What?s Wrong with Mass Effect 2?

[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

 

[CalPal]

The Alliance refuses to help you, because you're working for Cerberus. And you have to work for Cerberus because the Alliance won't help you. Even your own dialog tree works against you. If you select the, "I'm not working for Cerberus" dialog option, Shepard says, "I'm working for Cerberus because [excuse]." It's a ham-fisted mess of circular logic and railroading.

Look, you died, and the Alliance thought you were permanently dead. Can't blame them for not wanting to spend billions of credits on reviving you, considering the fact that the Citadel Council already thought you solved the real problem, which was Saren and Sovereign, and they could be building more military equipment and invest in more R&D. As well, Alliance military can't just say "well maybe Shepard was right, let's find out", because they would be contradicting the Council's position, which is now their own position, and supporting Shepard's theory of the Reaper Invasion Fleet, which really does not have any supporting evidence if you consider it from an outsider perspective. So they do what they will for two years while Cerberus works on bringing you back to life, because they actually seem to know something is up with the Reapers. I mean, they fought for your body against the Collectors and the Shadow Broker, something fishy was already going on there.

So yeah, they bring you back to life, and... what? You want to turn your back on them for being a terrorist organization? Yeah, good luck with that: they're a terrorist organization, just being near them without shooting them makes you suspect of working with them, and hey, you've been gone for two years, what the hell happened Shepard?! "You were dead for two years, then come back as a rumored Cerberus agent, with Cerberus crew, and a brand new Normandy with a Cerberus logo clearly printed on the side of it... we need to ask a few questions, Shepard. Can you come with us to this room?" And you may not like it, but you have no other choice but to suck it up and deal with it, because there really is no alternative.

Shepard likely knows this, and given everything Cerberus has done for Shepard, how can s/he just turn his/her back on them in the position s/he's in? They've given him/her everything s/he needs to stop the Reapers, and nobody else wants to, or is in a position, to help Shepard. Even Anderson as Councilor can only, at best, give back your specter status if you decide to be nice to the other three councilors who deny EVERYTHING you claim and bitched about anything you did. And since you can't just leave Cerberus, well... might as well try justifying it for as long as this relationship lasts. Which is until the end of ME2 when you can finally give TIM the finger.

I can understand if ME2 wasn't as great in some areas as ME1, but you can't complain about the plot by simplifying it and then analyzing it. There's a lot more going on that makes more sense than what you're saying.

 

[Little Duck]

I always thought it was the fact they were trying to link in too much storyline with two in the middle lining 1 and 3, so they ended up having to close a lot of decisions down to not kill the writers. That and. These things aren't short.

 

[nifedj]

While there were a few valid points in the article, they were devalued by some which didn't make much sense at all. For example, suggesting that the Omega 4 relay should have been blown up. This obviously wouldn't work. There's no way that everyone in the system would just believe you and evacuate if you warned them of impending doom - and if you didn't warn them, groups in the Terminus Systems would most likely blame the Council races and a massive Galactic war would be raging just in time for the Reaper's arrival - oops.

It's easy to pick out plot holes in ME1 or ME2 - but most of them can be solved with attention to detail and a bit of logical speculation.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2844283

^When threads like that exist it's ludicrous for any one person to think they've spotted all the flaws and hold all the answers.

 

[-Drifter-]

But anyways, I don't think I'm gonna argue with you anymore. This is getting us nowhere. Your opinion nor mine will change after this. Shamus hates ME2 and ME3, and I love these games. I will be sure to buy a limited edition of ME3 if one's available.

Good day to you, sir.

I wouldn't ask you to change your opinion, just to stop bashing Shamus for his.

But whatever, you said you're done, so if that's what you want then so be it.

 

[PopcornAvenger]

After the fiasco that's DA2, I'm not really looking forward to much from EA-Bioware any more.

I'll certainly keep an eye on ME3, as I liked the previous two, but my expectations are pretty low.

Btw, ME-1 had more than a few huge, gaping plot holes, also. I was so stunned by the cinematics I didn't care, really. Despite Bioware trying to make it into one, it's not a movie, it's a video game. I'm a lot more forgiving concerning story in games than I am movies, I suppose.

It's not like they hired Harlan Ellison or John Brunner to write their story (but they should have).

 

[Irridium]

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.

That still proves that Cerberus targets humans more than aliens.

They fed colonists to Thresher Maws to lure an alliance patrol in, and have them get eaten by the Thresher Maws, just to test the combat viability of the Maws. Why the hell did they use humans and not, you know, aliens?

Uh-huh. I'm not sure who this "we" you're refering to is. Some select crowd of well hidden gamers, maybe? Regardless, I'm just not seeing the points you're making. Most of these "plot hole" (yes, I like sarcastic air quotes) you're picking out just seem to be the most minute problems you could possibly pick on.

I mean, honestly, you're pissed because Shepard didn't whip out his/her phone and take a snapshot of the Reaper? What was he going to do next, upload it on his Facebook profile so his squadmates could all like it? The council wouldn't see the evidence in that case, I bet they all blocked Shep's friend requests.

If the Council is willing to accept a voice recording from a random Quarian as grounds to disbar their best agent without having him there to defend himself, I think having video/screenshot evidence of a Reaper would do just fine.

 

[Loonerinoes]

There are times when I truly hate the way things are taking when it comes to story writing in general. When things are being deliberately dumbed down and not enough attention is given to present different points of view for the sake of making big money.

But then I read an article like this to its conclusion to be reminded that if the overtly-rational, stuck up their own arses 'quality press' had its way...things would be JUST as bad if not worse.

I wish you much glorious vim alongside your rage Shamus. Because while you scream and shout, I will be enjoying Mass Effect 3 along with its prequels and their story. Bioware has its style of writing and it is not one that relies on overthinking every tiny little detail, such as your idol Tolkien did with his world. Instead it does something better - it confronts and presents different points of views through its characters and in a setting that ultimately servers to present their points of view within the world.

But I doubt you'll ever think on how rare such stories truly are in your life ever or how many of your ilk prefer to try and shout at how 'they make no sense therefore they must be bad'. Because you and a tiny fraction of the population happen to enjoy cold rationality, you think that every story should adhere to it. Whereas the best stories are, in fact, and always will be the ones that evoke something within the one getting to experience them.

I sincerely hope they continue to evoke such unbridled fury in you and all your kind. Because that means I will very likely love them immensely.

 

[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?

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.

Oh, of course. I'm not debating that at all. What I am puzzled by is this intense need to consider every game that is purchased as some sort of down payment on everything else that developer does. In game 1 you find potential but flaws. In game 2 you find missed potential and other flaws. Doesn't it logically follow, then, that you should at least be cautious about game 3?

Maybe, you know, wait until you get some real details on it before either A.) outright declaring you're buying it no matter what (only to whine later that it wasn't what you wanted) or B.) tearing it to shreds because your vision of the series doesn't seem to be matching what the actual developers are doing (even if you don't know enough about what they are doing to honestly say either way).

There's nothing wrong with liking a series but honestly stating there are flaws you'd like to see addressed.. the trouble is, that's not what's going on here.