10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan312]

Hale does an admirable job imo, She does sound manly but really I would assume that someone, anyone, in a combat oriented position within any military for that length of time (what is it,12 or more years since he/she joined at 18 and is now around 30?.. I think that's about right) is going to start sounding and acting gruff. Plus there was only a few lines I noticed in which she sounded forced, mostly, as others have said, Jacob's dialogue tree and that, I'll admit, horrible scene in Omega where she's trying to get into the quarantine zone with a renegade response.. "Do I look like a thief to you?" *shivers*

On other points, yes, Il Divo, I can see where your coming from in your enjoyment of an admittedly flawed game, I've had some great times with games that are full of bugs and problems, Vampire: Bloodlines, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Fallout 3 etc etc, but this is a sequel that was supposed to evolve the franchise and solve the problems of its predecessor, which was not done in any shape or form. Combat is a little more visceral but lacks a ton of options from the first, one step forward, one back. Exploration side missions are a bit more involving but have no sense of discovery. There's more dialogue this time but it's so cliched as to be cringe worthy. The ship feels like it has more life yet has no transitional elements to give you a sense of continuation from on-board to off.

Every step ME2 has gone forward with it's also removed elements from the first that really cemented it's atmosphere and illusory depth. Both suffer from the same Bioware tropes and cliches but ME1 did at least try to stay true to itself as it was the first in a series, ME2 plays like a geeky kid trying to act super cool in front of the jocks, it just doesn't fit and ultimately it hurts itself by attempting to streamline its mechanics and mainstream its appeal.

The only thing that would have allowed me to completely forgive it's mistakes would have been a well structured and executed story/plot, but alas, that is the big thing that ME2 is missing. ME1's story was about as elementary as it gets, but it was executed well and it felt worthy of using that same ole story. ME2 however is a mess of narrative consistency and one of the most shallow and emotionless "big threat" epics I've ever experienced. The reveal at the end is just the cherry on top of the thread bare sundae...

Modifié par Revan312, 29 août 2010 - 06:30 .

[Sidney]

bjdbwea wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Too small? As opposed to the endless one room outposts in ME1 or the what 2-3 room mines? Really?

Yes.

Sidney wrote...

Plus, if you want long is the Omega mission to get Mordin actually any shorter than Feros?

Yes.

Sidney wrote...

ME1 certainly was just as linear as ME2.

No.

Really, nice going.

Pick any map off ME1. I give you : http://guides.gamepr...ide.asp?ID=4204 and what you've got are long linear lines in them. These are of Noveria but turn the page to Virmire and you get the same effect.

Feel free to pick out all the "other" routes though the Dead Trenches: http://guides.gamepr...ide.asp?ID=8653

Your argument is flat out wrong and just another non-issue that people keep tossing out there that has no basis in fact.

[bjdbwea]

I could list all the optional things that you can do and the different paths that you can go for example on Noveria or in the Deep Roads, but I'm sure you're familiar with it. Or have you perhaps not played ME 1 and DA and are just judging from looking at a map? If you have played them and are still unable to see the difference to the complete linearity in ME 2, I don't know how to convince you. Maybe you should look up the definition of "linearity"?

As for the length: Perhaps you should take a clock and find out how long it takes to complete the missions, of course listening to all dialogue and doing everything that can be done in the levels. Feel free to share the results.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 août 2010 - 06:53 .

[Sidney]

bjdbwea wrote...

I could list all the optional things that you can do and the different paths that you can go for example on Noveria or in the Deep Roads, but I'm sure you're familiar with it. Or have you perhaps not played ME 1 and DA and are just judging from looking at a map? If you have played them and are still unable to see the difference to the complete linearity in ME 2, I don't know how to convince you. Maybe you should look up the definition of "linearity"?

Feel free to share all the optional routes through the map on Noveria or the Roads.

Are you now going to conflate "linearity" with "side quests" by claiming finding Topsiders Honor makes the Roads nonlinear? I guess it does make you double back so, wow, that is non-linear but other than that even with all the "other things" to do in the Roads you are still just kncokcing them off as part of the same long line.

It isn't a fair challenge. Games might not be linear but almost every dungeon in any game is. There's just not a lot of options ob level design because most dungeons you want people to do X, find Y or kill Z. If they can leave the dungeon w/o doing those things - really non-linear- then the design has failed pretty badly. At most some places, like the Temple if Sacred Ashes, creates the illusion of non-linear by having 2 paths that go to exactly the same place and maybe some dead end chambers which ME2 has a lot of but what other things tend to do is put that room down a hall so it feels like you've gone somewhere even if you haven't.

[JJ Long]

I remember when Empire Strikes Back came out, numerous complaints people had about the film. Critics weren't big fans of it and neither were a good portion of the fans either.  But it is now regarded as one of the best films ever.
Essentially the film is Han/Leia trying to get away, Luke trying to become a Jedi. Is anything really accomplished in the grand scheme of the war? Not really. The film is more of a love story and a personal journey than the type of story the first film was.
I don't understand why people are upset with how the story plays out in ME2. Did they build up their expectations for it to be something different and were disappointed that it wasn't what they expected?
I enjoyed that it was more of a game driven by characters more than by the overarching story. But I still felt the story was fairly simple and good. It actually makes sense when you think about it.
Having been defeated by humanity, the Reapers see them as a threat in comparison to the other species. They want to eliminate their threat by assimilating them into their kind, thus gaining the strength of what would be a former foe. Shepard has to stop this.
The idea of the Reapers assimilating human sort of reminds me of KOTOR when Bastilla says what a great weapon it is to turn an enemy to your cause.

Modifié par JJ Long, 29 août 2010 - 07:28 .

[Acero Azul]

 Not Many problems, pretty much love the game

[Iakus]

JJ Long wrote...

I remember when Empire Strikes Back came out, numerous complaints people had about the film. Critics weren't big fans of it and neither were a good portion of the fans either.  But it is now regarded as one of the best films ever.
Essentially the film is Han/Leia trying to get away, Luke trying to become a Jedi. Is anything really accomplished in the grand scheme of the war? Not really. The film is more of a love story and a personal journey than the type of story the first film was.
I don't understand why people are upset with how the story plays out in ME2. Did they build up their expectations for it to be something different and were disappointed that it wasn't what they expected?
I enjoyed that it was more of a game driven by characters more than by the overarching story. But I still felt the story was fairly simple and good. It actually makes sense when you think about it.
Having been defeated by humanity, the Reapers see them as a threat in comparison to the other species. They want to eliminate their threat by assimilating them into their kind, thus gaining the strength of what would be a former foe. Shepard has to stop this.
The idea of the Reapers assimilating human sort of reminds me of KOTOR when Bastilla says what a great weapon it is to turn an enemy to your cause.

The problem here is:

in Empire, the main villain was still the Empire, which was a constant threat throughout the movie, with Vader as the "face" of the villains.  Han and Leia were menaced by them throughout the movie.  By the end, the bad guys had a big win and Our Heroes were left reeling.

In ME 2 the main villain was, supposedly the the Collectors with Harbringer as the "face" (voice?).  But, where re they?  we hear stroyies about them.  They seem to be out there...somewhere...But we save one colony from them, they set one trap for us, and them it's off to the Suicide Mission.  There's no sense of imminent danger from them, no sense of urgency to stop them.  They come from out of nowhere.  And Harbringer's goals and interest in Shepard is never explained either.  Vader's interest in Luke was the Big Reveal" in Empire And a major shocker.

In Empire: Luke learns to use the Force and learns some things about himself.  Some of which he'd probably rather not have known. 

In ME 2: We get....loyalty missions? 

Don't get me wrong, these missions are as good as any personal missions Bioware has ever done.  Better in some cases.  The problem is:  while Bioware has done personal missions in most of their games, they've always been side missions.  They have been ways of learning about your characters' companions in the stories.  But they've always been optional.  They're informative, fun, good for role-play, but in the end, they don't really impact the story. 

The same goes for the loyalty missions.  They don't affect any dialogue or options later in the game, the character doesn't really change.   All it provides is a) a "don't kill me" flag for the Suicide Mission a second outift c) an extra power.  

Thane:  Hmm, what's this button do?  *click* Wow!  shredder ammo!  Why didn't anyone tell me I had this? 

The personal missions were pushed to the forefront as the "main part" of the story.  But otherwise  they remained essentially the same as any other personal mission.  Miranda's mission to find her sister or Cernd's to find his son?  Canderous's quarrel with Jagi or Garrus' betrayal by Sidonis?  The Black Whirlwind's past with Raging Ox or Zaed's with Vido? Wynne's quest to find her former apprentice or Mordin's to find his?  It was a main story composed almost entirely of side quests, without any ties to the plot.

Not to mention, Shepard has no personal journey.  He's taking personal journeys for everyone else.

Think about it, all the stuff Shep has seen and done in both games and the profile beforehand, yet there are no oportunities to reflect on it.  I mean, Shep dies in the beginning of the game, but no opportunity to delve into it?  From savior of the CItadel to terrorist's lackey?  That's got to be a jolt.  Being called a traitor by a former friend and crewmate?  Bizzare changes in Liara, losing two years, warnings of impending destruction of life in the galaxy rebuffed, move the bar from Kasumi's quarters to Shep's!  So many deep questions that could be explored, but none of it taken.  And these aare just the ones centered on Shep!

I expected a continuation of Mass Effect 1, of Shepard looking for ways to stop the Reapers.   If the story had in fact revolved around the Reapers seeing humanity as a threat and trying to assimilate/study them, that would have been great.  Unfortunately it had been almost entirely buried under the "build a team and earn their loyalty" stuff.  The Collectors as servants of the Reaper was smothered to death by it.

[bjdbwea]

iakus wrote...

The personal missions were pushed to the forefront as the "main part" of the story.  But otherwise  they remained essentially the same as any other personal mission.  Miranda's mission to find her sister or Cernd's to find his son?  Canderous's quarrel with Jagi or Garrus' betrayal by Sidonis?  The Black Whirlwind's past with Raging Ox or Zaed's with Vido? Wynne's quest to find her former apprentice or Mordin's to find his?  It was a main story composed almost entirely of side quests, without any ties to the plot.

And even with the main story being as bad as it is - if the reason for that is that supposedly the companions were the focus this time, why don't they at least play a role in the main story? Why don't they interact with each other? One character-specific mission, as good as it may be, just doesn't cut.

iakus wrote...

Not to mention, Shepard has no personal journey.  He's taking personal journeys for everyone else.

Think about it, all the stuff Shep has seen and done in both games and the profile beforehand, yet there are no oportunities to reflect on it.  I mean, Shep dies in the beginning of the game, but no opportunity to delve into it?  From savior of the CItadel to terrorist's lackey?  That's got to be a jolt.  Being called a traitor by a former friend and crewmate?  Bizzare changes in Liara, losing two years, warnings of impending destruction of life in the galaxy rebuffed, move the bar from Kasumi's quarters to Shep's!  So many deep questions that could be explored, but none of it taken.  And these aare just the ones centered on Shep!

Indeed. As I keep saying, the main story wasn't very well written. But the general ideas would still provide enough opportunities for interesting writing, including character development for Shepard. But nothing is ever done with these possibilities, nothing ever seems to matter.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 août 2010 - 09:23 .

[Revan312]

bjdbwea wrote...

And even with the main story being as bad
as it is - if the reason for that is that supposedly the companions
were the focus this time, why don't they at least play a role in the
main story? Why don't they interact with each other? One
character-specific mission, as good as it may be, just doesn't cut.

Which is why independent character vignettes just aren't up to snuff when your creating an engaging epic.  They should realise that by now. Bioware's other games have all had the characters take a role in the main story. DA:O is a perfect example, Liliana and Wynn with the ashes of Andraste, Alistair's role with the landsmeet, Morrigan at the end of the story etc. I'm not sure why the characters in ME2 and to a lesser extent, even ME1, are so seperate from the main story and each other, it's jarring..

iakus wrote...
*snip*

^ This

The entire game is muddled in personal drama, but only with Shepard's crew, never him/her. It seems Shepard doesn't even really care.. about anything really. Not about being a Cerberus agent or the collectors or the reapers or biggest of all, being revived for god's sake... He/she seems so indifferent about things and that going through the motions is enough.

Also, as I've said in other posts, the Empire Strikes Back analogy doesn't work.. Star Wars uses the normal 3 act progression. The first movie sets up the universe and introduces the conflict, the Rebels win a battle but it's established that the Empire still holds immense power. The destruction of the Death Star is plot point 1. The second movie ramps the confrontation to new levels with the direness of the situation caused by the Empire winning massive victories. The revelation that Darth Vader is Luke's father is plot point 2, which adds an even greater darkness to the narrative. The third is the resolution wherein the Rebels beat the Imperials and Luke resolves his issues with his father even though the odds were completely against them.

The narrative is a series of events that all intersect and impact each other culminating with the resolution. Mass Effect doesn't use 3 act progression. The first game introduces the threat and the universe. The combined galactic military beats Sovereign, plot point 1, but establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat. The second game... introduces the threat and the universe. Shepard and Cerberus beat the collectors, plot point 1, but it establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat.... It's simply another 1st act.. So ME will be 3 acts, just two 1st acts and one 3rd, which is sort of sloppy.

It's like Bioware couldn't think of any way to have the Reaper threat continue to be a present danger without creating a slave race they control that you fight instead of the omnipotent Reaper's themselves. This caused the story to quite literally reset, both with Shepard's death and the introduction of a brand new threat that wasn't even mentioned in the first game. The line that forms a story was broken and pulled back to the beginning which is not something a writer should do. Really Bioware should have never said that this would be a trilogy as that, more than anything, is their problem. They built the enemy to such a galactic level that it's almost impossible to have a drawn out and complex conflict with them in the second act, so, they instead simply created a new, less intimidating and ultimately pointless enemy that acts as a spin off plot that leads to a dead end and the eventual return to the overarching story established in the first game.

ME1 = A New Hope
ME2 =/= Empire Strikes Back

Modifié par Revan312, 29 août 2010 - 09:55 .

[Grimjesse127]

Well here's hoping ME3 is Return of the Jedi because that was by far my favourite Star Wars film.

Modifié par Grimjesse127, 29 août 2010 - 09:55 .

[Revan312]

Grimjesse127 wrote...

Well here's hoping ME3 is Return of the Jedi because that was by far my favourite Star Wars film.

Same here, most people seem to love ESB, but RotJ is imo, way better, even the awkward Ewok celebratory dance at the end

Modifié par Revan312, 29 août 2010 - 09:57 .

[bjdbwea]

Revan312 wrote...

The narrative is a series of events that all intersect and impact each other culminating with the resolution. Mass Effect doesn't use 3 act progression. The first game introduces the threat and the universe. The combined galactic military beats Sovereign, plot point 1, but establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat. The second game... introduces the threat and the universe. Shepard and Cerberus beat the collectors, plot point 1, but it establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat.... It's simply another 1st act.. So ME will be 3 acts, just two 1st acts and one 3rd, which is sort of sloppy.

It's like Bioware couldn't think of any way to have the Reaper threat continue to be a present danger without creating a slave race they control that you fight instead of the omnipotent Reaper's themselves. This caused the story to quite literally reset, both with Shepard's death and the introduction of a brand new threat that wasn't even mentioned in the first game. The line that forms a story was broken and pulled back to the beginning which is not something a writer should do. Really Bioware should have never said that this would be a trilogy as that, more than anything, is their problem. They built the enemy to such a galactic level that it's almost impossible to have a drawn out and complex conflict with them in the second act, so, they instead simply created a new, less intimidating and ultimately pointless enemy that acts as a spin off plot that leads to a dead end and the eventual return to the overarching story established in the first game.

I agree. But I almost fear that it's not just bad writing. With the PS 3 version announced, I now suspect that it was always their intention to reset the ME series, to make ME 2 the new ME 1. That would explain a lot, among other things why none of our decisions from the first game mattered, and why they trashed so many existing assets (characters and levels), instead of using them again, which would have made sense and even saved them time and money. I wouldn't be surprised if now suddenly the crew from ME 2 would be the crew in ME 3 too. I wouldn't even be surprised if they suddenly announced they'd need another game after ME 3 to finish the story. Then it would be a trilogy again.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 août 2010 - 10:24 .

[shootist70]

Revan312 wrote...

The narrative is a series of events that all intersect and impact each other culminating with the resolution. Mass Effect doesn't use 3 act progression. The first game introduces the threat and the universe. The combined galactic military beats Sovereign, plot point 1, but establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat. The second game... introduces the threat and the universe. Shepard and Cerberus beat the collectors, plot point 1, but it establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat.... It's simply another 1st act.. So ME will be 3 acts, just two 1st acts and one 3rd, which is sort of sloppy.

ME2 =/= Empire Strikes Back

Hmm. There's a reason that ME2 doesn't work as a second act, and the reason is The Illusive Man. There's a couple of elements that are vital to the tension in the middle act, and ME2 is missing them. A reset is fine, but it needs these two things to push the plot on from that, and they're reversal and recognition. Basically, our hero is meant to suffer a reversal of fortune from his early success, and he's supposed to claw his way back to victory. In the meantime his suffering teaches him the wisdom to overcome the Big Bad Guys. It's a two thousand year old dramatic concept  that's meant to mirror people's struggles with life, and it's really common in drama.

A few quick examples: you've got Russel Crowe going from Roman general to slave to uber-gladiator, Tom Cruise building himself up as a samurai, Sly Stallone bouncing back in just about every Rocky movie etc etc etc. Any victories are ones where the protag leans more from his enemies than he actually scores any material gains against them. That's why it was so important for Luke to learn that Darth was his dear old daddy in ESB - it was the key to final victory against the Emperor in the final act. The idea is to ramp up the tension as you follow the protag on his learning process.

The problem for our Shep is that he doesn't have to claw his way back himself, nor does he really have to learn anything, because good old TIM is there to do it all for him, TIM not only provides regular plot-dumps but he materially equips Shep all the way. You don't ever get the feeling that Shep is learning hard lessons in how to defeat his enemies here, you get more of an impression that Shep is a dumb super-soldier on a Cerberus payroll. 

It would have been far better if TIM's involvement had been cut right at the start after reviving Shep and letting him loose. Shep should have had to go it alone all the way in getting himself back into fighting form. Recruiting all those people should have been his own idea. Going to those colonies/collector ship/deserted Reaper should have been things he'd chosen to do for himself, after uncovering exposition details piece-by-piece. Cerberus moral entanglement should have been more of a background element and not the primary vehicle for plot progression.

Modifié par shootist70, 29 août 2010 - 11:44 .

[JJ Long]

iakus wrote...

I expected a continuation of Mass Effect 1, of Shepard looking for ways to stop the Reapers.   If the story had in fact revolved around the Reapers seeing humanity as a threat and trying to assimilate/study them, that would have been great.  Unfortunately it had been almost entirely buried under the "build a team and earn their loyalty" stuff.  The Collectors as servants of the Reaper was smothered to death by it.

As I played ME2 I always had in mind ME3, which is why I was constantly looking at each situation as how this could work for me in a fight against the Reapers.  This is why I felt that continuation of Shepard looking for ways to stop the Reapers.  Tali's loyalty quest I felt was one of the most important in this aspect because of how it dealt with the Quarians state of mind.  Same with Mordin's loyalty quest and how curing the Genophage could help the Krogan gain numbers and help me.

If I were to describe ME2 though, I don't think it would be a movie.  To me it feels more like a miniseries combined with the movie The Dirty Dozen.  In the movie they are on the cusp of the Invasion of Normandy in WWII, instead of the focus being on the mission against the Germans and the war itself the focus is on the characters within the Dirty Dozen.  It is about them coming to together, working as a team, and getting into the right mindset for the mission at hand rather than the mission itself.

But I will agree, if there is a weakness in the story, it is that the characters were put before the the overall story with the Collectors/Reapers.  However, I'm a big fan of movies and games driven by characters rather than overall plots.  As far as that goes, it is personal taste.

Some stories driven by characters can be really successful.  Take Casablanca, a movie that critics all over the world love and claim is one of the best movies of all time.  The story has a plothole so big you could drive a truck through it.  But critics readily admit it is the actors and characters and the feel of the movie that makes it rather than the story.

[lolwot]

edit: just thought I should mention that this post does contain SPOILERS
I know that spoilers are not meant to be posted in this section, but this post feels appropriate for a topic about disappointment with Mass Effect 2... so...

Mass Effect 2 would probably have benefited from forced decisions where the effects are apparent to the player either immediately or at some point later in the game. The best example of this is the choice to reprieve only one character from certain death on Virmire in the original game. You couldn't circumvent this problem by upgrading your ship armor or gaining the loyalty of your squad mates. There was a pivotal moment in the game when you needed to make a choice that, at least at the time, appeared to have serious ramifications for the future of your character. Of course, Ashley and Kaidan are interchangeable in Mass Effect 2, so this kind of nullified the impact of that choice. As far as I know, their lines on Horizon are either identical or damn close to being identical. If characters died in Mass Effect, then their role was filled by a placeholder. If they survived, they made short cameo appearances in which they excused their non-involvement in the plot. This makes the dramatic events of the previous game(s) seem utterly meaningless, and defeats the purpose of a continuous story with imported saves. The save import feature should enhance choices made in the first game, but it marginalizes them instead.
Also, the story was much too compartmentalized. It consisted of a series of vignettes that ultimately have no bearing on the main objective of the mission. How does saving Miranda's sister, searching for Jacob's father, or helping the rest of the characters resolve their personal issues relate to the previously established plot of impending galactic doom via ancient, omnipotent machines, or even the newly introduced plot of defeating the evil bug aliens? More importantly, if the characters in ME2 were willing to embark on a suicide mission with Commander Shepard, then hasn't he already gained their loyalty? Why would I need to prove myself again to Tali and Garrus? Hasn't Shepard earned at least a bit of gratitude and respect for saving everyone's asses in the original game? 

Another instance of odd storytelling was the death and subsequent resurrection of Shepard at the beginning of the game with no explanation whatsoever besides Cerberus throwing money at a problem. This added another layer of implausibility to the events of the story, further exacerbated by the apathy from other characters to this momentous situation. According to what we've seen so far in the story, this is the first time anyone has actually gotten the phoenix down treatment. But this idea never really goes anywhere.. It's just a contrivance to get Shepard to work for Cerberus, and separate him from the characters that were already developed in the first game.

Also, why do we traverse the universe gathering teammates to go on a mission that will ostensibly involve a space battle? It's like the characters have already seen the script and know that they'll need to infiltrate the Collector Base, even though this isn't conveyed to the characters or the player until they pass through the relay. 

On the other hand, not all of the changes made from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2 were necessarily missteps. Some technical issues were ironed out, characters seem more expressive and animated, and stripped down inventory and RPG systems feel like the lesser of two evils when compared to the insanely tedious junk management from the first game. But for every minor improvement, there were even more issues. The framerate could get pretty dicey in the Xbox 360 version of the first game, but the environments in Mass Effect dwarfed those of Mass Effect 2 in scope, and the main story planets in Mass Effect felt more diverse and creative as well. Every main mission planet had a backstory that was important to unraveling the mystery of the reapers and stopping Saren. The feeling that you're gradually discovering more about your enemy's intentions by sort of following his trail is conspicuously absent, and missed, in Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par lolwot, 30 août 2010 - 04:10 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

ME2's story wasn't really that solid IMO. It was redeemed by some good moments, most of which are emotional crescendos, that's all.



Personally I would've been more satisfied with the collectors having been used for other purposes, like abducting humans to turn them into more collectors for an eventual attack to finish what the geth attack failed to achieve.

[bzurn]

Well I just got done reading all 384 pages... (really ), and now I'd like to post my thoughts.

ME1 was a good movie
ME2 was an okay TV show, with a movie ending.

I like movies more than tv shows. More epic and a better experience to enjoy in one sitting.

I hope to experience one more good movie in this series. *crosses fingers*

Modifié par bzurn, 30 août 2010 - 02:34 .

[Terror_K]

My main disappointment with the ME2 story is that is so damn removed from the original. When BioWare said they were making an epic sci-fi trilogy with Mass Effect where decisions and choices flow on through each game with real consequences I was expecting a proper trilogy ala Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future, etc. but instead ME2 is more akin to Aliens, Indiana Jones or Die Hard which really aren't proper trilogies but a series of movies set in the same universe with the only real common thread being the main character and a few rather minor continuity factors.



I think a lot of this comes about because BioWare were too concerned about making each one stand on its own, while with a proper trilogy each part kind of depends on the other parts to function. It's my belief that BioWare should have made the whole thing a proper trilogy and not concerned themselves with making sure each part could stand on its own and that players didn't need to play the previous title(s) to play the next one. The Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers and Back to the Future: Part II weren't designed to be watched by people who hadn't seen their predecessors and I feel the same should go for the Mass Effect series, and that it's suffered because it hasn't done that.



ME2 feels like most of the stuff from the first game simply didn't matter, and it doesn't help that seemingly major things like you being a Spectre and what happened with The Council are just pushed aside and just don't seem to effect anything any more. It's a bit like if Luke went to see Yoda and was simply told, "you don't need to learn the ways of the force at all. It matters not." It doesn't help that things like The Collectors weren't even alluded to at all in ME1 (at least Cerberus and The Terminus Systems were I guess).



I think the game also has its priorities mixed up. It's supposed to be about The Collectors as well as recruiting squaddies for the suicide mission, but The Collectors take the back-seat by a huge amount compared to the squaddies and their issues, since each one (aside from the DLC characters) has two issues to deal with. As others have mentioned, they're too disconnected from the main plot, with Mordin being the only one directly linked to it (some would say Miranda and Jacob are, but even they're just Cerberus babysitters from TIM for the most part). They don't really weigh in on anything and just come across as collecting cannon fodder. The Collectors should be the main focus since they're the only real link to the original game we have as far as main plot goes because of the Reaper connection. In ME1 there were at least connections to the main plot for each character (except maybe Kaidan) with Ashley being on Eden Prime with the first Geth attack, Garrus heading Saren's investigation, Tali with info on Saren, Wrex having dealt with him before, Liara being Saren's number 2's daughter and The Geth trying to capture her, etc.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

My main disappointment with the ME2 story is that is so damn removed from the original. When BioWare said they were making an epic sci-fi trilogy with Mass Effect where decisions and choices flow on through each game with real consequences I was expecting a proper trilogy ala Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future, etc. but instead ME2 is more akin to Aliens, Indiana Jones or Die Hard which really aren't proper trilogies but a series of movies set in the same universe with the only real common thread being the main character and a few rather minor continuity factors.

I think a lot of this comes about because BioWare were too concerned about making each one stand on its own, while with a proper trilogy each part kind of depends on the other parts to function. It's my belief that BioWare should have made the whole thing a proper trilogy and not concerned themselves with making sure each part could stand on its own and that players didn't need to play the previous title(s) to play the next one. The Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers and Back to the Future: Part II weren't designed to be watched by people who hadn't seen their predecessors and I feel the same should go for the Mass Effect series, and that it's suffered because it hasn't done that.

ME2 feels like most of the stuff from the first game simply didn't matter, and it doesn't help that seemingly major things like you being a Spectre and what happened with The Council are just pushed aside and just don't seem to effect anything any more. It's a bit like if Luke went to see Yoda and was simply told, "you don't need to learn the ways of the force at all. It matters not." It doesn't help that things like The Collectors weren't even alluded to at all in ME1 (at least Cerberus and The Terminus Systems were I guess).

I think the game also has its priorities mixed up. It's supposed to be about The Collectors as well as recruiting squaddies for the suicide mission, but The Collectors take the back-seat by a huge amount compared to the squaddies and their issues, since each one (aside from the DLC characters) has two issues to deal with. As others have mentioned, they're too disconnected from the main plot, with Mordin being the only one directly linked to it (some would say Miranda and Jacob are, but even they're just Cerberus babysitters from TIM for the most part). They don't really weigh in on anything and just come across as collecting cannon fodder. The Collectors should be the main focus since they're the only real link to the original game we have as far as main plot goes because of the Reaper connection. In ME1 there were at least connections to the main plot for each character (except maybe Kaidan) with Ashley being on Eden Prime with the first Geth attack, Garrus heading Saren's investigation, Tali with info on Saren, Wrex having dealt with him before, Liara being Saren's number 2's daughter and The Geth trying to capture her, etc.

QFT

In all honesty, it doesn't even feel like the same writers worked on the two games.  More like the writers for ME 2 were using notes about the first game as a guide.  I'm sure that's not the case, but it sure feels like it.

Oh and Kaiden was on Eden Prime too, so that's a conenction

[Terror_K]

iakus wrote...
Oh and Kaiden was on Eden Prime too, so that's a conenction

Well, he was only there because you took him there, since he was already on The Normandy before-hand. If Jenkins had lived though there was the connection that he grew up on Eden Prime.

[Kavadas]

Aside from some questionable "streamlining" and ancillary character side quests what really made ME2 inferior was that it simply brushed aside almost everything that took place in ME1.



Being in the Alliance? Who cares?



Being a Spectre? So what?



Choosing the head of the galactic council (and Anderson, if chosen, being Shep's biggest supporter)? Meaningless.



It's just inane. You have the guy who saved the galaxy and he assigns his biggest fan as "leader-of-everything" (never really saw any point in choosing Udina, even as a Renegade) and all of the sudden it's all **** and no one cares?



Seriously, WTF? Terrible story much?

[Revan312]

shootist70 wrote...



It would have been far better if TIM's involvement had been cut right at the start after reviving Shep and letting him loose. Shep should have had to go it alone all the way in getting himself back into fighting form. Recruiting all those people should have been his own idea. Going to those colonies/collector ship/deserted Reaper should have been things he'd chosen to do for himself, after uncovering exposition details piece-by-piece. Cerberus moral entanglement should have been more of a background element and not the primary vehicle for plot progression.

I agree X 1000



Though I would still argue that the entire threat of the Collectors was an unneeded and convoluted attempt at buying more time for them to come up with a better plot for ME3, one that continues the actual story rather than just delaying it...



It would be like if Shakespeare cut out the entire Claudius/theater drama scenes out of Hamlet and replaced it with Hamlet battling Ninja's under the control of the king... It has nothing to do with the main plot, and even if Shakespeare had somehow tied it all together by the end, the damage would still be done by the jarring, contrived and ridiculous plot/atmosphere change..



Games are not held to the same standards as literacy, but at many times I wish they were.

[Lumikki]

After reading this thread about 300 pages, I think many of you have lost your way.

One is expectation, as taste of games, like but I wanted it to be this or that. What is fine as long it has strong support here without major disagreement. Because if there is disagreement it's just personal taste and other disagree because they have different taste. One taste isn't better than other.

Other issue is going to smallest details and lost the big picture. Meaning complains are comming more like slam every smallest detail there is to complain, but in the end what is really important for someones gameplay enjoyment is lost. There is different as what could be improved and what is game breaker issue.

I would suggest your people to make list of issues and see how much support every issue gets. Not to go around and around as talking same stuff over and over. Last 300 page has not sayed much anything new what was sayed before it. Many constructive arguments what is wrong, is lost here for this continues small detail "whining" as why can't the game be like I want.

Modifié par Lumikki, 30 août 2010 - 07:30 .

[Justicar]

I find it amazing that people think complaining will actually make a difference.



Why complain? Play a better game, maybe?





FLAME SHIELD [ON] OFF

[ExtremeOne]

bjdbwea wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

The narrative is a series of events that all intersect and impact each other culminating with the resolution. Mass Effect doesn't use 3 act progression. The first game introduces the threat and the universe. The combined galactic military beats Sovereign, plot point 1, but establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat. The second game... introduces the threat and the universe. Shepard and Cerberus beat the collectors, plot point 1, but it establishes that the Reapers are still a massive threat.... It's simply another 1st act.. So ME will be 3 acts, just two 1st acts and one 3rd, which is sort of sloppy.

It's like Bioware couldn't think of any way to have the Reaper threat continue to be a present danger without creating a slave race they control that you fight instead of the omnipotent Reaper's themselves. This caused the story to quite literally reset, both with Shepard's death and the introduction of a brand new threat that wasn't even mentioned in the first game. The line that forms a story was broken and pulled back to the beginning which is not something a writer should do. Really Bioware should have never said that this would be a trilogy as that, more than anything, is their problem. They built the enemy to such a galactic level that it's almost impossible to have a drawn out and complex conflict with them in the second act, so, they instead simply created a new, less intimidating and ultimately pointless enemy that acts as a spin off plot that leads to a dead end and the eventual return to the overarching story established in the first game.

I agree. But I almost fear that it's not just bad writing. With the PS 3 version announced, I now suspect that it was always their intention to reset the ME series, to make ME 2 the new ME 1. That would explain a lot, among other things why none of our decisions from the first game mattered, and why they trashed so many existing assets (characters and levels), instead of using them again, which would have made sense and even saved them time and money. I wouldn't be surprised if now suddenly the crew from ME 2 would be the crew in ME 3 too. I wouldn't even be surprised if they suddenly announced they'd need another game after ME 3 to finish the story. Then it would be a trilogy again.

   

I would not blame the story issues of Mass Effect 2 on it going to the PS3. as far as using the characters and levels form the first game that would be stupid to do that with the second game. I agree with you that it seems like ME 2 is a reboot. but given the problems with ME 1 they had to do something to save the ME franchise