Poll: do you think ME2 is to blame for most issues in ME3?

[Ren_Li]

I'm honestly not sure.
I do feel like the second game was the weakest of the series in terms of story; and it could have laid foundations for a lot of ME3. But... They released DLC when they HAD to know where the third game was going, right? They could have had hints and clues in there, but as far as I've noticed, they didn't.

I've tried replaying the entire series since getting ME3, and even though I managed to replay ME1- including all those damn side quests and Mako missions- I couldn't bring myself to trawl through ME2 again; and ended up just replaying the intro, Horizon, the suicide mission and the DLC.
I'm in agreement that it doesn't feel like a very good middle-of-a-trilogy- they introduce a new enemy, but then it's totally resolved and removed in a way that doesn't really draw the player or Shepard in emotionally and doesn't leave any sort of lasting effect beyond "this enemy is no longer relevant". The squadmates are varied and interesting; but packing in so many of them leaves a few of them rather lacking in how much you can interact with them, making the primary strength of the game (IMO) feeling very watered down and weak.
(By the way, Garrus has THREE on-ship conversations; four if romanced. One of- if not the- most popular squadmates of the trilogy, and probably one of the earliest recruited, has THREE conversations, all of which are "standard"- a "welcome aboard" conversation, a "I need your help" pre-loyalty mission conversation, and a "thanks for the help" post-loyalty mission conversation. That's pretty shameful.)

The DLC has greater strengths; it does provide hints of what may happen in ME3. Arrival being the biggest one; but even Overlord could be argued to pointing towards the organic/synthetic fusion into a dangerous AI. That could have been worked into a great hint at the Catalyst, or at the very least the Reapers themselves- or the fact that Shepard's cybernetics are overridden could have been taken further and potentially been an interesting plot. Overlord feels like a huge wasted opportunity to me in hindsight. (At the time, it just seemed rather blah and uninteresting- although I'll admit to loving the Hammerhead and the environments.)

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Well..

You are acting like there was a plot in ME2 to begin with, and that whatever plot was there was VITAL as the foundation for ME3.

Here is a hint:

 

[Megalodon]

As far as the Crucible goes...It's a tricky subject. I never wanted there to be a reaper-killing MacGuffin, I think most people are disappointed that the game immediately forced us to rely on some sudden discovery that promised to be our total salvation. But really, was there any other way to structure the game?

Not after they decided that the Reaper invasion would occur at the start of the game. ME1 highlighted the problem talking the Ashley after Virmire. She points out that a rifleman has no role in a war against sentient spaceships. At the time I thought a full invasion wouldn't occur in the series, becuse of it invalidating the gameplay mechanic of infantry combat, when a Total War style grand strategy would be a way to tell the story of a Reaper War actually in line with the background on them. Instead they just gave the Repears ground troops to give you something to shoot.

A better idea (and completely different story structuring) would have been essentially a higher-stakes ME1, countering groups of Indoctrinated Reaper agents. Hell, with the Batarian stuff, a full war with the Hegemony would fill the need for grand set piece cut scence fights, while providing an easy source of dudes to kill in gameplay. And they said enough stuff in ME2 to potentially give you a Reaper solution. My preferred idea is reprogramming the Mass Relays to destroy ships displaying Reaper IFFs, like a reverse Omega 4 situation. Although that would be more of a reverse ME1, with Shepard trying to implement the plan and Reaper agents being reactionary and attempting to stop it.

That's pretty interesting actually. After Arrival, the Batarian Hegemony goes to full-scale war with the Alliance, at the same time Shepard is trying to rally the galaxy to be united against the immanent reaper invasion. That's a good solution too, using the plot devices of ME2 against the reapers, thus ensuring continuity AND eliminating the need for a the sudden appearance of a previously unknown superweapon.

However, the batarians would never really stand a chance against the Alliance, much less the combined Citadel races, so that would really be a relatively short conflict. And if the reapers just died every time they used a mass relay, it would not end the war. They would figure out pretty quickly what was going on and just stop using the relays. It would slow them down, but it certainly wouldn't stop them. Remember that the reapers can travel at least twice as fast in conventional FTL as any other species can, according to the codex.

I was thinking more of the Reaper armada turns up in one place (call it the beta relay system, after alpha was wrecked in Arrival), then then try to move into the rest of the galaxy, then the sabotaged relay wipes them, as why would the Reapers only send a vanguard throught the relay at first, just to see if it still worked. Also, the thought was not the Reaper just keels over and dies, but the relay shoots it into a sun or something similar, so it wouldn't immediately give the game away. Maybe a remnant is still mopping up the arrival system, which could then act as a power boost for the Batarians if you wanted Act 3 of the game to be a war, just have the Reapers arrive at the end of act 2 instead of the finale. Either way, there are different ways to tell the story, and this is just my personal "it would have been neat if" idea, but I think Bioware did slightly shoot themselves in the foot having the first event of ME3 being the Reaper invasion

I dunno, there are certainly ways that they could have done ME3 differently, but after 2 whole games of Shepard desperately trying to tell everyone that "The reapers are coming, the reapers are coming!" I think the best thing to do would be to make this game about the reapers actually coming. They had committed early on to a trilogy structure, so to have the overarching foreshadowed conflict of the whole series come at the end of the final installment would be a huge letdown, wouldn't it?

I'd definetely agree with that the game should have been more "reapers are coming", but as to whether the overarching conflict only occuring at the end being a letdown? I don't know, it would depend almost entirely on how well the rest of the game was handled to be honest.

 

[soren7550]

"Most issues" in ME3 was the ending. The rest of the game was easily on par, if not better than, the previous installments in terms of plot development, character arc resolution, and gameplay.

So... no, ME2 did nothing that is blameworthy for ME3's ending.

^This guy, right here. He's got it.

 

[fix-the-spade]

ME2 is a good game, just a bad sequel, imo. In it's current form it should've been called ME: Terminus or something.

Nope.

Short development time and external pressure to introduce 'value adding' features, that's all there is to it.

I don't buy for a second that the multi player and it's attachment to the single player (not to mention the addition of real money gambling) were internal decisions, whatever the press releases and interviews say. Nor do I buy that feature cutting and that ending were motivated by a desire to build a better game.

Bioware gave us Saren in the first game, the suicide mission in the second, they know how to build a fantastic end game but if they've got two years to do it in (versus 4 and 3 for 1 and 2 repectively) then corners will get cut. Considering that they were also chucking out expansions for 2 in that time it rapidly becomes obvious why 3 didn't match up to it's predecessor.

 

[DSK-]

I don't think ME2 is responsible. I have a few slight issues with it, but overall you do exactly what it says on the tin in terms of the story arc, and a lot of things were improved upon gameplay wise.

Bioware and EA are responsible for the negatives of ME3.

 

[sammysoso]

ME2 definitely took some steps in the wrong direction, especially in the narrative.

What little plot there actually was wasn't very compelling, the Collectors being by far the weakest villian in the series. They did NOTHING with the Shepard resurrection, and overloaded with way too many new characters, half of which didn't need to be there. Along with the sidelining of the far more interesting characters from the first game (especially Ashley, who was only in the game for 2 minutes).

Mass Effect 2 is essentially a bunch of short stories, whether you like that or not is really up to the individual, and was incredibly disappointing for me.

 

[Souplex]

ME3's problems all come from being rushed, and aside from the ending; I felt it was the best of the series.
2 was by far the worst installment in the series.

 

[Animyr]

The main problem with ME3 was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. Incompetence plain and simple.

The main problem was a short development cycle. Remember, Hudson and Walters also made the first two games. Apparently, when you give them too strict a deadline bad things start happening.

 

[CT862]

"Most issues" in ME3 was the ending. The rest of the game was easily on par, if not better than, the previous installments in terms of plot development, character arc resolution, and gameplay.

So... no, ME2 did nothing that is blameworthy for ME3's ending.

Totally agree, ME3's was solid right up until the final 30 mins or so. I actually enjoyed the (extended cut) ending, but it is clunky and not in feeling with the rest of the game, while also failing to play to the series' greatest strength - the characters.

ME2 is a typical middle-entry in a trilogy: the overarching plot is progressed very little and simply used to set up the final entry in the series. So with the plot only there to drive the player forward, the focus is shifted to episodic, character-centred missions, which are arguably some of the best in the entire series. So the fact that the main plot is very simple isn't necessarily a bad thing.

As for the Crucible, I think it was the only big failure of writing in the Mass Effect series. It acts very much as a 'get out of jail free card', which is what the writers unfortunately needed. They did a great job across three games of introducing the Reapers and building the stakes higher. However, they wrote themselves into a corner and realised they had created an enemy that, in their universe, was impossible to beat.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Mass Effect series. The characters, setting and vast majority of the story were awesome. I just think the Crucible was the big failing of the series, a result of being unable to resolve the overarching plot.

So after all that rambling... No, I don't think ME2 was (solely) to blame for any failings of ME3.


Side note: One thing that's been eating at me... Why London??? It seems a rather random setting for the epic final mission of the series, considering all the Canadian and American connections to Bioware. As a Londoner myself, I was expecting some epic set pieces involving some famous landmarks, but there was none of that...

 

[Mikeyfell]

ME2 didn't do anything to advance the plot of the series. I feel that Bioware should have introduced the crucible in ME2, hell maybe it finding it should've been the main plot. Now the crucible feels like an ass pull. If only Leviathan was somehow also integrated into ME2 to foreshadow the ending, then the ending might have been received better.

I also feel that the suicide mission caused a lot of issues. The fact that everyone can die means that their roles in ME3 are diminished in importance. Plus Bioware had to write and record dialogue for the replacement characters, dialogue which could have been put in better use elsewhere imo.

ME2 is a good game, just a bad sequel, imo. In it's current form it should've been called ME: Terminus or something.

I read Shamus Young's blog too, but It's still not ME2's fault that ME3 ignored everything that happened in ME2.

I'm familiar with and agree with the complaints about how "Mass Effect 2's plot went sideways!" and how "Mass Effect 3 had to be Mass Effect 2 and 3 and address the Genophage, and address the Quarian war"

But none of that is Mass Effect 2's fault. It's Mass Effect 3's fault.

It's not that The Crucible should have been introduced earlier, it's that the Crucible shouldn't have been introduced at all.
It's not that Leviathan should have been introduced earlier, it's that Leviathan shouldn't have been introduced at all.
It's not that they should have foreshadowed the stuff that was going to happen in Mass Effect 3, they should have put the stuff that was foreshadowed in the previous games in Mass Effect 3.

They did paint them selves into a corner by making up to 11 people possibly dead at the start of ME3, but there are much better things to yell at them for. Plus only 5 of them mattered and only 2 of them got new replacement characters.
(I doubt writing a page and a half of lines for Dagg's actor to read was why they took it upon them selves to ignore the at least 50% of players who put Anderson on the Council at the end of Mass Effect 1)


There was enough in the first two ME games to make a suitable finale.
It's not even like it would be a hard story to structure.

The time Shepard bought in the Arrival DLC is running out, you run off to get help
you goe to the Citadel
If you saved the Council or Picked Anderson you try and get help from the Council Races (Turian/Asari/Salarian)
If you picked Udian you try to get support from the fringe races (Krogan/Quarian/Geth)
If you saved the Rachnai you get them too.

Then Act 2 rolls around
The Illusive Man calls
If you gave him the Collector Base he offers support
if you destroyed the base he gives you an ultimatum, Give us Alliance resources and we'll help you, or ignore them and keep trying to get the support of the aliens
That's when you start meeting your surviving squad members

In act 3 depending on how you handled the first two acts you'll get an ending
Whether it's stand and fight with the assembled fleet
use Dark Energy to spacemagic the Reapers to death
or try to take control of them



Given that it's obvious that Bioware was winging it from the start, Mass Effect 3's problems all stem from the incompetence of the writing team

 

[Jacco]

Mass Effect 2 contributed relatively little to the running plot of the Mass Effect series - all it did was develop Cerberus and the quarian/geth conflict. But that's fine, because it's still the best game in the series for letting you explore the big, interesting galaxy that ME1 was busy setting up and ME3 was busy tearing down. I'd say it's what a sequel should be; it capitalizes on ME1's strengths (characters, writing, setting) and goes out of its way to deal with the flaws (the mako, dull gameplay, reused sets, the mako).

Blaming the second game for the third's rushed ending is a bit of a leap. Unless you're accusing Mass Effect 2 of being too successful - maybe its sales figures got a two-year dev cycle rolling.

I feel the exact opposite. ME2 to me felt like the "smallest" game in the series because all of the missions were story related and although they took you to many interesting locations, it didn't have the "go anywhere, do anything" feel that ME1 did. You couldn't explore planets, it didn't have dynamic side missions, and it was broken up by loading screens which more me just ended up breaking immersion and feeling like a chore to move around the ships and stuff.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

ME2 was not a good ME sequel. But I felt it was a good game even if it was casualized. It indicated that Bioware wasn't going to deliver on their "your choices matter" thing, but it gave hope that they could pull off a good end to the trilogy.

Pros:
The characters were more engaging.
The gunplay was acceptable.
The presentation was good.
Environmental details.

Cons:
Planet Scanning felt tacked on.
No Real RPG elements other dialogue choices.
Lack of sidequests outside the Loyalty Missions.
The story was uninteresting.

Not my last two bits on the writing. The story was uninteresting, but the presentation of the story was good. There's no clear reason why you NEED to go fight the Collectors, but the way it's presented is like a cool heist film, each character does their part.

So no. I don't think ME2 was responsible, you had an ok game and a decent story.

 

[eberhart]

Just as a side-note DA:2 feels like the Phantom Menace lol.

Oh, this explains why all those romance minigames feel like Attack of the Clones to me >.>

 

[SageRuffin]

I feel that while BioWare outright said that the series was going to be exactly that, they weren't exactly sure how to make each game pass the first. I'm sure a healthy bit of foresight could've helped a long way.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

In a way, yes and no. Mass Effect 3's problems come from the game itself more than it coming from Mass Effect 2. At the same time, this was the first game that featured Mac Walters as a writer. True, Drew Karpyshyn, who wrote Mass Effect 1, was still around and largely in charge, but it seems clear that Mac's work on Mass Effect 2 made it seem like he was worthy to write Mass Effect 3, and clearly that wasn't the case at the very least, he probably shouldn't have been lead writer) If I remember correctly, Drew has gone on record saying how he had to fight for certain story elements to remain/not be implemented, presumably by Mac. Again, technically there was nothing on Mass Effect 2's part that made Mass Effect 3 bad, but the production behind it did seem to give Mac too much control for the sequel.

Again, part of this seems to be Mass Effect 3's story as being something that "seemed" cool or that it would fit, but was clearly not something that was intended. To a certain extent, there was nothing that Mass Effect 1 or 2 could do about that. As for the DLC...I get why they wanted to implement it, but frankly Mass Effect 3 was the worst game to do it for. At least with 1 or 2, you could write the DLCs as possibly happening anytime during the campaign, which of course simply makes said DLC easy to take. Either you buy it and enjoy it as a side-story, or you ignore it and that's all there is. For 3, it was never really going to work because either a) it happened before the ending, which makes you wonder why Sheppard would even take a mission like that on if they're trying to save Earth, or b) happens after the ending...which of course can't happen unless you pick the destroy ending (which I guess wouldn't be a problem for my Sheppard I suppose)

What bothers me more to a certain degree is the actual use that these DLC packs had. I only ever got From Ashes because I got the limited edition, but reading up on the others, it just seems strange. Omega is, well, Omega and seems rather inconsequential to the entire affair. However, while the terrorist plot of Citadel seems to sort of be inconsequential as well, the party aspect seems like something that should've been in the main game (would've been a better use of the last goodbye instead of the call service) From Ashes and Leviathan though...those were clearly things that should've been in the main game, but EA wanting it out at a certain time meant that they were delayed. Those two are pretty much integral not only into the situation, but would actually help diffuse the ending a bit (at least it wouldn't seem like it was pulled out of it's ass, the lack of choice/consequence is still pretty stupid)

 

[minimacker]

No, not really.

ME3 did it wrong, because it threw everything we had worked for out the window. Sorry, what was that? You allied the Quarian and the Geth? EDI has been shown to have actual emotions? Here, let us give you a Godchild that literally ignores everything that proves him wrong.

 

[TP Potatosalad]

I think so, and arguably the original Mass Effect as well. I am not saying the games weren't good in their own right, but I think a lot of the plot points that frustrate people would have flowed more smoothly (Crucible/Cerberus/Catalyst,etc.) if more groundwork had been laid in the previous titles. Here are a few ideas to help explain what I mean:

Cerberus: Things may have made a bit more sense if you had more contact with Cerberus in the original Mass Effect, actually meeting the Illusive man and potentially working with them. Then in Mass Effect 2 you see them gradually gaining power as you prepare for the Reapers, and finally in Mass Effect 3 their massive resources/personnel wouldn't seem as sudden.

Crucible: The crucible could have been introduced in the original Mass Effect, perhaps by Virgil or with the plans on the data pad he gives you. You could begin research/construction behind the scenes in Mass Effect 2, then use it in Mass Effect 3. You could also make the stakes a bit higher by making it more of a beam based weapon that can kill reapers in one hit rather than a power source that can kill all Reapers everywhere.

Catalyst: The catalyst could be alluded to by Sovereign in Mass Effect, perhaps explaining why it can't simply open the citadel itself, removing that question later. You could arguably go as far as to have introduced the Leviathans in Mass Effect 2 to further flush him out and reaffirm his presence, perhaps some background on what it could do, helping to explain his appearance and reducing his exposition at the end of the third game.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I voted "no" for one reason and one reason only: Drew Karpyshyn went from lead writer on ME1 to, one-of-two writers in ME2 to Gods know where for ME3. I'm not saying he's a stellar author (though I did like his Darth Bane trilogy) but I can't help but feel like Mass Effect was his story. I want to know how he would have ended the trilogy.