242 réponses à ce sujet

[davidt0504]

well lets look at it this way, me2 is already bigger and better (thats what she said ) in my opinion than most other games out there if not all.  But there are areas that could be improved or added upon so thats where dlc comes in.

[TheShady]

davidt0504 wrote...

sorry but anyone could also apply those same points to me2
[*]Shepard is killed but is revived in order to take on the collectors (luke overcoming injurys, which in itself was hardly worth mention in ep. V)
[*]Shepard faces ash/liara/kaiden and works out the relationship from the first game/ shepard deals with working with cerberus and being ostricized by most of his old allies (luke faces demons)
[*]It is revealed that the collectors are actually protheans (darth vader is luked father/revelation)
[*]Liara goes from innocent and niave archaeologist to hardened information broker (han changes from rogue to charming rebel)
[*]The humans are taken from horizon/freedom's progress (rebel's defeated at hoth)
[*]Ten new characters are revealed/ others who don't play as much a role also (three new characters revealed)
[*]This last one is not so much but we find that the collector general is only a puppet for harbinger, we don't really learn the reapers true motives but are given a glimpse but due to the nature of the story this would fit in much better in the third act of the trilogy (the emperor is revealed as the ultimate antagonist and someone who even darth vader bows to)

So see its all a matter of how you interpret the story, most everyone's complains are ultimately about not personally likeing something not that the story itself is lacking. 

Shepard dying was one of the most unnecessary things in story-telling history. I don't get how that was any good idea. The 2 year jump too, was vastly unnecessary. Bioware likes to do that...

The conversations with Ashley/Kaidan and especially Liara are hardly worth mentioning. Except for Garrus and Tali, none of the old characters make any meaningful appearance. And those two are strangely quick to ignore you working with Cerberus.

Collectors are new enemies. They were introduced in ME2 and were not mentioned at all in ME1. So there's not really a revelation there, but simply an identification of who that new enemy is.

Han is a main character. Liara plays a minor role in ME2 and we don't see her change, she just changed. Also, the reasoning behind it is questionable. Asaris are supposed to be slow in their emotional and overall development...  Also, come to think of it, why the hell did she even completely surrender Shepard to Cerberus and not demand to be allowed to stay throughout the process... She was in the better bargaining position.

The human colonists are no major faction, whereas the rebels in SW are. They're civilians, innocents, completely uninvolved with anything that is Reapers, Shepard, Spectres, Geth, etc.

Ten new characters are WAY TOO MANY. They get too little screen-time, too little depth, have too little importance, are mostly replacable, and mostly have no connection to anything that was in the past ME-plot.

I fear that the Reapers are too complex to wrap up in one game. It will almost certainly feel rushed. With such stuff, with a "character" or villain this interesting and complex you need to take your time with the information and revelation. Star Wars took quite a while to flesh out the Empire , Darth Vader and the Emperor.

TyDurden13 wrote...

TheShady wrote...

TOBY FLENDERSON wrote...

Plot: a story arc involving the evolution of events and characters.

You just got learned.

And how do the characters evolve?

They just float around in the story, untouched by anything but Shepard and their own history. There's no connection to the present.

"There are no second acts in American lives." - F Scott Fitzgerald.

Uh... Ok...
(F Scott Fitzgerald = 1; USA = ~ 300,000; America = ~ 900,000,000; World = ~ 6,500,000,000)
If you use a quote as an argument, you should add your own interpretation.

[davidt0504]

@theshady



all of your points are purely your opinion,



shepard dying is only unnecessary in your opinion, I liked it and thought it worked as a good plot

device that allowed the story to more quickly change into a different tone than the first.



the two year gap is also an opinion and also made moot by your own reasoning, as the gap between episode 4 and 5 is much larger like 3 years or something. Once again it allowed things to develop that would have had to watch develop instead of getting the shock at how different things were since me1.



Liara is a major character for the entire series but didn't play as much a role in the second act, but bioware has pretty much alluded that most characters from me1 were left out of me2 so that they had to survive.



The collectors, it doesn't matter that they were introduced into me2 because the protheans were such an integral part of me1 and as such basically so were the collectors in a way.



the humans are a major faction of the game, human colonists are human.



Ten new characters is a pretty good ratio when compared to three being added to a two hour movie and a twenty to thirty hour game. And seeing how the emperor was given less screen time than harbinger (a couple of seconds).



your fear that the reapers cannot be resolved in me3 is simply an assumption, you have no idea how bioware plans to finish the series up, good writers can pretty much make anything happen in a good way so that point is left moot until me3.

[davidt0504]

@theshady again



its fine if you didn't like me2's story but your arguement that the story isn't good is simply invalid, its all a matter of opinion. But bioware's writing is no less "good" than lucas' writing, I would even argue that in someways its better *coughprequeltrilogycough*

[dinin70]

Fluwm wrote...

As yet, Bioware has repeatedly failed to deliver a solid overarching plot. For nearly every outing, we've been defeating randomly evil demon things. Because of this, Bioware games necessarily rely more on the characters and character interactions. Sometimes, there's not a lot of depth to this, and the game suffers--this was a flaw in ME1, and DAO was astonishingly bad in this respect. ME2 isn't about the big picture plot--which is a GOOD thing, because the big picture plot sucks (thus far: it's possible it'll turn into something genuinely interesting in ME3, but I'll not hold my breath).

It's the details--and in this case, the characters--that matter most. The level of polish and care taken with each of the characters in ME2 is... unparalleled. ME2 is not about killing bad guys. It's not about saving the galaxy. It's a game about people--how you deal with people, and how people deal with you. The dialog wheel and interupt system are the heart of the game, and make it so incredible.

Eh... think I got sidetracked a bit there. Whoops.

Yup, agree. That's why I don't say (yet) ME2 story sucks. My point is quite simple. If Bioware made us spend all the time and money to gather a team in this game and that those people won't be present in ME3, then actually for me ME2 will suck.

ME2 will have a point of existing if the recruitables will also be present in ME3.

But I will repeat myself, If the transition between ME2 and ME3 will be as sharp as the transition between ME1 and ME2, this means ME2 is just BORING and it resumes itself to : gather people; gain their loyalty and make the final mission --> this would mean it's the Bioware game with the smallest and easier scenario ever.

[nitefyre410]

davidt0504 wrote...

So apparently some people don't get the concept that the part of recruiting your team is just as integral to the plot and overall story as the missions with colletors.  Not just the recruiting but even the loyalty missions are integral to the story.  I present evidence of this in that if you just breeze through as little squad stuff as possible to tackle the collectors, you die and that game can't be used in me3.  This game is not all about shepard fighting the collectors.  Just like mass effect 1 was not all about shepard hunting saren.

 


^ I'm with  the OP on this ME  2 is more Character  driven   and  that brought more life to the ME universe... 

[davetheboy]

The Emperor got less screen time, yet somehow he made bigger impact on the 2 part as a whole. I mean, do you think people will remember Harbinger, a guy who fails at what he does, or the Emperor, a guy who had Vader as his lapdog? Truth is, ep. V had characters tied closely to the plot. ME2 has characters that, in most cases, are irrelevant to the plot. If the entire Reaper armada is defeated in ME3, then it'll be rushed like hell. You just don't kill hundreds of bad guys, who are better than you in a couple of minutes.

[smudboy]

Lord Nicholai wrote...

smudboy wrote...

it's up to us to recruit said people and solve this mission however we like.

But we don't know why, nor do we get the option of how: we only get the option to recruit people.  There's no reason why we need these guys.  The only one that has any meaning is Mordin; it appears the plague on Omega was a Collector plot: but we don't know what that plot is, why it's there, or what has caused it to be. 

You need the others because they are the best in the galaxy. TIM lets Shepard do it his own way because he saved the galaxy before by following his own rules. If he dictated to Shepard on what to do there would have been no point in bringing him back in the first place.

And to those disapointed by the lack of conversations with reapers: why? I don't really feel that it is 100% important to the plot that we speak to a reaper in every game. I know its been said a lot but... there is still another game left to answer questions. The second installment usually leaves more questions than the first in a trilogy.

Best at what and why?  The story would've made sense if we got to learn about the enemy, and in doing so, determine who was needed, and why.  Having a shopping list because TIM said so doesn't make sense.  (As such, Thane/Grunt/Zaeed are useless, unless you like dying.)

The 3rd game would be even greater if the more glaring questions of the 2nd were answered, if the Collectors and Shepard were developed.  They'd have to come up with even greater ideas and storytelling techniques for the 3rd to build on an excellent 2nd story, but they didn't.

I really hate the "it's a bridge" argument, or it's the "2nd in a trilogy" and that "all 2nd's are only a bridge" argument.  That's a total cop out for telling a decent story.  You can tell a decent, meaningful, emotional story that can stand alone, and still have it be part of a trilogy, 12 part chapter-series, whatever.

[Captiosus77]

Just going to examine how they sell this game for a minute. I apologize if this has been done before, but I have not read through most of this thread at time of posting simply because there's a lot of very well written novel posts which I'd like to give due attention to instead of skimming:

"They don't expect you to survive!
1. Entire human colonies on many worlds are vanishing. 2. As Commander Shepard, you must assemble the galaxy's deadliest team to save mankind against impossible odds.

3. They call it a suicide mission. PROVE THEM WRONG."

The "synopsis" on the back of the box for people who may not be familiar with the brand is there to give them a sense of what they'll be getting from the game if they buy it. It's broken down into 3 parts as I've numbered above.

1. Entire human colonies are vanishing, yet that doesn't even factor into the game. You go to one vanished human colony at the start and then you go to one more later. That's it. The most you hear about human colonies is when TIM or any other Cerberus-shill NPC talks about them. You never experience it on a grand, first person scale so this selling point is moot. Maybe I would have felt more "into" the game if we had gone to different colonies that vanished and had meaningful gameplay therefore being made to feel like the Collectors were emboldened and strengthening as an enemy. But, alas, this never happened. We just have to take the game's word as truth.

2. This next part of the sales pitch makes up the vast majority of the gameplay. However the fact is a) you don't really build your team so much as TIM does for you and you just play errand boy by collecting them and doing favors for them and the majority of their loyalty content is utterly irrelevant to the main plot and, ergo, are side quests by definition. At least ME1's sidequests mostly tied into the main overall story arc, with some notable exceptions.

By and large, all this team building was irrelevant because you had a large degree of redundancy between character skill sets (eg. Jack and Samara had identical character strengths as the strongest team biotics - choosing either in your party was merely personal preference). It remains to be seen how this team building factors into ME3, but as a selling point for ME2, it's pretty poor. A vast majority of time spent has nothing to do with the overall premise of the game, or the trilogy. In this regard, Bioware got the design completely backwards. As for impossible odds.. did anyone here feel they were up against impossible odds? I sure as hell didn't.

3. Who are "they"? No one calls it a suicide mission until you're near the end and, even then, my life wasn't even threatened. The entire suicide mission segment was an utter letdown because just by playing the game you're almost put in a position where you cannot fail. No one I know has played it without doing the loyalty quests. I tried to do so on my third playthrough and, in fact, I HAD to do at least two before TIM showed up to give me another part of the main story arc.

The whole "character driven" story argument is tired and holds no credibility. Character driven stories imply that the story attached to the character is integral, or at least relevant, to the story as a whole. The overarching theme to the entire trilogy is that humanity, as well as all sentient life in the Galaxy, is under threat. The character stories in ME1 tied directly into the main story of ME1 and, as a result, to the overall storyline. Mistress Benezia and the Rachni are a prime example. This developed Liara's backstory while working within the context of promoting the main story as well and added another story element with the Rachni. Things like saving Miranda's sister, reuniting Thane with his son, finding Jacob's dad, helping Samara with her quest have absolutely no bearing on the overall story of the Mass Effect trilogy - they don't even tie in. These quests are character exposition for exposition's sake. They could have done a much better job tying in these character stories within the context of the entire story arc to create a much better game that felt a lot less disjointed.

Stephen King's The Stand is a character-driven story. The book spends a lot of time with character exposition, but all of it becomes relevant throughout the book. ME2 is just a loose collection of meaningless side quests with a short expansion on the actual trilogy's story line.

[TyDurden13]

The Shady wrote...

Uh... Ok...
(F Scott Fitzgerald = 1; USA = ~ 300,000; America = ~ 900,000,000; World = ~ 6,500,000,000)
If you use a quote as an argument, you should add your own interpretation.

No real interpretation.  Just trying to wind you up a bit.

[dethincarn5656]

It's not surprising that some people are confused. The developers packed a great deal of information into this game in the form of codex entries. But some people don't like to read. They live for teh headshots and think reading is boring.

[Crowwalker100]

davidt0504 wrote...

So apparently some people don't get the concept that the part of recruiting your team is just as integral to the plot and overall story as the missions with colletors.  Not just the recruiting but even the loyalty missions are integral to the story.  I present evidence of this in that if you just breeze through as little squad stuff as possible to tackle the collectors, you die and that game can't be used in me3.  This game is not all about shepard fighting the collectors.  Just like mass effect 1 was not all about shepard hunting saren.

Very well said.. I found the plot great and well written.. A lot of people today want things spoon feed to them, no thinking about the story no imagnation.. Just look at what is on TV and at the movies. If it is a show that makes you think and is well thought out it does not last for long.. Like Firefly, Torchwood, Alien Nation etc..

[Captiosus77]

I haven't seen this level of interpretation failure on any forums in a long time.

davidt0504 wrote...

[*]Shepard faces ash/liara/kaiden and works out the relationship from the first game/ shepard deals with working with cerberus and being ostricized by most of his old allies (luke faces demons)

Yeah, for about 5 minutes per encounter, except Liara who makes him run errands. It's not nearly as deep or engaging as the entire Dagobah/Yoda;Vader/Luke sequences in Ep5 which make up the entire Luke Skywalker story arc. Luke's story progressed his character. Shepard's encounters were boring little bits that did nothing for his character or the story.

[*]It is revealed that the collectors are actually protheans (darth vader is luked father/revelation)

Vader as Luke's father spends more than 5 minutes screen time on the revelation. The entire end of the movie centers around this revelation "Ben, why didn't you tell me..." In ME2, the collectors as protheans was a tiny ass dialog point in the game that was never expanded upon beyond the initial shock of "OMG collectors are protheans wtfbbq!"

[*]Liara goes from innocent and niave archaeologist to hardened information broker (han changes from rogue to charming rebel)

Han Solo: Main character in Episode 5. You spend a good portion of the movie following his group (Solo/Leia/Chewie/C3PO). Liara: Pointless character in ME2 who directs you to places on the planet and has to run errands. She holds no relevance to the story of ME2 whereas Han held an extreme position of relevance to the story of ESB.

...horizon/freedom's progress vs hoth (sorry, I accidentially deleted the source quote)

Hoth: Epic battle at the beginning of the movie to set the stage for the rest of the film displaying the strength of the Empire and the disruption of the lives of our main heroes. Horizon/Freedom's Progress: Short quests with no feeling of grand scope, no real feeling of deep involvement or the urgency of an increasing Collector threat.

Ten new characters are revealed/ others who don't play as much a role also (three new characters revealed)

Ten new characters revealed is a flaw as many have pointed out because that number of "new" characters becomes unruly. Three new characters in Episode 5 were nicely weaved into the overall story of that film and into Episode 6. The fact that they crowded us with 10 new characters means we spent more time with character balderdash rather than how these characters interact with the main story.

IMO, the entire loyalty mission concept was trite in and of itself. To continue to use the episode 5 references, Leia or Luke didn't need to do a loyalty mission for Lando.. Lando had a gut check of his own over the course of events and became loyal to the cause on his own. In ME2, I get to recruit people and then have to play their errand boy doing things which are utterly irrelevant to the goals I'm actually trying to achieve simply to convince them they should help me?

[TyDurden13]

My take: the plot of ME2 is fine. the game basically opens up with three questions: what are the Collectors, really?; Why are they taking human colonies?; and What is their connection, if any, to the reapers? Over the course of the game, all of these questions are answered, and those answers are pretty interesting. Plus we get a big answer from ME1 w/r/t what the reapers are really after and why they need to perpetuate the extinction cycle. All of this is pretty much on about the same level as the ME1 story. Of course, YMMV depending on how you feel about those reveals. If your take is that all this is stupid, then fine, you don't like the story, but you can't say it didn't really progress, because it clearly did.

What IS a bit of a problem is the PACING of this story. Because of the structure of the game, you go through large stretches without thinking too much about the Meta-Arc as you build up your team. So, yeah, the narrative does feel disjointed to a degree (how much probably depends on how you play your game).

Personally I think the game could have used a device like an enemy stalking you through the galaxy as you go on these recruitment and side missions (what people originally speculated Legion's role would be). This would have given the enemy a bit more of a "face" and been a useful reminder of the bigger plot lurking in the background.

So yeah, while it could have been better paced and structured, I am pretty happy with how it turned out. Mostly because I enjoyed all of the characters and world building - I thought the galaxy in ME2 felt a lot more fleshed out and alive then in ME1. As a jaunt around the ME Galaxy, populated with cool characters and punctuated by Metaplot interludes and a dramatic endgame/table setter for the conclusion, I feel the whole thing was a success.

ETA: yes, I thought the final boss was a bit silly.

Modifié par TyDurden13, 16 février 2010 - 05:25 .

[-XcitronX-]

davidt0504 wrote...

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

Well I think that the biggest issue here is how each mission connects to each other. Ill use two of my favorite scifi shows as an example, old and new battlestar galactica. ME1 is more in terms with new btg, with each of its episodes continuing in the next one ( if a crewman or a woman dies in a episode they will still be moarning him/her in the next episode, mayby even having an funeral) where as ME2 is more like the older version of btg with each of its episodes independent, what happens in one episode is basicly all forgotten and never talked about in the next one. Like the character missions in ME2. No loyalty or recruiting mission ever deals with the main story about the reapers and collectors or any other character quest. In ME1 you had a reason to go to a planet A and then B even if it was just a rumor that very planet might have something that would help you in search of saren even if it ended up not living up to that hope.

[TheShady]

@davidt0504: Of course it's my opinion, what else would it be? There's no academic/scientific base for the analysis of video games as there is for literature for example and there is no professional reviewing for video games. So there will never be anything that makes it "fact" that a video game is bad except bad sales or a consensus amongst the community.

Also, filling sentences with "in my opinion" or "I think" just clutters them up and is unnecessary. When you state your opinion, which is based on taste, you just state it as a fact. Period.

So, I think, in my opinion, I dislike ME2's story, I thought ME1's story was better and frankly, I find no Bioware story all that great to begin with, as they are mostly not really my taste. I play Bioware games, however, as there are still many good things about it and because story telling that doesn't physically hurt is very very rare amongst one of my favourite mediums, namely video games.

Captiosus77 wrote...

stuff

I already pointed the false advertising out on page 1 and quoted myself again on page 4, so, I agree.

[davidt0504]

davetheboy wrote...

The Emperor got less screen time, yet somehow he made bigger impact on the 2 part as a whole. I mean, do you think people will remember Harbinger, a guy who fails at what he does, or the Emperor, a guy who had Vader as his lapdog? Truth is, ep. V had characters tied closely to the plot. ME2 has characters that, in most cases, are irrelevant to the plot. If the entire Reaper armada is defeated in ME3, then it'll be rushed like hell. You just don't kill hundreds of bad guys, who are better than you in a couple of minutes.

your making a fallacious comparison, the emperor made no impact to the story in ep V, only in the final act.  We still have the final act to go, so you can't make that assumption until we have the whole story.

[Daeion]

I understood the story but honestly it simply made me feel like they switched ME and ME2, i.e. ME should have been ME2 and ME2 should have been ME, at least then it would have felt like the story had actually
moved forward.

ME2 was about building your squad, finding out what was happening to human colonies and then stopping it.  The entire time you only face the collectors, agents of the reapers, not the reapers themselves.  This makes a good starting point, especially when you put ME in as the 2nd act.  I think ME fits better as the 2nd act because in neither games does anyone besides shep and his crew believe in the reapers so that part of the story
doesn't really move forward.  However ME has the typical 2nd act betrayals like we see in LOTR Two Towers and Empire Strikes back, in this case Saren betraying the council. 

Also, ME doesn't focus as much on building your team like ME2 does, in ME you have your team except for Liara before you leave the citadel, and the it’s go go go.  Typically the first act of a trilogy is about bringing a group together and possibly losing a few, that’s what ME2 is all about.  The 2nd act takes your original surviving cast and introduces a few new chars but continues to build upon the previous cast.  Now the series hasn’t really continued to develop anyone except for Shep, Garrus, and Tali, but it’s easier to continue development when you only introduce a few new people, not a 90% brand new cast.

Modifié par Daeion, 16 février 2010 - 08:55 .

[FlintlockJazz]

I agree with the OP, and I think ME2 develops storytelling in games in a new direction, as they have stepped away from the handholding method used by Hollywood and more in a direction that takes advantage of the interactivity of gaming that enables the 'viewer' to manipulate the story and make what he wants to be relevant, relevant.



I also like ME2 because it tells of the story from different perspectives via the loyalty missions and such like, some people say that they made the recruitment process a game unto itself, I say it is a story of life in the Mass Effect universe.



Some people just can't let go of what they think needs to happen, "X must happen!" "The central plot must be told thusly because that it is how it has always been!" They want repeats of the formula told time and again because that is what they have been conditioned by the media that they want, since it then makes it easier for the media to shovel out products to meet their consumers' demands. Let's just have one game that doesn't go by the formula please guys, I have always wanted to see some of the worlds described in books and games from the perspective of someone living in it, not from the 'Gray Warden who is separate from the world' perspective.

[davidt0504]

Daeion wrote...

I understood the story but honestly it simply made me feel like they switched ME and ME2, i.e. ME should have been ME2 and ME2 should have been ME, at least then it would have felt like the story had actually
moved forward.

ME2 was about building your squad, finding out what was happening to human colonies and then stopping it.  The entire time you only face the collectors, agents of the reapers, not the reapers themselves.  This makes a good starting point, especially when you put ME in as the 2nd act.  I think ME fits better as the 2nd act because in neither games does anyone besides shep and his crew believe in the reapers so that part of the story
doesn't really move forward.  However ME has the typical 2nd act betrayals like we see in LOTR Two Towers and Empire Strikes back, in this case Saren betraying the council. 

Also, ME doesn't focus as much on building your team like ME2 does, in ME you have your team except for Liara before you leave the citadel, and the it’s go go go.  Typically the first act of a trilogy is about bringing a group together and possibly losing a few, that’s what ME2 is all about.  The 2nd act takes your original surviving cast and introduces a few new chars but continues to build upon the previous cast.  Now the series hasn’t really continued to develop anyone except for Shep, Garrus, and Tali, but it’s easier to continue development when you only introduce a few new people, not a 90% brand new cast.

some people like that they might not use such a cut and dry story layout, that they might try to mix it up a bit.  Since the overall plot (something threating all life) has been done before, lets mix up the presentation.  I personally think me2 did move the story forward

[davidt0504]

Daeion wrote...

I understood the story but honestly it simply made me feel like they switched ME and ME2, i.e. ME should have been ME2 and ME2 should have been ME, at least then it would have felt like the story had actually
moved forward.

ME2 was about building your squad, finding out what was happening to human colonies and then stopping it.  The entire time you only face the collectors, agents of the reapers, not the reapers themselves.  This makes a good starting point, especially when you put ME in as the 2nd act.  I think ME fits better as the 2nd act because in neither games does anyone besides shep and his crew believe in the reapers so that part of the story
doesn't really move forward.  However ME has the typical 2nd act betrayals like we see in LOTR Two Towers and Empire Strikes back, in this case Saren betraying the council. 

Also, ME doesn't focus as much on building your team like ME2 does, in ME you have your team except for Liara before you leave the citadel, and the it’s go go go.  Typically the first act of a trilogy is about bringing a group together and possibly losing a few, that’s what ME2 is all about.  The 2nd act takes your original surviving cast and introduces a few new chars but continues to build upon the previous cast.  Now the series hasn’t really continued to develop anyone except for Shep, Garrus, and Tali, but it’s easier to continue development when you only introduce a few new people, not a 90% brand new cast.

some people like that they might not use such a cut and dry story layout, that they might try to mix it up a bit.  Since the overall plot (something threating all life) has been done before, lets mix up the presentation.  I personally think me2 did move the story forward

[Chained_Creator]

Something, something something --Suspend thy disbelief, foul villains.-- some more something, yada, yada--more something--etc ad nauseum!

[malres]

(edit: The whole post has become a bit long, I shortened it considerably - still long)

davidt0504 wrote...

all of your points are purely your opinion,

You're bailing out now with that old gambit?
If it's a matter of opinion, then why start this thread claiming that people not of your opinion "don't get it"?

sorry but anyone could also apply those same points to me2

Apparently you're selectively picking random events from ME2's storyline to correspond with central points of Ep. V in order to argue that ME2's story must be as good as Ep. V.

Shepard is killed but is revived in order to take on the collectors (luke overcoming injurys, which in itself was hardly worth mention in ep. V)

The wampa attack starts Luke's story AND sets up the character's relationships among each other:

• Luke must rely on the Force to levitate his lightsaber (levitation later important during Yoda's lessons).
• Injured Luke has vision of Obi Wan, sending Luke to Dagobah.
• Opportunity for Han to prove friendship by risking life AND show resourcefulness when using Taun-taun corpse.
• Leia and Chewie show bond with Han and Luke when despairing while hangar door close, Luke's recovery scene again show Chewie-Han-Luke-Leia bond.

Of course all this could be different, e.g. Luke could have the vision while brushing his teeth, and Han's friendship could be emphasized by drinking a beer, but then it would be much less drama and more boring exposition. And there is one more thing:

• Last but not least, the wampa attack serves as plot device to give explanation for Luke's much-needed appearance change (Mark Hamill had a serious accident between Ep. IV and V). This is so wonderful because it shares the function as plot device, albeit a lot more subtle, with...

... the collector attack at the beginning of ME2:

• Plot device allowing for Shepard apperance/class change and story recapitulation: "Shepard, what happened again after you defeated Sovereign?"
• Shepard's death introduces the Illusive Man as incredibly powerful person bringing back the dead despite presumably extensive damage to corpse.
  (Unfortunately, future deaths will have to point out why they can't be reversed, e.g. gun shot victims certainly could be revived for a fraction of the costs of Shepard's revival?)
• Destroyed Normandy 1 is replaced by Normandy 2 with more space for additional 5 team members, AI and extra room Joker's hero plot.
• Shepard's death apparently causes Liara's change, but this is not shown in ME2.
• Kaidan/Ashley don't develop due to Shepard's death, they react. If you disagree, what development with an impact on the story is actually shown?
• Shepard is entirely unaffected by his own death. No identity crisis, no reassessment about the value of life, just jokes. "Death? Been there. Done that."

To get me right: Character development is not relevant for Shepard as he's the player character and the player should decide how Shepard develops and acts. I would want to decide myself if and when my renegade Shepard started to have a change of heart.

Shepard faces ash/liara/kaiden and works out the relationship from the first game/ shepard deals with working with cerberus and being ostricized by most of his old allies (luke faces demons)

Can I please have your copy of ME2? Mine is apparently broken because I don't have any of that. Apart from a kiss, Liara doesn't acknowledge there ever was a relationship. I just get a reprimand and an email from Ashley. Anderson, Wrex, Garrus and Tali, yeah, there's lots of ostricizing going on. They practically don't help me at all. Kaidan is the worst, he must be hiding from me. I tried to visit him in the Afterlife. That's where he's at, right?
Seriously, man, what are you smoking?

It is revealed that the collectors are actually protheans (darth vader is luked father/revelation)

That "developed" the Protheans from unselfish originators of galactic resistance who gave us a fighting chance, to pathetic mindless cannonfodder slaves with insectheads.
It progressed the story... zilch! To show that, do it the other way round: Try to explain how the story would be any different if the collectors were not genetically engineered Protheans. Please do it right now.

Ehmm, erm, hmm, eeeeh...

Right. It doesn't make a difference. The collectors/protheans are exterminated no matter what. We just get a new meaning for the collector general's sad look just before vaporization.

On that note: One of my worst nightmares is that Tali's character could be "developed" in ME3 by showing her face.

Compare with the revelation of Vader as father in Ep. V: It changes everything, e.g. Luke will try to turn him back to the light side, ensuring that the final battle in Ep. VI will be nothing like the final battle in Ep. V.

Liara goes from innocent and niave archaeologist to hardened information broker (han changes from rogue to charming rebel)

Yes, a shining bright example of character development. I completely forgot about that. Here's another one: Conrad Verner! He got an N7 armor replica. Woot ZOMG! Pls BW Conrad Verner recruitable team member in ME3!

The humans are taken from horizon/freedom's progress (rebel's defeated at hoth)

The rebels' defeat at Hoth tells the audience "The rebels won Yavin, but they're still in the defensive."
The primary objective, investigating the disappearance of human colonies, has already been established at the time Horizon and Freedom's Hope are attacked.

Ten new characters are revealed...

... and with the exception of the Illusive Man, none of them connect to the main plot. You might exchange any of the new crew members for random nameless and storyless people and it would not affect the main plot.

Modifié par malres, 17 février 2010 - 03:25 .

[Daeion]

davidt0504 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

I understood the story but honestly it simply made me feel like they switched ME and ME2, i.e. ME should have been ME2 and ME2 should have been ME, at least then it would have felt like the story had actually
moved forward.

ME2 was about building your squad, finding out what was happening to human colonies and then stopping it.  The entire time you only face the collectors, agents of the reapers, not the reapers themselves.  This makes a good starting point, especially when you put ME in as the 2nd act.  I think ME fits better as the 2nd act because in neither games does anyone besides shep and his crew believe in the reapers so that part of the story
doesn't really move forward.  However ME has the typical 2nd act betrayals like we see in LOTR Two Towers and Empire Strikes back, in this case Saren betraying the council. 

Also, ME doesn't focus as much on building your team like ME2 does, in ME you have your team except for Liara before you leave the citadel, and the it’s go go go.  Typically the first act of a trilogy is about bringing a group together and possibly losing a few, that’s what ME2 is all about.  The 2nd act takes your original surviving cast and introduces a few new chars but continues to build upon the previous cast.  Now the series hasn’t really continued to develop anyone except for Shep, Garrus, and Tali, but it’s easier to continue development when you only introduce a few new people, not a 90% brand new cast.

some people like that they might not use such a cut and dry story layout, that they might try to mix it up a bit.  Since the overall plot (something threating all life) has been done before, lets mix up the presentation.  I personally think me2 did move the story forward

And some people don't like the way they are doing the story because it doesn't feel like it flows well and only about half of the original squad had any sort of development.  The way I currently look at things, BW either needs to turn this into a 4 act story now or the mysterious something that's coming Q4 next year needs to be some sort of massive xpac to help propell the story into ME3.

Please tell me how it moved the story forward?  I have a crew of expendable characters and no one believes the reapers are coming, and depending on what choice you made in the base, you've done nothing to better prepare for the oncoming attack, so we are back where we started when the game began.