119 réponses à ce sujet

[Yakko77]

I've seen footage of other players playthroughs where they proudly show the entire squad wiped out in the SM.  If that's how they want to play, that's fine but IMO it defeats the purpose of what the game intended IMO in that you are sent out to build a squad and lead them through impossible odds in the hopes that you, their leader, are able to pull off the impossible yet again and get them through the mission successfully.  Even on my first playthough and every one following that I logically assigned my squad to their respective roles and got everyone through alive on all 7 of my playthroughs.

But again, that's just my way of playing the game but overall I think I agree with the OP.

[Johnsen1972]

Bocks wrote...

Let me say this right now: It's stupid.

No matter how much you hate a character, no matter how much you want to see them dead- we're on a mission to save the galaxy here. You're going to want to have as many allies as possible. Everyone can contribute somehow, so why do so many of you kill of a character you aren't forced to kill off (like during the Virmire decision -when you're forced to choose)?

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

Contrary to popular belief, killing off someone in the suicide mission DOESN'T necessarily make the story more interesting or exciting or sad. Just look at Harry Potter for a minute. Did all the characters that died in the final book HAVE to die? How could the story have been affected if one of the characters didn't die? Did we really care for their deaths by the end?

A death is truly dramatic and exciting when it is given to someone who holds a very firm grip on the way the story can continue or end. At this point in the ME trilogy, we aren't really sure if any of the ME2 characters will affect the story in different ways if they're dead or alive (though we can make assumptions), but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

Nothing good comes from death.

Dude, this game is almost 1 year old, the last DLC is more then 3 months old. People are bored and many have played the game more then 10 times.

Let them play how they want to play 

[aeetos21]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Well, thank you, I remember now. Even the charges he was about to face were the same as Socrates, and he even said that by fleeing he did the Athenians a favor.

Athenians were fond of putting the best of their own on trial... Shepard's trial, anyone?

I acutally gave that some thought when considering a Mass Effect 3 fanfic story. Shepard comes back with all this proof and instead the Council puts him on trial for cohorting with Cerberus and organzing/mobilizing Terminus forces (Korgan, Geth, Quarian, and even Rachni) in what could only be seen as a hostile act towards Citadel space.

Basically Saren all over again. Then I found one ME story that pretty much had the same storyline and I decided to think of something else to spend all my free time with over break.

[padaE]

I have three saves ready for ME3 and in all three of them all my team survived.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
 is this another one of your "SC2 is the best game evur" thingamajigs?

I don't think SC2 is the best game ever. I do think it's the best game of 2010. And its story is better than the story of ME2, because it's more dramatic. And this is how it pertains to this thread. ME2 story isn't dramatic enough, and the idea of a "suicide mission" with no casualties is what makes it not dramatic enough. So I use SC2 strory as an example. Of course, I am a meagre forum poster, not an opinion leader like the "professional" reviewers at Game Informer and elsewhere, hence my opinion is wrong by definition. In the opinion of most of other meagre forum posters here. Big deal.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
but you don't seem to think he never actually died in the first place.

He didn't.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
You know, when most people go into something thinking they are about to die and come out alive, they're happy about it.  Seriously, dude, when it says PROVE THEM WRONG on the back of the damn box...

Prove them wrong, yeah. By making it out alive yourself, as Shepard (as needed for continuing the character into ME3). But in fact, this seems totally out of question, since you have to suck so real hard at games, to get Shepard killed (without being actually determined to have it this way), that it'd be unclear why you've sat to play it in the first place. Which also withdraws from the value of it being a "suicide mission".

Shepard's own survival rate on people's first playthroughs should have been around 50%. This way people would have been real happy about surviving the suicide mission, even if it took them more than one attempt to do so.

Also, this.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 18 décembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[MisterDyslexo]

I just did it to see how things turn out. I've got 12 profiles ready for ME3, but only 3 have dead characters, just for the sake of finding out. I don't think that it will turn out better, but I think it will affect it. Like for example the Migrant Fleet losing Tali won't win you favours with them. Killing off Legion will greatly hamper diplomacy with "true" geth. So on, so forth.

No character really blantantly seems like they deserve to die. You could say Legion if "she's a spy!" but I think Legion would've struck already. Maybe Jack because she's unstable, but thats only really if you don't gain her loyalty (in which case she'll probably die anyways). She's not necessarily evil per-say, and could probably experience a dynamic change to become a "not completely psycho". Can't think of any others personally.

Modifié par MisterDyslexo, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I don't thing SC2 is the best game ever. I do think it's the best game of 2010. And it's story is better them the story of ME2, because it's more dramatic. And this is how it pertains to this thread. ME2 story isn't dramatic enough, and the idead of a "suicide mission" with no casualties is what makes it not dramatic enough. So I use SC2 strory as an example. Of course, I am a meagre forum poster, not an opinion leader like the "professional" reviewrs at Game Informer and elsewhere, hence my opinion is wrong by definition. In the opinion of most of other meagre forim posters here. Big deal.

I thought ME2 was plenty dramatic (Mordin's loyalty quest comes to mind), and the fact that I was expecting to die but made it out alive was a big LIKE WHOA moment for me.  Jumping up and whooping "YESSS!" is just as emotional as throwing your controller across the room and swearing because your favorite bro just [insert death scene here].  In fact, I think the victory whoop is more rewarding, because people enjoy being happy.  Imagine that!

You and I both know that online reviews are just as subjective as our own.  Stop being such a martyr.

He didn't.

I'm pretty sure he did, but I am not about to argue that point with you.

Prove them wrong, yeah. By making it out alive yourself, as Shepard (as needed for continuing the characteer into ME3). But in fact, this seems totally out of question, since you have to suck so real hard at games, to get Shepard killed (without being actually determined to have it this way), that it's unclear why you've sat to play it in the first place. Which also withdraws from the value of it being a "suicide mission".

Does the phrase "critical mission failure" mean anything to you?  There was a lot of sucking and dying on my part, but it was independent of my roleplaying.  Which was a good thing, I'd say; I'm horrible at the shooty-killy bits.  But I can say, with a fair amount of confidence, that the game was about your team.  Shepard was simply the medium through which you experienced it, and the whole Collector bit was a shaky attempt to tie it all together.

Maybe it's because I'm a wussy little paragon, but I simply can't bring myself to leave my team behind when it is completely within my power to save them.

Shepard's own survival rate on people's first playthroughs should have been around 50%.

Oh yeah, let's make a game where whether you can win it or not will be decided by a coin flip no matter how good at roleplaying/shooting things you are.  That'll go over well.

Also, this.

[PMorgan18]

Killing off teammates is a good experiment:

If Miranda dies do I have a new XO?

If Jack is dead does somebody else swear at me?

If everyone is dead but Garrus, Tali, Legion, and Normandy crew and I said FU to the council and Cerberus can I still save the galaxy?



If I'm going to play it 20 times I'm not going to do the same things every time.

My canon play everyone did survive.

[PrinceLionheart]

I think killing off characters to see the how it changes the story is understandable. It is a roleplaying game, so experimentation is going to be part of the experience.



Now, what I find stupid is the "This character annoys me so they must die" argument some people use. Sorry, but it just comes off as immature.

[Pericles1210]

I played ME1 and ME2 by making decisions I think I'd make personally if I had to (mostly paragon). All my people survived (a good hurray moment), Ashely died on Virmire and I didn't cheat on Liara.



Since then, I've replayed with killing Kaiden, cheating on a romance and having members die. It was just for different perspectives, not for the story I consider my personal Mass Effect Arc. Isn't that the point of the game, to be able to try different things.

[AdmiralCheez]

@Pericles1210: It is indeed, but I think the argument here is mostly how people are killing characters out of spite/think characters should die in all saves. Those are the ones the OP and I seem to have a problem with.

[Kane-Corr]

aeetos21 wrote...

Edit: @Kane, I remember that too! Everyone was talking about who would betray who and they were all thinking that if anyone would it'd be Miranda given her loyalty to Cerberus and several were thinking of killing TIM first chance the got. In the end... well this a no spoiler thread

[/quote]



Yes! I actually had this mentality the whole way through until the end!  I romanced Miranda and I prayed to God she wouldn't betray my character lol! BUT, I thought that Jack was going to kill off my entire team! I remembered an article that had leaked prior to the games release, like some Polish article or something that someone posted from a game reviewer. In it he said that Jack had betrayed Shepard and the squad. Maybe it was just a feature they decided to do without? I guess it would have been too complicated to implement. I literally took both Jack AND Miranda with me to the final fight.


I was just like...I am NOT going to let Jack kill everyone hahah!

Modifié par Kane-Corr, 18 décembre 2010 - 06:13 .

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I thought ME2 was plenty dramatic (Mordin's loyalty quest comes to mind),

Maybe that is why I think it is the best level in all of ME2?

AdmiralCheez wrote...

and the fact that I was expecting to die but made it out alive was a big LIKE WHOA moment for me.

I was expecting to survive the suicide mission, but wasn't sure of it. When it was over, it was a big "Lol, that it?" momnet for me. It was a little downplayed, of course, by all the other lolwhut moments of ME2 that came before it.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Jumping up and whooping "YESSS!" is just as emotional as throwing your controller across the room and swearing because your favorite bro just [insert death scene here].  In fact, I think the victory whoop is more rewarding, because people enjoy being happy.  Imagine that!

You know why the huskateers look down on the ME2 fans? Because of this. What happiness can be there if you are guaranteed to be happy? Enjoying this kind of happiness is pathetic.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Does the phrase "critical mission failure" mean anything to you?

Yes. It means the same as when Shepard delivers a line which I don't like, although it looked fine on the dialogue wheel. "Hit F9 to quickload".

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Maybe it's because I'm a wussy little paragon, but I simply can't bring myself to leave my team behind when it is completely within my power to save them.

No, this kind of thinking can be pretty big. You can be a seasoned three star general sitting in a warm bunker and sipping hot coffee served by a sexy blonde in a tight-fitting uniform. And you can insist that "nobody gets left behind" while the losses mount and the grunts keep dying their ugly deaths in mud, dust and cold, trying to recover the corpses of their comrades without permission to return fire, because the enemy snipers use civilians as cover. Because it's completely in your power.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Shepard's own survival rate on people's first playthroughs should have been around 50%.

Oh yeah, let's make a game where whether you can win it or not will be decided by a coin flip no matter how good at roleplaying/shooting things you are.  That'll go over well.

I didn't say that it must be a flip of a coin. I say that the choices must be harder, and the enemies portrayed tougher. More factors should be considered.

Put Miranda for Fire team leader? Fine, unless there is Jack on that team. She shots Miranda in the back. You should have kept them apart. Put Garrus for Fire team? Miranda questions his skills, and a random team member dies while they are at it. Hold the Line team pinned down? Go pull them out or leave them behind. If under strenght while pulling them out - everyone dies.

But as is it's a no-brainer: 1. Mine out all galaxy. 2. Choose at start blue or red and always select that color on the dialogue wheel. 3. Do all loyalty missions. What kind of team management is that?

[Aidoru Kami]

Bocks wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

People will die, again not that many people saw the need to rescue the Normandy's crew ASAP. But keeping people alive for the sake of content in ME3 makes sense from a fictional standpoint - if not entirely realistic. Though I am not a fan of the series according to my mom and sister apparently the author of the Harry Potter stuff is killing off half her characters in the last two parts of the series.

Having more people around to get knocked off in the last chapter makes it more exciting, this is fact. Is it realistic? I mean REALLY how many people managed to save Kelly during their first playthrough without the assistance of a guide or something?

If killing people off at the end (though their deaths ultimately mean nothing) makes it more exciting, I failed to be touched by the last Harry Potter book.

Honestly, just think of how anticlimactic the last book would have been if NO ONE had died. Honestly. It makes Voldemort and everyone affiliated with him look like a complete wimp. The point in killing characters off is to make an opposing force feel more powerful, or more accurately, to make the reader hate them more.

In my first playthrough on the suicide mission, I lost Mordin, Garrus, and Thane... my three best buddies... I was so horrified at it that I had to go all the way back and use some sort of guide, something I hate doing. But I really wanted them all to live. But I do agree with the OP's point.

I personally dislike Zaeed and Samara a bit, though I wouldn't kill them on purpose. I want to see them developed on further in the next game. Maybe I'll even like them more if they are! Not to mention, I want as many freaking people on my side as possible when everything goes to hell in the next game.

EDIT: Though I must say, I do disagree with you on the grounds that deaths don't make for a more emotionally involving story. I really do. I wish the suicide mission would have been more like a suicide mission, actually. Be a bit more in-depth and waaaaaay more difficult to have everyone come out. It's not that I WANT them dead, but... I just think it would have been more epic that way. I hope they'll do something like it for ME3's finale.

Modifié par Aidoru Kami, 18 décembre 2010 - 06:33 .

[lazuli]

I always save all of my squadmates simply because I have the power to do so. Is it wrong that I want that power taken away from me in ME3? I want scripted deaths that are inevitable for certain squadmates. The element of choice like in Virmire is acceptable, but I would still like some squadmates to die no matter what, as I think it would dramatically fulfill the character's story.

[LoveAsThouWilt]

I'm a Paragon to the core. Plain and simple. I use Renegade actions on enemies because their fun and works. I use Paragon every time its available. And I ALWAYS save my Allies. Why? Because I an am I like them. Except for Zaaeed. I hate him and wish he would die, but i'm not going out of my way to kill him.

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Maybe that is why I think it is the best level in all of ME2?

JESUS CHRIST STOP THAT BEFORE WE AGREE ON SOMETHING

I was expecting to survive the suicide mission, but wasn't sure of it. When it was over, it was a big "Lol, that it?" momnet for me. It was a little downplayed, of course, by all the other lolwhut moments of ME2 that came before it.

Meh.  It made me happy, but that's mostly because in every single other work of fiction, my favorite character always dies.  The Mass Effect series is the one place where I can actively keep that from happening.  Does it make the story "better?"  No, but it makes it way more enjoyable for me.  Fantasy fulfillment: that's what RPGs are for.

You know why the huskateers look down on the ME2 fans? Because of this. What happiness can be there if you are guaranteed to be happy? Enjoying this kind of happiness is pathetic.

But it wasn't guaranteed, was it?  In hindsight, the decisions are obvious, sure, but think about how easy it is to skip something or make a bad choice.  You'd be surprised how many people had Miranda make the uber-bubble and asked Zaeed to kindly lead the fire team (I can think of three people off the top of my head that I know in real life who made one or both of those mistakes).  Sure, they spoon-fed it to you, but this is a fairly new game mechanic we're talking about here, and they honestly worked it up like you might not make it out alive.  If you read other people's posts in this thread, you'll see how some people were freaking out about how X might die or Y might betray them.  I personally flipped out when Fire Team Leader #2 took a bullet because I didn't know if they'd make it.  Even after they got back up, I keep looking over my shoulder at them to make sure they were okay.

By the way, the huskateers are guaranteed the same ending every single time they play SC2.  The only difference is whether or not Ariel (go die in a hole because you're boring and Selendis is hotter) and Tosh (total BAMF) are alive, and chances are that won't effect how Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void plays out.

Yes. It means the same as when Shepard delivers a line which I don't like, although it looked fine on the dialogue wheel. "Hit F9 to quickload".

Ah, boy oh boy does that make me cringe sometimes.  Happened a lot in ME1, too.  I accidentally'd Kaidan Alenko.  Twice.

No, this kind of thinking can be pretty big. You can be a seasoned three star general sitting in a warm bunker and sipping hot coffee served by a sexy blonde in a tight-fitting uniform. And you can insist that "nobody gets left behind" while the losses mount and the grunts keep dying their ugly deaths in mud, dust and cold, trying to recover the corpses of their comrades without permission to return fire, because the enemy snipers use civilians as cover. Because it's completely in your power.

Well, damn.  I suppose I really can't do anything in the face of that wonderful strawman of yours, can I?

Actually, I can.  Shepard is right in the heat of the action and isn't commanding a faceless army.  The people (s)he needs to save are there, right there, and all (s)he has to do is assign them to the right role and hit a paragon interrupt every once in a while.  That general you described is doing what he's doing for social prestige, sacrificing his men for personal gain, while Shepard is actively attempting to save the people (s)he personally knows and cares about, for their sake, not hers/his.  It's like pulling someone off the street so they don't get hit by a bus, while that general is telling someone else to jump in front of it in a foolish attempt to slow it down.

I didn't say that it must be a flip of a coin. I say that the choices must be harder, and the enemies portrayed tougher. More factors should be considered.

My bad, dude.

Put Miranda for Fire team leader? Fine, unless there is Jack on that team. She shots Miranda in the back. You should have kept them apart. Put Garrus for Fire team? Miranda questions his skills, and a random team member dies while they are at it. Hold the Line team pinned down? Go pull them out or leave them behind. If under strenght while pulling them out - everyone dies.

Those are actually good ideas.  Maybe these sort of complexities can be worked into ME3.  However, it's a bit late to fix it now, so I'm going to focus my whining on other areas.  Like renegade scarring.  Who thought that one up?

But as is it's a no-brainer: 1. Mine out all galaxy. 2. Choose at start blue or red and always select that color on the dialogue wheel. 3. Do all loyalty missions. What kind of team management is that?

Eh, it's a first step.  I give 'em points for trying.

[MyryaSzataria]

Okay, well, here's my 2 cents. If I had a choice, I'd NEVER recruit Jack. I positively despise Jack, and while I haven't killed her off in my playthroughs (Somehow she survives even without getting her loyalty, extremely annoying) I'd happy ram a nuke up her nose. I'm never given a choice in recruiting her however, she's forced onto my team, and I never have her on my ground partis, and I never have her lead anything on the final mission. Hard as it is, the loyalty mission for Samara is less idiotic than Jack's. I hate the entire paragon/renegade system dictating how charasmatic I am, so often I have a hard time getting Samara's loyalty, and Jack, forget it, you need max to get hers, and I never can max out.  Jacob, also, I would happily drop off a cliff, he's more emo drama I think was wasted time, but again, not given a choice about him being on my team. I do his stupid loyalty mission and send him off to keep the rescued crew safe. My other teammates are at least somewhat interesting, some are actually interesting, but yeah, Jack and Jacob I'd happy drop a sack of anvils on.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

By the way, the huskateers are guaranteed the same ending every single time they play SC2.  The only difference is whether or not Ariel (go die in a hole because you're boring and Selendis is hotter) and Tosh (total BAMF) are alive, and chances are that won't effect how Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void plays out.

The huskateers are guaranteed that every time two of them sit to play a 1v1 game, only one will come out happy.

Also, Ariel is the hottest and the Protoss suck, and Tosh is a scumbag, and Nova is total BAMF.

Oh, & BTW, in the campaign mode there is a mission which is totally unwinnable.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 18 décembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The huskateers are guaranteed that every time two of them sit to play a 1v1 game, only one will come out happy.

Singleplayer and multiplayer are two entirely different spheres, my friend.  Your argument is invalid.

Also, Ariel is the hottest and the Protoss suck, and Tosh is a scumbag, and Nova is total BAMF.

O NO U DINT

Oh, & BTW, in the campaign mode there is a mission which is totally unwinnable.

That one was my favorite.  However, it was only a "vision" and you knew it was 100% unwinnable right from the beginning.  It was like space invaders with a tech tree: KILL AS MANY AS YOU CAN AND DISPLAY YOUR HIGH SCORE WITH PRIDE.

(Can't wait to play Legacy of the Void, man.  Urun and Mohandar are my bros.  I MUST SEE MOAR.  MOAR PROTOSS.)

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 18 décembre 2010 - 08:41 .

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The huskateers are guaranteed that every time two of them sit to play a 1v1 game, only one will come out happy.

Singleplayer and multiplayer are two entirely different spheres, my friend.  Your argument is invalid.

Totally valid. The huskateers enjoy being unhappy half of the time, and despise the ME2 fans who are high on ther NOLB achievement.

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Also, Ariel is the hottest and the Protoss suck, and Tosh is a scumbag, and Nova is total BAMF.

O NO U DINT

"Everyone has skeletons in a closet. Keep it up and I may add yours to mine."

I wish there were LI's like that in ME2... Gianna comes close, but oh well...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Oh, & BTW, in the campaign mode there is a mission which is totally unwinnable.

That one was my favorite.

So it turns out dramatic scenarios can be someone's favorite. Who could have thought?..

[jonnyblueballs]

Bocks wrote...

Surviving the suicide mission is easy. Anyone who thinks about the roles of their characters and tries to do their best to match their abilities to the task required is capable of getting everyone out alive (assuming they've upgraded and have everyone or mostly everyone loyal).

I agree. I knew nothing and only lost that drell lizard guy. And even him only because i figured he had easily the least to lose anyway so i sent him. And you're right, it's not that great dramatically unless you see Commander Shepard as not much of a commander afterall. It's like when in bad a movie people dramatically die because they do stupid things for the plot.

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Totally valid. The huskateers enjoy being unhappy half of the time, and despise the ME2 fans who are high on ther NOLB achievement.

There is a difference between a solo challenge and multiplayer competition.  I go up against another human being to test my skill, and I play single-player for the sake of escapism.  You don't go to a movie theater to play football.

And if you do, Youtube or it didn't happen.  Because seriously, I'd want to see that.

"Everyone has skeletons in a closet. Keep it up and I may add yours to mine."

Well, butter my biscuit!  We have a fanboy!  That's okay, man: I've thought the protoss were hot since I hit puberty.

On a side note, I'd take Mira Han over Nova any day.  Matt has no idea how lucky he is.

I wish there were LI's like that in ME2... Gianna comes close, but oh well...

And I wish I could have a hot tub party with Mohandar, Urun, and Selendis.  Your point?

So it turns out dramatic scenarios can be someone's favorite. Who could have thought?

I liked it in a purely videogamey sense: the challenge of fighting off waves of enemies for as long as I could and watching the points rack up.  And apocalyptic battles are always cool.  Watching them through crystals given to you by Gloomycakes McPurpleCape who got it from Space Jesus who got it from Retconned Giant Brain?  Meh, not so much.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 18 décembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...

There is a difference between a solo challenge and multiplayer competition.  I go up against another human being to test my skill, and I play single-player for the sake of escapism.  You don't go to a movie theater to play football.
[/quote]
So what was the last M-rated action movie where none of the introduced good guys gets killed?
[/quote]


[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...
[quote]I wish there were LI's like that in ME2... Gianna comes close, but oh well...[/quote]And I wish I could have a hot tub party with Mohandar, Urun, and Selendis.  Your point?
[/quote]
ME2 sucks, of course! At the LIs this time.


[quote]AdmiralCheez wrote...
[quote]So it turns out dramatic scenarios can be someone's favorite. Who could have thought?[/quote]I liked it in a purely videogamey sense: the challenge of fighting off waves of enemies for as long as I could and watching the points rack up.  And apocalyptic battles are always cool.  Watching them through crystals given to you by Gloomycakes McPurpleCape who got it from Space Jesus who got it from Retconned Giant Brain?  Meh, not so much.[/quote]
So why is it so hard to admit that the "suicide mission" would have been only better (possibly better enough to not suck at all) if the odds of survival were lower and a couple or two of manadatory squad deaths peppered it up for real? In a purely videogamey sense?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 18 décembre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Bocks]

Zulu, it makes sense that Bioware made it difficult for Shepard to actually die. Consider that they made it much less difficult and actually commonplace for people's playthroughs to end tragically. Not only would they be unable to import their characters into ME3, but it would make Bioware look less and less towards content aimed at the choices you made in the first two games. Every playthrough in which Shepard dies is one more playthrough of meaningless decision-making, and hence Bioware don't have to focus on making content for, say, Shiala or Gianna Parasini or Emily Wong in ME3.



Meaningless deaths might be painful for a while, but they ultimately contribute nothing and are there simply for the sake of have people die, which is always poor. It's the equivalent of a screamer in horror movies. A cheap way to gain emotion out of the audience.