185 réponses à ce sujet

[khevan]

Here are my two cents on the subject:

First of all, I have no problem with Shepard working with Cerberus in ME2.  It's a "marriage" of convenience, considering that no-one else has the will or ability to investigate the disappearances of the human colonists.  I fully agree that there could have been a better tie-in, a better way for Shepard to accept working with an organization that killed his whole unit (if sole survivor), killed Admiral Kahoku, experimented with Rachni and Thorian creepers, etc.  I have, in my mind, changed the conversation with the Council on the Citadel to run something like this (since I play Paragon, who saved the council in ME1):

Shepard (to council, or anderson, whoever):  Human colonies are disappearing.  We have evidence that the Collectors are responsible (shows video from Freedom's Progress).  I need council (or alliance) help and support to fight this new threat.

Council:  Shepard, those colonies are in the Terminus systems!  If we send Council ships into Terminus space, it could start a war that could cost billions of lives. 

Shepard:  That's what you said when I wanted to go to Ilos to stop Saren.  If I hadn't done what I did, none of you would be alive today!

Council:  That's different.  We acknowledge your past actions, Shepard, and we are prepared offer you reinstatement into the Spectres, but we simply cannot get involved in such a potentially dangerous situation.  We have to consider all the lives in Council space. 

Shepard:  (either renegade "screw you" response or paragon "well geez, thanks for nothing but I'll be nice" response.  End convo with council)

Anderson:  Commander, as much as I hate to admit it, the council is right.  We have to stay away from any possible war in the Terminus systems.  The council didn't say so in so many words, but Cerberus has a better ability to work in Terminus space without it causing a war.  Work with them for now, see what you can do about the collectors.  Just...watch your back, Shepard.  You can't trust Cerberus.

*********************************

That right there would make the plot MUCH easier to swallow, especially if (as I do) you head to the Citadel to talk to Anderson first thing after you get control of the Normandy.  If you play more renegade, you obviously can have the options to defend Cerberus when the council starts asking why you're working with them, etc.

While I certainly would disagree with the council, they pretty much took that stance from the beginning of ME1 as far as war with the Terminus systems goes.  Immediately before being made a Spectre, the council talks about not sending fleets into the Traverse to track down Saren, because that could provoke war.  And then again before going to Ilos, same deal. So it would be a good tie in to use in ME2 to "force" Shep to work with Cerberus, because he can't get that help anywhere else.

The council does mention that it's the Terminus systems, but it doesn't really say anything like what I wrote above. 

Other than that, I find the overall plot to be fairly good.  The recruitment missions were fairly disjointed from each other, but on the other hand, the whole point to the game was to build a squad capable of defeating the Collectors.  There's enough tie in there to keep the game from feeling like a bunch of different scenarios with no connection at all.  The loyalty missions were a bit different in that regard, I think.  I think things could have been done a bit better to tie all of those a bit more into the overall plot, not simply: "I need some help, Shep...could we stop what we're doing with the Collectors and go blow up a base/rescue my syster/find my father/whatever?"  But that's a fairly minor gripe, as far as I'm concerned.  The basic overall plot was good, in my opinion...it just needed a bit more to make it easier to accept. 

Sorry for the wall of text.  Apparently I had more to say than I thought I did!

[BattleVisor]

He was right about cerberus though, everything else was pure dribble.

[Doug84]

hitorihanzo wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

I think a lot who think the review is great fell for an old trick

Never put down your reasons for why X is bad in straightforward terms

From the review, the first part talked only on that Ceberus reviving Shepard was not as good as what he wanted. This is pretty silly. A story can be written in a million ways (literally) but in the end one way must be chosen. Life and writers don't follow what a single person wants (as many of the harry potter readers can attest)

Now the following bullet points

"i) Your entire body is pulverized, but they bring you back exactly as you were before."
This is almost explicitly spelt out when Miranda/Jacob states that TIM wanted shepard back as he/she was, not a clone, not a fake. The reason some people may not understand is why TIM must bring back Shepard. TIM himself indirectly give some hints on why. If you don't get it, think a bit on how Ceberus does things and what TIM tells Shepard

"2) Your ship is destroyed, but they build you a new one that’s very similar and then give it the same name. (Except the new one has the CERBERUS LOGO stenciled on the side, which is a bit odd for a super-secret shadow organization. Somehow this doesn’t cause constant problems for you every time you try to dock somewhere civilized.)"

Shepard names the ship, not Ceberus. When the normandy is first shown, it only has SR2 and no name. Shepard remarks, she'll need a name and when it departs, we see Normandy on the ship. Ceberus is not widely known as Ceberus is a shadow organization. Even Shepard is surprised that Mordin knows about Ceberus. A logo is even less known than a spoken name (do you know the flag of Iceland?) and i strongly doubt the Ceberus logo is trademarked so anything can use their logo including companies operating outside Council space

Why did they put the logo on the ship? Makes no sense does it? Until TIM betrays you by name dropping you to the Alliance.

"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "

Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.

"4) All of your original crew resign the Alliance and (on their own, apparently) join up with this terrorist organization. They seem to do so without knowing ahead of time that they will end up working for you again on a copy of the original ship. Apparently your entire crew was teetering on the edge of treason at the end of the last game? (Really. Dr. Chakwas’ excuse for signing up with Cerberus is that she missed space travel. She signed up with one of the most ruthless organizations in the galaxy – an organization that you had fought many times in the first game – because that was the only way she could think of to get back into space!?!) So by the time you take command of the new Normandy, everyone is already waiting for you."

2 people are hardly the "entire crew". Chakwas is obvious ingame. She trusts Shepard and needs to tend to Joker. Joker does not absolutely trust Ceberus but believes there are good and bad people in it and bringing Shepard back plus making him pilot again is a major plus point. There aren't any old crew left. Tali and Garrus needs to be recruited.

On the Illusive Man being a well kept secret.
The writers point this out using Mordin. The Illusive Man really is unknown even to the oldest galactic black ops organization the STG. The Alliance likely has the same info. Just a name and nothing else

On the Illusive man not pointing out stuff you wrecked for him.
Note the first conversation you have with him. TIM immediately tells you the Reapers are back. He's not stupid. Reminding you of the Ceberus actions in ME1 would gain him nothing and likely backfire. So he goes straight to the point.

Now Shepard being fixed on helping Ceberus has 2 factors. First is a technical issue as this is a CRPG, not a PnP RPG. A program is not alive, so it cannot "wing it". Second, characterwise, if you keep up the paragon choices, it shows that Shepard is working with them, not for them. It is a case of banding up to take on the greater evil with an agreement that the conflict with the lesser evil will restart at a later date.

This post should be copied and pasted after the OP.  Brilliant post. 

Agreed!

[corebit]

Doug84 wrote...

corebit wrote...

Very spot-on analysis of the plot in the article! I found myself agreeing with the article on most of the points.

What struck me as particularly accurate and funny was the decision by the collectors to make a Human Reaper. How the hell is it supposed to fly around? or attack? (like the article says: punching ships LOL)
Also, in the end we are told that Reapers copy the shape and form of the races they extinguish. And they had this cycle repeating for millions of years. BUT in the end cinematic showing all the reapers out there waiting, we only see Sovereign look alikes WTH? Is that shape the only successful one they could come up?

Why wouldn't it? Aerodynamics aren't a problem in space. And when you factor in the mass effect fields, which reduce the effective weight of anything to zero, why wouldn't it work any better than a damned squid shaped ship?

Last time I checked, a squid was not space-travelling material any more than a human.

Huh? Last time I checked, most science fiction treated deep space more akin to a vast ocean. That's why most space military are called NAVY not AIR FORCE . This has nothing to do with aerodynamics. A squid Reaper flying in space is completely fitting. A human Reaper flying around Superman-style looks downright comical.

[SovereignT]

BattleVisor wrote...

He was right about cerberus though, everything else was pure dribble.

Correction this was dribble

He failed as he tried to apply logic to every little aspect of a video game therefore he is a moron.:innocent:

Modifié par SovereignT, 18 février 2010 - 05:47 .

[FlyinElk212]

tertium organum wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...


And do you want to know WHY the "human reaper"was left so mysteriously ambiguous? It's probably because IT'S A MAJOR PLOT POINT IN ME3. Why in the world would Bioware bring up such a huge revelation like this only to solve the mysteries in the same game?
 

Promissory notes do not make a good argument, Why would Bioware leave a major plot hole like this? Assuming they'll have it fixed doesn't make it any less jarring.  Moreover, the assumption itself is ridiculous when so many other things have gone awry - the council being the main one.

Promissory notes that explain the intentions of a storyline's main antagonist IS a good argument. It's a necessity to the plot and, from a trilogy standpoint, usually cannot be revealed UNTIL the third installment. If it's revealed any sooner, the storyline in the third installment becomes extremely flat--the only storyline would consist of the final push of the protagonists to defeat the antagonists.

Now, IF ME3 chooses not to delve into the matter, I will stand corrected. However, I'm willing to give the Bioware writers more credit than Shamus does (a bunch of infantiles writing with crayons).

[The Governator]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004

While I think he sometimes looks a bit to far into things, he does make some damned good points.

He does make a lot of really good points. 

The thing that I LOATHE about the game is the reboot.  Hogwash.  Good writing does not require such bad plot devices.

Still, I love Mass Effect 2.  Hopefully they can either correct or move forward with ME3.

[SuperZombieChow]

I absolutely loved the game, just have to get that out here before I begin.



Having said that, I feel that the author of this review made several valid points. Most of them can be glossed over as being "second in a trilogy" issues, but the major one I noticed was that the storyline really didn't progress. The game introduced the collectors, and you defeat the collectors completely. By the end of the game all that happened was Shepard got a fancier ship and some new friends. The progression felt akin to an 80s saturday morning cartoon, where at the start of the episode there is a new major threat and by the end you're back to stock footage of the villian shaking his fist and screaming "I'll get you next time!"



Side stories (like the genophage, the migrant fleet's looming war with the geth, etc) all progressed fantastically in the game, but the main story (you know, that whole reaper thing they mention one or two times in the game?) could have continued from game one to three without any interruption.



I also agree that the final choice should not have been so clearly split into "good" and "bad" decisions. Your crewmembers should not unanimously agree or disagree with your decision. Where's the contention? Where's the urge to reload your game and second guess the decision you made? With a decision like that, the player should be left wondering nervously if they just damned themselves in ME3 by keeping/destroying the base.

[smudboy]

Computron2000 wrote...

I think a lot who think the review is great fell for an old trick

Never put down your reasons for why X is bad in straightforward terms

From the review, the first part talked only on that Ceberus reviving Shepard was not as good as what he wanted. This is pretty silly. A story can be written in a million ways (literally) but in the end one way must be chosen. Life and writers don't follow what a single person wants (as many of the harry potter readers can attest)

What?  I'm up for clarity in storytelling, of any style or scale, especially within a large space opera.  ME2 is not some short story masterwork of foreshadowing and subtle allusions, a la "Hills Like White Elephants" whereupon my lack of intelligence or social norms, memory, or logical thinking skills prevent me from "getting it."  ME2 is just badly hacked together.

Now the following bullet points

"i) Your entire body is pulverized, but they bring you back exactly as you were before."
This is almost explicitly spelt out when Miranda/Jacob states that TIM wanted shepard back as he/she was, not a clone, not a fake. The reason some people may not understand is why TIM must bring back Shepard. TIM himself indirectly give some hints on why. If you don't get it, think a bit on how Ceberus does things and what TIM tells Shepard

You make absolutey no point.  Please try again.

"2) Your ship is destroyed, but they build you a new one that’s very similar and then give it the same name. (Except the new one has the CERBERUS LOGO stenciled on the side, which is a bit odd for a super-secret shadow organization. Somehow this doesn’t cause constant problems for you every time you try to dock somewhere civilized.)"

Shepard names the ship, not Ceberus. When the normandy is first shown, it only has SR2 and no name. Shepard remarks, she'll need a name and when it departs, we see Normandy on the ship. Ceberus is not widely known as Ceberus is a shadow organization. Even Shepard is surprised that Mordin knows about Ceberus. A logo is even less known than a spoken name (do you know the flag of Iceland?) and i strongly doubt the Ceberus logo is trademarked so anything can use their logo including companies operating outside Council space

Why did they put the logo on the ship? Makes no sense does it? Until TIM betrays you by name dropping you to the Alliance.

So Shepard gets to name the ship.  So?

Cerberus is not widely known, and is the (greatest?) enemy of the Council.  So why would one want to advertise that fact, especially when going to Council space?  I can only buy this from the Citadel since C-Sec are so thick.  Bringing a Cerberus warship to dock anywhere in Council space is worse than having a geth ship dock in the Citadel.

Remember how Joker got to dock the Normandy to the Citadel in ME1?  He had  to contact Citadel control, then get transferred to an Alliance operator.  Even the Quarians knew it was a Cerberus vessel, and they were only allowed to dock because Tali was on board.

"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "

Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.

In no way did I ever think that everyone else thought I'd have a control chip in my brain.  Where are you getting this?

"4) All of your original crew resign the Alliance and (on their own, apparently) join up with this terrorist organization. They seem to do so without knowing ahead of time that they will end up working for you again on a copy of the original ship. Apparently your entire crew was teetering on the edge of treason at the end of the last game? (Really. Dr. Chakwas’ excuse for signing up with Cerberus is that she missed space travel. She signed up with one of the most ruthless organizations in the galaxy – an organization that you had fought many times in the first game – because that was the only way she could think of to get back into space!?!) So by the time you take command of the new Normandy, everyone is already waiting for you."

2 people are hardly the "entire crew". Chakwas is obvious ingame. She trusts Shepard and needs to tend to Joker. Joker does not absolutely trust Ceberus but believes there are good and bad people in it and bringing Shepard back plus making him pilot again is a major plus point. There aren't any old crew left. Tali and Garrus needs to be recruited.

Would a doctor really join a terrorist group that experimented on rachni, husks and creepers?  I guess she gives the excuse about Joker, but the whole thing about wanting to stay in space is ridiculous.  (Mind you I don't care, I don't really see Chakwas as a character in either ME1/ME2.)

Joker didn't even know about the Normandy till Shepard hit the scene, and the last 2 years of his life were crap.  However I can buy it, since he just wants to fly, and he hated how the Council treated the loss of the Normandy.

Regardless of the motivations of these two characters, they'll still joined a terrorist group two years ago they fought against, had no idea that they'd be on the new Normandy, or that Shepard was "in the works."  All to satisfy the plot device that was Shepard's resurrection.

Now I get there was some backstory about the attack on the Citadel (via Donnelly), and a public outcry.  But it's all just "off to the side."  Again, lack of exposition.

On the Illusive Man being a well kept secret.
The writers point this out using Mordin. The Illusive Man really is unknown even to the oldest galactic black ops organization the STG. The Alliance likely has the same info. Just a name and nothing else

On the Illusive man not pointing out stuff you wrecked for him.
Note the first conversation you have with him. TIM immediately tells you the Reapers are back. He's not stupid. Reminding you of the Ceberus actions in ME1 would gain him nothing and likely backfire. So he goes straight to the point.

Again, lack of exposition. If you're planning a trilogy, the writer should know how it all connects.  What if we got to meet the Shadow Broker instead?  That would've been much more interesting.

Now Shepard being fixed on helping Ceberus has 2 factors. First is a technical issue as this is a CRPG, not a PnP RPG. A program is not alive, so it cannot "wing it". Second, characterwise, if you keep up the paragon choices, it shows that Shepard is working with them, not for them. It is a case of banding up to take on the greater evil with an agreement that the conflict with the lesser evil will restart at a later date.

Huh?  Do you even think before you write?

Modifié par smudboy, 18 février 2010 - 06:11 .

[bobito64]

SovereignT wrote...

He failed as he tried to apply logic to every little aspect of a video game therefore he is a moron.:innocent:

I would agree with you if the game in question was a Super Mario game. However, Bioware games are story driven. The story is their selling point, it is what they boast about and what they pride themselves on. When the central story of one of their games is nonsensical, it is a reasonable criticism to point that out.

[Doug84]

corebit wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

corebit wrote...

Very spot-on analysis of the plot in the article! I found myself agreeing with the article on most of the points.

What struck me as particularly accurate and funny was the decision by the collectors to make a Human Reaper. How the hell is it supposed to fly around? or attack? (like the article says: punching ships LOL)
Also, in the end we are told that Reapers copy the shape and form of the races they extinguish. And they had this cycle repeating for millions of years. BUT in the end cinematic showing all the reapers out there waiting, we only see Sovereign look alikes WTH? Is that shape the only successful one they could come up?

Why wouldn't it? Aerodynamics aren't a problem in space. And when you factor in the mass effect fields, which reduce the effective weight of anything to zero, why wouldn't it work any better than a damned squid shaped ship?

Last time I checked, a squid was not space-travelling material any more than a human.

Huh? Last time I checked, most science fiction treated deep space more akin to a vast ocean. That's why most space military are called NAVY not AIR FORCE . This has nothing to do with aerodynamics. A squid Reaper flying in space is completely fitting. A human Reaper flying around Superman-style looks downright comical.

....and? Space isn't the same as the sea, regardless of our preconcieved notations of space. As for the human-reaper itself, it was an embryo, and given we all had gills at one point in our mothers wombs, its wholy possible the damn think would look a hell of alot different when finished.

[Doug84]

smudboy wrote...

"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "

Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.

In no way did I ever think that everyone else thought I'd have a control chip in my brain.  Where are you getting this

Miranda, on the station after you talk to TIM for the first time.

[SuperZombieChow]

smudboy wrote...

Again, lack of exposition. If you're planning a trilogy, the writer should know how it all connects.  What if we got to meet the Shadow Broker instead?  That would've been much more interesting.

Don't want to get into the whole agrument, but I agree with this. Working with the Shadow Broker would have carried more weight then working with the Illusive Man for me. Particularly since the Shadow Broker is shown as a neutral force in ME1, whereas Cerberus is clearly antagonistic.

I can understand Shepard being willing to work with Cerberus if they're the ones with information: The threat has to be neutralized, and Shepard can't be picky about where his intel comes from if he wants to save the Galaxy. But working for the Shadow Broker would have been both more exciting and less of a moral 180.

[corebit]

The second part of a trilogy should offer explanations to things left unanswered in the first part, while the third part should offer the closure to the series. ME2 does not expand on any foundations raised by ME1, instead it rewrites them, retcons them. This leaves us confused and asking even more questions. This is too much a burden to lay all the explanatory work on ME3 while also expecting a satisfactory conclusion. Unless the writers pull off a miracle in ME3 of course, many will be left disappointed.

SuperZombieChow wrote...

Don't want to get into the whole agrument, but I agree with this.
Working with the Shadow Broker would have carried more weight then
working with the Illusive Man for me. Particularly since the Shadow
Broker is shown as a neutral force in ME1, whereas Cerberus is clearly
antagonistic.

I can understand Shepard being willing to work with
Cerberus if they're the ones with information: The threat has to be
neutralized, and Shepard can't be picky about where his intel comes from
if he wants to save the Galaxy. But working for the Shadow Broker would
have been both more exciting and less of a moral 180.

True. This wouldn't have been a problem if the writers at least laid some foundation that Cerberus cared for humanity's interests in ME1. Really sloppy work on Bioware's part.

Modifié par corebit, 18 février 2010 - 06:14 .

[halO bendeR]

Like others, I find myself agreeing with a majority of what the article said. In spite of that however, I still consider ME2 to be my best gaming experience in recent memory.

I never really expect games to have tight, cohesive plots which is probably why I'm able to forgive ME2 for all its story flaws. If you think about it however, it's not all that different than any other media in terms of plot holes.
While it would have been great had they foreshadowed the Illusive Man in the first game, his introduction without previous mention doesn't strike me as all that different from the introduction of new characters on Lost or any other critically acclaimed fictional show.
Heck, even Babylon 5 which many hail as a sci-fi masterpiece, whose 5 seasons were planned out ahead of time (not unlike Mass Effect), had its fair share of plot holes and contrivances as well.

Modifié par halO bendeR, 18 février 2010 - 06:17 .

[Terraneaux]

This reviewer has it pretty much spot on.  And what's gonna make me buy ME3 or not?  Whether it has crappy useless filler story like this or a decent story like ME1.

[tertium organum]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

tertium organum wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...


And do you want to know WHY the "human reaper"was left so mysteriously ambiguous? It's probably because IT'S A MAJOR PLOT POINT IN ME3. Why in the world would Bioware bring up such a huge revelation like this only to solve the mysteries in the same game?
 

Promissory notes do not make a good argument, Why would Bioware leave a major plot hole like this? Assuming they'll have it fixed doesn't make it any less jarring.  Moreover, the assumption itself is ridiculous when so many other things have gone awry - the council being the main one.

Promissory notes that explain the intentions of a storyline's main antagonist IS a good argument. It's a necessity to the plot and, from a trilogy standpoint, usually cannot be revealed UNTIL the third installment. If it's revealed any sooner, the storyline in the third installment becomes extremely flat--the only storyline would consist of the final push of the protagonists to defeat the antagonists.

Now, IF ME3 chooses not to delve into the matter, I will stand corrected. However, I'm willing to give the Bioware writers more credit than Shamus does (a bunch of infantiles writing with crayons).

It is not a good argument - at most, you can argue that we should wait and see not the ridiculous argument that it WILL be explained when Bioware has failed with other elements of the story. Secondly, the concept of a trilogy does not ential that the second story must be poor or leave inexplicable cliffhangers -  if we defeat the human reaper, why must we know its signifiance in the third game and not now?  How is this good writing? The human Reaper is not the rachni - a side decision with major possible repercussions.  It is the culmination of the whole game. The fact that it's defeat signifies next to nothing concerning the Reaper threat is poor story-writing. We're supposed to be sickened by it's existence which we are but the big deal about it is lost on the player - they make a human Reaper because they repurpose species but what does this have to do with them getting back? Are they really trying to attack the citadel again? Come on! This is poorly developed which is why none of this  is as shocking as it should be.

When we defeated Sovereign, we knew we prevented him from activating a relay and letting the Reapers in.  The mystery for most of the game was what the beacons were telling us, what happened to the Protheans,  what Sovereign was, what the Reapers were doing and eventually the big reveal that the citadel  itself was a trap. Mysteries brought  up and explained in the same game. Wow! Major plot points reseolved in the same game!  I suppose ME1's story was bad because it's main story arc answered th questions it brought up while still leaving things unresolved. That is, how you're going to defeat the Reapers not what the heck was Sovereign doing or its purpose.

Modifié par tertium organum, 18 février 2010 - 06:21 .

[Terraneaux]

JJ Long wrote...

Like most sheep, a lot of people will agree with this article. When it is in fact, a bunch of crap.

You mean, like most sheep, a lot of people will insist that ME2 was good, including its terrible excuse for a story, so they don't look bad for spending the money and enthusiasm on it.  

I don't have a problem with saying that.  I feel robbed.  At least there's some decent gameplay in there.  

[smudboy]

Doug84 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "

Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.

In no way did I ever think that everyone else thought I'd have a control chip in my brain.  Where are you getting this

Miranda, on the station after you talk to TIM for the first time.

...but never did I think "everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain" just because Miranda mentions this if she was given the option to rebuid you.

Modifié par smudboy, 18 février 2010 - 06:24 .

[Doug84]

Terraneaux wrote...

JJ Long wrote...

Like most sheep, a lot of people will agree with this article. When it is in fact, a bunch of crap.

You mean, like most sheep, a lot of people will insist that ME2 was good, including its terrible excuse for a story, so they don't look bad for spending the money and enthusiasm on it.  

I don't have a problem with saying that.  I feel robbed.  At least there's some decent gameplay in there.  

Good for you. I don't.

[Sigma Tauri]

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 07 septembre 2010 - 02:30 .

[RiouHotaru]

stillnotking wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

that guy needs to read the novels.

That's pretty lame.  You shouldn't be forced to rely on supplementary material in order for the game to make any sense.

Of course.  The game makes sense even if you don't read the supplementary material, but it also adds a LOT to the existing material.  For example, specifically showing why the Quarians hate Cerberus, details about the Ascenscion Project, etc, etc.  It's not necessary, but if you want more details and depth, it's worth a look at.

[D4rk50ul808]

Assuming the creator of this review put a lot of thought into it, he sure missed a lot of the story. He went in looking for reasons it not to make sense, and not the opposite.

The first game paints Cerberus as an evil organization, but I think the second game handles it well. You don't know why Cerberus resurrected you, just that it was worth breaking the bank for them to do it. You are reminded throughout the game that they are not to be trusted, yet you are given just enough info about them to cloud your judgment. Miranda was hand picked by them to be with you maybe because they knew you would trust her? No one from the first ME that you meet in this game is like "Oh Cerberus is so nice now" they all still remember how bad they are.

If you think hard enough you can even see the entire Cerberus plan. All of the Cerberus missions in the first game involve one of the species that the Reapers tried to use in the past, Rachni, Geth, and Humans. It makes sense that they are trying to secure this advanced technology for themselves. Shepard is the only one with first hand knowledge of them and the Prothean beacons, of course they want him too. It's led to believe that the new Normandy has Reaper technology in it, I'm sure Shepard does too. Cerberus is the same as before, trying to get their hands on the most advanced tech in the universe.

On to the Collectors. The first game did little to explain where the millions of Protheans went. It also leaves the origin of the Relays and such as a mystery. This game shows you what the Reapers did with the extinct race, and makes it clear that a DIFFERENT race developed the technology. If you read all the e-mails and did all the quests you find out that the same race most likely built the Reapers as well. This race is the real enemy, the Reapers are just a tool they built to achieve their victory. The third game will reveal the true enemy.

The true enemy is obviously an organic species that is looking for a way to return to the galaxy in an organic shell. They are looking for similarities in the Prothean and Human DNA strands. Mordin says humans have the most diverse DNA ever seen, which would explain the interest in us. Building a human Reaper would have been them trying to join their technology with our new found DNA as a test. Machines can't build themselves, the Reapers are definitely a product of a living being. The terminator was stupid, I'll agree with that every time.

Where did the Geth go? I thought it was pretty well explained with Legion that they were Heretics. They did not represent the Geth as a whole, and were shunned by their own kind. When the attack failed they were released from control, yet still carry the new beliefs. They aren't attacking as much because they lack the guidance of a Reaper. The real Geth seem to worship Shepard Commander, perhaps because he destroyed the Reaper that caused the Heretics to leave the collective.

End mission. OFC the team wants you to blow up the base, even the Cerberus agents know by now that their company wants the Reaper tech for the wrong reasons. Sure if the alliance was to study the ship it would help, but you aren't saving it for them. They give you just enough information in the game to make this a difficult choice (good story telling imo), yet if you played both games you should know saving the station is going to turn out bad. Cerberus wants its own Reapers to dominate the galaxy with and you have the opportunity to give that to them, or destroy that hope.

I could do into every little thing about the story, but the wall of text would be amazing. Every last thing was explained to me fairly well between the first two games. The only part I didn't like was the lack of information about the Shadow Broker and TiM. They should have more of a backstory, at least we know they aren't one in the same. They both wanted Shepard's body but Liara gave you to Cerberus instead.

Edit: Joker joined Cerberus to get his ship back and be able to fly again, the Doc explains that she has gone everywhere Joker has since she met him.  The rest of the crew joined Cerberus because they felt the Alliance was doing nothing to stop the threat and wanted to make a real difference.

Modifié par D4rk50ul808, 18 février 2010 - 07:13 .

[SL22]

Terraneaux wrote...

JJ Long wrote...

Like most sheep, a lot of people will agree with this article. When it is in fact, a bunch of crap.

You mean, like most sheep, a lot of people will insist that ME2 was good, including its terrible excuse for a story, so they don't look bad for spending the money and enthusiasm on it.  

I don't have a problem with saying that.  I feel robbed.  At least there's some decent gameplay in there.  

Oh I get it, because you were disappointed with the game then that means that anyone who enjoyed the story are just "sheep." Don't counter something retarded with something as equally retarded.

I love the game, I'm satisfied with what Bioware has made and so are the majority of people.

Modifié par SL22, 18 février 2010 - 07:16 .

[Doug84]

D4rk50ul808 wrote...

On to the Collectors. The first game did little to explain where the millions of Protheans went. It also leaves the origin of the Relays and such as a mystery. This game shows you what the Reapers did with the extinct race, and makes it clear that a DIFFERENT race developed the technology. If you read all the e-mails and did all the quests you find out that the same race most likely built the Reapers as well. This race is the real enemy, the Reapers are just a tool they built to achieve their victory. The third game will reveal the true enemy.

Woah, wait a second - where did that come from? I didn't see a hint of that..? Do you have a start point in game for me to look at for this ancient species..?

But aside from that, I liked you post alot