120 réponses à ce sujet

[LineHolder]

A common criticism about ME2 is that it didn't advance the central story of the trilogy, the Reaper War. Isn't this hindsight? How can ME2 be blamed for not advancing the story if ME3 did not utilize the 2nd game's plot points AT ALL? I know I'm personifying the two games but really they don't feel related. Is it the fault of the preceding game or the sequel?

 

I am playing through the trilogy again and having started ME3, I see Cerberus being active in every frakking theater of war like they're some super convenient super organization that can do everything. Yes, there is the explanation at the end that TIM has been indoctrinated but I personally feel it was a cop out and very contrary to Cerberus' paranoia shown in ME2.

 

However good ME2 is, I now wish that the 'schism' with Cerberus was resolved in ME2 itself, with the 'save or destroy' Collector base in the middle of the game and an assault on TIM towards the end. Something like Witcher 2 with it's two branching storylines finally converging again at the end.

 

I play ME2 with all these great characters and marvel at the potential that was squandered going into ME3. IF Shepard can have plot armor, why not Miranda? Jack? Grunt? Garrus? Tali?

 

ME3 is a poorer game just by comparing its squad roster to that of its predecessor.

[MrFob]

You are correct, ME3 didn't capitalize on the ideas introduced in ME2 (like the dark energy hints or the human genetic diversity stuff, whatever that was supposed to mean). However, I don't think it would have significantly improved ME3 if it did. There were no real plot setups in ME2, just some vague hints here and there, not really a story to build on.

 

Yes, the super weapon which we absolutely needed in ME3 might have been dark energy related or something but what would that have really changed?

 

No, I still mainly blame ME2, not only because it didn't advance the plot but also because it destroyed basically everything that was set up already in ME1.

Not only did the plot stall after ME1, no it took a 180 and ripped the previous setup to shreds in the first 25 minutes of the game.

 

It's no wonder ME3 had to cut corners with the plot, they basically had to re-introduce everything anew and that is ME2's fault. I am not saying that ME3 didn't have problems of its own but a lot of it was almost impossible to avoid at the point the game started.

 

And just because you have a bigger roster of squad mates doesn't make the game better.

[gothpunkboy89]

I do enjoy all 3 games.  But I do think ME2 was more plot filler then plot advancing. Giving more story to the Reapers then the very vague statements of ME 1.

 

Bigger crew list is actually a bad thing. More people the harder it is to balance it so everyone is useful. Different play styles of players stagnates between a handful of characters.  ME1 actually had the best set up despite the smallest crew list.

[Gago]

I think that the supposed ending with dark matter is stupid, I like the ones we got. 

 

Having 6-7 squadmates is better for me instead of having 12. 

 

I do agree that the fetus Reaper having effectively zero impact in ME3 was a letdown. 

[themikefest]

My biggest issue with ME2 was the number of squadmates and having them all survive or all dead

 

The only thing the terminator junior added to ME3 was getting the heart or brain. It only effects the ending choice if ems is below 1750

[Mlady]

I just beat the trilogy again, and the only way I managed to connect Cerberus in ME2 to ME3 is by destroying the Collector's Base, and having Miranda at the final fight with Jacob and her telling TIM she's resigning. It fits perfectly with ME3 because Jacob tells you in ME2 after the SM that Cerberus is going to hunt me down now and they also go after Miranda and Jacob too in ME3.

 

Sadly if you keep it and don't take Miranda, it seems as if Cerberus screwed you over despite how wonderful you were to TIM and they also decided to take out Miranda for kicks. That part should have been changed if you sided with Cerberus imo.

[gothpunkboy89]

I think that the supposed ending with dark matter is stupid, I like the ones we got. 

 

Having 6-7 squadmates is better for me instead of having 12. 

 

I do agree that the fetus Reaper having effectively zero impact in ME3 was a letdown. 

 

From what I understand of the dark matter plot it would have been fairly interesting.

 

Which if I remember right was basically the species of the galaxy was causing the build of dark energy which speed up the entropy of the galaxy.

 

Combine that with the AI being created to help solve the Organic Vs Synthetic issue it comes across this issue. Create the Reapers to harvest all advanced life that would be at the cause of said dark energy build up. Removal of all life at that level gives the galaxy a chance recover slightly before the next species advance to the point to effect it.  Leaves behind the Relays and Citadel so the next group can develop along lines that reduce their dark energy build up though use of Relays as short cuts.  And the almost inevitable discovery of biotics when species are exposed to element 0. They have to be elimiated because the biotic abilities harness dark energy increasing the build up of it.

 

Would have done a good job of reducing the people that like to go "but reapers kill people there fore they are automatically bad!!!" just a bit.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It didn't advanced the plot. ME2 ends the same way ME1 does: Shepard having just defeated a proxy of the Reapers with no idea how to stop them.

 

Actually, scratch that idea...

ME2, more than likely, damaged the Reaper story line beyond repair. It's hard to even know where to begin. ME1 ended with plenty of plot threads to take the story, unravel the mysteries of the galaxy, stop the Reapers, etc. ME2 severs most of those threads in the first hour. Luckily, this guy has started an increasingly War and Peace-esque length Mass Effect retrospective.

[StarcloudSWG]

Mass Effect 2 even self-references that they got NOWHERE in the plot against the Reapers in Lair of the Shadow Broker. The epilogue conversation with Liara, if it happens after the Collector Base 'suicide mission', has Shepard saying in one of the branching dialog options, that she has NO idea how they're going to stop the Reapers and that at best, they've just derailed one of their plots.

 

By choosing to frame Mass Effect 2 as a character focused story with almost no attachment to the Reaper main story, Bioware effectively wasted the plot development potential of a full third of the Mass Effect trilogy. It shows. Even at the time, a fair amount of criticism was directed against ME 2 for not doing anything long term with the Reaper plot.

 

Specifically, it shows how disconnected the entire story is from the ending of Mass Effect 3. If they *really* wanted to explore the concepts behind synthesis and man-machine interfacing, Mass Effect 2 was the story to do it in. And they didn't.

[LineHolder]

I understand where you guys are coming from in saying that ME2 did a u-turn on ME1 or didn't advance it any further. However, let's look at it from a continuity perspective and what ME2 actually puts forward,

 

1. Sovereign was defeated by a human's endeavor (primarily)

 

2. What ME2 tells us is that Harbinger (and the other Reapers) are targeting humanity because "they/we got their attention"

 

3. They're using their proxies (Collectors) to create a Reaper ... that would be more effective against humans? They already have a precedent of using proxies like the Geth.

 

4. The Collectors are Protheans modified with 'Reaper tech'. Modified and indoctrinated so heavily that they no longer resemble the species they were. A recall to Saren stating that the more control a Reaper has on a subject, the less capable it becomes. Mordin states that the Collectors, so heavily 'synthesized' (my word), are incapable of art and social progression.

 

5. Cerberus command having the chops to isolate its cells so well that the team investigating the Reaper IFF did not let on details about Shepard's mission to the Collectors. TIM also shows his devious but clever tactics at deceiving the Collectors and ultimately the Reapers. Seems too smart to let himself be indoctrinated.

 

6. A minor side story about Dark Energy referenced in Tali's mission. That thread could have been taken forward to weaponize entire systems against Reaper fleets.

 

7. I recently played through ME2 for the 4th time and only now do I fully comprehend Legion's words and his background on the Geth. Especially his lines about 'Geth consensus compared to organic consensus imposed through autocracy or one that agrees upon the lowest-common-denominator (paraphrasing)' and the one where he talks about 'each program or unit offers perspective' coupled with their ability to communicate at the speed of light was fascinating. In addition to this he also talks about the lack of distrust between their own. For a second I was transported to a happy place where something like this may be possible in humanity's future, where billions of people can offer their own perspectives and facilitate co-operation and understanding. Legion also admits to tracking organic society and communications so this entire dialogue could be perceived as a deception ploy to lower Shepard's guards and dazzle him (like it dazzled me). But I find it unlikely. Anyway, the Geth perspective and the parallel infighting in the Quarian fleet was probably the most interesting side story in the entire game and what happens in ME3 is sorely disappointing.

 

8. The Genophage cure is almost synthesized. Whether you save the data or not doesn't really make a difference in ME3 (I think, I only destroyed it once) but the Salarian guilt (in the lower ranks) about the entire fiasco is made pretty clear.

 

9. A possibility of Shepard being part machine himself is never actually explored in the 2nd game. The only other time it's brought up is at the end of ME3 when the starchild talks about it. It could have been interesting to explore this further but the 3rd game was so 'emotionally charged' and made so many appeals to the player's 'heart strings' that the culmination of many of the science fictiony aspects of the series' concepts was totally ignored.

 

To discuss the differences with ME1 and ME3 individually would make for a very large post so let me summarize them in brief,

 

ME1 introduces the entire story, the background, the species, the technology, the characters, the Reapers, the Prothean extinction, Mass Relays, the Genophage and the history of the Krogan-Turian-Salarian-Rachni quartet, the Geth-Quarian war etc. It's actually quite impressive what they were able to talk about even though most of this information is in the codex and casual references in dialogue etc.

 

ME2 is the one where the writers somehow made science fiction based on the reality established in ME1 (this paragraph is a little abstract so bear with me). This is no easy task because the science fiction of ME2 isn't based entirely on our own real-world-reality. It's actually brilliant if you think about it. It talks about the points I mentioned above and actually feels different from ME1 because it explores the impact of research on scientific frontiers on society and individual people. This is the time in the series when we actually 'begin' to comprehend the Reapers and their methods with the live example of the Collectors and the 'work' done on the abducted colonists. While the first game was about they mystery of the Reapers and their 'un-knowableness', this games actually parted the curtains of this mystery and acquainted us with 'some' of their activities and intentions. I know stuff like the Lazarus Project and 'essence of a species' is pilloried very badly but there can be no science fiction (or even scientific breakthroughs) without a hint of philosophy and imagination.

 

ME3 on the other hand, let's look at what it took or discarded from ME2

 

1. From a narrative standpoint, Harbinger, the Collectors, the Base and the Reaperizing of the humans was entirely ignored and/or retconned

 

2. Cerberus is a totally different organization with a totally different head of operations (TIM in ME3 vs TIM in ME2). Actively indulges in 'Reaper tech' inspite of the precedent of the Collectors and Saren. Has supposedly unlimited human and financial resources. Regardless, the choice to destroy or save the base has no effect on Cerberus.

 

3. Dark Energy ... ignored.

 

4. Rewriting or Destroying the Geth ... ignored. The Quarian's infighting has been resolved and their suicidal attack on the entrenched Geth compels them to go to the Reapers? OK. WTF happened to Legion? Why the obsession on 'being alive'? Weren't they 'alive' enough when Tali's father was conducting weapons tests on regular Geth?

 

5. My suspension of disbelief is shattered sooner and sooner in every ME3 playthrough. This time it was when Cerberus showed up on the Salarian homeworld to stop the immune Krogan female being given back to the Krogan. Wat? Why does Cerberus have more concern about Krogan than the Turians and Salarians? Similarly, if Cerberus can be taken as representing part of humanity's perspective on inter-galactic relations, why isn't the Alliance more of a war-mongering entity? I can understand the Council dithering because they represent something like a UN body. The entire Genophage arc was soured by the very presence of Cerberus.

 

6. Shepard as the wild card, the part-organic-part-machine is only referred to in the ending choices.

 

A Prothean super weapon is the one and only (new) plot point put forward in the entire game along with the convenient 'resolutions' of the Genophage and Geth-Quarian war.

 

The way I see the ME spectrum is like this, ME1 as the most pseudo-scientific (pseudo as in trying to ground everything in the reality of the ME universe), ME2 as the most science fictiony and ME3 as far into the realms of space-fantasy-opera-emotion.

 

 

 

My biggest issue with ME2 was the number of squadmates and having them all survive or all dead

 

 

I find the cameos or absence of the ME2 squad mates in ME3 to be criminal. You spend an entire game trying to recruit people for the fight against the Reapers and immediately ignore them in the 3rd because 'they could have died'?

 

Well, so could Shepard. I'd have given Miranda, Legion, Tali, Grunt and Mordin plot armor at the very least and have them be a bigger part of the 3rd game.

[fraggle]

2. Cerberus is a totally different organization with a totally different head of operations (TIM in ME3 vs TIM in ME2). Actively indulges in 'Reaper tech' inspite of the precedent of the Collectors and Saren. Has supposedly unlimited human and financial resources. Regardless, the choice to destroy or save the base has no effect on Cerberus.

 

To me Cerberus is not really different, and neither is TIM. He was always a manipulating bastard looking out for his own interests, and only his. He doesn't care about anyone else, he didn't care about Shepard either. Shepard was just a tool for him to use. TIM was obsessed with controlling the Reapers, but for this they had to look into the Reaper signal and try to turn it into using it on the Reapers. Is it really a surprise he gets too close to the flame?

The experiments on Horizon is what made his human resources possible. He experimented on the refugees, being able to turn them into obedient slaves, and also everyone that joined the Cerberus army deliberately. With the help of Henry Lawson, who is, as Miranda told us in ME2, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the galaxy. I guess we know where these financial resources come from.

I know that the huge Cerberus presence in ME3 is a problem for many. It never was for me though. I thought it was really fitting with the plot. And I actually loved the downfall of TIM. He is a madman, and it was expected.

 

3. Dark Energy ... ignored.

 

Drew Karpyshyn wrote about that plot idea in his blog. It was one idea they had for the ending, but it wasn't the only one. He also talked about the writing process, how many things can't be planned, which probably was ultimately the problem with how some things went down.

 

4. Rewriting or Destroying the Geth ... ignored. The Quarian's infighting has been resolved and their suicidal attack on the entrenched Geth compels them to go to the Reapers? OK. WTF happened to Legion? Why the obsession on 'being alive'? Weren't they 'alive' enough when Tali's father was conducting weapons tests on regular Geth?

 

It only plays a small part, but it is not ignored. It mostly has to do with War assets, but also this (from the wiki): 

During Priority: Rannoch, when the time comes to choose between siding with the geth, siding with the quarians or resolving the conflict peacefully, the fate of the heretics is one of the numerous factors in whether peace will be a possibility or not. Destroying the heretics works in favour of peace, but isn't required.

 

5. My suspension of disbelief is shattered sooner and sooner in every ME3 playthrough. This time it was when Cerberus showed up on the Salarian homeworld to stop the immune Krogan female being given back to the Krogan. Wat? Why does Cerberus have more concern about Krogan than the Turians and Salarians?

 

Cerberus had a very good reason to attack Sur'Kesh. They are trying to shatter any attempt of Shepard to unite the galaxy. They come to kill Eve because they try to prevent krogan-turian alliance, same as they tried with the bomb on Tuchanka. It's actually a Reaper method. Divide and conquer. TIM had been indoctrinated for a very long time, still thinking he is doing this for his own cause in trying to take over everything, trying to control everything. But ultimately he directly plays into the Reapers' hands.

 

6. Shepard as the wild card, the part-organic-part-machine is only referred to in the ending choices.

 

A Prothean super weapon is the one and only (new) plot point put forward in the entire game along with the convenient 'resolutions' of the Genophage and Geth-Quarian war.

 

Both definitely a problem deriving from not introducing these topics in ME2 already. Shepard just did not f*cking deal with his/her death. Why? There should have been some reference to it, some way to explore what this new and improved Shepard means, how they feel about it. Instead, Shepard and pretty much anyone just goes like "Death?" "Oh, who cares". Absolutely no one deals with it when it's such a big topic.

 

And the weapon, this should've been started in ME2. It's not a surprise they had to pull a super weapon like this out in the first few ME3 minutes, when it absolutely should've started in ME2. But no one is doing anything anyway, because the Reaper threat is dismissed by everyone. It really is my biggest gripe with ME2, there is barely any plot advance at all.

Not saying there could've been a different solution other than a super weapon, because of how strong the Reapers had been built up previously, but had they started to look into different ways for defeating the Reapers already in ME2, it would've probably been a smoother transition into ME3.

 

I find the cameos or absence of the ME2 squad mates in ME3 to be criminal. You spend an entire game trying to recruit people for the fight against the Reapers and immediately ignore them in the 3rd because 'they could have died'?

 

Well, so could Shepard. I'd have given Miranda, Legion, Tali, Grunt and Mordin plot armor at the very least and have them be a bigger part of the 3rd game.

 

You probably see now the problem with that big roster And yes, the Suicide Mission, while brilliant as it is, was a mistake to have in the middle of a trilogy. So they had to do best with all those characters as they could. Yet they also learned from it.

However, as crazy as it may sound, I like some replacements more, and I loved the fact that everyone could die. Why should some receive special treatment?

I like the krogan mission without Grunt, I like Grissom Academy more without Jack, despite loving her. Mordin's replacement is also very good. For the amount of squad mates potentially dead they did a good job with all these missions imo.

 

 

 

@MrFob and ImaginaryMatter: I've read the first page of this ME Retrospective series, it really looks interesting. Will read it over the course of the day (bored at work, what can I say ).

[angol fear]

Dark energy ignored ? What about Conrad Verner in Mass Effect 3 ?

[Perpetual Nirvana]

It's likely that Dark Energy was dropped because there's no way to resolve it in a satisfying way. What are the choices? Let the Reapers continue to harvest or doom the galaxy to a slow death. What kind of choice is that?

[Mlady]

It's likely that Dark Energy was dropped because there's no way to resolve it in a satisfying way. What are the choices? Let the Reapers continue to harvest or doom the galaxy to a slow death. What kind of choice is that?

 

Instead of Destroy/Control/Synthesis/Refuse it would have been Destroy/Refuse lol

 

I think the biggest problem is, if the Reapers were seeking help to stop the Dark Energy and needed humanity to help because they (biotics) had the most potential, we should have been given a less one-sided view of them in ME1 and 2. Near the end of 2 when Harbinger says "you have failed. We will find another way" my first thought was they were seeking something and needed help and now they felt far less monstrous than Sovereign, but then Arrival returned them to being villains as well as ME3's opening. 

[Kerg]

 

6. Shepard as the wild card, the part-organic-part-machine is only referred to in the ending choices.

 

 

There is a reference to it in the Cerberus HQ mission, too.  He watches the Lazarus Project video log, and then says that he doesn't know if he's still human or just an advanced VI that think it's Shepard.

[AlanC9]

Instead of Destroy/Control/Synthesis/Refuse it would have been Destroy/Refuse lol

Even worse since with DE Destroy would have been the failure choice.

[Mlady]

Even worse since with DE Destroy would have been the failure choice.

 

Tell me about it! That would have been even worse than what we got. At least despite the concern of Shepard's survival and if you really want to sacrifice the Geth and EDI, you get to do what you've been told to do for all 3 games. Destroy the Reapers. And that choice is the right one if you are going by ME1 and Vigil. If I had to choose between destroying the Reapers and watching everything be consumed by Dark Energy, or giving up Humanity to save  everyone, I would be staring at the screen for a long time! Though it does fit with ME:A if you think about it.

[aoibhealfae]

I don't really like Dark Energy arc to begin with... let me guess, in MEA, we're going to find out that in another galaxy, there's another active hidden galactic civilization who happens to be ruled by this another immortal entity that uses the power of dark energy to devour worlds.... ... ... too close to Star Wars area.

[MrFob]

@LineHolder: I was going to respond to this in detail but fraggle already covered a lot of ground here, so I'll try and keep it short and just offer some differing/additional opinions:

 

On Cerberus: The main offender on Cerberus will always be ME2 for me. That is the game that changed it from an alliance black ops unit gone rogue to a multi-billion dollar paramilitary industrial terrorist complex, which has the powers of god TIM, has spies everywhere, can build ships that no one else can even dream of and can resurrect the dead. The minor changes that ME3 did pale in comparison (and as fraggle said are somewhat explained or at least lampshaded. ME2 gives you nothing. They just say that's how things are now, ME1 be dammed. Now, Cerberus is certainly weird in ME3 but given how laughably incompetent and downright insane they are in ME2 already, I consider that in character actually.

 

Dark Energy (DE): Before I read Drew's blog thing, I never felt it was an abandoned plot. Because seriously, what plot is there? There are 2-3 throwaway lines and that's it. Yes, one could have picked this up again in ME3 it might have made for a nice plotline somehow but using those 3 lines as the hook for the main plot, I don't know. Let's think this through, shall we?

- Use DE as the basis for defeating the reapers: This would mean we still need to make some sort of superweapon out of it. As of the end of ME2 there is not even a hint of a way to do that so it would be the crucible all over again, just renamed. I am not saying it wouldn't have been better, what I am saying is that it wouldn't have changed the game setup dramatically.

- "Weaponize Haestrom" as you suggest: This might really have made for a great side mission arc, I would have loved that. Basically pull a Samantha Carter and blow up a sun (and a reaper or two in the process). However, how would you integrate it into the main plot? Contriving the remote system Haestrom into being the main decisive battle of the war doesn't sound very intriguing to me, nor does it sound logical that one could somehow get the reapers there. It would still be a plot in tangles.

 

Now, the thing is, I actually like the idea behind the DE plotline, I like the idea to tie the reapers back into the Mass Effect (which is the premise underlying the universe). That would have been great. But ME2 certainly does not enough to give ME3 a chance to run with it successfully. A few lines from a side mission is not enough to effectively build on when you have the confrontation itself to deal with in the third part. That's why DE doesn't work, not because the idea is bad in principle but again because ME2 never set anything up beyond a few vague lines.

 

The collectors: Now maybe I understood you wrong here but are you actually chastising ME3 for not bringing back the collectors or Harbinger or the human reaper? I don't think that's fair at all, those plot points were resolved in ME2, that's the point of the entire game that we don't have to deal with that thread anymore on top of everything esle. If they were brought back then ME2 would be even more pointless (and I don't even count MP, where they actually are back so LOL to that). The fact that schoolyard-bully-reaper Harby isn't back beyond a cameo is actually a positive in my book, considering how abysmal his whole appearance was. The one thing that ME3 really bungled up was to properly deal with the collector base decision, that one had potential and it was not used at all.

 

The geth: Yes, I'll give you that one, the geth were very much character-slaughtered in ME3. Unfortunately the writer who came up with their very interesting background in ME2 (Chris L'Etoille) left the team between the two games and apparently whoever took over this part didn't have the chops, the time or the inclination to pick up the torch.

 

Don't have anything to add on the superweapon issue or the big roster. fraggle covered those.

 

In conclusion, I don't want to say that ME3 doesn't have it's own problems, it certainly has more than enough of them (and not just the ending). But I think when they made ME3, the writers at least tried to get their act together and bring this entire colossus of a story that had gone walkabout back on track. They didn't succeed in all cases and yes, in some they made it worse but at least they tried, whereas in ME2 I get the impression that they willfully smashed the predecessor into bits.

 

@MrFob and ImaginaryMatter: I've read the first page of this ME Retrospective series, it really looks interesting. Will read it over the course of the day (bored at work, what can I say ).

 

Just keep in mind that this guy is (like me) a fan of mainly ME1 and (like me) has HUGE problems with ME2 and 3. As far as ME2 goes, I agree with about 95% of what he says. His thoughts on ME3 have just started and it's funny there because I find myself agreeing with most of it again but I do think he could spend a bit more time going into how the whole narrative structure of the series was tangled into knots at that point already - strange when you think about how elaborately he covers how this happened before.

Anyway, I wouldn't call it a pleasant read exactly (too sad a topic for that) but it's certainly comprehensive.

[AlanC9]

Tell me about it! That would have been even worse than what we got. At least despite the concern of Shepard's survival and if you really want to sacrifice the Geth and EDI, you get to do what you've been told to do for all 3 games. Destroy the Reapers. And that choice is the right one if you are going by ME1 and Vigil. If I had to choose between destroying the Reapers and watching everything be consumed by Dark Energy, or giving up Humanity to save  everyone, I would be staring at the screen for a long time! Though it does fit with ME:A if you think about it.

Right. I might have actually been OK with facing that choice, myself, but I kind of like having my RPG characters put into awful situations.

But I don't see how anyone can think that this choice would have been any sort of answer for the problems that people have with the existing ending.

[AlanC9]

The one thing that ME3 really bungled up was to properly deal with the collector base decision, that one had potential and it was not used at all.

Well, it does make an appearance in low-EMS states, FWIW.

[Mlady]

Right. I might have actually been OK with facing that choice, myself, but I kind of like having my RPG characters put into awful situations.

But I don't see how anyone can think that this choice would have been any sort of answer for the problems that people have with the existing ending.

 

Oh yeah it would make for an interesting situation, but many players would probably be upset that we couldn't get a happier ending where we kill the Reapers and save humanity. That hidden 3rd option like Synthesis. Add that and I bet the DE might have been really interesting. Like for perfect Paragon players with high EMS, they could stop the Reapers and use the Crucible to end the DE threat, but low EMS and more Renegade ones would be forced to make a hard choice, or something like that.

 

For me, I would fret over only 2 choices because neither would really feel like I achieved anything. Something/one would be sacrificed and Shepard's efforts would be all for nothing in the end, but from an RP POV, it would be fun I bet.

[MrFob]

Well, it does make an appearance in low-EMS states, FWIW.

 

Sure, it has an impact (mostly behind the scenes). What I meant was story-wise and there, it's barely even mentioned. The only impact on the story is that you randomly get different option in the low EMS scenario. Why that is or even that the base is responsible for the difference is never even touched upon in the game. It's not even amde clear that the connection exists at all. The player can basically only find out through meta gaming. I wouldn't call this a good way to pick up this dangling plot thread. It feels more like the writers finished the game and then realized "Oh crap, we forgot all about the collector base choice, but we only have 5 minutes left before we have to submit the gold master. Where can we shove it in quickly?" They might as well have left it out, I doubt anyone would have asked for this kind of implementation.

[themikefest]

What would people's reaction be if saving the base only gave the option to control the reapers no matter the ems, and if the base is destroyed, destroy is the only option no matter what ems the player has?

[Mlady]

What would people's reaction be if saving the base only gave the option to control the reapers no matter the ems, and if the base is destroyed, destroy is the only option no matter what ems the player has?

 

I kind of like that idea. It shows your choices do affect the plot. And I still think keeping the base should have made Cerberus have the option of being an ally. Making them and TIM the big baddies and pushing the real threat to the side while we beat Cerberus enemies to death at every turn felt so stupid sometimes. I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but Cerberus felt overused in ME3.