152 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Yeah, the problem was that a lot of the clues about Cerberus were on the same level as say - Aria being Wrex's old asari friend Aleena. The clues were there for hardcore and observant fans to pick up on, but they easily go unnoticed. Cerberus was the same way. On the one hand, I'm okay with that as it kind of makes them work better as a shadow organization from the perspective of Shepard. On the other hand, it really does hurt the narrative.

I referenced Halo before - I had never read the books or comics. When I played Halo 4, after playing all the other games, I was WTFing all over the place with regards to the Librarian and the Didact. And ancient human starships? The ****? But then I read up on the lore.

It works alright for Halo because most players just mindlessly play for the FPS action, and the more hardcore fans read the back story. But Mass Effect depends on the story in a much more intricate way.

 

I think Cerberus - once you add in all the DLC especially - being the enemy you fight slightly MORE than the Reapers, was a bigger problem.

 

If they were going to be so big (which I don't even support in the first place), then they need to be explained more in the overt narrative.

 

I know Shepard (from my perspective) is more of the Renegade-centered (you have to forget about sidequests and DLC here) protagonist, that relatively doesn't care for answers compared to other characters, and is focused on the fight, etc... but he really needed more to bolster the Paragon side of himself that could want more info. Stuff like 'do you really think the Reapers can be controlled?', or whatever he said to Hackett, just wasn't enough.

 

ME3 was definitely Bioware trying to make Mass Effect into a Shooter-focused game, over the RP. Not to say that the RP wasn't there - imo it definitely was, and perhaps in ways that most players don't understand(?) - but the narrative was more like something you'd see in an outright shooter. Something that doesn't internally explain itself and depends on lore fans to read and comprehend all media that Bioware pumps out.

 

I can't support that. Cerberus and the Reapers needed to make more sense than they did. They still do. And I'm someone who has crazy ideas that the next game will technically be a continuation/true conclusion to much of this story; it just still doesn't matter because ME3 still deserved to explain more than it had explained.

[Saake]

 

Another version of this scenario is that is becomes indoctrinated when Cerberus retrieves the Human Proto-Reaper. Given that the Reaper corpse is not properly contained, and that TIM's office is so close to it may have made him become indoctrinated, but then this would seem odd since Shepard and two squadmates entered a Reaper and were not indoctrinated.

 

I thought same when searching reason for Cerberus indoctrination. Heart/Brain of the Proto-Reaper laid in the base for several months before ME3 started. Plenty of time to affect the whole base, especially TIM. Shepard and companions just passed by the place, didn't linger too long, and then there's plot armour. LIke they weren't affected by the Derelict Reaper either.

[Fixers0]

For Cerberus, from the perspective of both Shepard (the player) and the galaxy, Cerberus becomes exponentially more powerful throughout the story. But that's illusory, as they were really that powerful all along.

 

That's an argument after the fact. You can't use information provided in a later instance as proof for earlier implication unless and explicit connenction is stated.

One should never confuse evidence with interperation of evidence, no matter how likely a piece foreshadowing may be it can never be presented as 100% proof for a future event. Even when the implied event does happen we  still can't point to earlier towars the earlier instance and say it has been forshadowed, because a direct connenction needs to be present.

 

An example, back In ME1, Cerberus really was just an Alliance black ops group that went rogue. Retroactive attempts at explanations do nothing but affirm the fact that there has been  discontinuity in the narrative. In this case Drew Karpshyn outright admitted they retconed Cerberus, all implications in ME1 about Cerberus die at this point. Even when some of these implications turn out to be true later we can not use them as evidence of foreshadowing because the writer told us there is no connection.

[Mrs_Stick]

Just want to say thank you to everyone who has posted here. I had no idea my tiny question would get such great responses. I have one of the books and never read it (can't remeber which one) looks like I need too =)

[Vazgen]

That's an argument after the fact. You can't use information provided in a later instance as proof for earlier implication unless and explicit connenction is stated.

One should never confuse evidence with interperation of evidence, no matter how likely a piece foreshadowing may be it can never be presented as 100% proof for a future event. Even when the implied event does happen we  still can't point to earlier towars the earlier instance and say it has been forshadowed, because a direct connenction needs to be present.

 

An example, back In ME1, Cerberus really was just an Alliance black ops group that went rogue. Retroactive attempts at explanations do nothing but affirm the fact that there has been  discontinuity in the narrative. In this case Drew Karpshyn outright admitted they retconed Cerberus, all implications in ME1 about Cerberus die at this point. Even when some of these implications turn out to be true later we can not use them as evidence of foreshadowing because the writer told us there is no connection.

Quoting the man himself (Link)

A good example of this is Cerberus. When we wrote ME1, Cerberus was basically a throw-away group of pro-human radicals: a name we dropped for some side missions to play the role of villain. We didn’t even have a concept of who was running them, and we didn’t think they were that important. Obviously by the time of my Ascension novel and ME2, that had changed radically. The Illusive Man and Cerberus became central to the story and themes – that never would have happened if we had nailed everything down and refused to make changes to the story.

So I don’t like to say “here’s what we originally were thinking” because it gives a false and very distorted impression of the process. Mass Effect was the creation of a huge team, with contributions coming in from many people at many stages of the project. Some things I liked ended up getting cut, some stuff I wasn’t sure of worked its way in. That’s the nature of the beast with collaborative works, and I think in the end it makes the final product stronger. But talking about the changes after the fact feels like I’m sitting on my throne and proclaiming, “That’s not what I would have done!” It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say “I would do this or that”, but it’s very different when you’re part of the process, working with multiple ideas, trying to piece it all together and still hit your deadlines. Anyone who wasn’t part of the ME3 team is an outsider – even me – and whatever they say about the creation of the game is just unsubstantiated speculation.

His own novel, Ascension, created the basis for Cerberus from ME2. I'm not telling they planned it to be like that all along, but discarding stuff from one game when we get other information from another game (not contradicting each other) is just wrong. Especially since it's possible to fit it all in one big theory which is brought in this thread.

[ImaginaryMatter]

His own novel, Ascension, created the basis for Cerberus from ME2. I'm not telling they planned it to be like that all along, but discarding stuff from one game when we get other information from another game (not contradicting each other) is just wrong. Especially since it's possible to fit it all in one big theory which is brought in this thread.

 

It's not quite so seemless. The stuff about originating as a black-ops group vanishes (the Codex entry for Cerberus is different from the one in the later games). The only other time this comes up in the later games is with those women guarding the gate to the Normandy's War Room, which makes it look like not even the writer's can keep up with Cerberus.

 

The real problem though isn't that we can stand back once everything is said and done and point that the lore is all consistent on this front because everything was retroactively made to be consistent (this really can be done with any story at any point in that story, which should be a troubling sign, not a positive one). Stories aren't made to be consistent, they're made to tell a narrative and narratives are based off of build-ups and payoffs. One of the problems with Cerberus is that they completely demolish this sort of expectation. In ME1 they were unambiguously an evil group, there was nothing to suggest otherwise; even in the name of advancing humanity they managed to exclusively kill humans and halt human advancement, with spectacular incompetence and extreme short sightedness.

 

Then comes ME2, where suddenly they're a morally grey group with extensive facilities led by a guy we've never heard about (this isn't a twist or some kind of clever build-up, it's just a complete 180). The usual justifications are that the players didn't know enough about Cerberus in the first game, which completely misses the point. What this kind of retconning does (or whatever we're calling it) is disconnect the player from the story and it segregates the first game. This is easily exemplified in the first conversation with TIM. Shepard never brings up anything from the first game in talking to TIM and TIM never defends himself, it's like the writers know offering the option would highlight how dumb this all is; it's also clear they aren't trying to connect anything -- it's almost like everyone involved forgot what happened in the last game. Cerberus is a different group and the player is awkwardly railroaded into working for them. That's what bothers people, it turns Mass Effect from a trilogy to 3 games (and random book stuff) with familiar names.

 

ME3 just makes this worse by doing the same thing. The only thing the trilogy keeps consistent about the group is that they are comically incompetent, which is another problem that makes all this stuff about TIM having most of this stuff planned out look contrived.

[Vazgen]

I don't understand. So, if writers made an attempt to make all three games at least seem connected, it's bad? I'll take that over Dragon Breaks in TES lore anytime.

Shepard doesn't mention previous games to TIM, but he does to Miranda and she easily brushes off those questions. You can choose paragon options when talking to TIM and Jacob on Lazarus station and you'll see how Shepard continuously emphasizes his dislike of working with a terrorist organization. You can ask that same question to almost any member of the crew ("How do you feel about working with Cerberus?"). I don't see how ME1 events are not mentioned in ME2. 

Cerberus had few teams in Attican Traverse and thus Shepard has barely any contact with them. But even then you get the sense that the organization is much bigger. Denying an Admiral access to the information on his men, killing him without any repercussions... Again, I'm not saying that this was all thought-out from the start, but it had the potential to expand. It's not like writers gathered in a room and said "look we have this small enemy group, let's make it insanely big for the lolz" The idea has to make sense to pass (unless you think ME writers basically write every nonsense they can think of) and Cerberus evolution through all three games makes sense for me. Especially with books and comics filling the gap.

The main problem I see with Cerberus is how they go from an enemy to a friend and then back to being an enemy. It's not consistent and puzzling for a player. However, ME2 has implications to make you not trust Cerberus like Jack, Pragia, Horizon and Collector Ship. You can undermine their activities in Overlord DLC and N7: Cerberus Operative missions.

[CptFalconPunch]

I "look we have this small enemy group, let's make it insanely big for the lolz"  

 

Bioware kind of stopped caring about the plot and the main storyline in ME2. They kidn of improved in ME3. Kind of, but still. Cerberus is part of the weak narrative that is ME2.

 

A) It's inconsistent among games.

 

 http://masseffect.wi.../Admiral_Kahoku , we never get to ask miranda about this. Or anyone, this was 4 missions in ME1. Brushed off.

 

C) They provide nothing for the story overall.

[Vazgen]

Bioware kind of stopped caring about the plot and the main storyline in ME2. They kidn of improved in ME3. Kind of, but still. Cerberus is part of the weak narrative that is ME2.

 

A) It's inconsistent among games.

 

 http://masseffect.wi.../Admiral_Kahoku , we never get to ask miranda about this. Or anyone, this was 4 missions in ME1. Brushed off.

 

C) They provide nothing for the story overall.

I'm not claiming ME2 to be the pinnacle of storytelling I think I've mentioned it in another thread - I consider ME2 storyline the weakest. The game is built almost entirely on character interactions with just barely enough plot to keep it together.

1) Inconsistent. Sure, but your PoV changes in ME2. You view Cerberus from within. They are portrayed as good, but it makes sense for an insider view.

2) What would you ask her or TIM about him? You already know from ME1 that Cerberus was responsible, even had the motives for their actions. It's not like TIM or Miranda could have anything to add to that.

3) They play a large role in the overall story. The whole idea of a splinter group who wants to control the Reapers and works for them without realizing it. Javik says it was the same in their cycle. Mass Effect: Evolution brings the connection of TIM and Reapers. Mass Effect Retribution shows their work on understanding Reaper technology and their experiments on Paul Greyson. 

The way I see it, games themselves indeed feel disconnected but in combination with official novels and comics it results in a complete story. Not saying it's a good thing (I think it's not) but that's how they decided to tell this story.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I don't understand. So, if writers made an attempt to make all three games at least seem connected, it's bad? I'll take that over Dragon Breaks in TES lore anytime.

Shepard doesn't mention previous games to TIM, but he does to Miranda and she easily brushes off those questions. You can choose paragon options when talking to TIM and Jacob on Lazarus station and you'll see how Shepard continuously emphasizes his dislike of working with a terrorist organization. You can ask that same question to almost any member of the crew ("How do you feel about working with Cerberus?"). I don't see how ME1 events are not mentioned in ME2. 

Cerberus had few teams in Attican Traverse and thus Shepard has barely any contact with them. But even then you get the sense that the organization is much bigger. Denying an Admiral access to the information on his men, killing him without any repercussions... Again, I'm not saying that this was all thought-out from the start, but it had the potential to expand. It's not like writers gathered in a room and said "look we have this small enemy group, let's make it insanely big for the lolz" The idea has to make sense to pass (unless you think ME writers basically write every nonsense they can think of) and Cerberus evolution through all three games makes sense for me. Especially with books and comics filling the gap.

The main problem I see with Cerberus is how they go from an enemy to a friend and then back to being an enemy. It's not consistent and puzzling for a player. However, ME2 has implications to make you not trust Cerberus like Jack, Pragia, Horizon and Collector Ship. You can undermine their activities in Overlord DLC and N7: Cerberus Operative missions.

 

The writers didn't attempt to make the games connect, that would involve not turning Cerberus into the beast it became; along with a few other things.

 

Bringing up some of Ceberus's actions from ME1 with Miranda is not a remedy, why didn't Shepard bring this up with TIM before 'joining' the group? Also being able to bitchandmoan about working for Cerberus is pretty risible considering you're railroaded into working with them anyway.

[SwobyJ]

Cerberus is there to show that regardless of the standout aspects of humanity illustrated in Mass Effect (Shepard, Alliance, expansionism, saving the Citadel), humanity isn't as pure as we like to think. It can be tainted by corruption, and we have to constantly face that by facing Cerberus. We also have to face the idea that this corruption is exactly what helped humanity and Shepard get to the successes they made.

[Fixers0]

Quite frankly, the very existance of a theory based on conjecture and supposition that explains cerberus proves that the narrative cannot hold on it's own, which is however way you slice it, a failure by the writers.

[SwobyJ]

The writers didn't attempt to make the games connect, that would involve not turning Cerberus into the beast it became; along with a few other things.

 

Bringing up some of Ceberus's actions from ME1 with Miranda is not a remedy, why didn't Shepard bring this up with TIM before 'joining' the group? Also being able to bitchandmoan about working for Cerberus is pretty risible considering you're railroaded into working with them anyway.

 

You're always going to be railroaded into some things. You had to be an N7 and Spectre in ME1. You had to be an outlaw and terrorist in ME2. You had to be a savior and figurehead in ME3. You just get to focus on how much of each thing you wanna be. Even in KOTOR, you gotta save the galaxy for the many, as dark side as you can be. There is a plot that has to happen.

 

They could have been smarter about it in ME2. They seemed at a loss on how to properly show Anderson/VS/Alliance and how they couldn't fully accept Shepard. But the concept itself is nothing I find bad.

 

When it comes to their ME1 actions, I would have appreciated some explanation on what exactly they were looking for. So far, we just got "Erm, shock troops." and I don't like that.

[SwobyJ]

Quite frankly, the very existance of a theory based on conjecture and supposition that explains cerberus proves that the narrative cannot hold on it's own, which is however way you slice it, a failure by the writers.

 

It is beyond your comprehension.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ah yes....

 

All of this stuff written post ME2 to fill in the giant plot hole of how Cerberus went from an organization with one failed experiment after another to working for a Bond Villain in a business suit who hides in a space station orbiting a supergiant star protected by the luminosity and radiation. The star is so cool he can keep the station in close orbit. He changes the orbit around the star of the station making it impossible to find. Trying to find it is looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Paragon Lost ... written to fill in the blank about Fehl Prime. ME2 was published on Jan 26 2010. Up until it was written, the colony had been abducted and there was a Prothean Beacon sitting there that the Alliance had done absolutely nothing with. ME3 was released in March 2012. Paragon Lost released in November 2012. Two years had gone by with this huge plot hole waiting to be filled.

 

And then Mass Effect Evolution - in 2011 Mac Walters starts to set up The Illusive Man to be more than he was. And after Mass Effect 3, Mac goes back and starts filling in even more plot holes in the story.

 

If you look at the space stations of Cerberus, probably one for each cell they would have cost hundreds of billions of credits to construct. And the Normandy? and reconstructing Shepard? The Illusive Man must be getting funding from the Systems Alliance plus several major corporations, and have shell companies investing in the galactic stock markets. We know they sell the finest armor and weapons available in the galaxy: better than any Alliance, Asari, or Turian military crap. Their cruisers are more advanced than Alliance ships - Hackett says so himself. So where does he get all this money? TIM bucks! He just fires up the presses when he needs them, and the galaxy accepts them.

 

And hey. You saw the Cerberus brochures, right? Can't get into the Alliance? No problem. Sign up with Cerberus. With our enhancements, we'll have you exceeding Alliance requirements for soldier and other work in no time! Training? Shmaining! Our implants take care of that. You'll wake up in the morning and combat expertise will be second nature.

 

Soldier 1: "Damn, you're ugly. What the hell happened to your eyes?"

 

Soldier 2: "You should talk. Take a look in the mirror."

 

Soldier 1: "Holy crap! What did they do to me?"

 

Voice over speaker: "Don't worry, men. That's a normal side effect. Do you see that steel bar next to the sink? Pick it up and try bending it."

 

*picks up bar and bends it with ease*

 

Soldier 1: "Damn! I've never been this strong in my life!"

 

Voice: "That's one of the benefits of this program. You can't have everything. There are sacrifices. You get strength in exchange for looks. And how do you feel?"

 

Soldier 2: "I feel great."

 

Voice: "Good. Now get in your armor and get ready for action."

 

Soldier 1: "But I'm... bzzzzzt.... Yes, sir!"

 

 

Just accept the fact that the story of Mass Effect wasn't that well written in the first place.

[CptFalconPunch]

I'm not claiming ME2 to be the pinnacle of storytelling I think I've mentioned it in another thread - I consider ME2 storyline the weakest. The game is built almost entirely on character interactions with just barely enough plot to keep it together.

1) Inconsistent. Sure, but your PoV changes in ME2. You view Cerberus from within. They are portrayed as good, but it makes sense for an insider view.

2) What would you ask her or TIM about him? You already know from ME1 that Cerberus was responsible, even had the motives for their actions. It's not like TIM or Miranda could have anything to add to that.

3) They play a large role in the overall story. The whole idea of a splinter group who wants to control the Reapers and works for them without realizing it. Javik says it was the same in their cycle. Mass Effect: Evolution brings the connection of TIM and Reapers. Mass Effect Retribution shows their work on understanding Reaper technology and their experiments on Paul Greyson. 

The way I see it, games themselves indeed feel disconnected but in combination with official novels and comics it results in a complete story. Not saying it's a good thing (I think it's not) but that's how they decided to tell this story.

 

Eh, you know what, I get the POV changes, but if you are introducing such strong themes and turning facts on their heads, you need to, at least have some sort of build up.

 

Its the difference between making up the story as you go, and have it all planned from the beggining.

 

Its like sewing a shirt, If you sew all the parts at once you get something complete, if you start sewing here, the sew that part with something else you made, then go back to make it better you end up with a weird shirt.

 

It's still wearable, but I'd pick the constistent one

 

But that's my opinion.

[Vazgen]

Most of the failed experiments in ME1 fail because of Shepard. 

 

EDI, unshackled, ME2: "Spending trends indicate that Cerberus has a reliable income of several billion credits per year"

Consider that this information is based on spending trends. They are likely to get even more money.

 

Soldier 1, Soldier 2 section

Personal log, Cerberus Lab

Integration successful. Suicide on capture orders confirmed. Cerberus is my friend. Obey. Protect humanity. At any cost.

Doesn't seem like a guy who cares about looks. Also, basic troopers are weak for a reason. Advanced troops like Centurions and Engineers likely received military training prior to integration.

[Vazgen]

Eh, you know what, I get the POV changes, but if you are introducing such strong themes and turning facts on their heads, you need to, at least have some sort of build up.

 

Its the difference between making up the story as you go, and have it all planned from the beggining.

 

Its like sewing a shirt, If you sew all the parts at once you get something complete, if you start sewing here, the sew that part with something else you made, then go back to make it better you end up with a weird shirt.

 

It's still wearable, but I'd pick the constistent one

 

But that's my opinion.

Sure, it would've been better if the whole trilogy was thought out from the start. But I don't see it happening realistically, people come and go, different expectations, deadlines, gamer tastes, technology, opinions, fan feedback. I don't think it's possible to think through a story for a trilogy

[ImaginaryMatter]

You're always going to be railroaded into some things. You had to be an N7 and Spectre in ME1. You had to be an outlaw and terrorist in ME2. You had to be a savior and figurehead in ME3. You just get to focus on how much of each thing you wanna be. Even in KOTOR, you gotta save the galaxy for the many, as dark side as you can be. There is a plot that has to happen.

 

They could have been smarter about it in ME2. They seemed at a loss on how to properly show Anderson/VS/Alliance and how they couldn't fully accept Shepard. But the concept itself is nothing I find bad.

 

When it comes to their ME1 actions, I would have appreciated some explanation on what exactly they were looking for. So far, we just got "Erm, shock troops." and I don't like that.

 

I understand railroading, the trick though is to hide the rails. Shepard's N7 and Spectre status make sense, we can argue about not playing Shepard or being allowed to play Chaotic Stupid or something but that's another issue entirely. The Cerberus railroading in ME2 is something else. ME3 Shepard I think is a little bit of both.

 

Half-Life 2 is a game that is entirely linear, yet the illusion of choice is so well constructed players generally aren't even aware of it.

[CptFalconPunch]

Sure, it would've been better if the whole trilogy was thought out from the start. But I don't see it happening realistically, people come and go, different expectations, deadlines, gamer tastes, technology, opinions, fan feedback. I don't think it's possible to think through a story for a trilogy

I'm not saying go Peter Jackson and pre-make every single scene in the trilogy. Just know how it starts and how it ends. Have a general idea.

 

Come on, I don't think this is extravagant or unrealistic. This happens so often in media. Concepts of the story and scetches don't cost a lot to make for unreleased games. And it helps development.

 

Gamer taste, fan feedback is contrived and hypocritical in itself. Fans aren't writers.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Just accept the fact that the story of Mass Effect wasn't that well written in the first place.

 

I guess it depends on how we define good and bad writing. The existence of plot holes, continuity errors, breaks in logic aren't necessarily bad for a story. Stories, after all, are not written to be internally consistent constructs; stories are here to... well, tell a story, evoke feelings, cause rumination, inspire -- all that mushy stuff (consistency has a part to play, but it's not the end goal). When people talk about how ME1 is better written than ME2 and ME3, or that the series works for everything but the ending; does that mean they are blinded by nostalgia or is there some other story quality at work here that makes one thing better than the other besides, "There are plot holes and this doesn't make sense." To quote FILM CRIT HULK (minus the HULK),

 

"A movie, videogame, or book does not exist to present a perfect, flawless, rigorously logical world, but to tell a particular story. If you’re auditing a story for consistency, then you have missed the point of storytelling."

 

When I'm arguing against Cerberus I'm trying to avoid saying it's bad because there's a disconnect between story element to story element; I'm instead trying to argue that the disconnect is between the story and the player, something much worse.

[Vazgen]

I'm not saying go Peter Jackson and pre-make every single scene in the trilogy. Just know how it starts and how it ends. Have a general idea.

 

Come on, I don't think this is extravagant or unrealistic. This happens so often in media. Concepts of the story and scetches don't cost a lot to make for unreleased games. And it helps development.

 

Gamer taste, fan feedback is contrived and hypocritical in itself. Fans aren't writers.

The problem here lies in save file transfer. It's quite hard to maintain that illusion of choice and still carry on with a fixed narrative without alienating the fans which, in turn, impacts sales. Fans aren't writers, sure, but you have to appease them, as they are the ones  who buy and play your game. Especially when you deal with a trilogy when you have to keep fans interested through the first and second games.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The problem here lies in save file transfer. It's quite hard to maintain that illusion of choice and still carry on with a fixed narrative without alienating the fans which, in turn, impacts sales. Fans aren't writers, sure, but you have to appease them, as they are the ones  who buy and play your game. Especially when you deal with a trilogy when you have to keep fans interested through the first and second games.

 

Illusion of choice wouldn't have been too hard to maintain. If you keep the railroaded actions as reasonable actions, the player won't begin to question why Shepard can't be unreasonable. The problem ME2 runs into is that it slashes a lot of consistency, characterization, continuity, etc for the sake of drama; which creates a game state where almost everything is unreasonable at some point.

[CptFalconPunch]

The problem here lies in save file transfer. It's quite hard to maintain that illusion of choice and still carry on with a fixed narrative without alienating the fans which, in turn, impacts sales. Fans aren't writers, sure, but you have to appease them, as they are the ones  who buy and play your game. Especially when you deal with a trilogy when you have to keep fans interested through the first and second games.

 

I agree with your opinion on the fixed narrative. Cerberus alienated a lot people. But that isn't the only thing I'm talking about, its about maintaining consistency, shepard always follows a fixed narrative, he can't avoid killing saren, he can't avoid saving the universe, the virmire missions etc.

 

Also if bioware wanted to keep "Fans" interested, they wouldn't have ditched the RPG elements and the exploration and the good narrative from the first game. Many people got alienated with the franchise.

 

But as long as its pleasing us, to hell with them. And if they do anything to alienate us, to hell with Bioware!

[Vazgen]

Illusion of choice wouldn't have been too hard to maintain. If you keep the railroaded actions as reasonable actions, the player won't begin to question why Shepard can't be unreasonable. The problem ME2 runs into is that it slashes a lot of consistency, characterization, continuity, etc for the sake of drama; which creates a game state where almost everything is unreasonable at some point.

Curious, did you have the same feeling when playing ME2 for the first time? I ask because I didn't. Only after finishing the trilogy and thinking it over did those problems start to appear for me.

 

I agree with your opinion on the fixed narrative. Cerberus alienated a lot people. But that isn't the only thing I'm talking about, its about maintaining consistency, shepard always follows a fixed narrative, he can't avoid killing saren, he can't avoid saving the universe, the virmire missions etc.

 

Also if bioware wanted to keep "Fans" interested, they wouldn't have ditched the RPG elements and the exploration and the good narrative from the first game. Many people got alienated with the franchise.

 

But as long as its pleasing us, to hell with them. And if they do anything to alienate us, to hell with Bioware!

I'm interested in those RPG elements people mention. What are those elements? If it's loot system, good riddance! I heard people claim that ME3 isn't an RPG despite the fact that it allows for a lot more customization than both ME1 and ME2 (at least from gameplay perspective).

Exploration is a bit tricky question for me. Do I prefer riding Mako over a vast but empty landscape with a few resources, thresher maws and reused buildings? Or to explore unique locations with interesting backstories but with a linear and small design? I can't give a straight answer. Both gave me that feel of discovery that I think exploration is all about.