Why Mass Effect 2 was, and is, the superior out of the Mass Effect trilogy. [No Spoilers]

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The hole I see in your argument is that shortly after release the lead writer for Mass Effect 3 responded to the backlash, saying that his motivation for the ending was 'To give players the chance to experience an inspiring and uplifting ending'. These are rarely the words use to describe an ending in which the villains are intended to win, or one which is meant to have disturbing implications.

That was said by Casey Hudson, who only received writing credit on Mass Effect 3, otherwise being the trilogy's project director. ME1's lead writer was Drew Karpyshyn; ME2 had two lead writers, Karpyshyn and Mac Walters; and ME3's lead writer was Walters with Hudson. Hudson is also a man who is notoriously weaselly with tightly-controlled and PR-friendly comments in interviews.

That doesn't change the game's bloody themes and inspirations, or that endings are superficial and espouse only a narrow range of intent and emotion. Take what can be construed as Hudson's "inspiring and uplifting" ending -- synthesis -- for example, which has some of the most chilling implications of any of them despite being framed exactly as Hudson proclaimed it to be.

Also, I'd invite you to read my earlier post about the definition of deus ex machina, and investigation as to whether ME3's ending is definitionally such.

 

[80sboy]

Why Mass Effect 2 wasn't and is not the superior out of the Mass Effect trilogy:

The entire story amounts to nothing within the arc of the trilogy, with the final boss being a ludicrous caricature of the Reaper menace, the final choice amounting to absolutely nothing in the long run, and the player being forced to side with Cerberus a janky, needless derailing of the main narrative thread, forcing Shepard to switch sides and back like he's Italy during World War II.

If Mass Effect was supposed to be a three-part narrative, then ME2 spends the entire middle section swimming around in circles before farting bubbles and leaving part three to try and cram in two instalments worth of actual story progression.

Ouch, although I agree with an OP. ME2 was the most interesting installment out of all three of them. Better characters, suicide mission was the best thing about the ME series EVA! It might sepnd the entire middle section swimming around the in circles, but it does a better job then the other games did. One was really good too, but in the end it just had a very predictable story, and the only good thing was the characters were interesting enough not to bother me.

 

[Zombie Badger]

snip

I was not referring to the Catalyst when I talked of a Deus Ex Machina, I was talking about the Crucible. If we look at Mass Effect as one story, the Crucible is a plot device introduced in the third act with no build-up or foreshadowing and which only exists for the purpose of wrapping up the plot without an explanation as to how it does so. This is a pretty good definition of the term.

As far as Lovecraftian themes go, I only really saw that apply to the first game. The Reapers stop being an unknowable evil once the writers start explaining their motivations at the end of the second game, and their power is somewhat diminished by one man on foot with a machine gun taking one down (admittedly it was fetal) and then by large numbers of them being destroyed in the third game.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I was not referring to the Catalyst when I talked of a Deus Ex Machina, I was talking about the Crucible. If we look at Mass Effect as one story, the Crucible is a plot device introduced in the third act with no build-up or foreshadowing and which only exists for the purpose of wrapping up the plot without an explanation as to how it does so. This is a pretty good definition of the term.

Incorrect, and a straw man argument.

Sure, let's examine Mass Effect as one single piece of work. It doesn't follow the stereotypical, oversimplified "three-act" structure. In fact, very few professional works do -- it just happens to be people who lack understanding of drama and structure that mistake entire acts for singular plot points, or misunderstand multiple acts as one. The trilogy is best-understood in the five-act structure: introduction, conceit, turn, spiral, and climax. It's been the gold standard in storytelling since Shakespeare.

Act 1, the introduction, establishes the world, existing conflicts, and dramatis personae. That's a straightforward proposition: that's ME1, from Eden Prime all the way to Virmire. The player learns about the universe, the species in it, the state of galactic affairs, and the shadowy impending Reaper threat.

Act 2, the conceit, is the complication and conflict by which the dramatic question is introduced. This is the source of momentum for the plot of a single story. In the stereotypical three-act structure, this is mistaken as the first plot point as it's usually a pretty short act. In this case, it's pretty clearly marked by the Sovereign dialogue introducing the Reapers properly and establishing their identity and the true nature of the threat, and introducing the dramatic question of "can Shepard stop the Reapers?". It's also important to note that in ME1, while Sovereign is destroyed the dramatic question remains, which indicates the end of ME1 is the closure of the second act.

Act 3, the turn, is the act which further complicates the conflict, focuses the dramatic question and generally foreshadows the means by which it will be answered. This is the "second act" of the three-act structure. In this case, it's the entirety of ME2 (more on that in a bit), and ME3 from the beginning to Priority: Palaven. The Reapers arrive, the Crucible plans are discovered, and Shepard finds a starting point in unifying the organic species against the Reapers.

Act 4, the spiral, is the act in which the dramatis personae are set in place for the climax, and the motive force for the climax is established. This is the "rising action" of the three-act structure, and again typically a very short act as it serves as segue between turn and climax. Again, this is easily identified in Mass Effect as a singular story: Priority: Sur'Kesh to Priority: Horizon. This is when the Crucible is built, the organic species' alliance is built, and Cerberus' role in the greater narrative is revealed, setting the stage for the climax.

Act 5, the climax, is pretty self-explanatory. In ME as one narrative, that's Cerberus HQ to Earth. The momentum established in the fourth act carries the plot to its final fruition. Mind you, in five-act structure denouement and conclusion are encompassed within the fifth act.

ME2 has no real place in this, because if you are to examine ME as a singular story, it's a subplot and only indirectly related to the dramatic question. The only real development there, that the Collectors were building a Reaper to act as Sovereign's surrogate, was introduced and resolved in a self-contained narrative and relegated completely to the third act. So, you're right -- the Crucible is introduced in the third act...of a five-act structure.

 

[Zombie Badger]

snip.

The problem I have with considering Mass Effect's overall story as structured as anything else than a story in three parts is that I genuinely don't believe that the overall story was planned further than the first game when the first game was made, and that any plans for a third game made during the second's production was jettisoned with the writer swap. So many major plot points in the second and third games are never forshadowed prior to their introduction - The Illusive Man, Cerberus being anything other than an evil organisation you need to stop, the collectors, the crucible etc. It really doesn't feel as though any overall structure was planned, especially given that the entire second game's story is superfluous in the long run.

 

[Azure23]

ME2 was really... just a non-event.
Why did we have to work for Cerberus? In ME1 they're portrayed, basically, as unanimously evil and only out for the aquisition of power. They claim to work for humanity, but are just killing people and running experiments on them. We're never SHOWN they're not evil at all. Thus, in ME2 it's like "You're working for Cerberus now, deal with it." and the game just expects you to go along with it. All you can do is ***** about it in some dialog options.

Because of this, I never once trusted The Illusive Man or any Cerberus person. Keeping this in mind, what exactly was the Illusive Man's plan? You just resurrected someone who was, for all intents and purposes, the number one person who was wrecking all your plans in the first game, and you expect him to just comply with all your orders now? Why the hell would you do that? You rebuild the Normandy, at great cost to yourself, and just say "Welp, go get 'em Shepard!" and just expect everything to work out in your favour? How, in any way, was The Illusive Man surprised when you choose to blow up the collector ship with the reaper in it instead of sterilize it and give it to him?

Note that if you have the ?Sole Survivor? background, then Cerberus is responsible for the life-changing backstory events that led to you undergoing severe physical and mental trauma and killed your entire unit. You can?t even bring this up during your chat with Illusive Man?

I'm pretty sure that the Sole Survivor's background was that his unit got slaughtered in a thresher maw attack on Akuze, that's what it says on the wiki and i'm pretty sure Jacob or Miranda mention it during the debriefing when you leave the tutorial. Just sayin.

As for the rest of your problems? I totally understand what you're saying. I didn't play the first (PS3 owner) so It wasn't quite so weird for me to work for Cerberus, all I knew is that they had a pretty bad name among aliens as terrorists and space racists. But hey, collectors. However, while playing the third I was realizing just how totally fucked Cerberus was and beginning to understand why everyone reacted with such vitriol when they found out you worked for them in the second game.

On an unrelated note; why was Ashely such a dick to me on Horizon? I mean, she's a space racist, so is cerberus, they should get along fine.

 

[Azure23]

I was not referring to the Catalyst when I talked of a Deus Ex Machina, I was talking about the Crucible. If we look at Mass Effect as one story, the Crucible is a plot device introduced in the third act with no build-up or foreshadowing and which only exists for the purpose of wrapping up the plot without an explanation as to how it does so. This is a pretty good definition of the term.

Incorrect, and a straw man argument.

Sure, let's examine Mass Effect as one single piece of work. It doesn't follow the stereotypical, oversimplified "three-act" structure. In fact, very few professional works do -- it just happens to be people who lack understanding of drama and structure that mistake entire acts for singular plot points, or misunderstand multiple acts as one. The trilogy is best-understood in the five-act structure: introduction, conceit, turn, spiral, and climax. It's been the gold standard in storytelling since Shakespeare.

Act 1, the introduction, establishes the world, existing conflicts, and dramatis personae. That's a straightforward proposition: that's ME1, from Eden Prime all the way to Virmire. The player learns about the universe, the species in it, the state of galactic affairs, and the shadowy impending Reaper threat.

Act 2, the conceit, is the complication and conflict by which the dramatic question is introduced. This is the source of momentum for the plot of a single story. In the stereotypical three-act structure, this is mistaken as the first plot point as it's usually a pretty short act. In this case, it's pretty clearly marked by the Sovereign dialogue introducing the Reapers properly and establishing their identity and the true nature of the threat, and introducing the dramatic question of "can Shepard stop the Reapers?". It's also important to note that in ME1, while Sovereign is destroyed the dramatic question remains, which indicates the end of ME1 is the closure of the second act.

Act 3, the turn, is the act which further complicates the conflict, focuses the dramatic question and generally foreshadows the means by which it will be answered. This is the "second act" of the three-act structure. In this case, it's the entirety of ME2 (more on that in a bit), and ME3 from the beginning to Priority: Palaven. The Reapers arrive, the Crucible plans are discovered, and Shepard finds a starting point in unifying the organic species against the Reapers.

Act 4, the spiral, is the act in which the dramatis personae are set in place for the climax, and the motive force for the climax is established. This is the "rising action" of the three-act structure, and again typically a very short act as it serves as segue between turn and climax. Again, this is easily identified in Mass Effect as a singular story: Priority: Sur'Kesh to Priority: Horizon. This is when the Crucible is built, the organic species' alliance is built, and Cerberus' role in the greater narrative is revealed, setting the stage for the climax.

Act 5, the climax, is pretty self-explanatory. In ME as one narrative, that's Cerberus HQ to Earth. The momentum established in the fourth act carries the plot to its final fruition. Mind you, in five-act structure denouement and conclusion are encompassed within the fifth act.

ME2 has no real place in this, because if you are to examine ME as a singular story, it's a subplot and only indirectly related to the dramatic question. The only real development there, that the Collectors were building a Reaper to act as Sovereign's surrogate, was introduced and resolved in a self-contained narrative and relegated completely to the third act. So, you're right -- the Crucible is introduced in the third act...of a five-act structure.

somebody give this guy a cookie, or a hug or something.

Thank you for stating so eloquently what I've been unsuccessfully trying to explain to my hater friends. Now I can just have them go read your post.

 

[Monster_user]

Ont: Mass Effect 1:... A story that I tell you, isn't all that good. The entire fucking plot is just Saren finding a way to get to a place he already could get to, it's just dumb.

LOL!

I was so wrapped up in the rest of the story, and the plot, that I never even noticed. ME1 is still one of my favorite games, even with that little bit of nonsense.

...the Crucible is a plot device introduced... ...without an explanation as to how it does so.

...So, you're right -- the Crucible is introduced in the third act...of a five-act structure.

I didn't see where you refuted his point. You merely made it more correct, from two different viewpoints. "Part 3", and "Act 3".

But, this is a thread about which one was the best of the series. Lets not focus on the worst elements, especially since the thread was intended to focus on ME2, not ME3.

------------------------------------

I agree with those who prefered ME1. In ME1 you were chasing/racing against Saren. In ME2 you were looking for a Relay, and when you find it you just goof off for a while, even though the fate of the galaxy is at stake.

ME3 did pretty much the same thing, but the stakes were high enough, and the opposition strong enough, that it felt necessary. In ME2, especially since you don't have to be at full strength to complete the mission, it doesn't feel necessary to rally support.

Sure there are casualties, and this impacts ME3, but that is how I played it. Though I did hate not getting to go through all of the content after the ending, so I went back and did it correctly the second time.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

I enjoyed all 3 but I feel 1 was the weakest although it was still a good introduction to the lore. Although I wish everyone would stop talking about Mass Effect, I still find myself commenting anyway.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The problem I have with considering Mass Effect's overall story as structured as anything else than a story in three parts is that I genuinely don't believe that the overall story was planned further than the first game when the first game was made, and that any plans for a third game made during the second's production was jettisoned with the writer swap. So many major plot points in the second and third games are never forshadowed prior to their introduction - The Illusive Man, Cerberus being anything other than an evil organisation you need to stop, the collectors, the crucible etc. It really doesn't feel as though any overall structure was planned, especially given that the entire second game's story is superfluous in the long run.

Then why are you criticizing the trilogy as being something you damn well know, and just admitted, isn't? It's like saying the pork chop you're eating is the worst steak you've ever had, then when someone points out to you it's a pork chop, saying "of course it's a pork chop! Therefore it's the worst steak I've ever had!".

I didn't see where you refuted his point. You merely made it more correct, from two different viewpoints. "Part 3", and "Act 3".

Except, by conflating those two terms he's grossly misrepresenting the trilogy and its overarching plot structure. By saying what he did, the way he did, he's implying the Crucible is only introduced at the end of Mass Effect 3. It wasn't. It was introduced at the beginning of Mass Effect 3 which even under his apparent conception of a three-act structure is still a faulty statement, especially being that Mass Effect 3 was not a short game.

 

[Zombie Badger]

snip.

I should clarify, I was not referring to Mass Effect's structure as a classical three-act structure, but saying that the only way that I see that this series can be seen as structured is with each game as a separate act, with its own rising action, climax and falling action, because overall the story is structured so badly that it has no other overall structure. The games do desperately try to create an overall structure but fail at it, so the only act divisions left is in the beginning and ends of each game.

 

[Jenny Jones]

Trilogy? There's only one Mass Effect game, I have a permanent block in my mind about 2 other games though...

Liked in ME1:
Story made sense and felt relevant.
One decision that actually had a massive impact on the story.
The actual upgrades to weapons (though poorly implemented).
NO THERMAL CLIPS!!

Did not like in ME1:
Upgrading weapons and armour was horrible (though the upgrades themselves were good).
Useful skill milestones further apart than needed.
Mako maps were boring.
A lot of repeating areas.

Liked in ME2:
Grunt.
Legion.
More emphasis on the squad and their lives/impending death.
Ability to get an extra ability from squad mates.
Upgrades to the Normandy (though I would have liked more use than just the end).
Side missions felt like real missions and the story of them were much better.
Grunt.

Did not Like in ME2:
Story was largely irrelevant.
Some decisions from the 1st game seemed irrelevant.
Abilities seemed dumbed down.
Less skill trees so less variety really.
Ruined the infiltrator in my opinion.
THERMAL CLIPS!
The Cerberus thing but it wasn't a big niggle till 3.
Planet scanning

Liked in ME3:
More advanced skill tree though I preferred the abilities in ME1.
Sense of impending doom.
Collecting poké...I mean war assets to help with the wwaaarrrgghhhh!
Garrus became my best bud for life =)
I'm really struggling now but I guess the actual story wasn't that bad.
Oh, planet scanning is dead!

Did not like in ME3:
No Grunt on my squad.
Ashley...definitely dolled up for the guys.
Almost nothing you did in any of the other games had any lasting meaning.
Where do my upgrades keep going?
Almost too streamlined for me, I liked it more RPG.
Very boring hub worlds and areas.
Legion and his "involvement".
Paid for DLC that feels like it really is integral to the story (looking at you leviathan).
Multiplayer was needed to get sufficient war assets for all endings, so we were lied to about that originally.
Lame ending, I really cannot express how disappointed I was. I mean it's a massive space battle between almost god robots and the whole bloody galaxy!?! How can you mess that up!
No Grunt in my squad or Kasumi.

Winner = ME1 as it breaks even on negative and positives.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I should clarify, I was not referring to Mass Effect's structure as a classical three-act structure...

Please proceed (emphasis mine)...

...but saying that the only way that I see that this series can be seen as structured is with each game as a separate act, with its own rising action, climax and falling action...

Yes, you did. In the post in which you anted into this vein of conversation...

If we look at Mass Effect as one story...

...and again in the very next sentence of the post to which I'm responding. You want to examine a trilogy as if each game in the series were its own act in one story. I'm not the best with math, but I still understand that a trilogy has three installments, and if we examine a trilogy exactly how you just said you want it examined, and I'll be clear with this and pray I'm not belaboring the point,

THAT IS A THREE-ACT STRUCTURE.​

Are we on the same page? Because I hope we're on the same page, because if we purely for the sake of argument follow your "amended" (being charitable) logic, then we're looking at a nine act structure (three games of three acts apiece, three by three being nine) in which the Crucible is introduced in Act VII. Which is still a far gorram cry from how you initially characterized it.

 

[Zombie Badger]

snip.

Sorry, I misread the definition of act I found.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Sorry, I misread the definition of act I found.

Ah, then I found the source of the miscommunication. No worries as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with you to a certain extent, that BioWare would have done much better for themselves had they written a story more deeply-nested in lore as already established, but on the other hand I had no illusion moving into ME3 that, also based upon the lore they'd already established and BioWare's general trend in writing, the game's plot would be resolved via MacGuffin.

But, in that I believe the error lies with ME2 rather than ME3, in that BioWare spent an entire game on what amounted to a sub-plot with a touch of foreshadowing instead of moving the dramatic question and primary plot forward. The entire thing would have been easily rectified -- and raised some damn interesting implications that could have been further explored in ME3 -- had the Crucible schematics been hidden away on the Collector base, rather than Mars, or even had the Collector base been a Crucible prototype or somesuch. That said, introducing the plot device at the beginning of ME3 is tolerable, if not uninspired.

 

[Zombie Badger]

Ah, then I found the source of the miscommunication. No worries as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with you to a certain extent, that BioWare would have done much better for themselves had they written a story more deeply-nested in lore as already established, but on the other hand I had no illusion moving into ME3 that, also based upon the lore they'd already established and BioWare's general trend in writing, the game's plot would be resolved via MacGuffin.

But, in that I believe the error lies with ME2 rather than ME3, in that BioWare spent an entire game on what amounted to a sub-plot with a touch of foreshadowing instead of moving the dramatic question and primary plot forward. The entire thing would have been easily rectified -- and raised some damn interesting implications that could have been further explored in ME3 -- had the Crucible schematics been hidden away on the Collector base, rather than Mars, or even had the Collector base been a Crucible prototype or somesuch. That said, introducing the plot device at the beginning of ME3 is tolerable, if not uninspired.

Fair enough, I can definitely see where you're coming from, even if I don't quite agree. Part of the reason I have the views that I do is that after ME3 the lead writer of the first two games Drew Karpyshyn gave an interview in which he gave his at the time fairly vague plans for what would have been ME3 had he not been removed from the series shortly before the end of ME2's production. It can be found here: http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/19/mass-effects-original-writer-discusses-alternate-ending-plans/ This says to me that Mass Effect 2 was creating foreshadowing for the planned sequel (which was scrapped when he left) particularly involving dark energy, but that it came to naught once the new lead writers wanted to tell their story. After the ending fiasco many fans latched onto this as evidence that the sequel could have been much better, but given how vague it was it could have become anything.

 

[beez]

I don't think the ending was particularly bad, I accept it. It would've looked pretty honest if they didn't announce a sequel. The thing I see as a downside to ME3, that shaped the whole game is the forced multiplayer, war-asset and smartphone game thing. It sorta reminds me of Dead Space3's "DLCs". I think tho that all the rage, emotion that the ending caused showed how deeply the series has affected people who sat down and entered the ME universe. I loved 1, loved 2, I don't know if I loved 3, that much, but that's because I was really occupied with personal things the time it came out, but the momentum of the first 2 lasted until the end of the third. Not all games are equal obviously.

It was supposed to be a trilogy, so I'm mostly not OK with adding sequels to it. I think these kinds of stories have a bigger impact if you don't beat it 'till it's a dead horse. The 'too much of a good thing' scenario really applies here.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Fair enough, I can definitely see where you're coming from, even if I don't quite agree. Part of the reason I have the views that I do is that after ME3 the lead writer of the first two games Drew Karpyshyn gave an interview in which he gave his at the time fairly vague plans for what would have been ME3 had he not been removed from the series shortly before the end of ME2's production. It can be found here: http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/19/mass-effects-original-writer-discusses-alternate-ending-plans/ This says to me that Mass Effect 2 was creating foreshadowing for the planned sequel (which was scrapped when he left) particularly involving dark energy, but that it came to naught once the new lead writers wanted to tell their story. After the ending fiasco many fans latched onto this as evidence that the sequel could have been much better, but given how vague it was it could have become anything.

As I understand this interview, it was just an idea at some point, but they, himself included, decided against it: ?Again it?s very vague and not fleshed out, it was something we considered but we ended up going in a different direction.?

 

[Psych the Psycho]

I'm surprised at the HUGE responds to this, a one of the things I noticed is that quite a few people think Mass Effect 2's story is pointless. I disagree, the story is focused on your squad, think of it like a war film where the characters are going on a suicide mission. As for the main quest, your mission is to stop the Collectors to save human colonies, like the Arrival DLC, it's about delaying the Reapers to buy to galaxy time to prepare for war.

Also, here's an article about what ME3 did wrong:

http://www.koobismo.com/2013/08/me3-analysis-what-makes-this-good-game-bad/

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

As I understand this interview, it was just an idea at some point, but they, himself included, decided against it: ?Again it?s very vague and not fleshed out, it was something we considered but we ended up going in a different direction.?

Not to mention, it invokes more lore-contradiction, "plot hole", and bit of circular logic the game we got actually did. Anyone who actually read the ME1 codex entry on element zero could have debunked this one up one wall and down the other -- "dark energy" being the titular "mass effect" in the first place (apply an electrical charge to element zero and it creates a dark energy field within which the mass of objects is altered relative to those outside the field), biotics only have one difference from mechanical use of eezo which is that organics use it (and in fact, little to no difference exists between weaponized biotics and mechanical eezo-based weaponry -- Javelin Missiles and Warp, for example), Reapers are bio-mechanical in the first place and have immense mass effect drives and cores.

Then you have the question of why Reapers would ignore undeveloped biotic species (i.e. the Asari), why the Reapers would just leave eezo and eezo-based tech lying around everywhere for mass discovery and consumption, and/or carry out a cycle of extinction instead of stamp out brushfires as they arise. Even if you buy into the relays at this massive "trap" the Reapers laid out, one Reaper or a couple of them (for the sake of redundancy) would be perfectly capable of destroying an entire civilization in their infancy of discovering the mass effect -- just have like five Reapers napping at the Citadel, and when a mass relay gets activated they just eradicate the species that did it, appropriate all their discovered eezo, then go back to naptime.