All I can say is that I see a major difference between "Broke the franchise" and "ME2 wasn't a good second entry in a trilogy". If you think they are the same, then we simply have different views on the subject.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Shamus Young: Mass Effect 2 Broke the Franchise
- Thread starter Candescence
- Start date
All I can say is that I see a major difference between "Broke the franchise" and "ME2 wasn't a good second entry in a trilogy". If you think they are the same, then we simply have different views on the subject.
So...did you actually watch the video? Because you seem to be far more interested in debating the tone of the title than the content of the video.
They are correct. The title is silly and hyperbolic, and the plea at the beginning to consider how hyperbolic the internet can be rings hollow next to it. It sets an unproductive tone. This is not "tone policing", that is a pretty silly use of the term honestly.
SofNascimento has also thoughtfully and articulately discussed the content of the video many times ITT. Have you? Or are you just coming in to argue about this one point?
I've read their blog posts about the trilogy and the Ages of Bioware (years ago though). I'm assuming the video is a repetition of those points. Regardless, I think that title is impossible to defend, on account of saying ME2 broke the franchise is incompatible with reality. I do think the points in the blog post are well made and I'm a particular fan of some of them about ME3. But for me, the title completely undermines the video.
This is sort of a chicken and egg scenario. There are definitely ways ME2 could have flowed better into ME3 and there are definitely ways ME3 could have better followed up on ME2. The larger narrative issues regarding ME2 were brought up even before ME3 were released and ME3 could have fixed those complaints by using stuff like the Collector Base or the Dark Matter subplot in meaningful ways. Instead ME3 doesn't use a lot of established plot threads and is really detached from ME2 leaving ME2 dangling in the wind in a number of ways.
None of this 'breaks the franchise', if fans are getting upset with whatever terminology, but it did end up hurting the larger ME plot and critical response from fans of the games. ME2 signaled the decline of the quality of the large scale narrative inside the ME universe and honestly that's not controversial or a hot take at all. People have been saying that for god knows how long.
None of this 'breaks the franchise', if fans are getting upset with whatever terminology, but it did end up hurting the larger ME plot and critical response from fans of the games. ME2 signaled the decline of the quality of the large scale narrative inside the ME universe and honestly that's not controversial or a hot take at all. People have been saying that for god knows how long.
Your comments thoughout this thread have covered the video content perfectly, absolutely.
No need to even go there with "if fans are getting upset", the criticism of the title being unproductive is reasonable and has nothing to do with being a fan or not.
It also didn't end up hurting the larger plot at all, imo, but rather enriched it in a way that was necessary. I think others have done a good job breaking down why this is ITT.
I believe that there are problems and problems with the trilogy storytelling. Most of them are not exclusive to one game or the other. But there is one problem that stand out, the endings. And these are contained mostly in Priority: Earth, and especially in the Starchild scene. You could argue a lot of ways that the road there could have been smoother and better articulated, but when it comes down to it, when you launch the last mission in the trilogy, all the pieces needed to conclude the story are there. Mainly a way to defeat the Reapers. And no manner how much you change the set up, if the last 10 minutes remained the same, and I'd argue they would remain the same no manner how different ME2 was, the main and most important problem of the trilogy would still exist in full force.
Thanks. And as you mentioned, it's not something that we've not discussed a lot of times before!
I don't think Shamus Young means the franchise is dying and nothing is selling with the title but rather how ME2 significantly damaged the ME narrative and how resultingly ME3 had too much on its plate to dig itself out of the hole.
ME2 didn't hurt the larger plot but it also didn't meaningfully progress it either. ME3 then promptly drops almost everything that could have been used to tie ME2 into the larger narrative and hell, ME3 even conflicts with how Cerberus is depicted in ME2. ME2 built up additional narrative debt and didn't really put pay down much of the existing debt. As people have mentioned, honestly the Crucible should have been introduced in ME2 so that it doesn't feel as lazily introduced as it does into ME3. The problem lies with both ME2 and ME3. ME3 could have had a throwaway line or mission where you find the Crucible plans in the Collector Base or ME2 could have ended with you finding the Crucible plans in the Collector Base.
It's also worth mentioning the suicide mission was a mistake on the part of the developers as being able to kill off everybody and everything made setting up ME3 pretty much impossible due to the raw amount of variations that were at play. The developers even acknowledged how there was just too much stuff they had to account for in ME3.
Last edited:
It's really, really easy to spot the people that find ME2 too precious to criticize in this thread.
It's perfectly fine to have a game that you adore have a critical lens taken to its faults. As a fan of games like Final Fantasy XIII, I should know.
It's perfectly fine to have a game that you adore have a critical lens taken to its faults. As a fan of games like Final Fantasy XIII, I should know.
I don't think anyone who has watched the video or knows what it contains is confused about this, just stating that it is an unproductive place to begin.
It didn't need to meaningfully progress it, but it also actually did do that anyway. This has been covered throughout the thread many times with precise exampels and reasoning so I don't want to go into it again, but if you read my own posts and SofNascimento and a few others, you'll be able to see our arguments for yourself.
Says the person who jumped into call someone out for only concentrating on the title, when all they have done is argue about the title lol.
If you actually read the posts from the people you mean, you'd see they clearly are not against criticism of the game, and even offer their own critiques of it... but, you obviou ly don't actually want to engage with the thread or actually properly discuss this, so it's clear why you didn't discover that yourself.
Just to reinforce this, I'm not against criticism towards ME2. I don't agree with most of them, that's true enough, but there are many that I can at say I understand where they are coming from. But as I mentioned, I simply believe there is a difference between saying ME2 broke the franchise, which is inherently incorrect, and saying ME2 could have been a better middle game to the trilogy, which I disagree with, but believe is a valid point that can be made. The video is doing the latter, but undermines itself with a title that says the former.
He clearly articulates why he feels it broke the story of the franchise. If the story and setup from ME1 was important to you I don't see it as hyperbolic to say that it broke the franchise in general. In any case, just imagine he had titled it "Broke the Story of the Franchise" and I think its fine.
I feel people getting worked up about the title are proving his point from the start of the video.
I feel people getting worked up about the title are proving his point from the start of the video.
Exactly.
Pretty sure everyone here has a few games they consider to be close to perfect in their mind so this is usually another hypocritical position that doesn't help anything. For me, I don't agree with many of the opinions of flaws of ME2, but I can understand why others would have them.
Many people here consider BotW close to perfection, whereas I don't. That is perfectly okay.
No, his title is the very thing that he is complaining about. I have no idea why some of your are even arguing this, it is unproductive and not reasonable. The arguments in the video are mostly fair imo, and I can understand why they're held even if I disagree, but it was a n unproductive position to begin likely chosen because of the nature of the YT algorithm which is understandable but doesn't change the impact. Stating this is not hyperbolic or any of the stuff he was calling out so I have no idea why you are suggesting it is. The
the irony here is that what you are doing is more in line with all that stuff, hyperbole... No one is getting work up about it, lol, we';re having a conversation.
I've read them and I strongly disagree with them. There were absolutely ways of having the Collectors be more tied to the main narrative of the trilogy instead of being the time wasting space they currently are, which really is the main narrative problem of ME2 (that and also the Collectors and Harbinger were very bad villains in general).
That's perfectly fair, was just pointing out we've been over this so no need to go in circles. Agree to disagree.
For what it's worth, the article appears to be a word-for-word distillation of the video, for those (like me) who don't care to sit through a 20+ minute video.
By the by, this discourse re: the title is nuts. The title is inflammatory (I guess? If you're really into ME2?), but it's a reasonable distillation of his argument. See this:
That reads like "broke the franchise" to me. The specifics are available higher up in the piece. No one is obligated to agree, but the argument is there.
By the by, this discourse re: the title is nuts. The title is inflammatory (I guess? If you're really into ME2?), but it's a reasonable distillation of his argument. See this:
That reads like "broke the franchise" to me. The specifics are available higher up in the piece. No one is obligated to agree, but the argument is there.
If you honestly cannot understand how the tone of the title is unproductive, then I don't know what to say. It is clickbaity and unnecessary (for the discussion, necessary for the algorithm though unfortunately). There is nothing nuts about that.
That's somewhat wrong. The stuff with Mordin, Legion, Grunt, and Jack are used in ME3 to resolve the Reaper plot. Hell, most of the suicide squad are used in ME3 to resolve the Reaper stuff. The problem is the Collectors don't. The Human Reaper stuff isn't really used or have any meaning in ME3 and the Collector Base doesn't have any significant value. Also good god why the hell was Javik ever considered as DLC??? The Javik stuff could have more meaningfully tied into the Collectors. Fucking EA.
I am so confused - really, I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "unproductive" here. Are you saying ME2 fans are emotionally hijacked by the insult to a treasured game, to the point where it derails discussion? Because that's kinda weird, and not really on the author. The title means what it says, and the piece backs it up - read the passage I quoted. He's really arguing that it broke the franchise.
The point is that it didn't. Mass Effect 2 was an extremely successful game and that only created bigger expectations for ME3. That's the opposite of breaking a franchise. ME3, even with its awful ending, which has nothing to do with ME2, also didn't break the franchise. To the point that years later EA released the Legendary Edition and people went back to the trilogy once again. That's not what a broken franchise looks like. What the author is doing is, incorrectly as I see it, arguing that ME2 didn't serve as a good middle ground for a trilogy, and that it didn't advanced the plot and made ME3 a harder game to made.
Honestly confused too ... but the fact that you're steering it into " ME2 fans are emotionally hijacked by the insult" is really ridiculous, so I don't want to engage with this any more.
He doesn't present a good argument for the franchise being broken. He presents a good argument for the narrative failing in places, and that 2 causes issues that 3 couldn't resolve, and I can see why he'd think that even if I disagree. It does not align with this title at all, though, which is there just to serve as clickbait.
If the points in the video support the title then it isn't hyperbolic. I have definitely experienced story choices in other series that pretty much broke/ruined the whole series for me. I love ME2 despite sharing a lot of his criticisms, but if someone cared about the story of ME enough and disliked the problems mentioned in the video enough, then it could break the series for them.
A lot of people would say that the ending to ME3 broke Mass Effect or that season 7 and 8 broke Game of Thrones and you wouldn't get this type of derailment. Pretty much everyone would agree. The only difference is ME2 is one of those sacred games that doesn't get criticized often and a title like this is more shocking.
It's not about whether the game is good.
The problem is that instead of watching the damn video you're interpreting "broke the franchise" to mean "Mass Effect sucks now and this specific game ruined it forever" instead of the actual content of the video being how Mass Effect 2 failed to line up with Mass Effect 1's concepts, leading to a game with no advancement to the series' main plot and the third game cramming all of that in.
With all due respect, you don't get to decide what "broke the franchise" means in this context when you're not even willing to engage with the video itself, and even if you did you'd still be arguing against the idea that Mass Effect 2 was bad instead of what is actually being said. You know that "broke the franchise" is referring to the game's de-emphasizing of the plot points and concepts of the previous game and instead are choosing, simultaneously, that it's too hyperbolic to promote a valid discussion even within the confines of the video's actual arguments and that it's actually in reference to the game's quality.
You are using a very different sense of the word "broken" (financial success / public enthusiasm) than the author is (quality of storytelling / overall plot arc). I think this is pretty clear in context. Just want to emphasize that I'm attempting to make a rather narrow point - that "broke the franchise" is a good summary of the author's argument, not that he's 100% correct.
Ok, happy to drop it. I meant no insult, for the record (I'm a ME2 fan!). My apologies if I came off as hostile - wasn't my intent.
If you honestly cannot see how "X is broken" is not a productive way to sart a subjective debate, then I don't know what to say lol.
If you honestly cannot see how "X is broken" is a clickbaity and unproductive way to start a subjective debate, then I don't know what to say.
Oh, I didn't take it personally no worries there, no need to apologise at all. Just found it a bit amusing considering the subject of the conversation. :p
Honestly. it was a pretty innocuous comment on the title that caused this current conversation thread, it's getting overblown for what it was. This is just going to go in circles if we don't drop it too, should get back to the content of the video.
I understand that. And my point is that makes that equivalent is a gross over statement that results in a title that the arguments the author presents do not justify. Using that logic, any problem in any game can be said to have broken the franchise. It's like saying a car is broken because of the color it's painted.
To be fair, "Mass Effect 2 Broke the Franchise" is an incredibly hyperbolic statement. The Mass Effect "franchise" is absolutely fine. They literally just put out a new product, with an even bigger product in development. They have an online store where you can buy a plethora of smaller products. The series' iconography and terminology have entered the casual lexicon of the gaming community. The Mass Effect "franchise" is absolutely fine and ME2 can only be considered a net positive in that regard.
Which isn't even the argument being presented. The argument being presented is that the narrative decisions made in Mass Effect 2 created a domino effect (pun intended) leading to worse narrative decisions made in Mass Effect 3, and that the three games didn't conform to their views of how a trilogy should be structured. But that isn't sexy or eye-catching enough, so they gave it a purposefully extreme headline designed to enrage fans of the franchise, making them spread it around the interests of refuting the hyperbolic claim.
It's clickbait. Really good clickbait too, since it obviously worked given the length of this thread.
Yuuuuuup. ME1 felt more like star trek than star wars and ME2, while great, reversed that for me and that's why I like the first more.
In general I'm more interested in a team/group/individual's first attempt at new art, rather than sequals that take in good and bad criticism.
It isn't an overstatement if he feels strongly enough that it broke the franchise for him. You just don't care about the same things as him and so it didn't break anything for you. Like I didn't care at all for the combat in any of the ME games but loved the story and exploration. If someone said Mass Effect combat broke the series for them that would just mean they disliked the combat more than me and couldn't get past it.
I'll agree with you that I'm sure he picked the title to get more views. I think he could have adjusted the title slightly to "Why Mass Effect 2 broke the story of Mass Effect" or "Why Mass Effect 2 broke Mass Effect for me." Still, I think it's more productive to debate the points he makes than have an argument about how much someone has to dislike something before they can say it broke the franchise.
I read your past post on this thread, and know that you didn´t read or watched the video because of you reading old articles from the author a long time ago, the title is hyperbole, yes, it sets an aggressive tone too, but is it false? nope, when viewing the article as a whole, the author is explaining how in the long term ME2 structural problems with its main plot broke the franchise, the author is NOT talking about how successful ME 2 was and still is but how it impacted the franchise as a whole, you can agree or disagree with the thesis of the article that's fine but to declare the title to be false, seems like a lot.
You are comparing explaining structural story problems to painting in a car, that's way more hyperbole than the title of the article, a better metaphor in my view would be comparing the argument of the article (ME2 broke the franchise) to "not giving maintenance to a car broke it", since it had the consequence of it not getting to the finish line, yeah you enjoyed not wasting time and money doing the maintenance, but in the long run it impacted the ride.
"Broken" can mean a lot of things, maybe you are interpreting it a different way since you didn´t read the article?
You see, it's not just not being obligated to agree, it's just that the argument is, basically, wrong. Let's go with the example the author makes:
So, the Mass Effect trilogy isn't at all structured like a single movie would be structured. It really is structured like a whole series of movies or episodes with main plot points. Going with the Superhero stuff, it's not "Captain America: The First Avenger", but it's all TFA, TWS and CW. While the first movie introduces 1940's Steve, patriotic heroic soldier, TWS makes the character question authority so it goes renegade in the third one. The second film, in this sense, actually works as a second origin story because it confronts the hero's initial beliefs and loyalties, adding depth to the character. It continues the thread of Hydra, but doesn't continue a WW2 story. Just like ME2 continues the Reaper story, but not with the same threads as ME1.
The problem I see with the points the author makes is that the arguments are more closer to just wanting a different thing, rather than on not working for the franchise. Mass Effect 2 continues multiple threads introduced by Mass Effect 1, focusing on universe building, setting up what would become an effort to unify the galaxy against the reapers. Which was a goal from the first freaking game ("the real threat are the reapers, we need to stop them" - "no, Shepard, your mission is to stop Saren"). The idea of a "kill all Reapers" button makes sense in ME3 as a plot device, but the whole franchise is about the galaxy itself. The civilizations, races, mercenaries, conflicts, etc. That's what ME2 builds on, and why it still works as a middle stage despite not following some ME1 threads.
If the title of the video was "why Mass Effect 2 ruined the franchise for me" I would have no problems with it. I can understand how something can absolutely destroy your enjoyment of something that you like. It has happened for me. To give an example. Tiamat's Wrath, the latest book in The Expanse series, has significantly degrade my enjoyment of the overall series (including the TV series). I disliked it a lot. But I definitely wouldn't say it broke The Expanse. Because that would imply something that goes beyond my personal feeling towards the series.
If I did create a youtube video called "Tiamat's Wrath broke The Expanse" I would 100% know that this was an incredible inflammatory and hyperbolic title, and that no argument I can present could justify it in the grand scheme of things, even though it might be true for me.
I haven't watched the video, and from the summary obeast provides doesn't really explain how, specifically, ME2 breaks what ME1 built, so I am not trying to defend the video but as far as titles go, I feel it's ultimately up to readers to look past the title and engage with the actual argument, not for the creator to provide a suitable title to not provoke the reader. At best, maybe you can say the title puts the reader on edge, but the title is ultimately just a signpost leading to the argument, not the argument itself. A signpost may be poor, but it isn't worth dismissing the actual argument over.
The point that me and others have making it is that equating that perceived shortcomings as breaking the franchise is a massive exaggeration. I know what he meant by breaking the franchise, and I believe it's a terrible choice of words that do not correspond to the argument being presented.
And your analogy the car broke in the sense that I'm talking. That is, it doesn't run anymore on account of lack of maintenance. The thing is, if ME2 was a car, then it would certainly not be broken. And if the ME trilogy was a car in a race, it would certainly have crossed the finished line. It would just have had a terrible last lap. But overall, the race itself would have been incredible.
Or, you know, a better argument on why Mass Effect 2 made difficult for ME3 to conclude the saga is that it's pretty hard to follow the Suicide Mission and having a story where many characters may or may not be alive and structure a good story around that. It's a debatable but very valid point. The points made in the video are very personal, just a "boy I would have loved if they did X!".
Kinda like the criticisms of Th... nah, I won't go there
Kinda like the criticisms of Th... nah, I won't go there
No one has dismissed the argument, most of the people talking about the title have engaged with it many times ITT. That isn't really the point here.
It's hard to even enjoy ME1 these days because you know where it's all going to go, and how absolutely nothing has any meaning.
I've been mashing X to skip cutscenes and conversations with ever increasing frequency as I'm playing through the series again. And I largely blame ME2 for that.
I've been mashing X to skip cutscenes and conversations with ever increasing frequency as I'm playing through the series again. And I largely blame ME2 for that.
I would have preferred ME2 to be more along the lines of Shepard and co going off to try and find out as much as they can about the Reapers and past cycles to A) better prepare for the coming war, maybe find a way to stop the Reapers and B) provide further proof to motivate the rest of the galaxy to come together. The overall structure and story beats could remain the exact same just with some slight changes to the start of the game, the two colony missions and the final assault on the Collector Base.
Rework the start of the game with Shep and co actively go after the Geth because they were working with Sovereign so they're the current best link they have to finding out more about them. And maybe they're doing some weird shit in the Terminus systems. So Normandy is going rogue into the Terminus system and beyond the Perseus Veil where they aren't supposed to and don't have authority and are chasing down Geth to see what they can find. They finally have a lead on the Omega 4 relay, but they're not prepared for what's beyond and the Normandy gets fucked up in the attempt. They escape but just barely with a huge loss of life to crew and with the Normandy damaged beyond repair. Maybe also throw in some retaliatory attacks on Human colonies by the Geth for our incursions and attacks against them in their space. At this point they could have Shepard be grievously wounded, maybe lose a limb, coma, whatever and go on with the Cerberus reconstruction stuff, just without the full dead resurrection nonsense, or they could take a page out of the Arrival DLC/ME3 start and just have Shepard under house arrest for their rogue actions.
Either way the disastrous failed unauthorized mission outside Citadel space, destruction of the Normandy, large crew loss, and whatever happens to Shepard re: injury or imprisonment provides ample reasoning for a time skip to allow other companions to go do their things. As well as ample reason for Cerberus to step in eventually when the Council/Alliance will have lost faith in Shepard and aren't willing to support them and their single minded quest against the Reapers.
From there everything can mostly remain the same with regards to building a team and preparing for a suicide run. Personally I feel like it helps the whole suicide run thing because we actually have context for what we're getting into and how dangerous it is with how the SR1 got completely fucked trying it out blind. ME2 as is keeps harping on this notion that it's a suicide run and one way trip, but the two things they use to justify it just never felt that convincing to me. There's the line dropped that no one but the Collectors have ever made it back from beyond the Omega 4 Relay and then there's just the Collector ship itself. Felt pretty flimsy and underwhelming for me.
Regardless the biggest changes after that would need to be Freedoms Progress, Horizon and the final mission. Replace FP and Horizon with a mission dealing with Geth again, maybe provide some better development for Legion ahead of the Reaper IFF when we recruit him there, as well as a mission to another Ilos like planet, utilizing Shepard's Cipher connection and info from Liara's research, where we can get some additional info on what to expect beyond the Omega 4 Relay and what the Geth and Reapers might be up to now that the Citadel back door is no longer an option. Reaper IFF can remain largely the same.
You can kind of do a two for one combining Horizon and IFF Installation/abduction by having the SR2 dock at some colony for the installation process to occur as it requires EDI and the SR2 to power down for a bit and then have it trigger a Geth attack. Still have Joker unshackle EDI so she can take back control and take over defenses and then you get a nice excuse for the Virmire survivor to show up and scold Shepard for working with Cerberus and being reckless putting an innocent colony in jeopardy for their actions after the disaster from 2 years ago that almost got everyone killed and brought on a big retaliation on colonies. Instead of rescuing your crew the impetuous could be that the Geth will launch even more attacks on human colonies as they can hide beyond the Omega 4 relay to launch their attacks. So then it's on to the Omega 4 Relay and suicide mission.
You could still I guess have the Collectors if you really want, but I don't think it serves any meaningful purpose that they Protheans got turned into mindless servants. Geth work just as well and bolsters Legion even more who remains one of the best characters in the series. The main draw is there's a huge Reaper structure hiding in the debris field that might have untold info that can help in the fight. We go in search around, find some info on the Reapers, the size of their forces, how they can attack without the Citadel backdoor and most importantly a hint that past cycles were working on a weapon to destroy the Reapers, which they've tried to wipe all record of as best they can, and this base has crucial info about the Reaper's makeup that could help finalize that weapon. IM still has his whole save the base/destroy the base spiel. The end.
The core of what makes ME2 great remains fully intact and unchanged. You still get the more personal touch of all the companion recruitment and loyalty missions and getting that more grounded look at places like Illium, Omega, the Wards and Tuchanka. But now the context around it and how it contributes to overall series plot is more relevant and constructive. You do get the continuation of some critical ME1 elements and a meaningful and tangible contribution to the overall struggle to stop the Reapers. Dropping hints about the Crucible and obtaining critical info about the Reapers from the base also makes the discovery on Mars a bit less abrupt and super convenient, though that whole thing could certainly use some reworking as well but we're focusing on ME2 here.
I personally always found it strange how the Heretic Geth just kind of did nothing after ME1. Like you'd think they would be more active in trying to advance the goals of the Reapers. So that's why I'd have preferred they remain the main threat and received some more development compared the rather boring and goofy Collector bugs. Plus again Legion is easily one of the most unique and fascinating characters in the series, so more opportunities for him to kind of pop up and provide more insight would have been great. Kind of stalking us on earlier missions trying to get a feel for us and understand us better.
Rework the start of the game with Shep and co actively go after the Geth because they were working with Sovereign so they're the current best link they have to finding out more about them. And maybe they're doing some weird shit in the Terminus systems. So Normandy is going rogue into the Terminus system and beyond the Perseus Veil where they aren't supposed to and don't have authority and are chasing down Geth to see what they can find. They finally have a lead on the Omega 4 relay, but they're not prepared for what's beyond and the Normandy gets fucked up in the attempt. They escape but just barely with a huge loss of life to crew and with the Normandy damaged beyond repair. Maybe also throw in some retaliatory attacks on Human colonies by the Geth for our incursions and attacks against them in their space. At this point they could have Shepard be grievously wounded, maybe lose a limb, coma, whatever and go on with the Cerberus reconstruction stuff, just without the full dead resurrection nonsense, or they could take a page out of the Arrival DLC/ME3 start and just have Shepard under house arrest for their rogue actions.
Either way the disastrous failed unauthorized mission outside Citadel space, destruction of the Normandy, large crew loss, and whatever happens to Shepard re: injury or imprisonment provides ample reasoning for a time skip to allow other companions to go do their things. As well as ample reason for Cerberus to step in eventually when the Council/Alliance will have lost faith in Shepard and aren't willing to support them and their single minded quest against the Reapers.
From there everything can mostly remain the same with regards to building a team and preparing for a suicide run. Personally I feel like it helps the whole suicide run thing because we actually have context for what we're getting into and how dangerous it is with how the SR1 got completely fucked trying it out blind. ME2 as is keeps harping on this notion that it's a suicide run and one way trip, but the two things they use to justify it just never felt that convincing to me. There's the line dropped that no one but the Collectors have ever made it back from beyond the Omega 4 Relay and then there's just the Collector ship itself. Felt pretty flimsy and underwhelming for me.
Regardless the biggest changes after that would need to be Freedoms Progress, Horizon and the final mission. Replace FP and Horizon with a mission dealing with Geth again, maybe provide some better development for Legion ahead of the Reaper IFF when we recruit him there, as well as a mission to another Ilos like planet, utilizing Shepard's Cipher connection and info from Liara's research, where we can get some additional info on what to expect beyond the Omega 4 Relay and what the Geth and Reapers might be up to now that the Citadel back door is no longer an option. Reaper IFF can remain largely the same.
You can kind of do a two for one combining Horizon and IFF Installation/abduction by having the SR2 dock at some colony for the installation process to occur as it requires EDI and the SR2 to power down for a bit and then have it trigger a Geth attack. Still have Joker unshackle EDI so she can take back control and take over defenses and then you get a nice excuse for the Virmire survivor to show up and scold Shepard for working with Cerberus and being reckless putting an innocent colony in jeopardy for their actions after the disaster from 2 years ago that almost got everyone killed and brought on a big retaliation on colonies. Instead of rescuing your crew the impetuous could be that the Geth will launch even more attacks on human colonies as they can hide beyond the Omega 4 relay to launch their attacks. So then it's on to the Omega 4 Relay and suicide mission.
You could still I guess have the Collectors if you really want, but I don't think it serves any meaningful purpose that they Protheans got turned into mindless servants. Geth work just as well and bolsters Legion even more who remains one of the best characters in the series. The main draw is there's a huge Reaper structure hiding in the debris field that might have untold info that can help in the fight. We go in search around, find some info on the Reapers, the size of their forces, how they can attack without the Citadel backdoor and most importantly a hint that past cycles were working on a weapon to destroy the Reapers, which they've tried to wipe all record of as best they can, and this base has crucial info about the Reaper's makeup that could help finalize that weapon. IM still has his whole save the base/destroy the base spiel. The end.
The core of what makes ME2 great remains fully intact and unchanged. You still get the more personal touch of all the companion recruitment and loyalty missions and getting that more grounded look at places like Illium, Omega, the Wards and Tuchanka. But now the context around it and how it contributes to overall series plot is more relevant and constructive. You do get the continuation of some critical ME1 elements and a meaningful and tangible contribution to the overall struggle to stop the Reapers. Dropping hints about the Crucible and obtaining critical info about the Reapers from the base also makes the discovery on Mars a bit less abrupt and super convenient, though that whole thing could certainly use some reworking as well but we're focusing on ME2 here.
I personally always found it strange how the Heretic Geth just kind of did nothing after ME1. Like you'd think they would be more active in trying to advance the goals of the Reapers. So that's why I'd have preferred they remain the main threat and received some more development compared the rather boring and goofy Collector bugs. Plus again Legion is easily one of the most unique and fascinating characters in the series, so more opportunities for him to kind of pop up and provide more insight would have been great. Kind of stalking us on earlier missions trying to get a feel for us and understand us better.
This is semantics, but it is what I am trying to say, the author is speaking about the long term consequences of ME2 main plot structural problems, as you said yes the race was incredible but it affected the last lap (in my view it doesn´t make it to the finish line, since I think the ending of ME3 is horrible).
Let´s remember that after ME3 Bioware had no idea where to go with the franchise, which yeah it was in part because of ME3 but also because of the structural flaws ME2 had that the author is speaking about, then came Andromeda, and EA putting the franchise on ice, it was not until recently that it was brought back.
In hindsight, it would have been better to just bite the bullet and make it canonical that certain characters survive the suicide mission, so they can be given a larger role in ME3. Miranda, and maybe Grunt, feel like characters that should be a part of the ME3 squad but can't be. Especially considering they already made exceptions for Garrus and Tali if they're alive.
Yep! That's why its still debatable. ME3 shortcomings are mostly its own, just as much as ME3's greatests moments are its own and neither of the two excellent prequels can be blamed for what happened in ME3.
This wasn't that out there of a sentiment in the old place back in 2010 and 2011. The downplaying of RPG mechanics, the weird detour with the Collectors, the lack of meaningful impact from the ME1 choices, the sidelining of half the ME1 party, the killing off and rebirth of Shepard but never really questioning what that means, etc. Those were all common critiques. And ME3 continued that trajectory.
ME2 still does a lot well though like the more fleshed out party with loyalty missions, a bigger bigger more interesting cast and universe, shooting actually feels good, etc. But you can see that ME3 ended up the way it is because of what was done in ME2.
ME2 still does a lot well though like the more fleshed out party with loyalty missions, a bigger bigger more interesting cast and universe, shooting actually feels good, etc. But you can see that ME3 ended up the way it is because of what was done in ME2.
Fair enough, as I said, I have no interest in defending the argument. I just hate title discourse. He could have named it "Cat eats dog alive, watch here" and it shouldn't really matter with regards to the argument.