283 réponses à ce sujet

[ZennExile]

In the RPG world the Epic Feel absolutley trumps every other aspect. ME2 was compelling, just not epic. And the reason it doesn't feel epic is for all the reasons the OP mentioned. These games are a complex system of mechanics and just cutting parts out doesn't work.



Other than the Thresher Maw bit of course. Thresher maw death was only forced on retards who didn't pick up on the fact that every wide open area with "nothing" in it could potentially harbor a giant vehicle swallowing worm.

[Count_Zero_Interrupt]

I agree with a lot of the points the OP made. The RPG elements were dumbed WAY down. I missed finding and customizing guns, and having an array of skills to pick and choose from when leveling. And the critiques of the plot are dead on.

I loved the first game despite it's flaws, and expected that the second game would raise the bar. But it actually felt like a step back. The game universe felt more limited, it seemed like you saw less and went fewer places, and the scale of the conflict was smaller. It almost seems like the first and second games are backwards. Like it would make more sense to discover the reapers via fighting the collectors on a relatively small suicide mission, and follow that up with facing an actual active reaper operating in the galaxy to bring about the arrival of the reaper fleet and the climactic battle at the citadel. Open the third game in the aftermath of Sovereign, with the galaxy finally aware of what's going on and trying to get their act together to face the rest of the reapers, or prevent them from awakening/arriving.

Still optimistic for the third game though. Can't wait to see where they go with it...

Modifié par Count_Zero_Interrupt, 04 février 2010 - 09:35 .

[mjack234]

pelhikano wrote...

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.

Its not necessary.  But it makes for a stronger story.

I did not hate Mass Effect 2.  I spent upwards of 40 hours of my life playing it, and I had fun.  If you liked the story, that is fantastic.  Different people like different things.  I applaud Bioware because the complexity of plotting and scripting a huge story with so many variables is mind boggleing, and the fact that they pull it off seamlessly is a credit to their skills as storytellers.

But as strong as the story might be, it wasn't close to the magic of the first one, and I think if you were to go back a year from now and play ME1 and ME2 back to back, you'd see what I mean.

When it comes to writing, there are no set rules.  But there are tenents of certain genres that make the stories told in them stronger.  Mass Effect is an epic space opera, and to tell that type of story well, you need to use certain story elements which ME2 lacked.  Again, it wasn't bad, but it could have been better.

[Gill Kaiser]

I disagree that there was no tangible threat. I thought the Collector menace was nicely built up throughout the story, as we saw more and more evidence of what they were doing, first at the colony, then on their ship, then they attacked the Normandy (making it personal), then when we finally saw what they were using the captured humans for.

In fact, I think ME2 was better in this regard than ME1. In ME1 Saren almost completely disappears for half the game. You see him at the Council hearing, and then after that you don't see him at all until Virmire, which is one step from the end.

[Giantevilhead]

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...

The Collectors are ex-Protheans, that means they've only been around for 50,000 years. The Omega 4 relay on the other hand, was built by the Reapers. That means the Reapers have been using the Omega 4 relay for a very long time. It's unlikely that the Prothean Collectors are the first Collectors.

The Collectors weren't used to help Sovereign because they're not powerful enough to take on the Council fleet. Their job is to perform research, not fight wars.

Just because Sovereign can communicate with the Reapers in dark space doesn't mean that the Reapers can psychically spy on people. It just means that they have a much more advanced method of communication. The Normandy communicates with the Illusive Man using quantum entanglement. That might be how the Reapers communicate.

[Higgles]

fogofeternity wrote...

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.

But wasn't Sovereign trying to get the Citadel because he wasn't able to send out the signal?  The keepers were supposed to do it but they couldn't, that's why he needed to do it himself.

I admit, might be remembering things wrong.

[Myrmedus]

As far as I see it on the story front there was one major issue with ME2 that accounts for all the things the OP describes: there were too many characters in ME2.

The amount of time, effort, dialogue etc. devoted to these characters and their relevant sub-stories meant there was alot less core plot content. I said in another thread the same thing really: ME2 needed about 8 characters only, and possibly 6 or 7 like the first, and the 'free' development time that was gained from slashing the character list could've been devoted to fleshing out the main plot more. The issue with the main story isn't its quality IMO but the fact it's under-developed (reminds me of FFXII) where 90% of the game's plot feels more like an introduction or prologue than the actual plot arc. The part of the story where you start to feel sucked in as if it were beginning to descend into the main story arc is actually the end of the arc in the last hour of the game.... Throughout the game you feel the emotions and have the revelations customary to an epic story in ME2 but they all feel rather 'stunted' because they're not built upon enough.

I think another cause of this was ME2 falling victim to a robust plot framework, most limiting of all was the concept that the suicide mission HAD to be at the end of the game. Being so inflexible it meant that the most powerful part of the story ended up being at the very end of the game, which is fine if ME2 was followed immediately by ME3 (like in a few months) but as a standalone game - like BW tried to advertise it as - it meant its story fell short. In terms of being standalone I felt as though the events of the suicide mission needed to be about 2/3 through the game not at the very end....

It wasn't necessarily unanswered questions that caused the issues, nor was it the way in which the infant Human-Reaper was destroyed; I don't think it was the lack of a starship battle either but simply that the core story wasn't long enough...it didn't have enough time to develop and THEN reach a climax but rather its climax was the point at which it finally started to develop.

Having said that, plot-wise it's usually for the 2nd instalment in a trilogy to be the weakest and as a writer I'm guessing you know this better than most - let's just hope that ME follows most other epic trilogies in saving the best for last!

Modifié par Myrmedus, 04 février 2010 - 09:44 .

[Souai]

What would have been an appropriate nemesis for ME2 then? It's rough because the only truly sentient adversary we're presented is Harbinger near the end. The Reapers are tough to interact with and humanize given their massive size and odd figure. An indoctrinated anthropomorphic character would have felt a bit like Saren 2.0.



Maybe there could have been a secondary conflict that unhinged TIM and stranded you or something. I felt a little handheld the entire game and never really had to ask myself what do I do now? It's a little annoying that the explanation for why Shepard and crew didn't get collected in the Normandy attack at the beginning of the game is being explained through external media. I think the game could have played out a little differently if there was more time before the fracture and it came at the cost of a relatively important mission. Then maybe you could use some element of the failed mission after the resurrection to drive the story and keep things connected.



I agree that the ending should have had more permutations and involved more characters. I think BioWare wanted to keep it simple and try to uphold the feeling of urgency and keep a high level of quality on the scenes the players would see but it would have been nice to see a use for most of the crew if you had them on the final mission. There could have been an intermission where something goes wrong and you get sealed in the base and the Normandy has to leave and the finale including Shepard stealing a collector ship, or is that an overdone Sci-fi trope?



I think what was done had emotional impact, and was obviously successful, so I can't really rail against it too hard.

[Giantevilhead]

Higgles wrote...
But wasn't Sovereign trying to get the Citadel because he wasn't able to send out the signal?  The keepers were supposed to do it but they couldn't, that's why he needed to do it himself.

I admit, might be remembering things wrong.

The Citadel has a hidden mass relay that connects to dark space. The Reapers need to activate the Citadel in order to travel into the galaxy.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

I agree with Seloun on how your mileage may vary. The OP makes a good argument, but to be honest, I think he's focusing too much on stock "writing mechanics" and not remembering that a story can diverge from them completely and still be good. Things like the plot chart with its climaxes and rising actions are good guidelines when you're writing, but they aren't the be all and end all of storytelling. Especially because characters are more important than plot. You can have a terrible, trite, and typically formulaic plot that's part of a story considered "good" because the characters are interesting and well developed. The opposite is not true. This was, in fact, a large part of why the story of ME1 didn't do much for me. Outside of Wrex, none of the party members in ME1 were particularly interesting. I didn't get the feeling they had wants or desires, or even really any existence as real people rather than simple cardboard cutouts. The only thing that saved ME1 for me was the refreshing idea of having an "evil" path that wasn't stupid moustache-twirling villainy.



In this game, it's different. Yeah, there's not as much of an "epic feel" as in the first game. The fate of the galaxy doesn't really hang on you as much as it did with Saren and Sovereign. But I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The force driving this game's story was smaller and more personal - collectors abducting human colonists, rather than reapers trying to come back and eliminate everything. Arguably the decision on whether to reprogam the Geth is more "epic" in its implications than the whole collector plot, but that's fine, because the game's plot isn't about saving the galaxy per se, it's about Shepherd himself and the relationships he forms with a gaggle of interesting, well developed and unique characters. Nearly all the important sidequests revolve around these relationships, and are dedicated to giving us insights into said characters.



OP, I kind of think you went into the game expecting the wrong sort of storytelling. In ME1 the evildoers have been dealt a terrible blow, and it'll take them time to recover. They shouldn't, narratively speaking, be ready to enact their plan for galactic omnicide in the second act, save perhaps for the very end to set up the third act. Otherwise that leaves you with nothing to do for the third act. Instead, the conflict of the second act is driven by characters; Shepherd has to get the trust and loyalty of all these unique people, men, women, and killer robots that may have goals that are mutually exclusive with one another and may hate each other, ie Jack/Mira and Tali/Legion.



Though, yeah, more details about what the human reaper was actually going to do and/or be would have been nice, but I don't think the lack of them diminishes the story because the story here is about the characters - in particular, about the character of Shepherd. It's Shep's story, not the story of the destruction of Sovereign or the story of stopping the reapers.

[NarayanNL]

[
[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Well in terms of suspence the collectors can't compete with Saruman or Vader.
They have no build up, a lame plugged in backstory with them being protheans and they never pose a serious strategic threat. Instead they raid some lame colonies to build a reaper. Would have been more interesting if they actually finished it and proceeded to attack something interesting with it.

To be honest I was kinda expecting something along those lines when i went through the relay. Not that there was a reaper there but information about some grand scheme they were planning.  Felt quite let down when the game just finished there.

Saruman in comparison is allready build up as a villian in the Fellowship and by the time of the Two Towers becomes a serious power in middle earth.  He finishes his army and actually almost succeeds at beating the rohirim.

None the less after my initial dissapointment I actually like the game itself storywise it could have been a bit better though

[fogofeternity]

Higgles wrote...

[But wasn't Sovereign trying to get the Citadel because he wasn't able to send out the signal?  The keepers were supposed to do it but they couldn't, that's why he needed to do it himself.

I admit, might be remembering things wrong.

No. The Protheans stopped Sovereign being able to signal the Keepers to reactivate the Citadel mass relay. That was seperate from Sovereign's ability to signal the other Reapers. He went to the Citadel to open the mass relay for the already waiting Reaper fleet.

[nitefyre410]

The OP makes some good constructive points and its very interesting post to read. It reminds of the article I read while back about the difference between , writing for a Movie, video game, and novel. You have to take in consideration the medium in which the story is being told as well. I see ME 2 as simple continution of the ME 1 plot part 3 is were we are going to see all the epicness come out but to have a good Epic Space drama you have to some emotional ties to the characters right?



I greatly enjoied the focus on the characters and interpersonal dramas, and even the conversation chocies for Shephard... He even seemed more well round. This time around he felt more natural than in first game.... more later back to work I most go.

[Higgles]

Giantevilhead wrote...

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...

The Collectors are ex-Protheans, that means they've only been around for 50,000 years. The Omega 4 relay on the other hand, was built by the Reapers. That means the Reapers have been using the Omega 4 relay for a very long time. It's unlikely that the Prothean Collectors are the first Collectors.

The Collectors weren't used to help Sovereign because they're not powerful enough to take on the Council fleet. Their job is to perform research, not fight wars.

Just because Sovereign can communicate with the Reapers in dark space doesn't mean that the Reapers can psychically spy on people. It just means that they have a much more advanced method of communication. The Normandy communicates with the Illusive Man using quantum entanglement. That might be how the Reapers communicate.

EDIT: Ok, I was just forgetting a major plot detail, hahaha

Modifié par Higgles, 04 février 2010 - 09:44 .

[GenericPlayer2]

I am still reading the OP, but I agree with many of the points. The game is centered around character development, and not the main plot. I feel like Shepard is not the one investigating or finding out what is going on. TIM holds all the cards, and he tells Shepard what to do next. The only thing Shepard is actively uncovering is new facts about different races and cultures through the loyalty quests.

Whether its Freedom's Progress, the collector ship, or the derelict reaper, I always have the sense that I am only confirming what TIM already knows to be true. I feel like more like a hired goon, not a hero. Maybe that is why the game did not feel epic.

There were also no answers as to why they were building a human reaper. Were they so impressed with Shepard that they thought the human model was the way to go? However since this is the middle game in a trilogy, I can forgive the lack of answers.

My problem, in the larger scheme of things, is that any of the characters on your team can die. Yes this does make the game play unpredictable and enjoyable, but to me it also seems like none of the current team mates will be more than cameo's in ME3. And hence the character development game (Otherwise known as ME2) seems like a waste of time. I will be very pleasantly surprised to see someone from my ME2 squad be on my team and play a big role in ME3, but I am not holding my breath. I expect something like a Ash/Kaidan/Wrex cameo.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 04 février 2010 - 09:44 .

[Higgles]

fogofeternity wrote...

Higgles wrote...

[But wasn't Sovereign trying to get the Citadel because he wasn't able to send out the signal?  The keepers were supposed to do it but they couldn't, that's why he needed to do it himself.

I admit, might be remembering things wrong.

No. The Protheans stopped Sovereign being able to signal the Keepers to reactivate the Citadel mass relay. That was seperate from Sovereign's ability to signal the other Reapers. He went to the Citadel to open the mass relay for the already waiting Reaper fleet.

I see.

Ok then, thanks for clearing that up for me, haha.

[Gill Kaiser]

Higgles wrote...
But wasn't Sovereign trying to get the Citadel because he wasn't able to send out the signal?  The keepers were supposed to do it but they couldn't, that's why he needed to do it himself.

I admit, might be remembering things wrong.

That was the signal to the Keepers to activate the Citadel. We're talking about a signal to the Reapers themselves. It's quite plausible that Sovereign would be able to contact the rest of the Reapers.

[JJ Long]

I really enjoyed the story. I felt it was more of a redemption/personal type story rather than grand epic like the first game.

At the beginning of Mass Effect 2, Shepard loses everything. He is killed, his team disbands, and almost everyone goes into denial about the Reapers. Essentially everything he fought for had been undone.

He loses two years and when he is brought back, he is basically alone. The Council won't help him and again, his friends have all moved on.

Taking on the responsibilities of saving humanity he begins to rebuild. He eventually reunites with old friends, gathers up equipment and a great team and launches an attack deep into the heart of the enemy.

He stops the Reapers and Collectors in the middle of their plans and essentially picks up where he left off.

That is what I love about the game. It is basically Commander Shepard spitting in the face of fate, death, and the Reapers. He won't just go out with a whimper and allow the Reapers to continue with their plans.

It is not your typical story and that is what I love about it. It is Shepard basically saying "I won't conform to a traditional story." He is proactive, he stops the Collectors/Reapers before their new plan can go into effect.

That's how I saw it, more of a personal redemption type story rather than an grand scale epic.

[Myrmedus]

Still wasn't a long enough story IMO anyway regardless of what 'type' of story it was

[smudboy]

OP is completely accurate.  This statement of his defines the main problem:

mjack234 wrote...

Problems With The Story

At its core, ME2 is 3 missions worth of plot and 30 missions worth of character development.  And even though I liked the characters, there were some I just don't find interesting enough to care all that much about doing a 60 minute long loyalty quest for.

-Imagine if when they took out the Mako/side quest planetary exploration in ME1, they replaced it with nothing.
-Imagine if they took out all the superfluous characters and how you acquired them, and gave necessary characters that had vital tasks, and gave them actual (if not many) motivations to fight the Collectors.
-Imagine if Shepard had a villain he could somehow interact and struggle with.
-Imagine if Shepard's newly resurrected cybernetic body had somehow reacted with the Cipher, allowing him to communicate to the Protheans/Collectors.
-Imagine if the game was a race to acquire resources and building a team (not just recruiting!) to fight the Collectors, instead of casually traveling the galaxy doing side quests, looking for the crew's family members...
-Imagine there wasn't the upper body of a giant human terminator...
-Imagine the entire game was a setup to the suicide mission, running simulations on major plot points, assigning squad mates with leaders, zappers, snipers, scouts, engineers, having teams work together for multi-squad based missions...
-Imagine they had a proper money/resource trading system
-Imagine if Shepard was as important as they made him out to be...

They'd have more time to focus on telling a proper story, with characters more involved, more personal, more motivated, and more fleshed out.  Well, at leaset we wouldn't be wasting time running around on side quests playing pin the probe on the planet...

[Cpl_Facehugger]

NarayanNL wrote...

Well in terms of suspence the collectors can't compete with Saruman or Vader.
They have no build up, a lame plugged in backstory with them being protheans and they never pose a serious strategic threat. Instead they raid some lame colonies to build a reaper. Would have been more interesting if they actually finished it and proceeded to attack something interesting with it.

What do you mean, no build up? First you see evidence of them on Freedom's Progress; you don't actually encounter any collector there, but you know they have a swarm of bugs that can apparently immobilize you for later capture. Then you have to find Mordin and make a countermeasure for that swarm. Then you have to test that countermeasure on Horizon, giving you your first actual encounter with the collectors and also your first encounter with improved husks like praetorians and scions (also giving you a clue to both their connection with the reapers as well as some hints on their goals). 

After that, you think you've driven them off and you make your way to the "disabled" ship. Surprise, they're still one step ahead of you, and you only get away because you have an illegal AI on your ship!

Then you go get the reaper IFF, and what do you find? The collectors can detect reaper IFFs! Then they steal your crew, forcing you to penetrate into their enormous hive-station and burn them all like the space-roaches they are. 

Looks like narrative build up to me. 

Granted the buildup is interrupted by quests to build your team, but this is not a bad thing since IMO the game's main narrative thrust is in the team.

To be honest I was kinda expecting something along those lines when i went through the relay. Not that there was a reaper there but information about some grand scheme they were planning.  Felt quite let down when the game just finished there.

Most evil villains don't leave their plans out in the open for the heroes to find.

Saruman in comparison is allready build up as a villian in the Fellowship and by the time of the Two Towers becomes a serious power in middle earth.  He finishes his army and actually almost succeeds at beating the rohirim.

Saruman was just as much a pawn as the collectors though, and the rohirrim aren't all that pivotol in the scheme of things; it's Aragorn bringing in reinforcements from the southern fiefdoms that turns the battle of Plennor around. (Or the army of the dead in the movie. But true fans do not speak of that.)  

[JJ Long]

This story didn't call for a villain like Saren.

The entire focus on Mass Effect 2 is on Commander Shepard. All a Saren-type villain does is take away from that.

Shepard was the star of the game, which essentially makes you the star of the game. Rather than the focus being on a Darth Vader/The Joker/Saren type of arch enemy.

[Anticitizen1]

kraidy1117 wrote...

I am a writer

and I have have to disaggre with you on this. For one scanining planets was quick and easy. I scaned a planet in under a minute and the planet was bare. Also how did you get bored in ME2? Everything from the action, to the places to the characters where alot more intresting then it was in ME.

In ME the places where realy dead. There was some talking and stuff, but realy dead. In ME2 the world is alive. People are walking, dancing, conversations and even drinking. I just don't see how you could have gotten bored in ME2 but not in ME.
...

Also the thing that ME failed at and what ME2 did fantastic was making it emotional(spelling?)

A writer?
Ha. Nice try, pal.

Modifié par Anticitizen1, 04 février 2010 - 10:05 .

[mjack234]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

I agree with Seloun on how your mileage may vary. The OP makes a good argument, but to be honest, I think he's focusing too much on stock "writing mechanics" and not remembering that a story can diverge from them completely and still be good. Things like the plot chart with its climaxes and rising actions are good guidelines when you're writing, but they aren't the be all and end all of storytelling. Especially because characters are more important than plot. You can have a terrible, trite, and typically formulaic plot that's part of a story considered "good" because the characters are interesting and well developed. The opposite is not true. This was, in fact, a large part of why the story of ME1 didn't do much for me. Outside of Wrex, none of the party members in ME1 were particularly interesting. I didn't get the feeling they had wants or desires, or even really any existence as real people rather than simple cardboard cutouts. The only thing that saved ME1 for me was the refreshing idea of having an "evil" path that wasn't stupid moustache-twirling villainy.

You're right, you can diverge from these mechanics and still have a good story, but I don't think ME2 is an example of that.  Characters are not more important than plot, they're equally important to plot because good characters drive a plot forward.

Shoving characters into a plot or sacrificing plot for characterization always makes for a weaker story.  Plot dictates motivation, and motivation begets action from the characters.  A weakness in one makes the over-all story weak.

Though I can appreciate the care that went into developing each character in the game, the heart of the Mass Effect story lies with Shepherd and his struggle with the Reapers.  That's the character that matters.  In ME1, Shepherd was an active force fighting impossible odds.  In ME2, he took a backseat and was just along for the ride.  Story mechanics work for a reason, and you need to be super skilled to experiment with them.  I think ME2 failed on that front.  Remember, Mass Effect is an action oriented game, so it needs rising action and conflict, but a good story is always clear about its plot elements to keep the audience from being confused.  ME2's main story was too thin with too many plot holes to be considered anything but mediocre in the long run.

In this game, it's different. Yeah, there's not as much of an "epic feel" as in the first game. The fate of the galaxy doesn't really hang on you as much as it did with Saren and Sovereign. But I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The force driving this game's story was smaller and more personal - collectors abducting human colonists, rather than reapers trying to come back and eliminate everything. Arguably the decision on whether to reprogam the Geth is more "epic" in its implications than the whole collector plot, but that's fine, because the game's plot isn't about saving the galaxy per se, it's about Shepherd himself and the relationships he forms with a gaggle of interesting, well developed and unique characters. Nearly all the important sidequests revolve around these relationships, and are dedicated to giving us insights into said characters.

That's fine for a stand-alone side adventure.  But the second act of a trilogy that doesn't address the main threat of the story and offers no real reversal for the hero is lazy writing. 

OP, I kind of think you went into the game expecting the wrong sort of storytelling. In ME1 the evildoers have been dealt a terrible blow, and it'll take them time to recover. They shouldn't, narratively speaking, be ready to enact their plan for galactic omnicide in the second act, save perhaps for the very end to set up the third act. Otherwise that leaves you with nothing to do for the third act. Instead, the conflict of the second act is driven by characters; Shepherd has to get the trust and loyalty of all these unique people, men, women, and killer robots that may have goals that are mutually exclusive with one another and may hate each other, ie Jack/Mira and Tali/Legion.

I expected writing on par or better than the first game.  Narratively speaking, the second act in a three act structure is always a crisis or reversal where the bad guys win one or the good guys suffer a major setback.  Neither of which happen here.

I would have liked to have seen a more classical story if it meant having a bigger climax to the game.  As it stands now, its too underwhelming after the magic that was ME1, at least for me.

[Myrmedus]

I also want to point out that I THINK (not positive though) that ME2 has suffered a little bit due to ME3's side-along development. In the long run this could be a good thing, a better ME3 that is also released earlier, but for ME2 itself the split development time and concentration may have caused it to waiver a little.

The main missions ME2 DID offer were all great IMO - great gameplay, urgency, dialogue, intrigue, suspense etc. there simply weren't enough of them proportional to the character loyalty quests. I found myself, even on the first playthrough, feeling like I wanted to 'wade' through the loyalty quests as quickly as possible just so I could get to the main story missions each time.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 04 février 2010 - 10:11 .