What?s Wrong with Mass Effect 2?

Recommended Videos

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,175
0
0
Himmelgeher said:
Well, no. Omega-4 has a sister relay. A mass relay is incapable of functioning without one. Just because they don't specifically say "the Omega-4 relay has a sister relay" doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Everything in the game, in fact, does point to a sister relay near the Collector base. The game also never shows any of your squad mates eating. This is sort of like suggesting (or, more accurately, insisting) that because none of your squad-mates have a meal onscreen that they are absolutely, unquestionably, irrevocably vampires. Then going on to say that this means there is the plot hole of Vampires existing in the Mass Effect universe when nothing else has been supernatural in the game (well, except for telekinesis, mind-melding, giant, magical, mind-controlling sentient ships, and zombies). The way I see it, there are one of three possibilities: you aren't paying any attention, and then making stuff up, you have some kind of mental disorder, or you're manufacturing non-existent plot holes for the sole purpose of complaining about them on the internet. All of those are just kind of sad. In reference to the post before; we don't have any idea what the Reapers are actually capable of. We can guess, but that isn't the same thing as knowing. They're mile-long, sentient starships capable of doing things we can't imagine. I think it's pretty safe to say that if the Reapers built a base in the core, then they had a way of doing it, because they did it.
Eh, it appears I misunderstood the original statement. They had to get there originally to build the thing, and to do that, to the best of our knowledge, they would have had to travel that distance at sub-light speeds.

Meaning it took millions (possibly billions) of years.

Meaning any organic species trying to copy that feat are going to fail spectacularly and almost certainly die out in the process.

Thus, the only useful route, for both the Collectors and the "good species" is via the Omega-4 relay.

Therefore, the fact that the Reapers did it before is completely irrelevant to everything.
 

mschweiz

New member
Oct 28, 2009
14
0
0
1. i think the death of commander Shepard was a GOOD plot point because it shows how powerful his enemies are and how hard the people of the galaxy work against them. it was really meant to hit people emotionally who spent a lot of time with their Shepard from ME1. it also served as a great spring board for the people who just started the story, specifically on ps3
2.Cerberus only attacked humans because they wanted to study the Thresher maw's effects on humans biologically(because they need to know how the poison specifically affects humans, plus it was soldiers, not ) and how to improve humanity's defenses against these types of attacks. and keep in mind that Cerberus does not care for individuals, but rather humanity as a whole. they are willing to sacrifice people to serve the "greater good" that is the conflict between Paragon(caring for the individual) and Renegade(caring for the whole). and for the record Cerberus only counts the facility where they tortured jack rogue, none of the others
3.the alliance wont help you because the illusive man sent out a report that Shepard is working for them. and i agree that dialog tree could be a little more explicative of what Shepard will say. otherwise it will have the problem that alpha protocol had in that you don't know what will happen when you choose a dialog option.
4. it is Shepard's thing that he goes into trouble and does things himself. otherwise the game would be rts and while we are on the thought, the collectors cant fly away with Shepard in their ship because it takes so long for the ship to warm up and get ready to fly.
5. i agree that the illusive man was idiotic in that he sent Shepard into a trap. but again this was meant for characterization of the illusive man in that he has infallible trust in humanity and Shepard. plus the whole "for the greater good"
6.Shepard thought it may be a trap, seconded by EDI. did you see the freaking size of the ship. you may have been able to destroy it if the entire ship wasn't trying to leave with you in it. plus it would have been impossible to blow a ship that size with one bomb. and they need to extract information.
7. the whole destruction of a relay in the Arrival DLC was supposed to happen after the collector base battle. so Shepard would not know about it and even if he did people would notice if he were towing a huge moon into the relay and try to stop him like the Batarians tried to do to the researchers.
8.i do agree that the idea of letting the only choices be to destroy the base or let Cerberus have it then making Shepard leave Cerberus was another bad scripting and forcing the player to take a rout that they may not want to take. i have had a problem with this for a while now and it really is not that bad. and apparently this will be fixed in ME3. by bring back more RPG features.

all in all i agree with you in how bioware forces Shepard what to do. it takes so much away from the already fantastic immersion. but sometimes you need to read into the game a little more than just take everything at face value.
 

Lorechaser

New member
Aug 28, 2004
80
0
0
satsugaikaze said:
Jerk!Shepard turns the whole thing on its head by stating multiple times "I DON'T WORK FOR CERBERUS, CERBERUS WORKS FOR ME. BITCHES."
"CERBERUS WORKS FOR ME!"
"Captain, the Illusive Man wants to ramble at your in his spectacular voice for about five minutes, then make you do what he says, regardless of your current plans."
"Excuse me, I have to ... pee. I'll be back in a day or two."

:p

That really annoyed me. Kelly told me TIM wanted to talk to me, and I went "okay, there's a story mission available when I'm ready. But first I want to go check out this....Wait, what? I can't go shopping until I talk to him? WTF?"

But still, Martin Sheen. I just pretend it's President Bartlett telling me what to do, and it takes the sting out.
 

Oro44

New member
Jan 28, 2009
177
0
0
Savber said:
Oro44 said:
I'm starting to feel like one in an extreme minority who actually liked ME2 and DA2. For this, I've been attacked as "not having standards" and being the "masses that are being pandered to". It's become fashionable as of late to hate Bioware for their latest releases and its getting old. However, I will add this; the quality of EA games seems to have taken a tumble. The Modern Warfare series is quickly turning into a Michael Bay movie and Black Ops made no g'damn sense to me. And these got perfect scores all over the place. I guess the point to all this is that the quality of a game is not an objective thing. It is entirely subjective. People are going to love a game, people are going to hate a game. But people should not be attacked for their opinion on the matter, and this article, I think, does a good job in voicing complaints without taking it out on the fans. I applaud Shamus for this, and I hope others learn from it. Ah, nerd rage. Therapeutic.
True but I want to point out that EA didn't publish Modern Warfare... It's Activision.

EA has the BATTLEFIELD franchise. But yeah... in all honesty, it seems that everyone hates Bioware now. It's the 'cool' thing to do.
Activision, right. Brain fart there. I suppose with the latest sub-standard MoH and just plain weird Dante's Inferno, the point still stands. Hopefully the upcoming SSX will be good, it was such a fun series.
 

searanox

New member
Sep 22, 2008
864
0
0
Sparrow said:
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.
"Who cares if the game's plot is an incoherent mess? Freedom from contradiction and logical characters with clear motivations are for losers! On an unrelated note, I thought the Star Wars prequels were great."
 

satsugaikaze

New member
Feb 26, 2011
114
0
0
I like how you completely dodged the point of the quote so you could reply with some unrelated snark.

Actually, no. I don't like it.
 

ThirdPrize

New member
May 14, 2009
42
0
0
Sparrow said:
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.
I am afraid this is video games we are talking about. It was always going to be "Independence Day" rather than "Moon". We all just gotta live with it.
 

AxiomaticBadger

New member
May 16, 2011
1
0
0
"Shepard, we've brought you back to life, and we'd like to give you free intel, a top of the line spaceship and a genetically engineered hooker in exchange for doing what you would do anyway. What do you say?"
... Seriously, this is a question?

It's like the whole rogue cells deal, the person saying it is emotionally stunted and basically clings to the concept of "good-cerberus". I was honestly amazed when I found out people think she was saying was in any way related to the truth. Sure, SHE thinks they were rogue cells, but come ON people.

The collectors come from through the Omega Relay... great, very useful. So now I can mine it to prevent any attempt at rescuing the lost collonists, and completely ignoring the idea that maybe there are collecters who are on THIS side of the relay.

As for the end, forget indoctrination, it doesn't matter. My arguement can be summed up by this quote...
Sovereign:- "Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire."
This is re-enforced in the discussion with legion apropos the heretics, and how they were recruited.

Yes, by preserving the station, we'd gain tech. The tech to MAKE REAPERS.
Mass Effect has had one question running through it:- At what point does the end justify the means?
This ending simply exemplifies this.


One think I loved is how ME2 showed the Reaper psyche. Risking the collecters for shepard makes perfect sense once you realise that to Harbinger the collecters & thier entire operation are just dross, a hobby maybe. You go through this huge life or death struggle with the best the galaxy has to offer... in order to Slightly Inconvenience a SINGLE Reaper.
 

luckshot

New member
Jul 18, 2008
426
0
0
cerberus kind of reminds me of the entire idea of the portal games...the only problem is the portal games are action/COMEDY/puzzle games, while mass effect is a action/DRAMA/minigame set.


it really changes things when you think about the experiments you've uncovered as read by GLADOS


and for me this has a negative impact on the railroading in ME2, as many have said it cerberus is a collection of ineptitude
 

luckshot

New member
Jul 18, 2008
426
0
0
a further thought i had (even though i have not read the complete thread) is that why did they need to kill Shepard at all?

there's an unknown enemy operating outside of council/alliance control that's disappearing entire colonies. why couldn't our hero just go and investigate, either independently or on a sort of 'loan' program from either the alliance or the council.

at some point after starting the investigation of the disappearances you get contacted by Cerberus who is willing to share information with you.

need new team members? Cerberus wants reps on your ship to ensure they get some intel, others reasons were already given and killing Shepard accomplished nothing other than showing the rails
 

Firehound

is a trap!
Nov 22, 2010
352
0
0
At start of article: No, that's stupid, ME2 wasn't completely terrible.

Halfway through article: Yeah, Pretty much.

At end: OH MY GOD. THE STORY, IT IS LIKE SWISS CHEESE!

Seriously. Where's the Commander Shepard: Spawncamp that shit. option?

And no, not all reaper tech ends with indoctrination. Only the AI parts. since several upgrades to the Normandy are Reversed engineered versions of Saren's ships modules. Or designs to counter it.
 

Firehound

is a trap!
Nov 22, 2010
352
0
0
At start of article: No, that's stupid, ME2 wasn't completely terrible.

Halfway through article: Yeah, Pretty much.

At end: OH MY GOD. THE STORY, IT IS LIKE SWISS CHEESE!

Seriously. Where's the Commander Shepard: Spawncamp that shit. option?

And no, not all reaper tech ends with indoctrination. Only the AI parts. since several upgrades to the Normandy are Reversed engineered versions of Saren's ships modules. Or designs to counter it.

Not to mention... Who the fuck let George Lucas write in the ending for ME2? Seriously. It's the midiclorians all over again.
 

bombadilillo

New member
Jan 25, 2011
738
0
0
Lorechaser said:
Oro44 said:
I'm starting to feel like one in an extreme minority who actually liked ME2 and DA2. For this, I've been attacked as "not having standards" and being the "masses that are being pandered to". It's become fashionable as of late to hate Bioware for their latest releases and its getting old.
I'll totally agree on this. The entire "Oh, everyone who has any taste hates DA2" thing is getting really old. I get it. You didn't enjoy DA2. I did. This is really not a defining characteristic for either of us.

I don't think Shamus is in that boat, though. 1. It's kinda his thing to nitpick games. It's why many of his fans started reading him (that, or his LOTRO comic). 2. His critiques are pretty valid. 3. He's here to amuse us/make us annoyed. He sure did that. ;)
A lot of people "enjoyed" those games while still being upset at the blatent shortcomings. You were 100% fine with the copy paste enviroments in DA2? Because everytime I went to the same stretch of land fighting scaled enemies, its just got repatitious.

You are not a martyr for being the "only one who liked the game" People saying its complete crap are on the other extreme too and equally as wrong. Both games fell short of what I expected in a sequal. (which is improvement over the original) not dumbed down everything and certainly not 5 enviroments. The first swamp area in DA was bigger then all of DA2 combined for crying out loud.
 

Choppaduel

New member
Mar 20, 2009
1,070
0
0
I agree with Shamus, the main plot was rubbish. In particular, the final choice was such a huge disappointment. Not to mention how tedious the combat & planet scanning are. The only part of the game I actually enjoyed was developing the relationships with the characters, especially in the shadow broker dlc. :)

Man do I feel late to the party in this thread.

[hr]

SomEngangVar said:
I'm praying ME3 will be more RPG-ey than ME2. Seriously. All I'd like would for it to be more like 1 than 2. I know I'm just dreaming though.
Exactly, thats why, instead of praying, I won't be playing the third, I'm going to forget about the second, and just remember the first game.
 

starslasher

New member
May 21, 2011
66
0
0
mschweiz said:
1. i think the death of commander Shepard was a GOOD plot point because it shows how powerful his enemies are and how hard the people of the galaxy work against them. it was really meant to hit people emotionally who spent a lot of time with their Shepard from ME1. it also served as a great spring board for the people who just started the story, specifically on ps3

....

all in all i agree with you in how bioware forces Shepard what to do. it takes so much away from the already fantastic immersion. but sometimes you need to read into the game a little more than just take everything at face value.
I think that those are great points, mschweiz.

Shamus does make some good points about the plot holes, but some of them can be answered/surmised logically, as some of the posters before me has done. Nonetheless, i enjoyed the game alot. I played it more times than ME1. Sure, I am a bit apprehensive about ME3 and hope that it won't disappoint me, but that worries me is not so much the plot as it is the gameplay. the previous two had their flaws for me, ME1 with its repetitve sidequests and piling of the same weapons over and over again, and ME2 for mainly that grinding planet-probing business. Hopefully, the developers will work out something that wouldn't require the redundancy, repetition and grinding that I gone through with the first two games.
 

Vect

New member
Jul 22, 2009
48
0
0
I guess I can see his points. Still, I enjoyed the Character parts specifically. Couldn't care less for Miranda and Jacob though.

On the ending, I always insisted that while it would be great to hold onto the tech and give it to someone who would make use of it, Cerberus is NOT that someone. Almost all Cerberus projects tend to be experiments of Aperture-level stupidity without any of the lulz (at least Cave Johnson's honest about having no idea what he's doing). The Rogue Cell excuse is just TIM's way of covering his ass since he wants to look good for Shep (not that it matters since you're stuck with them).


Of course, they're back to being the villain so any attempt at making them sympathetic is sorta moot.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,470
0
0
The other game I thought of while reading through is Fallout 3.
Grossly overhyped title that won GotY? Check.
But more importantly: Main plotline that makes no sense at all? Oh you better believe it.

Mass Effect 2 was filibustering to be sure, but at the same time, it was aping the old 1970s sci-fi shows; perhaps a bit more than Bioware intended (where the Ranking Officers go on obviously-dangerous Sorties).

Hell, the ending for ME2 made no sense in the grand scheme of things even without that silly choice at the end:
You destroyed the collector ship, thus eliminating the collector's ability to harvest humans. Mission accomplished; there is no logical reason to actually destroy the collector facility apart from pissing in the Illusive Man's cheerios. Besides, if he starts to really fuck with the tech, you call on the Alliance/Citadel to intervene.

What is he going to do? He can't relocate the entire facility, and if he kills you, he won't be getting back in without another Reaper IFF device. EDI has been unshackled, so he can't commandeer the ship from you that way, nevermind that the Normandy is a sophisticated stealth vessel. Shepard could easily be back at the Citadel with proof before Cerberus could do much.

Of course, if we're going the "logic doesn't matter" route, then you can Deus Ex Machina away any of those possibilities; which sadly seems to be the same vein in which the plot was written.
 

drivel

New member
Aug 1, 2008
107
0
0
Man, I'm not nearly as observant/analytical as I thought. While I was playing, I didn't notice the plot holes at all. I don't know if that says more about me, or about the experience BioWare created in ME2. The plot-holes are all legitimate concerns. But, they're easy to miss when you're enthralled by the game itself.

Writing an airtight plot is very difficult, especially when you're expected to churn out games that are both epic in scale and wild commercial successes. I understand Shamus' concerns, and I hope ME3 doesn't suck. I've decided to play back through both ME1 and ME2 in advance of its release Q1 2012 - hopefully the culmination of the series will be worth it!
 

Crazy Zaul

New member
Oct 5, 2010
1,217
0
0
While they were all legitimate criticisms that I never thought about before, you make yourself seem like a rather depressing person that you actually looked for them in so much detail. When I finished ME2 story I thought its better than most games but sucks compared to other bioware games (-1), its kinda self destructive to dig deep into why it sucks. The Cerberus stuff was funny though.
Anyway, despite the before I read this lackluster, after I read this terrible, story it was still fun to play.