218 réponses à ce sujet

[facialstrokage]

Noted Literally wrote...


If your point is that Mass Effect 2 manages to have a lot more good 'moments' I'd absolutely agree.  But the problem is that while there are those intense points of emotion, they happen and then are never mentioned for the rest of the game.  My issue with the game is not that it doesn't set up strong characters, its that it sets up strong characters and then doesn't do anything with them.  It's all well and good for Shepard to step and prevent Jack from killing the other survivor.  But that's Shepard showing Jack the path to freedom, the question is whether or not Jack walks it, whether or not she can release her past.  And the tragedy is that the suicide mission is the perfect place to test that (ergo whether or not she is able to release her path in the form of her antipathy for Miranda.)  Basically my critique is not that ME2 has weak characters, and its not that it has weak moments.  It's that it has literally the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the real outcome of those missions, whether or not the squad members are able to overcome themselves and prove it to themselves.  And it doesn't.  It boggles the mind.

And your examples kinda prove my point - the reason that Brave New World is important is not just the world it invokes, it's about the reactions of the characters to the differences between their worlds, most dramatically in the form of John, who starts out wanting to experience life in said New World and ends up rejecting it and hanging himself.  Macbeth is entirely about change, its about the transformation of a popular, beloved leader into a cruel and vicious tyrant, and we can point to specific points in each act that demonstrate this change.  And I never read the Grapes of Wrath, but even skimming the wikipedia I can point to the character of Rose of Sharon.  None of these works content themselves to merely exploring the characters at the beginning - the characters change and grow with time, and are notably and demonstrately different at the end.  Hell, Macbeth is noticably different at the beginning and end of each Act!  The moments that impact us are the ones that demonstrate, conclusively and undeniabley, that a character has changed, like Macbeth's breakdown, or John's suicide as his ultimate rejection of the Brave New World.  (Alternatively there are thematic moments, but honestly that's not something I expect from Bioware, that's more Obsidion's forte.)
...

Basically, all of these characters, including Miranda, enter the suicide mission on the borderline of change, for good or ill.  They've all taken steps towards doing things differently in their lives or philosophies, but haven't yet really committed.  But Miranda is forced into a situation where she has to choose - does she change her views on Cerberus and what exactly is justified in the pursuit of humanity's interests?  And she does.  I fistpumped when this happened, because it was awesome to see the same woman who said 'only time will tell if you will be an asset or a liability to our cause' come around to my point of view.  But the same sort of things should have been done for Grunt, Thane, Jack, Mordin, and Samara.  Or if not all of them, than at least most of them, the ones that stick out as really needing said resolution (Jack probably tops that list).

Then there are all the other characters that could use some sort of conclusion to their arcs.  And, like I laid out in my earlier post in this thread, the perfect place to do this at the end of the game; dramatically speaking its pretty much the only place.  It would, granted, have made the long and exhausting, but it would also be a few hours of nonstop awesome, and watching as the rippling effects of your choices and dialogues throughout the entire prior game come together.  While it wouldn't have made the Reapers any weaker, it would have given the protagonists significant narrative momentum, possibly enough for them to punch out Cthulu.  Maybe.

I feel like we're not even on the same page anymore. Let me put it this way. If this were an essay, this would be my thesis:
What sets ME2 apart from other games is that its story is both immersive and multidimensional.

I still don't understand your obsession with having a recursive end to each character's story arc. Their loyalty missions are stories in and of themselves. Their loyalty is implicitly reflected in the last mision, i.e. whether they survive or not. But the loyalty missions themselves are personal. If you look at the story as a linear progression of the suicide mission, then there's really not much going on. But like I mentioned, the game is about the crew. It's about the adventure, everyone and everything that happens between Shepard's ressurection and the last mission. Bluntly, the game isn't just about stopping the collectors. It's about Shepard and everyone he encounters, kills, and falls in love with. One of the reason Bioware makes such great games is the character immersion. The game places the player in the shoes of the character better than most other game out there- that was the Macbeth reference I alluded to, i.e. the style Shakespeare presented his character, not the character's actual development, sorry for being unclear. And hence, the heart of ME2 isn't simply: stop the bad guys. You can get that from any other game. It's developing relationships: getting to know your teammates and having them open up to you. It's about making heart-wrenching choices, and not for the consequences, but the actual experience of being there and making it. And lastly, it's about stopping the collectors, but that's not to forgoe the other two.

Modifié par facialstrokage, 15 février 2010 - 06:20 .

[tertium organum]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

tertium organum wrote...

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?

Council proves that it will not assist against the Reapers. We learn that the Reapers are coming. We learn that we are going to have to marshel the races that have been forgotten or ignored by the council to combat that threat. We learn that Shepard is a leader capable of uniting people of very conflicted backgrounds and interests in order to face the greater threat. We learn who our best allies are as well as our worst enemies, and find that the line between them might be blurrier than imagined.

The council's reasons are poorly explained and inexplicable - the game should have had you confront them directly before any decision to work with Cerberus. That should have been the first hour -  some visible angst and confusion from Shepard that the council really is denying the Reaper threat after the events of the first game. He should have refused to work for Cerberus on principle and embark on his own only to find out Cerberus is indeed the only one doing anything.  Furthermore, it should have been clearly implied that the council simply do not want to cause unrest and hint that you should just go out on your own - they'll play the fool precisely because they don't know how to deal with the threat and would rather the galaxy be calm than in a state of panic.  Everybody has inferred this is why the council are acting like idiots but Bioware did not make this a subtle or overt suggestion - it's just people using their imagination to fill in something that clearly lacks development. This is a story failing. It's amazing how many folks have given plausible reasons for why the council would be this idiotic but the problem is that none of this is in the game - it is not something subtle you can read from it or something overt and obvious. It's simply not there.


Furthermore, you haven't learned that the council won't help - you learned that they think the Reaper was a geth ship. At the very least, they remain thick-headed until 'more evidence.' You going off to marshall races without the council backing would be a rather ridiculous plot development - if you're renegade, you've pissed of nearly everyone else and you're working with a human centered group. Good luck making your case.  If you're paragon, the council hardly believes you and you're still working with a human cenetered group. Since when did Shepard become ambassador?

Also, you already know that Shepard is a leader - that's why he was resurrected.  We do not learn anything about who our best allies are or worse enemies and what it will take to fight the Reapers or Reaper fleet - every squad member can die and most likely will not return. None of them appear to be permanent or essential for anything to be done in ME3. This is one of ME2's cardinal mistakes - the recruitment phase of the game is entirely undermined by the finale.  You go on a suicide mission and succeed (with some or all). Now what?  The Reapers are sill coming. They were already coming in the first game! Did you delay them further? Hard to tell since the what exactly the human reaper was suppose to accomplish is unclear.  Watch ME3 find another reason to  build yet another team making the actual recruitment in ME2 largely pointless.

And anyone who says that ME2 has a weak antagonist needs realize that the Illusive Man is the most subtle and amazing villain Bioware's ever done. I can't wait to see what he has in store for ME3.

Inform me more. The most subtle and amazing villain Bioware has ever done? Come on folks. This is the sort of praise for this game that is baffling.

ME1 has a more self contained story arch that carries it from beginning to end. As a part of the middle chapter, ME2 requires to be left on a sorta cliffhanger note, with things at their darkest in preparation for the final chapter. Bioware wisely chose to make this one about our team mates and make the game progress in a series of Anthologies of sorts that made the story character driven rather than plot driven. Through these anthology missions, we learn more about not only the people you've gathered around you, but the universe as a whole that Bioware has created.

Why do people continue to describe the form of the story when it is being argued that the story is poor? Regardless of how the story is told, the main arc is poor. Not every film that has a gimmick is good just because it tells the story in a different way. Pulp Fiction isn't a great film simply because it is non-linear and character driven - the characters meld in organic fashion with the story that binds them. Many films that copy or tell stories this way are poor. We can even argue that Pulp fiction is a bad film. You'd be wrong but it only proves my point - the form by itself does not dictate that it is good. Same concept here - people need to stop pretending they have some insight into the form of the story as if  that alone makes it good. It doesn't. The content of Bioware's main plot is terribly dissappointing - all these comments about it being character -driven and episodic are irrelevant. None of this excuses the poor story. 

The real difference between ME2 and ME1 is that ME2 is subtle where ME1 was overt. ME1 presents a fairly typical epic space opera story mixed with a little Star Map collecting plot point by plot point. ME2 is a much less contained story which goes where it will and requires much more participation from the player to connect the dots.

If by subtle you mean "silent" then yes. Otherwise, you're completely wrong. Bioware simply does not talk about what it should leaving all for the fans to debate and people  to excuse.

Modifié par tertium organum, 15 février 2010 - 09:18 .

[Noted Literally]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Each loyalty mission is in itself a somewhat self contained story. The payoff of the developing character is at the end of the mission more than in the game. You usually get one to a few conversations after doing a character's loyalty mission that show their character progression somewhat. While this is somewhat of a pittance, they are on a suicide mission which is (supposed) to be somewhat urgent, so there's not really time to dwell on each character for a retrospective on it.

There is something of a payoff at the end of each mission, and I'm not expecting to see repercussions in other character's missions.   That's part of the reason why these arcs need to be concluded in the final mission, the other being pacing.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
This is kind of the point. They're on the borderline, and the decisions that you made in their loyalty missions determine whether they've developed enough to live. We're likely not going to see the big payoff for that until ME3, which they will presumably have time to deal with the actions of the second game.

Yes I agree, entering the mission they should be on the borderline.  But exiting the mission they shouldn't be, they should conclusively have demonstrated their state as characters.  Surviving falling objects doesn't indicate to me that Jack has made peace with her past, though.

And the problem is that putting it off to ME3 isn't likely to significantly strengthen ME3, and it leaves ME2 half-finished.  What a trilogy should be is one overarching plot, and three self-contained plots.  Its not like completing the developments started in ME2 precludes more development in ME3, quite the opposite - now that the characters have vanquished one set of demons, there's no reason that they can't move onto another, more complex and deeper set.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Agreed, and if anything I would have enjoyed it much more if the final mission was 5 times longer and had a "moment" for each character to shine depending on what happened during their loyalty mission. We get a few of these depending on who you select for certain duties, but it definitely was not focused enough on that character.

However, while a missed opportunity, it certainly does not make me think the characters are any less strong. Perhaps ME3 can provide more opportunities to show on these characters developed and what that means in terms of the overall story.

It's your last paragraph that I really disagree with here, but I can't really respond with anything that I haven't typed just above or just below this.  So, quick version: I think that it significantly weakens ME2, and I think the characters are weakened because they haven't been tested.

facialstrokage wrote...

I feel like we're not even on the same page anymore. Let me put it this way. If this were an essay, this would be my thesis:
What sets ME2 apart from other games is that its story is both immersive and multidimensional.

ME2 is immersive, no doubt about it - if it wasn't I wouldn't bother typing all of this.  But its not a free-world game where immersion is the only relevant attribute.  As a single player RPG, and as the middle part of a trilogy, it has a narrative.  And thats what I'm critizing: the narrative is incomplete.

facialstrokage wrote...

I still don't understand your obsession with having a recursive end to each character's story arc. Their loyalty missions are stories in and of themselves. Their loyalty is implicitly reflected in the last mision, i.e. whether they survive or not. But the loyalty missions themselves are personal. If you look at the story as a linear progression of the suicide mission, then there's really not much going on. But like I mentioned, the game is about the crew. It's about the adventure, everyone and everything that happens between Shepard's ressurection and the last mission. Bluntly, the game isn't just about stopping the collectors. It's about Shepard and everyone he encounters, kills, and falls in love with. One of the reason Bioware makes such great games is the character immersion. The game places the player in the shoes of the character better than most other game out there- that was the Macbeth reference I alluded to, i.e. the style Shakespeare presented his character, not the character's actual development, sorry for being unclear. And hence, the heart of ME2 isn't simply: stop the bad guys. You can get that from any other game. It's developing relationships: getting to know your teammates and having them open up to you. It's about making heart-wrenching choices, and not for the consequences, but the actual experience of being there and making it. And lastly, it's about stopping the collectors, but that's not to forgoe the other two.

I'd agree with you for about half of this, insofar as you say that the game isn't about stopping the collectors, no more than the tests of Heracles were about making sure that King Augeas had clean stables.  The collectors exist solely for the characters to test themselves against.

In fact, maybe that's where we disagree.  I feel that Mass Effect 2 is, or is trying to be, heroic drama.  And as such, the heroes need to be tested.  And you seem to be arguing that ME2 is a good character drama.  The thing is, I don't feel that those things are mutually exclusive; quite the opposite.  The things that you allude to, getting to know your teammates, is what makes the tests I've been referring to meaningful.  If I hadn't talked Garrus, I couldn't care less whether or not he overcomes his leadership crisis.  If all I know about Samara is 'asari warrior-monk' than I'd never be able to appriciate how close she is to self-destruction.  The characters overcoming these issues in a dramatic fashion can hardly weaken the connection you feel with them, can it?  For me it would be quite the opposite, seeing that my words and my actions have changed the people around me makes me feel more engaged in a living world.

And, here is my biggest problem:

facialstrokage wrote...
...Their loyalty is implicitly reflected in the last mision...

This is a statement I disagree with on every level (assuming by loyalty you refer to the fact that the character is overcoming their personal issues, which is what the game seems to mean.)  Why would would the fact that Legion hasn't taken care of the heretics mean that is more easily crushed by debris?  But, even more importantly, it makes no sense to uses implicit conformation in a medium that is inherently explicit.  Show, don't tell, and sure as hell don't make me guess.

[Maj.Pain007]

I agree I felt the same. It just felt alot shorter. I think its due to the fact alot of the missions aren't that big. Like Ferros, Noveria, Virmire, ilos those missions had alot going on and each had their own side missions.

[eternalnightmare13]

ME2 does not even conclude its own plot properly.
What is a human-reaper? How does it help the reapers in their plan for galactic invasion? Why would it need to be made of humans?


Shep was responsible for the destruction of Soverign.  Yes, he had other races with him, but he was the leader and took on the fight while the Council kept their heads buried in the sand. 

The Reapers would want to eliminate the main threat, Shep, before they even got here since Shep could exasperate their planned attack.

From the Reaper point of view Humanity is the strongest race, for the reasons I mentioned above, and they've used organic matter from other races in the past to build Reapers.  They take human colonists to make the Human Reaper for this reason. If they eliminate all of humanity then they'll have less opposition when they arrive.  They may also know, via Saren, that the Council doesn't have much interest/concern about Human colonies especially those outside of Council space.  By targeting those colonies they assume there will be less investigation/opposition to the actions of the Collectors.

Modifié par eternalnightmare13, 15 février 2010 - 10:26 .

[Fhaileas]

tertium organum wrote...

A Really Well Articulated Post

Well said! You expressed my exacts sentiments much better than I have been able to on these boards.

This says it all quite nicely:

Why do people continue to describe the form of the story when it is being argued that the story is poor? Regardless of how the story is told, the main arc is poor. Not every film that has a gimmick is good just because it tells the story in a different way. Pulp Fiction isn't a great film simply because it is non-linear and character driven - the characters meld in organic fashion with the story that binds them. Many films that copy or tell stories this way are poor. We can even argue that Pulp fiction is a bad film. You'd be wrong but it only proves my point - the form by itself does not dictate that it is good. Same concept here - people need to stop pretending they have some insight into the form of the story as if  that alone makes it good. It doesn't. The content of Bioware's main plot is terribly dissappointing - all these comments about it being character -driven and episodic are irrelevant. None of this excuses the poor story.

------------------------

Watch ME3 find another reason to build yet another team making the actual recruitment in ME2 largely pointless.

I agree! I think making it possible for each squadmate to die is BioWare's way of keeping ME3 fresh for new players. If they did make it possible for squadmates from 2 to return in part 3, they would have far too many variables to deal with. There were already enough of those from ME1 to 2. Trying to have the game track which of the 11 characters you had survive from 2 into anything more than an easily interchangeable plot point would be far too much. ME2 was already on 2 discs. I'm sure most had to notice how there were only a handful of assignments this time around in part 2 that included actual interaction or choices. Most of them were throwaway missions where you just killed a bunch of enemies or hacked some meaningless data. I believe BioWare made the self-aware realization, after having to factor in all of the assignments and choices you could make in Mass Effect, that putting in too many more interactive assignments would bog down development of the third game with far too many variables. Again, you'll probably see some of the characters from part 2. But I think most of them will become leaders for their people, while you hunt for a new group of soldiers to help you get the job done.

[malres]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

ME2 does not even conclude its own plot properly.
What is a human-reaper? How does it help the reapers in their plan for galactic invasion? Why would it need to be made of humans?

Shep was responsible for the destruction of Soverign.  Yes, he had other races with him, but he was the leader and took on the fight while the Council kept their heads buried in the sand. 

The Reapers would want to eliminate the main threat, Shep, before they even got here since Shep could exasperate their planned attack.

From the Reaper point of view Humanity is the strongest race, for the reasons I mentioned above, and they've used organic matter from other races in the past to build Reapers.  They take human colonists to make the Human Reaper for this reason. If they eliminate all of humanity then they'll have less opposition when they arrive.  They may also know, via Saren, that the Council doesn't have much interest/concern about Human colonies especially those outside of Council space.  By targeting those colonies they assume there will be less investigation/opposition to the actions of the Collectors.

The point is that you are paraphrasing EDI's conjectures. What is lacking is confirmation by an authoritative source, for example in the way that Shiala, Saren, Sovereign and Vigil confirmed or corrected what Shepard and Liara had conjectured from the beacon visions.

Even if EDI is right, why is the human-reaper so human in appearance when all other reapers which we conveniently see at the end of ME2 have just the same squid-like appearance as Sovereign? How would a human-reaper facitilate an invasion of the reapers? Was the plan to abduct billions of humans in order to build an army of reapers?

You might say that maybe these questions will be answered in ME3, but I am afraid they won't. (Collectors are dead... why would they bother with another human-reaper if the plan failed once?) I rather suspect that the human appearance was to emphasize the horribility of the abomination. Another plot device in a sea of plot devices.

[Walther9]

Wildhide wrote...

Walther9 wrote...

I enjoyed ME2 a lot, it's a great game, and I didn't mind the mechanics changes.

But some things niggle me about the story.

Why kill Shepard? Putting aside the implausibility of his ressurection, it just seemed frivolous and ultimately pointless as a plot device. There is nothing he does as a Cerberus Operative that he could not have done as a Spectre.

Get new and upgraded Normandy? Check!
Get new team of bad-asses custom selected by (insert source here) databases? Check!
Fight Merc Groups, Geth and Collectors? Check!
Visit various Terminus Systems? Check!
Respec and restart from level one? Check! (Normandy destroyed in Collector attack, Shepard recovered but badly injured, rebuilt Steve Austin style by Spectre.

Linearity. Linearity rules ME2.
Quests. Release points for new Dossiers, Loyalties, etc, all linear. Within limited guidelines you have a very narrow choice but to follow the standard path.
Levels. You could basically turn almost every level into a single perfectly straight corridor with groups of baddies to fight along the way. This kills both choice and the feeling of exploration.

Hate to break it to you, but Linearity ruled ME1 as well.  Most places were one of 3 or 4 basic building models with no branching paths for the sidequests.  All the main quests were long, singular corridors as well.  And you could pick which of the 3 main quest plots to do first, and then pick Virmire before the last if you wanted, but it's just as linear as doing the first half of your recruitments in ME2, which at least gives you 10 more loyalty quests you can do for each character at any point of recruiting the others.

At least some of the ME2 quests weren't entirely linear, and I had to doubleback here and there to check for upgrades, etc.

That's a fair enough observation. Perhaps I am recalling the first game through rose coloured glasses. :-) But it seemed to me to feel slightly less directed. Could just be that the story unfolded in time with the quests naturally. Don't know how to say exactly what I mean, it's a subtle thing.

I understand why BW designs this way. It's to prevent people from missing valuable/important items, encounters and/or developments. Still, I would like a little more feeling of freedom and exploration.

[AlchemisticXL]

I got one thing to say. DLC DLC DLC DLC. You know they are planning more dlc because that was the focus when they were making the game. So expect more DLC related to the story or even damn an expansion. They said they wanted to get it right. Look at DAO, with the dlc thats comming out and the new expansion it goes beyond the end game. So everybody that is complaning just wait, im sure there is gonna be some strange crap comming. Seriously...

[AlchemisticXL]

Another thing, make sure you turned on the option for them to check your playthrough status. This info and the forums will determine what direction they will go for dlc and ME3.

[matt-bassist]

God, you guys are such drama queens. ME2 to me was awesome. Maybe it disappointed you because it wasn't what you wanted, but don't come spouting off crap like it's fact. It's your opinion. You can go cry in the corner and "mourn the game that could've been" or you could ENJOY the game's different approach, new characters, new locations, new revelations etc. Your choice. One thing everyone should be able to agree on is that it was a great game. Maybe it didn't live up to your expectations, hell maybe the removal of the inventory system pissed you off to no end... but at the end of the day, ME2 is a great achievement in gaming. You cannot deny this.

[matt-bassist]

Another thing: People who are saying the missions in ME1 (Feros, Noveria, Virmire and Therum) were longer with lots of side quests need to go replay the game. You are speaking from a nostalgic standpoint, and in no way are the main missions in ME1 even double the length of some of the missions in ME2 (which, by the way, there are more of them). Therum can be completed in 15 minutes. On noveria you go to the port, do 2! quests and then go to the research facility, and kill Benezia. On Virmire you go to the salarian camp, shoot wrex (or not) and assault the facitlity and blow it up. Feros is the only main mission I Consider to be long. Other than that, the only other logical reasoning I can see for people saying the missions were longer, was the fact that you drive the Mako around a lot, which takes time.

[matt-bassist]

ME1: 28 hours (including all the quests, side quests and planet exploration)

ME2: 42 hours (including all the quests, side quests and planet exploration)

Mass Effect 2 is the longer game. It just seems shorter because everything is streamlined now. There are a lot more missions, but some of them are shorter than ME1 missions. Planets are no longer huge barren wastelands which you drive around for ages on. While this may change the "SCOPE" of the game, it doesn't change the size.

[Captiosus77]

I have to say I agree that it was a disappointment. After all the elements of the first one, the second one is just a linear half-arsed shooter with bogus RPG elements that really don't matter. As I described it to my friend: It's 20 hours of go do sidequests for your team members and 5 to 7 hours of progressing the story from ME1.

They did little to actually progress the main story arc and little with any existing element INCLUDING Cerberus and the Alliance. For all the anti-Cerberus info of the first game, one would think Shepard would want to actually get some really detailed info on the organization while "working" with in it.. but does that happen? No. Shepard's overall reaction to working for Cerberus: "Meh". Shepard's overall reaction to the Alliance: "Meh." Shepard's overall reaction to the attitude of the Council: "Meh."

Shepard isn't the only person who has a "meh" attitude for the entire game - your entire crew does, as well. You can be a world class arse to them and they'll still follow you into hell. If you've gained their loyalty and you're an arrogant ****** to them, they'll remain loyal. Some of them have reservations about Cerberus and yet they just go "meh, whatever".

We can argue that the game is about "team building" until the cows come home but that simply does not make for a good game when the main, important story, makes up such a tiny portion of the title, especially considering we have no idea if we're even going to be able to KEEP members of this team, or if we're going to be introduced to all new characters, or if we're going to have a hybrid of ME1 and ME2 characters, or any combination of the above, in
ME3.

Beyond the disappointment that was the story arc, the overall gameplay was a complete travesty. They took out two of the major components which made ME1 an overwhelming success - exploration and RPG components (most notably loot and actual character progression). I'm sorry, but a planet scanning mini-game is NOT exploration, it's filler. So they're adding Hammerhead later? Great, but I shouldn't have to BUY something that should have been incorporated into the main game from the start.

I've said elsewhere and I feel it bears repeating: The complaints about the Mako weren't the Mako itself but rather the poorly designed terrain and the complaints about the loot system were the silly omni-gel and the poorly designed inventory management. These are all complaints I agree with and share; However, instead of designing better terrain and a better inventory management system, they just threw it completely out. That boggles my mind completely. I never once heard a complaint about the points system from ME1, and they decided to mostly throw that out, as well, because by level 30 you can have all but one of your base skills maxxed. Combined with the fact that the game throws weapon upgrades at you and you just have to take the game's word on it that they're actually upgrades and the only stat based loot (armor) really has little to no impact on the game as a whole, this is hardly a RPG anymore.

matt-bassist wrote...

ME1: 28 hours (including all the quests, side quests and planet exploration)
ME2: 42 hours (including all the quests, side quests and planet exploration)
Mass Effect 2 is the longer game. It just seems shorter because everything is streamlined now. There are a lot more missions, but some of them are shorter than ME1 missions. Planets are no longer huge barren wastelands which you drive around for ages on. While this may change the "SCOPE" of the game, it doesn't change the size.

You're loony.

I beat ME2 on an imported ME1 save in 27 hours and was level 30 at the end. Everything was done, there was nothing to go back and do. I beat it again with my second, lower level, ME1 Shepard in half that time. 50 of 51 achievements in 6 days.

I spent 39 hours on my first ME1 playthrough, then played through with that character again and found even more quests I hadn't found before. I have a total of 89 hours combined on three characters, and I haven't even gotten the original ME1's DLC. Meanwhile, I have no desire to play ME2 again because, until DLC, there's NOTHING left to do and I can't handle the excitement (/sarcasm) of doing the loyalty missions a third time.

Modifié par Captiosus77, 16 février 2010 - 04:01 .

[AlchemisticXL]

Gonna say it again.... In every interview they had about they game, everyone mentioned DLC will be a major part of the game. Expect dlc on the council and Cerberus. Think about how they left the end game open where you can still explore and talk to people to get their reaction to what your have done. I have a very good feeling there will be an expansion out before ME3 to help build up to the epic finale. Also the first mass effect was new to most of us and took a bit to get a grasp of the flow in the game soo yes it would take longer to beat the first time or second time through. Especially if you play as a different class because its different. Now with that experience and streamlined progression with story and combat a more experienced player would fly through it.

[starfleetau]

Sapienti wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

No, Nyaore, I think OP is right. I mean, you definitely have a point, and I totally agree, but there really was a lot more that could've been done with ME2. Halo 2, a pure, FPS game all-the-way, had much more story that ME2 did. And considering that ME2 is BioWare, that's extremely disapointing.

Though, if we're judging by the climax and rise to the cliffhanger ending, than Mass Effect 2 wins by miles. Halo 2 just sort of... stopped. ME2 just felt rushed.
But the overall experience left me feeling like ME1 was definitely the better game. This is also partially from the lack of hotkeys and dumbing down of the inventory and level-up systems.

Agreed.

People saying "awww but middle chapters are haaarrrddd" isn't really much of an excuse.  People seem to like to compare ME to Star Wars.  Would anyone really claim that nothing happened in Empire Strikes Back?  There were no big revelations, there was no character development, there was no progress with the characters and their relationships?

No of couse not.

However in ME2 that is exactly the kind of questions that keep coming up.  The whole problem with ME2 is centered around this idea of the suicide mission and the removal of the ME1 crew.  Instead of having a chapter where the characters of the series evolve and grow and we learn new and sometimes shocking things about these characters we got another chapter of the trilogy that centered around nothing but introducing new characters.  There was no build up to a final confrontation, there was no progress for the characters individually (that isn't entirely true Tali, Garrus, and Wrex all had what I thought to be well done character development), there just wasn't any progress made.

We are basically back where we were at the end of ME1 except our entire crew is now either dead or off doing who knows what.

Problem with that is you're dealing with a lot of different settings. Sure middle chapters are hard. But the premise for the middle chapter in Mass Effect 2 was building a team. They don't have the same kind of time as a movie would when it comes to development. Choices have to be made. And their choice here was likely character development. ME1 style shallow characters with heavy story, or half ass both. After ME1 what would have been the step for Shepard to take next? Attack the Reapers. Since it is supposed to be a trilogy, the whole game could have just as easily been about him getting ready to attack them. Either that or he starts and then the last game is about him fighting. Like the last Matrix movie. Either way, with this story set up, the middle chapter would have been the build up to the final. Which it was. And the main focus was characters and character development.

Ahh excuse me, where does the 'don't have the same amount of time as a movie does.

Bioware had MORE time, they claim they have Mass Effect set up as a Trilogy all along, there for they have to have the general 'plot' figured out from the start, The first game was under dev for X amount of years, the characters for that game, the core tech background, the cultures etc etc where all developed in THAT game, look at the Codex.. that shows they did ALL of that in the beggining.

Mass Effect 2 should have been primarly - Level Design, Story Programming, Story Build up, Engine Tweeks. Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 both use the SAME engine, Unreal Engine 3, Mass Effect 2 simply uses a newer version of it. Given I've played with the UDK I do know what they are workign with even if I'm cut out from accessing and modifying the 'core'. 

Instead of spending 2 years to build up the story give a LOT of extra plot etc make Mass Effect 2 into something like Star Wars Empire strikes back, we get left with less 'meat' it took me over 40 hours to complete Mass Effect 1, with out completing every side mission. I completed with Paragon Status Mass Effect 2 in 30hrs 21mins. A little over a day.... What I think happened is Bioware lost track of the fact that we wanted STORY, we wanted INTERACTION, we wanted to develop on what we had built.. I swear if we loose all our progress in Mass Effect 3, and have to rebuild the team and everything I for one WILL be pissed off, simply because that appears to be all ME 2 was about, Collecting the team.. I've no problem with that but they could have given us more with the collector side.. instead we have a very very very liner plot line. And all that matters in the end is who lives and dies.. 

Can any one else remember Mass Effect 1 when your forced to choose between Ash or Kaden? your not even at the END of the game, and you make the choice and by that time you've had these two on your 'team' since the start basically and you are attached to them.. making the choice meant something.. Add to that the fact that you could connect with the big bad ass Taurian who has gone rogue and understand him.. etc made the plot so immersive, you could understand HOW he ended up the way he did.

With Mass Effect 2.. we don't get that, we get tad bits 'oh the collectors are Protheans' etc etc.. but we don't get the connection the depth.. what they should have done is had a few missions in there optional or not where you have to go to Prothean ruins and the like.. find information on what they knew, find out what the collectors have been doing for the past X generations.. And most of all they should have made the interactions seem bigger then ohhh Emails sent to your personal console.

Overall I think ME 2 is ok.. But at the same time.. i think they realllllly could have done better.. and they where the ones who set the bar.. with ME and with Dragon Age.

[smudboy]

This is my kind of post.



I too, think they dropped the ball with Shepard as a character, and the ME2 plot.



What's the value in killing then reviving Shepard, aside from him/her being a natural born leader? The Citadel hero, having the Prothean Cipher, being the first human Specter: all of this was useless.



There were plenty of emotional moments with the side characters that Shepard could've been a part of, and we could've seen him develop with those characters, but Shepard's static: he/she never got an arc. We also could've learned about whatever the Collectors were doing, alluding to the idea of a Baby Arnold as we learn more about our unknown enemy, and determined why and who we needed to come on the suicide mission.

[Robbie529]

I am also disappointed that my Liara romance will not survive in ME2. Even a conversation for closure would be much more satisfying than a photo and an air kiss.

[AlchemisticXL]

DLC!!!! I hear alot of people talking about they had the plot set for all 3 games correct? You gotta remember that they took alot of player feed back and that player feed back my change the plot and general ending of the game. Its all about the players. They focused more on refining the gameplay because most people wanted it to be better. Since we are all complaining about the story I WILL BET MONEY that DLC WILL come out BEFORE june that fills in holes and leave the game open and ready to flow into mass effect 3