EDIT: Warning - I make frequent use of potentially offensive language, including terms such as "f**k", "s**t" and "Russel Crowe". I also don't take the time to introduce myself. If you're offended by a lack of social niceties, I suggest you avoid reading my blog, watching HBO, and/or meeting Russel Crowe. The guy really is a fuck hole.
I suppose it sets a bad precedent to make your first blog entry a bit of a Negative Nancy cheese and whine festival, but nothing has motivated me towards a profound desire to bitch on the internet like Mass Effect 2. Well, the third Matrix movie excluded. And Russel Crowe. And the Transformers films (the second one especially: May I please go and poke hot pins in my eyes instead?)... Okay, so few things have motivated me to bitch on the internet like Massive Disappointment 2. And that was a bad pun because the first one wasn't a massive disappointment, so it should be Massive Disappointment 1: AKA Mass Effect 2. Only that would be confusing.
This was not a good introduction. This is perhaps more helpful: WILL
OBVIOUSLY CONTAIN SPOILERS. It will also, probably, be an epic wall of text. Apologies.
With that cleared up, it will probably be much easier to persist with my inane prose if I just cut to the chase and list the reasons I'm all motivated to hate, so I'll just do that:
NOTE: For any who care, this will be a multi-parter, partially to make it easier to digest, and partially to make it easier to write.
1. The story. LOL. Where did it go? I have 40 hours of side missions, describing such thrilling escapades as bringing an Asari back to her poet Krogan lover, and BUYING FUCKING FOOD, and then 2 hours of half assed "Saron has attacked Eden Prime and wiped out everyblahblah". I mean, "The Harvesters have attacked some other human colony I don't care about and done some stuff and yawn." The quality of the side quests in ME:2 certainly shits all over the generic template missions from ME:1, but ME:2 totally lacks the 'call to arms' - strangers united in the urgent persuit of a common enemy. ME:1's story will not go down as the most profound written word in human history, but it was at least
present, and often driven. ME:2 feels like a lazy and half-assed rehash, which makes it extremely difficult to care about the characters who are participating with me. Bringing me to the next point....
2. The characters. GTFO. In ME:1, every character, with the exception of Wrex, joins your crew with a direct connection to the main story arc. The 'common enemy' aspect of the story makes it easy to form bonds with your shipmates. You're all working together to achieve the same result, and you all have some invested interest in success. In ME:2, you meet a few guys and they... "like... sure, we'll come along ~shrug~ whatever, I had nothing better to do, we'd love to help you feed fish to Krogan". To be fair, following the dialogue trees with these new crew members can offer funny, frightening, or poignant insight into their character, and as I said in the previous point, their side missions are orders of magnitude better than any of the ME:1 optional content. But it all still feels... superfluous. I wanted an option to ask every character "WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE?". I felt that Jacob, though being a bit of a douche, was an easy character to connect with. Miranda took a little longer, but her relationship with my dude Shephard was one of the more interesting ones in the game. Other than these two, the only connection I made with any other character was with Tali - shared history, and her insightful side mission really improving that relationship. Martin Sheen's giant prick-tease, telling you where all of your old crew members are just so you can slowly realise you won't be picking most of them up, was frustrating as hell. I wanted characters with whom I felt a bond, not just a nicely designed, nicely voiced, motley crew of weirdos that added nothing to the story by being present other than an opportunity to say "fuck" and officially stamp ME:2 as the "darker" game in the trilogy. YAWN.
3. The combat. Okay, so the combat is better, right? Well... kind of. It certainly feels better. Except for the repetetive level design (left path, right path, blocked in the middle, waves of enemies, rinse and repeat). And the fact that everything is on a grid, like we're in 2001 - crates? REALLY? And the complete lack of any RPG elements, so no immediate reward of loot and experience for kills. And the predictable-as-clockwork pattern to the enemies. And the ammo... Actually, let's stop on that one for a second. Firstly, the exposition: We now use thermal clips because it stops our weapons overheating, and this is the big scientific advance in eleventy-billionth-century weaponry? AMMO?! /clap. Of course, it's far better to have finite ammunition reserves and be forced to run for your life because you can't shoot back, than to sit tight for 15 seconds while your weapon cools down. Also, how the FUCK did a colony from a crash landing, isolated for a decade, also get hold of this 'cutting edge' technology? WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF AMMO? Bioware: Did you want to force me to use all of my guns against my play-style and preferences? Did you roll a die and decide that's the big advance in gameplay you were making for this game? Whatever, you're ALL DUMB. Now, let's talk guns. No loot, just randomly click shit to get a message telling you that you have a new weapon available - a weapon that has no stats. How do you tell if this weapon is better than the last? You equip it, that's what you do. And then you're stuck with it through waves and waves and waves of the same enemy until you can get to another magic locker which teleports all of your weapons to your current location and is somehow better for selling the gameplay than just carrying them all with you. The only good addition to gun mechanics was giving us a BFG-equivalent, even if it does do the same amount of damage as slapping someone with a wet pancake.
[That's all for now, I'm late for work. For those of you who are riveted to my bloggingness-of-awesome, Part 2 will be along soon]
It looks like you're trying hard to be negative. Maybe its just me...
Welcome to Destructoid?
Most of your other arguments or either straw men, or you just fail to support your assertions. Why is the story a forced rehash? Outside of basic good guys hunting bad guys themes, what else do the stories share?
Who says the team members join for no reason? As far as I can tell you seem to think that a personal vendetta is the only realistic motivation anyone could ever have for fighting a powerful and evil enemy. You already admitted that you're just whining about not getting all of your old crew back, so why make up other reasons?
At first I really thought that Mass Effect 2 was great, then it started to dawn on me that it was extremely limited in actual exploration of the environments you could travel to. I got tired of scanning environments for safes to bypass or datapads to hack, then seeing a "mission over" screen. About 1/2 of the way into the game I just felt like I was grinding to get to the end just to be done with it. I played through it once and got all but 3 achievements I think... it really just felt like Mass Effect Lite mixed with a little Gears of War Lite, which was cool at first, but then I realized how ultimately hollow it really was. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it just seemed like it was lacking soul.
Also... turns out planet scanning isn't actually as fun as driving the Mako around, but maybe that's just me. I thought it was pretty bad ass in the first game to drive around in the Mako on the moon and see Earth in the distance. Fighting giant Thresher Maws was pretty awesome too... I would have liked to have seen that expanded upon in ME2.
Personally, I think Dragon Age was a far better Bioware RPG that had a much more entertaining story, more complex dialogue choices and outcomes, greater complexity in its characters, and overall... just felt more like a believable, cohesive world than Mass Effect 2's universe.
@ Ubersuntzu: Good points! Let me try to respond, understanding that this is an opinion piece and I'll try to use as much unbiased reasoning as possible...
"Why is the story a forced rehash? Outside of basic good guys hunting bad guys themes, what else do the stories share? "
The story, at the surface, appears extremely similar in structure to the first game. An alien species wipes out a human colony, you investigate, and begin a merry chase around the galaxy collecting a motley crew of allies whilst under the 'command' of an apparent utilitarian overlord(s). The universe is in much the same state it was at the start of ME:1, rather than the end. The council suddenly don't believe in Reapers again? Everyone has just gone back to living life as normal? We're back to square one. There's a handful of interesting reveals in ME:2, but not enough progression of the Reaper threat to feel like a true 'Act 2'. The inciting incident is - in signature - the same. The call to arms is, for all intents and purposes, the same. There is no sub-arc act structure to assist in the feeling of a progressive narrative. Instead there's just a hand full of events which, though interesting, don't really serve to improve my understanding of the narrative or the immensity of the threat. The reapers are more aloof in Act 2 than they were in Act 1, and this feels like a step away from the narrative rather than progressing it. I'm not sure that I can justify it any more than that beyond saying it feels very much like an interesting, and extremely long, side quest.
"Who says the team members join for no reason? As far as I can tell you seem to think that a personal vendetta is the only realistic motivation anyone could ever have for fighting a powerful and evil enemy. You already admitted that you're just whining about not getting all of your old crew back, so why make up other reasons?"
Absolutely, this is entirely personal. I found it much easier to emotionally connect with characters who shared my goals and motives, than to characters who seem to join just because they have nothing better to do.
That summed it up really well. It did just feel like an extremely long side quest to gather new characters for the real fight against the Reapers. It did seem odd that the story pushed the Reapers out of the picture and thrust a different threat into their place. I know they were supposedly being controlled by the Reapers, but still... it seemed odd. Hopefully we'll actually get to use the characters we joined up with in ME2 when we play through ME3... otherwise the second game will have felt like a major waste of time. I just think it was an odd direction for the story to go and I don't think it added much to it. I think it made things more convoluted if anything.
I do think it would have helped to have the support of your entire crew from the first game... it seemed pretty silly that someone like Ashley Williams would just blow you off after going through all of that shit with you just because you are working with Cerberus. I felt sort of ripped off that I didn't get to hang with my old crew again. Maybe even just the choice to have your old teammates would have been nice... pick and choose from them. I can see why they didn't do it that way, but I don't really agree with it.
I mean think about it... Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi would have sucked if only Luke came back and they replaced Leia, Chewbacca, R2D2, C3PO, and Han Solo and then just featured them in cameos.
Anyway, I agree with you 100%.
That's why they use them.
See? Perfectly logical.
Quick tip: Perhaps making an introduction post as your first blog would have been better than a rant with FUCK thrown in every once in a while for good measure.
BTW Learn to paragraph. White space is your friend. I have seen worse, but break up those large blocks of text. The front page stories are pretty good examples of this.
Do you not get the irony of calling someone who disagrees with you a 'fanboy'? It's one step short of yelling "ONLY A IDOIT WOULD DISAGREE".
I'm not trying to draw anything negative out at all. I'm quite obviously - so obviously that it shouldn't require me pointing out how obvious it in fact is - stating my opinions on why I think Mass Effect 2 is massively overrated. I'm deeply apologetic (and that was sarcasm, which is also so obvious that it shouldn't require me pointing out how obvious it in fact is) that my opinion doesn't meet your approval.
By all means, if you disagree I would enjoy hearing your reasons why. But putting your hands on your hips and pouting doesn't really help now, does it?
@ Sir Legendhead: You're welcome!
I appreciate that you wrote this for a first entry. I seldom read people's first entries unless they have a nice hook like "I'm an angry lesbian from Taiwan, this is why I play games." Otherwise it's just generic stuff, "I like this game, I'm from here, etc." Also, there are no hard and fast rules about entries here, only social norms. For sheep.
But I enjoyed the game despite that, and just had fun with it. And I liked the characters more than the ME:1 cast. Really never liked Ashley, and Liara was always pretty dull. It didn't bother me at all that they just stayed out of the way (and in Ashley's case, sent me whiny letters).
You're polite and friendly though, and you at least expressed some of your own thoughts, so instead of rolling my eyes at you, I will assure you, I don't care enough about blogging to have a need for an 'eye catching first post'. In fact, the post is the symptom, not the cause. Beyond blogging an international holiday for the sake of showing off some photos, and a few random art related pieces, I've never blogged anything else in my life.
Mass Effect 2 disappointed me SO MUCH, it inspired me to rush to the interweb and rant about it.
I did not sit at my desk chewing my thumb and wondering "Hm... what can I pretend to think for the sake of scoring eFriends?"
You admitted the combat was better, the set pieces are in my opinion, better. Try it on insane. It's a bit more cerebral in terms of combat. The story seemed short, but it was riveting. I don't really think good guy chases bad guy could really be called a rehash, unless you've never liked a story in a game ever. It IS, afterall, a sequel. It expands on the same universe, with similar characters.
There is an explanation for everybody going on as normal, and it is the same as in the first, lies. Which I found perfectly acceptable as a story element, because the foundation had be set.
I went in with high hopes, and came out with higher hopes for ME3. There is no doubt, I've been disappointed in AAA titles (Gears of War... not as good as I was told). This was not the case. I think the only point I would agree on other than RPG elements which I didn't miss enough for it to make me cry and rage on the internet, is people joining your group. But they all had alright stories this time. Last time, half of my team bored me to tears.
I wish I liked it as much as most people. I wish I adored it, as some seem to. But I personally found it failed to live up to expectations in almost every conceivable way.
Visually superb, audio is a hell of a lot better than the first game, and non-story-related dialogue has more substance. These are all really strong point for ME:2. But they don't, for me, outweigh those things I've begun listing which I consider to be failures - often only minor ones, but which in my opinion exceeded a critical mass that took those flaws from being easily ignored, to incredibly frustrating.
Also, pro-tip: Next time, before trying to appear as though you have special insight into a topic, try google. I suggest starting with "Joseph Campbell" and the monomyth (the book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" is a very interesting read, if not quite as respected today as it was when first released). A work more appropriate to this specific argument would be "The Hero's Journey" by Phil Cousineau. Also, since the trilogy is based on the three-Act formula favored by modern cinema, and by your own admission you're calling out the intention of a trilogy as vindication for Mass Effect 2's structure, you should read "Film Art" by David Bordwell / Kristen Thompson. It's had many revised editions over the years, and is still considered one of the seminal works on cinema art.
I wrote my thesis on storytelling, and its role in traditional and contemporary cultures. Just an FYI.
1) No one ever believed in the reapers except for your team and the military guy you have the option of placing on the council (and of course Saren).
2) The characters in the second are a lot more fleshed out and actually have a strong personality
3) Weapons were are a lot better to use in the second (I thought the whole combat system sucked, but thats mainly due to them nerfing the biotics which was my class)
Frankly, I like pretty much everything that was added to the game. The things that really aggravated me was the removal of the Mako, completely changing how biotics act (all recharge times linked and many were changed from area of effect to singular targets, making what was useful almost useless), the removal of a lot of the RPG stuff (1st had tons of skills you could improve in smaller increments allowing you to customize more, less selection in weaponry/cusomization, etc) and changing from just overheating weapons to ammo clips (seems completely retarded that they'd make it so you can now run out of ammo, yes, maybe have a "clip" that can be replaced to speed up cooling, but default to the overheat & cool if you run out of "clips").
I suggest you have another go at the first to do a proper comparison of the two (also its interesting to see how different choices can affect the game such as saving/destroying the council).