570 réponses à ce sujet

[Yeled]

smudboy wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
I think the point is pretty clear in and of itself. You say that we are no closer to defeating the reapers. We learned some critical information about them in terms of their creations, the Collectors who were once the Protheans and how a Reaper is actually created. Even if it is a tiny detail now it has the potential to be *huge*.

I'm going to use an example regarding Harry Potter to make the point. In the fifth book, there is an extremely tiny detail regarding a silver locket that has absolutely no relevance at that time. That minor point becomes a major plot hook in Book 6. This is why I think it's premature to judge Mass Effect 2 before we've seen 3. This is the first sequel that Bioware's done since Baldur's Gate and their first trilogy. Let's first see what actually comes out before we conclude it's pathetic.

For one, no one can judge ME2 as a prequel to ME3, yet.

We can, however, judge it as a sequel, and, as a stand alone story, and the merits and faults therein.  Which I've been doing.  In the example of how a Reaper is created: it's hilarious, to borderline retarded to how a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" is needed to build a million year old now cybernetic machine.  What possible significance would a genetic soup/graft/thing do (HOW?!) for a machine?  If it's not explained, it has to be labeled as a mystery, and none of this happened.

You can point out potential elements of foreshadowing, and that's fine.  However, those points, don't score any positives for the ME2 story.  They may be potential insights into ME3, but that's it.

Saying ME3 may explain ME2 is an apologists argument, and I'll have none of that rubbish!  None I say!

Right.  To go back to the Harry Potter example, the story of the fifth book had nothing to do with that locket, and its success as a story didn't hinge on the locket either.  We don't judge the fifth book on the success of books six or seven.  We look at book five and decide whether book five is any good based on its own merits (and possibly based on what it did with story arcs brought up in earlier books).

[contown]

No. It didn't. You end ME2 exactly like you started it. The reapers are still out there and nobody else believes you/cares. ME2 introduced a brand new threat, the collectors, and that inserted threat was dealt with at the end of the game. Absolutely NOTHING changed. You could never play ME2, and you probably wouldn't be very confused going straight from ME1 to 3.



Extremely dissapointing. Oh well, the middle act is almost always the worst in a trilogy.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

See, here's where I take issue with your point. In a movie or book, the character in question is entirely in the hands of the director/author. They can choose to make the character however static or dynamic they choose. The same can be said for any non-RPG video game. You are not role-playing 'Master Chief' in Halo; the creators can do whatever they want with the character.
[/quote]
Yes, but they don't DO anything with Shepard.  He/she is flat and static.  For a protagonist of a plot where 1) he/she gets killed and resurrected and becomes Cyber-Jesus, you'd think he'd/she'd have a few things to say about that, ditto with Liara, 2) where the player can choose two of his/her backstories, 3) the scope of which is a cyclic destruction of all sentient life, 4) Hero of the Citadel, first human Spectre, n) etc., Shepard has the characterization of a piece of cardboard. [/quote]

And I'm not arguing against that he doesn't have much characterization. In fact, my point is that he can only be so dynamic without taking control from the player. As for your criticisms:

1) You are absolutely correct. This bothered me as well; Shepard should have had more of a reaction to being back from the dead. On the Liara point, I have heard there's an obscure bit of dialogue that can be obtained where she does break down emotionally however.
2) The backstories were extremely lackluster ideas that were inherited from the first game. This is not ME2's fault. When importing my character, I'd almost forgotten that I was in fact Earthborn.
3) I'm not entirely certain where you go with this.
4) Shepard's role as hero of the citadel doesn't even have a chance to take off. He dies a month after the battle and is now operating on the fringe's of space. I don't exactly think he's in a celebratory mood. I do however think that the battle has impacted his mentality throughout the game. He's had experience with the Reapers.

[quote]
I agree.  Shepard is not "our charcter."  He/she is at mercy to the writer.  If by free will you mean dialog options, sure.  Just because this is a video game doesn't mean the character can't grow along the lines you've chosen (background, P/R systems, etc.)  Hell, in the first game he had personal quests regarding his/her backstory.  They weren't anything that I'd call a character arc, but they were something.

As well, arguing with the council about Saren, becoming a Spectre after finding an MP3 file, the attitude toward communication with the Council, the "slump" scene at the weapons locker after getting the Normandy locked down, stealing the Normandy back, hell, even holding his/her side after Sovereign bits crash into the Presidium was minute, but something. [/quote]

I'm not arguing that video games are incapable of death. If anything, I've argued they're capable of more depth because they cause you to interact with characters over greater periods of time; KOTOR is a 50 hour experience. I can't say the same for most books or movies.

I would also stay away from using those background quests to make your point. They're not exactly helping. ME1 was entirely a main quest oriented game. Every side quest was utter crap and I'm honestly insulted at how some were even implemented. If you're calling the Colonist background mission 'something', that is laughable at best. It was five minutes long. I felt more impact at the decision to keep Wrex alive or dead in ME2 than that instance.

I did enjoy the scene with Shepard holding his side after battling sovereign, but if anything this is expanded on in ME2. ME1 evolved the game in terms of giving you a spoken character. ME2 improved this further by adding realistic motions and hand gestures for you and your companions. Those little instances that you describe are honestly everywhere in ME2. I particularly enjoyed watching Thane look out at the stars while he was explaining his life to you.

[quote]
 I would argue that it's impossible for them to effectively develop Shepard in the way that you seem to want. Who's to say that I necessarily want my ruthless Earth-born Shepard to have a major epiphany? The 11 companions that you refer to all have very specific story situations which apply exclusively to them. The 'backgrounds', which were poorly added in ME1 I might add, are too vague to be relevant. Shepard seems designed to be a character who stays true to himself throughout the trilogy, no matter what he is faced with.
[/quote]
Shepard: My shoulder is killing me!  Wtf did Cerberus do to me!  Miranda!
Miranda: Yes Shepard, whats' wrong?
Shepard choices: ,
Miranda: I'm sorry Shepard.  We had to replace some parts.
Shepard choices: ,
Something.  ANYTHING. [/quote]

But don't we get anything along those general lives? What you are describing is a fairly typical interaction with any character of ME1 and 2. I just replayed the intro of the second game, your conversation where Jacob explains whom he works for follows that exact outline. I chose to respond that I was willing to give Cerberus a chance.

[quote]
You've missed the point here, I'm afraid. They could not have been any other merc...they could only have been themselves. Thane could only have been Thane, Samara only Samara, etc. This was a mission designed with gathering the very best the galaxy had to offer. The Illusive Man identified them, you recruited them. I could have pointed Ashley, who is as much your party member by circumstance as Mordin, and said she is unnecessary.
[/quote]
Why couldn't they have been a merc?  (Some were.)

The very best the galaxy has to offer...at what?  Why did TIM identify them?  Again, we need these people to fight some kind of war.  What kind of war?  What are we attacking exactly?  Why do we need an assassin, a Krogan, hell, anyone when we don't know nor have any intel on our goal? [/quote]

In case you haven't noticed, Commander Shepard died. For two years. And he was, as both Miranda and TIM explain, *the* symbol of humanity and the alliance. You are not dealing with some clearly defined threat anymore. Everyone's heard of the Collectors; no one fully understands what they are.

Resurrecting Shepard, creating the Normandy SR-2, the AI, designing the very best team possible, this was all done to combat the Collectors. You're asking what the point of the team was? This was the unknown, they were designed to counter every possibility that could have occurred. Hence why you're going for such a varied group of specialists. You are going beyond the Omega IV relay, all we know is that no ship has survived passing. Those were the mission parameters, you prepared accordingly.

What exactly makes Tali, Wrex, or Garrus so instrumental to the plot of the original? Even Liara this can be said for. Her mother is aiding Saren yes, but you are not forced to bring her along on Noveria. Recruiting Liara in fact felt like any other recruitment mission in ME2.


[quote]
Motivation would definitely help flesh out the characters, and give them a REASON to be there, aside from Shepard simply asking them, let alone their unknown utility.  It gives them as a sense of reason to exist in the story.  I can understand Tali and Garrus, because they already trust Shepard, (yet I can't understand why we need to make them loyal to him/her, again.)  If they don't have a reason to be there, and it's not explained, then it's purely excess baggage we're dealing with.  BECAUSE WE (barely) KNOW WHY WE HAVE ANYONE!

This is more than just knowing about our enemy, and having an antagonist (though this would help.)  This is knowing wtf the game plan is.  In Guns of Navaone, the object of the story is to blow up the Guns of Navarone.  The Dirty Dozen is basically a hitman squad on German officials.  The Seven Samurai is about defending a village from bandits.  In ME2, we get a team of combat specialists to "Fight the Collectors." [/quote]

Well, in some cases we do see motivation. But again, I emphasize that when dealing with an unknown threat, be it the Reapers or the Collectors, you will always have that issue of motivation, in which case ME2 was doomed from the start. I think most of the characters' were laid out very well. Grunt is searching for identity, Thane wants to die, Tali and Garrus are loyal to you and looking for a cause, and Legion in particular seems directly tied to combatting the Reapers.

[quote]
The problem is: 1) where exactly are the Collectors?  We know they're past the Omega-4 relay, but then what? 2) what exactly are we doing?  Are we having a spec ops mission?  Are we bombarding a city, a town, a planet, a solar system? 3) how exactly are we doing 2)?  What does an assassin, a biotic powerhouse, a krogan, etc. going to do on a target we know nothing about, on a mission we don't even know what to do on?  What's the game plan?  Just hit the Omega-4 relay and hope for the best? 4) how many Collectors are there?  Do we just attack the ship that's collecting human colonies?  Do we hang out in the galactic core, looking for more if we find them?  What if we encounter a fleet of them, do we escape? [/quote]

1) We didn't know. I could argue the same for the Reapers of ME1. Where were they? 'Out in dark space'. Incidentally, if ME2 had focused on the reapers, we have no idea how long it would have been after ME1 since they're moving manually into our galaxy.

2) Again, we do not know. The point of TIM giving you the best that money can buy from equipment to technology to companions is so whatever it was, a spec ops mission, bombarding a city, you would be able to deal with it.

3) Well, look at it like this. If you need an assassin, you now have an assassin. Do you need a biotic powerhouse? You now have a biotic powerhouse. Again, how were Ashley, Kaidan, and Wrex instrumental to ME1? Your issue is something that pervades both games. If you are looking for better illustrations of necessary characters, we will have to go back to Bastila from KOTOR and Dawn Star/Sagacious Zu from Jade Empire. Or Alistair/Morrigain. And on a separate note, quite a few party members were useless in Dragon Age. Sten and Leliana are both just brought along for the ride.
4) Did we know what was going to happen when we hit Ilos? We knew Saren had found the conduit there, we took a single ship, unaware whether he had a fleet stationed, an army, whatever. In what Bioware game are we ever given a definite plan as to our course of action?

[NICKjnp]

We learned that Reapers were made out of people... PEOPLE! Oh wait... that is Soylent Green isn't it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...
For one, no one can judge ME2 as a prequel to ME3, yet.

We can, however, judge it as a sequel, and, as a stand alone story, and the merits and faults therein.  Which I've been doing.  In the example of how a Reaper is created: it's hilarious, to borderline retarded to how a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" is needed to build a million year old now cybernetic machine.  What possible significance would a genetic soup/graft/thing do (HOW?!) for a machine?  If it's not explained, it has to be labeled as a mystery, and none of this happened.

You can point out potential elements of foreshadowing, and that's fine.  However, those points, don't score any positives for the ME2 story.  They may be potential insights into ME3, but that's it.

Saying ME3 may explain ME2 is an apologists argument, and I'll have none of that rubbish!  None I say!

Then I guess Empire Strikes Back is doomed on its own, as others have pointed out. It wasn't exactly the phenomenon that it is now. What made the 'No, I am your father' line so powerful was the significance it played in the third one. The overall plot of the original trilogy was about the Rebels versus the Empire. Hoth aside, nothing significant at all happens in this capacity. As a stand alone, Empire Strikes Back utterly fails.

But I thought we were discussing the significance of that one minor plot detail, how Reapers are made, which many would disagree with you on it being 'hilarious'. It adds a stroke of irony to the Reapers and also says something about their own composition. This point was not about ME2 as a whole and about the role a small detail can have. I think it's pretty clear certain things were set up for ME3.

You can judge ME2 to be a failure of plot, if you so choose. It wasn't the best, I agree. But then ME1 failed in developing particulary exciting characters. I did not see another HK-47, or Alistair, or Black Whirlwind anywhere in the game. They just felt like they were attached to the main plot in a lackluster manner.

[wolf99000]

I always like the star wars take on it



me 1 a new hope you introduce everything have a happy ending



me 2 empire while you win you put the main characters in a really bad place leading in to the last part ie the whole reaper fleet coming



me 3 return of the jedi the end and happy ending just dont give us anything like the ewoks bioware and I will be ok

[JediPilot0]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Then I guess Empire Strikes Back is doomed on its own, as others have pointed out. It wasn't exactly the phenomenon that it is now. What made the 'No, I am your father' line so powerful was the significance it played in the third one. The overall plot of the original trilogy was about the Rebels versus the Empire. Hoth aside, nothing significant at all happens in this capacity. As a stand alone, Empire Strikes Back utterly fails.

First of all, the "I am your father" line was completely mind-blowing at the time. If you've read anything about the making of these films, Lucas hid this line from everyone. It wasn't in the script at all until they filmed that scene. The line the cast knew was comming was that Obiwan was Luke's father. Lucas/Kershner saved the true line until filming because they wanted get the cast completely shocked for that scene.

Secondly, the original Starwars trilogy was forging new ground, doing stuff that no other movies had done before, so pretending that ME2 should get away with lackluster plot because people didn't expect ESB is poorly thought out. Empire Strikes back has other virtues that we now recognize, while ME2 does not, and you can't use ESB to justify ME2's poor plot. ESB was ACTUALLY a personal story about the characters we loved in A New Hope, whlie ME2 pisses all over everything we did and essentially reboots the story so new players can join up. Any story where a character you've grown attached to dies in the frist 5 minutes only to be resurrected right away is clearly not well thought out. Most of our squadmates and allegiances we've built up are thrown out the window. Come on, the council is blowing us off AGAIN?

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
But I thought we were discussing the significance of that one minor plot detail, how Reapers are made, which many would disagree with you on it being 'hilarious'. It adds a stroke of irony to the Reapers and also says something about their own composition. This point was not about ME2 as a whole and about the role a small detail can have. I think it's pretty clear certain things were set up for ME3.

The reapers using organic goo IS hilariously bad. Even the Scions/Husks/Praetorians at least pretended to functionally use human bodies for something. The Praetorians, was it, have linked human brains together. I get how Bioware is trying to make it seem like we're being presented with more and more grusome usage of humans for shock troops, but organic soup is just pathetic. What the hell could they do with that, that they couldn't even do by purely mechanical means? Why does human paste work? Why not Asari paste? Surely the ability to defeat reapers is not part of our genetic sequence, so don't pass this off as anything other than a huge retcon of ME1.

In ME1, Sovereign completely dismissed organics as useless, and yet, every single thing they do has required them so far. They even need us to "reproduce" retardedly enough.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
They just felt like they were attached to the main plot in a lackluster manner.

Well, they were more attached to the plot then the ME2 squaddies were. Oh, you think it's honerable to fight the collectors, Samara? Come on in! Thane, you want to redeem yourself? Come on in! Grunt, you have nothing to do and only want to fight anything that moves? Come on in! At least the ME1 squaddies knew Saren in some way, and even helped us out before we recruited them (Garrus/Tali at least). Liara even helped us understand the cypher. ME1's plot COULD not have happened without these people. In ME2, we could have gotten all the way to the collector base and needed one tech guy and one biotic.

EDIT- I should point out that my complaining about the plot has nothing to do with my love of the game. I love the squadmates and their stories.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 15 mars 2010 - 05:53 .

[Sentinel168]

Sorry if I rehash something some one else said but I didn't have the time to read every post.

Overall I love ME2 as a game but found the plot a little lacking in some areas.

-If ME1 had ened with the mention on human coloists, would have made a differnece. 
-If we didn't find out that Sovereign was a reaper until this game would have been huge.

Overall IMO, one simeple change to the end would have made a huge difference and that was the collector base:

-(paragon ending) base goes to council, have to admit reapers, use tech to fight them
-(renagade ending) base goes to Cerberus, "we'll handle them on ou own" method and behind the scenes.

my 2 cents.

Modifié par Sentinel168, 15 mars 2010 - 06:01 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JediPilot0 wrote...
First of all, the "I am your father" line was completely mind-blowing at the time. If you've read anything about the making of these films, Lucas hid this line from everyone. It wasn't in the script at all until they filmed that scene. The line the cast knew was comming was that Obiwan was Luke's father. Lucas/Kershner saved the true line until filming because they wanted get the cast completely shocked for that scene.

Secondly, the original Starwars trilogy was forging new ground, doing stuff that no other movies had done before, so pretending that ME2 should get away with lackluster plot because people didn't expect ESB is poorly thought out. Empire Strikes back has other virtues that we now recognize, while ME2 does not, and you can't use ESB to justify ME2's poor plot. ESB was ACTUALLY a personal story about the characters we loved in A New Hope, whlie ME2 pisses all over everything we did and essentially reboots the story so new players can join up. Any story where a character you've grown attached to dies in the frist 5 minutes only to be resurrected right away is clearly not well thought out. Most of our squadmates and allegiances we've built up are thrown out the window. Come on, the council is blowing us off AGAIN?

Unfortunately, any line can be placed in front of what you are quoting and still maintained the same significance. If anything, drama of that line is already downplayed in knowing that Luke is in fact another main character's child. If you had said that Lucas had told them any number of ambiguous lines that Darth Vader could have said, and then chose 'I am your father', your point would be better illustrated.

ME as a whole is designed as a testament to a variety of science fiction stories, Star Wars among them. The middle part of the trilogy functioning as the 'dark portion' supports this, as well as the focus on character development. It just happened that the characters which were developed happened to be different from the ones we receieved in the first game. You also are not resurrected in 'the first 5 minutes'. Plot-wise this occurs over a span of about two years. Or were you expecting that there would be an interim where you control a new character for that time?

Of the ME1 characters, Garrus and Tali both return and are probably much more fleshed out than in the first installment. Garrus feels more like a brother in arms and Tali, whom I hated in the first game, definitely comes into her own as a person. Ashley/Kaidan admittedly are given a backseat role. Liara and Wrex both evolve in their roles. In the previous game, Wrex had given up on the Krogans, now he's restoring them to their former glory. These are all complaints merely because the developers did not recyle the exact same party members the first time around.

The reapers using organic goo IS hilariously bad. Even the Scions/Husks/Praetorians at least pretended to functionally use human bodies for something. The Praetorians, was it, have linked human brains together. I get how Bioware is trying to make it seem like we're being presented with more and more grusome usage of humans for shock troops, but organic soup is just pathetic. What the hell could they do with that, that they couldn't even do by purely mechanical means? Why does human paste work? Why not Asari paste? Surely the ability to defeat reapers is not part of our genetic sequence, so don't pass this off as anything other than a huge retcon of ME1.

In ME1, Sovereign completely dismissed organics as useless, and yet, every single thing they do has required them so far. They even need us to "reproduce" retardedly enough.

Is this not a question to possibly be answered later? What could they do with humans? It's pretty clear that the Reapers don't just forge their kind from every sentient being. There's a reason they chose humanity over Asari, Turians, etc. As the Illusive Man explains, they managed to 'kill' a reaper. This is unprecedented and as TIM explains is why they suddenly begin targeting humanity and become obsessed with Shepard. Some tribes would cannibalize each other's bodies because they thought it made them stronger. Whether metaphorical or practical, there's an element of 'use what makes your enemy stronger against them'.

To use your own point against you, you're arguing from a human perspective that there's nothing significant about using humans to create Reapers. When asking Sovereign why they harvest the galaxy every 10k years, he explains that this is not something an organic can understand. Judging by everyone's logic I've seen, this can be considered a 'plothole' because its unexplained.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
They just felt like they were attached to the main plot in a lackluster manner.

Well, they were more attached to the plot then the ME2 squaddies were. Oh, you think it's honerable to fight the collectors, Samara? Come on in! Thane, you want to redeem yourself? Come on in! Grunt, you have nothing to do and only want to fight anything that moves? Come on in! At least the ME1 squaddies knew Saren in some way, and even helped us out before we recruited them (Garrus/Tali at least)

lol This is cute. A minor attachment is at best marginally better than what you're claiming. What I want to know from you now is, what possible connection could any party member, from ME1 or 2, have to the Reapers that makes your argument significant in light of their role in the story? Saren was pretty clear, it is less so with the Reapers. Everyone has a common interest in not being harvested. And they all have personal motivations to go along with it. Grunt was never your target-Okeer was, who had prior contact with the Collectors. You took Grunt as his replacement.

In ME1, you recruited 5/6 party members in the span of a little over 2-3 hours. This is not a much better alternative, especially when each was not instrumental to the plot. What you are arguing, I could easily use KOTOR or Jade Empire to show how ME1 is itself flawed.

Bastila is essential to the plot, moreso than Kaidan or Ashley or Wrex. ME is an incredibly flawed game and fails to tie characters into the main plot with this logic.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 mars 2010 - 06:06 .

[Yeled]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

A minor attachment is at best marginally better than what you're claiming. What I want to know from you now is, what possible connection could any party member, from ME1 or 2, have to the Reapers that makes your argument significant in light of their role in the story? Saren was pretty clear, it is less so with the Reapers. Everyone has a common interest in not being harvested. And they all have personal motivations to go along with it. Grunt was never your target-Okeer was, who had prior contact with the Collectors. You took Grunt as his replacement. 

I don't want to deal with the entirety of your post, but this point is simple:

The connection the ME1 characters have to the plot is Shepard.  That's a very powerful motivation and should not be discounted.  Tali and Garrus benefit greatly as characters because of this connection and motivation.  They are continuing the fight because they began it, and they trust and believe in Shepard because of the events of ME1.

Like you, I didn't care much for Tali (or Garrus, really) in ME1.  In ME2 they are my favorite characters. Why?  Because I feel a connectoin to them, because they were there from the beginning. 

Miranda is my next favorite character because I understand her role is essential to the plot of the game, and so I feel her addition is justified, and I enjoy the role she plays.  She could have been added to the middle chapter just fine and been a good addition to the cast.

The other characters are mostly unimportant.  Sure, I enjoy some of them as stand alone characters.  But they could have been stand alone characters for any game.  It didn't matter where they fit in because, in truth, they didn't.

[Sigma Tauri]

JediPilot0 wrote...
The reapers using organic goo IS hilariously bad. Even the Scions/Husks/Praetorians at least pretended to functionally use human bodies for something. The Praetorians, was it, have linked human brains together. I get how Bioware is trying to make it seem like we're being presented with more and more grusome usage of humans for shock troops, but organic soup is just pathetic. What the hell could they do with that, that they couldn't even do by purely mechanical means? Why does human paste work? Why not Asari paste? Surely the ability to defeat reapers is not part of our genetic sequence, so don't pass this off as anything other than a huge retcon of ME1.

In ME1, Sovereign completely dismissed organics as useless, and yet, every single thing they do has required them so far. They even need us to "reproduce" retardedly enough.

I don't think the mechanical/physiological
explanation is as important in understanding their motivations (though the mechanical/physiological explanation may be important later on). From what I gather from Harbinger's
lines, he calls collecting humans from distant colonies "ascension". So, in their point of view, It seems
reaping is an act that humanity should be honored to partake. This
contrasts to those submit themselves to the Reapers. Sovereign for
example was disgusted at the heretics, because submission essentially
means to be dominated, which also means to surrending sapience. Being a human reaper, though, means that humanity has the capacity to be above all the other races, as reapers see themselves as the highest form of life (synthetic or natural).

But, this is all speculation.

Baladas: Love your username. For some reason, I expect you to figure out how to solve the Mystery of the Reapers.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 15 mars 2010 - 06:39 .

[smudboy]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
And I'm not arguing against that he doesn't have much characterization. In fact, my point is that he can only be so dynamic without taking control from the player. As for your criticisms:

1) You are absolutely correct. This bothered me as well; Shepard should have had more of a reaction to being back from the dead. On the Liara point, I have heard there's an obscure bit of dialogue that can be obtained where she does break down emotionally however.
2) The backstories were extremely lackluster ideas that were inherited from the first game. This is not ME2's fault. When importing my character, I'd almost forgotten that I was in fact Earthborn.
3) I'm not entirely certain where you go with this.
4) Shepard's role as hero of the citadel doesn't even have a chance to take off. He dies a month after the battle and is now operating on the fringe's of space. I don't exactly think he's in a celebratory mood. I do however think that the battle has impacted his mentality throughout the game. He's had experience with the Reapers.

1) I heard the little sound bite someone found about Liara and the Shadow Broker.  Odd how BioWare doesn't clean its own asset list...
2) The fact that I played as an Akuze survivor and was brought back to life by Cerberus should've been insta-conflict.  Instead we get nothing.  This would've been key.
3) I'm referring to the scope of the plot . We're talking GALACTIC GENOCIDE.  "Hello?  Shepard?  Could you please pick up the diplomatic/influencial skills here?  Get some hard evidence?  Fate of the galaxy and all?"  No other plot has come close, and the protagonist (who's worthy of being called as such) needs to be MUCH more effective at convincing fellows to help him save the galaxy, instead of just shrugging them off.  One, kidnap the Turian and Solarian councellor.  Two, mind meld with the Asari councellor, showing her the fate of the Protheans and all those nasty Reaper/Cipher/Ilos memories you've got buried in your brain.  Hell, get Shiala and Liara to do it too.
4) The fact he's a hero and officially Space Jesus should command some attention and influence aside from "discounts at a store."

I'm not arguing that video games are incapable of death. If anything, I've argued they're capable of more depth because they cause you to interact with characters over greater periods of time; KOTOR is a 50 hour experience. I can't say the same for most books or movies.

I would also stay away from using those background quests to make your point. They're not exactly helping. ME1 was entirely a main quest oriented game. Every side quest was utter crap and I'm honestly insulted at how some were even implemented. If you're calling the Colonist background mission 'something', that is laughable at best. It was five minutes long. I felt more impact at the decision to keep Wrex alive or dead in ME2 than that instance.

Laugh all you want.  At least it was there.  Ditto with the MAKO for a sense of scope of the world we're in.

I did enjoy the scene with Shepard holding his side after battling sovereign, but if anything this is expanded on in ME2. ME1 evolved the game in terms of giving you a spoken character. ME2 improved this further by adding realistic motions and hand gestures for you and your companions. Those little instances that you describe are honestly everywhere in ME2. I particularly enjoyed watching Thane look out at the stars while he was explaining his life to you.

This is true.  But it needs to tie into the main plot.  Talking heads and prettier graphics mean zip if it doesn't progress the story, provide backstory, and characterization, and not just for side characters.

But don't we get anything along those general lives? What you are describing is a fairly typical interaction with any character of ME1 and 2. I just replayed the intro of the second game, your conversation where Jacob explains whom he works for follows that exact outline. I chose to respond that I was willing to give Cerberus a chance.

And it goes nowhere.  They don't argue.  They just nod their heads.  No conflict, no change, no argument.  Just "Yeah Jacob, I'm thinking exactly what you're thinking.  Cerberus is a pretty shady place." *crickets chirping*

In case you haven't noticed, Commander Shepard died. For two years. And he was, as both Miranda and TIM explain, *the* symbol of humanity and the alliance. You are not dealing with some clearly defined threat anymore. Everyone's heard of the Collectors; no one fully understands what they are.

Resurrecting Shepard, creating the Normandy SR-2, the AI, designing the very best team possible, this was all done to combat the Collectors. You're asking what the point of the team was? This was the unknown, they were designed to counter every possibility that could have occurred. Hence why you're going for such a varied group of specialists. You are going beyond the Omega IV relay, all we know is that no ship has survived passing. Those were the mission parameters, you prepared accordingly.

What exactly makes Tali, Wrex, or Garrus so instrumental to the plot of the original? Even Liara this can be said for. Her mother is aiding Saren yes, but you are not forced to bring her along on Noveria. Recruiting Liara in fact felt like any other recruitment mission in ME2.

Right.  So he's brought back for a symbol?  Okay.  He's got some notoriety, and the fact he's now Space Jesus.  But does anyone (aside from some NPCs and Garrus) care?

And if the Collectors are so mysterious, why don't we learn about them and how to attack them (who/what/where/etc), before just getting random people on board?  Why do we need a band of mercs and combat specialists, as opposed to ship/sensor/information specialists?  We need to know our enemy before any planning is invovled.  We're assembling a squad: for what?  First get a physical, known enemy target, then plan for it.  A poster above stated they'd want to get some nuclear warheads, and I'd agree: you could be attacking ANYTHING.  You don't need an army or specialists, because you don't know what they're going to be used for.  Getting an extra character was the equivalent of buying fish, or quality food rations for the mess seargent: why the f*ck not.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/912920/3#976205
Wrex and Garrus don't have much involvement in the plot, but they at least have a singular motivation.  (Wrex: wants to kill him, Garrus was investigating him, and wants to continue doing so because he knows "something isn't as it appears.")  Tali and Liara each have 4 reasons.  And what's beautiful about Liara is she's optional.  Whereas all of our ME2 characters are completely optional.

Well, in some cases we do see motivation. But again, I emphasize that when dealing with an unknown threat, be it the Reapers or the Collectors, you will always have that issue of motivation, in which case ME2 was doomed from the start. I think most of the characters' were laid out very well. Grunt is searching for identity, Thane wants to die, Tali and Garrus are loyal to you and looking for a cause, and Legion in particular seems directly tied to combatting the Reapers.

Legion does indeed have info regarding the Reapers.  However, none of these side=characters are particularily motivated to the main plot.  Hell, some of the NPC crew members have family members that were collected.  THEY have more motivation than our side-characters.

1) We didn't know. I could argue the same for the Reapers of ME1. Where were they? 'Out in dark space'. Incidentally, if ME2 had focused on the reapers, we have no idea how long it would have been after ME1 since they're moving manually into our galaxy.

The goal of ME1 was to stop Saren, find the Conduit.  We didn't know what or where the Conduit was.  But we slowly find these things out.  But, we weren't trying to destroy it, let alone an entire species.  We were exploring to discover it, and prevent Saren from having it, and we still didn't know till we actually got really close to it via Vigil (and could argue its validity/usefulness in response to Saren's poor behavior.)

In ME2 our goal is to "Fight the Collectors."  This is a very specific kind of goal that involves violence.  What kind of violence?  What is the scope of that violence?  What is the scope of the Collectors? What kind of ordinance would be required for said violence to successfully "Fight the Collectors"?  Does such violence constitute building a team or an army?  I understand the need to upgrade the ship, to explore and discover how to do all these things, but not to have a military ground operation for something we don't know of yet.  Ilos was a planet.  The Collector base luckily had some atmosphere for our breather-mask squaddies.

2) Again, we do not know. The point of TIM giving you the best that money can buy from equipment to technology to companions is so whatever it was, a spec ops mission, bombarding a city, you would be able to deal with it.

If he gave us the best weapons and ordinance to "deal with it" (aka blow something up), what do we need an army/really good team for?

3) Well, look at it like this. If you need an assassin, you now have an assassin. Do you need a biotic powerhouse? You now have a biotic powerhouse. Again, how were Ashley, Kaidan, and Wrex instrumental to ME1? Your issue is something that pervades both games. If you are looking for better illustrations of necessary characters, we will have to go back to Bastila from KOTOR and Dawn Star/Sagacious Zu from Jade Empire. Or Alistair/Morrigain. And on a separate note, quite a few party members were useless in Dragon Age. Sten and Leliana are both just brought along for the ride.

And what if the Collectors greatest weakness was coffee?  That may sound stupid.  But you know, after that info, I'd really want a barista over an assassin, if that's what it took to "Fight the Collectors."  And Juan Valdez.

Or just lots of nukes.  Nukes would work really well, too.

In regards to Ashley, I'd say she had more motivation than any character in ME2: she had firsthand knowledge of the Geth, having her entire unit wiped out, and she believes in the mission, enough to curb her xenophobia and work with Shepard and aliens to save the universe.  She also has little comments and opinions about each plot point of the story.  Ditto with Kaidan.  Wrex, here and there, I think.  They at least had things to comment on the main plot.

4) Did we know what was going to happen when we hit Ilos? We knew Saren had found the conduit there, we took a single ship, unaware whether he had a fleet stationed, an army, whatever. In what Bioware game are we ever given a definite plan as to our course of action?

Again, I mentioned before, we wanted to stop Saren from finding the conduit.  That does not necessarily mean kill Saren, but if it did, we knew 1) our taget, 2) pretty much how to kill him and what that'd take.

Compare that to "Fight the Collectors."  Whereas Ilos is a planet in a solar system far far away, NO ONE knows what's beyond the Omega-4 relay, the scope of the threat, what we need to stop it, etc.  If we were somehow able to communicate/scan what was going on in there early on (I'm thinking something like a DS9 wormhole communication thing), then we could go "Oh.  Now we've got some idea of what to do."

I can't seem to recall why the SR2 couldn't fight the Collector Cruiser while everyone was defending the tower on Horizon.  What, does EDI have to also control firing the weapons too?  Couldn't Joker conduct some attacks on a massive stationary ship from orbit, let alone some bombing runs?

[JediPilot0]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

If anything, drama of that line is already downplayed in knowing that Luke is in fact another main character's child.

This right here tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the original trilogy. I'm ending this here because this is turning into one big segue.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
ME as a whole is designed as a testament to a variety of science fiction stories, Star Wars among them. The middle part of the trilogy functioning as the 'dark portion' supports this, as well as the focus on character
development. It just happened that the characters which were developed happened to be different from the ones we receieved in the first game.

......


Of the ME1 characters, Garrus and Tali both return and are probably much more fleshed out than in the first installment. Garrus feels more like a brother in arms and Tali, whom I hated in the first game, definitely comes into her own as a person. Ashley/Kaidan admittedly are given a backseat role. Liara and Wrex both evolve in their roles.

So it doesn't matter to you WHO recieve's character development in a middle section, so much as there IS character development? Why not just make a new story? The point is to invest in the characters we know and
love. There's a reason that you grow very attached Garrus and Tali in this one. It's because they are the only characters we're familiar with who get significant treatment.

Wrex and Liara's situations are not character development so much as an epilogue. Learning what they've
been up to for two years and then dropping them is hardly what we all expected from hanging out with them in the first game. They are not main characters anymore in ME2.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
You also are not resurrected in 'the first 5 minutes'. Plot-wise this occurs over a span of about two years. Or were you expecting that there would be an interim where you control a new character for that time?

You've got to be kidding me. I'm not even going to respond to this..

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Is this not a question to possibly be answered later? What could they do with humans? It's pretty clear that the Reapers don't just forge their kind from every sentient being. There's a reason they chose humanity over Asari, Turians, etc. As the Illusive Man explains, they managed to 'kill' a reaper. This is unprecedented and as TIM explains is why they suddenly begin targeting humanity and become obsessed with Shepard. Some tribes would cannibalize each other's bodies because they thought it made them stronger. Whether metaphorical or practical, there's an element of 'use what makes your enemy stronger against them'.

And this is a complete retcon of what Sovereign said in ME1.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
lol This is cute. A minor attachment is at best marginally better than what you're claiming. What I want to know from you now is, what possible connection could any party member, from ME1 or 2, have to the Reapers
that makes your argument significant in light of their role in the story? Saren was pretty clear, it is less so with the Reapers.

-Without Mordin or Miranda, you would have been stonewalled on your way to figuring out what the collectors were doing. Mordin had to develop the countermeasure, and Miranda was in charge of bringing you back. Everyone else was simply there to act as soldiers in your suicide mission. They could have all been replaced by generic soldiers. I never once needed Thane to assassinate anyone, for example.

-Liara helped us find the conduit on Ilos
-Tali helped us find the evidence we need to convict Saren
-Garrus tried to help us find evidence against Saren, but failed.

Mass Effect 1 was an adventure about finding out about the Reapers. It's no wonder our squaddies aren't all tied to the reaper plot because we were only just finding out about the Reapers. You want the ME1 squaddies to all be tied directly to the Reapers when no one knew about them. SO they help us track down Saren, which was the path to finding out about the Reapers.

In ME2, the squaddies join your fight and stay with you partly because yes, everyone wants to survive the Reapers, but they don't even have any real ties to the collectors. At least the ME1 squaddies were for the most part directly helping us find Saren, and had modivations beyond "its the right thing to do." This is why the ME2 squaddies are largely replaceable. They weren't used enough.

I'm not saying every ME1 squaddie directly helped you in some way against Saren. Kaide/Ashely were just generic soldiers, like Jacob, and that's fine. Wrex didn't help much eaither, but we're talking about 50% of the squaddies im ME1 crucial to the story vs 2/12 in ME2, or 4/12 if you're being generous about the suicide mission's contrived mechanics requiring a biotic and a tech expert.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 15 mars 2010 - 07:31 .

[glacier1701]

Smud has made his point well and pretty much sums up how I view ME2. Yes its a good game but because of laziness or perhaps, now we know what the thought was behind how ME2 was developed, its better to say a focus on the wrong aspects of the game to the detriment of story means it is not what it should have been or have expected from BioWare. Indeed BioWare itself is acknowledging it made some bad mistakes in ME2. This is not saying that I did not like the game but that even though I like it I still see the mistakes and problems and am not trying to whitewash them as some others seem to want to do.

[JMA22TB]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

smudboy wrote...
For one, no one can judge ME2 as a prequel to ME3, yet.

We can, however, judge it as a sequel, and, as a stand alone story, and the merits and faults therein.  Which I've been doing.  In the example of how a Reaper is created: it's hilarious, to borderline retarded to how a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" is needed to build a million year old now cybernetic machine.  What possible significance would a genetic soup/graft/thing do (HOW?!) for a machine?  If it's not explained, it has to be labeled as a mystery, and none of this happened.

You can point out potential elements of foreshadowing, and that's fine.  However, those points, don't score any positives for the ME2 story.  They may be potential insights into ME3, but that's it.

Saying ME3 may explain ME2 is an apologists argument, and I'll have none of that rubbish!  None I say!

Then I guess Empire Strikes Back is doomed on its own, as others have pointed out. It wasn't exactly the phenomenon that it is now. What made the 'No, I am your father' line so powerful was the significance it played in the third one. The overall plot of the original trilogy was about the Rebels versus the Empire. Hoth aside, nothing significant at all happens in this capacity. As a stand alone, Empire Strikes Back utterly fails.

But I thought we were discussing the significance of that one minor plot detail, how Reapers are made, which many would disagree with you on it being 'hilarious'. It adds a stroke of irony to the Reapers and also says something about their own composition. This point was not about ME2 as a whole and about the role a small detail can have. I think it's pretty clear certain things were set up for ME3.

You can judge ME2 to be a failure of plot, if you so choose. It wasn't the best, I agree. But then ME1 failed in developing particulary exciting characters. I did not see another HK-47, or Alistair, or Black Whirlwind anywhere in the game. They just felt like they were attached to the main plot in a lackluster manner.

As a side note, if you go to Drew Karpyshyn's web site you find out that he was co-lead writer for Mass Effect 2. That's the same guy who wrote the first game, so my hypothesis is that something huge is cooking.

Totally 100% agree with you about knowing more about the Reapers. At the end of ME, you have no idea what a Reaper is other than what Vigil aptly put as the need to destroy them. By the end of ME2, you have a list of improvements regarding said Reaper knowledge, as well as implemented technology from Sovereign on your ship (EDI, Thanix cannon)

There's something hidden in that data you learn that will make a huge difference in ME3, and part of the fun is trying to figure out what it is ahead of time. Sure, the feeling at the end of ME was 'hell yea we just took sovereign down bring on the reapers' and it felt done and it was, but that brings me to the point that BioWare has hinted at and stated already:

There's more story coming. They've said repeatedly that they're releasing content throughout the year

The Hammerhead opens up mission possibilites with a siege vehicle; it's that apparently dirty word speculation again, but I think that particular addition will be instrumental to whatever new content they come out with in the future. If taking down the Shadow Broker is on the plate like it seems it will be, I would assume you take down a fortified base to do so. Kasumi is a safe assumption, also, to be the last ME2 addition within the confines of the main story. They've talked about Shepard having a 'dirty dozen' and that completes it.

Like we've touched on as a community multiple times, there are loose ends. I'm confident we'll see them tied up throughout the year, maybe even in a broad-sweeping xpac similar to Awakening for Dragon Age.

I personally like anticipating what's going to happen next and speculating about this absolutely fascinating story and universe and where it's going next. Don't think I'm alone either

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JediPilot0 wrote...
This right here tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of the original trilogy. I'm ending this here because this is turning into one big segue.

Forgive me, but as someone who's played KOTOR 17 times and watched the trilogy many more, I'll appreciate you not questioning my devotion to Star Wars. As has been pointed out multiple times, Episode V was not the insta-success you claim it was. All I'm saying is until we see ME3, people are mischaracterizing the potential value of ME2. This is Bioware's first trilogy, how about we see where it goes before we complain?

So it doesn't matter to you WHO recieve's character development in a middle section, so much as there IS character development? Why not just make a new story? The point is to invest in the characters we know and
love. There's a reason that you grow very attached Garrus and Tali in this one. It's because they are the only characters we're familiar with who get significant treatment.

Wrex and Liara's situations are not character development so much as an epilogue. Learning what they've
been up to for two years and then dropping them is hardly what we all expected from hanging out with them in the first game. They are not main characters anymore in ME2.

No, I simply feel that everyone has become filled with such nostalgia for their party members in ME1 that they don't realize the potential to take it in a new direction. I feel like this starts with a question to all who played the game: do you feel as if the Shepard dying plot point is too gimmicky? If so, then this is a separate issue to discuss. If you thought it fit, then you can hardly complain that most of your old companions don't just leave whatever they're doing to unite with you after two years. You have a new mission, with a new crew.
 
It was weird on Freedom's Progress working with Miranda and Jacob for the first time. It felt wrong; I didn't consider them my squad at the time and it impacted me that much more when Tali (at the time), Ashley, Wrex, etc refused to come with me. I'd say Ashley (possibly Liara) was the only original crew member who really got the shaft.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Is this not a question to possibly be answered later? What could they do with humans? It's pretty clear that the Reapers don't just forge their kind from every sentient being. There's a reason they chose humanity over Asari, Turians, etc. As the Illusive Man explains, they managed to 'kill' a reaper. This is unprecedented and as TIM explains is why they suddenly begin targeting humanity and become obsessed with Shepard. Some tribes would cannibalize each other's bodies because they thought it made them stronger. Whether metaphorical or practical, there's an element of 'use what makes your enemy stronger against them'.

And this is a complete retcon of what Sovereign said in ME1.

Or maybe the situation has changed? The Reapers had never met anyone capable of killing them before. Humans proved they were in exceptional in a way no other race had ever done. Yes, they tried using Protheans, which didn't work, but is it so hard to imagine that the death of one of their kind would have such an effect on them? That they seem to obsess about Shepard/humanity is evidence of this.

Mass Effect 1 was an adventure about finding out about the Reapers. It's no wonder our squaddies aren't all tied to the reaper plot because we were only just finding out about the Reapers. You want the ME1 squaddies to all be tied directly to the Reapers when no one knew about them. SO they help us track down Saren, which was the path to finding out about the Reapers.

In ME2, the squaddies join your fight and stay with you partly because yes, everyone wants to survive the Reapers, but they don't even have any real ties to the collectors. At least the ME1 squaddies were for the most part directly helping us find Saren, and had modivations beyond "its the right thing to do." This is why the ME2 squaddies are largely replaceable. They weren't used enough.

See, here's the problem 'they weren't used enough'. The Geth were in many ways a mystery as well. Saren was able to serve as a sentient figure whom everyone could refer to and say 'bad guy'. The Collectors largely filled the role the Geth had, but without a public figure. If you can imagine ME1 without Saren, your motivation for most of your party, excluding Kaidan and Ashley is gone. What I gather from this is that you require having a public face at all times to fight against. The Collector storyline was doomed to begin with because there was no clear-cut enemy.

I'm not saying every ME1 squaddie directly helped you in some way against Saren. Kaide/Ashely were just generic soldiers, like Jacob, and that's fine. Wrex didn't help much eaither, but we're talking about 50% of the squaddies im ME1 crucial to the story vs 2/12 in ME2, or 4/12 if you're being generous about the suicide mission's contrived mechanics requiring a biotic and a tech expert.

Well, if you want to talk about the final suicide mission, what ME1 character was actually relevant on  Ilos? No one was instrumental, they just became gameplay mechanics. Ashley wasn't a more critical choice than Garrus than Tali.

So let's briefly go over the motivations for each squad member in joining you.

Miranda-Brought you back to life. Employed by Cerberus.
Jacob-Head of security for Lazarus Project.
Garrus-Member of original squad
Tali-Member of original squad.
Thane-Essentially looking for penance and an opportunity to die.
Jack- Made no sense (See, here I agree with you).
Samara-A Justicar, able to relate to Shepard's role as a Spectre. Takes an oath to aid after Shepard finds her daughter's ship.
Mordin-Scientist, professional interest. Also in exchange for aiding disease situation on Omega.
Grunt-Lack of identity. Is in stasis until released by Shepard.
Legion-For some inexplicable reason, intrigued by Shepard. Agrees with 'Geth' to aid against Collectors, Reapers, and heretics.

I'm not saying that each of these party members was particularly inspired. But I don't see how Thane looking for an opportunity to die is any less than Garrus' desire to break free of C-sec restrictions.

[JedTed]

smudboy wrote...
I can't seem to recall why the SR2 couldn't fight the Collector Cruiser while everyone was defending the tower on Horizon.  What, does EDI have to also control firing the weapons too?  Couldn't Joker conduct some attacks on a massive stationary ship from orbit, let alone some bombing runs?

Yeah, considering that Garrus is one of the squadies you recruit before Horizon then you should be able to use that awsome Thanix Canon on the Collector ship and destroy it right there(destroying it on the planet would probebly end badly so maybe wait till it starts to leave and then disable it's engines).  Whether or not you bought that specific upgrade could change how the story unfolds and add a nice dynamic to the game.

I'm not complaining though, it just bugs me that this kind of thing never occured to the writters.  I love the story of ME2 and think it's a suitable 2nd act in the trilogy.  I also think that the Collector=Prothean revelation is really profound and gives us an insight into why the Reapers harvest organic races.

[implodinggoat]

ME2 is like a side quest to the main story arc in my mind. In ME1, I really saved the galaxy by stopping Sovereign from bringing the Reaper Armada back to attack the citadel. In ME2 I saved a bunch of colonists and threw a monkey wrench in the Reaper's plans; but it would be a big stretch to say I saved the galaxy. ME2 does develop some hints towards the Reaper's true nature and their true motives; but nothing really earth shattering.

The only major development is at the end and only if you decide to hand Cerberus the keys to the Collector base. If you did then you have cemented Cerberus as a very powerful force in the Galaxy; but if you blew it up you've basically just restored things to the state that they were at the end of ME1. I'm just hoping we finally get a chance to hunt Cerberus down like the scum they are in ME3, cause I have not forgotten the f*cked up **** they did in ME1 and I did not enjoy being the Illusive Man's errand boy in ME2.

PS:  As an aside, I'd just like to say that I totally agree that Jack's presence on your squad makes no sense whatsoever.  Why does she stick around when she only care about her own crazy ass (particularly after she has the coordinates to Pragia)?  Why does Shepard tolerate her constant insobordination?  Why does Shepard allow her to stay on his/her ship after she threatens to kill his/her first officer immediatley after you go out of your way to help her on Pragia?  and most of all why did the Illusive Man think it would be a good idea to recruit a sociopathic, insobordinate **** who just so happens to have an avowed hatred for him and his organization? 

Modifié par implodinggoat, 15 mars 2010 - 09:02 .

[Terraneaux]

JedTed wrote...
I also think that the Collector=Prothean revelation is really profound and gives us an insight into why the Reapers harvest organic races.

I don't think so at all.  It doesn't really change much; we're still ****ed if the Reapers win.  And honestly, who was thinking of having the Collectors be Protheans without Shep being able to figure it out?  He/she can read and write Prothean and has one of their databases in his or her brain.  It would be sweet to be able to be like 'There's something familiar about these Collectors...' and then have your revelation moment, and at first Mordin doesn't believe you, but then when you scan a Collector on their ship he agrees.  Instead, staying true to the theme of the game, they take the ability to be a protagonist away from the main character.  

[Terraneaux]

implodinggoat wrote...
The only major development is at the end and only if you decide to hand Cerberus the keys to the Collector base. If you did then you have cemented Cerberus as a very powerful force in the Galaxy; but if you blew it up you've basically just restored things to the state that they were at the end of ME1. I'm just hoping we finally get a chance to hunt Cerberus down like the scum they are in ME3, cause I have not forgotten the f*cked up **** they did in ME1 and I did not enjoy being the Illusive Man's errand boy in ME2.

The worst part about being TIM's errand boy is that Shep is such a **** about it - after the Collector Ship mission, when you tell the crew that TIM sent you into a trap unknowingly, you *always* make excuses for him.  I was like '**** him, I'm not on his side, I'd rather the crew hate him since he's a murderous power-hungry bastard.'  But apparently the writing team thought that actually being able to play your character was a bad thing in this instance.  

[JediPilot0]

glacier1701 wrote...

Smud has made his point well and pretty much sums up how I view ME2. Yes its a good game but because of laziness or perhaps, now we know what the thought was behind how ME2 was developed, its better to say a focus on the wrong aspects of the game to the detriment of story means it is not what it should have been or have expected from BioWare. Indeed BioWare itself is acknowledging it made some bad mistakes in ME2. This is not saying that I did not like the game but that even though I like it I still see the mistakes and problems and am not trying to whitewash them as some others seem to want to do.

Right. I love ME2 quite a bit, but there's just too many irking hints everywhere that they didn't plan out the grand 3 part trilogy as well as they could have.

I mean if any one of you were going to make a huge, epic, 3 part story about galactic extinction, would you have the main character collect a ragtag group of allies, only to dump most of them off as secondary characters in the second story and kill the main character in the opening credits?

It reeks of EA.

[JediPilot0]

Shavon wrote...

Don't know if anyone's posted this article but apparently these reviewer didn't think ME2 accomplished much either.

Yeah, I posted that a few pages back.

[Terraneaux]

JediPilot0 wrote...

It reeks of EA.

In particular, the focus on a slew of new characters who were marketed pretty heavily during the pre-launch blitz struck me as disingenuous, especially next to the absolute zero characterization of Shepard in this game.  

[implodinggoat]

Terraneaux wrote...

implodinggoat wrote...
The only major development is at the end and only if you decide to hand Cerberus the keys to the Collector base. If you did then you have cemented Cerberus as a very powerful force in the Galaxy; but if you blew it up you've basically just restored things to the state that they were at the end of ME1. I'm just hoping we finally get a chance to hunt Cerberus down like the scum they are in ME3, cause I have not forgotten the f*cked up **** they did in ME1 and I did not enjoy being the Illusive Man's errand boy in ME2.

The worst part about being TIM's errand boy is that Shep is such a **** about it - after the Collector Ship mission, when you tell the crew that TIM sent you into a trap unknowingly, you *always* make excuses for him.  I was like '**** him, I'm not on his side, I'd rather the crew hate him since he's a murderous power-hungry bastard.'  But apparently the writing team thought that actually being able to play your character was a bad thing in this instance.  

Yep, and I don't say **** about Akuze or Kahoku and his men or converting everyone on Chasca into husks even when I'm arguing with Miranda about it (and even if the men on Akuze happened to be my squad!).   I choose the dialogue to tell the Illusive man off every time I could hoping I'd finally get some dialogue that made Shepard sound like he still had a pair of balls; but it never came.  I wanted to hunt that son of a **** down and carve the words "AKUZE", "CHASCA", and "KAHOKU" into his face with a combat knife before spacing his ass out an airlock; but what did I get?   "Joker, close this channel."   That's it?  That's all I have to say to that mass murdering piece of ****?   For ****s sake, I told the council off way worse than that on  5 seperate occassions in ME1 and I didn't even want them dead.