102 réponses à ce sujet

[Axx Bytehoven]

 Having finished (2) plays of ME2, I have an empty feeling, and for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.

I awaited ME2 with such great anticipation. Perhaps that's part of the problem. Could such a long wait have caused me to have greater expectations? Is that it I wonder, did I have expectations that have been left unfilled? Something is wrong.

I know the story feels different, shorter, after having made the journey. Also, the recruit missions feel like something is missing. Maybe it's the missing elevator dialogue.

I know the change in the inventory management has reduced some sense of immersion I felt while playing the game versus ME1.

Maybe it's the Mako. I do miss the Mako, even though I do agree it became a repetitive requirement, but no more so than planet scanning. I hope the Hammerhead DLC restores some of the Mako experience.

Maybe it's the ending of ME2. In ME1, there was such a great sensation of "WE did it. We're galactic heros". This time around, I really don't have a compelling thought about the story or what's next, as if I missed playing a part of the game, and missed out on some crucial bit of story line. It's very odd.

I don't mean for this post to be a complaint about ME2 because it is an improvement in so many ways over ME1. However, I thought I would share this empty feeling I am having, in hopes of some therapy. 

Does anyone feel the same way?  

Perhaps it's just the typical melancholy that sets in after completing the experience of something you wait for with great expectation.

Modifié par Axx Bytehoven, 19 février 2010 - 07:37 .

[Console Cowboy]

Axx Bytehoven wrote...


Maybe it's the ending of ME2. In ME1, there was such a great sensation of "WE did it. We're galactic heros". This time around, I really don't have a compelling thought about the story or what's next, as if I missed playing a part of the game, and missed out on some crucial bit of story line. It's very odd.

that's it for me. the final segment of the first game was a thrillride. ME2 ended on a flatter note and didn't really move the story forward any. the rest of the game was fantastic, but it was all more personal storytelling, with the recruitment and loyalty missions. it's on a different scale.

[Valmy]

It was a very private triumph in ME2. Nobody knows what you have done besides The Illusive Man and your crew. I find that sort of compelling actually.

[Talogrungi]

Clearly you need to replay it for a third. On Insanity. With an Adept.

But yeah, I think it's the ending. You spend ages getting this team together, then you find out at the end that you're no further forward than you were at the end of ME1. The Reapers are still coming, and you have no idea how to stop them.

It also doesn't help that every squadmate you recruit can potentially die (though not all at once) leaving one with the slight feeling of: Ok, I'm no further forward plot-wise, and my squadmates can die .. does this mean that I start ME3 looking for a whole new crew as well as still having no idea how to beat the Reapers? And why am I still in Cerberus?

[wollert]

I would wager a combination of high expectations and the "flat" feeling of it actually being over. I know I had been in high-rev anticipation for weeks prior to launch, then when it finally arrived there was exctacy, and when it was over....there was a lot of emptiness, until I got the urge to play it again and again....again....and again for 7 times until a break was needed.

[ATKT]

Unfortunately ME2 lacks a concrete conclusion by design--it is only the build-up from exposition to grand epic ending. A lot of plot holes exist and a lot of things are left unexplained, but a lot of that might be the carrot at the the end of the ME3 stick. That's something that sucks about planned trilogies. I wish game developers made games without sequels in mind, but then again, we wouldn't get something on the scope of ME1-3 if they didn't.



I for one went into ME2 almost completely unspoiled--didn't know who Archangel was, didn't know that Legion would be recruitable (this isn't a word, according to spell check), etc.--and as a result I found the mini-plots in ME2 very satisfying.

[neubourn]

It feels shorter, because the story changed from Plot Driven to Character Driven. Overall, the game pretty much clocks in about the same time (30-40 hours), and the "Main Plot" missions are about the same in number:



Cerberus Facility/Intro --> Eden Prime/Intro

Omega ---> Citadel

Horizon ---> Liara Dig site

Collector Ship ---> Feros

Derelict Reaper ---> Noveria

Reaper IFF/Normandy ambush ---> Virmire

Omega 4 relay/Collector Base ---> Illos/Citadel assault



So yeah, time wise, it is about the same as ME1, there are plenty of side missions on both, but the quality is better in ME2. ME1 was an Epic Space tale, whereas ME2 is a character driven story that ties into the ME1 story. Thats probably why it feels different.

[Mox Ruuga]

The amount of "story" compared with the amount of "character building" for the rag tag bunch of misfits you are collecting is off, like 10/90 percent split in favor of the rag tags. The grand, overarching plot set up in ME1 hardly advances at all, and reset buttons are actually pushed for various things the ME1 ending set up. In the end, the Collectors have destroyed several colonies and killed a hundred thousand people, or so. Their collective "might" was never the threat Sovereign, Saren, his geth and his krogan posed. Had that Collector cruiser attempted to attack a major military post, chances are it might have been defeated. The Gardian turrets on Horizon drive it off quite handily.

[Axx Bytehoven]

Great points. In ME1, you gather your squad, and then proceed on a number of sub-missions toward the final Saren/Vanguard battle. Each of the sub-missions reveals a bit of the story, while the side stuff fills in or simply provides play time. ME2 is so much a squad recruit challenge and then a final mission. The side missions are mostly unrelated to the story, and then you hit the final Suicide Mission.



Over all ME2 play time was actually a bit longer and did seem to go more quickly. So I am not complaining. I just wish I had a compelling thought or feeling to end this otherwise fantastic meal.

[TerribleTruth]

I know the change in the inventory management has reduced some sense of immersion I felt while playing the game versus ME1.

What caused this?
Was it not magically holding 9999 weapons and ammo types in your ass anymore?
Was it that different guns don't look exactly the same anymore?

Modifié par TerribleTruth, 19 février 2010 - 07:56 .

[cancausecancer]

With ME1 I had no idea what to expect. With ME2 it was all over the interwebs that we were going to be putting together a team to do 'the mission'. I missed the adventure of finding out what was going on.

[Ulicus]

Honestly, I think what it comes down to is that ME1 was a very self-contained story. Everyone points to ME2 as "the second act of the trilogy" but, while it might be the second game of a trilogy, in terms of the narrative it seems more akin to the first act of what's going to be a two-part sequel.

And - overall - it's a very good "Part 1", IMO.

Modifié par Ulicus, 19 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[Welder0]

ATKT wrote...

Unfortunately ME2 lacks a concrete conclusion by design--it is only the build-up from exposition to grand epic ending. A lot of plot holes exist and a lot of things are left unexplained, but a lot of that might be the carrot at the the end of the ME3 stick. That's something that sucks about planned trilogies. I wish game developers made games without sequels in mind, but then again, we wouldn't get something on the scope of ME1-3 if they didn't.

I for one went into ME2 almost completely unspoiled--didn't know who Archangel was, didn't know that Legion would be recruitable (this isn't a word, according to spell check), etc.--and as a result I found the mini-plots in ME2 very satisfying.

What you said.

[FFLB]

cancausecancer wrote...

With ME1 I had no idea what to expect. With ME2 it was all over the interwebs that we were going to be putting together a team to do 'the mission'. I missed the adventure of finding out what was going on.

I agree. I would've preferred it if less information was given out. More teasers would've been better than having whole character reveals spoiled. A lot of this info was difficult to avoid unless you avoided the internet itself.

Oh, and it seemed as though the ending of ME2 was meant to be ominous, but I didn't really catch too much of that feeling. Maybe if the final Reaper scene was extended, I would've felt more dread. A few extra lines from Harbinger, perhaps?

Modifié par FFLB, 19 février 2010 - 08:10 .

[Axx Bytehoven]

TerribleTruth wrote... What caused this?
Was it not magically holding 9999 weapons and ammo types in your ass anymore?
Was it that different guns don't look exactly the same anymore?

I feel ya. But like building a light saber in Kotor, building the "perfect" weapon in ME1 was also very entertaining and fed my obsessive/compulsive disorder.

[Beerfish]

The one thing that I missed most from the 1st game was the elevator dialogues. There is a bit of banter here and there between squad mates but I like party banter and would have like if there was more of it.

[smudboy]

Better plot and its exposition, less plot holes = everything better.



(Save probing.)

[Jeremy Winston]

ME1 left the door open for ME2 and ME3, but noone knew how good it would be, so it completed it's story in a cinematic, fulfilling way.



ME2, knowing that ME3 was around the corner, had more of a "to be continued" aspect to it's ending. Star Wars was kind of similar is that respect. Chapter 4 had the fulfilling destruction of the death star and the followup award ceremony, where as Chapter 5 had a lot of incompleted plot elements, with Han Solo in carbonite, Luke and Darth still unresolved, etc.

[Daeion]

I've done 3 play throughs and am on a 4th but I doubt I'll be finishing it, heck I wouldn't have done more then 1 if I wasn't playing on the PC version and was able to skip playing probe wars.  ME2 felt like I spent 5 hours in a grocery store, 30 minutes preparing the meal, and then 1 minute enjoying it.

TerribleTruth wrote...
What caused this?
Was it not magically holding 9999 weapons and ammo types in your ass anymore?
Was it that different guns don't look exactly the same anymore?

Just because you don't care for an inventory system doesn't mean there aren't a lot of us out there that enjoy an inventory system.  Was the system in ME over the top?  Yes, but they could have simply fixed this by taking out about 50% of the manufacturers, adding in the different types like they did for ME2, and then just adding auto equip and auto break down buttons.  One of the great things about going through ME over and over was that there was always something new to find, sure I got to the point where I had maxed omnigel, but heck, that's what they could haev used for research material.

[alperez]

Jeremy Winston wrote...

ME1 left the door open for ME2 and ME3, but noone knew how good it would be, so it completed it's story in a cinematic, fulfilling way.

ME2, knowing that ME3 was around the corner, had more of a "to be continued" aspect to it's ending. Star Wars was kind of similar is that respect. Chapter 4 had the fulfilling destruction of the death star and the followup award ceremony, where as Chapter 5 had a lot of incompleted plot elements, with Han Solo in carbonite, Luke and Darth still unresolved, etc.

Exactly, well said.

Me1 had a complete story and ending in itself, even though it set the stage for me2/3 very little was left unresolved other than the main threat, very much like star wars as you point out.

Me2 is not a complete story, its a setup to the conclussion, so it leaves much more unresolved, it allows you a sense of completion in your wiping out the collectors but it leaves things very much in the air, as did empire.

The key of course is to look at me2/me3 as one continous game and look at me1 as a seperate part of the same trilogy. Just like you do with star wars.

People no doubt felt the same way about empire when it was released and only when return of the jedi came out did they get the same kind of closure as they did with star wars.

What may be interesting to see is if like empire is now, if in the future me2 will be acknowledged as the best of the trilogy because of how it set things up for me3.

[Rayhaana]

Console Cowboy wrote...

Axx Bytehoven wrote...


Maybe it's the ending of ME2. In ME1, there was such a great sensation of "WE did it. We're galactic heros". This time around, I really don't have a compelling thought about the story or what's next, as if I missed playing a part of the game, and missed out on some crucial bit of story line. It's very odd.

that's it for me. the final segment of the first game was a thrillride. ME2 ended on a flatter note and didn't really move the story forward any. the rest of the game was fantastic, but it was all more personal storytelling, with the recruitment and loyalty missions. it's on a different scale.

I agree to an extent. The ending was epic in it's own way, but I just know that my Shephard would be thinking: "We beat the collectors, but so what. An entire Reaper fleet is coming, and it took me coming back to life, the devotion of Cerberus, and some luck that we beat the Collectors". I'll give ME2 this though, it really really builds up for the third game.

[Jeremy Winston]

alperez wrote...

Jeremy Winston wrote...

ME1 left the door open for ME2 and ME3, but noone knew how good it would be, so it completed it's story in a cinematic, fulfilling way.

ME2, knowing that ME3 was around the corner, had more of a "to be continued" aspect to it's ending. Star Wars was kind of similar is that respect. Chapter 4 had the fulfilling destruction of the death star and the followup award ceremony, where as Chapter 5 had a lot of incompleted plot elements, with Han Solo in carbonite, Luke and Darth still unresolved, etc.

Exactly, well said.

Me1 had a complete story and ending in itself, even though it set the stage for me2/3 very little was left unresolved other than the main threat, very much like star wars as you point out.

Me2 is not a complete story, its a setup to the conclussion, so it leaves much more unresolved, it allows you a sense of completion in your wiping out the collectors but it leaves things very much in the air, as did empire.

The key of course is to look at me2/me3 as one continous game and look at me1 as a seperate part of the same trilogy. Just like you do with star wars.

People no doubt felt the same way about empire when it was released and only when return of the jedi came out did they get the same kind of closure as they did with star wars.

What may be interesting to see is if like empire is now, if in the future me2 will be acknowledged as the best of the trilogy because of how it set things up for me3.

I don't think ME2 will be considered the best... certainly not for that reason.  In Empire, you have tremendous character development and discovery.  in Jedi you had... Ewoks.

ME2 failed to provide much in the way of discovery, aside from a possible Reaper motivation.  While it did develop a set of squad mates, it will be hard to bring them all over into ME3 in a meaningful way, considering all the possible endings ME2 has.

[Nozybidaj]

I don't see how folks can compare ME2 to ESB. ESB did a lot to move to plot forward by showing development for the established characters and their friendships/relationships, it included startling revelations about the protagonist, and even managed to introduce a few new faces.



The only thing ME2 did was introduce a new cast of characters. We had no new revelations about Shepard or saw him grow in any significant way, out of the existing characters only half of them were even in the game to get any sort of character development, and the main plot against the enemy wasn't even advanced. Nothing ever really moved forward at all.



The things ME2 did do (new character introductions) it did well enough, but to say it is comparable to ESB? That is pretty laughable.

[Jeremy Winston]

Perhaps you missed that we were not comparing the richness or quality of the story, but rather the general act2/act3 framework. Both trilogies started off with a first act that needed a solid ending, because there may not be a sequel.



Both succeeded and the second acts were made knowing that there would be a third act.



Before you start calling something 'laughable' you may want to read the arguments more closely.

[Welder0]

I had a great time with ME1; an even better one with ME2.

I'll be first in line to buy ME3.

If I want to watch epic sci fi, I'll spin up Bladerunner.

If I want to play an epic shooter, maybe I'll boot up Halo.

But if I want to be the shooter, and the protagonist in the movie...