Liara spent two years because SHE refused to lose Sheppard then literally turns her back and doesn't even bother giving him time of day - woho wrote this garbage?

[MrGOH]

ME2's plot is fine overall, considering the real story is how Shepard goes about recruiting and preparing for the suicide mission. My gripe is mainly that the big reveal at the end is lamely done and the only insight into it comes from EDI's speculations. I wish Harbinger or some other agent of the Reapers interacted with the party more; having random Collectors get possessed and spout creepy threats to Shepard didn't really do it for me. I mean, I just killed those annoying possessed Collectors while watching out for the real threats - the Scions. In short, there was no villain with any sort of personality and very little light was shed on the whole Reaper menace, so it felt like although Shepard managed to vanquish the Collector threat, s/he hasn't learned anything to help him/her handle the real deal coming down the ol' intergalactic pipeline in a year or two.

[Vandrayke]

Moonbox wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

What made the first story more gripping is that it was all new to all players.  So everywhere you looked, you were finding out something new, and that is always cool.  There was also an obvious antagonist you had to deal with all the time. 

ME2 had to move Shepard into position for the already-inked conclusion, which I thought it did pretty well.  The stage is set, we know the players, and we are all prepped for the epic finale. 

My question, however, is that did we even need ME2?  It didn't add ANYTHING to the story.  It added some characters and side quests but it largely threw everything you did in the first game away  and introduced a bunch of largely irrelevant and unrelated characters at us for IMO no reason.  The collectors themselves were pretty contrived and useless to the story.  What really reveals this as a bad 2nd part (as story goes only) is that realistically NOTHING has changed since ME1.  You could take the Collectors right out of the story arc and nothing is missed.  You're in LITERALLY the exact same spot you left off.

ME2 could have been handled in so many better ways.  You knew the Reapers were coming from ME1.  The whole game could have revolved around problems you needed to fix BEFORE they got there or resolving conflicts amongst the races.  They could have done SO many things but instead they chose to introduce (and subsequently destroy) a pointless new antagonist largely unrelated to anything that happened in the first game.  

ME2 is about Shepard

I think we needed to build the character up in order to care more about s/he in the end.  I am far more attached to my Shepard at the end of ME2 than I was at the end of ME1.  At the end of ME1 all my Shepards felt the same to me; after finishing ME2, my main Shepard is far and away most important.  What we end up with is a main character that I at least know I'll care about more than any other main character I've ever played, because I got to build a hero, have people tear down my hero, and align myself with different personalities along the way. 

The final chapter will be much better, at least to me, now that I care more about my Shepard.  I've actually got a stake in Shepard, especially when you compare s/he to the generic video game hero that I couldn't care less about. 

[AtreiyaN7]

Nautica773 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I will point out again that the "plot" revolves around actually recruiting this team of specialists as your focus and building a strong team that will help you put a final stop to the Collectors.

Except all the recruitment missions and loyalty missions are sidequests and subplots. The overarching plot is the Collector's assault on humanity for which you're told everything when you first meet the Illusive Man. Furthermore, the reasons for recruiting the majority of the cast is rather thread bare and most of them are recommended because they're 'good with a gun.'
If the narrative were truly a character driven one, then we would have had a greater exploration of each individual's reaction to the events of the Collector's and seen some character progression and development. We didn't, there's no real input during the actual "Suicide Mission" and the Collector 'Threat' was more of a Collector Concern.

Well, you can argue that the team-building is a sub-plot, but it's basically the main focus and the de facto plot as far as I'm concerned. BTW, I did state that it was to "help you put a final stop to the Collectors" up there - I'm not ignorant of the fact that the Collectors/Reapers are the true threat (if you want to quibble over it, it's really the Reapers who are the threat  ). As for the reasons for recruiting these specific people -  TIM selected them for their abilities. At the time this all begins, we're not entirely sure about what's going on OR what/who we'll need to stop the threat. The dossiers include people with powerful biotics, tech skills, weapon skills and tactical/leadership abilities. It certainly makes sense to me, and it wasn't just because they're "good with guns." Mordin was specifically needed to come up with countermeasures and defenses, along with researching the Collectors.

If the Collector threat  doesn't exactly move some of the characters to talk about it in depth, well most of them aren't human. How much can they really connect with humans being kidnapped until they start seeing things for themselves up close? Example: I took Thane and Tali to the derelict Reaper, and they certainly made comments about it being an abomination (not the exact words but close). There was even some dialogue after clicking the altar the you find on the derelict Reaper. Sorry if you don't feel the level of discussion with characters on how they feel about these things isn't quite there, but to each their own. I didn't feel a need for them to constantly mention the threat or how they felt about it. There's enough of that in the critical moments for me.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 01 février 2010 - 10:00 .

[Vandrayke]

Could anything be done better? Sure. But I had a lot of fun in ME2 and I think we're positioned quite nicely for the conclusion.



I will add that atmosphere and characters are far more important than the major plot arc, at least to me. Mostly because I feel like I've seen every plot arc before, but I haven't seen every world or every character before, so they are the things that make everything compelling.

[Nozybidaj]

Vandrayke wrote...

The final chapter will be much better, at least to me, now that I care more about my Shepard.  I've actually got a stake in Shepard, especially when you compare s/he to the generic video game hero that I couldn't care less about. 

/shrug I feel pretty much the opposite.  They basically took everything that I loved about my ME1 Shepard and stripped it away leaving me with a husk-in-waiting to try and force myself into a story come ME3.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 01 février 2010 - 09:41 .

[Mister Mage]

What do you mean it doesn't contribute anything to the story?



I think it fleshed out the universe, for one. We went from what was, essentially, a work in progress in Mass Effect 1 to a complete universe in Mass Effect 2. We went from "WE ARE ANCIENT AND SO OUR GOALS ARE UNKOWABLE" in Mass Effect 1 to a clear and cohesive reason that our enemies want to destroy us, the horrible process, and more reason to destroy the bastards in Mass Effect 3. Our love interest either distrusts us or has become consumed with rage, and we react to that in some way. Shepard's love story arc should be widely variable and interesting in the third game. We now have the fate of the Protheans. We have now either crippled or empowered Cerberus in its attempt to claim power as the representative of Humanity. They've added to the larger cast of characters in this universe. Expanded on side elements. I really don't see how the story of this game can be seen as a carbon copy of the last one. THINGS HAPPENED.

[Vandrayke]

MrGOH wrote...

ME2's plot is fine overall, considering the real story is how Shepard goes about recruiting and preparing for the suicide mission. My gripe is mainly that the big reveal at the end is lamely done and the only insight into it comes from EDI's speculations. I wish Harbinger or some other agent of the Reapers interacted with the party more; having random Collectors get possessed and spout creepy threats to Shepard didn't really do it for me. I mean, I just killed those annoying possessed Collectors while watching out for the real threats - the Scions. In short, there was no villain with any sort of personality and very little light was shed on the whole Reaper menace, so it felt like although Shepard managed to vanquish the Collector threat, s/he hasn't learned anything to help him/her handle the real deal coming down the ol' intergalactic pipeline in a year or two.

Every good story doesn't need a "big reveal."  Cheap stories do, imo.  Every good story DOES need convincing characters, a struggle you care about, and a conclusion you end up with a significant stake in.  I don't think having a "BUT WAIT... YOU ARE REVAN!" element is necessary, or even desired, because when it's done too often, it feels like Scooby Doo. 

I do agree that ME2 was missing an obvious symbolic antagonist at whom you could direct your ire, though.  It would have been cooler to think you got to really stick it to someone you hated at the end. 

[Vandrayke]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

The final chapter will be much better, at least to me, now that I care more about my Shepard.  I've actually got a stake in Shepard, especially when you compare s/he to the generic video game hero that I couldn't care less about. 

/shrug I feel pretty much the opposite.  They basically took everything that I loved about my ME1 Shepard and stripped it away leaving me with a husk-in-waiting to try and force myself into a story come ME3.

lol that's what happens in good hero stories.  The hero is beaten down, dragged through the mud, and manages to come out on top in the end.  In trilogies, the hero usually gets beaten down the most in the middle.

Triumph is never satisfying if there is no real struggle. 

Edit: we don't notice this as much in stand alone stories because we don't have to wait for two years after the hero is beaten down in order for him/her to triumph. 

Modifié par Vandrayke, 01 février 2010 - 09:47 .

[Vandrayke]

I'll use the obvious, probably beaten to death analogy that is Star Wars... for most of us, eps 4, 5, and 6 were always out. Can you imagine watching ep 5 and having to stop there and wait for another couple of years? It would have sucked.  Eventually, though, it would have been really cool to watch Luke show up in his black robe kicking ass after you've waited for it for so long.

Modifié par Vandrayke, 01 février 2010 - 09:53 .

[Moonbox]

edited

Modifié par Moonbox, 01 février 2010 - 09:53 .

[Thrakkesh]

Vandrayke wrote...

I'll use the obvious, probably beaten to death analogy that is Star Wars... for most of us, eps 4, 5, and 6 were always out. Can you imagine watching ep 5 and having to stop there and wait for another couple of years? It would have seemed cooler, however, to watch Luke show up in his black robe kicking ass after you've waited for it for so long.

Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  

Modifié par Thrakkesh, 01 février 2010 - 09:53 .

[Operation TREX]

Nautica773 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

It was the middle chapter of a trilogy. Those are notoriously hard to do, since they link the introductory part of the story with the resolution.

I see it as being more character-driven than anything.

This. It's difficult to write a good story that has no beginning and no end. In my humble opinion, they should have put the Reapers on the backburner for a bit and dealt with the Collector's as some sort of unknown. Avoid trying to make a few more minor additions to the Reaper lore and just focus on a self contained adventure.
Anyway, it's more character driven with the unfortunate position of having little character development since most the cast is new and the final mission doesn't really play to their personalities. It was a missed opportunity, but at least the characters themselves are 100x better than the first game's cast.

Empire Strikes back was a great example of how to do a middle movie/game plot.  I also agree with the original poster, this story was really lacking an emotional connection.

In ME1 i was off the chair cheering Joker and the Normandy in the epic battle, it brought me to an emotional high on the verge of tears.  Ok, I did cry, I admit it.

Nothing in this game made me do that on my 1st playthrough, though I did get a little sympathetic to the paragon/Jack love scene. (which I had to youtube.)

I think the game was great, but it was all action, repitition, and minimal exploration with very little of the same magic ME1 had in regards to a great story and plot.

Modifié par Operation TREX, 01 février 2010 - 09:53 .

[Nautica773]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Well, you can argue that the team-building is a sub-plot, but it's basically the main focus and the de facto plot as far as I'm concerned. BTW, I did state that it was to "help you put a final stop to the Collectors" up there - I'm not ignorant of the fact that the Collectors/Reapers are the true threat (if you want to quibble over it, it'sreally the Reapers who are the threat  ).

Having a character driven plot isn't a bad thing, it's just now how this game was really formatted. We would have need more character interaction, not less. As it stands, the most you ever learn of the people you're with is what you get on their recruitment mission, their loyalty mission and maybe five or six short conversations in their room.
While this gives us a much better idea of who they are as individuals (contrasted with ME1 where no one really had much character outside of their occupation), it isn't enough to carry a plot on their own. 
If the whole plot were these individuals we should have seen them argue more, give greater input, display reasons for why they are the best of the best. 

As for the reasons for recruiting these specific people -  TIM selected them for their abilities. At the time this all begins, we're not entirely sure about what's going on OR what/who we'll need to stop the threat. The dossiers include people with powerful biotics, tech skills, weapon skills and tactical/leadership abilities. It certainly makes sense to me, and it wasn't just because they're "good with guns." Mordin was specifically needed to come up with countermeasures and defenses, along with researching the Collectors.

Mordin and Tali are really the only ones that have any excuse to be on the team. Mordin the most, since he's there to counteract the neurotoxin. Tali because she's the best tech specialist and the Collector's are a technologically superior race.
But the rest? They seem to be chosen mostly because they are interesting individuals. I would have liked some compelling reasons to bring each of them along. Maybe, after Horizon and seeing the 'Collector General', the Illusive Man feels that someone trained at taking out a single target quickly and efficiently would be necessary. Cue the dossier for Thane. 

If the Collector threat  doesn't exactly move some of the characters to talk about it in depth, well most of them aren't human. How much can they really connect with humans being kidnapped until they start seeing things for themselves up close? Example: I took Thane and Tali to the derelict Reaper, and they certainly made comments about it being an abomination (not the exact words but close). There was even some dialogue after clicking the altar the you find on the derelict Reaper. Sorry if you don't feel the level of discussion with characters on how they feel about these things isn't quite there, but to each their own. I didn't feel a need for them to constantly mention the threat or how they felt about it. There's enough of that in the critical moments for me.

But for a plot riding solely on these individuals, to have them stand mute through most of the game is rather uncompelling. I feel there should have been more interaction between the Normandy crew and the Collector's. For a main narrative, a few snippets on the derelict Reaper and a quick sojourn to the remote human colony doesn't create the richest narrative experience. Even if every encounter doesn't involve the Collector's some more general threats for the team to face would have also worked to flesh out a strong story.

[Nozybidaj]

Vandrayke wrote...

lol that's what happens in good hero stories.  The hero is beaten down, dragged through the mud, and manages to come out on top in the end.  In trilogies, the hero usually gets beaten down the most in the middle.

Triumph is never satisfying if there is no real struggle. 

Edit: we don't notice this as much in stand alone stories because we don't have to wait for two years after the hero is beaten down in order for him/her to triumph. 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree since I am at the complete other end of interpretation of what his "struggle" in ME2 did for him.  To me Shepard went from a strong willed leader who was willing to do whatever it took to get the job done.  The best humanity had to offer.  He even found time to find his soulmate before saving the galaxy.

Now in ME2 he's killed right off the bat, becomes part machine, leaves his friends and LI's behind while doing nothing more than taking orders from the leader of a terrorist organization.  In the end he did manage to stop the Collectors but the 10's of thousands of kidnapped victims had already been turned into goo to build a giant robot from a Sunday morning Super Friends cartoon.  Shepard lost his will, lost his backbone, lost his LI and in the end didn't save anyone.

Like I said, he's more of a hollow husk to me now then a well formed character, certainly not the bold and strong character he was at the end of ME1.

[vallix]

Are we comparing Star Wars' story to Mass Effects now? That's quite the compliment. I only hope you're not saying that because it wasn't as good as Empire Strikes Back, then that makes ME2's story a bad one.

[Terraneaux]

Thrakkesh wrote...

Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  

There was emotional resonance in ESB that ME2 sorely lacks.  Trying to claim otherwise is silly.

[Nautica773]

Thrakkesh wrote...
Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  

Except Empire Strikes Back is a far better character driven story. The development between each of the main characters is what makes the movie interesting. Luke's training as a Jedi, the growing relationship between Han and Leia. Not to mention the 'twist' with Vader and Luke...

[Vandrayke]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

lol that's what happens in good hero stories.  The hero is beaten down, dragged through the mud, and manages to come out on top in the end.  In trilogies, the hero usually gets beaten down the most in the middle.

Triumph is never satisfying if there is no real struggle. 

Edit: we don't notice this as much in stand alone stories because we don't have to wait for two years after the hero is beaten down in order for him/her to triumph. 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree since I am at the complete other end of interpretation of what his "struggle" in ME2 did for him.  To me Shepard went from a strong willed leader who was willing to do whatever it took to get the job done.  The best humanity had to offer.  He even found time to find his soulmate before saving the galaxy.

Now in ME2 he's killed right off the bat, becomes part machine, leaves his friends and LI's behind while doing nothing more than taking orders from the leader of a terrorist organization.  In the end he did manage to stop the Collectors but the 10's of thousands of kidnapped victims had already been turned into goo to build a giant robot from a Sunday morning Super Friends cartoon.  Shepard lost his will, lost his backbone, lost his LI and in the end didn't save anyone.

Like I said, he's more of a hollow husk to me now then a well formed character, certainly not the bold and strong character he was at the end of ME1.

Well, I guess we will

Keep in mind that this is a video game, where the story arcs are less and less satisfying in general as we all get older and are exposed to more and more stories. 

Maybe it's more about expectations than anything.