283 réponses à ce sujet

[fogofeternity]

mjack234 wrote...

Where does this fit into the over-all picture of an oncoming Reaper invasion?  Why humans?  Why a human Reaper?  What was its purpose?  What was the threat the Collectors and the Human Reaper posed to the galaxy?

I think this is my big thing too in terms of the story.

I have no real idea about what the Reapers or the Collectors were actually trying to achieve. I didn't see how the Collector activity moved forward the Reaper agenda in any new direction.

So I'm not really sure what my team *solved* in regards to the wider Reaper threat.

[Vagula]

I agree on most parts. I don't mind the mystique of the collectors but it should have played a much bigger part in the game. It just feels ridicilous to spend 30 hours preparing for the impossible mission that lasts 45 minutes and feels completly uninvolved and random.Most of the loalty and recruitmen missions just seemed like distractions and just didn't seem to fit the overall plot (Tali, Mordin and Legion loalty missions were obviously great but most were kind a random).

[Higgles]

mjack234 wrote...

Speaking from a structural standpoint, you need to resolve the main story within each "chapter" if you will.  Leaving some questions unanswered for ME3 is fine, but you need to make the plot threads of ME2 very clear at the end.  Had it been revealed that a human reaper was some evolutionary weapon that could usher in the next Reaper invasion, okay, that would be fine.  But as it stands, I fail to see how it impacted the over-all Mass Effect universe.  I'm sure it does, it was just not made clear within the confines of the story.

I think they resolved it as well as ME1. You stop the genocide of humans, and await the reaper invasion, which you know is coming. In ME1, you stop the geth attacks, and await the reaper invasion, which you know is coming. For the most part, I felt that ME2's plot stayed too close to ME1's.

I get that, and I know that Earth was a target because of that cutscene. But here's the thing... its a different climax when you find out that Earth WILL be a target, than if the Human Reaper is complete, and is currently heading to Earth to destroy all of humanity.

This is what I'm talking about. The difference between a ho-hum fight with a giant robot in a remote space station somewhere, and a battle to save planet Earth with the fate of the galaxy hanging in the balance. There was nothing at stake in the Collector base during your battle. No ticking clock.  No major ethical choice like choosing to save or abandon the council.  Just a fight with a giant robot and deciding whether or not to destroy a space station after the threat is over. Ho-hum.

I see what you're saying here. I agree it wasn't very "climactic."

I don't agree that there wasn't a significant moral choice; destroying the station or letting cerberus have is a pretty big moral choice. You're basically making the decision that the salarians made with the krogan: is it worth it to give one people a ridiculous amount of power to stop this immediate threat? Is it worth the enormous loss of life that went into all the research? Do you want to risk humans dominating the galaxy, or rather, do you actually WANT humans to dominate the entire galaxy?

I thought it was a bigger moral dilemma than saving the council. For me, letting the council die had nothing to do with morality; it was a strategic decision. This time, the game confronts your morality directly by framing the decision in a context of what YOU believe is right or wrong. There is no middle-ground "out" like there was with the council.

There are lots of trilogies who's second acts are great stories that have their own story arc while setting up the final chapter. Just because it's act 2 doesn't mean it's okay for it to be mediocre or not make sense. Every story has to be self contained, even if it's part of a larger story. Though ME2 was self contained, it did not pay off from a story standpoint as strong as ME1 did.

See, that's one area where we just have flat-out differing perspectives.  I didn't feel that ME2's plot was any less "complete" than ME1's, which also left a lot of questions unanswered.  ME1 introduced a big mystery at the zero hour: what's the deal with the reapers?  ME2 did the same: why are humans so special?

ME1 may be sorta cookie-cutter space opera fare, but it was well structured, compelling, and exhilerating. ME2 wasn't structured as well, and suffered because of it. Its a good game, but a mediocre story.

Again, we just don't see eye-to-eye here. I can agree that the pacing was better in ME1, but I don't think the story was any more compelling or exhilarating. I wasn't particularly intrigued by the main plot of either game. What interests me about Mass Effect as a series is the personal narrative that I make for myself. The consequences of my actions and how I shape Shepard's personality. I only view the main plot as an outline for that.

[mjack234]

xMister Vx wrote...

The Reaper Harbinger controls the Collectors/Protheans - they have no motivation to speak of, being meat puppets. How they would use the "human reaper" isn't explained, yes. While it's a pity, I doubt Shepard conveniently found "Twenty steps to conquering the galaxy" by H.R.Binger to explain his methods.
About the threat: as I already pointed out, the thing that should strike the player is not that the whole galaxy is at stake. That's pretty hard to imagine for anyone, including Shepard. It's that humans are getting abducted by the tens of thousands. It's just another approach, and it's supposed to feel more urgent, if anything.

But the whole concept of "rising action" is just that - higher stakes.  We already know humanity is in peril because of the disappearing colonies.  The revelation that they may be targeting Earth eventually is a big one, but there is NOTHING at stake for our characters, humanity, or the galaxy as we're blasting our way through the collector base.  The very nature of an epic story is the scale of the rising action.  If it's not huge, its not epic.  For Lord Of the Rings, it's the whole of Middle Earth at stake.  In Star Wars, it's the entire galaxy.  As I mentioned before, had Earth been in immediate peril by the time Shepherd got to the Collector base, I would understand the need to act quickly because something was at stake.

As it stands, it was a "blah" climax.  My point is that this type of thing is weak storytelling.  Some people might enjoy it, but it could be better written and plotted out.

From a reader's perspective, I wouldn't always agree with that. A faceless menace works just as well, if the reader has enough imagination to see the threat through the eyes of the characters - if you're about to be crushed by a tank, you don't need to see the driver to feel the horror at your fate. In fact, if you don't the horror is amplified, because you don't have anything familiar to direct your fear and anger to. Though of course I agree that in most cases it does add a lot.

True, but real drama always comes from emotions.  In ME1, Saren was a fallen Spectre.  He was the best Spectre, and you were a rookie, and he used to stand for everything you stand for.  There was some real emotion there, just like there was emotion between Luke and Vader, which made their confrontations so legendary.

There are lots of moments in ME2 when Shepherd is facing a "tank" (or gunship as the case may be).  But that doesn't hold the same emotional significance as the time when he met Saren face to face and had to choose to sacrifice one of his teammates because of Saren's actions.  Get my drift?

Shepherd had no story arc in this game, as opposed tot he first game where he had to become a hero.  The best characterization stems from emotional conflict, and in order to have that, you need a central nemesis.

Let me clarify this... I think combat is fun, but mechanics are not what makes RPGs enjoyable for me. I can get past clunky interfaces and dreadful combat (I'm looking at you, Jade Empire).  I didn't say I didn't care about the story - I just said "main plot". Two quite different things, in an RPG (main plot = main quest basically). I'm not talking about books, once again - another medium, other rules. It's the world that really matters. The locations, the atmosphere, the characters, and my character's interaction with it all. A good main plot provides structure and drive, of course, and it can get bonus points for being epic (here I agree that ME1 does more than ME2 - but only on the final stretch), but it is only that. Yes, you can do an RPG that is basically story-driven, and in that case for me the role-playing value goes down.

Mass Effect has never been a slouch in the world building department.  That's never been an issue with me.  It does that great.  But from a story standpoint, you NEED a strong main plot to propel the narrative forward.  The main plot in ME2 was horribly light and not very well done.  Had they spent a bit more time with the main story and less with the character-centric side stories, I think they would have had a stronger game.

I'm also puzzled by the adoration of the story of ME1 (especially since I remember people complaining about it on forums). It really is nothing we haven't seen before, - it's well-executed, yes, but that's it. The introduction to this new world (and to the metaplot) is what matters in the first game.

What made the first game so great is exactly what I'm pointing out here.  It had a clear sense of rising action, a good villain, and it was clear what was at stake.  It was epic, and well structured, and exciting.  ME2, by contrast, was smaller in scale, poorly structured, and though at times it was exciting, overall the plot was confusing and not well defined.

[Seloun]

This feels a lot like a textbook example of Your Mileage May Vary, especially regarding the story elements.

The gameplay critiques certainly exemplifies the trope (okay, the space/scanning part did suck). I personally enjoyed the combat much more in the second one, simply because there is some incentive to use different weapons rather than using the single superior weapon the entire game. The powers system was somewhat clunky due to the shared cooldown system - what might have been better if there was a global cooldown which was less than the cooldown of your typical ability - e.g. a 3s shared cooldown and the full cooldown on the used ability.

I also think the 'mix and matching' feature of ME1 was a little exaggerated. When it came down to it, from the halfway point in ME1 or so, the only thing you use is the Spectre weapons because they're superior to everything else. Likewise, once you find your first set of Colossus armor, that's all you use until you find a slightly upgraded version of the exact same armor.

There were many choices in ME1 regarding gear, but the vast majority of choices weren't really choices because they were strictly dominated by other options. ME2 provides more 'real' choices due to the different interaction between shield types and weapons, ammo options, and limited ammo. In ME1 I never really felt like I had make a choice in what weapon I used or allies I brought due to the nature of the mission; in ME2 (insane difficulty) my choice in weapon and companions could completely alter the level of difficulty based on the enemies encountered. That in turn felt like good intel about what to expect and a good assessment of the type of threat made a real gameplay difference, even before the actual mission - which I personally found quite satisfying.

Regarding the story...

I agree that ME2 didn't feel quite as 'epic' as the first at first glance (at least until the last mission), but I don't really think that's a bad thing. While the main plot does sort of take a back seat to the loyalty missions, even saving the universe can get trite when reinvoked too often. I found the personal stakes in the loyalty missions to generally be more involving than saving the faceless masses (to paraphrase a favorite book, you're just as damned whether you lose one life or many).

And there are decisions of fairly staggering scope in the loyalty missions, even if they aren't always accompanied by orchestral music and great fanfare. The decision in Legion's loyalty mission is a profoundly moral one, possibly one of the least clear-cut major actions in the series, with what I would expect to be great in-game consequences. Tali's loyalty mission is in the same vein, also involving the Geth - it's a plot point which feels minor due to your perspective during the mission, but in gameworld terms is likely far more profound that the outcome of the main objective. A number of the other loyalty missions also have peripheral potentially gameworld-shaking decisions. Grunt and Mordin, both for similar reasons - what will the state of the Krogan be in ME3?

It's true not every loyalty mission has galaxy-shattering consequences, but I don't think that's a clear downside. There are epic moments in the game, they're just more subtle than in ME1.

ME1 was a fairly conventional space opera - clear bad guys, clear good guys. ME2 is more about the trope of 'the only thing holding us back is ourselves'. In many cases this is literally the case (Krogan, Geth, Quarian and how loyalty works). The obvious bad guy is really a minor annoyance in comparison. Yes, it's different; personally I find it more introspective and more interesting.

Edit: Basically, my interpretation is that the main plot isn't really the Collectors, but some of the almost offhand bits you run into during the loyalty missions. The game felt almost political in focus compared to the more military focus of the first game. The reason I interpret it this way is that the Collectors aren't going to be a factor in the ME3 except possibly for the Renegade ending choice (and even then it's not really the Collectors so much as Reaper tech). On the other hand, how you dealt with the Krogans, Quarians and the Geth will almost certainly have a large impact in what the universe looks like in ME3.

Modifié par Seloun, 04 février 2010 - 09:14 .

[Anticitizen1]

But because we never really understand what the Collector's motivation is, why they need humans, and what's at stake for the galaxy, it all falls flat, at least until its time to rescue your crew. Then, finally, there's some sense of urgency, but until that point, the Collector threat doesn't seem very far reaching or urgent.

This is the real problem I had with the story. The NY Times review picked up on this, too.
ME2's story doesn't set you up well at all for ME3. It's almost as if ME3 may not continue with what happened in the events of ME2. I think BioWare needed a better ending for this game, or they needed to make it more apparent why the Human-Reaper and all the business with the Collectors was so important. Cause right now, no one really knows.

Perhaps ME3: The Return of Drew Karpyshyn

Modifié par Anticitizen1, 04 février 2010 - 09:11 .

[Higgles]

I guess it's about how you view videogames as a medium. Personally, I don't find a main plot or narrative to be all that important. Give me a story to frame everything, but let me make of it what I will. Mcguffins, Big Bads, stakes, antagonists... I only view these things as framing devices: mostly irrelevant things that provide context for my actions. The best narrative is the one I make for myself. What's important is the world building, the atmosphere, and the characters I interact with.

STALKER is a prime example. That game has almost no plot but it's one of the best narratives I've ever experienced in a game.

EDIT: Just want to clarify, I'm not saying there's no such thing as a story-based game.  For a linear game that tells a carefully-crafted plot, it's obviously very important.  What I am saying is that I don't vie ME as one of those games.

Modifié par Higgles, 04 février 2010 - 09:13 .

[mjack234]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Actualy in the second act of the trilogy, the main threat of the series is not realy present. It's a whole new eniemy and builds up to the last act which ME2 did well. Also about the sacerfice thing. This is trilogy so they would not do something like that. The ME trilogy is about Shepard and making a decision like that in the second part is stupid and would have turned me of the game. Also not everyone survived the mission with everyone alive. Let your LI die on the sucide mission and then say theres nothing about that. Shepard gets very emotional. Maybe it's just the type of writer I am (I love to give little information, but enough so people can peice it together)

Can you give me an example of a 2nd act of a Good trilogy where a main threat of the series is not present?

Darth Vader and the Empire were definitely present in Empire Strikes Back.  Saraun was definitely present in the Two Towers.

Typically, the second act of trilogies is usually the strongest.  Its always the third act of trilogies that takes a dive.

[fogofeternity]

I think part of the problem is that, while it's OK to say "wait for ME3", there should be at least some resolution or exposition. Again taking Empire Strikes Back, it does have the "big reveal", when Vader reveals he's Luke's father. That has a significant impact on our interpretation of what's gone before, and makes us curious as to how it will impact on the story in future.

The Collector's actions don't seem to have any real impact on the interpretation of the previous storyline. But more importantly, they don't seem to have any particular impact on the future. The Collectors seem entirely standalone as an actual threat.

Now if there'd been some suggestion that the Human Reaper was being built to travel to Earth and harvest it, that would make a lot of sense. It would clarify that humans are special, it would give the construction a specific purpose that's different from simply "we're doing all this to build a new Reaper".

In fact the whole thing could have been used to reinforce why humans are special. That perhaps they have a more vibrant and reactive nature, their diversity means that there's more wild cards for the Reapers to contend with. Perhaps in the past galactic technological advancement has proceeded in the same way, perhaps civilization and society has too - so that the Reapers always knew that when they attacked they would be facing an indecisive and slow to react opponent (like the Council). The humans alter this, hence the Reapers need to deal with the humans directly.

Some kind of clearer context for the Collectors' actions and why Earth was under threat (as presumably it wasn't under threat of the Collectors simply going there in a ship and trying to do the same thing they'd done on smaller colonies). That would effectively demonstrate the importance of the immediate fight (to save humanity) in ME2, and also the wider ramifications (if you don't save humanity, all the other civilizations will die at the Reaper's hands).

Modifié par fogofeternity, 04 février 2010 - 09:16 .

[mjack234]

Luc0s wrote...

@ the opening post:

Okay, so first you say:

"In ME2, however, there were just too many things that didn't add up. Why were the Protheans making a human reaper? I got the fact that each reaper is modeled after the race it conquored, but why was it necessary to make a human one? It was never made clear why the Protheans were doing this other than they had been "enslaved by evil." But what was the endgame? What would the human reaper accomplish? And why did the Reaper require vast amounts of Human genetic material? And if the Human Reaper was completed, what was the consequence for the galaxy?"

A lot of questions, with only one answer: Wait for Mass Effect 3.

But then you wrote:

"At the end of ME1, we had a clear set up for a sequel which was dramatic, personal, and made me wanting more. At the end of ME2, we got a cool shot of tons of Reapers heading for the galaxy, but nothing that made me go "Holy Crap I Need To Find Out What Happens Next!" In short, the cliffhanger, while decent, wasn't as good as it could have been."

So first you have many questions you rather see answered, which is the whole purpose of a mid-part in a triology, to confuse the reader/watcher/player and rise many new questions, so they can come to an epic conclusion in part 3 (you as a writer should know that), then you say ME2 doesn't have a cliff hanger with interesting unanswered questions?

Seems to me you're contradicting yourself here. Please explain yourself on this point if you like.

I don't think I'm contradicting myself.  You have to look at this from a writing perspective.

First of all, each act in a trilogy has to have its own stand alone story.  That means a beginning, middle, and end climax/resolution.  It can certainly contribute to the over-all story, but each act is self-contained.

The second act of Mass Effect did not clearly explain its plot elements, or how they relate to the over-all story arc of the trilogy.  The final shot of the Reapers heading in from Dark Space is a good cliff hanger, but because the individual story of Act 2 did not clearly define the stakes and ramifications of the plot resolution, there's nothing to look forward to here other than a huge Reaper Invasion.

I don't think its a contradiction to say ME2's plot wasn't well defined, and then say the cliffhanger was weak.  i do hope ME3 clears up some loose ends for ME2, but each act should also be able to stand on its own from a narrative perspective.

[Lumenadducere]

I do think the OP makes some good points, particularly in the gameplay area. The fuel consumption, thermal clips, and scanning really don't add much in my opinion, and the lack of items definitely was something I was displeased with. I think what got me the most, though, was the lack of exploration. It seems like the civilized hubs in the game are all the size of Noveria from the first one. I'd have liked it if there was more to explore in those areas, especially given that the sidequests and recruitment missions are all one-shots that have no purpose in being revisited (in the cases where you even can go back to those areas).



If I remember correctly, one of the complaints about the first game was the lack of civilized planets to explore, and that seems to have been addressed by making more places with the caveat of having each of them be smaller. I'm sure it's a point of frustration, as they do have limited resources at their disposal and what we're asking (multiple ME1 Citadel-size areas) is a pretty tall order. I don't know if I like the ME1 or ME2 approach better, but overall I'd say that ME2 feels like it has less content, even if that's untrue. Ideally what I'd like to see for the third game is at least one ME1 Citadel-sized area and a few Omega/Illium sized areas for the second. If they could ALL be ME1 Citadel-size, then that'd be awesome, but I think as it is I'm asking for a lot of development resources.



One thing I did like, though, was the focus on each squad member's personalities and personal quests. If you could combine the well-done characters of the second with the grander, more sweeping story of the first, I think the third would be the closest thing to my version of gaming narrative perfection.



Story-wise, I'm willing to accept the lack of answers about the human reaper because I'm assuming that they'll be addressed in the third game. If they're not, then I'll be pretty frustrated, but I'm willing to wait and see.

[kraidy1117]

mjack234 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Actualy in the second act of the trilogy, the main threat of the series is not realy present. It's a whole new eniemy and builds up to the last act which ME2 did well. Also about the sacerfice thing. This is trilogy so they would not do something like that. The ME trilogy is about Shepard and making a decision like that in the second part is stupid and would have turned me of the game. Also not everyone survived the mission with everyone alive. Let your LI die on the sucide mission and then say theres nothing about that. Shepard gets very emotional. Maybe it's just the type of writer I am (I love to give little information, but enough so people can peice it together)

Can you give me an example of a 2nd act of a Good trilogy where a main threat of the series is not present?

Darth Vader and the Empire were definitely present in Empire Strikes Back.  Saraun was definitely present in the Two Towers.

Typically, the second act of trilogies is usually the strongest.  Its always the third act of trilogies that takes a dive.

I worded that wrong. The main threat while is in there, is not the main focus. In Empire strikes back it was more focused on Vader then the empire, in two towers it was more foucsed on Samaron (can't spell his name, hes the bad wizard) just like in ME2. The reapers are a threat but there was more focus on there tools. Also ME2 can be very tragic and even if everyone lives there is that scene where the whole reaper fleet is flying towards the milky way. Sorry but when I saw that I almost craped by pants. That was scary.

[xMister Vx]

Seloun wrote...

This feels a lot like a textbook example of Your Mileage May Vary, especially regarding the story elements.

Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head there.
And on top of that, I agree with the rest of your post. Nothing left to add.

[ZennExile]

kraidy1117 wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Actualy in the second act of the trilogy, the main threat of the series is not realy present. It's a whole new eniemy and builds up to the last act which ME2 did well. Also about the sacerfice thing. This is trilogy so they would not do something like that. The ME trilogy is about Shepard and making a decision like that in the second part is stupid and would have turned me of the game. Also not everyone survived the mission with everyone alive. Let your LI die on the sucide mission and then say theres nothing about that. Shepard gets very emotional. Maybe it's just the type of writer I am (I love to give little information, but enough so people can peice it together)

Can you give me an example of a 2nd act of a Good trilogy where a main threat of the series is not present?

Darth Vader and the Empire were definitely present in Empire Strikes Back.  Saraun was definitely present in the Two Towers.

Typically, the second act of trilogies is usually the strongest.  Its always the third act of trilogies that takes a dive.

I worded that wrong. The main threat while is in there, is not the main focus. In Empire strikes back it was more focused on Vader then the empire, in two towers it was more foucsed on Samaron (can't spell his name, hes the bad wizard) just like in ME2. The reapers are a threat but there was more focus on there tools. Also ME2 can be very tragic and even if everyone lives there is that scene where the whole reaper fleet is flying towards the milky way. Sorry but when I saw that I almost craped by pants. That was scary.

You are touching on the point but glossing over it here.

"Focusing on the tools".  This is where you need to focus your critical thinking.  What if in Empire Strikes back the main enemy was storm trooper batalion AFGD102 instead of Vader?

That is what they did in ME2.  Instead of focusing on a threat or glorifying a threat or even properly developing a threat they just threw storm troopers at you and called it the enemy.

Kill all the people who were hired to work on the death star.  But ignore that chap who's paying for it...

Modifié par ZennExile, 04 février 2010 - 09:21 .

[pelhikano]

mjack234 wrote...

Shepherd had no story arc in this game, as opposed tot he first game where he had to become a hero.  The best characterization stems from emotional conflict, and in order to have that, you need a central nemesis.

I felt plenty emotional conflict in ME2, lots of and lots of emotions got evoked in me seeing the stories of the companions unfold. Saren and even Sovereign in the first part on the other hand I almost felt hard to take seriously, they were simply not that interesting. The "central nemesis" in ME2 was the hovering threat of the Reapers, which you didn't get up close to in this part but that was nonetheless present. Having "one particular guy" as the enemy doesn't seem necessary.

[Arquibus]

ME2 was supposed to flesh out the galaxy more. Adding grimy, grungy locales like Tuchanka, dens of corruption like Omega and Ilium...add depth to the universe, and the people within it. The main plot purpose here was to personalize the battle. The Collectors (and hence Reapers) are targeting your people because of YOU specifically, and in the events leading up to/the suicide mission, are possibly killing your friends and comrades in arms. This wasn't supposed to be more epic than the first. You already know the Reapers are planning to wipe you out. This is supposed to drive it home, to you personally. They aren't just out to get the whole galaxy. They want YOU.



The faceless enemy is designed to make the players not completely sure of themselves. You've got this guy, Harbinger, screwing with your people, trying to stop you, taunting you, and no matter how many times you kill "him" he comes back. Is he your nemesis? Then you've got The Illusive Man jerking around your chain like a dog on a leash. No matter how you look at it, he's got something on you, because his information is key for your success. But you can't trust him. He's like The Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files. Always knows more than you, always out of reach, playing you in his game, and completely ruthless. Is he your enemy?



These two actually lead to what is the big ethical dilemma at the end. Do you trust the Illusive Man enough to use the Reaper technology for the good of the galaxy, or do you destroy it knowing full well that it really is your best tool for stopping the inevitable invasion of an enemy far your superior? I personally had a hard time deciding what was the appropriate course of action. What I would really do in the situation. My paranoia won over and I blew it to pieces, but I couldn't help but wonder if I had screwed us all. Playing my character as myself in the first game, I had no problem deciding to save the council. That is simply the person I am. This situation, however, gave you a lose-lose situation that you had to try and make the best of. In that sense you get your reversal. No matter what decision you made, it was not the correct one.

[Cinnabar6]

I speculated privately, before I played the game, that the mission would end in FAILURE, thereby seriously increasing the jeopardy and raising the stakes for the third installment. The player's success would come in whether or not your Shepard and his/her squadmates made it back in one piece. This would set the third game up to open with the extinction of technically advanced species perhaps imminent. So, I do feel the story had a weak focus. That's what I think. I have no quibble with the planet exploration, I am pleased that the side quests had more to do with the main story and I enjoyed the various characters that we were given to work with for reasons as varied as their personalities.

[kraidy1117]

Arquibus wrote...

ME2 was supposed to flesh out the galaxy more. Adding grimy, grungy locales like Tuchanka, dens of corruption like Omega and Ilium...add depth to the universe, and the people within it. The main plot purpose here was to personalize the battle. The Collectors (and hence Reapers) are targeting your people because of YOU specifically, and in the events leading up to/the suicide mission, are possibly killing your friends and comrades in arms. This wasn't supposed to be more epic than the first. You already know the Reapers are planning to wipe you out. This is supposed to drive it home, to you personally. They aren't just out to get the whole galaxy. They want YOU.

The faceless enemy is designed to make the players not completely sure of themselves. You've got this guy, Harbinger, screwing with your people, trying to stop you, taunting you, and no matter how many times you kill "him" he comes back. Is he your nemesis? Then you've got The Illusive Man jerking around your chain like a dog on a leash. No matter how you look at it, he's got something on you, because his information is key for your success. But you can't trust him. He's like The Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files. Always knows more than you, always out of reach, playing you in his game, and completely ruthless. Is he your enemy?

These two actually lead to what is the big ethical dilemma at the end. Do you trust the Illusive Man enough to use the Reaper technology for the good of the galaxy, or do you destroy it knowing full well that it really is your best tool for stopping the inevitable invasion of an enemy far your superior? I personally had a hard time deciding what was the appropriate course of action. What I would really do in the situation. My paranoia won over and I blew it to pieces, but I couldn't help but wonder if I had screwed us all. Playing my character as myself in the first game, I had no problem deciding to save the council. That is simply the person I am. This situation, however, gave you a lose-lose situation that you had to try and make the best of. In that sense you get your reversal. No matter what decision you made, it was not the correct one.

Well said man.

[Barhador]

 Yeah, OP is right but...
ME2 has been incredible hard for the writers to pull off. As Casey H said, they needed to bring in choices, backstory, etc from ME1 and then continue it into ME3.

ME1 was build up cookie cutter style:

Cold open/teaser: Attack on Eden Prime
Presentation: Citadel
Elaboration: Visiting the three main planets:
Point of no return: Virmire and leaving the Citadel "illegally" (meaning you cannot return)
Conflict escalation and climax: Ilos and the Citadel battle 

This is how i see it anyway.

ME2 does of course have some of these elements, but the problem is again, making it fit between two stories. I am not saying it is impossible to pull of a trilogy from a writers point of view, but for Mass Effect, however, it is harder to pull off. Because ME is not just based on storytelling, but on interactive storytelling.

I am in no way a writer or anything, so please take this with a grain of salt, and consider it a laypersons way of putting things.

Modifié par Barhador, 04 février 2010 - 09:28 .

[Higgles]

See, the only unanswered questions that really bother me are the ones related to before the games. For example,



The reapers always leave one behind, right? Except this time they left two? Except one, not physically, only psychically in the collector general's mind... Or did he only take over the collector general's mind after Sovereign was taken out? But don't they leave one behind because all the others are asleep? So... how did he know Sovereign died? How did they all wake up? If he was in control of the collectors the whole time, why didn't they just help Sovereign in the first game? If they're psychics and send their consciousness all the way from dark space to here, why do they need to leave one behind? Couldn't they just spy on us psychically?



Umm... yep...

[fogofeternity]

Cinnabar6 wrote...

I speculated privately, before I played the game, that the mission would end in FAILURE, thereby seriously increasing the jeopardy and raising the stakes for the third installment. The player's success would come in whether or not your Shepard and his/her squadmates made it back in one piece. This would set the third game up to open with the extinction of technically advanced species perhaps imminent. So, I do feel the story had a weak focus. That's what I think. I have no quibble with the planet exploration, I am pleased that the side quests had more to do with the main story and I enjoyed the various characters that we were given to work with for reasons as varied as their personalities.

That would have been awesome. A heroic failure. Or possibly even the successful destruction of the Collector homebase, only for the debris to drift apart to reveal a more completely built (but still unfinished) Human-Reaper. Something that you were now aware of, but weren't in a position to address immediately.

[AtreiyaN7]

While the disappearance of human colonies is our immediate concern, the greater threat is that the Reapers will wipe out all intelligent life when they finally pop out of dark space. If there isn't the same sense of urgency, then maybe it's at least partially due to the fact that this overarching Reaper threat is what has driven Shepard ever since ME1 (the last scene in ME1 involves Shepard vowing to stop them after all). Still, I'm certainly willing to admit that the pacing could be upped a bit. I've always viewed ME2 along the lines of The Dirty Dozen (certainly it's been mentioned before by the devs as a way of describing the team - no doubt sort of jokingly but appropriate in my view), so to me the focus in part was the team-building and the individual stories. On that level, I enjoyed it quite a bit, along with the final assault.

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

ZennExile wrote...

It was like a single 1 hour special compared to a 9 hour long trilogy.

Sure the episode was "good".  But that trilogy was just as good and we got 3 times the entertainment out of our 60 dollars.

I didn't say either was better, but I would probably agree with you there that the 9 hour trilogy feel is better. It fits the "epic soap opera" feel better,

[mcvxiii]

MBirkhofer wrote...

Short version.

Pacing in ME2 is off.

Pacing in 1 is done right.
You start of with intro. Then go to citidel and get all your party, learn about the world. Then opens into 3 gather info/get liara missions. During this time, you can explore the galaxy at your leisure. No mission has any real "omg needs to get done right now". So you feel ok, gallivanting around the galaxy at your own pace. You know hes out there, but no immediate threat.
until Virmire, where the game hits act 4 and races to a dramtic conclusion.

ME2 however, is constantly throwing "plot important missions" at you that seem time sensitive. Add into this, a constant barrage of loyalty missions which also all seem time sensitive(even if they arent really), and recruitment. When exactly are you supposed to explore? Gameply you do, it while, but thematically, it feels off, as you constantly have so many plot storys going on at once. That's the key. Too much going on at once. This is made worse when at the very end, the last mission really is time sensitive, when all the previous weren't really.
There really needed to be a point at which, you are given an "ALL CLEAR" go explore at your leisure fairly early on. then each loyalty mission, and any main plot missions should disable each other, so you only can get 1 or maybe 2 at a time.

I respecfully disagree. I found the Pacing in ME1 to be off kilter and there was a time disconnect from the main plot -- Race Against Time -- and the side missions -- save an asari's pet feline from a tree . Most of the side missions in ME1 were about acclimatizing the player to the universe and a part 2 of anything other than the highlights doesn't need this to extensively happen. The plot structure might not be your cuppa but it is tight, conveys a sense of urgency, and is bloody exciting to play. ME1 at certain points dragged but it was an xp bonaza.  

[fogofeternity]

Higgles wrote...

See, the only unanswered questions that really bother me are the ones related to before the games. For example,

The reapers always leave one behind, right? Except this time they left two? Except one, not physically, only psychically in the collector general's mind... Or did he only take over the collector general's mind after Sovereign was taken out? But don't they leave one behind because all the others are asleep? So... how did he know Sovereign died? How did they all wake up? If he was in control of the collectors the whole time, why didn't they just help Sovereign in the first game? If they're psychics and send their consciousness all the way from dark space to here, why do they need to leave one behind? Couldn't they just spy on us psychically?

Umm... yep...

That all made reasonable sense to me.

They had to leave one behind physically so that it could intermittently awake and scan the galaxy for evidence of technologically advanced civilization and the reactivation of the Citadel.

The Reapers as a whole are awake because Sovereign signalled them to wake up when he saw that evidence of technologically advanced civilization. They presumably have to be awake *prior* to him opening the Citadel's mass relay. So they woke up already, they just couldn't get back.

The Collectors are the servants of the Reapers. Their standard action is to collect genetically interesting mutants and strange species (as TIM explains early on). Presumably so that the Reapers are well placed when they return to know which civilization has the most growth potential for future integration. Their own genetic manipulation and servitude means that an awake Reaper (as all the Reapers are now) can take a more direct intervention via mind control, even from dark space.