283 réponses à ce sujet

[rumination888]

mjack234 wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, there was a mystery surrounding Saren and what his plan was.  I was curious about the questions the characters uncovered as they dug deeper into his treachery, and felt compelled to unravel the mystery.  In ME2, they tried to make a mystery out of who the Collectors were and why they were kidnapping humans, but you spent 90% of your game time doing quests that had absolutely nothing to do with that mystery!  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.

....what? You can finish ME1 in 4-5 hours. If you spend anymore time in ME1, you're basically doing quests that have absolutely nothing to do with Saren or your party members. Infact, a couple of those mandantory hours in ME1 had nothing to do with Saren at all.

[Myrmedus]

rumination888 wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, there was a mystery surrounding Saren and what his plan was.  I was curious about the questions the characters uncovered as they dug deeper into his treachery, and felt compelled to unravel the mystery.  In ME2, they tried to make a mystery out of who the Collectors were and why they were kidnapping humans, but you spent 90% of your game time doing quests that had absolutely nothing to do with that mystery!  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.

....what? You can finish ME1 in 4-5 hours. If you spend anymore time in ME1, you're basically doing quests that have absolutely nothing to do with Saren or your party members. Infact, a couple of those mandantory hours in ME1 had nothing to do with Saren at all.

I doubt you completed ME1 in 4-5 hours without skipping copious amounts of dialogue. Also the side-quests in ME1 generally have a more 'integrated' feel into the main plot than in ME2 there there are specific divisions between loyalty quests and the main quests.

Perfect example: Noveria. You need to do a side-quest or 2 in order to get the Gate Pass. It's technically a side-quest in its presentation and execution but is pivotal to progressing through - and directly relevant to - the main story and the main mission on Noveria.

[Ileanos07]

I understand most of what you pointed out, but I generaly felt tensions and alot more emotions during the gameplay. I certainly agree, that ME1 was worth of grade A+, but I didnt agree, that ME2 is worth of C+... I would go for B-. It has a lot of emotions, it (in my case) make you want to fight, for me, it was even mysterious. But you are totally correct in one point - it misses epicness of ME1.

[mjack234]

JJ Long wrote...

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.

Shepherd was the star of the game, and yet he had very little personal growth or revelations in this story.  it was all based around his team, Shepherd took a back seat.

A good villain pushes a hero to grow, adapt, and become a stronger character.  Without a strong nemesis to rage against, a hero stagnates.  Shepherd had a mission in this game, but that mission was not personal.  Now, if for some reason he had a personal stake in seeing the mission through - like his former teammates were all captured by the Collectors, I could understand his motivation.  But for the bulk of this story, he's Cerebus's lap dog doing what they tell him to.

If you look at James Bond movies, you always need a nemesis that's either a physical threat or a mental threat.  The Illusive Man was definitely a mental threat for Shepherd, and Sovereign played that role in ME1.  But in ME2, there was no real physical threat.  The Collector General was the closest we came to that, but he had no real character to speak of so it was kinda hard to see the rivalry there.

[tsd16]

mjack234 wrote...

Yeah, it was all very unclear.

In "Empire Strikes Back," you had a lot of character development. Luke was learning to be a Jedi and come to terms with his destiny, and Han and Leia were developing their relationship. But you also had a story of how the Empire was weakening the Rebellion and how Darth Vader could influence Luke down the path of the Dark Side.

So you had a great plot interweaved with characterization. None of that was present in ME2. You had a lot of disjointed personal stories, and a very thin over-all story with no lasting impact to the over-arching plot.

Why was Shepherd so important to this mission, that he had to be brought back to life? It seems to me like Cerebus could have gotten a small army together and sent them in with the same effect. Shepherd has to be important somehow, but his importance was never really explained.

I also forgot to add, why were the Collectors seemingly obsessed with hitting colonies with his former teammates on it? And why did they feel Shepherd was "important?" If he was so important to them, why did they try to kill him at the beginning instead of boarding the ship and collecting him right off the bat like they did in the Joker quest?

A lot of things about the ME2 story just made no darn sense.

Um, because he took down Saren and sovereign, and is the only person with the drive and determination to continue after them?  I mean would you prefer Star Wars explanation of lukes imoprtance and say hes the one prophecied to bring balance to the force and save the galaxy?

Bioware is obviously aiming to be a little more "real".  I mean the fact that he already defied billions of years of history, and stopped the reapers once is more than enough for me to say if anyone is the man for the job in dealing with doom scenarios Shepard is.

[WoodWizzard87]

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

I agree, i think they started 2 and 3 alongside each other so they could get them out fast and ME2 suffered a bit from it.  I also think they didnt want to give away too much about the reapers in ME2.  Just look how the boards have blown when talking about teh human reaper.  And i wouldnt be surpirsed if some people are partially correct about the origins and what not.  Putting to much info into ME2 could have really took away the mysteriousness of the reapers.  The whole analyzing the reapers and trying to figure them out with logic and discussion is teh bst part of the game so far.  It is kind of like Emperor palpatine, you never see him until episode 6, yet he is behind the curtains and pulling all the strings.  I think their going to go all out with the reaper mythology in ME3 and im glad they have kept us in teh dark somewhat.  Maybe they will clear up shutting down Cerberus and the Shadowbroker as alternate storylines as well, they've basically hinted at it now. 

[Garuda One]

It could have been more interesting if the ship you were on was headed to earth while you were fighting the giant fetus, you could slowly see earth getting closer and closer, to gather the rest of the humans to make a fully functional human-reaper. Or you actually had to fight Harbinger in his command center after you took out the Human-Reaper. Without any of those we are left with no direct person to fight, the person for Shepard to kill in the end should have been the Harbinger or Harbinger was controlling the human-reaper fetus. None of it.

[Orogenic]

OP- just voicing my support for a well written post that is dead on.



I'm glad to see that the community is starting to realize that it is possible to simultaneously love and support the game while participating in honest and frank discussion about the game's flaws.



That is actually the behavior I'd expect from the biggest fans and supporters of Bioware and the Mass Effect series.



I posted many of the same concerns in the general ME 2 forum the day the game was released and I was AMAZED at the vitriol demonstrated by the game's "new fans."



Anyway, nice post.

[rumination888]

Myrmedus wrote...

rumination888 wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, there was a mystery surrounding Saren and what his plan was.  I was curious about the questions the characters uncovered as they dug deeper into his treachery, and felt compelled to unravel the mystery.  In ME2, they tried to make a mystery out of who the Collectors were and why they were kidnapping humans, but you spent 90% of your game time doing quests that had absolutely nothing to do with that mystery!  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.

....what? You can finish ME1 in 4-5 hours. If you spend anymore time in ME1, you're basically doing quests that have absolutely nothing to do with Saren or your party members. Infact, a couple of those mandantory hours in ME1 had nothing to do with Saren at all.

I doubt you completed ME1 in 4-5 hours without skipping copious amounts of dialogue. Also the side-quests in ME1 generally have a more 'integrated' feel into the main plot than in ME2 there there are specific divisions between loyalty quests and the main quests.

Perfect example: Noveria. You need to do a side-quest or 2 in order to get the Gate Pass. It's technically a side-quest in its presentation and execution but is pivotal to progressing through - and directly relevant to - the main story and the main mission on Noveria.

That little mandontory diversion on Noveria did nothing to progress the plot. Its nothing more than bad mandantory filler. Not even good filler, as good filler tends to have characterization.

I think a lot of people are viewing ME1 with rose-colored glasses and are letting nostalgia, rather than objectivity, dictate their opinions.

[JJ Long]

mjack234 wrote...

But for the bulk of this story, he's Cerebus's lap dog doing what they tell him to.

I disagree.  I see Shepard doing it because he's the only one who can and will do anything about it.  Throughout the game you can constantly say to everyone basically "I'm not working for Cerberus, I'm just using them"

And then at the end if you destroy the base, you are basically telling the Illusive Man that you never worked for him ever and that he never had any control over you.  Shepard was doing it because his goal is to defeat the Reapers.

And the story isn't personal?  The Collectors are the ones who killed Shepard, they basically took everything away from him and destroyed all his hard work.

I see the ending of the game, where I blow up the station, as a giant act of defiance against the Reapers.  Basically saying that I will not just die and let your plans continue.  I will stop them before you can even enact them.

The main problem with intepretting Shepard's story is that his story is basically what you want it to be.

Modifié par JJ Long, 04 février 2010 - 10:32 .

[Myrmedus]

rumination888 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

rumination888 wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, there was a mystery surrounding Saren and what his plan was.  I was curious about the questions the characters uncovered as they dug deeper into his treachery, and felt compelled to unravel the mystery.  In ME2, they tried to make a mystery out of who the Collectors were and why they were kidnapping humans, but you spent 90% of your game time doing quests that had absolutely nothing to do with that mystery!  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.

....what? You can finish ME1 in 4-5 hours. If you spend anymore time in ME1, you're basically doing quests that have absolutely nothing to do with Saren or your party members. Infact, a couple of those mandantory hours in ME1 had nothing to do with Saren at all.

I doubt you completed ME1 in 4-5 hours without skipping copious amounts of dialogue. Also the side-quests in ME1 generally have a more 'integrated' feel into the main plot than in ME2 there there are specific divisions between loyalty quests and the main quests.

Perfect example: Noveria. You need to do a side-quest or 2 in order to get the Gate Pass. It's technically a side-quest in its presentation and execution but is pivotal to progressing through - and directly relevant to - the main story and the main mission on Noveria.

That little mandontory diversion on Noveria did nothing to progress the plot. Its nothing more than bad mandantory filler. Not even good filler, as good filler tends to have characterization.

I think a lot of people are viewing ME1 with rose-colored glasses and are letting nostalgia, rather than objectivity, dictate their opinions.

Of course it progressed the main story, lol. If you didn't do it, you didn't get any further in the main story - I think that's pretty much bread and butter progression. Maybe what you meant to say was that it didn't 'develop' the main story anymore but if that's the case I never said it did, I just explained how putting some of these quests into progression can better integrate them into the game and make them feel less defragmented.

ME1 had its share of problems, sure, and the planet exploration was a terrible problem. However, the general pacing of the game was alot better IMO, as was the characterization of the antagonists who - at least in my eyes - virtually MAKE ME.

[Myrmedus]

WoodWizzard87 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

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.

I agree, i think they started 2 and 3 alongside each other so they could get them out fast and ME2 suffered a bit from it.  I also think they didnt want to give away too much about the reapers in ME2.  Just look how the boards have blown when talking about teh human reaper.  And i wouldnt be surpirsed if some people are partially correct about the origins and what not.  Putting to much info into ME2 could have really took away the mysteriousness of the reapers.  The whole analyzing the reapers and trying to figure them out with logic and discussion is teh bst part of the game so far.  It is kind of like Emperor palpatine, you never see him until episode 6, yet he is behind the curtains and pulling all the strings.  I think their going to go all out with the reaper mythology in ME3 and im glad they have kept us in teh dark somewhat.  Maybe they will clear up shutting down Cerberus and the Shadowbroker as alternate storylines as well, they've basically hinted at it now. 

The only fear I have is that I think ME3 is going to need to be twice as long as ME2, if not even longer, in order to get through all the story that is required to adequately conclude the trilogy. We've killed 1 Reaper and 1 Infant Reaper - we have 100s perhaps 1000s remaining; we're virtually no closer to understanding their purpose, technology, origins etc. and in fact even more questions after Harbinger's proclamations of giving us 'salvation'; we have an entire war to still fight and alot of issues to overcome that ME2 started. There is so much stuff to get through that ME3 is going to need to be massive...I just hope it can manage all of that in a single game.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 04 février 2010 - 10:39 .

[Promethean 47]

ME2 has the plot structure of a heist movie - you spend a bunch of time gathering a team and planning a mission and then the final sequence is the payoff, with an epilogue to boot.



In these sorts of storylines there's rarely the 'villain' like there was with Saren in ME1. Where I thought Bioware missed out though was not having the Illusive Man do something more notable at the end. Normally in Heist Movies there's a double cross of somesort, or some kind of twist either by the team or someone associated with the team.



Bioware set this up nicely with the Illusive man sending Shepard into a trap for the IFF. I was excited and nervous to see how the Illusive man would bend the final mission to suit his purposes, but instead you either help the Illusive man or screw him over.



Personally I feel they should have done something with the Illusive man betraying Shepard in some way. Perhaps that means the Illusive man having sent in a second 'shadow' team behind Shepard, perhaps it was Miranda or Jacob pulling a fast one on Shepard. Who knows.



I share the basic sentiment that more could have been done story wise, but that only slightly detracts from what everyone agrees is a pretty damned phenomenal game.

[Myrmedus]

Yeah I have to admit I was expecting a FULL ON betrayal in ME2 but it never came - the closest it came from him setting you up for the Collector ambush but even then that was purely a tactical move.

[tsd16]

rumination888 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

rumination888 wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

In Mass Effect 1, there was a mystery surrounding Saren and what his plan was.  I was curious about the questions the characters uncovered as they dug deeper into his treachery, and felt compelled to unravel the mystery.  In ME2, they tried to make a mystery out of who the Collectors were and why they were kidnapping humans, but you spent 90% of your game time doing quests that had absolutely nothing to do with that mystery!  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.

....what? You can finish ME1 in 4-5 hours. If you spend anymore time in ME1, you're basically doing quests that have absolutely nothing to do with Saren or your party members. Infact, a couple of those mandantory hours in ME1 had nothing to do with Saren at all.

I doubt you completed ME1 in 4-5 hours without skipping copious amounts of dialogue. Also the side-quests in ME1 generally have a more 'integrated' feel into the main plot than in ME2 there there are specific divisions between loyalty quests and the main quests.

Perfect example: Noveria. You need to do a side-quest or 2 in order to get the Gate Pass. It's technically a side-quest in its presentation and execution but is pivotal to progressing through - and directly relevant to - the main story and the main mission on Noveria.

That little mandontory diversion on Noveria did nothing to progress the plot. Its nothing more than bad mandantory filler. Not even good filler, as good filler tends to have characterization.

I think a lot of people are viewing ME1 with rose-colored glasses and are letting nostalgia, rather than objectivity, dictate their opinions.

I can easily agree here having ME1 fresh in my mind prior to playing ME2.  Aside from scanning which still aint near as bad as the mako.   In ME2 I never felt on any mission that I had done this same exact mission before.  In ME1, I think in many missions, they even reused the same exact environment or room layout.  there were alot of things in ME1 that felt like a grind.   Now From an overall storytelling standpoint, ME2 was less epic, but does that make it any less of a well told story?  Thats like saying a movie with well written dialogue and very heavy on characters, without an epic story cannot be as good as a well written story that is more epic in scope.

As to the OP'S concerns of "not knowing anything about the collectors".  You do, but he wants the plan laid out on exactly what the human reaper was going to do? The cheezy arch villian telling you exactly what his plan is, is one of the stupidest parts of past storytelling in my opinion.

As long as we are complaining about storytelling, we wouldnt have really known what the hell sovereign wanted with the citadel and the conduit, if not for a conveniently placed prothean AI that can tell when someone is tainted by the reapers so it can talk to the right person and pretty much answers any and all questions at that point again at the END of the game.  Ok I can let that slide.

But there was really no sentient life to ask "what are you doing with this human reaper?" They had already explained the collectors were basically thralls incapable of independant thought.  They wanted us left with questions unanswered, that will ultimately be answered in ME3.

I do think alot of people remember me1 with rose colored glasses, save for the difference in overall scope, ME1 suffered from plenty of the same things ME2 did.  Which I am not complaining about because I apparently dont get it because I dont write movies, nor does 90+ percent of the fan base.  Most gripes I had about ME2 were more gameplay related than Story.

[mjack234]

Promethean 47 wrote...

ME2 has the plot structure of a heist movie - you spend a bunch of time gathering a team and planning a mission and then the final sequence is the payoff, with an epilogue to boot.

In these sorts of storylines there's rarely the 'villain' like there was with Saren in ME1. Where I thought Bioware missed out though was not having the Illusive Man do something more notable at the end. Normally in Heist Movies there's a double cross of somesort, or some kind of twist either by the team or someone associated with the team.

Bioware set this up nicely with the Illusive man sending Shepard into a trap for the IFF. I was excited and nervous to see how the Illusive man would bend the final mission to suit his purposes, but instead you either help the Illusive man or screw him over.

Personally I feel they should have done something with the Illusive man betraying Shepard in some way. Perhaps that means the Illusive man having sent in a second 'shadow' team behind Shepard, perhaps it was Miranda or Jacob pulling a fast one on Shepard. Who knows.

I share the basic sentiment that more could have been done story wise, but that only slightly detracts from what everyone agrees is a pretty damned phenomenal game.

I was expecting a betrayal from the Illusive man too, but again, it points to weak writing that there was not one, especially since they set it up so perfectly.

ME2 is NOT a heist movie.  It's a war movie, like the Dirty Dozen and Inglorious Basterds.  Yes, heist flicks share similar plot elements, but in this case the team was going on a suicide mission.  It was not an infiltration mission meant to collect valuable data or an artifact.

But no matter what type of movie it is, that still doesn't excuse the weak plot structures and plot holes that I've already pointed out.  Even Oceans 11-13 had clear bad guys and explained everything fully at the end of the film, something which ME2 did not do.

[pelhikano]

Promethean 47 wrote...

Personally I feel they should have done something with the Illusive man betraying Shepard in some way. Perhaps that means the Illusive man having sent in a second 'shadow' team behind Shepard, perhaps it was Miranda or Jacob pulling a fast one on Shepard. Who knows.

I am sooo glad they didn't go with something as silly as that. The story might have been better, but that's not the way I would have enjoyed.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

mjack234 wrote...

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.

I disagree with the idea that characters are not more important than plot. The plot exists to serve the characters,  it exists to challenge them and to develop them and allow the readers to better understand them.  You can have a formulaic plot that's really very simplistic (example: Star Wars ANH) that comes alive precisely because the characters are vibrant and resonate with the audience.

Conversely, you can have a story with a theoretically good plot that fails most heavily becuase the characters are wooden, one dimensional, or otherwise poorly formed. (Example: Star Wars AOTC.) 

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.

I disagree very heavily with this. Except how the story of Mass Effect lies with Shepherd, that's something I agree with. But the rest of it I disagree with. The overreaching conflict is the struggle with the reapers, yes, but indirectly that conflict carries over to ME2 as well, since the collectors are just the reapers' pawns.  It's little different from encountering the mook geth on Therum, or Benezia on Noveria. By the idea that the collector plotline is divorced from the main "fight the reapers" plot of the ME trilogy, we could say that Noveria has nothing to do with it either, since in both cases you're just fighting the reaper's pawns. 

I also agree with the idea that Shepherd is the important character, but I think you're missing the fact that he's developed through his interactions and relationships with the rest of his party. He definitely doesn't take a backseat to the characters; in every character subquest, he's the driving force behind things. In all of them, he's intrinsic to the resolution of those characters' issues. He's the one who Mordin gives the choice of keeping or destroying the genophage cure data to; he's the one who Legion turns to when conflicted over brainwashing or killing the geth heretics. 

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.

Why is it lazy writing? The reapers are addressed; we don't know exactly how far we've set them back, but we have disrupted their plans, which certainly addresses the story. There isn't much of a reversal, true, but I don't see why a reversal is absolutely necessary for the second part of a trilogy. On the other tentacle, one could argue that Shepherd does encounter a reversal, and a rather large one in absolute terms, when he talks to Anderson at the citadel. The council sticks their heads in the sand about the reaper threat, rather than preparing for the return of the reapers as they should. It's not a reversal in the collector plotline since he doesn't really need council assistance against them, but it's certainly a reversal in the larger "fight against the reapers" plotline, since it takes everything Shepherd achieved in the first game and minimalizes it. 

This story's end comes across more as "you've dealt the reapers a setback and gotten your crew home... But now the real battle is starting." *Cue hundreds/thousands of reapers approaching the galaxy like evil space squid.*

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.

By "writing" you mean "plotting", yes? Because the character writing was significantly improved from the first game. Regardless, I  don't believe that Bioware needs to or even should necessarily follow classical storytelling structures dogmatically. Both because games are a different medium from plays or movies or novels, and because this kind of personal story is less suited to general "man versus antagonist" style plot diagrams

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.

I'm the opposite. ME1's ending left me feeling underwhelmed for all its "epicness" because I just didn't feel the emotional connection to the characters or the universe. For me, ME2's ending and climax was much bigger and better in emotional terms because I genuinely cared about the crew. There was a tension there that only materialized in ME1 during the very end of the end-run to Illos and the subsequent "fight your way to Saren" portion, and even then it was lackluster (for me) compared to whether I'd be able to save my crew in time.

Edit:

mjack234 wrote...

Now, if for some reason he had a personal stake in seeing the mission through - like his former teammates were all captured by the Collectors, I could understand his motivation.

...

You're saying you (and by extension Shep) didn't get attached to the Normandy crew at all? Not the ever helpful and flirty Kelly, not the various crewmen who banter amongst themselves and have eminently human concerns like getting their familes to safety before the collectors get them? Heck, you didn't feel connected to Dr. Chakwas? Not the two mechanics who have more character between them than half the cast of ME1? You didn't feel a connection to any of those people, even though they'd been nothing but loyal and helpful?   

Modifié par Cpl_Facehugger, 04 février 2010 - 10:54 .

[rumination888]

Myrmedus wrote...

Of course it progressed the main story, lol. If you didn't do it, you didn't get any further in the main story - I think that's pretty much bread and butter progression. Maybe what you meant to say was that it didn't 'develop' the main story anymore but if that's the case I never said it did, I just explained how putting some of these quests into progression can better integrate them into the game and make them feel less defragmented.

ME1 had its share of problems, sure, and the planet exploration was a terrible problem. However, the general pacing of the game was alot better IMO, as was the characterization of the antagonists who - at least in my eyes - virtually MAKE ME.

This is a thread about the story. So that context is a given, no?

And I thought ME2's main antagonist was better characterized than ME1's.
ME2's main antagonist was a subtle, manipulative bastard that probably has most of the audience not noticing he's the main antagonist. A testament to how subtle and manipulative his character was.
Compare that with ME1's main antagonist. Saren was growling and snarling for most of his screen time if he wasn't talking to Shepard. Not exactly what I'd call deep characterization.

[mjack234]

I can easily agree here having ME1 fresh in my mind prior to playing ME2.  Aside from scanning which still aint near as bad as the mako.   In ME2 I never felt on any mission that I had done this same exact mission before.  In ME1, I think in many missions, they even reused the same exact environment or room layout.  there were alot of things in ME1 that felt like a grind.   Now From an overall storytelling standpoint, ME2 was less epic, but does that make it any less of a well told story?  Thats like saying a movie with well written dialogue and very heavy on characters, without an epic story cannot be as good as a well written story that is more epic in scope.

As to the OP'S concerns of "not knowing anything about the collectors".  You do, but he wants the plan laid out on exactly what the human reaper was going to do? The cheezy arch villian telling you exactly what his plan is, is one of the stupidest parts of past storytelling in my opinion.

As long as we are complaining about storytelling, we wouldnt have really known what the hell sovereign wanted with the citadel and the conduit, if not for a conveniently placed prothean AI that can tell when someone is tainted by the reapers so it can talk to the right person and pretty much answers any and all questions at that point again at the END of the game.  Ok I can let that slide.

But there was really no sentient life to ask "what are you doing with this human reaper?" They had already explained the collectors were basically thralls incapable of independant thought.  They wanted us left with questions unanswered, that will ultimately be answered in ME3.

I do think alot of people remember me1 with rose colored glasses, save for the difference in overall scope, ME1 suffered from plenty of the same things ME2 did.  Which I am not complaining about because I apparently dont get it because I dont write movies, nor does 90+ percent of the fan base.  Most gripes I had about ME2 were more gameplay related than Story.

As a storyteller, there is a certain obligation to make your narrative clear to the audience.  The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.  Even if Shepherd had stumbled onto a computer that revealed the plans of the Collectors and how the human reaper would affect the galaxy, I would have taken that - anything really - because I still don't have a good idea of how making a human reaper was supposed to help the Reaper cause.

I had a clear idea of what the bad guys were trying to accomplish in ME1, which made me, as an audience member, happy.  In ME2, I was just confused, and not in a good way.  i don't mind questions being left unanswered, but when major plot points aren't clarified, it gets me frustrated.

You don't have to be a writer to enjoy a good story.  But it helps to be one when you're analyzing a flawed one. :-)

[przemichal]

mjack234,

I'm also a writer and personally I think that in ME2 the idea of the main villain is really, really interesting. He is ALWAYS present in this special way that when you're fighting any Collector you may end up fighting him and every battle with genetically enhanced protheans is battle against Harbringer. It adds so much tense: you don't just have to kill the controlled Collector, you have to make sure that all the others surrounding are dead, because if they are not, killing the controlled one will be POINTLESS. And, despite he's always present, he is not featured as the final boss. In my opinion - really cool idea!

[pelhikano]

mjack234 wrote...

As a storyteller, there is a certain obligation to make your narrative clear to the audience.  The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.

Isn't there also a writing rule that it's better to show than tell? I felt I was shown enough to figure out what *might* be the reason for the human-reaper. Having it explained in detail might have been convenient, but I'm not convinced it would have been more enjoyable.

[Nozybidaj]

mjack234 wrote...


I was expecting a betrayal from the Illusive man too, but again, it points to weak writing that there was not one, especially since they set it up so perfectly.

Agreed, I was expecting him to order Miranda and/or Jacob to stop me from destroying the base then having to either A) Kill them and destroy the base or  Spare them and Cerberus takes the base.

Was kinda disappointed I couldn't put a bullet in her head...

[Myrmedus]

rumination888 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Of course it progressed the main story, lol. If you didn't do it, you didn't get any further in the main story - I think that's pretty much bread and butter progression. Maybe what you meant to say was that it didn't 'develop' the main story anymore but if that's the case I never said it did, I just explained how putting some of these quests into progression can better integrate them into the game and make them feel less defragmented.

ME1 had its share of problems, sure, and the planet exploration was a terrible problem. However, the general pacing of the game was alot better IMO, as was the characterization of the antagonists who - at least in my eyes - virtually MAKE ME.

This is a thread about the story. So that context is a given, no?

Not necessarily. The subtle difference is in producing a coherent experience to the fragmented experienced encountered in ME2, and that alone can be enough to make a game 'feel' like it has a stronger narrative.

The point here is that if you approach it from a pure objective view, you're probably right that ME2 is no weaker than ME1. However, when a person is playing a game - and that game is good - then it should be pulling on emotional strings and feelings, which is the exact opposite of objectivity; in other words, while you're playing the actual game you're not necessarily disecting it in the same way.

This is what is different with ME1 and ME2. When viewing ME1 from a purely objective point of you view you see alot of 'waste' quests like the Pass Card quest. However, when you're PLAYING it, it doesn't feel that way because while it may not develop the plot it's integrated into it. With ME2 though, even when you're actually playing it you sense this disjointed and slightly removed sensation when doing sidequests that wasn't generally there with ME1 unless you analysed it in retrospect.

This is the core difference between ME1 and ME2 IMO with the possible exception that I still believe ME2 lacked development of the core story.

And I thought ME2's main antagonist was better characterized than ME1's.
ME2's main antagonist was a subtle, manipulative bastard that probably has most of the audience not noticing he's the main antagonist. A testament to how subtle and manipulative his character was.
Compare that with ME1's main antagonist. Saren was growling and snarling for most of his screen time if he wasn't talking to Shepard. Not exactly what I'd call deep characterization.

Again this is a double-sided issue in my eyes. I definitely agree with you in terms of the antagonists being much better characterized but subtly can run its course. Basically a subtle antagonist is awesome for about 2/3 to 3/4 of a narrative but there's usually point where it reveals itself from the shadows and your character confronts it directly in some form, or at least KNOWS him/herself he/she's confronting it. This wasn't the case in ME2 as only the player realises we were fighting Harbinger all through the game, and even then it only reveals itself at the very end of the game producing a feeling almost like vertigo in that I feel a major plot revelation just passed me by without smacking me in the face.

IMO the weaknesses of ME2, at least compared to ME1, are also subtle things and often a culmination of multiple holes rather than big, glaring issues....

[Cpl_Facehugger]

mjack234 wrote...


The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.  Even if Shepherd had stumbled onto a computer that revealed the plans of the Collectors and how the human reaper would affect the galaxy, I would have taken that - anything really - because I still don't have a good idea of how making a human reaper was supposed to help the Reaper cause.

You don't? Don't you remember how much of a fight Sovereign gave the Citadel? Heck, getting a new reaper in play would let the reapers try the same plan they had in ME1, save without the embarassing "control Robo-Saren, get stunned/disabled/mind-killed when Shep kills Robo-Saren" thing. It's not directly spelled out in the game anywhere, but it makes sense. If you need a reaper to activate the citadel relay (which you do, hence why Sovereign had to go there in person rather than just having a trusted agent like Saren do it), it makes sense that you'd want another reaper to try again, since it's clearly the fastest method of getting all the reapers into the galaxy for the harvest. 

And even if not, a new reaper being around to soften up the organics with some covert indoctrination and manipulation before the main force arrives would certainly be a good thing from the reaper perspective.

As to why humanity... Again, it's not directly spelled out, but it seems plausible that not every race can actually "make" a reaper, hence why EDI suggests that the protheans/collectors never made a prothean one. That and the idea that you, Shepherd, have impressed them enough to make them choose humanity as the template for their new reaper in a twisted form of respect; it's made clear throughout the game that the collectors have an interest in you directly, after all.

The story could perhaps do with more exposition on this point, but the risk is that you take away much of the mystique of the reapers and collectors if you discuss their motives too much too soon.  

Edit:

This is what is different with ME1 and ME2. When viewing ME1 from a purely objective point of you view you see alot of 'waste' quests like the Pass Card quest. However, when you're PLAYING it, it doesn't feel that way because while it may not develop the plot it's integrated into it. With ME2 though, even when you're actually playing it you sense this disjointed and slightly removed sensation when doing sidequests that wasn't generally there with ME1 unless you analysed it in retrospect.

The extremely vast majority of ME1 sidequests had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. In fact, just about every UNC quest, including the cerberus ones, had nothing to do with stopping saren. Only a few of the sidequests were actually integrated into the plot as the "get keycard on Noveria" one was. 

I mean, really. "Shepherd! A bunch of human biotics have taken Chairman Burns hostage! I know you're busy trying to save the galaxy, but can you help us out, even though Saren needs to be stopped ASAP?"

Modifié par Cpl_Facehugger, 04 février 2010 - 11:14 .