20 réponses à ce sujet

[Erasculio]

Because it's inconsequential.

We end Mass Effect 1 right after defeating a Reaper's lieutenant, knowing that the Reapers are still coming to destroy the galaxy. We end ME2 right after defeating a Reaper's lieutenant, knowing that the Reapers are still coming to destroy the galaxy. ME2 had no impact on the main Mass Effect story; someone who skips it completely, and goes from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 3, is going to be basically at the same point of the story as those who actually played ME2.

Bioware has made some comparisons between Mass Effect and the first Star Wars trilogy, claiming ME2 was a bit like The Empire Strikes Back. That's false; for it to be true, the movies would had to have been like this:

Episode 4: A New Hope
*The Death Star is destroyed.
*The ceremony at the end of the movie begins.
*Someone says, "Oh, the Empire is building a new Death Star, we have to go destroy it".
*End

Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back
*A new servant of the Emperor appears, despite not being mentioned once in the first movie.
*The entire movie is spent fighting this servant; nothing else happens.
*The guy is defeated.
*Someone says, "Oh, the Empire is still building a new Death Star, we really have to
go destroy it".
*End

Plus, there are very few meaningful choices in ME2. Almost all choices we make are about whether to kill or not small NPCs (which is the end of most loyalty missions). The only relevant choices which could have some impact on Mass Effect 3 are what we do about the Migrant Fleet, maybe what we do about the Geth, and maybe what we do with the Collector's base (which is unlikely, considering how little impact saving or not the Council had on ME2).

The game spends most of its time with squadmates that probably won't be recruitable in Mass Effect 3, considering how none of the squadmates from Mass Effect 1 who could have died were recruitable in ME2, and all ME2 squadmates could die.

Bioware should have arranged the trilogy differently. They should have ended Mass Effect 1 making the players believe that the Reaper's threat was finished after Sovereign had been defeated, and then shown the first cinematic of ME2 (the Normandy being destroyed by the Collectors) as the end of Mass Effect 1 (which would be fitting, considering how the first game had next to none downloable content).

ME2 would then begin with Cerberus resurrecting Shepard,  follow with the revelation of who the Collectors were, and would end with the players having their vengeance on the enemies who killed their character in the end of the first game. The ending would also have the big reveal about how the Reapers were still out there, almost arriving at the galaxy.

Then the plot of ME2 would have been meaningful, and would have had any impact on the main Mass Effect storyline. As it is, the story simply does not matter.

[Skilled Seeker]

I'd say wait for ME3 to be released before judging ME2's story. We have no idea what impact destroying/keeping the Collecter base will have nor what will happen between the Geth/Quarians or Cerberus etc. ME3 will tie up the loose ends and then we can see if the events of ME2 had an impact or not.

Also the game focused a lot on the characters who no doubt will be returning in ME3 in some form or another. ME2 was setting up the stage for them so we know who they are, their motives and ambitions etc.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 01 mars 2010 - 11:39 .

[Nightwriter]

Yeah. It was weak. Nothing really happened.



It was a great and enjoyable game with a regrettable storyline. Pretty much my summation of the facts.

[Amethyst Deceiver]

as soon as i removed the idea of ME2 being an RPG out of my mind i was able to enjoy it much more.



IMO, ME2 was a great 3rd person action shooter like Gears of War or the like. i still dont really know what the plot of GoW is supposed to be all about, i didnt really pay attention to the story nor did i pick up the game with an interest of it.





unfortunately, ME2 being a sequel of ME1 (which i absolutely loved the story) there was still a bit of sour grapes with the disappointing story, but in the end we still got a great action game.



hopefully ME3 will pick up where ME1 left off and finalize the story properly.

[Keltoris]

It will provide critical plot elements for ME3.



More to the point, it better.

[Computron2000]

Although i agree that ME2 is disjointed with ME1's story due to the introduction of a new antagonist race, It seems to me at least that ME2 is setting the foundations for ME3 by introducing the possibilities for the solution in ME by expanding various races and their current situations and pplcing hints of strange going ons.



The Geth and the Quarians are obvious, the dark energy sun also and the collector base is a one as well (though too many people put too much faith in its technology). Also we see the setting of the stage for a unified Krogan race, the impending return of the Rachni and the introduction of large scale mass effect cannons being effective vs Reapers. We also see that the team gains intelligence on their opponents in the ending.



But also we are shown the full scale of the enemy we are going to fight. Overall i would say ME2 is a setup game for the final in the trilogy. This is surprising to me as it is never seen in games but can be found in movies.

[Sleepicub09]

it was a sequel basically means a bridge builder

[Xandurpein]

You are making a lot of assumptions here. I know you are not the first one to claim that the fact that no squad mate in Me1 who could die returned in Me2, somehow proves that no squad mate who can die in ME2 will return to ME3.

I think they by then had plans for Ashley/Kaidan, Liara and possibly Wrex that made them integral to the plot in ME3 and had to keep them alive. It also gave them a chance to remove all LI from ME1 from ME2, so there would be something to rediscover in ME3. I still believe many of the squad mates from ME2 will be in ME3 so that game can focus on the main plot. I will be a bit miffed if I'm wrong, but see no reason to assume it yet.



ME1 was like 'A New hope' the first in a new franchise. It had to end on a trimphant note, because it needed to stand on it's own. It was never a given that it would sell so well that there ever would be a sequel. ME2, like 'The Empire Strikes Back' is from start made to be an intermediary, a carry over into the ultimate finale. The end of ME2, like in TESB is dakrer and far less triumphant. That's how they can be related to the Star Wars series imo.

[Pauravi]

I'm fine with the character-driven plot. Even if the whole plot of the game was to gather a ship full of loyal and capable friends to help me face the Reapers, the relationships between Shepard and the other characters, and the things that you go through with them help invest me emotionally in the story at large.

Partly because of this, I very much disagree with your assessment that we won't be seeing the ME2 characters in a significant way, and I equally disagree about your opinion that there are no important decisions being made. Keeping the genophage cure or not? Keeping the Collector base or not? What you did with Legion (not only his loyalty mission but Legion himself)? Expose Cerberus activities/information to the Alliance or not? There is plenty.

We also don't know what the significance of getting rid of the Collectors or their Reaper-fetus is, and I suspect we won't until ME3.

Basically, I don't agree with anything you said.

[Tal-N]

The overall story certainly didn't move along, but what happens certainly isn't incidental and it looks like many of the choices made in ME2 will have far greater influence on ME3 compared to what influence ME1 had on ME2. Could they have summerized ME2 in some backstory found in ME3? Yup. But that would have deprived us of being given a lot more details on the races, organisations and characters who will make a difference in the finale.

[Xandurpein]

Also consider this. How many of you actually thought that saving the Rachni queen in ME1 would end up looking like a big plot twist in ME3? Do you know for sure what will matter in ME3 and not?

[sedrikhcain]

Erasculio wrote...

Because it's inconsequential.

We end Mass Effect 1 right after defeating a Reaper's lieutenant, knowing that the Reapers are still coming to destroy the galaxy. We end ME2 right after defeating a Reaper's lieutenant, knowing that the Reapers are still coming to destroy the galaxy. ME2 had no impact on the main Mass Effect story; someone who skips it completely, and goes from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 3, is going to be basically at the same point of the story as those who actually played ME2.

Bioware has made some comparisons between Mass Effect and the first Star Wars trilogy, claiming ME2 was a bit like The Empire Strikes Back. That's false; for it to be true, the movies would had to have been like this:

Episode 4: A New Hope
*The Death Star is destroyed.
*The ceremony at the end of the movie begins.
*Someone says, "Oh, the Empire is building a new Death Star, we have to go destroy it".
*End

Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back
*A new servant of the Emperor appears, despite not being mentioned once in the first movie.
*The entire movie is spent fighting this servant; nothing else happens.
*The guy is defeated.
*Someone says, "Oh, the Empire is still building a new Death Star, we really have to
go destroy it".
*End

Plus, there are very few meaningful choices in ME2. Almost all choices we make are about whether to kill or not small NPCs (which is the end of most loyalty missions). The only relevant choices which could have some impact on Mass Effect 3 are what we do about the Migrant Fleet, maybe what we do about the Geth, and maybe what we do with the Collector's base (which is unlikely, considering how little impact saving or not the Council had on ME2).

The game spends most of its time with squadmates that probably won't be recruitable in Mass Effect 3, considering how none of the squadmates from Mass Effect 1 who could have died were recruitable in ME2, and all ME2 squadmates could die.

Bioware should have arranged the trilogy differently. They should have ended Mass Effect 1 making the players believe that the Reaper's threat was finished after Sovereign had been defeated, and then shown the first cinematic of ME2 (the Normandy being destroyed by the Collectors) as the end of Mass Effect 1 (which would be fitting, considering how the first game had next to none downloable content).

ME2 would then begin with Cerberus resurrecting Shepard,  follow with the revelation of who the Collectors were, and would end with the players having their vengeance on the enemies who killed their character in the end of the first game. The ending would also have the big reveal about how the Reapers were still out there, almost arriving at the galaxy.

Then the plot of ME2 would have been meaningful, and would have had any impact on the main Mass Effect storyline. As it is, the story simply does not matter.

ME2 is to ME1 as Star Wars is to Empire Strikes Back in one sense: it's a dark chapter of the story. That's about it, really. When the BioWare folks compare ME2 to Empire, I don't really take it any further than that. They can say whatever they want.

[ZennExile]

If we assume they are going to use the same design theory they used in ME2 it's more likely that almost none of the choices in ME1 or ME2 have a tangeble effect on ME3. They specifically designed ME2 to ignore ME1 in all but the most trivial ways just so players wouldn't get confused if they never played ME1. If they did it once why wouldn't they do it again.

[Balerion84]

ME1 introduced you to epic story.

ME2 expands that story and builds important foundations for ME3. (Legion's loyalty mission, Quarians' war, Krogan genophage, humanity-Cerberus for example)



That's the thing with trilogies, people usually complain about this in the middle part. Usually they don't have a proper beginning or end for obvious reasons.



ME2 can have a lot more impact on ME3 than ME1 if they do it right. That's how I see it, ME1 is more standalone thing, introduction with a twist, while ME2 has potential to have a lot more impact on the story overall than ME1.

A bridge builder as was mentioned above.

We'll see when ME3 comes out.



As for me, I liked the story of ME2 and how it focused on the bigger picture through character development.

[greghorvath]

Come on people! Hardcore (and wannabe) RPG players whine about not being able to immerse in the game... Immerse in this: YOU have been DEAD for 2 years. You are brought back and your status of alive is questionable (c-sec scan...). You are thrown into deep water and you have to pick up a trail in a live situation. You don't have time for goofing around in the galaxy because of the imminent threat of the collectors, so you just focus on that one mission that you have been given: seek and destroy. Stop crying and go watch sinosleep, thataveragegatsby, thisisme and the like on youtube and learn. Improve yourself in combat, cause I am pretty sure an enemy like the reapers will not be scared off by heavy role playing...



I started crying about how ME2 was the lesser game when I got it and still could list lots of possible improvement but the only thing that really sucks about it is all the whiners it started off...



ME was a great game (if you don't like it, don't play it). ME2 is a great game (if you don't like it, don't play it). What is there to cry about?

[Netzach]

I loved ME1 and i love ME2. Not for the story but for the universe, in that universe the story could be and will be different because of the great potential the universe has. IMO the problem with all complainers about ME2 is this: there is no big twist like when we found sovereign wasn't a normal ship (we have Harbinger revealing himself as a reaper at the end but, well, we already knew collectores where working for/with them), for a lot of people (i'm not talking about RPG fans, or whatever fans) ME1 started to be interesting in Virmire, i'm not one of those although i can understand them because i just got trapped in the whole Mass Effect universe.



Do you think you could do better? Become a writer, or a designer. I always have had a great imagination but i can't imagine Mass Effect 2 without it being Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 is a great bridge between ME1 and ME3 and, as a game (in terms of gameplay) is much better than ME1, could be better, of course, there is nothing perfect.



I'm sure in ME3 we will have our ME2 squadmates, maybe not all but some of them for sure.

[EverteMax]

Dunno whether it is useful...but to prevent any backlash from pple who stumble upon here w/o completing the game.



SPOILERS ahead!









I thought in ME2, you DID something...like preventing the human reaper from being created? Yeah...the reapers are coming, but I thought that was the back story of ME universe and the showdown is coming in ME3?

They said it was a dark 2nd chapter. I thought finding out that your species is being blended for juice to make some monster was bad enough. I dunno how much horror movies you guys watch.

So since everything is on track...what's the problem?

[IntoTheDarkness]

GO OP. turns out ME2 was pointless.

... and ME3 didn't make any sense.

[GeorgeCuster]

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. ME2's plot did not suck, it wasn't the epitome of stroytelling mind-you, but it's good enough.

ME2's plot is only inconsequential because ME3 made it so. ME2 established/instroduced so many things that could've been used for ME3 (e.g. dark energy, Harbinger, the implications of the human reaper, and so on) , whether it is plot device or something that could be used against the Reapers, but didn't. You can't blame ME2 for the failings of ME3.



EDIT: LOL didn't realize how old this thread is and just realized it's been necroed. Regardless, I still stand by my above points.

Modifié par GeorgeCuster, 03 novembre 2012 - 11:18 .

[Kataphrut94]

It helps to think of ME2 as like a heist movie, since the plot is basically gathering a team of specialists and gaining their loyalty for an impossible mission. It does set up a fair few of the subplots and introduces a whole bunch of awesome characters, which is really what the series excels at. As for the ongoing Reaper plot, we do at least learn about the whole reproduction aspect of the cycle and what happens to the harvested race.