What?s Wrong with Mass Effect 2?

[Hristo Tzonkov]

As I understand the dying part was supposed to be a DLC for ME1 that never came out.They wanted to throw it out 1-2 months prior to ME2 as a bridge and a cliffhanger except they didn't and they couldn't just up and rewrite the story of why he got affiliated with Cerberus.

As for Cerberus being too omnipotent to have rogue cells, you could go revisit Jack's storyline and how she came to be.

The ending is actually pretty important and it ends like that for a reason.The whole deal of the reapers is that they leave ready technology and allow other races to use it without them fully understanding it(keepers do all the work).Then they go and kill them every 50000 years.If you pick up the reaper technology you effectively build on top of them thus probably repeating the cycle.Legion has an awesome comment after the suicide mission (paraphrasing) "you decided to allow yourself to develop without the aid of reaper technology thus creating a future created by mankind rather than given to them".

The traps were actually interesting never thought about them.That mission usually pops up when I'm more interested in my teammates rather than the main plotline so I kinda miss the idea.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

 

[Wolfram23]

snip.

I really hope that wall of text was directed at Shamus, not myself.

But since you quoted me, let me just clarify why I didn't play more than 10 hrs of ME1. It. Was. Fucking. Boring. The combat was shit, I didn't much like the equipment/upgrading system, I didn't much like the skills sets or whatever you want to call them, and I didn't find running around chatting up NPCs enjoyable in the least. I have played DA:O for about 30 or 40hrs. It drew me in much more than ME could but I stopped playing it for similar reasons. DA2 I decided to give a try, and I'm right near the end but bored of it too due to excessively repetitive combat and very little point behind the majority of conversations (by this I mean my words have little weight).

I'll go back to playing Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim when it comes out for my RPG fixes. In the meantime I have Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Dead Space 2 to finish up.

Trust me, I can deal with plotholes - although I'm definitely an advocate for game devs trying a fuckload harder on making coherent and interesting narratives, especially incorporating some character development.

 

[Woodsey]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

OK, so do missions Cerberus give you until you no longer need them.

 

[Sparrow]

Seemed like a hell of a lot of nitpicking to me. People should really stop getting up in arms about the "stories" we're hearing about EA interfering with the franchise, all you're doing is upsetting yourselves. If some hard evidence comes out which clearly outlines EA's involvement in making the game worse in any way, I will eat my damn hat.

You're kidding, right? Mass Effect = good story. Everything before it = good story. Enter EA. Mass Effect 2 = bad story. DA:O = simplistic story. DA2 = bad story.

I don't see how it isn't obvious. Like Shamus said, it's not so much that EA is intentionally interfering with Bioware's story-writing as it is that they're interfering with everything else and thus adversely affecting the story-writing. EA is likely to cut Bioware if TOR isn't a success, anyway. They've been looking for some studio that they can squeeze a golden calf MMO out of for years.

I so do not understand where this blame on EA has come from. I'm not defending them, don't get me wrong, but why has everyone just assumed it's directly due to EA?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

OK, so do missions Cerberus give you until you no longer need them.

I never needed them. What stopped me from taking the Normandy and high tailing it back to the Citadel?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Seemed like a hell of a lot of nitpicking to me. People should really stop getting up in arms about the "stories" we're hearing about EA interfering with the franchise, all you're doing is upsetting yourselves. If some hard evidence comes out which clearly outlines EA's involvement in making the game worse in any way, I will eat my damn hat.

You're kidding, right? Mass Effect = good story. Everything before it = good story. Enter EA. Mass Effect 2 = bad story. DA:O = simplistic story. DA2 = bad story.

I don't see how it isn't obvious. Like Shamus said, it's not so much that EA is intentionally interfering with Bioware's story-writing as it is that they're interfering with everything else and thus adversely affecting the story-writing. EA is likely to cut Bioware if TOR isn't a success, anyway. They've been looking for some studio that they can squeeze a golden calf MMO out of for years.

I so do not understand where this blame on EA has come from. I'm not defending them, don't get me wrong, but why has everyone just assumed it's directly due to EA?

EA has a terrible Marketing Team. They are the ones responsible for advertising their games and franchises, and they do a shitty job every time. See the "Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2" Ad Campaign.

Since they are responsible for what the consumer sees before they buy the game, most of the scorn is directed at them.

 

[Ghengis John]

The last

DLC was ehh... No friends... for no really good reason. Too much of a lead-in for ME 3, not enough people.

Characters = value in Mass Effect...

Saving the universe... ehhh not so much.

-T


-

I think there were several reasons for the structuring of the last DLC. One, nobody else could be involved with the destruction of that thing and thereby stand trial with Shepard. Two, it gave us a chance to see that Shepard does not simply rely on his team-mates. (A charge some people were leveling on the team-building aspect of ME2) On his own Shepard is quite capable. Three: It heightened the sense of danger for Shepard.

 

[lordlillen]

erhm? why didnt shepard destroy the omega 4 relay? simple:
it would whipe out all life in that system and/or more.

 

[Agayek]

I so do not understand where this blame on EA has come from. I'm not defending them, don't get me wrong, but why has everyone just assumed it's directly due to EA?

Because it almost certainly is. Bioware turned out nothing but high quality games for well over a decade. Then EA buys them and their games plummet in quality. Is it entirely EA's fault? I have no idea, but the evidence available to us indicates they are at least partially to blame.

And it doesn't help that EA has a reputation for buying talent studios and turning them into garbage.

 

[wammnebu]

couldnt you say shepard's death at the beginning of mass effect 2 is similar to when characters begin the story waking up from a coma (ie walking dead, marty mcfly in every back to the future)?

granted a little more development with that would be nice, but i think they just wanted to advance the other characters in the timeline forward with out the mess of coding the main

 

[hermes]

Seemed like a hell of a lot of nitpicking to me. People should really stop getting up in arms about the "stories" we're hearing about EA interfering with the franchise, all you're doing is upsetting yourselves. If some hard evidence comes out which clearly outlines EA's involvement in making the game worse in any way, I will eat my damn hat.

You're kidding, right? Mass Effect = good story. Everything before it = good story. Enter EA. Mass Effect 2 = bad story. DA:O = simplistic story. DA2 = bad story.

I don't see how it isn't obvious. Like Shamus said, it's not so much that EA is intentionally interfering with Bioware's story-writing as it is that they're interfering with everything else and thus adversely affecting the story-writing. EA is likely to cut Bioware if TOR isn't a success, anyway. They've been looking for some studio that they can squeeze a golden calf MMO out of for years.

I so do not understand where this blame on EA has come from. I'm not defending them, don't get me wrong, but why has everyone just assumed it's directly due to EA?

Because they are the main difference in the studio hierarchy and decision making on the last years. Because some of the things people didn't like could be adverted with more development. And as publishers they have a saying on when the games are released, no matter the opinion of the developer.
Ocam's Razor indicates its likely their fault...

 

[Woodsey]

Seemed like a hell of a lot of nitpicking to me. People should really stop getting up in arms about the "stories" we're hearing about EA interfering with the franchise, all you're doing is upsetting yourselves. If some hard evidence comes out which clearly outlines EA's involvement in making the game worse in any way, I will eat my damn hat.

You're kidding, right? Mass Effect = good story. Everything before it = good story. Enter EA. Mass Effect 2 = bad story. DA:O = simplistic story. DA2 = bad story.

Mass Effect was by the numbers, Mass Effect 2 tried something a little different.

That doesn't mean they fucked up their writing, it means they didn't follow their regular story structure so rigidly - if you think it worked less well then fine, but 'blame' BioWare (naughty boys! Get back to following what you did before because it didn't work perfectly this time!).

Dragon Age 2, whilst a bit of a failure, was also a stab at something different.

Funnily enough, you also strike me as the sort of person who pulls their dick out to piss on EA for stagnating the market. So if it is their fault (doubtful), you'd probably be blaming them if nothing got changed too.

 

[loremazd]

Bioware's simply too popular now.

It's honestly the same problem Square Enix is going through. People hate Bioware because they used to love bioware but then grew up to be cynical.

Everything sucks in some way folks, everything. If you go through life with a "this sucks" lens, then you'll miss everything that's good.

 

[McMullen]

Then we get to the "trap." ... Worse, they didn't even need to beat him in a gunfight. They could just have flown off with him and left the Normandy behind.

They tried this. The reason things didn't work out was because EDI was hacking their systems. Thanks to EDI you're able to escape before they can bring all their systems back online.

What was his goal? What was he planning on doing if there hadn't been a trap?

You were there for intel - just blowing the ship away would have made it a bit more difficult.

You're standing on a pile of technology, intel, and proof that the Reapers exist, but apparently it's "too dangerous", because ... I guess everyone else in the galaxy is too stupid to be trusted with it?

How about because EVERYTIME anyone anywhere in the Mass Effect universe begins jacking around with any kind of Reaper Tech the end result is invariably indoctrination, and Shepard having to fight through a ton of Husks.

As for "false binary choices" what the hell do you expect them to do? Come up with every single conceivable option possible? I mean they're already tracking 1000s of choices you make throughout the series - I mean a single new option is an entire new permutation of choices for the devs to deal with. If you're going to allow these kind of decisions and make them flow though multiple games - you're going to have to make sacrifices in order to be able to make the game's storyline coherent, and be able to make the various major permutations manageable from a programming standpoint.

The general candor from all the staff on this site seems to be portents of doom and gloom for mass effect 3. You know though guys, fear is infectious. I know you talk amongst yourselves, you must at points, and from a non-insular, outside perspective this is simply tantamount to so much whining and quailing. I'm not saying woes are endemic to your staff, I'm sure some of your readers share them as well. But for the most part there's a lot of unsubstantiated anger and paranoia.

A lot of your "points" are actually not points at all but simply the result of your interpretation of events. Take this for example:

At one point they fed colonists to the thresher maw in order to test the effects of feeding colonists to a thresher maw

No, they lured an alliance military unit to a thresher maw to test the combat viability of the thresher maw. They also were experimenting with being able to CONTROL thresher maws. You have forgotten some pretty important details here and built a case on those flaws (the phrase "A castle built on sand" springs to mind). I could go point by point but that isn't the issue. The issue here is not that you are using examples to build a thesis, but trying to use examples to support a conclusion. And you're shoehorning to do it. You should have double checked your facts or at least run this by someone playing the devil's advocate, someone presenting a differing opinion. From the looks of it though there is nobody on the staff who possesses one. I can't speak with absolute authority but it would seem you yourselves have fallen into a trap, groupthink.

As for Cerberus, what about them seemed bumbling? Yes Shepard mows them down but then again, let's all remember that Shepard is some kind of legendary hero. I mean you don't presume the reapers are bumblers because Shepard thwarts them at every turn do you? To see how the average individual matches up against Cerberus look at how people who aren't Shepard in mass effect one wind up when they cross paths with them. We have scientists who are so scared of them they'ed rather kill themselves than go up against them, we have a high-ranking military official who can't find anything on them and is then somehow abducted and killed and the death completely covered up, we have a hardened soldier who was driven insane by their experiments. They are neither bunglers nor idiots. Shepard is simply awesome.

EDIT:
On the subject of Railroading my hat goes off to Woodsey once again:

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Complaining about railroading is ridiculous. Games have to have practical limits and constraints, sorry. I'm sure we've all dreamed of the game where we could do anything we wanted to but it hasn't come along yet. Development has costs, media has storage limits.

These. It's amusing, Shamus, that you are complaining about the decline in Bioware's writing, because the exact same thing happened to yours in this article. It's as if today was "do no research" and "forget relevant details" day for you or something. You're better than this.

Another massive difficulty in making a story like this is the aftermath of decisions from ME1. I must admit I was shocked and then furious at the council in ME2, and especially at Kaidan. Fucking Kaiden! He spends all of ME1 griping about how everyone but the crew of the Normandy has their head in the sand, and then turns around and channels the Turian ambassador on Horizon when you meet him in ME2. I permadumped him (yes, I play as a femshep) for all future games and then went back to ME1 and retcon-dumped him too. Fuck that guy.

Thing is, I know it's not Kaidan or the Council being stupid, it's the writers trying to justify the plot, which has to account for the entire range of possible decisions in the first game. Really the only way to do it right would be to make two or three entirely separate plots. It is not a feat that I can imagine myself accomplishing, so I'm willing to forgive the writers, write it off as insanity among the characters or the Citadel itself indoctrinating the people living on it, and look forward to telling Kaidan where to shove it if he tries to join me again, and giving the Council a hearty Reason You Suck Speech before letting the Reapers have them. Those last two are the things I want most in ME3 actually. As long as Bioware lets me have that, ME3 is a worthy sequel.

 

[Woodsey]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

OK, so do missions Cerberus give you until you no longer need them.

I never needed them. What stopped me from taking the Normandy and high tailing it back to the Citadel?

"Shepard! We have information on a threat targeting the galaxy, no one else knows of this but us!"

"Nah, fuck off."

Very Paragon-y.

I very much doubt my renegade Shepard would join the military in the first place, but there you go.

snip

And so Woodsey did declareth the Emu his favouriteth of the forum(th).

There are issues with the writing, but its almost completely opposite the travesty some are making it out to be.

Its main issue is its lack of a focused villain (Saren). And can we all remember that its the second part of a trilogy? These stories always have a rather unique challenge compared to the other two parts.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

OK, so do missions Cerberus give you until you no longer need them.

I never needed them. What stopped me from taking the Normandy and high tailing it back to the Citadel?

"Shepard! We have information on a threat targeting the galaxy, no one else knows of this but us!"

"Nah, fuck off."

Very Paragon-y.

I very much doubt my renegade Shepard would join the military in the first place, but there you go.

"Threat to the galaxy"? They were just abducting colonists from a place that the Council has no authority in.

EDIT: On your point about your Shepard: The Mass Effect series is less about role-playing and more about their Shepard. They won't even let the guy be gay.

 

[loremazd]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

OK, so do missions Cerberus give you until you no longer need them.

I never needed them. What stopped me from taking the Normandy and high tailing it back to the Citadel?

"Shepard! We have information on a threat targeting the galaxy, no one else knows of this but us!"

"Nah, fuck off."

Very Paragon-y.

I very much doubt my renegade Shepard would join the military in the first place, but there you go.

"Threat to the galaxy"? They were just abducting colonists from a place that the Council has no authority in.

So your Paragon would be totally fine with the mass murder of thousands of humans by Reapers? The Council hung you out to dry and weren't willing to double back on that, it's the way it is.

 

[Woodsey]

I have raged against the railroading (I have to work with Cerberus?),.

I have to work with the Alliance? I have to become a Spectre? I have to oppose Saren?

There's always some railroading, and you at least have the chance to play it as if you are undermining them or agree with them (or a mix).

Those are different. My Paragon Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus. He destroyed three of their bases, his whole team was killed because of them, they are radically pro-human. And I never worked with the Alliance. I did missions they gave/suggested to me, but I made it clear that I was a Spectre now (like saying fuck you to the ship inspection guy).

OK, so do missions Cerberus give you until you no longer need them.

I never needed them. What stopped me from taking the Normandy and high tailing it back to the Citadel?

"Shepard! We have information on a threat targeting the galaxy, no one else knows of this but us!"

"Nah, fuck off."

Very Paragon-y.

I very much doubt my renegade Shepard would join the military in the first place, but there you go.

"Threat to the galaxy"? They were just abducting colonists from a place that the Council has no authority in.

Oh fucking hell, potential threat to the galaxy then. If someone's picking off 10s of 1000s of humans and trying to hide it, that may be a bit of cause for concern. Remember they were weary of Reaper involvement also.

And that's still not a paragon-y approach from you. (You know the blue bar is for goody points, don't you?)