Bioware Has Sequel Issues: ME 2 and DA 2

[TheAmazingTGIF]

This isn't a Bioware thing. It's a second-sequel-in-a-trilogy thing. The idea is that you can back off on the villains, because the midpoint of the trilogy is where you really need to focus on your characters, developing them, explaining things that weren't explained in the first part, and set up for the real confrontation in the third act. You can see that this was the plan in ME2 - that game was all about the protagonists and your team, so you had lots of minor villains and minor stories going on to develop the characters, and a more tertiary enemy force that really just had the role of setting up the final act.

I'm not saying they couldn't have done better, but I'm kind of willing to give them some slack. Second sequels in a trilogy are always going to leave things feeling unfinished and meander a bit. You can't bring out Emperor Palpatine in The Empire Strikes Back, and likewise you can't bring out the main villain in ME3. Blowing up the Death Star every single movie would have been boring as hell. Even The Lord of The Rings does this.

DA2 really does the same thing, focusing on main characters instead of on villains, but in this case it was really to its detriment story wise because it kind of had no plot. It had three important subplots but no main villains = no real plot. I'm still in the "DA2 is not a bad game, it's just not excellent" camp. But I will agree that the lack of a clear villain was the worst aspect of the game and singularly detracted from everything it was trying to be.

But, yeah, this is far from something that's exclusive to Bioware. It's just kind of how things work. First part establishes characters and villains. Second part follows main characters in different circumstances, develops them beyond initial characteristics. Third part resolves conflict and completes characters' journeys. That's just story structure.

I agree that all of the games are fantastic, and ME2 is a little more forgivable because of "the don't forget this affects ME3" bits. But DA2 is only sort of related to the plot of the first game (see my previous statements on this). If it is supposed to continue the story of the mage/templar conflict it should have been at the forefront of the entire game, and not shoved aside in the first two acts.

 

[Irridium]

But thats basically every Bioware game, more or less.

1st part is finding your enemy, 2nd part is gathering party members(after getting accepted into a special order), and then fighting the big bad guy. Not saying its bad, Bioware does this style well, but seeing ME1 and 2 both follow this setup, and ME3 will seem to also be this setup, it just seems... odd.

It's a fairly common story structure throughout every entertainment medium (Extra credits did a video on it when they discussed Amnesia and Story Structure) - The Three Act structure.

It just happens to be much more noticeable in Trilogies because the 3 acts are the three parts (with each part having the 3 acts, minus the middle part which can't have a very good act 3 due to its nature as the middle child)

I guess so. But since Mass Effect was planned to be a trilogy at the start, you'd think that they'd be able to plan it out so it wouldn't be as noticeable as it is.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

DA2's mage vs. templar thing was novel at first, but by Act 3 I just had enough of it. Seriously, Anders constantly reminds you of the "war" between mages and templars, and you can't simply say both sides are idiots. I do agree Meridith and Orsino came out of nowhere, especially Orsino, I mean Meredith was at least mentioned. And you still fight them both in Act 3 anyway, so matter which side you choose it matters little.

Yeah, in my opinion DA2 suffered for not having a "fuck the lot of ya" option, letting you conclude that both sides are wankers and choosing instead to protect the people of Kirkwall from the fallout of their shitfuckery.

 

[TheAmazingTGIF]

It is so true. But this doesn't really hold up for DA2 I feel. This is because the only real connection it has with the first game is a few threads that connect them (Anders, Isabela [sort of], Merrill [sort of], the world it is set in). So I wouldn't really call it the middle child really. A cousin, maybe.

Yeah I agree that it doesn't match as well with DA2, which is why I said it stumbles at part 2.

But this could be for a number of reasons, chief amongst them being that DA2 isn't a trilogy (might not be) and behind that it could simply because the writing team for DA2 simply wasn't up to par with usual Bioware standards.

I liked DA2, thought it was really good, but I honestly believe that it was useless filler/a large expansion pack rushed out for a quick buck by EA (giving a dev team 14 months to make a 30 hour current gen RPG is absurd and frankly I have my hat off to Bioware for making something that quick that wasn't a complete shambles).

I am hoping that DA3 will use the convenient time travel (a very elaborate way to push the chronology forward 10 years) and return focus to the original protagonist.

Me too. Bioware hasn't made a game that I disliked so far, and DA2 does have some vast improvements. However, I would like to see the Dragon Age story return to the Wardens they were more fun. I would like to explore their world more. Kirkwall wasn't much fun.
And they do make reference to the Warden in one of the very last lines.

 

[Sozac]

It looks like the same thing is going to happen in ME3 where there is Cerberus and T.I.M. as bad guys and the reapers as other bad guys. Splitting the enemy will only hurt the story in my opinion.

 

[JimmyC99]

I think it was Shamus Young who pointed out that ME2 was a big shift in overall direction for the series and not just in gameplay.

I think while some of the writing was good, hell even brilliant (especially the loyalty missions), some of it was poor and would have been better if Shep was looking for a super weapon to fight reapers with (maby collectors could have been an adversary). The main Plot was almost a total non-sequitur and had nearly nothing to do with preparing for a reaper invasion.

I agree with Shamus that Bioware's attention could be elsewhere. They have the Colossal Uber Mega Project that is SW:TOR (Star Wars The Old Republic) which the Lead Writer of ME:1 as well as the novels Drew Karpyshn is working on (theres a new novel coming written by someone else but I've hear he's terrible) i don't want to pile blame or scapegoat Marc Walters (Lead Writer of ME2) as Mr Karpyshn is credited with also being a lead on ME2 (but I'm sure it was a probably minimal contribution SW:TOR reportedly has 8 single player games of dialog, and while he probably didn't write all of it he must have made sure it fits with the game) we'll have to wait and see if ME3 and SW:TOR are good, please god make them good, and if there will be (there probably will) a DA3 and maby even a ME4.

 

[plugav]

Hasty development issues aside, I think Dragon Age 2 wasn't supposed to have a clear Big Bad. It would have been a worse game if, towards the end, it didn't force you to choose the lesser evil.

Spoiler

Do you help the mages and plunge the city into chaos, or do you slaughter innocents in the name of order? Either way, you're doing the wrong thing.

Still, I agree that the final confrontation felt hollow and pointless because, unlike the Arishok, Meredith and Orsino were absolutely indifferent to me.

By the way, while I certainly wanted to get my hands on Loghain in Origins, I only cared about the Archdemon because it was a matter of survival.


As for Mass Effect 2... the lack of an antagonist wasn't an issue for me at all. Curiosity was driving me - about the Collectors, about my crew members, about just how suicidal the suicide mission is. I actually liked the main focus of the game being to gather a reliable team of specialists, rather than to pursue some single arch-nemesis (which I'd already done in Baldur's Gate 2, KotOR and ME1, among other titles).

The only thing that bothered me was that ridiculous, anticlimactic bossfight at the end. That felt really forced, and was also insultingly easy.

 

[Jumplion]

That's an interesting take on those games, and while I can't comment on Dragon Age 2, I would say that I can agree with you on Mass Effect 2.

I dunno, compared to the first one, Mass Effect 2 didn't feel as.....epic as Mass Effect 1. In the first one, you had a sense that you were part of something bigger. The galaxy was wide and open, you could explore many of the planets in search of resources or sidequests. Sure, it got tedious to use the Mako, but it gave a sense of space to the infinite space. It was tangible, but at the same time gave you an epic feel.

Mass Effect 2 didn't have that. It was restricted, limited in what you could do. There were no vehicle sections to break the monotony, no weapon upgrades or attachments to explore customization, little personalization or customization in your items or equipment, and it was all shooting. Shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading. It was a linear, drastically simplified (not dumbed down) shoot-fest from set piece to set piece. It wasn't epic, it didn't feel open or sprawling, which is ironic since you could explore much more of the galaxy (yet you could never land on any planet that didn't already have a premade design).

This is why I'm nervous for Mass Effect 3, I'm afraid it's going to continue the trend of linearity and di-epicness of the whole thing. Apparently BioWare are adding some things back, like some weapon modification and some skill trees, but I'm still nervous about it. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Laser Priest]

I agree on Mass Effect (Saren was handled much more well than Harbinger or the Collector Overlord or whatever the fuck was happening), but Dragon Age 2's villain switch was still much better than "Blarg! Darkspawn!" They're evil for the sake of being evil, and aside from the Archdemon (which was basically a dragon with a stupid method of being defeated).

 

[Sarpedon]

The whole point of the game is that you don't know who they are, but you have been told that they are sooo evil and must be destroyed. Unlike the first one where you see Saren killin dudes and trying to blow you up. The Collector's had no face, you couldn't shake your fist at them and be angry at them. For all you knew, they were trying to gather pretty flowers.

Well, you know, they did kind of blow your ass up in the first 60 seconds of the game. And about 20 minutes later you kind of see hard video evidence of them kidnapping humans and cleaning out a colony. Not to mention you later catch them in the act on Horizon, and then they end up capturing your whole crew. And on top of that, you have Harbinger looming over it like a shadow the whole time. I wouldn't exactly call the Collectors faceless, and I could sure as hell shake my fist and be angry when I got to watch them killing and abducting my crewmen.

 

[Saviordd1]

While i did love saren you have to admit he was pretty weak sauce of a villian, he showed up at the very beginning, virmire, and the very end, otherwise you only heard about him.

On top of that, ME2 was more or less filler to get some other things in place for ME3 (Collectors being protheans, a few new species, new allies, going to the flotilla and setting up that star thing, etc)

 

[Saviordd1]

That's an interesting take on those games, and while I can't comment on Dragon Age 2, I would say that I can agree with you on Mass Effect 2.

I dunno, compared to the first one, Mass Effect 2 didn't feel as.....epic as Mass Effect 1. In the first one, you had a sense that you were part of something bigger. The galaxy was wide and open, you could explore many of the planets in search of resources or sidequests. Sure, it got tedious to use the Mako, but it gave a sense of space to the infinite space. It was tangible, but at the same time gave you an epic feel.

Mass Effect 2 didn't have that. It was restricted, limited in what you could do. There were no vehicle sections to break the monotony, no weapon upgrades or attachments to explore customization, little personalization or customization in your items or equipment, and it was all shooting. Shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading. It was a linear, drastically simplified (not dumbed down) shoot-fest from set piece to set piece. It wasn't epic, it didn't feel open or sprawling, which is ironic since you could explore much more of the galaxy (yet you could never land on any planet that didn't already have a premade design).

This is why I'm nervous for Mass Effect 3, I'm afraid it's going to continue the trend of linearity and di-epicness of the whole thing. Apparently BioWare are adding some things back, like some weapon modification and some skill trees, but I'm still nervous about it. We'll just have to wait and see.

I agree you with you MOSTLY, honestly, no one missed the vehicle sections, the mako handled like Shepard was drunk while driving

 

[Jumplion]

That's an interesting take on those games, and while I can't comment on Dragon Age 2, I would say that I can agree with you on Mass Effect 2.

I dunno, compared to the first one, Mass Effect 2 didn't feel as.....epic as Mass Effect 1. In the first one, you had a sense that you were part of something bigger. The galaxy was wide and open, you could explore many of the planets in search of resources or sidequests. Sure, it got tedious to use the Mako, but it gave a sense of space to the infinite space. It was tangible, but at the same time gave you an epic feel.

Mass Effect 2 didn't have that. It was restricted, limited in what you could do. There were no vehicle sections to break the monotony, no weapon upgrades or attachments to explore customization, little personalization or customization in your items or equipment, and it was all shooting. Shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading. It was a linear, drastically simplified (not dumbed down) shoot-fest from set piece to set piece. It wasn't epic, it didn't feel open or sprawling, which is ironic since you could explore much more of the galaxy (yet you could never land on any planet that didn't already have a premade design).

This is why I'm nervous for Mass Effect 3, I'm afraid it's going to continue the trend of linearity and di-epicness of the whole thing. Apparently BioWare are adding some things back, like some weapon modification and some skill trees, but I'm still nervous about it. We'll just have to wait and see.

I agree you with you MOSTLY, honestly, no one missed the vehicle sections, the mako handled like Shepard was drunk while driving

Honestly, I missed the vehicle sections, if only for the variety. It's not like BioWare had to completely scrap the idea like they did, they could have easily done some improvements (like make the terrain less bumpy and steep, or make the Mako have boosters worth a fuck).

 

[Zantos]

I agree you with you MOSTLY, honestly, no one missed the vehicle sections, the mako handled like Shepard was drunk while driving

I didn't so much miss the vehicle sections. But I was glad when they put in the hovercraft thing for the DLC. That was fun!

 

[Bobbity]

Very true. ME2 and DA2 both seem to be filler games, getting everyone ready for the sequel. Mass Effect 1 could have gone on almost seamlessly to ME3, and no one would have noticed. The Collectors were added/retconned into the second game, so that we'd have something to do while we got ready for the third game, but it was all extraneous.

Judging by the end of DA2, we did need it to get ready for DA3, but it's still filler. The game was simply about bringing you up to date with the main character of the next game and, as such, was all just fluff and extraneous crap. It was still enjoyable, but it felt remarkably pointless.

 

[AlternatePFG]

It's not like BioWare had to completely scrap the idea like they did, they could have easily done some improvements (like make the terrain less bumpy and steep, or make the Mako have boosters worth a fuck).

What? All the changes that BioWare did to Mass Effect 2 were scrapping mechanics from the first game. Sure, it was better than the clunky inventory and the pointless skill trees but they didn't actually make an effort to actually improve them.

 

[AMAZED]

That's an interesting take on those games, and while I can't comment on Dragon Age 2, I would say that I can agree with you on Mass Effect 2.

I dunno, compared to the first one, Mass Effect 2 didn't feel as.....epic as Mass Effect 1. In the first one, you had a sense that you were part of something bigger. The galaxy was wide and open, you could explore many of the planets in search of resources or sidequests. Sure, it got tedious to use the Mako, but it gave a sense of space to the infinite space. It was tangible, but at the same time gave you an epic feel.

Mass Effect 2 didn't have that. It was restricted, limited in what you could do. There were no vehicle sections to break the monotony, no weapon upgrades or attachments to explore customization, little personalization or customization in your items or equipment, and it was all shooting. Shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading. It was a linear, drastically simplified (not dumbed down) shoot-fest from set piece to set piece. It wasn't epic, it didn't feel open or sprawling, which is ironic since you could explore much more of the galaxy (yet you could never land on any planet that didn't already have a premade design).

This is why I'm nervous for Mass Effect 3, I'm afraid it's going to continue the trend of linearity and di-epicness of the whole thing. Apparently BioWare are adding some things back, like some weapon modification and some skill trees, but I'm still nervous about it. We'll just have to wait and see.

I agree you with you MOSTLY, honestly, no one missed the vehicle sections, the mako handled like Shepard was drunk while driving

I only missed the exploring concept but yah the Mako handled like a shopping cart with a bowling ball attached to one side.