242 réponses à ce sujet

[Harcken]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, the main complaint (at least from my perspective) is: Running around the galaxy going through a laundry list, does not make for a good plot. The mystery from Mass Effect 1 is gone, and the only missions that advance the plot an inch are rare and far between, Don't get me wrong I loved most of the recruitment and loyalty missions, and how they immersed you into the world, but I didn't feel like there was any main narrative that was grappling for my attention. I wasn't at the edge of my seat, my mind wasn't screaming: "omg what is going to happen next," hopefully; however, the next installment closes the trilogy with a story that completely pisses on the first one.

[KainrycKarr]

Frotality wrote...

i can understand it perfectly; it just sucks compared to the wide-scale plot of ME1; and ironically the first was the one called 'space opera'...

it is inconsistent with the plot set up, so it makings no sense is the problem. we expected and wanted to continue the story of the reapers, and we liked the character stories...but as the focus of the plot, in the sequel no less...does not compute.

It's the middle story of the trilogy. If you look to any trilogy, rarely is the middle story that epic.

ME2's story doesn't suck, it just have a different flavor. It is still very much a space opera. It's just more personalized.

I love both storie's equally, and am expecting closure in ME3 for the various characters, love interests, and for the reapers. That is my expecting. I expect the third to combine the two flavors of ME1 and ME2, respectively, to form something new and epic.

[Mox Ruuga]

BattleVisor wrote...

Wow you're ignorant.

The Rachni had the biggest fleet in their prime of thousands of ships, the surviving rachni have already started producing ships in only two years.

What do you think the krogans used to fight the turians and conquer colonies in the rebellions - freighter ships filled with shotgun wielding krogans - no

Actually if you did the research, you would know the krogans had quite a few ships and significant fleet. They had planets that produced huge amount of element zero (ship fuel) backed by salarian technology, and part of the reason for the the decline of the krogan military fleet were the destruction of these facilites.

Seriously your assumption that Rachni and krogans manages to threaten the council with just infantry is bordeing on pure idiocy.

One of us is being ignorant, buddy, and it ain't me...

Do you honestly think the rachni and the krogan have huge fleets now? Have you been paying any attention whatsoever as to the shape their races are in? What use are their historical fleet strengths from 1000 years in the past against the present overwhelming Reaper threat? Is Shepard going to quote history books to Harbinger?

The key word in there is "had". Whatever they had, is gone now. And won't be back in time, even if the council would let the krogans just start building up their naval fleet again.

[Alamar2078]

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 actually think that perhaps you don't get it.

Certainly [in isolation] there is nothing wrong with a strong character driven piece and having the plot as a set dressing to have the chance to delve into characters.  I like character driven stories just fine and it works very well with episodic content.

However in terms of a trilogy with an overarching story you have to be very careful how this sort of thing is handled.  I think the source of the real complaints isn't the type of story being told it's how it was done.

I suspect that a strong character driven story centering around the EXISTING ship with the EXISTING crew with the EXISTING love interests would have gone over better than simply blowing things up and putting them together again.  Obviously adding in a few new characters / elements / etc. would be good just to mix things up.

To summarize I couldn't blame people who thought they were getting a 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 type of story being upset at a 1 -> 2 -> 1.25 -> 2.25 -> 4 type of story.

[ZennExile]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

BattleVisor wrote...

Wow you're ignorant.

The Rachni had the biggest fleet in their prime of thousands of ships, the surviving rachni have already started producing ships in only two years.

What do you think the krogans used to fight the turians and conquer colonies in the rebellions - freighter ships filled with shotgun wielding krogans - no

Actually if you did the research, you would know the krogans had quite a few ships and significant fleet. They had planets that produced huge amount of element zero (ship fuel) backed by salarian technology, and part of the reason for the the decline of the krogan military fleet were the destruction of these facilites.

Seriously your assumption that Rachni and krogans manages to threaten the council with just infantry is bordeing on pure idiocy.

One of us is being ignorant, buddy, and it ain't me...

Do you honestly think the rachni and the krogan have huge fleets now? Have you been paying any attention whatsoever as to the shape their races are in? What use are their historical fleet strengths from 1000 years in the past against the present overwhelming Reaper threat? Is Shepard going to quote history books to Harbinger?

The key word in there is "had". Whatever they had, is gone now. And won't be back in time, even if the council would let the krogans just start building up their naval fleet again.

Delusion: Belief founded in the imagination by fantasy rather than reason or logic.

You imagine even more than the person you quote and call ignorant.  Yet somehow you aren't delusional?  Oh wait, nvm, yes you are in fact delusional.

Imagination is not supporting evidence.  Let's stop trying to use it as such k. 

[BattleVisor]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

BattleVisor wrote...

Wow you're ignorant.

The Rachni had the biggest fleet in their prime of thousands of ships, the surviving rachni have already started producing ships in only two years.

What do you think the krogans used to fight the turians and conquer colonies in the rebellions - freighter ships filled with shotgun wielding krogans - no

Actually if you did the research, you would know the krogans had quite a few ships and significant fleet. They had planets that produced huge amount of element zero (ship fuel) backed by salarian technology, and part of the reason for the the decline of the krogan military fleet were the destruction of these facilites.

Seriously your assumption that Rachni and krogans manages to threaten the council with just infantry is bordeing on pure idiocy.

One of us is being ignorant, buddy, and it ain't me...

Do you honestly think the rachni and the krogan have huge fleets now? Have you been paying any attention whatsoever as to the shape their races are in? What use are their historical fleet strengths from 1000 years in the past against the present overwhelming Reaper threat? Is Shepard going to quote history books to Harbinger?

The key word in there is "had". Whatever they had, is gone now. And won't be back in time, even if the council would let the krogans just start building up their naval fleet again.

This is an acceptable argument. The question is then can they build a fleet in time?

Who knows how long the events of ME3 might be, personally I would hope it would be ten years atleast after ME2

Modifié par BattleVisor, 17 février 2010 - 05:06 .

[malres]

walk0nwalls wrote...

Unfortunately, it was largely going to be impossible to write a good second act when the third act wasn't even written.

Maybe you're right about Bioware not yet knowing the story of ME3. But wouldn't it then have been a bit more clever to develop ME2's and ME3's story in parallel instead of putting off the story for ME3 and developing ME2 as character story?

And then finally, honestly, the Reapers are horrible antagonists. The new head writer probably realizes this. The Reapers are a robot horde of death coming from on high. Imagine trying to act that. What motivates them? Nobody is scared of an enemy devoid of motivation, it's like a zombie horde. The Reapers suck as enemies. Better off concentrating on their strengths: their characters.

I'm sorry, but you can't have the cake and eat it, too. According to that logic, the new head writer should never have included Legion because he's a machine (Legion, not the head writer). Same for EDI, because she's a machine.

Apparently you're criticizing the concept of Artifical Intelligence/Life as story element in general, which features rather prominently in the ME universe.

Modifié par malres, 17 février 2010 - 05:17 .

[Nautica773]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Certainly [in isolation] there is nothing wrong with a strong character driven piece and having the plot as a set dressing to have the chance to delve into characters.  I like character driven stories just fine and it works very well with episodic content.

Indeed. Unfortunately, even for a character piece, ME2 isn't that strong.

However in terms of a trilogy with an overarching story you have to be very careful how this sort of thing is handled.  I think the source of the real complaints isn't the type of story being told it's how it was done.

I suspect that a strong character driven story centering around the EXISTING ship with the EXISTING crew with the EXISTING love interests would have gone over better than simply blowing things up and putting them together again.  Obviously adding in a few new characters / elements / etc. would be good just to mix things up.

Agreed. You don't get character development in ME2 because most of the time is spent introducing the characters. If they really wanted to do a character centric story in the timeframe they set, they should have used characters we were already familiar with. Then you could have had a strong character story in the short playtime of ME2.

As it stands, ME2 has no plot and a shallow character narrative. The story also can't stand on its own and is very obviously the awkward middle child in a trilogy. Altogehter, I hope Bioware gets their act together for the finale.

[malres]

Grr double post...

Modifié par malres, 17 février 2010 - 05:16 .

[davidt0504]

I'd just like to point out something (btw I had this all written out and the gay forums errored when I tried to post, so this might not be as coherent as I intend).  Most of the anomosity towards me2 comes from people thinking that the characters that are being introduced will not have a serious impact on the trilogy as a whole.  They think that like many of the characters from me1 that they will get a backseat to events in me3.  So lets discuss this for a bit.  Bioware has already said that they kept any possible LI from me1 out of the events of me2 because they wanted to make sure that they survived in 100% of peoples playthroughs for me3, this indicates that they are planning on bringing them back into a more prominent role for me3.  Now every character in your squad from me2 has the possibility of dying, even shepard.  But if shepard dies then that saved file cannot be carried over and used in me3.  So from what I've seen from people's reports is that if everyone dies then shepard cannot live either, and the smallest number of squad mates that can survive in order for shepard to survive is two.  Its entirely possible that me3 will jump right in where me2 leaves off.  That you will have the same people from me2 in your squad, the same ship, same crew.  This is why you have to at least have two people because you need to start out with at least two squad members as bioware has some deal about always having two companions with you in combat situations, no more no less.  Now I doubt that people who had this happen will have to go through the game with only two squad mates but its possible that more will join you (i.e. ashley/kaiden, liara, wrex maybe?).  See most trilogies are set up kinda like this, they have a first act that sets the stage and can act as more of a stand alone story (halo, the matrix, star wars) and then the final two acts are usually more connected and intertwined (halo, the matrix, star wars lol).  So I'll say what I've said since the beginning of this topic, its fine if you just don't like the story of mass effect, but don't judge the story based on what you think will or should happen in me3, thats just dumb.  Give everything a fair chance.  Most people think that bioware has written themselves into a conundrum because they have all this work to do for me3 involving story and revelation, well just remember that they've planned this as a trilogy from the start, and I doubt they would be that short sited.

[Alamar2078]

Nautica773 wrote...

<snip>

Indeed. Unfortunately, even for a character piece, ME2 isn't that strong.

<snip>

As it stands, ME2 has no plot and a shallow character narrative. The story also can't stand on its own and is very obviously the awkward middle child in a trilogy. Altogehter, I hope Bioware gets their act together for the finale.

I'm not a literary critic but I can at least say that the characters seemed more vibrant to me.  Whether that's because they chose a wider variety of archtypes [cheerleader, bad girl, rational moralists, etc] or whether they did a better job at letting me see into their characters may be for someone else to say.

My preference for a character driven piece would have been more along the lines of:

-- Perhaps Garrus has a chance to be a Spectre.  What do you do?  Do you encourage him?  Are you his supervising Spectre [like Nihlus]?  What's your recommendation to the council?   This sort of thing would continue continuity and be a potentially hard choice because this may "kill" the character in terms of recruiting him for ME3 or even keeping him for the duration of ME2

-- Tali's loyalty, recruitment, meeting quests could stand on their own.  To me [a sap] they were gripping.

-- Perhaps Ash's review as an Alliance soldier is coming up and you have a chance to really kickstart her career.  What do you chose?  What if she's your LI?  Are there special missions to prove her capable both physically as well as mentally?

-- Perhaps you could have helped Wrex become the leader of Clan Urdnot and see his rise to power.  You could then use that as a jumping off point to help out Grunt if need be.

-- Mordin could be added to the mix [new blood is good] and his quests and such [esp. loyalty] could stand well on their own

-- Wouldn't it have been interesting to see Kaiden and Jack interact esp. during her loyalty quest?  If anyone was anywhere close to getting it he would be and could provide useful insight and mentorship.

-- Legion [more new blood] could easily be seen as a character that is a walking plot device but I think that there's more under the hood.  When answering the "Why use N7 armor" the "no data available" response didn't ring true.  Perhaps helping him analyze / build consensus on exactly what was going on / why he did that could be as important of a statement as anything else made in the game.

Obviously the above are things just off the top of my head but they make sense to me as good potential things to look at in a character piece.

[TheShady]

davidt0504 wrote...

So I'll say what I've said since the beginning of this topic, its fine if you just don't like the story of mass effect, but don't judge the story based on what you think will or should happen in me3, thats just dumb.

Aren't you kinda doing the same with this:

davidt0504 wrote...

Most of the anomosity towards me2 comes from people thinking that the characters that are being introduced will not have a serious impact on the trilogy as a whole.

We don't know that, we don't know that at all.  And the way they  treated the ME1 characters doesn't really speak in favor of Bioware.
Also: Promises by a video game company about a product that's potentially 2 years away... take them with care.

davidt0504 wrote...

Give everything a fair chance.  Most people think that bioware has written themselves into a conundrum because they have all this work to do for me3 involving story and revelation, well just remember that they've planned this as a trilogy from the start, and I doubt they would be that short sited.

Yes, it was planned as a trilogy, which is why I don't get why...
1.) they changed head writers or writers or whatever. (Which you should never do with any connecting stories, ever. That is why Max Payne 3 will just be horrible and is already (He's wearing a colorful shirt and the sun shines, ffs!).)
2.) the ME2 story is so extremely disconnected from everything that happened already.
3.) they didn't introduce all those "important" characters that have an "impact" right in the beginning.

If they planned ME2's story as it is now while they wrote ME1, then it's really just bad writing, no matter what ME3 will do (as it's a trilogy, ALL parts should be good, not just the beginning and the end, no matter how you twist and turn it). If they didn't have anything specific in mind, they at least have some sort of excuse...



Well, I think the anti-story-camp if you can call it that is very suspicious of how this will all be concluded in ME3, with good reason, while the pro-story-camp if you can call it that seems like it's blindly believing into Bioware. Or they are just genuinely happy with the story, which is fine, but I think much of the "like" is actually artificial or because the game was only recently released...
Personally, I'm just incredibly disapointed of all this missed potential.

Modifié par TheShady, 17 février 2010 - 06:17 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

I think what has so many people upset isn't that some people don't like the game, it's that they feel the need to phrase it as a statement of fact. Lots of people on these forums like the story in ME2, heck some like it more than the first. They both have their strengths and to say that you can somehow magically distill the value of a work of fiction into a mathematically proven constant is kind of obnoxious. Given how different the games are in terms of style, tone and gameplay, saying ME2 is worse than ME1 has as much weight as saying the opposite. I like Coke more than Pepsi but my ego isn't so fragile that I need to discredit Pepsi drinkers in order to validate my own opinions.

[EverteMax]

The game's taglines were...
1) Assemble your team
2) Fight for the Lost
I thought it was pretty self explanatory in those 2 lines. Sometimes being in for the ride instead of trying to be the driver is a better feeling. I'm just in to see where Bioware takes me for ME3...I seriously have not much complaints for ME2.

Modifié par EverteMax, 17 février 2010 - 06:36 .

[Nautica773]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I'm not a literary critic but I can at least say that the characters seemed more vibrant to me.  Whether that's because they chose a wider variety of archtypes [cheerleader, bad girl, rational moralists, etc] or whether they did a better job at letting me see into their characters may be for someone else to say.

My preference for a character driven piece would have been more along the lines of:

lots of ideas

You've basically hit upon it. A character piece would require an exploration of said characters. ME2 does an excellent job of introducing you to interesting individuals, but there's no exploration of their personalities. There's no development beyond said introduction. This would work for a narrative focussed plot, but for character driven it's... boring. Nothing really happens.

You have Jacob who finds out his missing father is an ass. Does this have an effect on Jacob? We don't know, he refuses to talk about it. After the mission is done, it never comes up again. Miranda has a twin sister and a controlling father. But aside from saying hello to her twin, nothing ever comes from that plot.

Every character is the same. Their loyalty missions just give more depth without holding any structural narrative. And each character is separate and unconnected from their fellows.

Compare this to, say, Knights of the Old Republic 2. Here, the characters are interwoven together through their actions and personal motivations. Furthermore, the narrative is based around the exploration of the main character's own actions and decisions around an event in his/her past that has effected them fundamentally to the core of their being.

Unfortunately, the only interaction between characters are the brief arguments between Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack. And these are resolved in one dialogue choice.

[walk0nwalls]

malres wrote...


Maybe you're right about Bioware not yet knowing the story of ME3. But wouldn't it then have been a bit more clever to develop ME2's and ME3's story in parallel instead of putting off the story for ME3 and developing ME2 as character story?

Yeah, it probably would have been better planning. But it's probably business, they rotate writers through and drawing up an extended contract would be more expensive or something.

I'm sorry, but you can't have the cake and eat it, too. According to that logic, the new head writer should never have included Legion because he's a machine (Legion, not the head writer). Same for EDI, because she's a machine.

Apparently you're criticizing the concept of Artifical Intelligence/Life as story element in general, which features rather prominently in the ME universe.

I have no problem with Artificial Intelligence. But Legion is motivated. The Geth desire a unitarian shell for all their processes. This motivates them. They are in conflict with the quarians, existence also motivates them. EDI I believe has a continuing relationship with the larger crew and is motivated by whatever synthetic empathy she feels for them. The above two characters have discernible and sufficient motivations for their actions.

What motivates the Reapers exactly? Hell we still don't know why exactly they find it so necessary to hit the 'purge' button on all galactic civilization every so often. Greed? Hunger? They want to play the game again except this time they're going to put the humans by the black hole? We still don't know what exactly motivates The Reaper's actions, and that's a significant flaw.

[tertium organum]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

I think what has so many people upset isn't that some people don't like the game, it's that they feel the need to phrase it as a statement of fact. Lots of people on these forums like the story in ME2, heck some like it more than the first. They both have their strengths and to say that you can somehow magically distill the value of a work of fiction into a mathematically proven constant is kind of obnoxious. Given how different the games are in terms of style, tone and gameplay, saying ME2 is worse than ME1 has as much weight as saying the opposite. I like Coke more than Pepsi but my ego isn't so fragile that I need to discredit Pepsi drinkers in order to validate my own opinions.

Rihgt, and saying ME1 story is not as good as Borderlands story is just "opinion" as well. Or saying ME1 story is not even close to "Too Huan" is just "opinion" as well.  Or saying ME1's story is far less developed and interesting than "Tekken 6" is just "opinion" as well. Right?  Why should I even buy Mass Effect if the only thing that distinguishes it's qualities are mere 'opinions' and nothing that can be cogently argued and agreed upon? What is the value in pure subjectivism?

Fact of the matter is, the above "opinions" comparing ME1/2 to some other games are terrible, lacking any cogent argument or reason to agree with or believe.   They're ridiculous opinions and they can be critiqued on different grounds regardless of the genre of the game. You don't just get to hold forth on things that can be crtiiqued because your ego is fragile and you need people to couch everything they say with qualifiers so you don't feel intellectually inferior. Grow up folks. Most of the people critiquing the story have made legitimate arguments. They are giving Bioware the respect of treating their work worthy of these long, detailed criticisms - how many people are making story critiques of modern warfare, or many other games with this level of argumentation? Not many and that's because Bioware is known and good at their writing - they happened to drop the ball this time around in terms of story-telling ( all the charcaters are written well - the overall plot just stinks).

So we have significant amount of folks going the extra mile to write informative criticims. instead of treating  these people with courtesy and returning the favor, you argue like the above ( make everything an opinion frenzy which raises the question: why should I care about what you say?). Or, begin to argue that the story is character driven and the middle part of a trilogy ( and many variants of these)  as if any of that has anything to do with a rather basic argument: the main narrative is weak. Nothing in writing suggesst that a main narrative must be weak because the the writers are doing a different genre of story. If you could all stop making these ridiculous counter arguments then perhaps this debate could be better. Alas, the same things will be repeated - people that dislike the story don't 'get it' are elitists, or other nonsense. 

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

tertium organum wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

I think what has so many people upset isn't that some people don't like the game, it's that they feel the need to phrase it as a statement of fact. Lots of people on these forums like the story in ME2, heck some like it more than the first. They both have their strengths and to say that you can somehow magically distill the value of a work of fiction into a mathematically proven constant is kind of obnoxious. Given how different the games are in terms of style, tone and gameplay, saying ME2 is worse than ME1 has as much weight as saying the opposite. I like Coke more than Pepsi but my ego isn't so fragile that I need to discredit Pepsi drinkers in order to validate my own opinions.

Rihgt, and saying ME1 story is not as good as Borderlands story is just "opinion" as well. Or saying ME1 story is not even close to "Too Huan" is just "opinion" as well.  Or saying ME1's story is far less developed and interesting than "Tekken 6" is just "opinion" as well. Right?  Why should I even buy Mass Effect if the only thing that distinguishes it's qualities are mere 'opinions' and nothing that can be cogently argued and agreed upon? What is the value in pure subjectivism?

Fact of the matter is, the above "opinions" comparing ME1/2 to some other games are terrible, lacking any cogent argument or reason to agree with or believe.   They're ridiculous opinions and they can be critiqued on different grounds regardless of the genre of the game. You don't just get to hold forth on things that can be crtiiqued because your ego is fragile and you need people to couch everything they say with qualifiers so you don't feel intellectually inferior. Grow up folks. Most of the people critiquing the story have made legitimate arguments. They are giving Bioware the respect of treating their work worthy of these long, detailed criticisms - how many people are making story critiques of modern warfare, or many other games with this level of argumentation? Not many and that's because Bioware is known and good at their writing - they happened to drop the ball this time around in terms of story-telling ( all the charcaters are written well - the overall plot just stinks).

So we have significant amount of folks going the extra mile to write informative criticims. instead of treating  these people with courtesy and returning the favor, you argue like the above ( make everything an opinion frenzy which raises the question: why should I care about what you say?). Or, begin to argue that the story is character driven and the middle part of a trilogy ( and many variants of these)  as if any of that has anything to do with a rather basic argument: the main narrative is weak. Nothing in writing suggesst that a main narrative must be weak because the the writers are doing a different genre of story. If you could all stop making these ridiculous counter arguments then perhaps this debate could be better. Alas, the same things will be repeated - people that dislike the story don't 'get it' are elitists, or other nonsense. 

You know, I have this friend who REALLY dislikes Quentin Tarantino movies.  Me, I love Tarantino, but whenever he releases a new movie or if it just comes up in conversation, my friend has to launch off on a "how can you like this crap?" tirade.

I never said that people aren't entitled to their opinions, nor that they didn't raise valid arguments.  But the weight you place on those critiques, and the degree to which you allow them to impact your enjoyment of the game are subjective.  ME2 was not structured the same as ME1, due in large part to the gameplay, which was organized into missions or levels; giving the whole thing an episodic feel as some have mentioned.  It's kind of like comparing the Star Wars trilogy to Stargate SG-1.  You can do it, but why would you want to?

My gripe isn't with people who dislike the game, it's with people who think that disliking it is the only valid opinion; and vice versa.  Heck, the OP was pretty snarky in his opening post.  But wasn't this supposed to be a thread for people who LIKED the story?  Don't you have your own threads to post in?

Oh, and on an unrelated note, could we all stop using words to the effect of "This game was dummed down for shooter fans and console tards"?  It's really the most glaring example of what I'm talking about.  We are NOT the gaming master race, thank you very much.

[davidt0504]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

tertium organum wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

I think what has so many people upset isn't that some people don't like the game, it's that they feel the need to phrase it as a statement of fact. Lots of people on these forums like the story in ME2, heck some like it more than the first. They both have their strengths and to say that you can somehow magically distill the value of a work of fiction into a mathematically proven constant is kind of obnoxious. Given how different the games are in terms of style, tone and gameplay, saying ME2 is worse than ME1 has as much weight as saying the opposite. I like Coke more than Pepsi but my ego isn't so fragile that I need to discredit Pepsi drinkers in order to validate my own opinions.

Rihgt, and saying ME1 story is not as good as Borderlands story is just "opinion" as well. Or saying ME1 story is not even close to "Too Huan" is just "opinion" as well.  Or saying ME1's story is far less developed and interesting than "Tekken 6" is just "opinion" as well. Right?  Why should I even buy Mass Effect if the only thing that distinguishes it's qualities are mere 'opinions' and nothing that can be cogently argued and agreed upon? What is the value in pure subjectivism?

Fact of the matter is, the above "opinions" comparing ME1/2 to some other games are terrible, lacking any cogent argument or reason to agree with or believe.   They're ridiculous opinions and they can be critiqued on different grounds regardless of the genre of the game. You don't just get to hold forth on things that can be crtiiqued because your ego is fragile and you need people to couch everything they say with qualifiers so you don't feel intellectually inferior. Grow up folks. Most of the people critiquing the story have made legitimate arguments. They are giving Bioware the respect of treating their work worthy of these long, detailed criticisms - how many people are making story critiques of modern warfare, or many other games with this level of argumentation? Not many and that's because Bioware is known and good at their writing - they happened to drop the ball this time around in terms of story-telling ( all the charcaters are written well - the overall plot just stinks).

So we have significant amount of folks going the extra mile to write informative criticims. instead of treating  these people with courtesy and returning the favor, you argue like the above ( make everything an opinion frenzy which raises the question: why should I care about what you say?). Or, begin to argue that the story is character driven and the middle part of a trilogy ( and many variants of these)  as if any of that has anything to do with a rather basic argument: the main narrative is weak. Nothing in writing suggesst that a main narrative must be weak because the the writers are doing a different genre of story. If you could all stop making these ridiculous counter arguments then perhaps this debate could be better. Alas, the same things will be repeated - people that dislike the story don't 'get it' are elitists, or other nonsense. 

You know, I have this friend who REALLY dislikes Quentin Tarantino movies.  Me, I love Tarantino, but whenever he releases a new movie or if it just comes up in conversation, my friend has to launch off on a "how can you like this crap?" tirade.

I never said that people aren't entitled to their opinions, nor that they didn't raise valid arguments.  But the weight you place on those critiques, and the degree to which you allow them to impact your enjoyment of the game are subjective.  ME2 was not structured the same as ME1, due in large part to the gameplay, which was organized into missions or levels; giving the whole thing an episodic feel as some have mentioned.  It's kind of like comparing the Star Wars trilogy to Stargate SG-1.  You can do it, but why would you want to?

My gripe isn't with people who dislike the game, it's with people who think that disliking it is the only valid opinion; and vice versa.  Heck, the OP was pretty snarky in his opening post.  But wasn't this supposed to be a thread for people who LIKED the story?  Don't you have your own threads to post in?

Oh, and on an unrelated note, could we all stop using words to the effect of "This game was dummed down for shooter fans and console tards"?  It's really the most glaring example of what I'm talking about.  We are NOT the gaming master race, thank you very much.

lol i didn't intend to sound snarky but I can see how I came across as that way.  I was just getting sick of people making "ignorant" arguements against the story.  Now people who just don't like it thats fine, and people who have come on this topic and have presented clear reasons as to why they don't like it are fine, and I respect their opinion.  I made this mostly for the people who didn't get the story and were making irrelavant comparisons (hence the title).

[MoonstormX19]

davidt0504 wrote...

I'd just like to point out something (btw I had this all written out and the gay forums errored when I tried to post, so this might not be as coherent as I intend).  Most of the anomosity towards me2 comes from people thinking that the characters that are being introduced will not have a serious impact on the trilogy as a whole.  They think that like many of the characters from me1 that they will get a backseat to events in me3.  So lets discuss this for a bit.  Bioware has already said that they kept any possible LI from me1 out of the events of me2 because they wanted to make sure that they survived in 100% of peoples playthroughs for me3, this indicates that they are planning on bringing them back into a more prominent role for me3.  Now every character in your squad from me2 has the possibility of dying, even shepard.  But if shepard dies then that saved file cannot be carried over and used in me3.  So from what I've seen from people's reports is that if everyone dies then shepard cannot live either, and the smallest number of squad mates that can survive in order for shepard to survive is two.  Its entirely possible that me3 will jump right in where me2 leaves off.  That you will have the same people from me2 in your squad, the same ship, same crew.  This is why you have to at least have two people because you need to start out with at least two squad members as bioware has some deal about always having two companions with you in combat situations, no more no less.  Now I doubt that people who had this happen will have to go through the game with only two squad mates but its possible that more will join you (i.e. ashley/kaiden, liara, wrex maybe?).  See most trilogies are set up kinda like this, they have a first act that sets the stage and can act as more of a stand alone story (halo, the matrix, star wars) and then the final two acts are usually more connected and intertwined (halo, the matrix, star wars lol).  So I'll say what I've said since the beginning of this topic, its fine if you just don't like the story of mass effect, but don't judge the story based on what you think will or should happen in me3, thats just dumb.  Give everything a fair chance.  Most people think that bioware has written themselves into a conundrum because they have all this work to do for me3 involving story and revelation, well just remember that they've planned this as a trilogy from the start, and I doubt they would be that short sited.

Now see....You, I like. I could hug you for being one of the only people who seems to understand how ME2 works, you are worthy of a Illusive Man Avatar.

Mass Effect 2 is a stepping stone to the Greatness that will be ME3. Every action you take throughout ME1 and ME2 will have a effect on ME3, ME2 just seemed more Focused on that fact, I feel safe assuming that when 3 comes out, ME2s story will make alot more sense. I think people have just forgotten how storys work now.

Modifié par MoonstormX19, 17 février 2010 - 11:08 .

[malres]

walk0nwalls wrote...

malres wrote...
I'm sorry, but you can't have the cake and eat it, too. According to that logic, the new head writer should never have included Legion because he's a machine (Legion, not the head writer). Same for EDI, because she's a machine.

Apparently you're criticizing the concept of Artifical Intelligence/Life as story element in general, which features rather prominently in the ME universe.

I have no problem with Artificial Intelligence. But Legion is motivated. The Geth desire a unitarian shell for all their processes. This motivates them. They are in conflict with the quarians, existence also motivates them. EDI I believe has a continuing relationship with the larger crew and is motivated by whatever synthetic empathy she feels for them. The above two characters have discernible and sufficient motivations for their actions.

What motivates the Reapers exactly? Hell we still don't know why exactly they find it so necessary to hit the 'purge' button on all galactic civilization every so often. Greed? Hunger? They want to play the game again except this time they're going to put the humans by the black hole? We still don't know what exactly motivates The Reaper's actions, and that's a significant flaw.

Ok, so let's talk about motivation. I agree to your findings, but not with the conclusion. If the Reapers' motivation is not sufficiently clear, it should be dealt with rather than dropped.
Instead, a number of new characters are introduced, most of which with at least doubtful motivation. Why will aliens join a suicide mission under the flag of an human-extremist organisation to solve a problem which affects exclusively humans?

[malres]

Synriah wrote...

And Thank You, for your respect.

Likewise, thanks to you. It's been a pleasure. *bow*

[malres]

Grrr. Again double post. Sorry.

Modifié par malres, 18 février 2010 - 12:26 .

[malres]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

I think what has so many people upset isn't that some people don't like
the game, it's that they feel the need to phrase it as a statement of
fact. Lots of people on these forums like the story in ME2, heck some
like it more than the first. They both have their strengths and to say
that you can somehow magically distill the value of a work of fiction
into a mathematically proven constant is kind of obnoxious. Given how
different the games are in terms of style, tone and gameplay, saying
ME2 is worse than ME1 has as much weight as saying the opposite. I like
Coke more than Pepsi but my ego isn't so fragile that I need to
discredit Pepsi drinkers in order to validate my own opinions.

Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion and, even more importantly, to his or her enjoyment of whatever. If somebody was totally happy with ME2, then that's all right for all I care. If somebody let's say always wanted to love Garrus or is a secret admirer of Yvonne Strahovsky, that's absolutely ok. And if they want to argue for that or any other reason that ME2 has a good story, well, all I can say is I am looking forward to the discussion.

If somebody makes a qualitative argument, then argumentative opposition is just fair. Freedom of speech allows for arbitrarity, but doesn't put indiscriminate whims on the same level als informed opinion.

Modifié par malres, 18 février 2010 - 12:28 .