<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Just like New Vegas.

I always felt like the characters were the main focus of Mass Effect 2, not exactly the Reaper part. and it's not just 'some cool characters', most of the quests you have are recruitment and loyalty missions. ME2 isn't filler, it just doesn't focus on the Reaper conflict as much as it does Shepard and their crew.

Yes thats why New Vegas doesnt have a number next to it. As apposed to Mass Effect 2 which was direct sequel, the two aren't really comparable plot wise.

Some of ME2 characters are good, some are meh, some are quite bad. Regardless, the game doesnt really give you enough time for them to develop. 1 recruitment and 1 loyalty mission each spreads it all a bit too thin. Can you really tell me what we learned about Jacob in his loyalty mission? Does anyone even care?

ME2 is filler, taking a break from the main plot to focus on Shepard N Pals, however entertaining is still filler. I don't think it makes at a bad game, but that's what filler means.

<Snipped quote by Ace of Hearts>

Some of ME2 characters are good, some are meh, some are quite bad. Regardless, the game doesnt really give you enough time for them to develop. 1 recruitment and 1 loyalty mission each spreads it all a bit too thin. Can you really tell me what we learned about Jacob in his loyalty mission? Does anyone even care?

>'Some of ME2 characters are good, some are meh, some are quite bad'
Are we talking objectively or subjectively here? A lot of 'gamers' confuse these two concepts. I like Jacob. I like his loyalty mission, too.

I'd call it more two quests and their conversations, but character development arcs are tied up in 3, not 2.

I like the characters and characterization in ME2, and I don't believe that focusing on the crew of the Normandy over crazy robot cthulhu beasts that aren't even particularly intriguing because they're so unknowable in their unknownness counts as filler, is all. but i'm not crowbcat or superbunnyhop so I don't know.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

>'Some of ME2 characters are good, some are meh, some are quite bad'
Are we talking objectively or subjectively here? A lot of 'gamers' confuse these two concepts. I like Jacob. I like his loyalty mission, too.

I'd call it more two quests and their conversations, but character development arcs are tied up in 3, not 2.

I like the characters and characterization in ME2, and I don't believe that focusing on the crew of the Normandy over crazy robot cthulhu beasts that aren't even particularly intriguing because they're so unknowable in their unknownness counts as filler is all.

EDIT: so you are objectively or subjectively saying that the reapers arent particularly intruging?

@Fabricant451 youre awfully quiet all of a sudden.

<Snipped quote by Ace of Hearts>
EDIT: so you are objectively or subjectively saying that the reapers arent particularly intruging?

Subjectively, of course. I don't particular care for things being 'unknowable or indescribable'. it's lazy. I don't like Lovecraft.

but I love Garrus.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Subjectively, of course. I don't particular care for things being 'unknowable or indescribable'. it's lazy. I don't like Lovecraft.

but I love Garrus.

And what aspects of Jacob's flat, boring, one note persona do you particularly care for that make him more intruging to you?

He's the 'everyman' on a ship full of strange and exotic aliens, which makes him stand out more than the aliens do, to me. He doesn't bullshit Shepard with Cerberus propaganda like Miranda does, even though she has a turn of heart eventually too, so he's more or less straight with you. When I was you know, roleplaying, I liked him because (I felt) he was in the same boat as my Shepard, working with Cerberus because the Council won't pull their head of their cloacas and listen.

@Dynamo Frokane I feel like I've said my piece for now. But I will step in to offer a view on something right now.

over crazy robot cthulhu beasts that aren't even particularly intriguing because they're so unknowable in their unknownness

This right here is what makes the Reapers so good and what made Leviathan such an upsetting piece of content. The Reapers are essentially cosmic horror in a sci fi fashion. The conversation with Sovereign in the first game sums up all you NEED to know about them.

Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. [...] My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence. We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure.

Cosmic horror works at its best when people don't know exactly what it is they are seeing/dealing with precisely because they can't possibly conceive of such a thing existing to begin with. It's a similar concept to horror in general, that fear of the unknown and why when you start to explain something it becomes less and less frightening and menacing; that obsession horror movies had with gore and blood was because the cavalcade of slasher movies and horror movies explaining things meant that the genre had to resort to new ways to frighten. Gore porn movies aren't exactly scary. It's why the found footage genre saw a rebirth within horror because while Paranormal Activity might come off as boring, the first one explained very little and played on that fear of the supernatural and unknown. And then sequels went on to try and explain things and thus ruin it.

It's the same with the Reapers and, well, cosmic horror. When you only know that the Reapers are a cosmic entity beyond any possible understanding that this galaxy can know, it's harrowing. It's a legitimate threat because how the hell is anyone supposed to stop something they can't begin to know? Look at the effort it took to take down ONE of them. Nor multiply that by thousands. The Reapers are a constant threat because their whole existence is terrifying.

Leviathan then came along and pulled the curtain back and ultimately made them less interesting because they felt the need to boil it down to digestible chunks of understanding, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of effective horror, cosmic or otherwise. The Reapers are intriguing BECAUSE of their unknowability and taking that away ruins them as antagonists and cosmic beings. Not everything needs answers.

I know that has nothing to do with this particular discussion but I thought it needed saying.

but I love Garrus.

Its funny you mention Garrus, hes a great character but damn near all of that was because of ME1.

When you first meet him, hes a mild mannered but frustrated cop who is struggling with the politics of regulation to what he sees as getting in the way of justice. He essentially stays cool and dutiful but there is a very subtle and well written hint of his personality, that a part of him is a little more wild and pragmatic, and your many conversations with him slowly tease that out which culminates in the Dr Heart mission.

Mass Effect 2 shows you what he evolved into with 2 years without shepard, a more violent and headstrong vigilante, finally free of the restraints of procedure.

BUT

If you just jump into ME2 on its own with no prior knowledge of his ME1 character hes just this Cool Swaggering Badass who makes snarky jokes every now and again. ME2 is so obsessed with making everything darker and edgier it misses a lot of the subtle charms of ME1.

Except they were explained, and not by Leviathan. The starchild AI explains it in the base game, as I recall, being robots designed to kill organics before robots kill organics. And I feel, *subjectively*, Sovereign spouts literally nothing but bullshit. He sounds like trump.

"Hey, look at us. We're better than you. You can't even comprehend. Believe me, you can't. I know it, you don't know it, everybody doesn't know it."

But I think it's connected, because I feel Bioware wrote themselves into a corner, because holy shit everyone already gives people shit when they don't treat antagonists with enough nuance like Witcher 3 does with Le Wifebeater Baron, and if you don't explain the motives of the villain/s, you're going to have people crying foul over a lack of closure.

but that's what I think.

<Snipped quote by Ace of Hearts>

Its funny you mention Garrus, hes a great character but damn near all of that was because of ME1.

When you first meet him, hes a mild mannered but frustrated cop who is struggling with the politics of regulation to what he sees as getting in the way of justice. He essentially stays cool and dutiful but there is a very subtle and well written hint of his personality, that a part of him is a little more wild and pragmatic, and your many conversations with him slowly tease that out which culminates in the Dr Heart mission.

Mass Effect 2 shows you what he evolved into with 2 years without shepard, a more violent and headstrong vigilante, finally free of the restraints of procedure.

BUT

If you just jump into ME2 on its own with no prior knowledge of his ME1 character hes just this Cool Swaggering Badass who makes snarky jokes every now and again. ME2 is so obsessed with making everything darker and edgier it misses a lot of the subtle charms of ME1.

So it's Bioware's fault that new players don't know Garrus and haven't play the first game? come on. I don't even understand what you're getting at with the 'BUT' there.

Witcher 3 is a whole other can of worms and it's a game people hold to an impossible standard because people are obsessed with "IT'S MORALLY GRAY REEEEEE" and they forget that there's large chunks of Witcher 3 that are fucking boring as sin and the combat and movement were atrociously clunky. BioWare games and The Witcher 3 are for very different audiences, it's just that people put them both under the WRPG umbrella along with Elder Scrolls and Fallout.

Witcher 3 is a whole other can of worms and it's a game people hold to an impossible standard because people are obsessed with "IT'S MORALLY GRAY REEEEEE" and they forget that there's large chunks of Witcher 3 that are fucking boring as sin and the combat and movement were atrociously clunky. BioWare games and The Witcher 3 are for very different audiences, it's just that people put them both under the WRPG umbrella along with Elder Scrolls and Fallout.

Witcher 3 is as popular as it is because it's an RPG for non RPG players. Take a gruff, non emoting beefy character like Geralt, put him on the cover, let him slay some monsters and fuck a lot of hot babes with---wait, Geralt doesn't even have a cock modeled, because that'd make gamers feel GAY HAVING TO SEE A MAN PENIS WHEN I'M TRYING TO FUCK GIRL LADIES.

I have it out for gamers and I think Witcher 3 managed to snag the dudebro audience which is why it got so lauded.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

So it's Bioware's fault that new players don't know Garrus and haven't play the first game? come on. I don't even understand what you're getting at with the 'BUT' there.

No its Biowares fault for not doing a whole lot with Garrus character in ME2 apart from making him 'badass'.

<Snipped quote by Ace of Hearts>

No its Biowares fault for not doing a whole lot with Garrus character in ME2 apart from making him 'badass'.

I mean, if that's all you took away, that's all you took away.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I don't know how the consensus of 7/10 measures as "pretty disappointing." 5/10 is an average, mediocre game. by that metric, 7/10 is quite above average.

In aggregate, game review publications have average scores hovering around 74/100, as metacritic shows. The lowest average score of any publication is 57, belonging to an obscure website, no publication really uses the full scale. I think this is score comes as a disappointment, given that this is a heavily promoted triple-A title coming from a series where the previous entries all scored over 90 and the developer has only made one other game that scored this low. Metacritic has its flaws, but I think it's safe to say that EA's board is not happy about this.

Metacritic has its flaws, but I think it's safe to say that EA's board is not happy about this.

Then maybe they shouldn't have let an unproved roster of C-Team developers handle the development of a franchise so beloved.

I'm more amazed by the fact that anyone thinks ME was ever good, and that 3 or Andromeda somehow defiled the series' glorious legacy or some shit.

Most of what @Fabricant451 says about the mechanics of horror is correct and all, but just because the Reapers are "unknowable" doesn't mean this was an artistic decision. Honestly BioWare's writers are so incompetent, it could just as easily be due to serendipity, not a conscious choice, that the antagonistic force of the story just happens to match up with some Lovecraftian tropes. Looking at how clumsy and awkward this passage is: ...

Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. [...] My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence. We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure.

How many times can one incompetent buffoon of a "writer" say the exact same fucking thing over and over, just in slightly different words? Well, five times per paragraph, apparently. Jesus Christ. This actually hurt to read. Never mind the fact that it's Telling instead of Showing us that the Reapers are "unknowable"; the prose is just fucking dreadful in so many ways.

I'm more amazed by the fact that anyone thinks ME was ever good, and that 3 or Andromeda somehow defiled the series' glorious legacy or some shit.

Most of what @Fabricant451 says about the mechanics of horror is correct and all, but just because the Reapers are "unknowable" doesn't mean this was an artistic decision. Honestly BioWare's writers are so incompetent, it could just as easily be due to serendipity, not a conscious choice, that the antagonistic force of the story just happens to match up with some Lovecraftian tropes. Looking at how clumsy and awkward this passage is: ...

<Snipped quote>

How many times can one incompetent buffoon of a "writer" say the exact same fucking thing over and over, just in slightly different words? Well, five times per paragraph, apparently. Jesus Christ. This actually hurt to read. Never mind the fact that it's Telling instead of Showing us that the Reapers are "unknowable"; the prose is just fucking dreadful in so many ways.

To be fair, and it's not like it's going to change anything but still, in the game that speech is broken up after almost every sentence by the player. And a lot of the game is asking variations of the same thing instead of getting to the point. You know. For immersion or something.

@Fabricant451 Yeah, I get repetition, if it's being used properly. In Planescape you hear, "What can change the nature of a man?" probably fifteen times before you're given the opportunity to propose to Ravel an actual answer to that question. The difference is that the writing in that game is, like...good? And subtle? Whereas in Mass Effect the philosophy was clearly, "We need to say it again just in case someone in the audience doesn't get it yet. We don't want to alienate anyone, we need to be inclusive," blah blah blah. You water down your product by appealing to the lowest common denominator, which includes the polarized morality system (Paragon vs. Renegade, black vs. white, good vs. evil), and the dialogue wheel which results in simplified, cartoonish, downright childish "conversations."

I'm already biased against ME because it's basically pop-SciFi with the palette-swap alien design, the horrible art direction of the ships and tech, and of course, the illusion of grandiosity and significance to the story, where in reality the player is on rails throughout. But ME has no excuse because skilled developers can force you to conform to their design choices without you even realizing it. The evidence I would offer to corrobate this is from the Thief series: the difference between Thief II and THI4F. In the bad game, there are circumstantial pop-up prompts which allow you to shoot your rope arrow only at certain lampposts, ledges, etc. Whereas in the smartly designed game, you're also limited in where you can shoot rope arrows, but the developers did it by placing wood where they want you to be able to shoot, and metal or stone in areas they wish to be off-limits. (Since arrows can only embed themselves into softer materials, bouncing off otherwise.) There are natural and "organic" ways to incorporate your gameplay mechanics seamlessly into the story itself, and Mass Effect's people simply do not know how to do this.



Is this because BioWare hires purple-haired hippopotamuses who screech about not enough women in gaming instead of actually going to a tech school and becoming a skilled female developer? I personally think so. CD Projekt more or less tell women and brown people to go fuck themselves if they don't have the talent to make a good game, and their priorities show in the quality of their product. It's not racism or sexism or transdolphinkinmisogyny, it's employing the most talented people at hand to make the best product possible. Almost everything in Andromeda meanwhile is poorly designed and bafflingly incompetent, and staff choices will certainly contribute to that. The bad writing is a microcosm of the game's problems at large, and the developers' design philosophies certainly played a significant part in this failure whether OP likes it or not.



TL;DR Worrying about how many brown vaginas there are in your game fundamentally means you're spending less time worrying about things which will actually make the game good.

Well......lets look at Mass Effect Andromeda and how the left wing cucks have changed it from the original trilogy which was more right wing and therefore better.

The first male Squaddie you meet is a black guy SHOEHORNED IN [+]

Mass Effect 2 was the best in series, they would never do something like tha....

AND

They have a female with a BUTCH HAIRCUT, CANT JUST LET WOMEN BE WOMEN [+]

Mass Effect 2 would never do something like that it was the best in the series and....

WELL THEYVE MADE EVERYTHING SUPER GAY! Since OVERWATCH now suddenly every game is gay! it wasnt like that before! [+]

Ahh, well there it is, the only conspiracy here is the mysterious case of the short fucking memory.

This is the excerpt which proves more or less that OP is missing the point; comically so. I would have thought this was bad satire if it had been linked from Reddit or an equally shitty site.

"Pandering" is when a character needs to be black, female, or demi-poly-quasi-cashewsexual because a minimum quota needs to be met in each of the respective demographics of race, sex, and gender. This is when the developers think they're widening their target audience by giving a larger number of people fair "representation" in the game; that is, characters with whom the audience can personally identify. It's stupid as hell that you'd need a character's race and sexuality to match yours in order for you to identify with his struggles, but whatever, that's the world we live in.

There is incontrovertible evidence that the Andromeda team pandered to certain demographics of people.

But it's not "pandering" if a character just happens to be Black or gay, and if he has more traits to define his personality than just being from a certain demographic. So even though ME1 still has bad writing and is a game for poopooheads overall, no one is being hypocritical for "forgetting" the Black and butch-lesbo characters in the first game, while lambasting Andromeda for seemingly doing the same thing. The fact that you can't see the difference, @Dynamo Frokane, proves that you're approaching this debate at a laughably superficial level.