Poll: do you think ME2 is to blame for most issues in ME3?

[Trollthean]

ME2 didn't do anything to advance the plot of the series. I feel that Bioware should have introduced the crucible in ME2, hell maybe it finding it should've been the main plot. Now the crucible feels like an ass pull. If only Leviathan was somehow also integrated into ME2 to foreshadow the ending, then the ending might have been received better.

I also feel that the suicide mission caused a lot of issues. The fact that everyone can die means that their roles in ME3 are diminished in importance. Plus Bioware had to write and record dialogue for the replacement characters, dialogue which could have been put in better use elsewhere imo.

ME2 is a good game, just a bad sequel, imo. In it's current form it should've been called ME: Terminus or something.

 

[luckshot]

i voted yes mostly because you dont have a "partly" option.

ME2 left a lot of changes and oddities, they set up an ending that didn't match up with what we learned in ME1 and then dropped it at the last second to change it to what we got...so mostly just because it seems they didn't really have a plan for the series (which doesn't always have to be a problem)

edit: and yes the plot being stuck in neutral kind of forced them to overload 3

 

[Xdeser2]

....No

Partly because Everything done in ME 2 (except for the game play) was far better than in ME 3

Mass Effect was entirely "about" the Prothean extinction and the Reaper Invasions, but about the almost master-quality world building that Bioware put into building the universe of the games.

I also feel that the suicide mission caused a lot of issues. The fact that everyone can die means that their roles in ME3 are diminished in importance. Plus Bioware had to write and record dialogue for the replacement characters, dialogue which could have been put in better use elsewhere imo.

To me, thats because they moved their lead writer of the Mass Effect series (Drew Karpyshyn) to the Old Republic project, and didn't have the talent to properly make that work right in 3.

Dont get me wrong, ME 3 is a great game, and I can totally understand where someone could be coming from, saying ME 2 was a bad sequel to ME, but I just don't buy it : /

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it's more the Bioware/EA direction that did it than the game itself, but yes (to an extent).

Then again, it's also the game that led to me giving up on the series, so I could be biased.

 

[Silly Hats]

Oh Gawd. I liked each ME in their own special way (2>3>1)

People complain about how the decisions made dont change the outcome in ME3. Well, my Wrex died originally in my first carry through play in ME3, Wrex was replaced by some other Krogan who called me a knob for not saving him. To be quite honest, after my first play through on ME3, I went straight back to ME2 the very next day and did it all over again. Honestly, the more blame/hatred/boycott this series has developed just makes me love it more and want to play it all over again. /tangent sidetrack statement

I disagree about ME2 not driving forward the plot, Illusive Man is an interesting character and the mentions of Cerberus back in the first game gets the spotlight. They weren't a focus point in the first game and to see it unfold in 2&3 was interesting enough to me.

 

[Mike Richards]

The only way that ME2 could have screwed up things for ME3 is that 2's massive 'screw destiny, I'm gonna kick some fucking ass' ending might have given people the expectation that 3 was going to end in the same badass victory. It wasn't, it was never going to, and it shouldn't have.

 

[AuronFtw]

"Most issues" in ME3 was the ending. The rest of the game was easily on par, if not better than, the previous installments in terms of plot development, character arc resolution, and gameplay.

So... no, ME2 did nothing that is blameworthy for ME3's ending.

 

[Asita]

Uh, no. Granted I would have liked seeing the galaxy gear up for the Reaper Invasion in ME2, but let's be honest here. The lion's share of complaints about ME3 focus on the last few minutes of the game...due primarily to a character introduced in those same few minutes. That's pretty darn exclusive to the game it appears in.

The crucible WAS introduced in ME2, just subtle and in a DLC.

In Lair of the Shadow Broker Liara tells you that the former Shadow Broker discovered a way to fight the reapers, and this eventually lead Liara to the Mars archive before you find her in ME3.

Correction: she said that he was searching for a way to survive the Reaper invasion and searching Prothean ruins as a part of that. That does not imply any particular knowledge. It was only due to the Protheans that Shepherd or anyone else (besides Sovereign's pawns) even knew about the Reapers.

 

[viranimus]

Thats interesting, because for me, ME2 was the only thing that really got me even remotely excited to play ME3

It even made me forgive how tedious and uninteresting Mass Effect was. It is what made the franchise for me and I feel its the best over all single entry out of the trilogy.

 

[madwarper]

The fact that just about of the decisions made in ME1 were only referenced in a casual 'sup by an easily missable NPC in ME2 made me lose hope.

Save the Rachni? Random Asari says 'Sup.
Save the colonists on Feros? Shiala says 'Sup.
Tell Helena Blake to reform? She says 'Sup.
Save the Council? They say 'Sup.

Yea, after all that, I could easily see that whatever 'epic decisions' BioWEA wanted us to believe were in the game, they'd amount to nothing in the end. And, due to the simpleton color coded ending, I'm glad I gave up on the franchise after ME2, rather than doubling down only to be crushingly disappointed by ME3.

That, and fucking thermal clips.

 

[MetroidNut]

Mass Effect 2 contributed relatively little to the running plot of the Mass Effect series - all it did was develop Cerberus and the quarian/geth conflict. But that's fine, because it's still the best game in the series for letting you explore the big, interesting galaxy that ME1 was busy setting up and ME3 was busy tearing down. I'd say it's what a sequel should be; it capitalizes on ME1's strengths (characters, writing, setting) and goes out of its way to deal with the flaws (the mako, dull gameplay, reused sets, the mako).

Blaming the second game for the third's rushed ending is a bit of a leap. Unless you're accusing Mass Effect 2 of being too successful - maybe its sales figures got a two-year dev cycle rolling.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yes.

Mass Effect 2 was so good it kind of blinded us to how bad it actually was. Nothing that occurs in it has any relevance to the overall plot of "What are the Reapers and how do we stop them". The game was all about the squadmates, who were great if not a bit too numerous, which drowned out the actual plot. The game's tagline basically was "Go get badass teammembers".

Also making Shepard die and then be reborn/remade served absolutely no purpose at all. It was only there to force loyalty to Cerberus, who turn out to be the bad guy in the end anyway. What was the point to that whole song and dance again?

At the end of the game when you see thousands of Reapers headed toward the galaxy, yet we had discovered diddley on how to stop them, I knew Mass Effect 3 was gonna pull a mcguffin. What other choice did they have by that point? They'd wasted the entire second entry focussing on how awesome your squadmates were.

 

[spartandude]

to an extent yes.

the thing is apart from the end and two of the DLCs, Shadow Broker and Arrival. mass effect 2 really did nothing to advance the story. seriously you just need someone to tell you who the illusive man is and that shepard is part robot then they can go from the first one to the third oone.

This meant that the crucible had to be pulled out of thin air in the begining because finding a way to stop the reapers really should have been what ME2 was all about and they then had to cram it in to the begining of ME3.

but really thats the only thing it ruined. everything else was Bioware completely losing the ability to right a good anr/or coherent story

 

[Yuuki]

I spent about 5x longer playing ME2 than ME3 if that accounts for anything. The game was just vastly more fun and the WAIT for ME3 (note: not ME3 itself, just the prospect) made my time in ME2 all that much sweeter. I made a full-paragon shepherd , a full-renegade shepherd, a mix of both (common sense shepherd ), different love interests, etc. All in perpetration so I would have the "perfect" character to import into ME3.
It's just that by the time ME3 actually arrived, I was pretty much burned out and half-heartedly played it through to the end lol.

It was rather strange :S

 

[Olas]

Anyone else get the feeling that the plot of ME2 would have made more sense if it had taken place before ME1? ME2 was all about introducing us to people, places, things, and the Mass Effect universe in general, while ME1 was all about preparing for the reaper invasion.

 

[IronMit]

Not having the crucible in ME2 is not ME2's fault.
You can't blame the predecessor just because the sequel poorly contrives stuff up

Maybe you can blame the way ME2 writers wrote the franchise into a hole so ME3 Had to rush certain stuff, but ME2 was littered with dark energy forshadowing. So is it ME2's fault that ME3 did a 180 and went with chaos-order, when a perfectly good plot was already laid out?

ME2 did not set up ME3 for failure - to me, ME3 had full flexibility. There didn't even have to be a surprise alien invasion at the start of ME3. The reapers could of arrived at the end.
The only constraint would be the ARRIVAL dlc because Shepard needs to be put on trial. The writers could of written anything else they wanted within these confines.

The suicide mission characters dieing made the squad roster and their impacts harder. That I can appreciate