Forest03 wrote...
I have several gripes about the game mechanics, but these are mostly subjective. Everyone has a problem of some sort, be it with class balance, lack of tactics, improper difficulty scaling, or the ineffectiveness of certain skills on Insanity mode. There are way too many technical issues and bugs that still need to be fixed, so I'm going to leave them out.
Now, let's get on with what really irritated me and a lot of other players.
ME1 had a lot of filler, especially with that bloody Mako, but the gameplay was very well integrated with the plot - tracking down Saren, gathering information about the Protheans and the Reapers, destroying Sovereign. Even though BioWare marketed ME1 as a blend of FPS and RPG, it was comprised well enough of each genre's elements to be classified as either one. The main character's role meant something to the game world, and you had an important job to do.
ME2's narrative is 90-freaking-percent filler. It's 36+ hours of preparation that amounts to nothing but a rescue mission involving a slew of new characters with some serious personal issues and who are nothing more than cannon fodder. They have absolutely nothing to contribute to the ME universe, let alone gaining an advantage against the Reapers. (Tali, Legion, Mordin readily exempted, and to a lesser extent, Samara and Miranda.) The only revelation we are given is that the Protheans were genetically modified into Collectors, but even that is a tiny asset our arsenal of information.
Regardless of how well the characters, missions, and environments were designed in ME2, their stories and their completion had absolutely nothing to do with the underlying plot. They are nothing more than distractions. We had 11 loyalty *assignments* - calling them "missions" would be an insult to the word - and all of them were personal vendettas that were meant to increase the survival rate of each team member. However, do we care whether or not they survive? In 8 out of 11 cases, no (see above exclusions). We could have saved ourselves a whole lot of time by simply hiring mercenaries.
Deeper character design for team members and the addition of a personal background does not make a game "character-driven", nor does it equate with "character development". BioWare also calls ME2 a fusion of FPS and RPG, yet very role of the of the main character itself has been subverted, turned from a galactic hero and icon to nothing but a part-time vigilante with a grocery list of lunatics to hire for what is little more than a rescue mission on a vast alien construct that easily 75% of players are going to choose to destroy the first time around.
Was the gameplay in ME2 immersive, interactive, full of action, and enjoyable? Yes.
Was said gameplay fully integrated with the main plot as to be worthy of being a sequel to ME1? No.
Great game. Disappointing narrative.
With that, I have to agree to some extent that the first game's sidequests had been connected a bit more to the main story, but it felt like a chore sometimes to me. Not to mention they felt nearly the same in style and presentation. The infiltrating bases ones always seemed to have the same design, amount of enemies and fights. Plenty of the first game was filler, albeit with bits and pieces that tied them to the story. One of the main gripes I have with the first game is how poorly done the minerals were added into the side quests along with various other things that didn't need to be side quests. I understand that they didn't have to be done, but the Completionist achievement needs you to finish the tasks like that to gain it. Mass Effect 2's Mineral Scanning felt like it was an improvement in the sense that it wasn't for an achievement, but it was disappointing because of how integrated it was into the story. That part felt like a huge letdown.
Now, even though Mass Effect 2 has alot of filler, the sidequests do have somewhat an important part to the main storyline. The loyalties allowed you to see into the characters aboard your ship and what drives them and made them. I found this more interesting than just entering into conversations on the first game to get to know the characters. In fact, I love these missions a bit more than Mass Effect 1. They're character driven, emotional, interesting. Although there isn't much tying into the main story like Mass Effect 1, there's little things that do (Grunt is an example, but since this is spoiler free forum I will not dictate that). Overall, I just felt that the side quests had more emotional drive behind them even if they were "filler" and "lack of cohesion to the storyline". So in a sense, the character development is there and is interesting, but it's a matter of opinion.
Now, another gripe I had with Mass Effect 1 was the Inventory. I like RPGs and have since I started playing them with Final Fantasy VII. Stats were fun to make and to create a character. however, sometimes it felt like it was detracting with the inventory system for gameplay. In many ways, as much as the more "traditional" route of the RPG was taken away, I found Mass Effect 2 to be more fun in the department. The leveling up system is fun and intriguing in its presentation.
I also feel that Shepherd's role is also shown to be a hero in the game as well. I haven't completed the game yet, but I'm almost done I think. I mean you're still a hero meant to save the galaxy, but the game gives you the question just how far? If I remember right, your character can die in ME2 depending on certain actions.
Overall, I can understand the gripe and in good points Mass Effect 2 is a bit disappointing and inferior to Mass Effect 1. However, I feel that BioWare got many things right with this game and gave us a great setup for the third part.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
