570 réponses à ce sujet

[Roy Stampler]

I've read all the replies and while I understand that judging ME2 would (will) be better knowing ME3, currently we just have ME2 (alongside ME1) and I'm still disapointed. Recuiting your new squad is a super-long setup for a super-short suicide mission. I love most of the new squadmates, their backstories are great, the variety of scenes is fantastic and ME2 is a better game overall than ME1; but I don't feel I've accomplished anything. The msytery was better in ME1; the fight on/for the Citadel was better in ME1. In ME2 I've spent 30 hours of piecing together my new squad; then I went through the Omega 4 relay, the Collectors' base was just there, 1 (one) more hour of gameplay and THE END. I've felt cheated. I still feel cheated. Even though I love ME2.

[Knoll Argonar]

I say: let bioware finish their trilogy and then talk about what's plot relevant and what's not =/



Cerberus was absolutely not plot-relevant in ME1 and in ME2: surprise! it's the only organization we know that acknowledges the Reaper Thread and take measures to counter it.



So, wait for ME3 to say that statements.

[smudboy]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Plenty of things were accomplished:
Krogans - destroy/save genophage cure
Quarians - support war/peace with the geth
Geth - destroy/reunite the heretic factions
Humans - destroy/keep the Collector base

Possible achievements would be the datapad at the end of Harbinger could be the evidence that the Council needs and Tali's trial outcome might be like Wrex's ME1 confrontation outcome - if she's found innocent she might become an Admiral who will be in the position to support you politically.

All of which has nothing to do with the main plot.

Let's face it: the writers went on vacation, and they asked level designers to piece the plot together.

That's a bit harsh.  While I agree that ME2 wasn't as Reaper-focused as ME1 was, I wouldn't go so far as to say "the writers went on vacation."  Every single one of those examples could pay off (or hurt) bigtime in the finale.

Personally, I'm actually rather glad that Mass Effect 2 introduced so many subplots as a bridging storyline between the first and third games.  It opened up a lot of possibilities and gave much greater insight into the Mass Effect universe as a whole, rather than keeping the storyline narrowly focused on the Reapers. 

My $0.02

I'm "harsh" because the story is bad.

It's not about being Reaper focused.  ME2 is about the Collectors.  We're fighting a Reaper proxy war, which is fine.  We just have to know wtf is going on, why they're taking humans, and why they want to stop/collect Shepard.

People keep mentioning "ME2 is a bridge" to ME3.  I don't see it.  What subplots were you referring to in ME2 that act as bridges?

[smudboy]

Roy Stampler wrote...

I've read all the replies and while I understand that judging ME2 would (will) be better knowing ME3, currently we just have ME2 (alongside ME1) and I'm still disapointed. Recuiting your new squad is a super-long setup for a super-short suicide mission. I love most of the new squadmates, their backstories are great, the variety of scenes is fantastic and ME2 is a better game overall than ME1; but I don't feel I've accomplished anything. The msytery was better in ME1; the fight on/for the Citadel was better in ME1. In ME2 I've spent 30 hours of piecing together my new squad; then I went through the Omega 4 relay, the Collectors' base was just there, 1 (one) more hour of gameplay and THE END. I've felt cheated. I still feel cheated. Even though I love ME2.

Good man.  Glad to know someone who's got a clear head.

I refuse to accept ME3 as an apologist argument to ME2's lack of a story.

[Alamar2078]

I agree a lot with the OP in that only a few things were "resolved" with ME2. The only one that really hits me as 100% closed [barring plot twist] is the Geth [Heretics]. Hopefully they'll be a big happy, willing to coexist, family that is firmly on Shepard's side.


The only other things that ME2 did is ADD a lot more work that needs to be done in ME3:

-- Krogan genophage .... If you kept the cure do you continue to work on it for "years" and then if you get the cure what do you do with it?

-- What roll will the Krogan play?? Can they play a roll?

-- What role will the Rachni play [if any]?

-- What will the Alliance / Council do when they see you recruiting "hostile" armies? Did you want Saren's armies all to yourself????

-- Can you keep the Spectres off your back for long enough to do what needs to be done??

-- Quarians ... Can you keep the fleet / family unified enough that they won't split up??

-- Geth vs. Quarians ... Can you avert a war that weakens your [possibly] strongest two allies? How much of a mess is Xen really going to cause???

-- Collector Base ... What can you salvage in terms of knowledge? Can you keep TIM from misusing the knowledge you've gained?

-- What role does Cereberus [a really major player now] play?

-- What happens with your ME1 LIs [who all treat you like either traitors or something that they "can't be bothered with" objects]


Personally I would have liked to have seen ME2 close the door more firmly on at least some of the above questions. As ME2 [without any expansions or DLC] leaves things I am worried that the above major plot points will have to be boiled down to a "1 hour mission" which IMHO doesn't give these topics the emotional / dramatic time that they deserve.

Given a choice I'd honestly would rather have seen ME2 take away the 30 hours + of crew building time and replace it to try to solve the:

-- Krogan once & for all [including Genophage]
-- Geth once & for all
-- Quarian vs. Geth conflict once & for all
-- The Collectors once & for all

Maybe the ending is Shep & his team figuring out where the derelect reaper is themselves [with Geth help?] and they are able to secure the ship for study to use against the Reapers. This info combined with info from Collectors is the springboard for ME3.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 14 mars 2010 - 05:45 .

[Knoll Argonar]

And reading some comments in this forums one asks himself if they actually played the game =/

[JeanLuc761]

smudboy wrote...
I'm "harsh" because the story is bad.

It's not about being Reaper focused.  ME2 is about the Collectors.  We're fighting a Reaper proxy war, which is fine.  We just have to know wtf is going on, why they're taking humans, and why they want to stop/collect Shepard.

People keep mentioning "ME2 is a bridge" to ME3.  I don't see it.  What subplots were you referring to in ME2 that act as bridges?

I'll reiterate that I think the storyline is fantastic, but that's entirely subjective so I won't go anywhere with that.

As for subplots, all of these have the potential for a huge impact in Mass Effect 3:

1) Visiting Tuchanga and finding out what the Krogans are doing; could lead to Krogan support
2) The massive focus on the Geth and the Quarians; negociations for Quarian homeworld and getting Quarian + Geth support.
3) Liara and the Shadow Broker; the game drove this plot home several times though I'm not sure what impact it will have.
4) The Illusive Man; Regardless of your final decision, he looks to be a powerful foe (or an ally in disguise).  He'll have a big impact.
5) The data recovered on the Reapers from the Collector Base; self-explanitory
6) Building the strongest team; admittedly, the reasoning for this was somewhat contrived what with Shepard getting killed, but having the best team the galaxy has ever seen means something; if Bioware just tosses these characters than ME2 will have been a gimmick.

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and every single one looks like they will develop into something bigger in Mass Effect 3.

[Alamar2078]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

And reading some comments in this forums one asks himself if they actually played the game =/

I'm sure other folks would ask what game others have been playing ....


Devil's Advocate:  I do cede the obvious point that the best place to judge the trilogy would be once the whole thing has been finished.

[Knoll Argonar]

Oh, I wasn't referencing your post, in fact. Sorry, it was a general opinion about some people from these forums.



I didn't read your post, too long and I have cell reproduction issues to study (like Mordin, and listening to music too Lol).



But, well, now that I read it, you do say your opinion, but I disagree: there was almost nothing left to talk about in ME1, since Geth were all evil, Quarians were "somewhere", Krogans were just freelancers and the Genophage cure was erradicated. It's now in ME2 that we have a lot of things to talk about and that CAN affect the entire galaxy for ME3.



That's why I like ME2 as a second act: it's full of cliff-hangers. I hope to get them all solved in ME3 in an awesome way, because there won't be any Squad recruitment or Loyalty mission to talk about in theory.

[JediPilot0]

rpgchuck wrote...

In ME 1 you are fighting the Reapers through their followers: Saren and the Geth.

In ME 2 you are fighting the Reapers through their followers, the Collectors.

In ME 3, you will actually be fighting the collectors. 

I think this is a fine plot progression and wouldn't say you accomplished "nothing" in either game. Just because you wish the conclusion would arrive faster than it does doesn't make the plot bad. You've spent two games working your way up the food chain. 

How is this plot progression?

In ME1, you stop a clear threat: You stop the Reapers from arriving at the heart of the galaxy and wiping out central government. You stop their attack completely. It is very clear what is at stake.

In ME2, you stop a threat that didn't exist in ME1 (collectors), and you don't even understand what the threat actually was by the end of ME2. We still have NO idea what the Reapers were planning with the Human Reaper. On top of that, we were saving only humanity, while in ME1, we were saving the entire galaxy from imminent destruction.

We accomplished almost nothing in our firght against the Reapers. We don't even know what we STOPPED by the end of ME2. How are we any further in creating a plan to stop the Reapers? Do you guys seriously think that gaining the trust of all these different factions is our game plan?

It took a massive mass accelorator weapon to only damage a Reaper and creat a huge rift on Klendagon. NOTHING in the galactic community has that kind of power. How the hell are we making progress when we STILL have to go around convincing people of the Reaper's existance, since ME2 pissed away all our accomplishments (becomming Spectre, gaining council's trust, etc).

And then they throw in Shepard's death and ressurection in the first 10 minutes of the game as a complete marketing gimmick. If it was an excuse for the face creator, then they failed because everyone still recognizes you no matter what.

This game is supposed to be more personal, and yet Shepard doesn't even bat an eye about DYING and being BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE with cybernetics in him. How was this game personal? In the first game, you earn your spectre status (first human spectre), take command of the most advanced humun warship, try and gain the council's trust, STEAL the Normandy, and stop saren all yourself. You even learn the Prothean language and see visions from the beacon.

ME2 is MUCH less personal, and the "plot" is MUCH worse. Take orders from a guy in a hologram who's the leader of an organization that killed an ADMIRAL (Kohoku)!? I don't think so. It's like they had no idea how to get Shephard moving so they introduced a mysterious character to give him directions.

Even in Empire Strikes back, it was clear Luke was meant to go toe to toe with the emperor and he learns Vader is his father, and he has to go rescure Han from Jabba. It's clear where ROTJ was heading, but ME2? Not at all. At the end of ME2, we're in the same place that we left off at the end of ME1: The reapers are still comming and we have no idea how to stop them. Remember, they are so numerous that their "numbers will darkent the sky of EVERY world". Nothing we have can stop that.

We should be reverse engineering the Mass Relay tech like th Protheans and creating our own relay network, completely crippling the Reapers' ability to travel. We should be destroying the current network.

EDIT - And now if looks as if the Reapers are just going to FLY here at the end of ME2!? This even further undoes everything we fought for in ME1.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 14 mars 2010 - 06:12 .

[N7Recon]

ME2 moved forward a ton of plot points.  Most of which have already been brought up by others.

While it is true that many of the important plot points for ME3 were revealed in loyalty missions, that does not eliminate the fact that they were there.  Bioware gave players plenty of reason to do the loyalty missions - increased survival chances, more powers, more XP thus squad points -  if anyone was foolish enough not to do them all at least once then who's fault is that?

Think about it, if you only played the main missions in ME1...Cerberus would be a whole new player.  However, they have a big role to play in the overall story.  The very contradiction of the galaxy's saviour being revived and working with/for Cerberus is weakened without the knowledge gained from ME1 that they do harsh experiments and don't care about who gets hurt on the way to their goals.

Again, if you choose not to explore the entire story on offer, don't complain that the story is not well done nor being advanced.  It's like knowing which pages are the most important to read in a novel, skipping the rest and then complaining that things weren't as detailed as you would have wanted.

People are moving the goal posts.  The thread title is did "ME2 accomplish anything plotwise?".  That question is about the entirety of ME2 and the answer is "yes".  So now it becomes "did ME2 accomplish what I wanted to see in the parts that Bioware forced me to play"?!?

Modifié par N7Recon, 14 mars 2010 - 06:15 .

[Alamar2078]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Oh, I wasn't referencing your post, in fact. Sorry, it was a general opinion about some people from these forums.

I didn't read your post, too long and I have cell reproduction issues to study (like Mordin, and listening to music too Lol).

But, well, now that I read it, you do say your opinion, but I disagree: there was almost nothing left to talk about in ME1, since Geth were all evil, Quarians were "somewhere", Krogans were just freelancers and the Genophage cure was erradicated. It's now in ME2 that we have a lot of things to talk about and that CAN affect the entire galaxy for ME3.

That's why I like ME2 as a second act: it's full of cliff-hangers. I hope to get them all solved in ME3 in an awesome way, because there won't be any Squad recruitment or Loyalty mission to talk about in theory.

Don't get me wrong either.  On it's own I LOVE ME2.
  
However purely judged on "is this a good sequel in a plot driven arc" I'm left wanting ....  To summarize I believe that there are too many open plot points to get each point the time [I think] it deserves while still managing to somehow beat the unbeatable army without a pull-it-out-of-your-butt ending.  We'd have been better served addressing more of those open point in ME2.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 14 mars 2010 - 06:15 .

[JeanLuc761]

Out of curiosity, does anyone think this thread is going to end well?

On one side, we have people saying that Mass Effect 2 is essentially useless in the general scheme of things with some proof to back it up along with some speculation.
On the other side, we have people saying that Mass Effect 2 is excellent as a bridging storyline with some proof to back it up along with some speculation.

Seriously, this is a neverending argument no matter where you stand and none of us will actually know what effect Mass Effect 2 has until we all play the finale.

I personally think that Mass Effect 2 set up a lot of interesting and important story, especially during loyalty missions. 

N7Recon wrote...

ME2 moved forward a ton of plot points. 
Most of which have already been brought up by others.

While it is
true that many of the important plot points for ME3 were revealed in
loyalty missions, that does not eliminate the fact that they were
there.  Bioware gave players gave players plenty of reason to do the
loyalty missions - increased survival chances, more powers, more XP
thus squad points -  if anyone was foolish enough not to do them all at
least once then who's fault is that?

Think about it, if you only
played the main missions in ME1...Cerberus would be a whole new player. 
However, they have a big role to play in the overall story.  The very
contradiction of the galaxy's saviour being revived and working with/for
Cerberus is weakened without the knowledge gained from ME1 that they do
harsh experiments and don't care about who gets hurt on the way to
their goals.

Again, if you choose not to explore the entire story
on offer, don't complain that the story is not well done nor being
advanced.  It's like knowing which pages are the most important to read
in a novel, skipping the rest and then complaining that things weren't
as detailed as you would have wanted.

People are moving the goal
posts.  The thread title is did "ME2
accomplish anything
plotwise?".  That question is about the entirety of ME2 and the answer
is obviously "yes".  So now it becomes "did ME2 accomplish what I wanted
to see in the parts that Bioware forced me to play"?!?

Well said.

Modifié par JeanLuc761, 14 mars 2010 - 06:13 .

[spacehamsterZH]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

On one side, we have people saying that Mass Effect 2 is essentially useless in the general scheme of things with some proof to back it up along with some speculation.
On the other side, we have people saying that Mass Effect 2 is excellent as a bridging storyline with some proof to back it up along with some speculation.

And in the process, a lot of people on both sides have written up some pretty interesting posts analyzing and picking apart the storyline, pointing out details that others may have missed, etc. I think this is an interesting thread - as long as people can keep it civil.

[JeanLuc761]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

On one side, we have people saying that Mass Effect 2 is essentially useless in the general scheme of things with some proof to back it up along with some speculation.
On the other side, we have people saying that Mass Effect 2 is excellent as a bridging storyline with some proof to back it up along with some speculation.

And in the process, a lot of people on both sides have written up some pretty interesting posts analyzing and picking apart the storyline, pointing out details that others may have missed, etc. I think this is an interesting thread - as long as people can keep it civil.

That's the part I'm worried about.  I'll agree though, so far it's a pretty interesting topic.

[Alamar2078]

Agreed with the "keep it civil" parts myself. I don't think the arguement is whether ME2 opened up enough possibilities .... My arguement at least is that it didn't close enough of those points up so that we can give everything "the time it deserves" ... I think ME3 is going to feel too rushed for my tastes. We'll have to see though.

Edit:  I also agree that nobody's mind is going to be changed here.  You might as well try to talk someone out of being gay / straight ... IMHO it ain't happin'.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 14 mars 2010 - 06:19 .

[smudboy]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

smudboy wrote...
I'm "harsh" because the story is bad.

It's not about being Reaper focused.  ME2 is about the Collectors.  We're fighting a Reaper proxy war, which is fine.  We just have to know wtf is going on, why they're taking humans, and why they want to stop/collect Shepard.

People keep mentioning "ME2 is a bridge" to ME3.  I don't see it.  What subplots were you referring to in ME2 that act as bridges?

I'll reiterate that I think the storyline is fantastic, but that's entirely subjective so I won't go anywhere with that.

As for subplots, all of these have the potential for a huge impact in Mass Effect 3:

1) Visiting Tuchanga and finding out what the Krogans are doing; could lead to Krogan support
2) The massive focus on the Geth and the Quarians; negociations for Quarian homeworld and getting Quarian + Geth support.
3) Liara and the Shadow Broker; the game drove this plot home several times though I'm not sure what impact it will have.
4) The Illusive Man; Regardless of your final decision, he looks to be a powerful foe (or an ally in disguise).  He'll have a big impact.
5) The data recovered on the Reapers from the Collector Base; self-explanitory
6) Building the strongest team; admittedly, the reasoning for this was somewhat contrived what with Shepard getting killed, but having the best team the galaxy has ever seen means something; if Bioware just tosses these characters than ME2 will have been a gimmick.

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, and every single one looks like they will develop into something bigger in Mass Effect 3.

Yes, potential.  I'll re-iterate that the story is a hack (of the first), and came second to making a game.

For one, you could've listed any sub-character, and they'd have no impact (save maybe Mordin as a plot device) on the Collector threat, which is what the plot in ME2 is all about.  If your argument is, these few sub-plots will greatly impact ME3, then why are they not part of main plot of ME2?  Why must these sub plots be sub plots?  If they are so vital to the telling of a trilogy, why make them so relevant to a game that isn't out yet, yet completely irrelevant to the game they're in?

1) So going to a planet to check it out, whose leader may be your friend, could lead to the entire planet helping you in a doomsday war which may happen (again in some way we don't know) along with a potential cure for their centuries long reproductive problem.  What?
2) Encouraging the Quarians to go to war with the Geth/not to with Geth/or not even bringing it up?  How does the trial of a teammate, accused of treason, (regardless of the scale of focus the writers gave), have anything to do with ME3?
Shepard: "I've just proven this trial is not about Tali, but the Geth war.  I encourage you not to fight the Geth, but instead, something else."
Quarians: "BY YOUR COMMAND."
3) What does Liara and the SB have to do with anything?  How is this even remotely connected?
4) Potentially true (but not a subplot.)
5) I'd definitely hope so, but again, this is not a subplot.
6) The best team of the galaxy...for what?  What exactly will a bunch of random specailists do against potentially millions of living, super intelligent machine-ships?  Unless they all start "assuming control" of an anti-reaper fleet of ships, ME2 did just toss these characters at you: they have next to no purpose, or are completely replaceable by other characters for the suicide mission.  And now you believe they'll be useful?  To what, taking out the armada of Reapers?  How?  TIM's not just smoking tobacco here; he's a bloody fortune-teller.

[Alamar2078]

BTW: A ME 2 Expansion pack called "Allies" [addressing Krogan, Rachni, Geth, Quarian issues] would likely shut me up nicely if it had about 20 hours + of real playtime.


Edit:  Even better.  The cover art should be a hologram ... hold it one way and it's ME2: Allies [Paragon] ... hold it another way and it's ME2: Tools [Renegade] 

Modifié par Alamar2078, 14 mars 2010 - 06:26 .

[JediPilot0]

N7Recon wrote...

People are moving the goal posts.  The thread title is did "ME2 accomplish anything plotwise?".  That question is about the entirety of ME2 and the answer is "yes".  So now it becomes "did ME2 accomplish what I wanted to see in the parts that Bioware forced me to play"?!?

I think everyone know what the TC meant by his title. If we're moving the goal posts, then you are using a straw man (did ME2 accomplish what I wanted to see in the parts that Bioware forced me to play). It's disingenuous of you to assume people didn't play the side missions.

Based on how ME1 handled everything we did (threw it out the window. Spectre? Nah. Council trust? Nah. You survived? Nah, we'll just kill you off at the beginning. Reapers a clear threat? Nah, no on believes you yet again) you can't even guess where the few throwaway lines about allegiances in ME2 will go.

I say again, if it takes a huge weapon to create a HUGE crator in a planet visible from space to only DAMAGE a SINGLE Reaper, then NO, we accomplished nothing. Nothing we have done will help us stop a huge fleet of Reapers if a singel one can cripple the council fleets and there's enough to "darken the skies of every world", ie millions. We got nowhere. The threat is the same as it was at the end of ME1. We stopped a self-contained single Reaper under construction threat that isn't even clear what was going on with it. And we didn't even find out until 5 minutes before the credits rolled.

And they answered the question of what happened to the Protheans when it wasn't even a question. Being "wiped out" was good enough. The threat of the Reapers does not change becase they were mutated now.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 14 mars 2010 - 06:27 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Alamar2078 wrote...

BTW: A ME 2 Expansion pack called "Allies" [addressing Krogan, Rachni, Geth, Quarian issues] would likely shut me up nicely if it had about 20 hours + of real playtime.

Hahaha. And you think there's even a single person on this forum that wouldn't love to see something like that?

[JeanLuc761]

smudboy wrote...
For one, you could've listed any sub-character, and they'd have no impact (save maybe Mordin as a plot device) on the Collector threat, which is what the plot in ME2 is all about.  If your argument is, these few sub-plots will greatly impact ME3, then why are they not part of main plot of ME2?  Why must these sub plots be sub plots?  If they are so vital to the telling of a trilogy, why make them so relevant to a game that isn't out yet, yet completely irrelevant to the game they're in?

Ah, I see where you're coming from (or at least I think I do).  You're annoyed because the plot points brought up in Mass Effect 2 didn't always (in fact, didn't often) relate to the main plot of ME2 itself.

I'm choosing to look at Mass Effect 2 in a light of "Okay, what am I doing right now that will make a difference in the final game?"  That's why I consider ME2 a bridging device; Many of the things I do may not affect me right at this moment, but they will make a difference later on.

[Alamar2078]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

BTW: A ME 2 Expansion pack called "Allies" [addressing Krogan, Rachni, Geth, Quarian issues] would likely shut me up nicely if it had about 20 hours + of real playtime.

Hahaha. And you think there's even a single person on this forum that wouldn't love to see something like that?

Hope springs eternal ...

[Sina84]

Well, you learn why Reapers harvest organics, and what Reapers are, which was a pretty big mystery in ME1.

[smudboy]

N7Recon wrote...

ME2 moved forward a ton of plot points.  Most of which have already been brought up by others.

While it is true that many of the important plot points for ME3 were revealed in loyalty missions, that does not eliminate the fact that they were there.  Bioware gave players plenty of reason to do the loyalty missions - increased survival chances, more powers, more XP thus squad points -  if anyone was foolish enough not to do them all at least once then who's fault is that?

Think about it, if you only played the main missions in ME1...Cerberus would be a whole new player.  However, they have a big role to play in the overall story.  The very contradiction of the galaxy's saviour being revived and working with/for Cerberus is weakened without the knowledge gained from ME1 that they do harsh experiments and don't care about who gets hurt on the way to their goals.

Again, if you choose not to explore the entire story on offer, don't complain that the story is not well done nor being advanced.  It's like knowing which pages are the most important to read in a novel, skipping the rest and then complaining that things weren't as detailed as you would have wanted.

People are moving the goal posts.  The thread title is did "ME2 accomplish anything plotwise?".  That question is about the entirety of ME2 and the answer is "yes".  So now it becomes "did ME2 accomplish what I wanted to see in the parts that Bioware forced me to play"?!?

Your analogy is incorrect.

ME2 was a book that came with 11 other books, that had next to nothing related to the one you actually bought.

ME2 did not accomplish anything.

If the argument is for the main plot of the trilogy, then ME2 was a proxy war, which is over.  The Shepard character is exactly where he/she was at the end of ME1.  Which makes ME2 completely avoidable.

If the argument is for the main plot of ME2, then it goes like this: Collector threat exists, Shepard is Space Jesus, Collectors are Reapers, Collectors and their Terminator experiment are dead.  Take from that story what you will.

[JediPilot0]

smudboy wrote...
......these few sub-plots will greatly impact ME3, then why are they not part of main plot of ME2?  Why must these sub plots be sub plots?  If they are so vital to the telling of a trilogy, why make them so relevant to a game that isn't out yet, yet completely irrelevant to the game they're in?

This. This right here.

EDIT - Mass Effect 2 feels like a collection of short stories. "The Adventures of Commander Shpeard and Friends" not at all like the first one in which if we failed, it was clear that the Reapers would arrive at that moment. We were on a single long quest to stop Saren.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 14 mars 2010 - 06:38 .