218 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I felt that ME1 was a very mediocre game. The gameplay wasn't great at all, and once you got weapons advanced enough, it was actually broken because you could fire an infinite number of shots. Singularity most certainly broke the game. 90% of the inventory was useless. The game had 3 designs of armour, but all the specific armours were reskins. We actually have more armor options for Shepard in ME2 than in ME1. With the ability to paint your armour however you like it, you're getitng a lot more visual variety.



Where ME2 falls short in equipment isn't in the # of weapons or amour. There's as much variety in ME2 as in ME1. The problem is specific effects - there are just so few of them. IMO, research should have incorporated more specific bonuses that could have been added/removed from armour. For example, the N7 breastplate could have 2 slots of bonuses, and you could research anything from +20% health to +15% shield regeneration, etc.



The story in ME1 wasn't compelling at all. I thought Feros, Noveria and Theron sucked. Especially Theron. Virmire was awesome - but most of the game lacked that dramatic tension. Each individual world in ME2 was much better fleshed out than in ME1, IMO. Companion missions were great too. The suicide mission was overdone as an overarching theme, and ME2 suffered from lacking a dramatic reveal that matched ME1 (sovereign is a repear, the Coduit is a Mass Relay) but that's pretty much example what DA:O suffered from - you knew the enemy from the start and there was absolute NO twist to change that.



The only thing that almost breaks the game is the terminator reaper. The dramatic endgame should NOT require a 10 minute pause so my roomates and I can laugh it out of our system.



The characters were better in ME2, and so where the LIs. Gamplay was actually fun.



Basically, I can't see how it's possible to consider ME1 a better game, on any level.

[dinin70]

I defenitely agree with the OP. This game left me with a bitter taste in the mouth. It's exactly what I was saying in Tali's support topic. It's just about setting a team, getting loyalty and rush.



Meanwhile I would like to add something without making any speculation on ME2, thus on ME3. There are several events (most of them tiny details a bit hidden) in this game that cast uncertainty about the future situation, and as some poeple said, this ME2 can be the framework to build an EXCELLENT ME3, but that... that's up to Bioware to surprise us like they used to with BG1

[Juan1966]

scrappydoo555 wrote...

deimosmasque wrote...

I didn't say the new crew was the plot, I said that recruiting the new crew, to go on a suicide mission, to try to save people they don't even know and in some cases isn't even the same species, is the plot of the game.

Ok, point taken. I stand by what I said though, since they can die and therefore can't have a major role in ME3, the "whole crew thing" is pointless.

That just makes you learn to keep them fro dying in a future play through and you never know with the final mission like it was in this one it might come back in ME3.

Also I agree with everyone that ME1 was a lot better action-wise. But ME2 brought back the plot changer that we now know and love, it can in a different form however. In ME1 you got a small glimpse of each character personality. In ME2 you got an in depth look into what the characters thought and felt, almost as if they were real people.  In ME1 you are introduced to the plot and set free to do as you pleased with no real consequences. However, in ME2 your actions became a major factor in the end of the game. 

I just wish they had some of the jaw droppers that they had in the first one. Also I liked the previous inventory system better in the first one; it was the one with the real customization. 

[scrappydoo555]

[quote]deimosmasque wrote...

Well if they can return or not is still open to conjecture. Wrex could die and he had a role to play in ME2. And considering you actually have to TRY to have them all die I can see how bioware can get away with including them all in ME3 and just have certain situations cut or character replacement (as they did with Wrex) if they die.

[quote]

This kinda of proves my point though, Wrex had a possibility of dying and only appeared really in a cameo role, with a replacement for imports in which he did die meaning the same is likely for all ME2 crew members. If Bioware are somehow able to have surviving crew members as sqaud mates in ME3 I'll be more than happy but I believe there is just too many variables for that to be possible.

Modifié par scrappydoo555, 14 février 2010 - 10:14 .

[smudboy]

scrappydoo555 wrote...

deimosmasque wrote...

I didn't say the new crew was the plot, I said that recruiting the new crew, to go on a suicide mission, to try to save people they don't even know and in some cases isn't even the same species, is the plot of the game.

Ok, point taken. I stand by what I said though, since they can die and therefore can't have a major role in ME3, the "whole crew thing" is pointless.

Not only can they die, they can be completely missed, or replaced.

That's not good writing, in a linear, or Choose your own Adventure storytelling method.

None of the characters, save Mordin (and his plot device/loosely tied situation), have a major role in ME2.  They're all just along for the ride...

[facialstrokage]

For those who think ME2 has little story arch: how is ME2 any different from any other sequel, if not better?



In fact I would make a comparison between ME2 and Empire strikes back. Both are darker segments of a trilogy. The enemy makes a comeback. There's more focus on the character development and not on introducing new elements of either the story or the universe. And they both end with a cliffhanger.



The collector abductions are similar to the attack on Hoth. Han and Leia having closure and Luke going into training is analogous to you building up your team. And then Luke basically goes on a suicide mission in the end.



I don't understand why people think there was no character development. Each character had their own loyalty missions. And even afterward you could talk to them about their lives and beliefs. Thane was really cool as he shared with you his religion and his past history. Miranda went from a ****y cheerleader to a warming lady friend. Bioware really did put a lot of work into Miranda. Tali and garrus are awesome just because they're back. Although garrus is definitely short in terms of development (a side mission on Sidonis, that's it??) Tali's entire ship died, including her father!!! I mean, what more do you want? Jacob isn't very interesting, but I wouldn't say that's bad because you can't have everyone with a badass interesting story- i mean, would you think your own life is a worthwhile story to tell? Jack was a bit shorted, but by no means lame. Her loyalty mission was really dark and it really makes you think about some real life issues. I don't wanna get into this, but people can actually be that cruel, torturing and experimenting on other humans for their own benefits. Which brings up Mordin, my favorite character of all.

Mordin is awesome: everything from discourses on sex lubrication to singing operas. The part where he's about to shoot his own student (i saved him though), I'm pissing my pants thinking: Holy ****! A professor shooting his own student! WTF!!! And not even over his intelligence, but over what he does with it? I mean, can you imagine if your science professor not only taught you science, but demanded, with a gun, that you use it in a certain way??



With Mordin, the issue of the genophage was so prevalent in the game. Is it ever right to treat an entire race like that? Kinda reminds me dropping the nukes on Japan. It wasn't just a game, it was ethical questions being brought up all the time. And it was so enveloping, at times I couldn't choose the paragon answer even if I wanted to play through as a paragon because it just wasn't what I believed in. NO GAME DOES THAT.



With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game. The story is only linear because you know what you plan to do. The only difference between ME2 and Empire Strikes Back is that the audience doesn't know what Luke, Han, or Leia are going to do next, while Shepard has an agenda planned out and follows it. The point of having such linearity is for the players to enjoy the moment. If you keep looking at the end and not enveloping the intricacies in between, the game will never feel long, because for those who do that, it's simply: build team, attack collectors. But the game offers much more. The ME2 characters were SO much better than the ME1 characters. Kaiden sucked ass, never used him. Ashley is the white female version of Jacob. Garrus had a bit more flavor. Tali gets nowhere near the depth she gets in ME2. Liara was a good LI, but really, Wrex was the only ones with a notable story behind his belt.



In ME2, Your team really is your family. More much tension, more more drama. And they will definitely make a comeback in the 3rd installment because you've made such a connection with all of them already, Bioware wouldn't just throw them out.

[Akrylik]

ME2's main story seems unfinished because, well, it is.



ME1 checklist: kill saren (done)

ME2 checklist: kill the reapers (not even close to done)



ME2 is merely scratching the surface to the new significant plot in the series, im just worried that ME3 will be able to handle everything if its the last installment for the story (hopefully not like halo 3's ending)

[CrystalCousland]

What about the amount of necessary work? Of course, they couldn't have used Ashley or Kaiden in the team, because one of them -is- dead, which would have meant to write-programm-voice record hours of gameplay that would never be used.



Since several of your team may well be dead at the end of ME II, there is a good chance we'll get an all new team for ME 3 again. My money's on an all Hanar party ...

[Noted Literally]

facialstrokage wrote...

For those who think ME2 has little story arch: how is ME2 any different from any other sequel, if not better?

In fact I would make a comparison between ME2 and Empire strikes back. Both are darker segments of a trilogy. The enemy makes a comeback. There's more focus on the character development and not on introducing new elements of either the story or the universe. And they both end with a cliffhanger.

The collector abductions are similar to the attack on Hoth. Han and Leia having closure and Luke going into training is analogous to you building up your team. And then Luke basically goes on a suicide mission in the end.

I don't understand why people think there was no character development. Each character had their own loyalty missions. And even afterward you could talk to them about their lives and beliefs. Thane was really cool as he shared with you his religion and his past history. Miranda went from a ****y cheerleader to a warming lady friend. Bioware really did put a lot of work into Miranda. Tali and garrus are awesome just because they're back. Although garrus is definitely short in terms of development (a side mission on Sidonis, that's it??) Tali's entire ship died, including her father!!! I mean, what more do you want? Jacob isn't very interesting, but I wouldn't say that's bad because you can't have everyone with a badass interesting story- i mean, would you think your own life is a worthwhile story to tell? Jack was a bit shorted, but by no means lame. Her loyalty mission was really dark and it really makes you think about some real life issues. I don't wanna get into this, but people can actually be that cruel, torturing and experimenting on other humans for their own benefits. Which brings up Mordin, my favorite character of all.
Mordin is awesome: everything from discourses on sex lubrication to singing operas. The part where he's about to shoot his own student (i saved him though), I'm pissing my pants thinking: Holy ****! A professor shooting his own student! WTF!!! And not even over his intelligence, but over what he does with it? I mean, can you imagine if your science professor not only taught you science, but demanded, with a gun, that you use it in a certain way??

With Mordin, the issue of the genophage was so prevalent in the game. Is it ever right to treat an entire race like that? Kinda reminds me dropping the nukes on Japan. It wasn't just a game, it was ethical questions being brought up all the time. And it was so enveloping, at times I couldn't choose the paragon answer even if I wanted to play through as a paragon because it just wasn't what I believed in. NO GAME DOES THAT.

With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game. The story is only linear because you know what you plan to do. The only difference between ME2 and Empire Strikes Back is that the audience doesn't know what Luke, Han, or Leia are going to do next, while Shepard has an agenda planned out and follows it. The point of having such linearity is for the players to enjoy the moment. If you keep looking at the end and not enveloping the intricacies in between, the game will never feel long, because for those who do that, it's simply: build team, attack collectors. But the game offers much more. The ME2 characters were SO much better than the ME1 characters. Kaiden sucked ass, never used him. Ashley is the white female version of Jacob. Garrus had a bit more flavor. Tali gets nowhere near the depth she gets in ME2. Liara was a good LI, but really, Wrex was the only ones with a notable story behind his belt.

In ME2, Your team really is your family. More much tension, more more drama. And they will definitely make a comeback in the 3rd installment because you've made such a connection with all of them already, Bioware wouldn't just throw them out.

The difference is that at the Luke, Han, and Leia are recognizable different characters at the beginning and end of The Empire Strikes back.  Han and Leia's romance is significantly fleshed out, more serious, starting with "I'd just as soon kiss a wookie" "I can arrange that!" and culminating in "I love you!"  "I know."   Luke has been passed his second test, and while he is scarred both physically and emotionally he has been tempered by his experiences, and is a stronger person.  In fact, what the Empire Strikes back is take the characters from a relatively happy-go-lucky trio to serious people doing serious thing.  They take some serious blows, but survive, because they're heroes.

Now, what you seem to be arguing is that Mass Effect 2 has more interesting characters than Mass Effect 1.  That's one thing, its a good thing, but it isn't development.  The characters don't change in ME2, we learn more about them but they don't grow.  (Exception: my understanding is that pursuing a romance subplot does develop characters, which is good but there are 10 other characters that aren't developed.)  Mordin has a classic do-the-ends-justify-the-means conflict but its a static conflict.  Its one thing to say 'hey I did this thing in the past.'  The test of a character in such a situation is to see, given the same situation, would they do it again?  Without such tests and milestones there is no measurable change in a character.  You can argue with Mordin, but you'll never know whether or not he really feels differently.

[TheOtherWind]

facialstrokage wrote...

For those who think ME2 has little story arch: how is ME2 any different from any other sequel, if not better?

In fact I would make a comparison between ME2 and Empire strikes back. Both are darker segments of a trilogy. The enemy makes a comeback. There's more focus on the character development and not on introducing new elements of either the story or the universe. And they both end with a cliffhanger.

No new elements are introduced in ME2? Is this a serious statement? ME2 introduces 10 new team members and some new guy who is giving the orders. New antagonist is added; the collectors and with them come new goals and challenges. Its almost a completely different game in focus. Adding 10 new squad members is complete overkill. How about we focus on the characters we already have and add maybe 2 or 3 more characteres into the mix.

The collector abductions are similar to the attack on Hoth. Han and Leia having closure and Luke going into training is analogous to you building up your team. And then Luke basically goes on a suicide mission in the end.

Again how is luke going into training like building a team? Luke's team was separated but were all still working towards the same ends that were introduced in the first installment.

I don't understand why people think there was no character development. Each character had their own loyalty missions. And even afterward you could talk to them about their lives and beliefs. Thane was really cool as he shared with you his religion and his past history. Miranda went from a ****y cheerleader to a warming lady friend. Bioware really did put a lot of work into Miranda. Tali and garrus are awesome just because they're back. Although garrus is definitely short in terms of development (a side mission on Sidonis, that's it??) Tali's entire ship died, including her father!!! I mean, what more do you want? Jacob isn't very interesting, but I wouldn't say that's bad because you can't have everyone with a badass interesting story- i mean, would you think your own life is a worthwhile story to tell? Jack was a bit shorted, but by no means lame. Her loyalty mission was really dark and it really makes you think about some real life issues. I don't wanna get into this, but people can actually be that cruel, torturing and experimenting on other humans for their own benefits. Which brings up Mordin, my favorite character of all.
Mordin is awesome: everything from discourses on sex lubrication to singing operas. The part where he's about to shoot his own student (i saved him though), I'm pissing my pants thinking: Holy ****! A professor shooting his own student! WTF!!! And not even over his intelligence, but over what he does with it? I mean, can you imagine if your science professor not only taught you science, but demanded, with a gun, that you use it in a certain way??

With Mordin, the issue of the genophage was so prevalent in the game. Is it ever right to treat an entire race like that? Kinda reminds me dropping the nukes on Japan. It wasn't just a game, it was ethical questions being brought up all the time. And it was so enveloping, at times I couldn't choose the paragon answer even if I wanted to play through as a paragon because it just wasn't what I believed in. NO GAME DOES THAT.

With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game. The story is only linear because you know what you plan to do. The only difference between ME2 and Empire Strikes Back is that the audience doesn't know what Luke, Han, or Leia are going to do next, while Shepard has an agenda planned out and follows it. The point of having such linearity is for the players to enjoy the moment. If you keep looking at the end and not enveloping the intricacies in between, the game will never feel long, because for those who do that, it's simply: build team, attack collectors. But the game offers much more. The ME2 characters were SO much better than the ME1 characters. Kaiden sucked ass, never used him. Ashley is the white female version of Jacob. Garrus had a bit more flavor. Tali gets nowhere near the depth she gets in ME2. Liara was a good LI, but really, Wrex was the only ones with a notable story behind his belt.

In ME2, Your team really is your family. More much tension, more more drama. And they will definitely make a comeback in the 3rd installment because you've made such a connection with all of them already, Bioware wouldn't just throw them out.

There was plenty of character developement within the game. But my point it was it necessary. Sticking with the star wars example. In Empire strikes back luke did not stop working on stopping vader to recruit a team and solve they every little insignificant problem like dr phil in space. They kept to the mission at hand which was continuing the assult on the empire. 

The movie also had a lot of major plot developements. Hans was captured and frozen, leiah was captured, luke confronted vader and found out he is his father and got his hand chopped off. All holy s*** moments. ME2 simply did not have that at all for me

Modifié par TheOtherWind, 14 février 2010 - 11:06 .

[TheOtherWind]

Akrylik wrote...

ME2's main story seems unfinished because, well, it is.

ME1 checklist: kill saren (done)
ME2 checklist: kill the reapers (not even close to done)

ME2 is merely scratching the surface to the new significant plot in the series, im just worried that ME3 will be able to handle everything if its the last installment for the story (hopefully not like halo 3's ending)

At least encountering the reapers would have been enough for me. Fact of the matter is they are still as stuck in deep space and as shrouded in mystery to the general public as they were at the end of ME1

[TheOtherWind]

Akrylik wrote...

ME2's main story seems unfinished because, well, it is.

ME1 checklist: kill saren (done)
ME2 checklist: kill the reapers (not even close to done)

ME2 is merely scratching the surface to the new significant plot in the series, im just worried that ME3 will be able to handle everything if its the last installment for the story (hopefully not like halo 3's ending)

At least encountering the reapers would have been enough for me. Fact of the matter is they are still as stuck in deep space and as shrouded in mystery to the general public as they were at the end of ME1

[kaotician]

I know what you mean, but my guess is part 2 is intended to introduce you to the characters who will play roles both large and small in the holocaust to come, to humanise the struggle.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

smudboy wrote...

None of the characters, save Mordin (and his plot device/loosely tied situation), have a major role in ME2.  They're all just along for the ride...

This ^

Honestly, the fact that many have far less dialogue than the ME1 characters aside, part of the reason why they just felt like warm bodies to toss on the sucide mission is just how little they actually played a part.

Yes, they have a loyalty mission, whoopidy do. A loyalty mission that is COMPLETELY self contained, and in some cases not even necessary.

Honestly, its hard to believe how Bioware said "the squadmates are the focus of the game".

Sure, they take up the lions share of side content, but in terms of the suicide mission and what little plot ME2 has, they are amazingly superficial.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 14 février 2010 - 11:09 .

[Wynne]

I think for ME2 they didn't think they had to focus on evoking the wonder of space or establishing the backdrop quite as hard anymore. They did some awesome stuff on Illium and Omega in fleshing out the galaxy and its races, but there was nothing so beautiful and breathtaking in terms of minor mission worlds as Amaranthine or or the sun of Solcrum anymore. While they had some variety in the sidequests, it wasn't as much as I'd have hoped for planets-wise.

While I hated being forced to drive the Mako over a vast space full of mountains designed to slow my vehicle's speed to an absolute CRAWL, I enjoyed the thresher maw battles, the ability to use a tactical vantage point and make the most of my sniper rifle, and above all, the sense of awe I felt in stepping onto a lonely, uncharted world with only the two friends at my side to experience it with me.

I think what we wanted was not just improved gameplay hooks (and I mean, visibility problems are... a step in the right direction, but not exactly what I'd call fun-enhancing) but a continuation of that alien feeling. Something lonely and isolated, something quietly sinister, something that fills the player with a compelling realization of how small we are and how big the galaxy really is, and how ancient... a sort of counterpoint to awesome crowded worlds like Illium. I'd rather fight a spooky/bizarre alien species than a bunch of mercs any day--there were quite a few too many mercs in ME2.

I think a lot of the disappointment despite ME2 being, in my opinion, a highly awesome game, is the loss of that incredibly addictive feeling the first game had. The feeling of exploring and discovering and seeing the chilling or wondrous or poignant evidence of civilizations long past, and the connection we had to the Protheans when our species wasn't yet developed. Seeing the surface of a planet that few other people have walked because it's so hostile to life, braving exotic hazards which DON'T hold a gun... these were intoxicating feelings. ME was different from most shooters not only because of the RPG elements but because it threw stuff like the rachni at you, and then surprised you by making them a vastly misunderstood species that the player had the opportunity to save. Even their short appearance of sorts in ME2 filled me with an amount of emotion which shocked me. ME made me feel like there were things in the galaxy which seemed straightforward, seemed obvious, but weren't. I loved the revelations concerning Legion in ME2, but I just wished there were more moments like that and fewer random merc/robot-killing missions as sidequests. There was an interesting narrative tying missions together, and I loved Jarrahe station, but I wish they'd gone a bit farther with that sort of thing.

One of the things that I hated about System Shock 2 was that towards the end of the game, I began to feel disgusted. Just jaded and disbelieving of one feature of that game world that had initially mesmerized me. There are all these logs of dead people, casualties of the menace on board the ship, and eventually I figured out that no matter how it seemed, nobody would EVER be alive. You never want the player to stop believing they might find a survivor somewhere. Yes, tragedies and disasters where everybody died are sad... but they only really feel meaningful if you never find yourself thinking, "yeah, whatever, you just don't find survivors ever." When you never manage to save anybody, you stop investing. You stop caring. It becomes just another game, not a world you're sucked into. The Collector missions were done very well in that you DO feel like you can save some people--the random missions didn't feel like that at all. I'd rather they give the player a choice over saving resources and saving people than yet another "kill all the mercs because they killed everyone here" mission or a "save all the crates" mission. I want to feel like I can make a difference--help people, help other species.

That sense of personal, emotional investment is the most powerful tool in storytelling and in gameplay--I was going NUTS all OVER the Collectors at the end of the game. I was going to punish them for taking my crew. I was going to keep them the hell off my tech specialist, my biotic, etc. I LOVED that feeling of yeah, we can do this, these are my people and they believe in me and I took care of them and they won't let me down! That's what makes something a battle rather than just a video game boss fight.

I wanted more minor missions and sidequests with emotional investment as a part of them... but then again, it's Cerberus, not Alliance. The Alliance would send you on rescue missions; Cerberus is more brutal and focused on what they can use than whom they can save. I'm hoping that in ME3 we have more of a chance to make human contact with more than just merc after merc after merc that any garden variety Alliance soldier could be killing. To have a new sort of goal every time, rather than just killing bad guys and flipping a switch. I want ME3 to be--well, more thoroughly sprinkled with creepiness. Like the derelict Reaper. I like the feeling that a new and nastier sort of doom might be lurking around the next corner. I like feeling as I did on the Collector ship; that I'm just two steps away from a fate worse than death; that innocent normal people like my parents could've been taken and twisted. That I'm tainted just for standing here, that I must erase this sick poison from the galaxy.

ME2 did a lot of great stuff, but it's hard to reinvent your style without losing some of what amazed people about the first game. I'm hoping that for 3, with our feedback, the final game will be outstanding--if they take the best of ME1 and ME2 in both content and gameplay, then they simply can't go wrong.

Modifié par Wynne, 14 février 2010 - 11:12 .

[Nozybidaj]

facialstrokage wrote...
With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game.

You are mistaking character introductions for development.  The only characters in ME2 that had development, that actually changed and grew as characters were Tali, Garrus, and if he was alive Wrex.  Even Shepard didn't have any real growth or change throughout the game.

The ME2 characters were SO much better than the ME1 characters.

That is entirely your opinion.  I think the ME1 characters were SO much better than the ME2 characters. 

Point is, no matter how either of us feel, it wasn't really fair to the ME1 fans to completely remove their emotional attachment to the game simply because you didn't like them.  Those were the characters that had the greatest opportunity for character development and to create real tension and growth in the game, not just for themselves but for Shepard as well.  Completely removing them was a monumentally stupid move.

In ME2, Your team really is your family.

They felt more like resources to me.  People to thow at the Collector base as cannon fodder considering I recruited them for the sole purpose of killing them on a suicide mission.

Bioware wouldn't just throw them out.

Looking at the transition from ME1 to ME2 I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, they've done it before.  BW could pull the same thing they did with the ME1 crew and sideline them all to short and inconsequential cameos. 

People like you make me hope they do.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 14 février 2010 - 11:21 .

[Computron2000]

For those that think the ME2 characters will be like Wrex in ME3, i would like to point out that it is not difficult to reuse them.



Fix 2 characters (Liara +1 new fellow) then let every other character be based off the suicide mission results except Zaeed. You can actually reuse the ME2 squad selection screen as there is sufficient space (discounting the DLC characters)



Starting a new shepard will use defaults (Zaeed is probably set as dead as he is an optional DLC, not sure about the rest), much like ME2. If i was bioware, i would also kill a few fan favoriates so that it makes ME2 players care more about the suicide mission results.



Slot in missions where the presence of the character triggers additional dialog (much like ME2 already does but with a greater impact), then you are done as ME2 easily has a impact on ME3. Not much needs to be changed either allowing for a heck lot of code reuse. The VAs however would be required to record more and the script and consequence flowcharts would be more difficult but going into ME2 they would have found this out already.

[Nozybidaj]

Computron2000 wrote...

Fix 2 characters (Liara +1 new fellow) then let every other character be based off the suicide mission results except Zaeed. You can actually reuse the ME2 squad selection screen as there is sufficient space (discounting the DLC characters)

You're forgetting someone.  The 2 characters would be Liara and your Virmire survivor.

[Noted Literally]

Nozybidaj wrote...

facialstrokage wrote...
With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game.

You are mistaking character introductions for development.  The only characters in ME2 that had development, that actually changed and grew as characters were Tali, Garrus, and if he was alive Wrex.  Even Shepard didn't have any real growth or change throughout the game.

Even then that development happened between games, not within either game.

[phatpat63]

It's not just a matter of being a weaker story because it's the 2nd in the trilogy. ME2 does virtually nothing to advance the main plot or develop Shepard's character. At best it just amounts to killing time until ME3.

[Nozybidaj]

Noted Literally wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

facialstrokage wrote...
With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game.

You are mistaking character introductions for development.  The only characters in ME2 that had development, that actually changed and grew as characters were Tali, Garrus, and if he was alive Wrex.  Even Shepard didn't have any real growth or change throughout the game.

Even then that development happened between games, not within either game.

True, especially in Garrus' case.  Though with Tali I think they did a good job of showing she had matured and grown.  Wrex as well we at least got to see the payoff.  Though your point still stands.

[Noted Literally]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Noted Literally wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

facialstrokage wrote...
With that said, I think character development is SO apparent in the game.

You are mistaking character introductions for development.  The only characters in ME2 that had development, that actually changed and grew as characters were Tali, Garrus, and if he was alive Wrex.  Even Shepard didn't have any real growth or change throughout the game.

Even then that development happened between games, not within either game.

True, especially in Garrus' case.  Though with Tali I think they did a good job of showing she had matured and grown.  Wrex as well we at least got to see the payoff.  Though your point still stands.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, I liked what they did, especially with Tali, I actually began to think of her as more of a character and less of an Encyclopedia Quariannica.  But that's the sorta change that we should see within the game as the story progresses, too.  Like Garrus in ME1, but moreso, since its the focus of this game.

[Sailfindragon]

I am fairly new to the whole Mass Effect world, so these are just my personal opinions/observations. I enjoyed both games for very different reasons, however one thing that I found missing from ME2 was the fact I really didn't care if the characters lived or died.
There seemed to be much more emotional connection with the original characters in ME, I didn't get that with ME2 (with the exception of Tali, Garrus, Wrex, Liara and Kaiden/Ash brief cameo) Considering the amount of additional dialogue in ME2, I would have thought I would have had at least some emotional connection to the new squad-mates. It just wasn't there.
I also found myself feeling that Shepard was a totally different character/person in ME2, the character seemed to have been brought back from the dead with most of his defining principals missing.

Don't get me wrong. I did really enjoy playing ME2 and have played it and ME both on Xbox and the PC several times, but to be honest I felt like I was playing two entirely different games with a little bit of cross-over. There seemed to be no real connection IMO to ME and ME2.

I would say that the only thing that urked me somewhat in ME2 is that when you finish the suicide mission you get the opportunity to continue building relationships, doing side missions and general exploring (if you didn't already do them)  But all you get from crew mates are one liners about the collector base and then they all revert back as if the mission has never happened. There is also no additional dialogue with Anderson about how the mission went, if you return to the citadel. 

On a separate topic - I really hope that any DLC they release will be intergrated into the main story somehow.

Modifié par Sailfindragon, 15 février 2010 - 12:46 .

[tertium organum]

Did ME2 even set the stage for ME3 ? I don't see it. What in this game is a bridge for what's to come? Every single one of your team members can be written out. The Reapers are still coming and you still know next to nothing about them - they're using Protheans and they use species to build themselves. OK, so how are we going to fight them? What does that picture of Harbinger tell me?

At the end of ME1, I knew that we'd just stopped a huge threat, the citadel was a trap, and luckily, we were able to stall the Reapers. Now what? They were still coming! So we had to find out how we're going to stop them. Great setup - you discovered the trap but this only delayed the threat, not eliminateit. Now, you have to find out how you're going to defeat them. And this is not neccesarily going to be easy or cheerful - it could be just as dark as Bioware was implying Instead, we get ME2's 'story' in which nothing about the main threat really happens. It ends in the exact same fashion, except instead of anticipation, you're confused. What? So what exactly are we going to do?
The main plot of ME2 would have been a great expansion pack with your ME1 team - then you'd have an even better explanation for why they're all missing in ME2. They died or were seriously injured in this suicide mission against the Collectors. But alas, what's done is done. Hopefully, Bioware recognizes the big gaps they have to fill and release something in the interim that involves a lot more story.

Modifié par tertium organum, 15 février 2010 - 03:41 .

[malres]

Over00 wrote...

When people saw The Empire Strikes Back they thought the same thing.

Now ask them about that movie ...

The comparison won't hold. Empire developed the characters and advanced the story in huge leaps: Luke progresses on the path of Jedi knightship and faces Darth Vader. Han starts courting Leia and progresses from rogue to rebel. The victory at Yavin turns into utter defeat following Hoth. The true antagonist, Palpatine, is revealed.
In comparison, ME2 delegates two thirds of the original team to supporting characters. In their place, lots of new characters are introduced, including loyalty missions etc. This is character exposition, not development!
For example, Jack is a powerful biotic, but mentally instable and deranged. It is implied the loyalty mission is her character development, but it actually doesn't change her a bit. The same is true for any other character. The loyalty missions all tell a story, but they don't lead to a character change, hence they don't develop the character.
Empire got lots of flak in its time because of its dark cliffhanger ending, but not because it failed to progress the story.

If Empire was anything like ME2, then Hoth would never have happened. Instead, the movie starts on Yavin where Chewie, Han and R2D2 would have been delegated to supporting roles. Leia would have travelled the galaxy for 90 minutes recruiting half a dozen new rebels such as a robot seeking its creator, a former starfighter pilot dealing with parenting issues, or other disturbed individuals who make great characters in and of itself but have no apparent value for the rebellion other than pure strength or skill (meaning they are more mercenary than rebel). The movie plot would have revolved about dealing with each of their issues, much too briefly at that and again with little to no visible connection to the rebellion, the empire or anything, before finally turning to the imperial antagonists who have been quietly flying attacks on Yavin in the background. Nothing is said about what the Empire was up to after the death star's destruction, instead the carefully selected and "developed" team destroys a number of star destroyers for ten minutes and the movie ends.

Modifié par malres, 15 février 2010 - 03:53 .