283 réponses à ce sujet

[Lawliet89]

Brilliantly written. I feel that ME2 suffers from the "middle of the trilogy syndrome" much like The Two Towers etc.That said, the great gameplay made up for it.



Hope to see better with ME3 - I sure as hell will be getting it.

[Chimerical Man]

I think the Collector threat should have been elaborated upon. We are told that human colonies are disappearing, we see one vacant, and we see one in the mop-up stage of completion. I think a much stronger impact should have been directed at the players' emotions by having them present during one of these 'collection' operations. They players' Shepard witnessing the victims fleeing in terror, parents torn from their children, and the insect-like ruthless efficiency of the Collectors might have stirred a better sense of urgency and drive to run this suicide mission.

This need for elaboration goes for several other matters. Take Shepard's status of 'essential' to the Illusive Man. If it had been made more emphatic that Shepard was widely recognized for his accomplishments, and that he truly knew the most about the Reapers, then it might have been easier to see TIM going for Shepard as the 'only hope.' As it is, however, Bioware came close to botching the 'renowned' effect of Shepard by essentially having his image swept under the carpet by the Council and Alliance. In a way, it seemed like a lot of the first game's loose ends were burned off, rather than tied up, so to speak. In addition to that, the only two things I really had issue with were the purpose of the human reaper (ME3 might explain, I hope) and the lack of a 'nemesis' character such as Saren. Then again, Bioware may have avoided using a nemesis for sake of avoiding a repeat of ME1.

That being said, I think that the game's story was far from poor. From the very start I did have a distinct sense of "this feels a lot like Empire Strikes Back." And I liked that. It felt like a fitting middle-ground to Shepard's saga. The first game built up the plot of the galactic threat, Shepard set the enemy back a great deal, and now in the second game he hits the ground running. The matter of building up Shepard's importance and role is long behind, and that changed the overall feel of the game greatly. Much of the impact of the first game was Shepard's visions and realizations about the fall of the Protheans, and of just how much was at stake. That doesn't have a place in ME2, though, and I think that disappointed a lot of fans. Yet Bioware did that intentionally, I think.

[Weskerr]

Personally, I think if it was clearly shown that these long-lost Protheans still had intact at least one strand of resistance against the Reapers, the whole story would have improved immensely. Finding out that the Collectors, the main threat of the game, are just mindless drones is disappointing, especially since it is clearly explained that they are the living descendants of the ancient Prothean race, genetically modified or not. If, for example, it was clearly hinted that the Collector general voluntarily gave Shepard that picture of a Reaper - showing how it appeared from a few different angles - right before the explosion killed him after Harbinger released control, then the overall story would have had a much more profound impact. Instead, like many other parts of the story, the Collector's overall connection to the story, via the Protheans, is left stale and unexplained.

[RiouHotaru]

Anticitizen1 wrote...

Trishann wrote...

In a sense I feel you are comparing apples to oranges. When you have a clear narrative, you have less choice. When you have a fuzzy outline, you have more choice. There is a balance, I feel Bioware is trying to grasp the magic formula. I don't think they've nailed it, but I believe, from an interactive storytelling perspective, ME2 is better than ME1, and that makes ME2 a better game. Minus the villain part.

Regardless of the choices you make throughout the entire game, we all end up at the Collector base, and we all make our way to the final battle with the Human-Reaper.
That changes for NO ONE.

No matter how long it takes to recruit your team, and what you do in between, we all end up on the dead Reaper to obtain the IFF.
That changes for NO ONE.

All these parts of the story are what the OP is referring to (but I don't want to put words in his mouth).
Instead of JUST finding the Human-Reaper and destroying it, why not have Harbinger take control of another Collector and explain a few things (example). I love ME2, and I think it is better in everyway than ME1...EXPECT the story. Now I know it all may make sense in ME3, but as it is on its own, it could have been a lot better.
The game makes no attempt to explain the importance of what you find in the Collector base. All we have are assumptions, and no real cliffhanger.
The way the game ends, ME3 could very well choose NOT to continue with the events that happened in ME2.
And that is what bothers me about it.
I'm with the OP on this one.

Uhhh...your examples are flawed.  These same things occur in ME1, only they can occur in a different order, but they still occur regardless.

- You always take out the Thorian for the Cipher
- You always take out Benezia for the location of the Mu Relay
- You always blow Virmire away and encounter Sovereign
- You always save Liara who is there to put the pieces together.

Hell, if anything, ME1 was worse than ME2 because you had more of these "forced" plot-points that you have to undergo to move the story ahead.  And in the end you always wind up at Ilos to stop Saren.

Also, the importance of what is at the Collector base, and those assumptions you speak of, are left vague on purpose.  Because it's a set-up for ME3.  Not every single question needs to be answered, not every plot hole needs addressing, that's the point of Act 2.

Since the comparison to ESB is made, you really should compare the two.  ESB had no clear resolution, no clear ending or climax.  No, Luke's duel with Vader doesn't count, it was a revelation, plot-wise, but not a climax, because there was no significant victory or defeat.  Same with ME2.  There's no clear resolution, and the bad-guys have been foiled temporary.

Also, wanting Harbinger to explain everything makes even less sense.  Remember the Reapers have been stated to operate on a totally different level of mental process than us.  They have goals and motivations we do not understand.  Why would they bother trying to explain it to us, Sovereign didn't and wouldn't,  because we're lesser beings.  Harbinger has no reason to bother trying either.  That's what ME3 is for.

[Trishann]

mjack234 wrote...

I have to respectfully disagree with you.  I don't think the choices available to the player differed all that much from ME1 to ME2.  And ME1 was able to give you choices and still have a strong plot that evolved organically and drove you, the viewer, forward.

Allowing players to "chart their own path" does present challenges, but its always framed within the confines of your story.  A writer can still have a rising action, a climax, and a big reveal or plot twist without impeding a person's ability to choose what type of character they want to play.

Your decisions obviously affect your game experience, especially on the final mission.  However, none of that should affect the over-all plot.  Though Bioware gives the players a lot of leeway to play how they want, there's still a preferred path the game makers want you to take, and you basically HAVE to follow it ultimately.  And if we're forced to do that, it should be well plotted and thought out.

That's just it. You're talking about a strong plot brought on by narrative fiction. I am  talking about an even stronger plot brought about by the choices I'm making. Bioware is attempting to come up with a plotline like ME1 by interaction. That is why I feel ME2 is transitory. It's trying to escape the bonds of its narrative confinement.

Now, it could be argued that the experience leads you to the exact same place, the Collector's Base. That's just a setting collection point (ha ha, collection). And the mechanics were simplistic once you got in there. The experience varied more, however, in ME2 than ME1.

In a way I believe you are 100% correct, but only from your singular experience. Bioware is attempting to come up with a epic, malleable major plot line. ME2 falls short of this goal, but to me it's more personal and visceral than ME1. It worked for me.

Minus the heat clips.

Maybe we are not seeing eye-to-eye because I thought the lone-wolf aspect the endgame of ME1 was forced and, from a military perspective, off the mark. It’s like my other squad mates didn’t exist, and that they didn’t matter because they sucked.

Interesting thread!

Modifié par Trishann, 05 février 2010 - 03:22 .

[Anticitizen1]

k....

RiouHotaru wrote...

Uhhh...your examples are flawed.  These same things occur in ME1, only they can occur in a different order, but they still occur regardless.

- You always take out the Thorian for the Cipher
- You always take out Benezia for the location of the Mu Relay
- You always blow Virmire away and encounter Sovereign
- You always save Liara who is there to put the pieces together.

I'm addressing the quote in my post, regarding clear and fuzzy narrative.
Regardless of the choices you make in between the key moments of the main story, the main story remains the same. It can't be changed (aside from who survives and who doesn't). Having choice in the game does not affect these key parts of the story.
But, I guess thanks for pointing out my flawed examples...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Also, the importance of what is at the Collector base, and those assumptions you speak of, are left vague on purpose.  Because it's a set-up for ME3.  Not every single question needs to be answered, not every plot hole needs addressing, that's the point of Act 2.

Ok, I'm not saying EVERYTHING has to be answered. I'm, in fact, very much against that sort of thing (see MGS4. Game never needed to be made).
Obviously the Reapers aren't going to lay out their plan right in front of me. And of course I wouldn't expect that to ever happen.

RiouHotaru wrote..

Since the comparison to ESB is made, you really should compare the two.  ESB had no clear resolution, no clear ending or climax.  No, Luke's duel with Vader doesn't count, it was a revelation, plot-wise, but not a climax, because there was no significant victory or defeat.  Same with ME2.  There's no clear resolution, and the bad-guys have been foiled temporary.

Yes, Luke's duel with Vader does count. It has nothing to do with significant victory or defeat. THAT was the moment. THAT was the cliffhanger. THAT is what set you up for The Return of the Jedi.
What did the Human-Reaper set up?
MAYBE, it can be used to reached the Citadel.
MAYBE it's the first Reaper to use organic material.
Maybe, maybe, maybe. There is no clear indication as to why the Collector's were building this thing, and why it is a threat. It's all speculation.
And if anything, destroying the Reaper made it even worse. If the game ended with the revelation that the Human-Reaper was being constructed, that would have been a better, and more fitting cliffhanger.
Instead Shepard and Company just kill it and go back to business as always; preparing for the inevitable Reaper return.
I suppose a Reaper is a threat in itself, and reason enough for it to be destroyed, but that just makes for a decent story. Not a great one. If they had given you a little more indication as to why this Reaper was unique, and why Humans were used for it, it would have made the story great.

RiouHotaru wrote...
Also, wanting Harbinger to explain everything makes even less sense.  Remember the Reapers have been stated to operate on a totally different level of mental process than us.  They have goals and motivations we do not understand.  Why would they bother trying to explain it to us, Sovereign didn't and wouldn't,  because we're lesser beings.  Harbinger has no reason to bother trying either.  That's what ME3 is for.

I'm glad my example was taken literally...
Of course this would be stupid, but BioWare needed a method, somewhere, someHOW to convey the importance of all of this.
Again, all we have is speculation.

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

[themanynamed]

I have to agree with almost everything you've said. The lack of an overarching plot really did kill a lot of ME2's momentum. I'm honestly not sure why the IM decided we had to go on a suicide mission anyway. Attacking *one* Collector base really doesn't seem like it would be worth it. We still can't protect the human colonies and we sure don't have an answer to the firepower even one Reaper has. Seems to me we just tickled the sleeping dragon.

[Rabid Rob3]

After reading this thread, I now realize that as an avid science fiction reader, a number of plot points were more obvious to me than to a lot of folks.  Here's some examples to chew on:

Collector plan to kill non-humans
When you go to pick up Mordin, it is subtly revealed that the plague was created by the Collectors with the express purpose to kill of everyone in the galaxy except humans and vorcha.

Genetic Destiny
The Harbinger is kind of subtle about what he's up to, and worse, he does most of his explaining in the middle of gunfights.   Ultimately, though, what he is saying is that the biological fleshy form you are is mortal, and the Reapers are forcing their own form of immortality on us.  Legion's discussions in particular is the closest I can recall anyone in game actually discussing this.  The original "Reapers", fleshy beings like ourselves, developed a transformative technology that allowed them to upload themselves into the "Reaper" super computer ships.  Ultimately, these beigns uploaded themselves further into the Ultimate Computer(*more on ultimate computers near the bottom) network, and in fact the Reaper organization we are dealing with is the infrastructure left behind by the original beings to help those who came after them ascend to immortality via...

The Human Reaper
A Reaper is designed to absorb the minds of the target species en masse very rapidly.  A tool, in other words, to shed the mortal coil for an immortal existence in virtual worlds.  I believe one of the endings in ME3 must have TIM completing the Human Reaper, just to explicitly show everyone what the Reapers do and are.  The human race will be physically wiped out, but their minds will be uploaded to the Reaper virtuality network.  Oh, and some point, it should come out that everyone the Collectors *ahem* collected and used to create the Human Reaper was, in fact, uploaded to that Reaper, and did not die until Shepard killed it, but I actually doubt even Bioware would have the balls to put in that big a mind-@#$%.

Will the Real Shepard Please Stand Up
An enormous source of tension completely missed in ME2 is the mystery of "Who am I?"  Maybe Shepard really did die completely, and I am a clone programmed with a virtual reconstruction of Shepard's psyche.  Perhaps I never died, but TIM just created an elaborate ruse to make me, and the world, think I did in order to gain my confidence.  At least twice there's a very public scanning (Aria's goons, C-Sec), and yet Shepard doesn't follow up on this.  Ulimately, I would choose to behave as Shepard does, as if I am real, but I would still be curious.  I would certainly not pass up the chance to talk to Mordin, in depth, when he remarks he cleared out the bugs in his lab, to see if he could do  check my new cybernetic implants for bugs, bombs, and the extant of any fancy new cybernetics.  And the angst doesn't stop there!  As you play Renegade, especially, it becames glaringly obvious that all your Cybernetic upgrades are leading you down the same path as Saren - and, incidentally, the orignal biological Reapers!  Which actually probably makes Shepard's body the perfect template to create a Human Reaper without growing one from the goo of a million human bodies (shocking ME3 ending #2, side with the Reapers?)..

TIM did it?
TIM is Machiavelli reincarnated, wheels within wheels, plans beyond counting - I love this kind of anti-hero!  This is another great source of paranoia that goes untapped.  Right from the get go, I was convinced that TIM deliberately paid Wilson poorly so that TIM could hire him, by proxy, to betray the Lazarus Project and set up what was really an active duty test, as well as creating a bonding experience between Shepard and his two chief Cerberus handlers (I think Miranda knew about it, but not Jacob).  The entire Cerberus crew seems hand picked to be maximally Shepard compatible and alien friendly as well - I'd even go so far as to say that TIM has been deliberately coddling and insulating these particular crewmen to provide just such a public face when it was needed, that in fact none but Miranda ever had any real access into Cerberus.  Also, note that one of the most important drivers of the plot is that TIM is suddenly able to predict which colonies the Collectors are going to hit, and he does it twice to devestating effect.  Remember, the Collectors weren't caught at any other colony that suddenly went silent but for the two that TIM selected.  The evidence is pretty clear, there's no way Shepard would have caught the Collectors on the ground unless TIM set him on the path before the Collectors got there.  At first, I thought TIM was the one dealing with the Collectors by proxy, selling them info on human colonies so that he'd know where to catch them, but then I realized there's this other shady guy...

The Shadow Broker did it?
The SB is barely mentioned at all in ME2, but I now think he and Liara are actually the biggest drivers of the plot bar none.  Before ME2 started, the SB had the Shepard corpse, and Liara + Miranda intercepted it.  Afterwards, Miranda kept the body to revive it, and Liara is the one who led the fight against the SB, which is why she can't come hang with you.  TIM, Liara, and Miranda are all mum in the game (after all, the SB still has many agents), but I'm pretty sure Liara is the one cracking the Shadow Broker's network, and she's the one who dug up the colonies that were attacked - which makes me wonder, revealing the Observer should be required before catching the Collectors on the second colony, but I don't remember if it is.  Also, this helps explain why Liara isn't joining Shepard, because she's not acting at all like her former, pacifistic, protected little girl suddenly thrust into a world of violence, instead she's acting like one of those kick ass Asari secret agent commandos with tons of training in...  Oh @#$%!  Well, shoot, that makes more sense than that she had a kid but isn't telling Shepard.

Dark Matter and You
There's a star about to blow up because of a disturbance in the (dark energy) force!  Finally, in ME3, we'll see someone trump the "Ultimate" threat of the Death Star!  Actually, if the writers of ME3 are crazy like me, they'll make it hard for you to tell if the disturbance is being caused by the evil.geth in order to summon the Reapers, or if it is being caused environmentally by the usage of Mass Effect technology and biotics.  I'm all for the later, another great mind-@#$%: 
Life => uses Mass Effect => disturbs dark energy => blows up stars
Thus, we're the bad guys blowing up the galaxy by Mass Effect pollution, and the Reapers are the good guys trying to stop it!  Wouldn't that be sick?

Citizen Shepard
Fascinating and subtle forshadowing, I hope, of the goals of missions we'll be undertaking in ME3 in order to martial the Fleets of the, uh, anyone who doesn't want to be zapped by the Reapers (the good guy geth, Legion, completely ruins any easy way to name the new organization we're going to have to replace the Council with).  The trial of Tali vas Normandy sets the legal precedent that Captain Shepard is a Quarian Fleet Captain, a legal citizen of the Quarian nation, and that the Normandy is a member of the Quarian Fleet, which I believe also makes Shepard eligible to attend the Conclave as well as be elected the headmost Admiral.  In a similar vein, passing the Rite of Passage with Grunt (especially if you kill the Thresher maw) seems to make Shepard a krogan (I kind of wanted to accept that mating request just to see a female krogan, who are just as big a mystery as the quarians).  I'm hoping we get some fun scene in ME3 with some krogan intimidating a Council bigwig, and then Shepard walks up and suddenly the krogan are like "Oh Battlemaster Urdnot Shepard!  An honor to meet you sir!"  Samara is not to be outdone either, I have a sneaking suspicion that the extreme Justicar oath she took to Shepard can only be made to an Asari Matriarch.  If you kept the data from Mordin's loyalty quest, you've also got blackmail ready to hand to muscle the Salarians in line (although, as smart as they are, I almost expect them to be the first to hop on the Shepard for Galactic Overlord/Admiral band wagon).

The Ultimate Computer
The information density of a computer is limited by its physical substrate.  Even a photon has to use an enormous amount of data just for itself to still be a photon.  There is one hypothetical substance that frees up nearly the entire possible information content of matter to be manipulated freely, and the Collector base happens to be parked right next to one - a black hole.  It turns out that if you can manipulate a black hole freely with soem amazing technology (ie, the Mass Effect!), then you can have the most perfect information storage and processing and signalling device imaginable.  Indeed, the most likely dwelling place of the Harbinger is in that black hole as a data entity, one of many entities that probably live in there, whose numbers far exceed all the living beings on the outside, as it were.  Add in that this black hole should be able to maintain an instaneous nigh on infinite bandwidth network connection to every other active black hole network node, and you can see how blowing up the Collector station has quite possibly alerted the entire Reaper network across however much of the universe it now covers...

Genetic Diversity
This is just a scientific pet peave, multiple times the game calls humans genetically diverse, but the truth is, humans are the champions on genetic homogenity on Earth.  There have been 2 major extinction events in the last million years that brought our population down to ~1000, and now there's over 6 billion all over the planet, and yet strikingly we're all able to interbreed.  Strikingly, the safety domesticity is what has created to explosion of cosmetic differences by opening up the set of possible physical expression of genes - in other words, survival isn't forcing are genes to express themselves in a limited fashion.  Ultimately, the multiple points that bring up genetic diversity in the game are misleading, unscientific, not at all required for the story, and quite quite jarring for anyone who has enough of a basic interest in science to be aware of these Biology 101 facts (well it's probably Anthropology 210 or something like that).  But I still love Mordin for his singing!

[Homebound]

mjack234 wrote...

Problems With The Story

I'm a writer by trade and have worked in the movie industry, so I'm a sucker for a great narrative.  Mass Effect 2 is basically a character drama that wants to be an Epic Space Opera.  I think they were going for more "Empire Strikes Back" which was a very character-centric movie, but they fell short in the epic-ness that made the first game so fantastic.

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.

So that "propulsion system" of a building tension & drama which ME1 had in spades was nowhere to be seen, and it made ME2 a weaker game in my opinion.

Also, the lack of a major nemesis for Shepherd was a big drawback.  In ME1, we had Saren as Shepherd's nemesis.  Yes, Sovreign was the major bad guy, but Saren was the one Shepherd had to fight.  He was a real, tangible threat, and an enemy to rival Shepherd's heroics.  In ME2, Shepherd had no one to really fight against.  he had the main Prothean Overseer who took over bodies of his minions, but Shepherd never had any face-to-face time with the guy, and he was never able to mock or harm Shepherd in any way that was credible like Saren did.  This lack of a central nemesis for Shepherd to rage against made the over-all story kinda boring because I never felt anything was really at stake.  A good hero needs a good villain, and though the Collectors as a whole were a good enough "big baddie," there was nothing personalized about them to make me want to root for their defeat like I did with Saren.

Another big story gripe was that there was no clearly defined Rising Action to the main storyline.  In ME1, Saren is constantly 1-upping his plans to usher in the Reaper threat, and Shepherd is constantly racing to stop him, eventually leading to the revelations on Ios and culminating in the Battle for the Citadel.  There was a clear sense of rising action in that game.  In ME2, the rising action goes something like this:

You're told you have to go on a suicide mission.
You find out the Collectors are Protheans
You Steal an IFF from a conveniently found dead Reaper ship
Your crew is kidnapped
You go on suicide mission that you were gonna go on in the first place.

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.

Which brings me to my next story nit-pick, which was I never felt there was really anything at stake for the characters or the universe as a whole.  In ME1, Sovreign was trying to usher in a fleet of reapers to destroy all life in the galaxy.  So the stakes were pretty high.  In ME2, some human colonies were disappearing, and it was suspected it has something to do with the reapers.  That's it!

Even when you finally get on the Reaper base, and you find the big human reaper that's only partially finished, you wonder to yourself: What's the big deal?  What's the big threat to the universe here?  Will this reaper try and usher in the others like Sovreign did?  It just wasn't as big a revelation as what we got in ME1.  It was small in comparison, with no real build up or payoff.  In ME1, we needed the entire human fleet to take out 1 reaper, while desperately fighting his proxy inside the Citadel, with the fate of the Galactic Council and all life in the universe in the balance.  Here, we got three guys in a remote starbase fighting a giant robot that's being pumped full of human goo for some reason.  Again, I felt like nothing big was really at stake.

There were also massive plot holes in ME2 which never got fleshed out.  I felt the story in ME1 was really tight and well written.  It gave you all you needed to know and left enough questions unanswered to get you to want to find out more.

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?  None of these were made absolutely clear in the game.

How'd Shepherd and his team leave Omega-4?  I thought you needed a Mass Relay to get out of there, but they just seemed to shoot off using their own drive somehow, even though they were surrounded by black holes.  It might have been cooler if they were "stuck" in Omega 4 as the Reaper threat closed in from Dark Space and were unable to warn others about them coming.  But as it stands, not even Shepherd knows the Reapers are on their way.

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.

Over-all, I'd give the story of Mass Effect 2 a C+ compared to Mass Effect 1's A+.  Each mission in ME2 was, in and of itself, a good story, but I never felt like I was part of an epic galactic struggle like I did in the first one.  The more character-centric stories were good, but they weren't properly balanced with the over-all story of the Reapers and their threat to the universe.  Maybe if each story has somehow tied into the Collector's plot, it would have been better, but as it stands, it was all too episodic and disjointed.  It felt like a bunch of side-quests strung together that had no real payoff beyond character development. 

I really hope in ME3, Bioware gives us an epic conclusion to this amazing game franchise with a story that rivals or surpasses both the first and second Mass Effect.

Sorry for the long rant, but I just wanted to share my gripes with the faceless masses.  :-)

I concur.  But to me, it seems like ME2 is a prologue/transition to ME3. Its enough for me to rationalize the thing the story lacked.

[Anticitizen1]

Rabid Rob3 wrote...

A lot of stuff.

I enjoyed every bit of this post, and throughout most of it, wished you were on the writing team at Bioware.
One thing about the Dark Energy, though.

You say that eventually the Mass Relays, and Mass Effect technology leads to Dark Energy, which in turns destroys the Galaxy, making the Reapers seem like the saviors of all galactic life.
But the Reapers are the ones that created the Mass Relays,  and intended for us to use it.  Only making them seem like saviors to those who don't know the truth (Shepard).
Maybe the Vanguard/Soveriegn hides and simply observes the levels of Dark Energy in the galaxy, which would be a direct indication of how organic life is expanding. Once the level of Dark Energy reaches a certain point, it triggers the Vanguard to awaken, and usher in the new cycle.
And they need to complete the cycle before the Dark Energy totally consumes the galaxy and wipes out all organic life, which the Reapers need in order to survive.

Their survival relies on our survival.
In ME3 there is no way out. What a mind****.

I think we figured it out.

Modifié par Anticitizen1, 05 février 2010 - 05:30 .

[JJ Long]

I still say it is comparing apples to oranges. Mass Effect 2's story is a different type of story from Mass Effect 1, that doesn't mean it is bad or done poorly.

There doesn't need to be a race to the finish ending like there was in Mass Effect 1. There doesn't need to be an arch enemy like Saren.

There should not be a set equation for the game's story.



And as for the complaint about not knowing why the Collecters were making a Human Reaper.

This was discussed by the characters in the game and they didn't really come up with any real conclusions.

In the first game when asked why the Reapers are so dead set on destroying organic life, we are pretty much told that the reason is beyond our comprehension. Does that make the original game's story bad or poor? No

[Melisenta]

It seems I'm the only one on these forums that actually enjoyed scanning. And fuel too... I enjoyed "flying", rather than hopping from system to system.

[Lemonio]

 honestly, the me1 story was pretty bad too, so i didn't mind the stupid overall story of me2
but oh well...there are few games with good overall stories...like half life 2 or kotor
i guess we just have to settle for good details until videogame writers improve

[cdtrk65]

Well I never read ever post in this thread agree (kind of) with the original poster, however I don't think this game is supposed to have that Epic feel. It's supposed to feel grimmy...



ME1 You where that neat and shiny millitary Shep, the first human spectre the right hand of the council, and fighting for the overall good of the galaxy. Even if your tactics where less then pure, the overall goal was for a good purpose, and you where general looked at form a law enforcer. From time to time you bumped into these nasty Cerebus outfits, and for the most part you fought against them and there goals. Although you work for the council, it's a rough relationship, as they can't see that the reapers are the real problem, and for the most part you spend with them they are a hindrence to the overall goal. In the end you buck their orders and do your own thing, much to their good.





ME2 Shep dies, and along with him any believe that the reapers are the real threat. Cerebus, the same group that Shep spends most of his time fighting in ME1 resurrects him. Gives him a ship and sicks him on the reapers, via the collectors. Throughout the mission Miranda and Jacob shed a different light on Cerebus, or at least spend a good deal of time trying to convince Shep that they aren't as bad as the seem. The Illusive man, although sometimes questions shep, never gets in his way of completing a mission. Of course there is always people like Jack, always reminding you of what Cerebus really is about. Then there is the the Council still sitting on their hands believing that SHep was duped by Saren. Old allies, maybe even love interest believe Cerebus to be evil, and can't believe Shep is working with/for them. (THat's a long way form being the galatic hero in ME1).



All that to say, ME1 Shep was the hero to everyone, and almost everyone recoginized it, even if they didn't agree with him, in ME2 Shep is working for/with an a evil corp (at least by reputation), even though their motives maybe not so evil.



However, Cerebus has done everything to help Shepard, while the council only gave him the title of Spectre, even in the first game they were more of a hinderance to him (not believing the reaper threat until their own butts where on the line) and then once they where saved, (or dead) it's back to ho-hum, Shepard is really gullible...



Think of it this way:

Council (paragon): Law abiding/light have a tendency to move things along slowly, and delibrately, even at their own risk.



Cerebus (renagade): Law bending/dark does whatever it takes to get things done.



My original take was in total agreement with the OP's comments on the story, because I missed the whole cerebus/council comparisions...But once I started spotting them, the overall plot made since...Afterall, this is Shepard/Humanities story not the Reapers, the reapers are just err...forget the word used.... nemesis will have to do...



The question is, does Shepard switch to the darkside or does he stay with the light...Is the light side really light and the dark side really dark?



I believe that is the point of this ME2, not so much the reapers and collectors...



I know the finally choice was a difficult one for me, probably the hardest choice I have had to make in the series. Destory the reapers and end one minor threat, or let cerebus get it's hands on it and figure out it's tech, which can be a good or a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

[Thalinor00]

I have a review here that addressed similar concerns. Its kind of funny, I compared ME2 to "The Empire Strikes Back" too!  I think a lot of people here made some great comments so there is no reason to repost what I have posted elsewhere. In summary: Better character development and interaction with more dialog options and better character integration with each other/the overall plot.

At least we had Kelly as a fluffer to hold us off till ME3. : )

Modifié par Thalinor00, 05 février 2010 - 06:35 .

[Lunatic LK47]

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.

As for the story, as a writer I know the trilogy rules. ME2 followed the rule for part 2 and IMO it is the best game Bioware has made. The main story while might not have been that original was still well done. There was alot of good twist and the big twist reminded me when Darth Vadar told Luke he was his father. ME2 is the empire strikes back of video games. Also the thing that ME failed at and what ME2 did fantastic was making it emotional(spelling?) When Miranda had tears, my eyes got watery. When I was doing the sucide mission I was sweating because of fear someone would die. The main story was good, but what made the game the best was it's characters.

That's my thought on it, though I still can't se how you found ME2 boring.

I'll definitely agree on this. The one thing that BioWare did right story-wise was making the package as a whole emotionally compelling, and it really did show with the character loyalty quests. Hell, I found myself playing videos of Garrus and Thane's missions repeatedly YouTube because I felt something out of it. Unfortunately for ME1, while the characters became likeable, they just did not have much to them at all due to the occasionally sketchy writing (note: I am not 100% bashing Drew Karpshyn's writing. On one hand, I appreciate the amount of detail and thought he placed into the universe as a whole, but on the other hand, the character department really leaves a lot to be desired.). Hell, in terms of having dark content, ME1 was completely lacking in this department, and there was no sense of conflict in the story. To be honest, for a game that's supposed to be portrayed as a dark, adult science-fiction story, it ended up unintentionally coming off as a Disney movie that just happened to have an R-rating. Here are the items I had issues with the first game:

• The morality by its bare bones are either "be a passive pacifist 'Yes-Man,' or be the Xenophobic jack-ass;"
• The setting, locales and soundtrack felt too sterile and slightly for my taste especially for an M-Rated game. How does the Mature rating exactly help stand out from more mainstream franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars? The only thing I can give credit is that there's some type of reality involved in the ME universe, and don't get me wrong, I'll take ME over Star Wars and Star Trek any day of the week.
• The characters while likeable, ended up being missed opportunities. Let's face it, out of the squadmates in ME1 the top two people I remotely got interested in were Garrus and Wrex. Tali and Liara ended up being the talking Codex entries for their people, while Kaidan and Ashley felt liked missed opportunities despite the backstory you hear from them.) For the non-squadmate characters, only Anderson was compelling.
• The drama was mostly absent. Liara and Benezia's scene could have been 100X better, and Virmire ended up being the only part I liked. The first half of the game unfortunately felt "meh."
• As a result of the lack of drama, the choices and consequences really felt underplayed, data transfer into the sequel or not.

Mass Effect 2 on the other hand addressed this problem, though I was disappointed with how certain aspects were handled (i.e. ME1 Love Interests, Decisions not making much of an impact we thought would happen.)

[Lunatic LK47]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

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?   

Facehugger, if I had a medal to give you, I would.

[Driveninhifi]

I think the main plot not having a strong villain is something Dragon Age suffered from as well. You just don't have a strong impetus to be really worried about what's happening.

I also think the handling of the ME1 love interests was handled extremely poorly. Ashley and Kaidan are both human - whether or not they hate Cerberus they are both intelligent enough to realize that something is killing off humans - they saw it themselves! Why wouldn't they help? It's very contrived.

Liara was also handled poorly. For such a drastic character change the player desperately needs to be given reason to believe it, and you really aren't. You are told "life's been hell, shadow broker took your body I got it back and got a friend killed" That's not enough. And you have to assume most people won't be reading the comics, so you have to give every player all the information about what exactly happened instead of a 2 line summary.
She's by far the least aggressive character in ME1. A two year vendetta is completely unbelievable. Guilt over Shepard and Feron needs to be a big part of it, but I'm not sure I buy two years. She's a very loyal and dutiful character - she needs that to be a big part of her motivation. She needs see the Shadow Broker threaten the galaxy or the fight needs to start against her will - maybe the Shadow Broker comes after her and she has no choice but to fight back.

It's a shame because there is a TON of potential there. I can't imagine her actually enjoying the violence and intimidation in what she's doing. That would be a great thing to show for her development.
There also needs to be more conflicting motivations in her once Shepard returns. She's been waiting, or at least really hoping for him/her to come back. That needs to manifest in a conflict in her obsession - especially if Shepard tells her that she did the right thing. Does she continue and risk losing Shepard again? Why can't you mention the previous relationship?

You really need to be able to ask her why she can't come with you after she spills her guts. The initial reason is too vague.

I think her character simply doesn't work the way it's presented in game.

Modifié par Driveninhifi, 05 février 2010 - 07:37 .

[tertium organum]

I agree with the OP about the main story.  All the criticisms are spot so I won't repeat them.  However, I'd like to make a rather precise criticism:  the main story suffers not just because it is not well developed but because it is not well realized in the gameplay itself.  And by this I mean, in actual combat, in playing the game.  I think the main story would have been aided greatly if the recruiting missions had more tangible effects not on the storyline per se but the gameplay itself at the end - if the final mission ended like it began - i.e you assinging your crew to different posts- then the weak story arc would have been forgiven because you'd have seen and experienced why you needed all these characters. As it stands, the main story is shallow and when the game finally has a chance to make all the loyalty quests matter, it descends into a generic boss battle. The finale of the game undermines, nay, cheapens your previous efforts.  You begin to wonder what the point of all of it was - the difference in quality of the main story and character arcs become more evident.

To explain a bit more: the loyalty missions and squadmates are uniformly excellent. Individual critique of these is fine but I see no real problems with the characters as characters. Bioware did a great job here. Furthermore, I don't think any of their missions needed to be involved in the main story arc - for example, tying any of the squadmates mission to something about the collectors, etc. I don't think any of that should change.

However, where this should have mattered was in how you play the game at the end - if you do not have Thane's loyalty then  it should affect more than a cannon on the ship before you fight. At the very end of the game, Thane, for example, or an 'assasin' should have a specific job to do and his ability  or willingness depends on whether or not you did his quests. Just like the final suicide mission started - you assign a team and they fulfill their role. Bioware should have expanded on this throughout the entire final level. They should not have settled for a generic battle with a big reaper - have all your team assigned to take down different parts - make the Reaper itself a level or something. Imagine that? This is the point where everything you've done crescendos and matters. In that one moment  you all have to take down this single ship not by ducking behind crates but by using all the varying team skills you've gained. Now, while on this ship, make some big reveals - Shepard has another vision ( him mutating into a half reaper half-human? - that'd be interesting. ) Or he has several during the entire mission because it is a reaper ship - use these to clarify just what has been happening and what this human reaper things means  and is about to do. There is so much creative things that could have been done here and they just settled for something easy - and I say this because they got the first part of the mission right. So I don't accept that this is expecting too much.


On a different note, I agree with comments about combat as well. It is much improved yet strangely not as fun and I chalk this up to needlessly eliminating experience in the game world itself along with removing stats from weapons, etc. This is a decision I don't understand. The game, by its very nature, cannot have the pace of a conventional TPS or FPS.  The latter genres don't need an 'experience' hook in so far as it's on rails for most of the game and new weapons are constantly being fed to you. Mass Effect is story driven and  tactical, so why take away staples of the RPG genre that make this sort of game more fun to play? Like gaining experience within levels?  Or seeing stats for loot? Alas, you can't have everything. I really do hope they pull through and make the game I think they can with ME3 but I've lowered my expectations for the story. I just don't think they're going to live up to what they've introduced. Meaningless to them, perhaps, since they'll still get my money.

Modifié par tertium organum, 05 février 2010 - 08:57 .

[RiouHotaru]

Driveninhifi wrote...

I think the main plot not having a strong villain is something Dragon Age suffered from as well. You just don't have a strong impetus to be really worried about what's happening.

I also think the handling of the ME1 love interests was handled extremely poorly. Ashley and Kaidan are both human - whether or not they hate Cerberus they are both intelligent enough to realize that something is killing off humans - they saw it themselves! Why wouldn't they help? It's very contrived.

Liara was also handled poorly. For such a drastic character change the player desperately needs to be given reason to believe it, and you really aren't. You are told "life's been hell, shadow broker took your body I got it back and got a friend killed" That's not enough. And you have to assume most people won't be reading the comics, so you have to give every player all the information about what exactly happened instead of a 2 line summary.
She's by far the least aggressive character in ME1. A two year vendetta is completely unbelievable. Guilt over Shepard and Feron needs to be a big part of it, but I'm not sure I buy two years. She's a very loyal and dutiful character - she needs that to be a big part of her motivation. She needs see the Shadow Broker threaten the galaxy or the fight needs to start against her will - maybe the Shadow Broker comes after her and she has no choice but to fight back.

It's a shame because there is a TON of potential there. I can't imagine her actually enjoying the violence and intimidation in what she's doing. That would be a great thing to show for her development.
There also needs to be more conflicting motivations in her once Shepard returns. She's been waiting, or at least really hoping for him/her to come back. That needs to manifest in a conflict in her obsession - especially if Shepard tells her that she did the right thing. Does she continue and risk losing Shepard again? Why can't you mention the previous relationship?

You really need to be able to ask her why she can't come with you after she spills her guts. The initial reason is too vague.

I think her character simply doesn't work the way it's presented in game.

Actually, her change in character works perfectly...but it requires that you have read Redemption, the comic book series.  That series covers Liara going after your body, giving it to Cerberus, and then hunting down the Shadow Broker for all the pain and suffering he caused.  That's the problem, if you haven't read them (and only #1 is out anyway) then yes, her sudden change of character comes off as jarring and unnerving.

[Lunatic LK47]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Driveninhifi wrote...

I think the main plot not having a strong villain is something Dragon Age suffered from as well. You just don't have a strong impetus to be really worried about what's happening.

I also think the handling of the ME1 love interests was handled extremely poorly. Ashley and Kaidan are both human - whether or not they hate Cerberus they are both intelligent enough to realize that something is killing off humans - they saw it themselves! Why wouldn't they help? It's very contrived.

Liara was also handled poorly. For such a drastic character change the player desperately needs to be given reason to believe it, and you really aren't. You are told "life's been hell, shadow broker took your body I got it back and got a friend killed" That's not enough. And you have to assume most people won't be reading the comics, so you have to give every player all the information about what exactly happened instead of a 2 line summary.
She's by far the least aggressive character in ME1. A two year vendetta is completely unbelievable. Guilt over Shepard and Feron needs to be a big part of it, but I'm not sure I buy two years. She's a very loyal and dutiful character - she needs that to be a big part of her motivation. She needs see the Shadow Broker threaten the galaxy or the fight needs to start against her will - maybe the Shadow Broker comes after her and she has no choice but to fight back.

It's a shame because there is a TON of potential there. I can't imagine her actually enjoying the violence and intimidation in what she's doing. That would be a great thing to show for her development.
There also needs to be more conflicting motivations in her once Shepard returns. She's been waiting, or at least really hoping for him/her to come back. That needs to manifest in a conflict in her obsession - especially if Shepard tells her that she did the right thing. Does she continue and risk losing Shepard again? Why can't you mention the previous relationship?

You really need to be able to ask her why she can't come with you after she spills her guts. The initial reason is too vague.

I think her character simply doesn't work the way it's presented in game.

Actually, her change in character works perfectly...but it requires that you have read Redemption, the comic book series.  That series covers Liara going after your body, giving it to Cerberus, and then hunting down the Shadow Broker for all the pain and suffering he caused.  That's the problem, if you haven't read them (and only #1 is out anyway) then yes, her sudden change of character comes off as jarring and unnerving.

That is still the problem Driven has pointed out. The fact that reading Redemption is *REQUIRED* to learn Liara's story is a double-edged sword in of itself, and depending on the publishers, the comic's story itself would be semi-disjointed because of the rate the issues have been released. 

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 05 février 2010 - 09:06 .

[RiouHotaru]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

That is still the problem Driven has pointed out. The fact that reading Redemption is *REQUIRED* to learn Liara's story is a double-edged sword in of itself, and depending on the publishers, the comic's story itself would be semi-disjointed because of the rate the issues have been released. 

True...but it might make people want to read it so that they can learn what could've happened to change Liara so drastically too.  It is a tempting plot hook after all.

[lessthanjake9]

I think that the "gather a team and make them loyal so the suicide mission succeeds" thing is a good way to structure a game actually. It makes you feel like you really need to get to know your crew and get their loyalty or else you will fail. This is something that I do not feel in a lot of other games, including ME1, where you sometimes feel you are just talking to the NPCs (or doing missions for them) because you want to get the most out of the game, not because it is extremely necessary in-game.



The pacing of the game allowed it to make sense that you were doing all these missions and loyalty missions. You are getting your team ready. Furthermore, since it is an apparent suicide mission, you want to give your team peace of mind before they go to their possible death. Many of the loyalty missions are simply about peace of mind. So I think that this aspect of the story works in the context of a game.



- However, I think it is true that the importance of the mission is not made entirely clear. I think it is a big issue that it is not AT ALL clear for the longest time why the Collectors are tied to the Reapers. All you have is the Illusive Man saying that the evidence is buried in information. Shepard apparently does not require any more convincing that it is Reaper related than the Illusive Man making a rather vague statement that it probably is? The evidence eventually comes, but Shepard's personal motivation is lacking before that.



- Along the same lines, it seems odd that Shepard immediately teams up with Cerberus and the Illusive Man. Presumably, in the ME1 storyline, Shepard ran into all kinds of terrible things involving Cerberus. If Shepard was a Sole Survivor, he also has reason to believe that Cerberus unleashed a Thresher Maw on him and his platoon. Yet, it really only takes the first meeting with the Illusive Man for Shepard to basically be like "Yay I'll gather all the people you want me to and believe/do what you say." That seems out of place to me. Eventually, it becomes okay. If you go to the Citadel, it becomes clear that you're not going to get Council help and that they don't even believe the Reapers exist, so it's clear that you need to work with Cerberus instead. However, Shepard gets cozy with Cerberus before that (even if you choose the "I dont trust you" dialogue options, you are still taking orders from Cerberus). That doesn't make sense to me.



- The importance of the human reaper is not explained. That is what the Collectors were making and it is clear that the reason you needed to stop them was to stop them from making a human reaper. However, there seem to be enough reapers that stopping one of them from being created is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. So why was the human reaper important? Was it going to somehow let the reapers in like Sovereign was? Doubtful because that involves using the Citadel, a plan that was already thwarted once. There is no reason why we should feel as though the resolution of ME2 is that important. Yes, you probably stopped a lot of humans from being taken by the Collectors, but that threat is inconsequential when compared to the Reaper threat, which it seems like very little was done to stop. Maybe ME3 will clarify this, but as of now, I feel like ME2's ending was less monumentally important as it was a way to explain something of what the Reapers are.

[lessthanjake9]

double post

Modifié par lessthanjake9, 05 février 2010 - 09:54 .

[lessthanjake9]

triple post

Modifié par lessthanjake9, 05 février 2010 - 09:55 .