242 réponses à ce sujet

[Oawa]

TheShady wrote...

Oawa wrote...

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

Well, personally I wanted much more of the Reapers. We got to talk to one in ME1. Nothing like that in ME2. No new information whatsoever.
We also had a perfectly fine enemy army: The Geth. Replacing them with the Collectors that now probably are completely irrelevant again felt like a waste of space.
Spectres were a big deal in ME1 and seemed like a big deal in the alltogether ME lore.
We had plenty of interesting characters (to name a few: Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, Anderson, Udina of sorts, the council, heck... even the Consort)

Also, did we really need Shepard to die? Did we really need 2 years to pass? Did we need Cerberus as such a main force?

I agree more Reaper interaction in the second game would have been cool, but other than in the final mission when you're actually in the Collector base, how could it be justified since they are all still out in Dark Space?  From what I could tell, Harbinger was only able to link/communicate with the Collector General.

After ME 1 the Geth were almost completely irrelevant as well, not totally sure I understand the issue on this one.

ME 1 took place in Council space where, yes Spectres are a big deal.  In the Terminus systems however, they mean nothing.  I can understand the impression of Spectres being a big deal comes from based on the locations the first game took place.

I think we got just as many if not more interesting characters in the second game. 

I don't really think we needed Shepard to die, nor do I think we needed 2 years to pass, but! Considering the fact that ME 2 takes place in a part of the galaxy where the Council and by default the Alliance doesn't have much pull/power in politically.  The Council is very conservative, the Cerberus idea had to be explored. 

[TheShady]

marshalleck wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Those things weren't the purpose of going to those planets, they were simply episodes that took place along the way - that is the difference. The main difference between ME1 and ME2 is plot structure, and while ME2's content and the plot/characters themselves are excellent the structure in which those elements are welded together is severely lacking compared to ME1 giving it a rather fragmented feel.

ME2 is about Shepard's relationships with his/her crew. The Collectors are there as a catalyst to get things moving.

I think the problem with that is that that catalyst has too little screen-time, too little weight, so it's hard to see it as a motivation for the characters and it's hard to see it as the glue that keeps all those unconnected story elements together.

[davidt0504]

Myrmedus wrote...

davidt0504 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

You CAN complete this game without doing a single loyalty mission, and you can even keep Shepard alive through doing so. If you can complete the game without doing something then it is side content.

You're absolutely right about the fact that you can complete this game without doing any of the loyalty missions.  My concern is, you're only looking at this game as a "single" game, and not part of the overral story which is as much about Shepard him/herself as it is about the Reapers.

Shep dying after the final mission is in fact finishing the game, but that is also the end of Shepard and his/her story.

No actually it's quite the contrary - I think looking at this game as part of a trilogy makes its plot imbalance even worse. Quite simply there's way too much plot to get through in ME3 because not enough was involved in ME2. Perhaps that will be remedied with proposed expansion packs but that's not good enough IMO. The lack of core plot also concerns me because I can't see how they're going to wade through all the inevitable plot in ME3, especially with its proposed release being in 2012. Either the plot is going to feel artificially shortened and come to a premature climax or there will be some kind of disclosed climax to the trilogy because of it. The only other option is that the game's plot arc and gameplay will be on the same scale as a Final Fantasy which I find highly unlikely.

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

They didn't 'skip' over anything - or if they did I can't say specifically since I don't know the plot of ME3 - but rather the amount of plot in ME2 leaves ALOT to be wrapped up in ME3.

Think about it. We've faced 2 Reapers total and an entire game has been devoted to battling each one, yet we're meant to encounter thousands of them in a single ME? Either those Reapers are going to lose their individual 'fortress'-like feel, becoming nothing more than big explody things in a space battle cinematics, or the game is going to last 1000 hours+

Not to mention we need to consider:
- How to actually fight them.
- What the hell is going on with Haestrom's Star.
- Potentially recruit entire faction armies.
- Probably sort out issues between the Quarians and the Geth.
- Discern the Reaper's overarcing purpose as a means of maintaining anthromorphisation of the saga's antagonists (in other words if we don't dig deeper into the Reaper's motivations, goals etc. we risk losing them as a humanized antagonist and they become nothing more than a stable bad-guy cardboard cut-out).

These are just things off the top of my head so there's doubtless many more. There's simply too many things to fit into a 40 hour game there, especially if BW want to continue with their high quantity of heavily fleshed out characters. Either it's going to get rushed, not nearly everything will be included or the climax is going to be considerably inadequate.

The main issue with ME2 is that by indulging in all these characters it risks making ME3 suffer, and by extension the whole trilogy suffer.

but your assuming that bioware plans a war like ending with the reapers, I think its pretty obvious that something less obvious is going to happen, something unexpected and it won't end just simply with us blowing up all the reapers, they've intentionally made the story so that it will be nearly impossible for them to do that.

Coming up with something original is fine but if it fails to be true closure on the trilogy then it's a failure of epic proportions - besides I see the Reapers as being incredibly weak to direct invasion by infantry. You get people inside that Reaper is ****ed.

If this wasn't Shepard's last outing then I'd say fine but since it is, and since there has been a personal vendetta-esque conflict developed between Shepard and the Reapers, if they finish his last outing without closure on the Reapers it's going to be poor.

As an example, Lord of the Rings is one of many sagas included in Tolkien's overall works called the The Silmarillion yet it still had a final closure. Even if ME1-3 is merely one trilogy within an over-arcing saga it needs its own true closure.

Oh I couldnt agree more, I'm just saying that they might not have so much stuff to do as far as destroying the reapers as you think

[Myrmedus]

davidt0504 wrote...

I think people are forgetting that there is only one more "story" mission in me1 than in me2

There is but this is the point I was making about structure and pacing. ME1 felt like it had alot more story, be it missions or purely content, because its structure and pacing was superior to ME2. ME2 actually had more content but it was defragmented in its structure, leading it to feel like it had less story.

Structure is everything and it's why ME3 needs true closure because if it lacks it the trilogy's overall structure is then destroyed.

[ZennExile]

Fact: ME2 is cake.
Fact: ME1 was pie.

Fact cake is a lie. 

/fin

Modifié par ZennExile, 14 février 2010 - 03:27 .

[ODST 3]

DOUBLE POST< ****!

Modifié par ODST 3, 14 février 2010 - 03:28 .

[ODST 3]

I find the complainers annoying too, but then I loved the game. It's just too bad they didn't. Ha.

The story worked well to bridge 1 and 3. The only iffy thing was the human Reaper, which I can accept as long as the bad guys in ME 3 are amazing.

Modifié par ODST 3, 14 février 2010 - 03:29 .

[Myrmedus]

davidt0504 wrote...

Oh I couldnt agree more, I'm just saying that they might not have so much stuff to do as far as destroying the reapers as you think

If the Reapers live on then I'm ok with that but I'm finding it hard to imagine a way in which a resolution will be made considering their dogged determination. The only way I can see it happening is through discovering what/who they really are (the Reapers) and some kind of accord being struck. If that happens I'd actually be fine with it, since it would provide further insight and backstory into the most fascinating (IMO) characters in the game.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:37 .

[PiercedMonk]

The problem is not a lack of understanding the story, or even a lack of understanding what the developers were going for with the story. The problem is that the story doesn't quite deliver.

Character based storys are all well and good, but there still needs to be a flowing, concise narrative. Would the developers have been able to some how tie the loyalty quests into the over arching plot? I can't see why not. Would the story have benefited from such? Absolutely. Regardless of how interesting or enjoyable the individual loyalty quests may have been, the fact remains that they were a distraction from the threat of the collectors, which eliminated any sense of urgency the game may have had. Like saving all these colonies is important, but there's no reason it can't be put on hold while we're off to run some errands for friends. 'Mass Effect' had the same problem with Hackett constantly calling you to pick up his dry cleaning or help him move, but at the end of the day, you didn't actually have to do any of that be able to succeed.

Further, for a character based story, one character has been excluded, and it's ommision is painfully obvious. 'Mass Effect 2' lacks any proper antagonist. What would 'Mass Effect' have been without Saren? Faceless hordes of geth are fun to shoot, but Saren provided a focus for Shepard's enmity. A person should be judged by the quality of the enemies, and the absence of a villian in 'Mass Effect 2' really hurts the story. Harbinger dosen't count, because for all it's "assuming control", never once is there a moment where it feels as though Shepard is pitted against an opponent. Harbinger is as lacking in character as all the collectors, and the geth the first go around.

Finally, for a character driven story, there's a distinct lack of interaction between characters. Shepard gets to run around and chat with everyone, but other than Miranda & Jack, and Tali & Legion, there's a distinct lack of acknowledgement by the characters that anyone else exists. Makes me actually miss 'Mass Effect's elevators.

I don't think 'Mass Effect 2' is the worst story out there, or even a bad story, really. It simply isn't up to the standard set by the first installment, or BioWare games in general.

[Myrmedus]

ODST 3 wrote...

I find the complainers annoying too, but then I loved the game. It's just too bad they didn't. Ha.

The story worked well to bridge 1 and 3. The only iffy thing was the human Reaper, which I can accept as long as the bad guys in ME 3 are amazing.

I personally found the Human Reaper to be fine actually. The reason I did was because it was explained, it made sense and it added eerieness to the core plot.

[Oawa]

Haha, I wish I could take credit for what you quoted Myrmedus, but it wasn't me lol.

[Myrmedus]

PiercedMonk wrote...

Further, for a character based story, one character has been excluded, and it's ommision is painfully obvious. 'Mass Effect 2' lacks any proper antagonist. What would 'Mass Effect' have been without Saren? Faceless hordes of geth are fun to shoot, but Saren provided a focus for Shepard's enmity. A person should be judged by the quality of the enemies, and the absence of a villian in 'Mass Effect 2' really hurts the story. Harbinger dosen't count, because for all it's "assuming control", never once is there a moment where it feels as though Shepard is pitted against an opponent. Harbinger is as lacking in character as all the collectors, and the geth the first go around.

Just to add - I also found Sovereign to be a big part of ME1's plot strength. The conversation with it was brief but it provided a huge boost to the plot and to establishing the Reapers as a massive (no pun intended) antagonist in the trilogy. The character they created embodied everything I would assign to a genocidal god and you could almost 'sense' its power purely from your conversation with it - now that's damn good script.

Harbinger was an opportunity to do that again and for much of ME2 I hoped there would be some form of direct contact, even if through a Collector, but it never really came. The best we had was the phrases flung at you during combat. In fact it wasn't even until replaying ME2, once I KNEW that was a Reaper, that I felt a sense of connection to this opponent.

I also definitely think this game suffered from having so much focus put into its art direction and cinematography because while that was absolutely exquisite, the content that is divulged through such practices was weakened.

[TheShady]

Oawa wrote...

TheShady wrote...

Oawa wrote...

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

Well, personally I wanted much more of the Reapers. We got to talk to one in ME1. Nothing like that in ME2. No new information whatsoever.
We also had a perfectly fine enemy army: The Geth. Replacing them with the Collectors that now probably are completely irrelevant again felt like a waste of space.
Spectres were a big deal in ME1 and seemed like a big deal in the alltogether ME lore.
We had plenty of interesting characters (to name a few: Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, Anderson, Udina of sorts, the council, heck... even the Consort)

Also, did we really need Shepard to die? Did we really need 2 years to pass? Did we need Cerberus as such a main force?

I agree more Reaper interaction in the second game would have been cool, but other than in the final mission when you're actually in the Collector base, how could it be justified since they are all still out in Dark Space?  From what I could tell, Harbinger was only able to link/communicate with the Collector General.

After ME 1 the Geth were almost completely irrelevant as well, not totally sure I understand the issue on this one.

ME 1 took place in Council space where, yes Spectres are a big deal.  In the Terminus systems however, they mean nothing.  I can understand the impression of Spectres being a big deal comes from based on the locations the first game took place.

I think we got just as many if not more interesting characters in the second game. 

I don't really think we needed Shepard to die, nor do I think we needed 2 years to pass, but! Considering the fact that ME 2 takes place in a part of the galaxy where the Council and by default the Alliance doesn't have much pull/power in politically.  The Council is very conservative, the Cerberus idea had to be explored. 

Reaper interaction could have been built with finding more of those Prothean reliques. More beacons, for example? Or interaction with an asari that has been indoctrinated for 500 years. Something!

I just think that the Reapers, or even the Collectors, could have taken advantage of the Geth again. Or they could have simly played a different larger role. Wrapping up the quarian/geth quarrel in ME2 for example, could have eased the pressure on ME3. Also, we got Legion. If we would have gotten him earlier in the game, the geth could have played a larger role, perhaps even helping you on that suicide mission. Again... something! I think it's better to recycle old, familiar things and make them deeper than making up completely new things and creating a new learning curve for the audience.

Spectres: It's hard to believe that, after all the "Spectre gets shot by rogue Spectre who then attacks the citadel but is stopped by the first human Spectre" , the other Spectres have not the slightest interest in what the hell happened there. I also find it hard to believe that Shepard is the only one having problems with the Council. Spectres can't be dumb. They also are largely independent. Not one of them believes in the Reapers, after one of their well-respected colleagues and hero proves their existence? I would have loved recruiting a fellow Spectre. Just saying. We have Spectres. Why let them collect dust?

About the characters, well... personally I felt very unconnected to most. There's a brutal lack of conversations with them and many of those felt very superficial, hardly touching on anything really interesting, with some notable exceptions of course. A sign of that are the romances. I felt none of them were really emotional or anything but superficial.

[Myrmedus]

Oawa wrote...

Haha, I wish I could take credit for what you quoted Myrmedus, but it wasn't me lol.

Oh sorry rofl, let me change the name xD.

[ShadowWolf_Kell]

Myrmedus wrote...

davidt0504 wrote...

I think people are forgetting that there is only one more "story" mission in me1 than in me2

There is but this is the point I was making about structure and pacing. ME1 felt like it had alot more story, be it missions or purely content, because its structure and pacing was superior to ME2. ME2 actually had more content but it was defragmented in its structure, leading it to feel like it had less story.

Structure is everything and it's why ME3 needs true closure because if it lacks it the trilogy's overall structure is then destroyed.

This is probably about the most accurate description I've seen comparing ME1 to ME2.

I'd go so far as to say presentation played a large role too.

[Myrmedus]

Oawa wrote...

TheShady wrote...

Oawa wrote...

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

Well, personally I wanted much more of the Reapers. We got to talk to one in ME1. Nothing like that in ME2. No new information whatsoever.
We also had a perfectly fine enemy army: The Geth. Replacing them with the Collectors that now probably are completely irrelevant again felt like a waste of space.
Spectres were a big deal in ME1 and seemed like a big deal in the alltogether ME lore.
We had plenty of interesting characters (to name a few: Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, Anderson, Udina of sorts, the council, heck... even the Consort)

Also, did we really need Shepard to die? Did we really need 2 years to pass? Did we need Cerberus as such a main force?

I agree more Reaper interaction in the second game would have been cool, but other than in the final mission when you're actually in the Collector base, how could it be justified since they are all still out in Dark Space?  From what I could tell, Harbinger was only able to link/communicate with the Collector General.

After ME 1 the Geth were almost completely irrelevant as well, not totally sure I understand the issue on this one.

ME 1 took place in Council space where, yes Spectres are a big deal.  In the Terminus systems however, they mean nothing.  I can understand the impression of Spectres being a big deal comes from based on the locations the first game took place.

I think we got just as many if not more interesting characters in the second game. 

I don't really think we needed Shepard to die, nor do I think we needed 2 years to pass, but! Considering the fact that ME 2 takes place in a part of the galaxy where the Council and by default the Alliance doesn't have much pull/power in politically.  The Council is very conservative, the Cerberus idea had to be explored. 

I definitely think more Reaper interaction was virtually necessary to be honest. For me they MAKE the ME story...what Krogan say is so true but especially in a storyline: you're judged by your enemies. Shepard's presence in the story is so solid because he killed a Reaper...that sentence itself should illustrate the importance and presence this faction has in the plot so not only impersonalize them in ME2 but virtually omit them completely was a bad move IMO; even the one Reaper you come into contact with you're not sure is a Reaper until the end.

Oh, and I actually think more is going to come from Shepard's death/rebirth in ME3...I just have a sneaking suspicion about it. I can't believe TIM would just let you off the leash in such an opportunistic situation.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:41 .

[DuffyMJ]

I really don't get the complaining.  There are the same number of direct-to-plot related missions:


Mass Effect 2: Lazarus, Freedom's Progress, Mordin recruitment (directly involved with the Collectors with the plague experiment, required mission), Horizon Colony,  Collector Ship,  Reaper IFF, and the mission.

Mass Effect 1: Eden Prime, the Fist/Saren connection mission, Feros, Noveria, Therum, Virmire, Ilos/end-run.

The games are structured in the exact same way... Eden/Lazurus are tutorial levels introducing you to how the game works.  Freedom/Fist you prove the connection between the villain and the problem (Saren-Geth,  Collectors-colonies)... etc. etc.  the romance even occurs at the same spot (right before the foreboding end run).

I liked Mass Effect 2, and I think the plot was full of surprises to those who insulated themselves from spoilers.  Ditto mass effect 1 where the business about the reaper cycle was pretty much spoiled at E3 where the asari tells shepard in the casino ("The machines are about to come back!")  Even if a lot of the plot was spoiled though, there were still some really cool minor plot events, like harbinger's true identity.

[kheldorin]

Myrmedus wrote...

The main issue with ME2 is that by indulging in all these characters it risks making ME3 suffer, and by extension the whole trilogy suffer.

That's my main problem with the ME2 story. I enjoyed the story but it does not deserve its place as the 2nd part of a trilogy. The whole emphasis on recruitment/loyalty missions made it feel like the Fellowship of the Ring instead of The Two Towers. I would have no problem with ME2 if there will be an ME4 but I doubt that would happen.

I always felt that the 2nd part of a trilogy should be a time of growth for the main character where he has to overcome some personal conflict and harden himself for what is to come in the final story. There should be a lot of despair, nothing is going as it should be and the galaxy is just not prepared for a reaper invasion. I can feel elements of that in ME2 but it just wasn't emphasized enough. For example even though I worked with/for Cerberus, I never ever felt conflicted about it. There would have been a stronger emotional impact had the Council, fearing that under Cerberus I had turned into an egomanaic just like Saren was, declared me a rogue spectre. They would sent other spectres and the Alliance after me. I would have to choose between surrendering and letting more colonies die or be forced to fight and possibly killing Ashley/Kaiden in the process. I think that would hit home how screwed up the situation is.

The villains should also be gaining the upper hand so as to make the ending of the trilogy that much more sweeter. The reapers aren't even close in ME2. There were much much closer to destroying the galaxy in ME1 than in ME2 for goodness sake. If the reapers had several stages in which to destroy the galaxy, I think I just stopped them at Stage 0. The reapers need their credibility back. The reapers should have "won"  in ME2 but in the process their victory also shaped Shepard and his team into a fearsome force.

It's glaringly obvious when comparing Baldur's Gate II, KotoR II or even Dragon Age that ME2 is fairly weak in the darker aspects of its story. Kreia was an awesome manipulative villain, I hated how Irenicus tortured Imoen and DragonAge was about making a horrible situation just less horrible . 

[Forest03]

Most of those who were disappointed with ME2's plot line have less issue with the character involvement or immersion than said character's contribution to the main plot, which is taking down the Reapers. For some people, digging into a character's background story and making use of some unique skills in your squad is enough. That's fine. ME2 has excellent game mechanics and nicely designed missions. I finished it with both my male and female Shepard imports, and I was satisfied with that.

However...

ME1's gameplay (Mako driving aside) was nicely interwoven with its main plot. Every time you met a new character, you knew it would lead to something more than just personal vendettas and side missions. Every time you landed on a planet and added someone to your team or added information to your database, it gave you one more piece of the puzzle and moved you closer to taking down Saren and Sovereign. As linear as it was, those characters meant something and had something important to do.

Regardless of how intricate and interesting some of ME2's characters are, BioWare turned them into cannon fodder, which ticked off a lot of people, including me. With the information we are given in ME2, only 4 out of the 11 team members recruited have something significant to contribute to the game world and possible future events in ME3. Tali has her research into the Geth and dark energy corrupting a star. Mordin has his work with the genophage and Maelon's own research, should you decide to keep the data. Legion gives you the chance to release a virus that will reprogram the Heretics. Miranda is a valuable asset in accessing Cerberus intelligence, and potentially taking it down. All four are very well designed, and I'd love to see what happens to them and the results of their missions in ME3. Unfortunately, BioWare stopped there. Be it to restrict the potentially massive data content required for ME3 or because the writers couldn't come up with anything else, we don't know.

ME2 was thoroughly enjoyable. What I did not appreciate was being handed a dossier and finding out that, even if most of those people get killed, it wouldn't make a difference to the ME universe. The Illusive man might as well have hired a band of Eclipse Mercs to accompany Shepard. At least if they died, no one would care, and it certainly would have saved us a lot of time. The personal stories were alright, enough to make me aim for the "No One Left Behind" achievement. However, the overall plot line holding them together is thinner than the hair on a varren's back. Oh, wait... Varren have scales.

ps. Don't even get me started on the romance elements.

Modifié par Forest03, 14 février 2010 - 04:41 .

[Shockwave81]

davidt0504 wrote...

I think people are forgetting that there is only one more "story" mission in me1 than in me2

This may be true, but many of the completely optional side quests also tied in to the overall story:

For example in ME1 we had:

*Finding dragon's teeth in random bunkers/caves, Husks and Geth everywhere
*Foiling Cerberus at every turn
*Finding a Prothean relic on Eletania, along with numerous bits and pieces on the various uncharted worlds
*Fighting off the Geth heretics and preventing a possible invasion

In ME2 we had:
*Numerous firefights with Mercs, Mechs, and Vorcha that scarcely had anything to do with the Protheans, Collectors or, most importantly, the Reapers.

Shepard had little to no reason to be hunting down each of these factions considering they had next to NO link to the aforementioned story elements, and to make matters worse, we rarely found anything relating to these elements other than a rehashed Prothean vision and a husk factory.

In the space of two years, Shepard has gone from galactic hero to galactic space cop, hunting down organised criminals. Really?

Also, I might have missed something really obvious at the very start of the game, but was it ever explained why Wilson hacked the Mechs and tried to kill everybody on the station? Did he merely have a grudge against Miranda? I'm a bit lost, and I would genuinely like an explanation.

[tsd16]

ShadowWolf_Kell wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

People are just upset because they don't understand anything but plot-driven stories. They claim ME2 was "dumbed down" for the masses and yet can't comprehend characters being the driving force in a story. ME2 is in fact too complicated for them, ironically, because they've evidently never taken any literature courses.

Not necessarily lack of literature courses, though that'd definitely tie into it.  TV now days offers little room for any critical thinking whatsoever.  It's all designed to spoon feed you whatever a particular network wants to spoon feed you.

It's so bad, people watch shows like House, ER and so on and then ARGUE with their doctors about their diagnosis just because they saw it on TV.  I'd quote the statistics that I'd read on how badly they were off on their "self diagnosis", but I honestly don't recall what the number was other than a high percentile.

When I was taking my various psychology classes awhile back, I actually ran across quite a few psych journals through ebscohost and other sources that delved into that, as well as the consumerism issues and other things.  Quite a bit of interesting info, but at the same time rather depressing.

The reason I was even looking at the information was for a research paper I was working on for cause and effect of apathy, technology and society in general and how our core values have been dwindling away and taken for granted.

That said, it's not that people are dumb now days.  Quite the contrary in many ways.  It's that they lack the incentive to think for themselves.  Why think for yourself when the internet will give you the "answer"?  Escapism is so much more interesting to them rather than using critical thinking to determine what's BS and what's not.

not pointing you out in any way whatsoever.  You just brought up a point that annoys me on a forum.   people act like they are an expert on a subject because they are currently  studying it in college.   In reality you probably have a little more off the top of your head knowlege, if that, on a particular subject over a layman that may look into the topic out of personal interest. 

I can use myself as an example, I was a comp-sci major and figured, while in school I was an authority on the subject of computer programming/networking etc.   Ive been a developer for 5 years now, what I knew upon graduation doesn't even scratch the surface of what I know now, and isnt even an afterthought to what I still dont know

[MassEffect762]

@ShockWave81

Regarding Wilson, I want to believe it was about both money and jealousy but I can't say for certain. I'm assuming this off of those holo vids we see/hear.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 14 février 2010 - 04:39 .

[Myrmedus]

kheldorin wrote...

The villains should also be gaining the upper hand so as to make the ending of the trilogy that much more sweeter. The reapers aren't even close in ME2. There were much much closer to destroying the galaxy in ME1 than in ME2 for goodness sake. If the reapers had several stages in which to destroy the galaxy, I think I just stopped them at Stage 0. The reapers need their credibility back. The reapers should have "won"  in ME2 but in the process their victory also shaped Shepard and his team into a fearsome force.

I highlighted this because I think it's very significant: BW said they took considerable inspiration from The Empire Strikes Back but they seemed to forget arguably the most important aspect of that instalment (save for the obvious famous quote) to the point that it's even in the damn title - the bad guys won!!

It set the finale up perfectly and raised the stakes considerably. It also allowed a great ping-pong narrative between the Empire and the Resistance, bringing them together in close promixity and producing ALOT of direct interaction both on a large-scale and on a personal level. The Reapers simply weren't in the game enough to ever claim a victory, and even if they had it would've had hollow ramifications for the plot as the loss wouldn't have been personalized enough. Maybe they planned for the losses endured in the suicide mission to fulfill this role but those losses needed to be felt at the hands of the Reapers not the mindless Collectors.

It's glaringly obvious when comparing Baldur's Gate II, KotoR II or even Dragon Age that ME2 is fairly weak in the darker aspects of its story. Kreia was an awesome manipulative villain, I hated how Irenicus tortured Imoen and DragonAge was about making a horrible situation just less horrible .

Kreia was so awesome as a 'villain' that I didn't even perceive her as such, even at the very end. I perceived her similarly to Darth Vader: a tragic hero(ine)/anti-hero(ine).

Shockwave81 wrote...

In the space of two years, Shepard has gone from galactic hero to galactic space cop, hunting down organised criminals. Really?

Definitely in agreement here, there was WAY too much focus on the merc factions in this game. To highlight the stark contrast, in ME1 we simply saw "Mercenary" when encountering one. Yet in ME2 not only do we have the different factions but the sheer number of times we fight them is ridiculous. All of a sudden they've gone from a fringe opponent to a force that rivals the presence of the Geth in ME1. Not that I have an issue with fleshing the various bands out, in fact I support it as I found "Mercenary" in ME1 kind of tacky, but I can't disway from the opinion that ME2 was overkill on that front.

Also,
I might have missed something really obvious at the very start of the game, but was it ever explained why Wilson hacked the Mechs and tried to kill everybody on the station? Did he merely have a grudge against Miranda? I'm a bit lost, and I would genuinely like an explanation.

I think Wilson did that purely because of a pay-off. If you play his log he speaks grudgingly about how much money was spent on reviving Shepard and wished TIM would share some of the monetary love with him.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 05:06 .

[EricHVela]

I think one part that's too complicated for us ignorant jerks is when the game uses Paragon and Renegade for "Right" and "Wrong", respectively. Our simple minds cannot fathom that the universe is so black and white... especially for a setting that is so convoluted. We don't get how the game dictates its morals to us as individuals. While "passive" and "aggressive" used to generate a reputation with the character while letting the player decide if the outcome is agreeable, ME2 has decide when aggression is warranted and rewards or punishes people with a superficial appearance glitch (and a weak explanation for it as well).

We also don't get how people accept a step back when it comes to an epic story. Instead of thwarting a massive invasion and saving the galactic hub, we save some Humans and kill an infant Reaper in its crib. No. We don't want to thwart a massive invasion and save the galactic hub again, but surely, the Reapers could come up with something better to challenge us beyond what happened in ME1. If they're saving challenge that for ME3 and ME2 is just a prelude, then ME2 is not deserving of a full sequel number and should be an epilogue to ME1 instead. (This is what it feels like.)

Why does there have to be a trade-off between main and side content? Why can't important side-quests exist along with an epic story? Instead of more than ME1, we get a lesser story with unrelated stories thrown in. In ME1, the plot missions were the only requirements and they were directly tied to the story. All the unrelated stories were optional. In ME2, you have required missions that have nothing to do with the story. The individual character's background has no impact on the story whatsoever. They are busy missions with game mechanic rewards and nothing more. This is not depth. This is baggage.

People who love this game tend to love the gameplay. They like doing tasks to unlock powers that make them more uber or gets them moar lootz. Do they really care if it fits in a story? I doubt it. These are the people who would rather skip to the objectives. EA likes these people.

People who are disappointed with this game are disappointed with the story... rightly so. This story is not Bioware-worthy. These are the people who understand that anyone can make a game with good mechanics and ME2 is such a game but understand that Bioware has done such in the past along with a great, cohesive and epic story that doesn't preach some global morality upon the player and ME2 is not that game. These people find rewards beyond mere lootz. Bioware used to fill this niche.

Of course, these are just my personal conclusions based on the feedback in these forums. It's as valid as the accusations and labels being thrown around by all of you.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 14 février 2010 - 05:18 .

[Knoll Argonar]

Please, ME1 was really poorly written compared to ME2.



You just have to look at the Geth/Quarians subplot in the game. Not just the "oh lulz a bad guy with machines I have to destroy", but a hole intrigue culture problem between organic and synthetics.



Anyway, LOL for whoever said that ME2 "core plot" was lacking.



You don't get to speak to a Reaper? WHO CARES!? They are all in Dark Space. When I finished ME1, I never though I would fight a Reaper in the sequel, because YOU stopped them from coming! It made no sense from a plot standpoint to have reapers in the galaxy on ME2, unless you find out that thet were creating one to replace Sovereign.



In ME2, you get to know where Sovereign was all this time, who created it, how, and what were the reapers going to do to replace him. In ME2 you just trap reapers in Dark Space even more than en ME1, because now they won't be able to "reproduce". In ME2 you get to know more about the reapers than in the first game! You even get to now better how the reapers actually harvest all organic life, and more importantly, why.



I Think that some people don't get that the main plot is not about destroying Reapers, but to get sure they can't destroy us organics. Hell, it's the only thing you do in the first 2 games of the series =/



It's true that there are other things that really where mentioned just to say "hey, you will see it in ME3" like the sun issue from Tali's recruit mission.



And, well, I didn't even talk about the "character driven" system. I'll just remember to everyone what Jacob said: you all are going to a Suicide Mission, you want to get all your life's problems solved before that. Make sure you say "goodbye" to everyone you love.



Come on, Bioware, you are doing right.