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 don't know about the person you're asking, but I did. Within 10 minutes of starting Mass Effect 2 I knew the narrative was doomed. I just lowered my expectations for having a coherent story for the rest of the trilogy down to virtually non existent and went along for the ride after that.
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.
As I mentioned before, fans follow the same path.
"As long as its pleasing to us, to hell with them, and if alienates us, to hell with Bioware!"
I did enjoy the loot system and customizing my character. On PC, micromanaging was no big deal, since the UI was re-made.
ME3 is fun RPG, but i still miss the loot. For me, it makes the game feel bigger. The fact that loot can be useless sometimes, isn't bad. It created an in-game market of selling-buying thigns you need or don't. More immersive.
As far as the exploration goes, definently a fan on ME1, the planets looked great and had amazing atmosphere, it felt like I was a commander as well as dora the explorer. It satisfied that itch players had to see more and more. Finding a simple artifact in eletania was amazing. I do agree with the reused buildings sub-hype. It got repetitive.
But ME2, so heavily infantry combat based, exploration is turned to linear paths where you shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot. ME2 didn't feel like I was discovering anything. I felt like I was walking into a path that somebody made for me to follow and shoot bad guys all over. The magic wasn't there. It didn't give the universe this feeling of bigness.
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 had those feelings the moment my Shepard agreed to work with the Illusive Man. Maybe in the end Shepard would have ended up working with him, but Shepard acquiesced way to easily for my liking.
And it got worse on Horizon where the entire conversation with the VS was railroaded BS.
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.
Meh, the loot system isn't great. but ME2's was nonexistent. To give the devil it's due, ME3 had a nice balance.
Gameplay customization is all well and good, but role-playing customization, to have a measure of control over your character's words, emotions, and motivations, is vital for a good rpg experience. I don't want to be stuck playing either A) emotionally fragile or 
p*ssed off, and getting only one or two conversation options in a ten minute scene!
I don't know about the person you're asking, but I did. Within 10 minutes of starting Mass Effect 2 I knew the narrative was doomed. I just lowered my expectations for having a coherent story for the rest of the trilogy down to virtually non existent and went along for the ride after that.
Interesting, what made you play after that then? Now that I know the problems with the storyline I play mostly for characters and gameplay variation. But most of it came from ME2 which had very good character personalization and a gameplay that was a very welcome change after ME1 (which is quite dated, tbh). But if you play for the first time, those points are not present during the first 10 minutes. Why did you continue if you felt the narrative was doomed? I certainly wouldn't if I felt that way.
I had those feelings the moment my Shepard agreed to work with the Illusive Man. Maybe in the end Shepard would have ended up working with him, but Shepard acquiesced way to easily for my liking.
And it got worse on Horizon where the entire conversation with the VS was railroaded BS.
Meh, the loot system isn't great. but ME2's was nonexistent. To give the devil it's due, ME3 had a nice balance.
Gameplay customization is all well and good, but role-playing customization, to have a measure of control over your character's words, emotions, and motivations, is vital for a good rpg experience. I don't want to be stuck playing either A) emotionally fragile or
I think I'm lucky 
My vision of Shepard, his choices and actions all fit within the established narratve. Thus I felt immersed through the entire game and had a lot of fun 
There are two points in the entire trilogy that I dislike - Rachni in ME3 and Liara's stalker attitude
And it got worse on Horizon where the entire conversation with the VS was railroaded BS.
"Hey Ash, how you doing? Want to join Cerberus? Just like old times"
The VS's reaction was much tamer than what I expected it to be after Shepard spouted all his nonsense.
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.
Yes, from the very first scene with TIM and Miranda. Their conversation about how important Shepard was struck a wrong chord with me. Following it up with Shepard's immediate death and resurrection, the TIM/Cerberus reveal and first conversation, encountering Tali, meeting with the Council (I headed there immediately, instead of Omega, to sort everything out), and Chakwas really compounded the issue. To me it was very cheap and obvious.
As an aside, ME2 is my favorite game in the trilogy. The majority of my frustrations with the story stem from the main plot line.
I don't know about the person you're asking, but I did. Within 10 minutes of starting Mass Effect 2 I knew the narrative was doomed. I just lowered my expectations for having a coherent story for the rest of the trilogy down to virtually non existent and went along for the ride after that.
Same here, it's one of the main reasons I wasn't so dissapointed when I played ME3. ME3 is actually better than ME2 story wise.
I don't know about the person you're asking, but I did. Within 10 minutes of starting Mass Effect 2 I knew the narrative was doomed. I just lowered my expectations for having a coherent story for the rest of the trilogy down to virtually non existent and went along for the ride after that.
Exactly my thoughts. It is certanly interesting to see people finding that out in the third game. Noone examined how bad ME2 was storywise.
I think I'm lucky
So you thought it was a good idea to ignore the reapers in ME2 and not find a way to stop them? You know, how after finishing ME1 shepard says, "imma find a way to stop them" ?
And to have TIM to be your boss, when you had no reason to accept him?
Boy that sure is.. interesting, I would love to have your mind for a day and play ME2, I might see it as a masterpiece then.
Interesting, what made you play after that then? Now that I know the problems with the storyline I play mostly for characters and gameplay variation. But most of it came from ME2 which had very good character personalization and a gameplay that was a very welcome change after ME1 (which is quite dated, tbh). But if you play for the first time, those points are not present during the first 10 minutes. Why did you continue if you felt the narrative was doomed? I certainly wouldn't if I felt that way.
I don't really play games for their stories, so the first 10 minutes weren't really an issue for me. 99.9% of video game stories range from average to utter ****, with most falling more on the utter **** side of the scale, so if I played games for their stories, I wouldn't enjoy playing very many games lol. The gameplay I had seen in the pre release vids was what kept me going. Seeing my Vanguard's new signature move, Charge, had hyped me up like crazy, whether the story had started off well or not, I would have continued playing through either way, just for Charge.
Bioware made the right decision to focus on getting the gameplay right first before anything else, since it's the most important part of a game and the one you really need to get right, there's no point in having an Oscar winning story if the game is boring as hell to play through. That's the difference between movies and games, the interaction, with movies there's no interaction, you can just sit and watch an amazing story unfold before you, but with games? Nope. We actually need to interact with the story and get enjoyment from it, so everything has to be built around that. Good gameplay can carry a game with a **** story, as it did for ME2 and many countless other games.
The thing with ME2, was that ME1 had a fairly decent story, so I was expecting that to continue. When it was obvious that wasn't the case, I just let my expectations go and went along with it, like I do with every other game.
Exactly my thoughts. It is certanly interesting to see people finding that out in the third game. Noone examined how bad ME2 was storywise.
So you thought it was a good idea to ignore the reapers in ME2 and not find a way to stop them? You know, how after finishing ME1 shepard says, "imma find a way to stop them" ?
And to have TIM to be your boss, when you had no reason to accept him?
Boy that sure is.. interesting, I would love to have your mind for a day and play ME2, I might see it as a masterpiece then.
No, I simply saw the reasons for doing all that. Not that I was fine with working alongside TIM - I insulted Miranda every chance I got (Jacob, less so), I gave the data to the Alliance, I gave David to Grissom Academy, I told TIM countless times that the only reason I work for him is because I'm forced to, I destroyed the base in spite of his desires. It's apparent after talking with Council that they don't care about the Collectors. The Alliance couldn't take me back either, apparent from talking with Anderson. I don't really have a choice to not to go to Freedom's Progress (no ship) and after that you are already past that point of no return.
Reapers are something else. Their arrival was stopped, Citadel Relay remained close. I had no idea when will the Reapers arrive. Alliance sent me to fight geth. The Collectors abduct entire colonies. It's not like that's not a real threat, and a more apparent one for all we know. Only after Arrival DLC it became known that the Reapers are on the verge of returning.
@Daemul, I see your point. Personally I would not waste time for a **** story, even if gameplay is good. I might give a try to a game with a good story but **** gameplay. I played my fair share of both types and made a choice for the latter
No, I simply saw the reasons for doing all that. Not that I was fine with working alongside TIM - I insulted Miranda every chance I got (Jacob, less so), I gave the data to the Alliance, I gave David to Grissom Academy, I told TIM countless times that the only reason I work for him is because I'm forced to, I destroyed the base in spite of his desires. It's apparent after talking with Council that they don't care about the Collectors. The Alliance couldn't take me back either, apparent from talking with Anderson. I don't really have a choice to not to go to Freedom's Progress (no ship) and after that you are already past that point of no return.
Reapers are something else. Their arrival was stopped, Citadel Relay remained close. I had no idea when will the Reapers arrive. Alliance sent me to fight geth. The Collectors abduct entire colonies. It's not like that's not a real threat, and a more apparent one for all we know. Only after Arrival DLC it became known that the Reapers are on the verge of returning.
@Daemul, I see your point. Personally I would not waste time for a **** story, even if gameplay is good. I might give a try to a game with a good story but **** gameplay. I played my fair share of both types and made a choice for the latter
Well isn't it suspicious that the alliance does nothing for those thousands dissapearing?
The collectors weren't a real threat really, the normandy goes bang bang, literally, and the end. Its not like they're sovereign.
Remember garrus saying, they're going to attack earth? With their ship, that fears AA cannons and can be destroyed in 10 seconds.
It's a mess, it takes a very specific ignorance towards the ME story to feel the way you do.
It's not weird that you think that way though, there has been research on this, people don't remember the plots of videogames as well as other media.
Also at the end of ME1, it says the reapers are coming, imma find a way to stop them, hell in the end of ME2, they show the reapers just outside our galaxy. Shepard even raises his head!
And even if you defeated the collectors or not, no difference is made. GG.
What saves ME2 though, is the squadmate missions. Those have good story in them. But there are essentially side missions, apart from mordin's.
Well isn't it suspicious that the alliance does nothing for those thousands dissapearing?
The collectors weren't a real threat really, the normandy goes bang bang, literally, and the end. Its not like they're sovereign.
Remember garrus saying, they're going to attack earth? With their ship, that fears AA cannons and can be destroyed in 10 seconds.
It's a mess, it takes a very specific ignorance towards the ME story to feel the way you do.
It's not weird that you think that way though, there has been research on this, people don't remember the plots of videogames as well as other media.
Also at the end of ME1, it says the reapers are coming, imma find a way to stop them, hell in the end of ME2, they show the reapers just outside our galaxy. Shepard even raises his head!
And even if you defeated the collectors or not, no difference is made. GG.
What saves ME2 though, is the squadmate missions. Those have good story in them. But there are essentially side missions, apart from mordin's.
You're viewing it from a PoV of a player who already completed the game. I'm talking about my first playthrough.
The Alliance actually does something. They send investigators to Freedom's Progress (that's why you head there ASAP, to get there before the Alliance), the reinforce Horizon and sent Ash there (yes, she was saved in my first playthrough ). Anderson doesn't trust me though and I can't get back to Alliance, thus I'm forced to work with Cerberus.
There is no indication of the scale of Collector forces. They kidnap entire colonies, there is no telling how many of them are there until you get to their base.
The way the story unfolds provides a certain tension and desire to end the Collector threat. I can't say the same about ME1. Stopping Saren was never something I felt I should do sooner rather than later. I just rolled around galaxy in the Mako
The game was engaging due to its storyline when I played it first. I didn't really notice the importance of the squadmate missions in the game. Only after finishing it and looking back I understand that the driving force behind the game are the characters and not the story.
You're viewing it from a PoV of a player who already completed the game. I'm talking about my first playthrough.
The Alliance actually does something. They send investigators to Freedom's Progress (that's why you head there ASAP, to get there before the Alliance), the reinforce Horizon and sent Ash there (yes, she was saved in my first playthrough
There is no indication of the scale of Collector forces. They kidnap entire colonies, there is no telling how many of them are there until you get to their base.
The way the story unfolds provides a certain tension and desire to end the Collector threat. I can't say the same about ME1. Stopping Saren was never something I felt I should do sooner rather than later. I just rolled around galaxy in the Mako
The game was engaging due to its storyline when I played it first. I didn't really notice the importance of the squadmate missions in the game. Only after finishing it and looking back I understand that the driving force behind the game are the characters and not the story.
Nope, that was my POV since the first playthrough. After the first 15 minutes, I realized the storyline went to hell. I wasn't pessimistic though, but throughout I was like, what the hell, why are we after the collectots? Why am I working for cerberus? I need to take down the reapers! WTF game etc...
The alliance does nothing, if they did, the colonies wouldn't get abducted. And even if they were, and they didn't, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO MORE?
No scale of the forces of the collectors, no telling how many they are. Back then we only knew it was once ship. One ship, vs the galactic organic force. All the more reason to realize, how stupid the suicide mission was, and that the only reason it worked was... plot.
The collectors will attack earth, garrus says, as we walk through the most obvious trap ever on the collector ship. After that we destroy the collector ship in 2 shots. At the climax of the game. GG.
Its this lack of common sense that is driving me crazy sometimes, I'm stuck wondering, WHY doesn't anyone consider those simple things? And how do some of these people blame ME3 for not handling story so well, when ME2 failed as a sequel?
As for ME1, it was different, no time constraints for sure, but so is ME2, right before the collector abduction. I agree ME2 did better with time mechanics, but it falls apart when its nonesense leading you there, and nonesense that makes everything work out for you.
It is Garrus's line, not Shepard's. My Shepard didn't have the same idea. I do agree though that line is weird, especially after Horizon.
This was my feeling was well. Normandy was being outfitted and crewed to head into the unknown. Wasn't sure what we'd find, but the plan was to sabotage whatever the Collector's plan was. That didn't mean if we found an entire world, we'd be attacking the entire world. It meant gathering information, hitting whatever base was launching these attacks, very likely being killed.I referred to the knowledge that there is only one Collector ship. I always viewed SM as a reconnaissance and possible sabotage mission. There was no telling how many Collector ships are out there and what awaits beyond Omega 4 relay. If there was a whole civilization with a large fleet, Normandy would've turned back and return with the information. If it is possible to engage the enemy then they'll engage.
...
I referred to the knowledge that there is only one Collector ship. I always viewed SM as a reconnaisance and possible sabotage mission. There was no telling how many Collector ships are out there and what awaits beyond Omega 4 relay. If there was a whole civilization with a large fleet, Normandy would've turned back and return with the information. If it is possible to engage the enemy then they'll engage. Why Alliance doesn't do more? Because they lost a lot of forces fighting Sovereign, they still fight geth from time to time, only remote colonies are attacked and some are IIRC in Terminus Systems. Humanity is a part of the Council now, tension escalation with Terminus Systems is not something the Council wants.
I doubt they would attack Earth, Garrus simply sees millions of pods and thinks "What world has that many humans? Earth! They're going to target Earth."
You.don't.send.your.most.valuable.crew.and.ship.and.sources.to.an.information.mission. You send probes. Scouts. You don't spend billions bringing shepard back, only to let him blindly rush through the relay. As you said, they could have encountered ANYTHING. ANYTHING, doesn't that raise some alarms? Anything at all? Oh well. Next time we'll send the president to do recon missions in Afghanistan. On uncharted territory. With only a few tropps. Without any external help. In the enemy base. That is how crazy this sounds.
What do you mean they don't want escalation? If your cities on the boarders of your country where getting wiped out, you would sit there doing nothing? And installing CANNONS is not considered an act of war already?
Its not Garrus line, its Biowares line, it was there for a reason, to make the player feel threatened against the collectors. Characters in games, aren't organics. Someone created them. Someone made them have that line. And if EVEN, if what you're saying is correct, shepard says "NOT IF WE STOP THEM!". Like seriously
I'm still baffled by the lack of common sense. I've agrued with some more people here and there about these points. Im really close to calling it quits and start calling them idiots or something.
As a last plea, present a good argument, anything. Not just a shield to protect yourself from doubts.
You seem to confuse my arguments with me being blind about issues in game storyline. Once again, I'm fully aware about flaws in the whole trilogy, not only in ME2. What I'm currently sharing is my experience when I first played the game.
With that out of the way, I'll try to address these points you bring.
1) Shepard is brought back to do exactly that. He is resurrected to deal with the Collectors. Makes no sense to spend billions bringing him back if the same thing could've been accomplished with a probe.
2) Installing cannons is not an act of war. It's not like real world, where we can install defense systems next to a country to neutralize its ballistic rockets. Those cannons are for defense only, they can't shoot down ships in space. And like I said, they are not "doing nothing" they build defenses - the above-mentioned cannons. The remote nature of those colonies and their close proximity to Terminus systems stops them from sending out a large fleet.
3) "Not if we stop them" doesn't really imply that Shepard actually believes they're going to target Earth. It simply shows resolve to stop the Collectors and that they'll undo the Collector plans.
I'm not sure if you consider those "good" arguments or, like you said, a "shield to protect myself from doubts", but that's how I felt when I first played the game. Obviously after finishing the trilogy for the first time my feelings when playing all three games have changed. But that's not the point of discussion (which has gone quite off-topic already).
You seem to confuse my arguments with me being blind about issues in game storyline. Once again, I'm fully aware about flaws in the whole trilogy, not only in ME2. What I'm currently sharing is my experience when I first played the game.
With that out of the way, I'll try to address these points you bring.
1) Shepard is brought back to do exactly that. He is resurrected to deal with the Collectors. Makes no sense to spend billions bringing him back if the same thing could've been accomplished with a probe.
2) Installing cannons is not an act of war. It's not like real world, where we can install defense systems next to a country to neutralize its ballistic rockets. Those cannons are for defense only, they can't shoot down ships in space. And like I said, they are not "doing nothing" they build defenses - the above-mentioned cannons. The remote nature of those colonies and their close proximity to Terminus systems stops them from sending out a large fleet.
3) "Not if we stop them" doesn't really imply that Shepard actually believes they're going to target Earth. It simply shows resolve to stop the Collectors and that they'll undo the Collector plans.
I'm not sure if you consider those "good" arguments or, like you said, a "shield to protect myself from doubts", but that's how I felt when I first played the game. Obviously after finishing the trilogy for the first time my feelings when playing all three games have changed. But that's not the point of discussion (which has gone quite off-topic already).
Oh okay.
1) Exactly, it makes no sense to send shepard as a recon drone. Otherwise they would have sent a recon drone. Why didn't they send a recon drone then? That way, they could have find out how weak the collectors are and defeated them before their attacks even started. Blind rushing into the enemy's base is never, EVER a good idea, unless the plot favors you. No other way.
And worse than that, it shows how shepard wasn't even wanted to win this.
2) They do in Mass Effect. In the real world, cannons shoot planes out of the sky, in Mass effect, They can shoot ships down from space. And we're already in war with the terminus. If abducting whole colonies isn't reason enough to act, I don't know what is. It's cheap and you know it
3) It is what it is. It sounds like shepard agrees with garrus and he also says that he won't let it happen.
So now that you've played the games many times, you don't agree with your points anymore? You realize the main story is so badly written it makes no sense? Or are you still holding to your first impressions?
Anyway, the whole issue which fuels these side-discussions is that bioware didn't bother to write the story whole, then put it into separate games. They made it as they went along, causing the team to lose focus in the sequels.
I realize that a lot of things don't make sense (some do though)Oh okay.
1) Exactly, it makes no sense to send shepard as a recon drone. Otherwise they would have sent a recon drone. Why didn't they send a recon drone then? That way, they could have find out how weak the collectors are and defeated them before their attacks even started. Blind rushing into the enemy's base is never, EVER a good idea, unless the plot favors you. No other way.
And worse than that, it shows how shepard wasn't even wanted to win this.
2) They do in Mass Effect. In the real world, cannons shoot planes out of the sky, in Mass effect, They can shoot ships down from space. And we're already in war with the terminus. If abducting whole colonies isn't reason enough to act, I don't know what is. It's cheap and you know it
3) It is what it is. It sounds like shepard agrees with garrus and he also says that he won't let it happen.
So now that you've played the games many times, you don't agree with your points anymore? You realize the main story is so badly written it makes no sense? Or are you still holding to your first impressions?
Anyway, the whole issue which fuels these side-discussions is that bioware didn't bother to write the story whole, then put it into separate games. They made it as they went along, causing the team to lose focus in the sequels.
I believe Bioware followed a simple business model - release a game, see its reception, make a new game. Especially when going from ME1 to ME2 which basically reintroduced the gameplay. Thermal Clips, better cover system, heavy weapons, rewritten character leveling. I don't think they were so confident in the game's success to think ME3 to be possible. I don't think that back in 2007 (or much earlier) they thought of having a trilogy with a massive fanbase and complete story. The last "Reapers are coming" message is put there as a cliffhanger, to make people want continuation 
I realize that a lot of things don't make sense (some do though)
1) They could not, without an IFF. Which is obtained based on the information from the Collector Ship. Which would've problematic for someone without Shepard's skills
2) Horizon cannons only shoot while the ship is in atmosphere. They don't shoot ships from space. Also, the abductions are mysterious, the Alliance doesn't even know who does that. And they wouldn't know without Shepard to save Ashley/Kaidan
Those are nice theories. But still theories. We can only be sure of the result, and the result is unsatisfactory IMO. ME1 was critically acclaimed and objectively declared a masterpiece in gaming. It sold millions of copies and got tons of fans. ME2 sold even more copies and got an even bigger fanbase.
ME3 was withing their grasp, they begun working on it immediately.
Also in the documentary of ME1, the devs themselves said that Mass Effect was deisgned to be a trilogy. It was the original concept.
So you see, one should examine all the facts before making theories. Because then you twist facts to fit your theories and and up with nonsense.
1) You mean it would be hard for a grunt to go in, connect EDI then die, as TIM didn't need him anymore. Anyway, that part is so horrendously written I'm not even gonna comment. There is no single place in the main story where shepard was needed, apart from the Suicide mission, which for all its faults, delivered player agency to a great degree.
2) We may need some extra info on those cannons. But meh.
Collectors or not, colonies dissapearing is reason enough for the army to care. Who the hell cares if they are "mysterious" the army doesn't need suspense to defend the people. How far are you going to drag this lol.
Anyway, I'm sad to see such responses, its like some people here don't think at all. And what is it with all those emoticons, reverse phychology?
Don't answer that actually.
Those are nice theories. But still theories. We can only be sure of the result, and the result is unsatisfactory IMO. ME1 was critically acclaimed and objectively declared a masterpiece in gaming. It sold millions of copies and got tons of fans. ME2 sold even more copies and got an even bigger fanbase.
ME3 was withing their grasp, they begun working on it immediately.
Also in the documentary of ME1, the devs themselves said that Mass Effect was deisgned to be a trilogy. It was the original concept.
So you see, one should examine all the facts before making theories. Because then you twist facts to fit your theories and and up with nonsense.
1) You mean it would be hard for a grunt to go in, connect EDI then die, as TIM didn't need him anymore. Anyway, that part is so horrendously written I'm not even gonna comment. There is no single place in the main story where shepard was needed, apart from the Suicide mission, which for all its faults, delivered player agency to a great degree.
2) We may need some extra info on those cannons. But meh.
Collectors or not, colonies dissapearing is reason enough for the army to care. Who the hell cares if they are "mysterious" the army doesn't need suspense to defend the people. How far are you going to drag this lol.
Anyway, I'm sad to see such responses, its like some people here don't think at all. And what is it with all those emoticons, reverse phychology?
Don't answer that actually.
I'm well aware of those statements, Casey Hudson did quite a few of those outside of ME1 documentary. Does it make those statements true? No. Each person chooses what to believe in. If you believe that they designed the game series as a trilogy and then ended up making games separate (as you've stated yourself) I'm not going to stop you. Doesn't make it true though.
What you seem to miss is that I don't try to convert anyone to my theories or anything like that. I just like to share my opinion on things all on this forum have in common.
1) It's funny, by your logic game protagonist is not required for any event of the game. Why do we even bother playing then? Mordin will cure the plague, get onto the new Normandy, Tali will not be slaughtered by geth, Garrus will not be killed by mercs, Jack will not stay in prison... Do I need to continue?
2) You're going in circles. I already said, that the Alliance doesn't do nothing. They protect the colonies by installing those cannons. How far are you going to drag this?
I'm sad that it seems to impossible being neutral and just share my views on something without completely baseless accusations of "not thinking at all".
Emoticons were there to show that I'm not attacking anyone and just share my views. Apparently it was too much to comprehend, I'll take note.
Also, not to further derail this thread, perhaps PM your response, if you care to continue?
1) They could not, without an IFF. Which is obtained based on the information from the Collector Ship. Which would've problematic for someone without Shepard's skills
I think TIM could have sent several recon drones and got a few through. The Reaper IFF allows ships to come out of a Relay without as much drift, which is needed to navigate the other side of the Omega 4 Relay as there is a whole bunch of junk or a black hole to crash into if a ship doesn't jump out closely enough to the Relay. Drift though is a variable, if TIM sends enough drones a few should enter closely enough to the Relay.
I think TIM could have sent several recon drones and got a few through. The Reaper IFF allows ships to come out of a Relay without as much drift, which is needed to navigate the other side of the Omega 4 Relay as there is a whole bunch of junk or a black hole to crash into if a ship doesn't jump out closely enough to the Relay. Drift though is a variable, if TIM sends enough drones a few should enter closely enough to the Relay.
"Over the last thousand years, many ships have attempted to pass through it, but none have returned"
You really think no one has thought of that?
Edit: Sorry if I come too harsh, this thread is starting to get on my nerves
"Over the last thousand years, many ships have attempted to pass through it, but none have returned"
You really think no one has thought of that?
We're speaking of a universe in which no one really cares about figuring out how the Mass Relays really work. They aren't the brightest bunch
We're speaking of a universe in which no one really cares about figuring out how the Mass Relays really work. They aren't the brightest bunch
Well, in that case sending Shepard there makes perfect sense 
Retour en haut