112 réponses à ce sujet

[Winterking]

"Nonetheless, I think I have given a rather precise idea of what kind of ME2 I would have hoped for, with more RPing, less lead-me-by-the-nose, less shooting, more interactivity, and incidentally, more choice: this is what we mostly lack. I cannot choose to work for the Council, I cannot choose to shoot Miranda in the head (Jacob isn't worth the cost of the bullet), I cannot choose what kind of people I want to take aboard."

 

 

 

 

But you can apply the same criticism to ME1. You are forced to work for the Alliance and Spectres. You can't choose to stop working for them. You are forced to touch the beacon on Eden Prime.  In ME2 you are actually given  the chance of being a Spectre again or reject it but you need to work for Cerberus just like you need to be Spectre in the first game.

 

It would simply be impossible to have a game with two divergent storylines, one where you stay with the Council and another where you go with Cerberus.

 

And you have probably more choice about what kind of people you want to take aboard in ME2 than ME1. In Mass Effect you had Kaidan, Ashley, Liara and Tali as mandatory squadmates. Garrus and Wrex are optional.

 

In ME2 you need Mordin, Garrus, Jack, Miranda and Jacob plus other 3 squadmates that you can choose in order to complete the game. Then you have an aditional 4 squadmates that you can recruit or not.

[God]

As well, consider yourself lucky you even have the ability to RP a Shepard that doesn't like Cerberus.

 

I can barely do that in ME3. And I'm sure you'll defend it. The ME games aren't nearly as RPG as they are TPS interactive shooters with strong RPG elements.

[themikefest]

 What's worse, my Shepard was forced to leave behind a squad of respected heroes

I wouldn't call them heroes

[God]

I see that you complete fail to see my point, and that's mostly because you apparently like playing as a badass. Which is something I might respect, even if I am not attracted to that style of playing.

 

 

I see your point, and I completely disagree with it. And I wouldn't say a badass, so much as a practical, rational, and professional ubermensch. But if you're not attracted to that style of playing, why are you playing Mass Effect?

Now, I have played further into the game and I can point that:

 

1. definitely, the misunderstanding begins with calling ME2 an RPG, when, in fact, it's a shooter game with a very limited amount of RPG elements within. The RPG mechanics are exceptionally dumbed down, compared to the previous installment of the game, resulting in a game where the character development is reduced to only a few combat-oriented skills, with just 4 grades to buy. This leaves very little room to actual character building, as there's just this Paragon/Renegade, incidentally a purely passive stat, to define who your character is. This is consistent with the general direction taken, to make ME2 much more of a shooter game and much less of an RPG. This is also reflected by the totally dumbed down weapon customization system

 

 

You're relatively late to the Mass Effect party, so I'll just keep you informed: Mass Effect is a stripped down RPG with story elements. That's what it's been since ME1. Despite what you think ME1 wasn't really an RPG so much as it was an interactive action TPS with RPG elements. Character development, as you speak of, is not character development in the terms that others speak of. You're talking about leveling up and abilities, which is fine. Character development is the narrative growth and change of characters as they develop (surprise surprise) in the story. The P/R system is exactly that. This isn't a world that reflects morality (and I'm talking about our own Real Life world). It's the same for Mass Effect. It's a world of grey vs. gray ambiguity, which makes sense, seeing as its based on our own universe. As for the system itself, check out the P/R thread in ME3's scuttlebut section. You'll find that it's a very... controversial idea. All in all, BW is moving away from the concept of a morality system; people just plain don't like having a game or story be divided up into childish terms of 'good' and 'evil' anymore. I'll say that it's subjective, given our disagreements. You call Cerberus evil and say a lot of things about them that don't make sense with what they're presented as. I'll say I disagree completely, and find the cowardice and incompetence of the alliance and Council far more evil than Cerberus ever was. As for the weapon system, the point is to upgrade your weapons in ME2, not build them or buy new ones.

 

2. the limited ammo mechanics is unnecessary and inconsistent with previous instalments of the game. ME1 had the heating system that not only worked fine, but offered an innovative approach to weaponry. On the other hand, ME2, being engineered to be more appealing to shooter fans, has limited ammos. This is a minor hassle, given that I usually one ends up finding enough clips to keep playing, apart from the hassle to actually go and collect the clipses while in fight. But it *is* a hassle, and an unnecessary one since ME1 had a better system in place already. It is obvious that this change was introduced just to push ME2 towards the shooter side of the spectrum and away from the RPG world.

 

 

There's another forum for this issue. It's controversial, but it's hardly inconsistent with the previous game. There is an in-universe explanation for the change. I wonder if you've seen it. And I'll say this: ME1's system is different, not better. I prefer the newer system.

 

3. the fact that this is hardly an RPG and mostly a shooter game is also reflected by the fact that virtually every single mission, whether they are so called "loyalty" missions, story-oriented missions or side quests whatsoever, it is next-to-impossible to avoid extensive, in my opinion repetitive and boring, shooting. Even the Tali loyalty quest, which could have been played out in court with immense RP potential, was toned down and turned into the nth shooting massacre. Shooting is even less fun, because the limited ammo system forces weapons on you that your character might not be proficient with, if this were a real RPG. In fact, in general, I prefer to play sniper types, and when allowed to, I spend points in sniper rifles to the expenses of close-combat abilities that I enjoy less. In ME2, however, we fall short of the possibility to engineer our character, as it normally happens with pure shooter games, and therefore proficiency in a weapon of choice has disappeared, and it all boils down to the usual shooter mechanics.

 

 

 

This is something I never understood about old RPG games. The gameplay for those was never really fun. And also, this is the future, and you're a former hyper-lethal special operations asset. Your character *needs* to be proficient with some form of firearms. This isn't the middle ages sweetheart, where there was no uniform training regulations for warriors. As well, try playing as an Infiltrator or a Soldier if you like sniping. You have to remember, this is more of a sci-fi oriented story, not fantasy. As I've said, this is also in our hypothetical future. As a Soldier myself, I'll tell you that you aren't just proficient in 'one' weapon. You learn as much as you can. This game being based on our future means that it has to constrain itself to some of our RL rules. Granted, there are a disproportionate amount of shooter missions. I can even agree about the court drama for Tali's mission and some of the other ones. That said, Shepard is the guy who likes to shoot his way out, even if he's a diplomatic paragon (leaves a bad taste in my mouth).

 

4. Story wise, Bioware fails to deliver a game that is story driven with a specific nemesis to chase. The story is also lacking the subtleties of the original game, the political balance between the races, the traits that gave a soul and a color to a world that breathed of its own. Over here, we are thrown into a much simpler world, as it normally happens in shooter games, with the main focus being on, well, shooting, of course. Character relationship is also stripped of depth by reducing loyalty to a matter of shooting some enemies and get the "loyalty checkbox" filled. Another opportunity for great RPing that goes awaste

 

 

.

The Collectors, who are working for the Reapers, though yes, you do a lot of zipping around the universe doing random missions that don't mean much. Granted, some people prefer to have missions that do this. I am one of them. I'd also argue that said 'subtleties' aren't being portrayed because look at the setting. Things have changed in the universe. Humans are no longer just the upstarts, but the new superpower that has everyone else making deals to look into curbing our growth. Also, we're spending a lot of time in this game in the less reputable and seedy parts of the galaxy, namely, the Terminus systems. You're blind if you're missing the soul and color in this game. Yes, you are. ME1 was a rather sterile and austere world where everything was hardly reactive to you and your actions. ME2 is not like that, nor should it be. If you think this world is simpler, then you're definitely trying to hard to paint ME1 in a broad stroke of greatness. And you're wrong about character development. I'd say that since you refuse to talk to several crew-members to learn their stories (as well as condemning them from the get-go), you're not in a position to make a judgement on this topic. You have no right to judge the missions because you yourself are one-dimensional in your thinking about this issue.

 

5. the greatest mistake of all, is of course calling this game an RPG, and then force a number of choices upon you, that are potentially inconsistent with the character you have built. It is completely senseless that Shepard works for Cerberus, unless Shepard was a racist terrorist since the beginning; but in ME1 we are given an option to make our character the Shepard we want, we *can* after all engineer our Shepard to our likings, and this is not taken into consideration when we are forced to work for the likes of Cerberus in ME2. Inconsistencies are even absurd at times: we know that Cerberus is a bunch of Nazis, and still a Cerberus ship comes and goes in the citadel like it was normal? We know that they are racist bastards, and still aliens welcome Shepard and even choose to work for her, knowing that Cerberus is inclined to exterminate all other races? As bad as it is to work for the racist bastards, a good RPG would leave you the chance to choose to work with Cerberus, if so you wish, but then you'd have to deal with the fact that you *are* on the side of racist bastards, and can't expect the world around you to be cool with it. This lack of consistency makes the whole plot nonsensical to the very basics, even if my Shepard were one of those renegade bastards that would be happy to join Cerberus if given a chance.

 

 

And here, we get the good stuff. This is my specialty you know, defending humanity's sword from the non-reflective and judgmental fools who think they're better than everyone else. But in all seriousness, let's start off with some basic game mechanics (I'll do the ideological and philosophical debate on Cerberus in a second).

 

First off, if you could choose what path to take in the way that you want, then you'd have no plot; You seem to want to have so much freedom of character building that you don't realize that you then have no narrative and no ability to go anywhere. I don't know if you've played a lot of RPG's, but usually, they ALL limit and railroad you narratively (as in, via the plot) in a heavy fashion. In KotOR, you have no choice, you HAVE to become a Jedi. In DA:O, you HAVE to become a Grey Warden. In DA:I, you HAVE to become the Inquisitor. In ME1, you HAVE to become a Spectre. And these are just BW games. Think of any other RPG out there. There's a semblance of narrative that has to be followed and thus forced into; otherwise, you'd have no plot. It'd just be a big world where you walk around and stuff happens. Otherwise known as an MMO. And you don't even have the benefit of having it be an MMO in this case. So yes, your 'RP' ability (which I think you grossly overestimated in the first place, especially for Mass Effect) is going to be sidelined for the sake of having a plot. Every RPG does this. And they should do this. And why don't they do any different? Because of resources. Because of money. They can't do it that way. And they don't want to do it that way either. A BW employee once said that 'give a game infinite money, and you'll get a game that is never completed'. Technical aspects have to limit your freedom whether you like it or not.

 

Now, onto Cerberus itself: I disagree with everything you've said about them. They aren't terrorists. Speaking as a person who is presently fighting terrorists himself, they are not terrorists. They aren't Nazi's. They aren't racist bastards. They aren't inclined to exterminate all other races. They aren't inclined to put themselves onto human domination (at least, not until the Reapers get involved). I think you have complete ignorance to any of these terms if you ascribe them so blindly to Cerberus. In which case, I feel sorry for you. You'll have to actually show me where Cerberus is any of these things (and believe me, I will shoot them down. You're not the first angsty Cerberus-hater to come on here and rant about them irrationally). As well, you've demonstrated ignorance to many of the facets of Cerberus and TIM that are actually quite diplomatic with aliens. You know TIM actually told Saren to get the Turians ready for the Reapers, while he prepared his own people? Or had sexual liaisons with Asari Matriarchs? Racist bastards don't do those things.

 

And it's not senseless that Shepard works for them. They saved you. They rebuilt you and brought you back to life. And they're willing to help you fight the real enemy (the Reapers).

 

As much as you like the Council and the alliance, they aren't. They aren't willing to help you. They'd rather sit on the ground with their head in the dirt and deny that there's a problem. 

 

So do you really think you can go on to bigger, better things with them? What are you going to do against the Reapers? You'd have no one backing you up. Nobody who takes you seriously. By the time of ME2, they all think you're a crazed mad-man ranting about giant robotic cuttlefish who are hellbent on exterminating all life in the galaxy.

 

So what? You're fine looking like an idiot all the way until the Reapers come? You aren't willing to do whatever it takes to stop the Reapers?

 

Your Shepard is a failure. If Shepard can't or won't do whatever it takes, then Shepard won't win against the Reapers. That includes working with Cerberus. They're the only ones addressing the problem and being proactive about it. For everyone, not just humanity.

 

So what's the problem in the end? The problem is that this is not an RPG, it's mostly a shooter game with very limited, scarce and often inconsistence RPG elements. It doesn't stand up to the comparison with ME1 because it simply falls in another category of gaming. While ME1 is a gorgeous RPG with a depth that was rarely seen before, ME2 is mostly an action game with some story within and very little RPG mechanics to offer. 

 

 

 

As I've said, you're wrong here. ME1 is much the same. Maybe it has more traditional RPg elements, but it's not really any much technically different from ME2 or ME3. If ME1 has RPG depth that is 'rarely seen', then I'd wager that you have little experience with video games, not just RPG's. 

 

ME is, and always was, an action story with some RPG mechanics. ME1, ME2, and ME3. All of them.

 

I am even more disappointed because the potential for a great game was there, but as the game develops it's more and more clear that ME was simply dumbed down to appeal to fast-pace shooter gamers, as if they didn't have enough to play with ...

 

 

 

That wasn't the case at all. In fact, I think a lot of people who like the game (especially me, with ME2 being my favorite) would find that idea insulting.

 

And trolling. So yeah, you're trolling.

[God]

I wouldn't call them heroes

 

Yeah the ME1 crew aren't on the same level as the ME2 crew.

[sjsharp2011]

I agree God I wouldn't call Cerberus terrorists either moer a group that tends to make questionable decisions i.e the incident on Akuze. The Overlord mission where they hooked that disabled guy up to the computer and the geth. Things like that. I do like the overall story though as ME2 is my favourite as well thus far coming to the end of my latest ME2 playthrough now. Thoroughly enjoying it and still have ME3 to come. The only person not on your crew who believes you is Anderson. Unfortunately though he effectively has his hands tied anyway so can't really do much for you.

[Winterking]

 

I'd say that since you refuse to talk to several crew-members to learn their stories (as well as condemning them from the get-go), you're not in a position to make a judgement on this topic. You have no right to judge the missions because you yourself are one-dimensional in your thinking about this issue.

 

 

 

 

This part amuses me. I would expect paragons to try to be diplomatic and try to see every side of the question before making judgments. Maybe considering the possibility that if you make one of your squadmates loyal, they will be loyal to Shepard instead of Cerberus.

 

The OP's Shepard sounds more renegade than my renegade Shepard. 

 

 

[God]

And for me, those decisions are something I look at from a 'results' kind of standing.

 

Both worked. Was it costly and inefficient? Overlord was, but it was proof of concept. Was Akuze an immoral 'waste' of life to test a possible weapon? Debatable, but the results were valuable none-the-less. 

 

Say what you will about Cerberus' morality. At the end of the day, they get results. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

[Kuseikos]

I'm not proficient enough with this forum to know how to add quotes, so you will excuse me if I don't add any.

 

Anyway, to God's post.

 

In ME1 we meet Cerberus thugs doing all sort of evil experiments on innocent victims, and they eventually kill an Admiral. This definitely does not put them on the good side of the world. Now, if Bioware decides to present them as something else in ME2, they are being inconsistent. If, as Jack reveals, they still are the same old Cerberus, then they still are evil, and therefore inconsistent with a Paragon Shepard (but consistent with a Renegade Shepard, possibly). 

In ME1, we meet both the Alliance and the Council. The Council is of course dealing with politics, and I like the general feel that humans are still struggling to win the Council's trust. After all, humans are often the good guys since the beginning, so it feels good that in this case they are one of the minor species, and that gives you a chance to prove their valor to the Council. The Alliance is the human military. There can be good soldiers and renegade soldiers, as you like, you play the story as you see fit. It's fine by me.

I know of course that the plot is necessary, or you'd have one of those MMORPGs that are not my cup of tea. The story is very important, but it has to be consistent and leave you enough choice. Bioware here had at least two other options that should have considered:

1. You played ME1 as Renegade, hence it's Cerberus that saves you, you happily join them and start the mission as a Cerberus affiliate. Along the way, you will meet both renegade and paragon characters, and you will choose which one you want in your squad. However, if you played ME2 as Paragon, you are saved by the Council, which will send you on a mission as a Spectre. From here on, the game will play on just as in the other case, only you report to the Council and not to Cerberus. Eventually, you might even end up killing Cerberus agents in a mirror quest of what you'd do as a Cerberus agent. You will probably have other people in your squad in this case.

2. You are saved by a completely neutral agent, possibly one you never met before or preferably someone you have met and is not taking sides with anyone. The Council won't help you, but these neutral guys are willing to help you. You still go to Terminus, meet various characters and get to choose the ones you want aboard. 

 

this is the kind of choice I'd expect

 

why do I have to work with Cerberus? You haven't answered my question: you keep telling me what Bioware was trying to give me in this game. But I stick to the fact that I have met them before, I know them for creeps that make immoral experiments and kill Admirals of the Alliance (that means Nazis to me), and now I do not want to have anything to do with them. Not counting that of course my old companions do reprimand me for choosing to side with them. Of course they do, I would reprimand Shepard myself for that choice if I were them.That proves that Cerberus still is perceived as something intrinsically bad and it is not good to work with them. So, since my Shepard is most definitely not going to side with anything that condones experiments and other extreme measures, my question as to why I Should work with them is purely rhetorical. It's obvious that I cannot work with them.

 

As for RPG, a good RPG should, in my opinion, emphasize exploration, character engineering, focusing on numerous stats, dealing with how you want your character to be like, what kind of weapons she likes, what she is proficient with, her background story, her dialogue options, giving you lots to customize, stats to adjust, and then lead the character you have created to your likings step by step through a story that keeps you into it as if it were real. ME1, maybe with some limits, yet definitely was more RPG like than ME2. there's just too much shooting in ME2 to help calling it a shooter game.

incidentally, while the Mako sequences are generally despised, I believe they were ok. If anything, it was cool to have the feeling you actually are going around exploring (I thought that in ME2 the Mako sequences would have involved better environments, maybe water, forests... because the planetary environments in ME1 were a bit dull, although the sky scenery was breath taking). 

I wonder if the mako haters ever stopped to watch the incredible beauty of the huge planet occupying most of the sky while you were on that asteroid and dealing with saving Terra Nova. I found the delicacy of the details there absolutely perfect. I really miss the planetary exploration that was exchanged with sensor swipes - soon becoming tedious.

 

You say that we are in Terminus and therefore we can't expect the political subtleties of ME1. I answer that the political subleties of ME1 were a great thing, with a lot of RP potential, and dropping you in terminus where you can't deal with them anymore is a serious drawback. Go think about what they could have done, with you having to choose whether to help the Turian and therefore lose the friendship of the Krogans, or go with the Krogans and inimicate the Turian. Taking sides and therefore unbalancing the delicate equilibrium of the galaxy, participate to debate letting your Shepard's ethics count in taking decisions, watch as your Turian companion breaks up with you because you cured the Krogans and the Krogan that distrusted you joins in because you cured his people. 

There was a lot of potential that went to waste. Maybe being in Terminus isn't such a big deal after all.

 

The story is weak, that's a fact. It is not cohesive as in the first chapter. Maybe ME3 has a better story. This one just is too weak, no matter whom you side with.

 

With such a big potential, is it still acceptable to call this an RPG? I believe not. The potential went to waste, the story is weak, the squad members are not even chosen by you, they are fed to you by your boss. In ME1 they were still forced on you, but you didn't have the feeling that some mastermind was passing over a list you should stick to.

 

But I have some good news for me: I have discovered (while trying to avoid spoilers as best I can) that squad members can actually die in this game and that if they die you will not meet them in ME3. This means that all I have to do is find a way to let the ones I do not want to see ever again die (and I hope that doesn't imply renegade points, because then I'd be forced to let them live). I think I will certainly allow Tari, the Justicar, Garrus and perhaps, just perhaps, Jack (because she hates Cerberus) to live. If I can make Miranda wear something that doesn't carry the Cerberus mark on it (if I can turn her against the evil she worked for), perhaps I can consider forgiving her and let her live. I can't wait to see Jacob, Zaeed and Mordin die however. I wish I could just choose to drop them on some planet and forget them. 

I am not sure I did right to take the Krogan's cell aboard. I am of course not opening it, but I was so afraid that some Bioware guy would find a way to pour unwanted renegade points on me that I decided to let it aboard. In ME2 you never know what could count as renegade points. That's a shortcoming too. 

[God]

This is statement is meant to be before my proper response to the above, but seeing how you are, I can't wait to see your tears from the ME3 ending. It will be glorious.

[God]

I'm not proficient enough with this forum to know how to add quotes, so you will excuse me if I don't add any.

 

Anyway, to God's post.

 

In ME1 we meet Cerberus thugs doing all sort of evil experiments on innocent victims, and they eventually kill an Admiral. This definitely does not put them on the good side of the world. Now, if Bioware decides to present them as something else in ME2, they are being inconsistent. If, as Jack reveals, they still are the same old Cerberus, then they still are evil, and therefore inconsistent with a Paragon Shepard (but consistent with a Renegade Shepard, possibly). 

 

 

Cerberus thugs? Such loaded language. Instead of stewing about their 'evil' experiments (which aren't evil) on innocent victims, why don't you look at what they're trying to accomplish? A means to control husks, testing the strategic validity of usage of Thresher Maws, studying the strategic validity of Rachni and Thorian creepers. 

 

And good side of the world? I'll be frank, there is no such thing as 'good' side or 'bad' side. There is only the world. And it's too big for your moral high-ground and holier-than-thou ideology to apply. 

 

BW never gave any characterization to Cerberus in ME1. We never get to see or hear their side of the story, and they're little more than a side plot that, when written, had no more narrative importance past the game. You have no basis to make a complete judgement or evidence to support your opinion. You have bad vibes from what they do and condemn them for how you feel. You aren't looking at why they're doing what they're doing. 

 

Thus, it's not possible to characterize the ME1 Cerberus as different from the ME2 Cerberus. They're the same entity, and you're seeing the same organization from ME1 to ME2. This time, you get to encounter their side of the story. Jack is wrong with her characterization. She feels the hatred she's had from years of abuse at her childhood, but she never looks into the possible big picture of what they do and what they are. It's a primal dislike that isn't based in a rational interest in their motives and cause.

 

And as I said, there is no such thing as 'evil', not in physical, quantifiable, or measurable terms.

 

 

 

In ME1, we meet both the Alliance and the Council. The Council is of course dealing with politics, and I like the general feel that humans are still struggling to win the Council's trust. After all, humans are often the good guys since the beginning, so it feels good that in this case they are one of the minor species, and that gives you a chance to prove their valor to the Council. The Alliance is the human military. There can be good soldiers and renegade soldiers, as you like, you play the story as you see fit. It's fine by me.

 

 

This is pretty biased writing, which I'm glad they avoided.

 

Your atrocious grammar aside, your argument is basically that humans are good because they're human. And then you ramble off onto a tangent that has no point or sentence structure. Something about politics, but then again not. I have a degree in Political science and I have no clue what you're getting at here.

 

I know of course that the plot is necessary, or you'd have one of those MMORPGs that are not my cup of tea. The story is very important, but it has to be consistent and leave you enough choice. Bioware here had at least two other options that should have considered:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1. You played ME1 as Renegade, hence it's Cerberus that saves you, you happily join them and start the mission as a Cerberus affiliate. Along the way, you will meet both renegade and paragon characters, and you will choose which one you want in your squad. However, if you played ME2 as Paragon, you are saved by the Council, which will send you on a mission as a Spectre. From here on, the game will play on just as in the other case, only you report to the Council and not to Cerberus. Eventually, you might even end up killing Cerberus agents in a mirror quest of what you'd do as a Cerberus agent. You will probably have other people in your squad in this case.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2. You are saved by a completely neutral agent, possibly one you never met before or preferably someone you have met and is not taking sides with anyone. The Council won't help you, but these neutral guys are willing to help you. You still go to Terminus, meet various characters and get to choose the ones you want aboard. 

 

 

The story is consistent. Your alignment is not something that should involve the story. The story and universe is not (nor should be) reflective of your morality and character alignment. It has no obligation to leave you a choice in what the plot is. That's entitlement on your part there. And it's wrong. 

 

They gave you the ability to have an internal view on the plot. Not an external one. As well, it would be impossible to make a meaningful plot out of something like this that is purely based on choice. I guarantee you would not be satisfied with Mass Effect if it was constrained to the limitations you'd impose on it for the sake of 'not being a bad guy'.

 

Don't tell me what I did and didn't play. I don't believe in terms like paragon or renegade or good and bad. Look at my profile. My Shepard. That's what I do, and I can elaborate further on the choices and psychology of my Shepard, and what he is.

 

As well, why would the Council save you? Why would they have any reason to believe they can resurrect Shepard? You can't bring back the dead. And look at what they did to him. They swept him under the rug, discredited his statements, and more or less disrespected and decried him as a person while using his image as a cheap recruiting and propaganda tool.

 

It's crap. Why would you support that?

 

They don't care about you or like you. You're a liability to them. You're no longer politically useful to them. Why would you support that?

 

This is what happens canonically. You're 'rescued' by the Shadow Broker's forces in the Redemption comics, and Liara saves your corpse and hands it over to Cerberus. 

 

Yep. That's right, Liara works with Cerberus to save Shepard.

 

Also, said entity would be inherently neutral, nor would they care about the little things you like so much as the big picture. Which would involve them developing a practical view that is not inherently dissimilar to Cerberus.

 

 

 

this is the kind of choice I'd expect

 

 

Then to be frank, your expectations weren't realistic.

 

 

 

why do I have to work with Cerberus? You haven't answered my question: you keep telling me what Bioware was trying to give me in this game. But I stick to the fact that I have met them before, I know them for creeps that make immoral experiments and kill Admirals of the Alliance (that means Nazis to me), and now I do not want to have anything to do with them. Not counting that of course my old companions do reprimand me for choosing to side with them. Of course they do, I would reprimand Shepard myself for that choice if I were them.That proves that Cerberus still is perceived as something intrinsically bad and it is not good to work with them. So, since my Shepard is most definitely not going to side with anything that condones experiments and other extreme measures, my question as to why I Should work with them is purely rhetorical. It's obvious that I cannot work with them.

 

 

Why? I can't answer this objectively, beyond it being a linear formation of the story. That's who they decided would be the ones to recruit you, and they do give you cause to. Otherwise, your question is whiny angst about not being able to be 'as good' as you think you should be.

 

You haven't met Cerberus before ME2. You have encountered them, but you haven't met them. And if that's your definition of a Nazi, then it's wrong. You're wrong to define them as Nazi's. 

 

You sound very short-sighted and unable to grasp higher purposes to what Cerberus' goals are. And your squadmates were wrong to reprimand you for doing what you've always done. There is nothing that proves that Cerberus is intrinsically bad. Period. Your ex-squadmates may not approve, you may not approve, but your opinion and their opinion does not equal objective truth. Popular opinion is hardly a measure for good or bad now, don't you think?

 

And why do you disapprove of their experiments and extreme measures? That's what it takes to beat the Reapers. To get things done. I don't think you understand that you do what you have to do, no matter what it is. Cerberus does know that. My Shepard knows that. I know that.

 

You don't know that. And because of that, the Reapers will trounce you. You'll find out soon enough.

 

Do you want to stop the Reapers? If yes, then Cerberus is the only group that can and will help you.

 

Lastly, you answered your own question. Due to your own blindness and inability to hold an open mind, you're intentionally limiting your view to the rhetorical. You ask me to answer your question, then tell me it's rhetorical.

 

That just makes me think you're crazy.

 

You say that we are in Terminus and therefore we can't expect the political subtleties of ME1. I answer that the political subleties of ME1 were a great thing, with a lot of RP potential, and dropping you in terminus where you can't deal with them anymore is a serious drawback. Go think about what they could have done, with you having to choose whether to help the Turian and therefore lose the friendship of the Krogans, or go with the Krogans and inimicate the Turian. Taking sides and therefore unbalancing the delicate equilibrium of the galaxy, participate to debate letting your Shepard's ethics count in taking decisions, watch as your Turian companion breaks up with you because you cured the Krogans and the Krogan that distrusted you joins in because you cured his people. There was a lot of potential that went to waste. Maybe being in Terminus isn't such a big deal after all.

 

 

I never said they dropped them in ME2, it's just they don't apply the way you think they do, especially in ME2. As well, you're forgetting here that you have another game to play after ME2. There isn't wasted potential, they just haven't unfolded it yet.

 

Nevermind, there is wasted potential, but in this case, ME2 isn't to blame.

 

 

 

The story is weak, that's a fact. It is not cohesive as in the first chapter. Maybe ME3 has a better story. This one just is too weak, no matter whom you side with.

 

 

It's really not meant to be as cohesive. It's a pretty non-linear way to go about the game. And you haven't even finished the game yet. You really don't have any credible opinion to say that it's weak and that it's a 'fact'. It's really not. 

 

The first chapter is very formulaic and cliche with BW stories. Does that make it bad? No. Does that make ME2 bad for not following that line of development? No.

 

 

 

With such a big potential, is it still acceptable to call this an RPG? I believe not. The potential went to waste, the story is weak, the squad members are not even chosen by you, they are fed to you by your boss. In ME1 they were still forced on you, but you didn't have the feeling that some mastermind was passing over a list you should stick to.

 

 

That's funny, because that's exactly what ME1 is; it's non-sense to blame ME2 for this and then say ME1 didn't do it too. And in ME2? You have the choice to not recruit certain squadmates. As well, said Mastermind, TIM, isn't doing anything wrong with recommending people to help you. You have a mission to complete, and you need the best people.

 

You're mad at him for trying to help you?

 

That's insane.

 

 

 

But I have some good news for me: I have discovered (while trying to avoid spoilers as best I can) that squad members can actually die in this game and that if they die you will not meet them in ME3. This means that all I have to do is find a way to let the ones I do not want to see ever again die (and I hope that doesn't imply renegade points, because then I'd be forced to let them live). I think I will certainly allow Tari, the Justicar, Garrus and perhaps, just perhaps, Jack (because she hates Cerberus) to live. If I can make Miranda wear something that doesn't carry the Cerberus mark on it (if I can turn her against the evil she worked for), perhaps I can consider forgiving her and let her live. I can't wait to see Jacob, Zaeed and Mordin die however. I wish I could just choose to drop them on some planet and forget them. 

 

 

Firstly, you're judging the quality of a story you haven't even played yet based on what you might be able to do in the prior game.

 

You're that silly that you're utterly terrified of renegade points? Dear Me, why are you even playing this series then? This isn't some fantasy romp where your 'goodness' counts for something.

 

You're in for a world of disappointment. It'll be funny.

 

You're a zealot as well. Honestly, I really am starting to think this is a troll post now, just for how you react to people.

 

I've never heard of a paragon hating on Mordin or Jacob. They're considered some of the more righteous (if practical) characters in the game. And you've completely misjudged Samara if you think she's a righteous paragon. 

 

It's kind of funny.

 

You have a very skewed and nonsensical idea of good and evil. By chance, do you live in a home or asylum? It might answer a lot of questions.

 

 

 

I am not sure I did right to take the Krogan's cell aboard. I am of course not opening it, but I was so afraid that some Bioware guy would find a way to pour unwanted renegade points on me that I decided to let it aboard. In ME2 you never know what could count as renegade points. That's a shortcoming too.

 

 

 

Seriously, you're limiting your RP potential by not letting Grunt out...

 

Yeah, you get a lot of Renegade points for that. You get a lot of renegade points for killing teammates too.

 

You are the person who spams the upper left-blue trigger option, no?

 

Why do you even like RPG's? This is the exact opposite of Role-playing.

 

This has to be an elaborate troll. There's no other way someone like this could exist. 

 

Then again, the BSN has surprised me before. David, Xil, Auld Wulf... 

 

Man, even iakus isn't this nuts on being 'good'.

[Kuseikos]

I find it quite interesting that you venture so far into accusing me while I am of course accusing Cerberus and not you. I am not taking this so personally, so why are you? I wonder...

If you want my own personal opinion, I stick to the belief that whatever the achievement one tries to pursuit, if one does so at the cost of forgetting or betraying ethics, then his achievement is worthless, and so are his means. The end is not an excuse to justify the means. Ethics define us as human beings, not whatever achievements we believe we can pursuit. But this is irrelevant to the topic, it's just my opinion.

 

If am not much mistaken, TIM hasn't restrained himself from betraying Shepard's trust only to pursue his own ends, by sending her aboard that vessel. While you can be cool with this solution, you have to keep in mind that most people do not like to be betrayed, and my character tends to fall in that category. That doesn't explain while protesting it should count as renegade points. But that's ok, I'll live with it, BW has managed to pour a few renegade points on my character which I see as nonsensical, but that doesn't mean she's going to act like an *******. Her Paragon points have reached the top anyway, and I am quite positive the game won't assume she's a renegade type. My Shepard will not work for Cerberus, no matter what BW has to say on this. So, I will not complete any task which involves doing anything specifically for them, I will pass information over to the Alliance every time this is allowed, and simply won't take a task if it involves giving Cerberus any sort of advantage. No retrieval of cargoes they want, no turning functioning geth over to them (and no activating it, it's obvious that Tari would never accept it and this Shepard is not going to betray Tari's trust - she's one of the few people aboard she can still call a friend after all).

I would like to thank you for warning me about the risk of activating that Krogan. I sort of recalled there was something totally immoral about his very existence, but I wasn't sure I remembered right. In case I decide (unlikely, after the premises) to ever play ME2 again, I will play it with that renegade shepard loser I am playing ME1 now. That Shepard is more likely to fit in this game.

 

Talking about that geth, the mission to retrieve the reaper ID once again confirms this is definitely a shooter game. I mean... scores above scores of mutants that kept appearing over and over again... I mean... do people really like shooting this much? I really found it so tedious. Finding the core was ridiculously easy: every time a door was closed, the terminal to open it was like 10 steps away. Talk about exploring and taking time to find your way through. The only obstacle was this infinite sequence of monsters spawning every few steps. Is that even supposed to be challenging? It was so boring that at one point I just told Garrus and Tari to go deal with the types themselves and let me know when they were finished. Every now and then a mutant managed to get close and I just spammed the 'F' key till it dropped dead. there was some merit in placing the hit button under the "eff" key anyway.

Gawd was that sequence boring...

 

I guess BW thought appropriate to pour another 5 unwanted renegade points on me because of the Geth. I had only three options: keep it (and upset Tari? no way). Hand it over to Cerberus (doing them a favor? never! they can wait till hell freezes before I do anything for them that is subjected to my choice and not scripted by Bioware). only remaining option was : do not decide before questioning it. I admit the geth did work for me. I don't hate the geth per se. If Tari wasn't aboard, I would consider activating it (risking perhaps some more nonsensical renegade points). But I just don't want to upset Tari. Maybe the renegade Shepard will activate it. This one won't. It's not what she would do.

 

but to stay on topic, yes, the story is more and more feeble... with so many things to shoot at, I wish the story was more convincing. At least I'd have a good reason to keep clicking that left mouse button... 

 

Oh, I do not plan to kill my squad mates. I just hope there's a chance they simply die in circumstances where Shepard can't do anything to save them. I won't have to deal with Zaeed and Mordin in ME3. That will make the game better already.

[Joseph Warrick]

I agree with many of the things you say OP, but do the Mordin loyalty mission. Can't say more, but trust us.

 

You can do just the ones for Tali, Garrus, and Mordin. Possibly Grunt too since he's not a low life.

[God]

I could go on about how Cerberus is who I support, and even wish to apply their methods in reality in some case.

 

I could disagree with the idea that ethics somehow define humans (which is arbitrary and meaningless since ethics are subjective, non-physical abstractions and hold us back from accomplishment in some aspects, let alone a galactic extermination: would you rather be a moral dead guy whose 'ethics' condemned the galaxy to death or a brutal survivor whose harsh but practical methods ensured that we'd survive the Reapers?)

 

I could point out how your perspective on Shepard and Cerberus has an equal and opposite reaction and how I can define how the Strong, brutal, ruthless results-at-all-costs Shepard is superior to your intentionally self-limiting Shepard who isn't strong enough to do what needs to be done or give themselves every advantage possible.

 

I could laugh at the awful grammar and misspelling of the characters (it's Tali, not Tari). 

 

But I think I'll just sit smug in my knowledge of what's coming for you and the utterly massive rage that I know you will have once you finish ME3, especially by the actions that you're choosing to do in this game.

[Kuseikos]

final notes (because I have finished the game)

*spoilers alert*

 

In the end, I thought it would be ok to activate the geth: it's the only squad member I wasn't forced to take by TIM, so... well... I thought I could explain Tali after all. I must say that it was a good thing to do. I had at least one good loyalty mission, I converted the Heretics and yes, I did manage to convince Tali that wasn't a bad idea.

Then I moved on to the final mission, and well.. that one wasn't so bad. I had the greatest option I wanted since I started playing: I gave TIM the giant middle finger I longed for, and all in all, the combat was reasonable. Not too many things to shoot.

Well... a decent finale for a story that frustrated me most of the time.

I hoped Zaeed would die first. I was unlucky, Zaeed survived this mission, but I am still ignoring him. At least Mordin paid for his genocide. I won't see him ever again. Incidentally, he's the only one that didn't make it. I was really hoping Zaeed would die too, but even if the odds were against him, he made it nonetheless. We can't always have it our way. Effing that TIM bastard in the end was worth the pain of going through this game. I thought the Krogan would be dead too because I never activated him, but ... he's still in my cargo bay. 

 

Joseph, my Shepard just couldn't do that loyalty mission, but I will trust you. Now that I know I can get rid of Cerberus, annoy TIM and crush his plans under my heels, I will give ME2 another chance, and next time I will get there with another Shepard that will do the Mordin loyalty mission. 

I had to keep this Shepard from drifting away from her strong ethical code. She just couldn't deal with Mordin after talking with Wrex about the destiny of Krogans. In the end, she proved once more she's no pawn of Cerberus or any other powercrazy dictator wannabes. 

There will be a next time for ME2 now.

 

There was some satisfaction at last. This game was not what I hoped for, I didn't stand up to applaude in the end, but at last I annoyed TIM. That's the most important thing. From now on, she can have it her way. No more Cerberus interference.

 

Thanks for suggesting to play the Mordin mission. I appreciate your advice and next time I will act accordingly. Maybe I'll find a way to get Zaeed killed too.

 

I'll see what ME3 has to offer very soon.

[God]

Oh boy, the rage in ME3 from you.

 

I can almost taste it!

 

Also, don't download the Extended Cut. It tries to justify murder and make TIM look good.

[Kuseikos]

Conclusion:

ME1 was better than ME2. Reasons:

1. Better RP.
2. More awe inspiring. Exploring planets with Mako gave a feeling you were really in a great universe with great views
3. Better story. ME2 has a feeble plot with scarce or non existent plot twists, coup de theatre and it lacks the scope of the first game in term of species politics, connections, exploration is scarce and side quests are too scarce
4. More story oriented. There's too much fight in ME2
5. The finale is much better. ME2 is just like been there seen already

[Kuseikos]

On a final note, the Council is there to help coordinate the efforts of the three major species to keep the Galaxy ordered and peaceful. They work through compromise, balance, weighing options carefully. I never thought they did wrong in doubting Shepard's words at face value. They are responsible of billions and in charge of keeping the balance in the galaxy. There are more important things at stakes than just the interests of mankind. I was always more than happy to report to the Council. In a way, it felt Shepard wasn't working just for humans but rather for the equilibrium of the galaxy.
I hope that being a spectre will count once again in ME3 and that the scope of the game will be much vaster than just minding mankind's business like TIM bastard does. If mankind wants to live in the galaxy it has to come to terms with balance and equilibrium. Shepard is saving the galaxy for everyone not just for mankind.

The Extended Cut was part of the package I bought. I will see what it is about. Maybe even the evil mastermind can find a way to redeem himself. Maybe he learns something from Shepard after all. My Shepard can even forgive if the guilty is repentant. After all, she let Fist live, she convinced the woman that wanted to dominate the gangster to change her life, she let that Batarian monster go to save the innocents... she even forgave the get when she discovered they weren't so evil. Maybe even that TIM scum deserves a second chance

[Joseph Warrick]

I think you will like ME3 about as much as ME2. ME1 is a thing of the past, gone. At least in ME3 you're free of TIM and under the command of the proper authorities again.

Agreed on all 5 points.

I also think you can reframe one or two things to make ME2 more acceptable. Like, Shepard owes the bad guys her life. Both the Council and the Alliance left her for dead. Plus they are unresponsive to Shepard's plea if she goes back to them... Did you get her spectre status back?

[Kuseikos]

Well Joseph, I'll see what the game is like.

 

glad you agree on the 5 points

 

And yes, of course I did take my spectre status back, that was an absolute must. I wish it did matter a bit more, with some characters reacting to being a spectre. In a sense, the Council told me that as long as I kept my operations limited to Terminus, they would not interfere. that would make operating in that area a bit more tolerable.

Anyway, I can conclude something about the characters. The interaction among characters was extensive in ME2, but unluckily it was a bit marred by the loyalty mission part. You shouldn't strip down relationships to the point where playing a mission for a character automatically implies "loyalty checkbox-done!"

but this is how the game played so...

 

 

favorite character: I'll pick Tali. She wasn't my favorite in ME1 (I like Ashley more), but over here she had some kind of sweetness. During the final suicide mission I was particularly worried that something could happen to her. Since I didn't feel equally interested to the other characters, I can conclude Tali is my favorite

 

nr 2: I think I'll pick Jack. Why? She's got an interesting story, an intriguing attitude, it's a good character after all

 

nr.3: Garrus. Not exactly among my favorites in ME1, but given the options here...

 

n.4: Samara. A bit flat perhaps, but better than many

 

n.5: Legion. a good Geth. Now that was a good change!

 

n.6: Miranda. She's annoying, she's on the wrong side and she's constantly bragging about her superior genes (I wouldn't call that ugly face "superior" anyway). But she might still have room for improvement

 

n. 7: Jacob: could a character be more dull?

 

n.8: Thane. I didn't talk much to him, couldn't stand his voice acting anyway

 

n.9: Mordin. Mass murderer Salarian madman. nuff said. Stopped talking to him.

 

 

n.10 Zaeed: he present himself while abusing a harmless Batarian, talks like a hardcore bastard and deserves a bullet at first sight. I just wish he died in the suicide mission.

 

not classified: the Krogan. I didn't even activate him.

[Vazgen]

How about Kasumi?

[Kuseikos]

I haven't met this character in my playthrough Vazgen, I don't know who he is

[Vazgen]

She's a DLC character. Master thief by her occupation

[God]

It's like someone took a casual and transplanted him in a self-contained thread here. 

 

He still puts up spoiler warnings, even though the game has been out for 5 years (and we're in the spoiler sub-forum). 

 

You'd think even new guys would try a completionist run at least once. This guy is downright ignoring content and characters because he doesn't like them (nor will give himself the chance to like them).

 

And it's weird seeing a guy whose views are so outside the norm here. Especially on Mordin. As I'm trying to say, it's odd how he has managed a complete spoiler free existence thus far, let alone any kind of external input about the games from other players.  

 

I wonder if he'll stick around at all after the series and actually engages with other fans; something tells me he won't, since he won't like the responses he might get.

 

Still, I'm surprised he hasn't railed on me for liking Cerberus. Usually, I get called all sorts of nasty things for supporting and believing in them.

[Joseph Warrick]

Well mate maybe the post is about the OP's experience, not about you, and noone cares what you support. Honestly you're polluting the thread. Hey hey I support Cerberus! Let's talk about me for a while! Call me names, I don't care as long as I get attention!