shadow skill said:
I really have to call into question the idea that the writing in this game is improved over the first one. This game lacked a suitable antagonist, you had more interaction with Sovereign in ME1 than you do with the Gravemind and the Flood- Oh wait I'm sorry I mean Harbinger supported by flood infected- Oh damn, excuse me, I mean Husks. I've always maintained that Sovereign wasn't a good villain because he spent too much time talking about how awesome he was, and just wasn't as intelligent as you would expect such a creature to be.
There are a great many villians. The overarching threat comes from the enigmatic Reapers whose objective of eradicating intelligent life is established though their precise motivation for doing so remains unclear. During Mass Effect 2, conflict can come from the Collectors themselves, any of the bosses of the lesser enemies that stand against you, your supposed allies, from the world at large due to race and prejudice. There is plenty of conflict and a plethora of antagonists.
shadow skill said:
Harbinger was even worse, constantly blathering on about how the Reapers are our future, all the while saying even less than Sovereign ever did. You don't think it is odd that we learn Sovereign's real name from Legion rather than Harbinger? Or the fact that the council may as well not exist at all, Shepard never once tries to explain what is going on directly, we only find out than anything has been corroborated by an outside source (In my case Ashley.) if we go and speak to (In my case.) councilor Anderson.
Why would Harbinger even know Soverigns real name? Why would a literal slave to the reapers care to know the name of those holding the leash?
As far as the council goes, the direct and obvious threat that faced them has been beaten back as far as they are concerned. Their general perspective that human colonies going missing in the Terminus systems are a simple human concern is sufficient. They have no substantial evidence that Soverign was anything beyond a geth creation. What's more, the motivations and intentions of shepard are called into question because he is working with (if not for) a group that has, on more than one occasion, commited attorcity in the name of furtherhing humanity.
shadow skill said:
Does this seem to affect anything at all? The answer is a big fat no, because for some ungodly reason Bioware thinks it is a good idea to leave Mass Effect 2 so perforated with holes that it actually feels like the first six chapters of a much larger work where as Mass Effect 1 had managed to be complete unto itself despite being the opening act in a trilogy.
That's the intersting thing about the middle entry in a trilogy - it's primary purpose is to lay the foundation for the climactic entry in the series. You'll find many examples of movies ending without a clear understanding of the heros and villians and the stakes and so forth. Look at Star Wars - Empire Strikes Back ends on a cliff hanger after delivering a bombshell with no real prior justification or forwarning. The middle entry cannot wrap up loose ends and expect the narrative to continue. In this case, it serves to establish a wider crew, reveal at least in part the stakes, and provide plenty of dramtic fodder throughout. In terms of a middle child of a series, it seems to be right on the money.
Of course, when I speak of writing, I do not simply refer to the overarching story itself but more to the actuall dialog (somebody did, afterall, spend a great deal of time writing all of that). In this case it is both better written and better acted on all fronts. While I can understand a degree of discontent when a plot is clearly left unfinished, I cannot personally find fault with such an action in the middle entry of a trilogy.
