What?s Wrong with Mass Effect 2?

[Kahunaburger]

Fraternization isn't bad because the military says it is, it's bad because it's:
A. Unethical to exploit a command structure for sex,
B. Disruptive to the chain of command to form ties with particular subordinates,
C. Unethical to form close emotional attachments to someone you might have to order into a dangerous situation, leave behind, order to his or her probable death, etc. (ME1 sort of gets into this, but then promptly drops it. ME2 doesn't address it at all, which is a particularly big oversight considering that you are going on a suicide mission.)

A) So don't
B) So don't
C) So don't

You play it your way, the rest of us will continue with our capacity to realise its not real and do what we want.

More to the point, it is bad writing for a work that emphasizes consequences as much as Mass Effect does to fail to understand the consequences of an major (potential) part of the plot. The point is not "don't have fraternization in mass effect," the point is "demonstrate the ethical implications of fraternization in mass effect."

Arguing that breaks from how people would realistically act in a game are acceptable because a game is "not real" is essentially arguing that the game is poorly written. This is because Mass Effect's writers want to write people who act like real people, and when they write consequence-free fraternization into the story, this is a failure to do so.

 

[Woodsey]

Fraternization isn't bad because the military says it is, it's bad because it's:
A. Unethical to exploit a command structure for sex,
B. Disruptive to the chain of command to form ties with particular subordinates,
C. Unethical to form close emotional attachments to someone you might have to order into a dangerous situation, leave behind, order to his or her probable death, etc. (ME1 sort of gets into this, but then promptly drops it. ME2 doesn't address it at all, which is a particularly big oversight considering that you are going on a suicide mission.)

A) So don't
B) So don't
C) So don't

You play it your way, the rest of us will continue with our capacity to realise its not real and do what we want.

More to the point, it is bad writing for a work that emphasizes consequences as much as Mass Effect does to fail to understand the consequences of an major (potential) part of the plot. The point is not "don't have fraternization in mass effect," the point is "demonstrate the ethical implications of fraternization in mass effect."

Arguing that breaks from how people would realistically act in a game are acceptable because a game is "not real" is essentially arguing that the game is poorly written. This is because Mass Effect's writers want to write people who act like real people, and when they write consequence-free fraternization into the story, this is a failure to do so.

Someone will have to die in the first, potentially because the other is your love interest, and others may die in the second because you don't concentrate on them as much as your love interest.

You think its bad ethically, I don't; just because you think it'd have an adverse effect doesn't mean the writers (or most others) do. Non-perfect writing does not equal bad writing.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Fraternization isn't bad because the military says it is, it's bad because it's:
A. Unethical to exploit a command structure for sex,
B. Disruptive to the chain of command to form ties with particular subordinates,
C. Unethical to form close emotional attachments to someone you might have to order into a dangerous situation, leave behind, order to his or her probable death, etc. (ME1 sort of gets into this, but then promptly drops it. ME2 doesn't address it at all, which is a particularly big oversight considering that you are going on a suicide mission.)

A) So don't
B) So don't
C) So don't

You play it your way, the rest of us will continue with our capacity to realise its not real and do what we want.

More to the point, it is bad writing for a work that emphasizes consequences as much as Mass Effect does to fail to understand the consequences of an major (potential) part of the plot. The point is not "don't have fraternization in mass effect," the point is "demonstrate the ethical implications of fraternization in mass effect."

Arguing that breaks from how people would realistically act in a game are acceptable because a game is "not real" is essentially arguing that the game is poorly written. This is because Mass Effect's writers want to write people who act like real people, and when they write consequence-free fraternization into the story, this is a failure to do so.

Someone will have to die in the first, potentially because the other is your love interest, and others may die in the second because you don't concentrate on them as much as your love interest.

You think its bad ethically, I don't; just because you think it'd have an adverse effect doesn't mean the writers (or most others) do. Non-perfect writing does not equal bad writing.

Everyone in the military thinks fraternization is bad ethically - it's exploitative, disrupts the command structure, and creates conflicts of interest. As I said before, Mass Effect 1 briefly touches upon the issue, but does not seriously address it. IMHO, Bioware's desire to include a dating sim in every game (its almost a trademark at this point) overrode questions about whether it makes sense in this particular story. When people in a story act unrealistically for no good reason, that's bad writing. That is not to say that Mass Effect is badly written (I actually think that ME2's loyalty missions are examples of great writing for games), it is to say that this particular choice is an example of bad writing.

 

[Agayek]

I'm also amused that some people expect me to admit that Mass Effect 2 is a great game, almost objectively. I don't know why.

From a purely gameplay standpoint, ME2 was a marked improvement over the original game. There were a few things the original did much better, but overall ME2 was the better "game".

It just had a significantly worse story.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I'm also amused that some people expect me to admit that Mass Effect 2 is a great game, almost objectively. I don't know why.

I'm amused that some people expect me to admit that Mass Effect 2 was a bad game, almost objectively. I don't know why.

OT: While some of your points are valid, Shamus, others are nitpicked situations within the game that you either didn't understand even with data and context from the actual narrative, or you just simply ignored such for sake of grasping at straws. I'm not sure which yet, as your thesis on the Thresher Maw scenario was patently false in terms of how it was explained in the game to begin with.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Why is Shamus worried about Mass Effect 3? Because of Mass Effect 2, that's why.

Blame Cerberus's Idiot Science for Shepard. The human brain suffers irreparable and permanent damage after 6 minute without oxygen. Shepard was dead for almost two year. Given the amount of damage his brain suffered, I'm not surprised the man can no longer tie his own shoelaces.

 

[Lionsfan]

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).

Yes there's always going to be Railroading. It's a given when you buy any game, that's what the game is. In Halo you have to kill the Flood. In Mario you have to defeat Bowser. That's what the games are, completing the objective the game gives you. It's only games like Elder Scrolls that give you choice, and that's whether you want to take a train from New York to Washington, or from New York to Chicago. But the way the railroading went down in ME2 was handled poorly. It was like someone telling you the train you're on (in New York) is going to make a stop in London, England. It just isn't believable. And doing so breaks the Suspension of Disbelief for some people.

I'm not totally agreeing with all of Shamus' points, just that they probably could have worked out a better way for this to go down

 

[Kahunaburger]

Generally, as a literary device, killing the main character is used as a "reboot" of sorts. It allows for a character growth and the like. I'll give you that games don't adhere to that nearly as much as they should, but that's where he's coming from with it.

Yeah, generally. This is one of the times its not.

I do like how the Illusive Man's rationale for rezzing Shepard basically boils down to "she's the protagonist."

 

[Agayek]

Considering the nature of those groups, what makes you think the main body of Cerberus knew about them?

The fact that TIM turned to Shepard and said "Oh hey, sorry our dudes tried to kill you, they weren't really with us" is kind of a big hint that he knew about them.

No. No, thats flat out wrong. See, I dunno, ANY SINGLE BATMAN ESCAPE EVER. Batman looks badass accordingly.

Actually, it's usually either Batman pulling a deus ex machina out of his pocket or his captor being an incompetent idiot. See, when you capture Batman, here's how you keep him locked up: Strip him, wrap him in steel and throw him into an 80 foot deep sheer pit.

The fact that the people who catch him just tie him up, after he's repeatedly proven to be able to escape, is only proof that they're stupid.

Whaqt the Collectors originally were and, more importantly, how to use the Omega 4 Relay without being hurled into certain death (just, you know, very likely death).

1) Why does it matter what the Collector's were? That information does fuck all. We already knew the Reapers were going to indoctrinate everyone everywhere until Husks were all that were left.

2) As discussed below, going through the relay was a dumb idea in the first place. Even beyond that, how did they know that Reaper IFFs would work? Why would the Reapers even have an IFF in the first place?

And since the Collector's only have one ship, why the hell do they need a non-hardcoded ID system at all?

Because an attack like that, they're certain to just all go through at once. No such thing as a scout ship that will notice if the area is booby trapped and will tell the main force not to come through.

And if they detroy the Relay? Then the Reapers devise a new means to come through and you lose any way of getting to them. Bravo, they could strike from anywhere and you've lost the means to anticipate where they will come from.

1) It's not the Reapers coming through the Omega 4 relay. It's the Collector's, big difference.

2) And if the scout goes back and says for the main force not to come through, the problem is solved. It doesn't matter if they survive or not, so long as they leave your shit alone. If the only way in to the Collector area is the Omega 4 relay, it's also the only way out. If they can't get out through the O4, then the problem is contained.

Also, Shepard does destroy the relay the Reapers are coming through, about an hour before they arrive. Nice try though.

Ahah, no. Your opinion is not a measure. Wha is a measure is critical reception, and if you chck Gamesrankings, Mass Effect 2 has a higher reception than both those games. Mass Effect 2 is better than Baldurs Gate 2 and KOTOR.

Game reviews and rankings have changed substantially over the last decade. It's not really a valid metric by which to compare games made a decade apart. That said, considering BG2 and KOTOR both have twice the number of reviews, and all 3 games are within 1% of each other on the same platform, I'm not sure you can definitively state any of them are better than the others by aggregate review score alone.

The best part though is that you think you can actually quantify a subjective measure.

 

[Shamus Young]

I'm also amused that some people expect me to admit that Mass Effect 2 is a great game, almost objectively. I don't know why.

I'm amused that some people expect me to admit that Mass Effect 2 was a bad game, almost objectively. I don't know why.

OT: While some of your points are valid, Shamus, others are nitpicked situations within the game that you either didn't understand even with data and context from the actual narrative, or you just simply ignored such for sake of grasping at straws. I'm not sure which yet, as your thesis on the Thresher Maw scenario was patently false in terms of how it was explained in the game to begin with.

Not entirely sure how it's better that Cerberus was luring Alliance military teams as opposed to colonists. Nor how it alters the gist of the problem - why is Cerberus the organization used in ME2? Why not 'Boberus', a pro-human organization whose true background you learn while working for them in ME2, instead of trying to recast a square peg into your round plothole?

 

[StriderShinryu]

This is pretty much the definition of the silliness I see amongst gamers these days (or at least many on The Escapist). You loved the first game and thought it had some amazing potential, then you invested in the second game and were disappointed because it wasn't essentially the same game as the first one. Odd way of thinking, perhaps, but I'll take it.

It's the next part, however, that makes no sense to me. You surmise that Bioware is going downhill and are reaching farther than they could possibly grasp. You even mentally create an extremely negative version of what the next game experience is going to be like though we've been given almost no details on it. Then you.. umm.. pretty much state that you'll unequivocally buy the game anyway. Huh?

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Arrival does deal with the whole 'why don't they just blow up the relay' question. Put simply it would take the system and most of that galaxy with it. Not that anyone would miss Omega...
It also seems they can use normal mass relays, but it takes longer for them to arrive at one? I'm not really sure tbh...

I liked ME2 and going over the story with a fine toothcomb seems a bit petty, most games and films have plotholes and there are far worse offenders (e.g. Heavy Rain).

ME3 does concern me though. The term 'Streamlining' has been banded around a little too often, read 'dumbed down' and 'shorter'. I have a feeling the illusive man to try to kill you for the reapers for some utterly stupid reason...or worse want to kill you to bring you back again...
At this point a judgement is pointless, it would be based on pure speculation.

 

[Shamus Young]

This is pretty much the definition of the silliness I see amongst gamers these days (or at least many on The Escapist). You loved the first game and thought it had some amazing potential, then you invested in the second game and were disappointed because it wasn't essentially the same game as the first one. Odd way of thinking, perhaps, but I'll take it.

It's the next part, however, that makes no sense to me. You surmise that Bioware is going downhill and are reaching farther than they could possibly grasp. You even mentally create an extremely negative version of what the next game experience is going to be like though we've been given almost no details on it. Then you.. umm.. pretty much state that you'll unequivocally buy the game anyway. Huh?

You can love ME2, but still have things you'd like them to keep in mind for improvement, or avoid doing, in ME3. For some people it's the combat system, others it's plot elements.

 

[SwimmingRock]

As for "false binary choices" what the hell do you expect them to do? Come up with every single conceivable option possible?

The problem isn't a binary choice, it's a false binary choice. How about we take the smart option, like...

"Hey, Citadel. This is Shephard. I am standing on a dead reaper fetus in the middle of a reaper factory right now. I'm sending you a picture and coordinates. Cerberus wants this place too, so if you don't want the pro-human superterrorist group building reapers you should probably send someone over here."

Yeah, I was honestly baffled that the ending cinematic with the ship not destroyed includes Shepard doing jack about it. I stared at my screen in disbelief that this idiot was just dropping the ball on possibly the most pressing issue regarding the survival of the entire galaxy by simply not bothering to mention it to anybody. Why the hell does TIM get the collector ship if I don't blow it up and why don't we even give the Council a call?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

ME2 sucked I found ME1 far more interesting mechanic wise, ME 2 is shallow and dumbed down. The story is good but like DA2 its not worth playing through the bad game play narrative and this effects most modern games...

 

[captaincabbage]

I think you yourself put it best when you said "In hell the dialogue is written by bioware"
For the record I actually have read all of the article.

Bah, nonsense. In hell the dialogue is written by Capcom.

 

[-Drifter-]

You know what I cannot stand about people that go "I hate Bioware, they killed my Pa!"?

You guys are always criticizing. That's your problem. It's good to point out the flaws in a game, yes. But it's just annoying to watch a miserable git constantly whine and moan about said flaws. Can you guys at least acknowledge that ME2 is leagues better than most other games nowadays (in terms of characters/plot and immersion) and then tell us about what can be improved? At least then, I'd love to listen to you.

So, you don't want to hear anyone make criticisms unless they agree with your opinion and give the game a nice tongue bath first?

I can perfectly understand if you don't like the game. That's okay, but explaining that hatred by ludicrously overstating the bad parts of it, and completely ignoring the good bits is something I cannot get.

He didn't "ludicrously overstate" anything (and get a hold of yourself,) and not everyone is going to agree that the "good bits" were actually good.

Look at it this way. If the level of analysis presented in this article is performed on most of the other games that came out today, they would be rated as utter shit.

And? Should we not expect a consistent plot from games, especially when said plot is so emphasized?

 

[ecoho]

ok im gonna get flack for this but im going to try and explain why ME2 is writen as it is.

1. its the dam middle child. lets face it sequels always suck thats a fact(look up sequels theres maybe 3 that were actualy better then the first) its nether the begeining or the end it was there to reiderate the points of the first and flesh out the main characters.

2. the collectors were put in to fill the void of a huge main baddie like saren. lets face it if another spector went rouge this would be all about how its the same as the first game.

3. i swear if someone complains about railroading again i may actualy grow angrey. Every game does it get over it.

4. i will go into why they didnt just set traps or blow up the relay. ok traps only work if you know were they are comeing out from, you all seem not to of lissioned to them saying that you can come out anywere within 1000 miles of your ploted corse. as to just blowing it up, did you play that DLC? blowing up a mass relay sucks for everyone.

now i hope that helps explain things and if you dissagree with them please quote me and leave what you think i said was wrong in a civil way and i will responed