Mass Effect New Mass Effect confirmed

[Caim]

Jack is damaged goods and should not be fucked at all.

 

[Space Satan]

 

[jackofshadows]

Just wtf they're doing up there in BioWare?

 

[Tyrr]

Just wtf they're doing up there in BioWare?

I still can't believe EA's patience with them.
They killed studios for much less in the past.

 

[Abu Antar]

Just wtf they're doing up there in BioWare?

Like I told my boss, today.

You don't give a shit as long as people work, or at least make themselves seem busy and working.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Just wtf they're doing up there in BioWare?

Like I told my boss, today.

You don't give a shit as long as people work, or at least make themselves seem busy and working.

Yeah I hate that attitude. I'm more: deliver or we've got problems.

 

[Chippy]

Liara will do Lazarus procedure. They will rebuild mass relays. Shepard is coming back baby.

Insert typical joke of how Liara is gonna rebuild Shephard. "Shephard I brought you back, but couldn't help giving you a craving for women with something a little extra".

Once upon a time that was a lukewarm joke, now it'll probably make it into the game.

 

[9ted6]

The Jack thing feels like a cope, by the time ME2 came out they already had several bisexual romances in their games so I seriously don't buy the whole "we were scared of Fox News" shit. Her sexuality feels like a conscious decision that they made in development at the time and now some former writer pops up with this excuse a decade later because places like twitter and reddit literally won't stop crying about the fact that Jack isn't available for Femshep.

Bioware's done a lot of that the last few years. So they say everyone in ME and DAO was supposed to be a flamboyantly gay gender of color all along but they just couldn't do it because they were afraid of backlash. Couldn't possibly be because they only started getting brainrot in the past decade and/or saw a growing trend to exploit for profit of course.

 

[Tyranicon]

Yeah I hate that attitude. I'm more: deliver or we've got problems.

With that kind of attitude, the next thing you'll be asking for is hiring competent people.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Yeah I hate that attitude. I'm more: deliver or we've got problems.

With that kind of attitude, the next thing you'll be asking for is hiring competent people.

Heeey... let's not get crazy now!

(Shut the fuck up, man, you're going to get me fired!)

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Only the first ME was (somewhat) good. Same with Dragon Age.

Nope. Even the first ME was a shitty retard cover shooter with no level design just meaningless coridoors, shitty combat and RPG systems, is all merely an excuse for the devs to swing their lame storyfag dicks around and live out virgin virtual sex fantasies without seeing beyond that narrow, pathetic ambition. even disregarding the god awful gameplay for brainlets it has almost no element of respectable artistry, music is completely forgettable, almost zero sense of atmosphere or immersion results from the overall low effort experience, and while sure there is some interesting dialogue bits it literally can't tell a story with any level of mastery.

The game has neither style nor substance. It's utterly unremarkable in every way.

Low standards games for low standards cucks.

I see someone rate them anything above mediocre, I know never to value their opinion.

Yep. Its only value was either in being able to larp your own (bad) sci fi movie, or for kids to amuse themselves pointlessly riding around in the mako for hours on end.

I did like ME2 because of some of the characters (Zaeed - who was basically edgy Canderous/Mandelore, and Mordin). And because of some of the reactive elements, like being able to fail and get your crew killed at several points.

But really, it was just an interactive cutscene and the gameplay itself was almost nonexistent.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

Mass Effect 2 does nothing better than ME1 apart from cinematics. Everything else is at most a sidegrade.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Mass Effect 2 does nothing better than ME1 apart from cinematics.

Could you fail in ME1? The only failure was the forced failure choice with Kaiden/Ashley. It was plot on rails, with a few, mostly meaningless, choices along the way.

For the multiple *earned* failure options alone, I give ME2 credit.

That and the story it tried to present just felt more complex than whatever was going on in ME1. The idea that the reapers were some kind of galactic preservers who foresaw the Dark Energy death of the galaxy and just came around harvesting all sentient life, grinding it down and sticking it into reaper bodies was decent, if poorly executed. (The human reaper you fight at the end was dumb. Big, dumb boss fight is not how you end a sci fi game - though I guess ME1 set that precedent.)

The Collectors were a good extrapolation from the mind control stuff in the previous game, and made for a much more interesting enemy than the Geth.

Also, the entire plot of some Section 31-like secret agency bringing Shep back to life and bankrolling your Ocean's 11 adventure, including a cigarette smoking man, was very entertaining. ME1 took itself very seriously in spite of there being very little substance, but ME2 knew to dial up the B-movie elements and give you plenty of Miranda fanservice shots along the way.

Companions were also more detailed and varied. Rex was loved in ME1 mostly because he wasn't as banal as all the other companions. Your choices were: faggot fuckboy, space racist whose dialog constantly revolves around her being a soldier, space cop lizard, big toad klingon, and latex fetish jailbait. It's no wonder ME2 opted to refresh the crew and either dump existing crew off or give them an edgy upgrade.

I felt like I was playing a videogame version of Farscape instead of whatever ME1 was supposed to be. All the characters had something wrong with them, and this made them worth paying attention to. (The black guy was a bit annoying, but his sidequest was kind of amusing. His long lost father turned out to be a rapist cult leader.)

The only thing I felt was inferior was that the racist subplot was mostly dropped, and completely gone by the (far worse) ME3.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

Could you fail in ME1? The only failure was the forced failure choice with Kaiden/Ashley. It was plot on rails, with a few, mostly meaningless, choices along the way.

For the multiple *earned* failure options alone, I give ME2 credit.

If C&C is done poorly, it's better to keep everything on rails (which ME2 basically was). Simply completing a checklist of missions that are impossible to fail if you have an IQ over 70 is not a point in favour of ME2 (Now that I think about it, it would be a fun experiment to see how SDG would do in this game, if he manages to play it properly without a guide, I'll concede the point).

The impacts of "choices" were also portrayed terribly, making absolutely no sense at all. Since all of them are in the final hour of the game, one after the other, it's jarring. Can't even trick the player thinking it's doing something good.

That and the story it tried to present just felt more complex than whatever was going on in ME1. The idea that the reapers were some kind of galactic preservers who foresaw the Dark Energy death of the galaxy and just came around harvesting all sentient life, grinding it down and sticking it into reaper bodies was decent, if poorly executed. (The human reaper you fight at the end was dumb. Big, dumb boss fight is not how you end a sci fi game - though I guess ME1 set that precedent.)

The dark energy theory was not "poorly executed" because they didn't even try to do it, there was no attempt at execution. It was essentially completely scrapped, with only one mission in ME2 referencing it. Drew Karpyshyn was not the lead wirter of ME2, that's when Mac Walters came in, which is not ME1s fault. Because of this, ME2 is an amalgamation of 20+ unrelated side quests.

The Collectors were a good extrapolation from the mind control stuff in the previous game, and made for a much more interesting enemy than the Geth.

The collectors are not at all connected to indoctrination presented in ME1.

In ME1, indoctrination slowly changes your thought process, but if it becomes too much you lose any semblance of being a conscious being which is why you become a mindless husk who eventually dies without reapers. We saw 3 different levels of this with the Salarian prisoners on Virmire on top of Vigil telling the player what happened to the extremely indoctrinated Protheans once the Reapers left (succumbed to the elements because they couldn't think or act on their own).

Collectors on the other hand are examples of the Reapers changing the biology of species, something that really only started in ME2 (+ the retcon into saying Reapers are some dumb bio-synthetic hybrid with the entire memories of a species in them) and continued in ME3. Our only examples of this in ME1 is the Geth using spikes to turn humans into husks (these husks are different than ones we see in later games) which we can assume was reaper tech, and the theory by Vigil that Keepers were a race of beings the Reapers changed into being servants.

The connection you made between these two is really a stretch. If they were trying to make it a connection, there needed to be a lot more exposition because the only time they ever tried explaining indoctrination in the trilogy was ME1 yet it became just a convenient plot excuse explaining any type of behaviour.

Also, the entire plot of some Section 31-like secret agency bringing Shep back to life and bankrolling your Ocean's 11 adventure, including a cigarette smoking man, was very entertaining. ME1 took itself very seriously in spite of there being very little substance, but ME2 knew to dial up the B-movie elements and give you plenty of Miranda fanservice shots along the way.

Retcons are stupid, especially when you have shit writers at Bioware who can't provide a semi-believable explanation, on games that were planned to be a connected trilogy.

ME2 dialed up B-movie elements while trying to present itself as a Hollywood blockbuster with deep character stories, which is why the atmosphere falls flat. Even ME1 had better impacting scenes, like the first time coming to the Citadel, and Sovereign attacking with the backdrop of the wards. You don't have to look deep to find an actual great B-movie tier game around the same time period. The Witcher, lots of those elements, with very specific focus on things that make it feel like a labour of love, exactly what makes those same movies feel charming. ME2 is like a pretentious failed college student making action movie slop, spending 95% of his budget on cinematics, then trying to present it as a timeless classic.

Companions were also more detailed and varied. Rex was loved in ME1 mostly because he wasn't as banal as all the other companions. Your choices were: faggot fuckboy, space racist whose dialog constantly revolves around her being a soldier, space cop lizard, big toad klingon, and latex fetish jailbait. It's no wonder ME2 opted to refresh the crew and either dump existing crew off or give them an edgy upgrade.

Characters, the most overrated aspect of ME2. 12 companions, each with their own "loyalty mission" completely separated from eachother. The absolute easiest writing you could possibly do. Take a character and do whatever you want with them with absolutely no regard for if they make sense or not. For a game that's 80% about its characters, they should've tried a bit harder. Only 4 of the companions make sense joining you (2 friends from the first game so can let that slide, and 2 that make sense with the story/plot). You can add Zaeed but considering you can't talk to him he doesn't really count as a companion in a game ALL about companions. Even with all of that, a lot of the companion missions fall flat. They made 2 half ass attempts to connect anything, Jack vs. Miranda & Tali vs. Legion, which were 2 minute scenes immediately solved through a paragon/renegade check. I can't give points to characters in a game that writes 12 disconnected short daddy issue missions. Full sidegrade at best.

ME1s characters are lacking for sure, but it's not a character piece so I can let it slide. Although if all the characters were like Wrex that would've been a lot better. Also, Ashley is not racist, and although I didn't like her as a character, she was still written well, she's the second best companion after Wrex in terms of content and nuance.



A lot of the things you pointed out about ME1 are a fault of the direction ME2 took. You have to remember ME1 is not like DA:O, it was designed and written to be the first game in a trilogy, closely connected. ME2 going off rails into something completely different hampers a lot of the aspects of ME1.

 

[DY050503]

They should hire writers and character designers of the classic Mass Effect games.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

If C&C is done poorly, it's better to keep everything on rails (which ME2 basically was). Simply completing a checklist of missions that are impossible to fail if you have an IQ over 70 is not a point in favour of ME2 (Now that I think about it, it would be a fun experiment to see how SDG would do in this game, if he manages to play it properly without a guide, I'll concede the point).

The risk with failures is that if they're too difficult, someone will pigeonhole themselves into a TPK even when they were actually trying.

If you play the game drunk or not paying attention, chances are you will mess up. If you try to rush the end and don't upgrade your ship, you will mess up. If you don't do your companion quests, they'll probably die in the final battle. If you pick the wrong team member for a job during the suicide mission, they'll probably die. If you slack off and wait too long to rescue your crew, they'll die.

It's not genius-level stuff, but it's enough to reward someone who was paying attention and slap casuals who thought nothing mattered. That level of reactivity makes your choices seem a little more valuable than a plot on rails.

The dark energy theory was not "poorly executed" because they didn't even try to do it, there was no attempt at execution. It was essentially completely scrapped, with only one mission in ME2 referencing it.

Bro, it was a whole planet's worth of quest that revolved around its research.

It felt like they were setting up for a larger "reveal" (for those that hadn't figured it out) in ME3, but then scrapped it for the stupid "machines vs sentients" rehash of the Geth plot.

I keep seeing people say ME2 scrapped it, but ME2 was were they introduced the possible problem related to it in that quest. There was nothing before that, and if they had wanted to drop it, they could have cut it entirely. ME1 just had it as a Star Wars Force knock-off with zero downsides unless you were unlucky with your biotic implants.

https://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-3-series-former-lead-writer-reveals-original-ending-ideas/

Talking to VGS , Karpyshyn details the ending, which he admits wasn't "super fleshed out". The plot would have revolved around Dark Energy: something that was mentioned in Mass Effect 2, but never expanded upon.

"Dark Energy was something that only organics could access because of various techno-science magic reasons we hadn't decided on yet," Karpyshyn said. "Maybe using this Dark Energy was having a ripple effect on the space-time continuum.

"Maybe the Reapers kept wiping out organic life because organics keep evolving to the state where they would use biotics and dark energy and that caused an entropic effect that would hasten the end of the universe. Being immortal beings, that's something they wouldn't want to see.

"Then we thought, let's take it to the next level. Maybe the Reapers are looking at a way to stop this. Maybe there's an inevitable descent into the opposite of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) and the Reapers realise that the only way they can stop it is by using biotics, but since they can't use biotics they have to keep rebuilding society - as they try and find the perfect group to use biotics for this purpose. The Asari were close but they weren't quite right, the Protheans were close as well.

"Again it's very vague and not fleshed out, it was something we considered but we ended up going in a different direction."

Karpyshyn left BioWare shortly before the conclusion of Mass Effect 2, with Mac Walters taking over as lead writer for Mass Effect 3. Even so, Karpyshyn defended series' real ending, pointing out that his planned version was just as likely to disappoint.

See? And it wasn't just him. Notice the "we"?

I'm not blaming ME3 entirely, but it was in the game in ME2 and the whole story was clearly hinting at something more for the reapers than man v machine BS even apart from it.

The collectors are not at all connected to indoctrination presented in ME1.

I realize they're different concepts, but it's still mind control. The Collectors are engineered to be completely controlled, but the concept of mind control in general is still there. Concept-wise, not a lore similarity.

ME2 dialed up B-movie elements while trying to present itself as a Hollywood blockbuster with deep character stories, which is why the atmosphere falls flat. Even ME1 had better impacting scenes, like the first time coming to the Citadel, and Sovereign attacking with the backdrop of the wards. You don't have to look deep to find an actual great B-movie tier game around the same time period. The Witcher, lots of those elements, with very specific focus on things that make it feel like a labour of love, exactly what makes those same movies feel charming. ME2 is like a pretentious failed college student making action movie slop, spending 95% of his budget on cinematics, then trying to present it as a timeless classic.

Yeah, I don't think ME2 was going for "timeless classic" with camera shots of Miranda's ass. I think you're seeing pretension where little if any exists.

The only blockbuster elements are in the better graphics etc.

Characters, the most overrated aspect of ME2. 12 companions, each with their own "loyalty mission" completely separated from eachother. The absolute easiest writing you could possibly do.

And ME1 did better? The only time characters interacted with each other was Ashley shooting Wrex (which was irrelevant because you could kill him yourself) or love triangle issues (which ME2 also has).

That's less complexity than Baldur's Gate 1, which had companions that would fight and kill each other without the player telling them to - along with various quests for them and possible interactions.

ME1s characters are lacking for sure, but it's not a character piece so I can let it slide.

A lot of the things you pointed out about ME1 are a fault of the direction ME2 took. You have to remember ME1 is not like DA:O, it was designed and written to be the first game in a trilogy, closely connected. ME2 going off rails into something completely different hampers a lot of the aspects of ME1.

I can understand being pissed off that a sequel departs from its predecessor to some degree. ME2 completely dumped the space politics and turned the player from a military officer into almost a renegade privateer.

But the thing about the original is that it wasn't terribly unique or interesting. Like you said, "it's not about the characters". So, what was it about? The story? Paper thin. The gameplay? Simplistic, with a bunch of procedural filler. The setting? What a bland universe. The only interesting things happening outside of the geth/reaper stuff was some corporate black ops and the mysterious Cerberus, which only got any interaction in unvoiced text side quests (and got completely killed off in ME3).

ME1 was a skeleton. ME2 tried to add some meat to its bones. You may not like it, but like, that's just your opinion, man.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

The risk with failures is that if they're too difficult, someone will pigeonhole themselves into a TPK even when they were actually trying.

If you play the game drunk or not paying attention, chances are you will mess up. If you try to rush the end and don't upgrade your ship, you will mess up. If you don't do your companion quests, they'll probably die in the final battle. If you pick the wrong team member for a job during the suicide mission, they'll probably die. If you slack off and wait too long to rescue your crew, they'll die.

It's not genius-level stuff, but it's enough to reward someone who was paying attention and slap casuals who thought nothing mattered. That level of reactivity makes your choices seem a little more valuable than a plot on rails.

I'm not talking from a casuals point of view so I don't care if there is some "choice" from that perspective. You've used a lot of words to say "Complete a checklist of everything you're able to do in the game". That's the choice, which then renders the saving the crew quickly consequence moot because it's all you have to do anyways except 1 mission.

The choices during the Suicide Mission could've been great if they made any sense. Don't help someone with their daddy issues? Dead, but completely unrelated to not being loyal. Picked the wrong specialist? In some cases, not all, the scene where they die makes no sense. Picking the right specialists is extremely easy. Then for the hidden "strength" number for the final choice (when you go fight the reaper), unlike all other times, not a single character speaks up about what you might need there, when it's the only choice that wasn't 100% obvious.

Failing at portraying meaningful choices is worse than a smoother, more linear experience (But it's laughable to suggest ME1 is more linear than ME2).

Bro, it was a whole planet's worth of quest that revolved around its research.

"Whole planet's worth"

You need to stop exaggerating. It was a couple of lines in a short recruitment mission and then one more mention of it after that when you're on the flotilla. That does not feel at all like setting up for a larger reveal. If they were, like you're saying, that makes ME2 worse than even I'm making it out to be.

I realize they're different concepts, but it's still mind control. The Collectors are engineered to be completely controlled, but the concept of mind control in general is still there. Concept-wise, not a lore similarity.

And unlike ME1, they don't explore the "how", and the "why" is ridiculous (turning humans into grey goo to create a human bio-synthetic reaper. Oh, btw, Humans are special all of a sudden. ME1 didn't flesh out indoctrination much, but somehow still did more than ME2. ME2s concept of "mind control" was there to give us new mooks to fight and retcon reapers, that's it.

Yeah, I don't think ME2 was going for "timeless classic" with camera shots of Miranda's ass. I think you're seeing pretension where little if any exists.

The only blockbuster elements are in the better graphics etc.

Those changes were made to sell more, that's it. Consequently, I have people talking to me about ME2 when they hear I play RPGs. Fuck this game.

And ME1 did better? The only time characters interacted with each other was Ashley shooting Wrex (which was irrelevant because you could kill him yourself) or love triangle issues (which ME2 also has).

That's less complexity than Baldur's Gate 1, which had companions that would fight and kill each other without the player telling them to - along with various quests for them and possible interactions.

ME1 did not have 80%+ of the game focusing purely on characters, so the issue is not as impactful.

Like I said, downgrade or sidegrade in almost every aspect.

You have Ashley & Pressley talking about new crewmates, elevator banter, etc. Such a small % of the game was focused on them, less characters, and has the same (if not more believability) that the characters actually interact with each other off and on screen. ME2 has 2 extremely short scenes solved by a paragon/renegade check. So yes, ME1 did better (not that it's a high bar to beat).

But the thing about the original is that it wasn't terribly unique or interesting. Like you said, "it's not about the characters". So, what was it about? The story? Paper thin. The gameplay? Simplistic, with a bunch of procedural filler. The setting? What a bland universe. The only interesting things happening outside of the geth/reaper stuff was some corporate black ops and the mysterious Cerberus, which only got any interaction in unvoiced text side quests - and got completely killed off in ME3.

ME1 is the start of an adventure with a pretty good set up,. It also has great worldbuilding and your "bland universe" comment doesn't do anything to back up your point because it's the same universe as ME2.

ME1 is about discovering the threat and buying time, ME2 should have been learning about HOW to stop the threat, and ME3 should have been actually stopping it.

ME2 had a lot of stuff to bounce off of and improve on ME1 in everything from story to gameplay, but it started from ground 0 and failed to do anything with that.

ME1 was a skeleton. ME2 tried to add some meat to its bones. You may not like it, but like, that's just your opinion, man.

"tried"

Makes my point for me.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I'm not talking from a casuals point of view so I don't care if there is some "choice" from that perspective. You've used a lot of words to say "Complete a checklist of everything you're able to do in the game".

No, you're given specific choices. You can choose whether or not to upgrade the defenses and weapons. Choose whether to wait to rescue your crew. Choose whom to send to what job. It's your choice how to resolve their backstories, if at all.

Those are choices with reactivity. It's also a lot more than ME1 gives you, and that's the bar we're judging by, not any other game.

Don't help someone with their daddy issues? Dead, but completely unrelated to not being loyal.

Explain that to The Witcher 3 devs, who give the same choice with Ciri.

Maybe they weren't concentrating. I forget how the Illusive Man puts it, but you're supposed to make sure everyone is resolved before the end.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's better than nothing, and better than ME1, which gives you nothing.

"Whole planet's worth"

You need to stop exaggerating. It was a couple of lines in a short recruitment mission and then one more mention of it after that when you're on the flotilla.

I meant that the quest wasn't small. You have to fight through the planet to get to Tali, and she explains it. Why she's there and what she's researching is kind of a big question.

If they'd completely axed the idea or it meant nothing, they could have just changed those few lines of dialog you mentioned, as well as the notes you find on the planet.

What was abandoned was the subplot being the end of ME3. But when exactly it was abandoned isn't clear. The reapers were still grinding people up to put into reaper bodies. Why? Who knows. But this was the first shot at an interesting explanation and what replaced it was a lot more boring. Star child lmao.

If they were, like you're saying

It's in the developer quote I posted.

And unlike ME1, they don't explore the "how", and the "why" is ridiculous (turning humans into grey goo to create a human bio-synthetic reaper. Oh, btw, Humans are special all of a sudden.

Of course they're special. Shepard is human and defeated a reaper, thwarting their 50,000 year plan to conquer the galaxy again.

They go into the how of the Collectors quite a bit though, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

The why isn't actually explained though. Turning humans into paste is a means to the end they don't fully explore. The setup for this is in ME1, when Sovereign says that each reaper is a civilization of its own. Maybe this was something they came up with based on that, or maybe it was planned even then. I don't know. They don't explicitly spell it out though.

Those changes were made to sell more, that's it. Consequently, I have people talking to me about ME2 when they hear I play RPGs. Fuck this game.

I played ME1 when it came out, my dude. I probably would have played ME2 even without the bells and whistles. It was a pretty dry season for RPGs even then.

ME1 did not have 80%+ of the game focusing purely on characters, so the issue is not as impactful.

Like I said, downgrade or sidegrade in almost every aspect.

You have Ashley & Pressley talking about new crewmates, elevator banter, etc. Such a small % of the game was focused on them, less characters, and has the same (if not more believability) that the characters actually interact with each other off and on screen. ME2 has 2 extremely short scenes solved by a paragon/renegade check. So yes, ME1 did better (not that it's a high bar to beat).

Zzzzzzzzzzz. Boring.

And 80% of the "gameplay" of ME1 was unvoiced fetch/kill quests on square procedural "planets".

Like I said before, the games are interactive cutscenes. I don't like it, but it is what it is. At least ME2's cutscenes are interesting.

ME1 is the start of an adventure with a pretty good set up,. It also has great worldbuilding and your "bland universe" comment doesn't do anything to back up your point because it's the same universe as ME2.

Except ME2 goes deeper into things like the genophage, Cerberus and every other interesting element introduced in ME1. Everything is expanded upon in an interesting way.

E.g., the concept of biotics research with Jack: In ME1, Kaiden gets headaches. In ME2, you board a prison transport and oh shit some freak biotic escapes! (Pretty lame btw how they intodruce her as a monstrously strong biotic, but she plays fairly normally - Bioware fail.) You're not just told about it either, but you get to go to the facility where she was brought up.

Is ME2 brilliant or original? Nope. This is classic sci fi or anime stuff. But it's more interesting than "ow, my head hurtz. I used to be an experimental biotic and I--" zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

"tried"

Makes my point for me.

Trying = bad. Delivering a bland, boring game with shiny graphics, a generic story and weak gameplay = good. That's your point.

If ME2 came out and were an exact clone of ME1, would you really have been satisfied with it?

I wouldn't have. ME1 didn't even reach Dragon Age: Origins levels of complexity. Not even close.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

No, you're given specific choices. You can choose whether or not to upgrade the defenses and weapons. Choose whether to wait to rescue your crew. Choose whom to send to what job. It's your choice how to resolve their backstories, if at all.

Those are choices with reactivity. It's also a lot more than ME1 gives you, and that's the bar we're judging by, not any other game.

You can do every upgrade 3 times over and have more to spare if you just play the game, the only choice there is how much time you're willing to waste to mine resources.

As for the other choices, that only matters if it adds anything. The only good, impactful choice you get from characters is killing Wrex in ME1, because the Krogan who becomes leader without Wrex in the picture is more stupid and you can trick him into thinking you cured the Genophage. Literally the best, most impactful character choice in the trilogy comes in ME1. As for the others (how their backstories are resolved), it's either pass a paragon/renegade check for happy ending or they die from an unrelated reason. There's no reason to try something different. How is shit, wannabe reactivity an upgrade over a consistently written, less reactive story?

Explain that to The Witcher 3 devs, who give the same choice with Ciri.

Maybe they weren't concentrating. I forget how the Illusive Man puts it, but you're supposed to make sure everyone is resolved before the end.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's better than nothing, and better than ME1, which gives you nothing.

Ahh, Witcher 3, some more shit that tricks the casual crowd into thinking it's the best thing ever.

So all you have is some speculation about some throwaway line, that is the most lazy explanation they could possibly give. That is not better than nothing. Scripted events with a long cinematic would've been better for the game than "oh, yea, for some reason related to not resolving a personal issue, timing was off by 1second and they got shot by a stray bullet while trying to close a door". Not that I would've liked a scripted cinematic either, but that lazy explanation coupled with the portrayal of deaths is not an upgrade, it's at most a sidegrade. Reactivity is not inherently better than scripted events, especially when the reactivity is thrown in for the sake of it without any thought,

I meant that the quest wasn't small. You have to fight through the planet to get to Tali, and she explains it. Why she's there and what she's researching is kind of a big question.

If they'd completely axed the idea or it meant nothing, they could have just changed those few lines of dialog you mentioned, as well as the notes you find on the planet.

What was abandoned was the subplot being the end of ME3. But when exactly it was abandoned isn't clear. The reapers were still grinding people up to put into reaper bodies. Why? Who knows. But this was th

But like I said, if that was the plan, that's a knock against ME2. If they were really setting it up then the 3-4 sentences total talking about it is an extremely weak set up. Everything this game tries just falls flat.

Of course they're special. Shepard is human and defeated a reaper, thwarting their 50,000 year plan to conquer the galaxy again.

Shepard is not special. He is a very skilled soldier and leader at the highest rank of special forces for one of the weaker races in the galaxy. By pure coincidence he got hold of information only him and Saren had access to, and because the beacon exploded, there was no way to give it to anyone else. But even that wasn't enough, he needed Tali, Liara, Shiala & Vigil to put together the rest of the pieces. The information Shepard got, having Spectre access, allies, etc. was enough for him to spearhead the fight against Sovereign, but he himself did not defeat a Reaper. That's a ME2+ mindset of Shepard being an almighty God, discarding any of the reasons he was able to actually do what he did.

They go into the how of the Collectors quite a bit though, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

The why isn't actually explained though. Turning humans into paste is a means to the end they don't fully explore. The setup for this is in ME1, when Sovereign says that each reaper is a civilization of its own. Maybe this was something they came up with based on that, or maybe it was planned even then. I don't know. They don't explicitly spell it out though.

Let me rephrase what I meant:

Mind Control "How" and "Why" in ME1: Sovereign emits a frequency you can't hear which slowly changes the conclusions you come to. It's so subtle that you believe you've come to said conclusions yourself, until it's too late to go back. Nobody knows how it works, but the recipient of it, Saren, understands it's there and is using captured enemies as test subjects. We see the varying levels of indoctrination on these test subjects. Mindless husks too far gone, hysterical people too far gone in the propaganda but can still act (basically muslims), and then the most dangerous in someone like Saren, used to infiltrate the highest levels of society. That's an interesting premise right there, and the portrayal of it never makes it too powerful/OP while leaving the player with a little mystery.

Mind Control "How" and "Why" in ME2: The above premise is never expanded upon again, it's static and only used as a convenient excuse for why someone is acting crazy until it gets to ridiculous levels by ME3. ME2 focuses on this new mind control through biological experiments, which is never explained. Sovereign was only able to directly control Saren due to something that was implanted. Okay, we can assume that the Collector leader was implanted as well and that's why Harbinger can control him, but he can also control random collector mooks at will? Can any reaper do this with any of the biological constructs they make? If so, why don't they? Or was every collector somehow implanted the same way as Saren?

Then we have the "How" which you said was shown with the turning humans into paste. But that's all we get. Take a look at how ME1 did it, we never knew the "How", it remained a mystery, but it was still being explored making it a lot more "believable" (I don't have a better word for this). The "Why" is known already however, it's just how Reapers reproduce now apparently.

And 80% of the "gameplay" of ME1 was unvoiced fetch/kill quests on square procedural "planets".

Like I said before, the games are interactive cutscenes. I don't like it, but it is what it is. At least ME2's cutscenes are interesting.

Those planets were not the main focus of ME1. The main story planets are dense with content.

"ME2 cutscenes are interesting"
Arriving at the Citadel for the first time and Citadel Attack in ME1 are better cutscenes than any in ME2. Unless you're just a fanboy for strong independent woman Aria and like watching Miranda's ass then I forgive you for thinking ME2 cutscenes are interesting.

Except ME2 goes deeper into things like the genophage, Cerberus and every other interesting element introduced in ME1. Everything is expanded upon in an interesting way.

E.g., the concept of biotics research with Jack: In ME1, Kaiden gets headaches. In ME2, you board a prison transport and oh shit some freak biotic escapes! (Pretty lame btw how they intodruce her as a monstrously strong biotic, but she plays fairly normally - Bioware fail.) You're not just told about it either, but you get to go to the facility where she was brought up.

Mordin is a saving grace in that game, too bad ME3 ruined any nuance of the Genophage, changed Mordin and even in ME2 you're forced to act all righteous with Mordin when he explains what the Genophage really is.

But for that they did right, they fucked with others. One of the only good pieces of sci-fi writing in the trilogy, the Geth, got changed in ME2 (because it was "funny") then full on Pinocchio in ME3. Cerberus was a stupid change as well considering everything surrounding them is extremely inconsistent and the amount of money they have is stupid.

Trying = bad. Delivering a bland, boring game with shiny graphics and weak gameplay = good. That's your point.

If ME2 came out and were an exact clone of ME1, would you really have been satisfied with it?

I wouldn't have. ME1 didn't even reach Dragon Age: Origins levels of complexity. Not even close.

You're misrepresenting how I feel about ME1.

For all its faults, it set up so much and made it easy for ME2 to take that and run with it, while improving gameplay and continuing the plot/expanding on the amazing world building. It failed at that. It started over. I wouldn't be satisfied with ME2 being an ME1 clone but i would still prefer it over what I was actually done with ME2.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

As for the other choices, that only matters if it adds anything. The only good, impactful choice you get from characters is killing Wrex in ME1, because the Krogan who becomes leader without Wrex in the picture is more stupid and you can trick him into thinking you cured the Genophage. Literally the best, most impactful character choice in the trilogy comes in ME1.

You're factoring in ME3. I'm just talking about how each game is on its own.

I agree that ME3 did an extremely poor job of carrying over ME2 choices, but that's ME3's fault, not ME2's.

As for the others (how their backstories are resolved), it's either pass a paragon/renegade check for happy ending or they die from an unrelated reason. There's no reason to try something different. How is shit, wannabe reactivity an upgrade over a consistently written, less reactive story?

Again, it's still better than ME1: you shoot Wrex or you don't. You pick Kaiden or Ashley. Weeeew, such complexity. Much choices.

So all you have is some speculation about some throwaway line

It's not a throwaway line. It's told to you before the final mission, and told to you during the game.

The whole game is gathering a team to take on the Collectors. This isn't a minor plot point.

But like I said, if that was the plan, that's a knock against ME2. If they were really setting it up then the 3-4 sentences total talking about it is an extremely weak set up. Everything this game tries just falls flat.

People have been speculating about it since it came out. It's hardly something people missed. Many of the fans even mentioned it when talking about their disappointment with ME3's 3 color star child ending BS.

The machine ending they went with was a retread of the Geth plot, and ME1 had nothing other than "muh reapers are coming!"

Again, what you call "weak" is better than the nothing ME1 gave us.

Mind Control "How" and "Why" in ME1: Sovereign emits a frequency you can't hear which slowly changes the conclusions you come to. ... That's an interesting premise right there, and the portrayal of it never makes it too powerful/OP while leaving the player with a little mystery.

ME1 couldn't decide whether it was energy or sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyVP6E0wLOU

Anyway, yeah, it's slightly interesting. Except it's ultimately just a plot device and lives and dies with Sovereign and it just boils down to "mind control rays". The same with the drones the Geth make with their spikes. They have a cool sci fi explanation, but they're really just boring zombies.

Once you understand the basic concept, there's nothing to see there. You don't need to know how it works exactly, just like you don't need to know what mass effect is beyond the cool powers.

Okay, we can assume that the Collector leader was implanted as well and that's why Harbinger can control him, but he can also control random collector mooks at will?

Yes, the leader is the head of their hivemind. The leader controls the drones, and the leader is controlled by the reaper. I thought this was obvious.

Can any reaper do this with any of the biological constructs they make? If so, why don't they? Or was every collector somehow implanted the same way as Saren?

The Collectors were an engineered species. If the reapers had other similar species, sure, they might have done this. But they didn't seem to have any such others.

"ME2 cutscenes are interesting"
Arriving at the Citadel for the first time and Citadel Attack in ME1 are better cutscenes than any in ME2.

Not what I meant at all. I'm saying that the game is an interactive movie and I find the writing of said movie more interesting in ME2 than 1.

Also, was this your first sci fi game/show or something? Seeing the Citadel for the first time just made me think think "well, that's a nonsensical design".



How does the air stay inside? Why build it to open like that? Just so Sovereign can pretend to be a bee pollinating a flower one time in 50,000 years? Silly.

But for that they did right, they fucked with others. One of the only good pieces of sci-fi writing in the trilogy, the Geth, got changed in ME2 (because it was "funny")

ME1 called them flashlight heads, dude.

And I don't know how they were changed to be "funny" exactly.

Cerberus was a stupid change as well considering everything surrounding them is extremely inconsistent and the amount of money they have is stupid.

Inconsistent between the 3, but relatively consistent in ME2. As consistent as it can be in a Bioware game anyway.

For all its faults, it set up so much and made it easy for ME2 to take that and run with it, while improving gameplay and continuing the plot/expanding on the amazing world building. It failed at that. It started over. I wouldn't be satisfied with ME2 being an ME1 clone but i would still prefer it over what I was actually done with ME2.

And here's where I think you're mistaken: it didn't start over. There was just so little there in ME1 that anything they expanded upon felt like a total change.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

Again, it's still better than ME1: you shoot Wrex or you don't. You pick Kaiden or Ashley. Weeeew, such complexity. Much choices.

You choose whether or not to save/kill off the Rachni, you choose whether to save the council/kill them to take power/let them die to focus on Sovereign, you choose the Human councilor, etc. In the context of ME1 those are massive choices, then ME2 and ME3 spit in the face of that. Most of your examples of ME2 choices are literally completing a checklist then common sense picking the right person. You get nothing out of them dying, nothing special. Wow, such complexity. Much Choices.

It's not a throwaway line. It's told to you before the final mission, and told to you during the game.

The whole game is gathering a team to take on the Collectors. This isn't a minor plot point.

I was talking about the dark energy references buddy

Anyway, yeah, it's slightly interesting. Except it's ultimately just a plot device and lives and dies with Sovereign and it just boils down to "mind control rays". The same with the drones the Geth make with their spikes. They have a cool sci fi explanation, but they're really just boring zombies.

Once you understand the basic concept, there's nothing to see there. You don't need to know how it works exactly, just like you don't need to know what mass effect is beyond the cool powers.

And yet it's portrayed better than in ME2. You seem to forget you're here defending ME2.

Also, was this your first sci fi game/show or something? Seeing the Citadel for the first time just made me think think "well, that's a nonsensical design".

I said it was a better scene than anything in ME2 so relax with the condescending question there.

Do you prefer Days of our Lives to sci-fi? Soap opera drama thy name is ME2.

What scenes stood out that were "interesting" in ME2?

ME1 called them flashlight heads, dude.

And I don't know how they were changed to be "funny" exactly.

Chris L'oitelle or however you spell his name (think it was him) said in some blog posts how some higher ups thought it would be funny to make Legion a Shepard fanboy and all that despite the nature of the Geth. Again, another wasted opportunity.

Inconsistent between the 3, but relatively consistent in ME2. As consistent as it can be in a Bioware game anyway.

It is a direct sequel, the massive retcon to the whole organization is by definition inconsistent. And the game railroads you into accepting anything that comes your way from them, even if you have a background directly related to them.

And here's where I think you're mistaken: it didn't start over. There was just so little there in ME1 that anything they expanded upon felt like a total change.

This is just objectively wrong.

Shepard has the understanding of being a Prothean, knows what's going on with the reapers, is a Spectre with resources, a ship, and a crew. 99.9% of the galaxy is unexplored, they could've done ANYTHING , a new adventure in discovering how to stop the reapers and learning about them. ME2 didn't just keep things static, it set everything back.

If you are fine with a collection of a dozen or so small soap opera missions that's fine, I know production values and and cheap character stories fool a lot of people.

 

[Silverfish]

Mass Effect 2 does nothing better than ME1 apart from cinematics. Everything else is at most a sidegrade.

Vanguard charge.

 

[J1M]

DA:O was probably the last progressive but not woke game from them. It has protowoke crap here and there but still portrays medieval sexism and traditional sex roles for men and women. Hamburger Hepler included lesbian Branka and her lover.

Worth remembering that Branka's not shown as being any kind of empowering or pandering character though. She cheats on her whipped and devoted husband who the game is sympathetic to while she's one of the most blatantly evil characters in the game.

ME and DA had a few things like that but I don't even think they were protowoke. A woke game wouldn't allow a gay character to ever be villainous and it would treat a pathetic guy getting cucked as something really funny and empowering for women. Even Helper wasn't woke at one point.

Self inserting a fantasy version of yourself is great writing now?

 

[La vie sexuelle]

DA:O was probably the last progressive but not woke game from them. It has protowoke crap here and there but still portrays medieval sexism and traditional sex roles for men and women. Hamburger Hepler included lesbian Branka and her lover.

Worth remembering that Branka's not shown as being any kind of empowering or pandering character though. She cheats on her whipped and devoted husband who the game is sympathetic to while she's one of the most blatantly evil characters in the game.

ME and DA had a few things like that but I don't even think they were protowoke. A woke game wouldn't allow a gay character to ever be villainous and it would treat a pathetic guy getting cucked as something really funny and empowering for women. Even Helper wasn't woke at one point.

Self inserting a fantasy version of yourself is great writing now?

 

[9ted6]

DA:O was probably the last progressive but not woke game from them. It has protowoke crap here and there but still portrays medieval sexism and traditional sex roles for men and women. Hamburger Hepler included lesbian Branka and her lover.

Worth remembering that Branka's not shown as being any kind of empowering or pandering character though. She cheats on her whipped and devoted husband who the game is sympathetic to while she's one of the most blatantly evil characters in the game.

ME and DA had a few things like that but I don't even think they were protowoke. A woke game wouldn't allow a gay character to ever be villainous and it would treat a pathetic guy getting cucked as something really funny and empowering for women. Even Helper wasn't woke at one point.

Self inserting a fantasy version of yourself is great writing now?

It's not great writing but it's not prog shit. Branka's not flattering enough to be a self insert either.