10273 réponses à ce sujet

[xster]

so glad the random encounters look sorta unique now in 2

[Dick Delaware]

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm playing ME2 at the moment and, despite having criticised it before, I'm actually really warming to the story. It's not as good as ME1 - lacking the focus of Saren and going off on too many tangents - but Shepherd's relation with Cerberus is very interesting, the characters are all very well formed and I'm finding, having just brought a character forward from ME1 rather than waiting a year, I'm finding the story a lot more touching. It's definetly not Bioware's best story, but it is very good.

I felt that Cerberus was a far more interesting faction to work with than The Alliance, for sure. The Illusive Man is maybe my favourite character in the whole series.

[uberdowzen]

The final (hopefully) issues and suggestions
thread for Mass Effect 2


I started the thread, I urge everyone to go there (and encourage others to go there) and contribute.

Edit: Oops! Link works now...

Modifié par uberdowzen, 14 mai 2010 - 08:51 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Dick Delaware wrote...

This kinda confuses me because ME2 had more lines of dialogue than ME1. ME2 had 31,000 lines of dialogue according to this link. I also remember hearing ME1 had about 25,000 lines, though I can't find a link for that. Hopefully, someone can help me out.

www.joystiq.com/2009/12/10/mass-effect-2-cast-bolstered-by-battlestar/

It's too late for me to go searching for the specific post(s), but seriously. ME2 had more dialogue, yes, it did not reflect ratio though. More dialogue was recorded as a whole, but not for individual characters.

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

No it is no excuse, but the story isn't bad or ridiculous. It's not great but it's one of the better game stories out there. And you're accusing ME2 of bad writing? Man, how many games have you played? You want bad writing go play a Tomb Raider game or pretty much any RTS ever.

That is not the kind of games to compare ME 2 to, nor can the even weaker stories in those games excuse the bad job BioWare did with the story in ME 2. I have indeed played quite a lot of games, mostly RPGs, including every single one from BioWare. And of course the games to compare ME 2 to, are first of all their own previous works. In comparison, ME 2 has a very bad story, sometimes simply laughable. Both as far as the writing and some general ideas are concerned, as well as far as the execution and implementation are concerned.

Part of the explanation are probably the obvious time constraints they were working under. Back in the days when they were independent, they always made sure their games were top quality, and met their own standards, even if it meant pushing the release date back. That's obviously not possible anymore, so they probably just didn't have enough time to make a good story. That however, is an explanation, but it is also no excuse.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 mai 2010 - 09:53 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I actually came up with a mock-up that incorporated some of that one and mixed it with the ME2 system and added ME1's stats, mods and comparisons, as well as showing the upgrades related to the weapon selected. I posted it in that very topic and even PM'ed it to Christina Norman when a lot of people approved of it and suggested I should. She even thanked me in a nice response. Not sure whether they'll look at it or just bin it, but... I tried to help.

EDIT: here it is:-

I'm just commenting that, good  suggestion what you did here. This is what I have tryed to talk, more customation, but don't use inventory. I want to do this for every squad member in my team.

There is:

- Weapon choise -> different kind of weapons.
- Upgrades -> where you are in with that weapon development
- Weapon mods -> how it has been customized
- Ammo mods -> what kind of ammos player is using.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 mai 2010 - 11:18 .

[Itkovian]

I would like to make 1 comment concerning the story in ME2.
While it is true that the "core" storyline is shorter than in ME1, and that the recruitment/loyalty missions plotlines are mostly uninvolved with the main story, they do however perform a great job at fleshing out the ME universe.
Therefore, not only were they (for the most part) superbly written, but they DID serve an important function in giving greater depth to the Mass Effect setting, even if they didn't directly advance the main story.
Given the arguments already put forth concerning being in the middle of a trilogy, I think that this was a good choice, or at least an original one.
Oh, and one more thing: I personally believe that the main problem with elevators in ME1 (which I loved, quite frankly) is that most gamers have been conditioned to accept loading screens as a necessary evil. By trying to disguise these screens with elevators the designers essentially ended up exposing the long loading times directly, as players watched their character stand there doing nothing for some time... or walking down long boring corridors or the likes.
I personally loved the attempt to mask loading times like that, and inject some gameplay value into them as well (through news reports and the likes), but I am confident a lot of complaints would not have happened had the designers simply used loading screens, or perhaps displayed a big LOADING warning on the screen as the elevator moved to make the players realize that the game wasn't making them take long elevator rides for nothing.
Thank you.
Itkovian

Modifié par Itkovian, 14 mai 2010 - 01:57 .

[bjdbwea]

Itkovian wrote...

While it is true that the "core" storyline is shorter than in ME1, and that the recruitment/loyalty missions plotlines are mostly uninvolved with the main story, they do however perform ]a great job at fleshing out the ME universe. Therefore, not only were they (for the most part) superbly written, but they DID serve an important function in giving greater depth to the Mass Effect setting, even if they didn't directly advance the main story.

Really? I think not. The new things you learned about the ME universe, you learned in conversations with your companions. That, however, could also be done alongside a proper main story. The actual missions consist, with a few exceptions, mostly of shooting stuff. I also disagree about "superbly written", but that probably doesn't surprise anyone.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 mai 2010 - 03:57 .

[Darth_Ultima]

While some of the changes were a little jarring overall the change was for the better.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm playing ME2 at the moment and, despite having criticised it before, I'm actually really warming to the story. It's not as good as ME1 - lacking the focus of Saren and going off on too many tangents - but Shepherd's relation with Cerberus is very interesting, the characters are all very well formed and I'm finding, having just brought a character forward from ME1 rather than waiting a year, I'm finding the story a lot more touching. It's definetly not Bioware's best story, but it is very good.

My second (and last) playthrough of ME2 was done immediately after completing a ME1 playthrough an importing him, to compare and contrast.

Yes, the characters are overall done well, but the tangents really get to me.  I'd say they should have gone with fewer characters (say, six instead of ten, save the rest for ME 3) and focus more on the main story. 

I HATED the way Cerberus was handled.  I would have much preferred if it had been a more overtly evil organization (like ME 1) but Shepard has no choice.  Instead we have "kinder, gentler Cerberus" full of decent Alliance types who are simply dissatisfied with modern politics (I actually have a crazy theory concerning this, but I have no actual evidence so it's just a personal theory)  As it is, Shepard doesn't really complain about who he as to work with.

Three things in particular bother me about the story:

Horizon:  Just the thought of meeting the Survivor is enough to kill any desire to play ME2

"Ah, yes, Reapers"  Seriously, even I can think of a better reason to get the Council to blow off the Reaper threat (such as how long it would take the Reapers to get there without the Citadel Relay)

Final boss:  'Nuff said

[Dick Delaware]

Making them outright evil would be a mistake, IMO. I like the fact that you're never entirely sure about what kind of games The Illusive Man is playing. You don't know whether he's a charismatic, ruthless visionary who's willing to make the hard decisions, or if he's purely a power-hungry assh*le. Maybe a little bit of both. The Illusive Man would be a lot less interesting if he was all about MOAR POWAR!!

It would short-change a lot of Renegade players as well. My Renegade Shep isn't an evil person, he's just cynical and thinks that in order to get things done, you need to get your hands dirty. The "kinder, gentler" Cerberus was definitely a ret con, but it was a good one. Sort of like how they reframed Revan in KotOR II as a visionary leader who was making hard decisions in preparation for fighting the True Sith. I loved that as well, and thought it worked out for the better in both games.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 14 mai 2010 - 07:23 .

[xster]

btw, I just want to mention that I love the clean feel of the environment etc. I've grown so tired of the dark themes almost every western rpg has. Absolutely love the futuristic, clean, glass/plastic looks. Wouldn't mind living at Horizon etc

Modifié par xster, 14 mai 2010 - 08:08 .

[xster]

also, must say that the combat mechanics are much more solid and that squad members are much more useful and independent thinking

[Iakus]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Making them outright evil would be a mistake, IMO. I like the fact that you're never entirely sure about what kind of games The Illusive Man is playing. You don't know whether he's a charismatic, ruthless visionary who's willing to make the hard decisions, or if he's purely a power-hungry assh*le. Maybe a little bit of both. The Illusive Man would be a lot less interesting if he was all about MOAR POWAR!!

It would short-change a lot of Renegade players as well. My Renegade Shep isn't an evil person, he's just cynical and thinks that in order to get things done, you need to get your hands dirty. The "kinder, gentler" Cerberus was definitely a ret con, but it was a good one. Sort of like how they reframed Revan in KotOR II as a visionary leader who was making hard decisions in preparation for fighting the True Sith. I loved that as well, and thought it worked out for the better in both games.

I dunno, being forced to work with undisputed "bad guys" for the greater good would be intriguing.   A real "prisoner's dilema"   Besides I never for a moment believed TiM was after anything but power.  What i expected was a charming, powerful criminal mastermind who was unapologetic about Akuze, and other atrocities committed in the name of the 'greater good" I wanted Shep (paragon or renegade) to say "You're still on my list, and eventually you won't be the lesser evil"

I don't see how having Cerberus being evil shortchanges Renegade Sheps any more than working for the Council would.  Or the Alliance, or Styx, a less extreme splinter group of Cerberus I just made up now.

I'm not a fan of retcons.  They have to be done very carefully or the whole story falls apart.  The ammo thing I was able to wink at, since it was more a gameplay retcon than anyting else.  But given everything revealed about Cerberus so far in the series, sorry, things just don't add up.

[Dick Delaware]

iakus wrote...
I dunno, being forced to work with undisputed "bad guys" for the greater good would be intriguing.   A real "prisoner's dilema"   Besides I never for a moment believed TiM was after anything but power.  What i expected was a charming, powerful criminal mastermind who was unapologetic about Akuze, and other atrocities committed in the name of the 'greater good" I wanted Shep (paragon or renegade) to say "You're still on my list, and eventually you won't be the lesser evil"

I don't see how having Cerberus being evil shortchanges Renegade Sheps any more than working for the Council would.  Or the Alliance, or Styx, a less extreme splinter group of Cerberus I just made up now.

I'm not a fan of retcons.  They have to be done very carefully or the whole story falls apart.  The ammo thing I was able to wink at, since it was more a gameplay retcon than anyting else.  But given everything revealed about Cerberus so far in the series, sorry, things just don't add up.

Yeah, TIM wants power, but he's also ideologically motivated. If he wasn't, he'd still be working with the Alliance. Besides, if the Reapers wipe everybody out, he has no power anyways, so his first priority is eliminating them. He's nothing if not practical and results-oriented. And he IS a charming, powerful criminal mastermind who's unapologetic about his actions in the name of the greater good. Yeah, I'd like some mention of Akuze, but what you described is pretty much him in a nutshell:

"Don't presume to judge me or my methods."

"Cerberus IS humanity."

"I am humanity!"

Who is Styx?

I don't mind the retcon so much because it made Cerberus much more interesting. I didn't care much when I fought them in various ME1 side-quests: they might as well have been space-pirates to me. There are some inconsistencies, but they were a minor faction in ME1 and they were given a lot more depth in ME2. Characters like Kelly Chambers annoy me because I don't see how she could possibly fit in with an organization like that, but overall, I feel it was for the best.

Not all ret cons are bad though. I thought the re-imagining of Revan in KotOR II was pretty brilliant actually. I'd say that this one, while not quite as good, is also excellent.

[Iakus]

Yeah, TIM wants power, but he's also ideologically motivated. If he wasn't, he'd still be working with the Alliance. Besides, if the Reapers wipe everybody out, he has no power anyways, so his first priority is eliminating them. He's nothing if not practical and results-oriented. And he IS a charming, powerful criminal mastermind who's unapologetic about his actions in the name of the greater good. Yeah, I'd like some mention of Akuze, but what you described is pretty much him in a nutshell:

"Don't presume to judge me or my methods."

"Cerberus IS humanity."

"I am humanity!"

Who is Styx?

I don't mind the retcon so much because it made Cerberus much more interesting. I didn't care much when I fought them in various ME1 side-quests: they might as well have been space-pirates to me. There are some inconsistencies, but they were a minor faction in ME1 and they were given a lot more depth in ME2. Characters like Kelly Chambers annoy me because I don't see how she could possibly fit in with an organization like that, but overall, I feel it was for the best.

Not all ret cons are bad though. I thought the re-imagining of Revan in KotOR II was pretty brilliant actually. I'd say that this one, while not quite as good, is also excellent.

[/quote]


I have no problem with Cerberus wanting to defeat the Reapers.  The Reapers are literally everyone's problem.  The problem I had was all the really terrible things Cerberus has done were whitewashed or explained away.  The rachni experiments?  Admiral Kahoku?  Akuze?   How many times was the excuse "Oh that wasnt really Cerberus, that group went rogue" used?  It's only at the very end when TIM's facade starts to crack.  I would have liked to see that attitude come out more often in the game. 

Styx was someting I just made up; Since there were so many "rogue elements" in Cerberus I figured, maybe there's one out there (we'll call it Styx) that's not so extreme and is willing to work with aliens and had some sense of ethics

The Revan retcon in KOTOR 2:  I kinda liked because I didn't see it as a retcon.  People like Kreia were speculating on what Revan's motives were, but there was no actual evidence one way or the other.  Since Revan had disappeared several years earlier, there was no real way to know the truth of things (of course the game also called into question pretty much everythings about Jedi/Sith teachings and the nature of the Force in general)

Kelly Chambers:  I just posted a rather crazy theory in the spoilers forums about why she and others were aboard the Normandy.  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2611207

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

My second (and last) playthrough of ME2 was done immediately after completing a ME1 playthrough an importing him, to compare and contrast.

Yes, the characters are overall done well, but the tangents really get to me.  I'd say they should have gone with fewer characters (say, six instead of ten, save the rest for ME 3) and focus more on the main story. 

I HATED the way Cerberus was handled.  I would have much preferred if it had been a more overtly evil organization (like ME 1) but Shepard has no choice.  Instead we have "kinder, gentler Cerberus" full of decent Alliance types who are simply dissatisfied with modern politics (I actually have a crazy theory concerning this, but I have no actual evidence so it's just a personal theory)  As it is, Shepard doesn't really complain about who he as to work with.

Three things in particular bother me about the story:

Horizon:  Just the thought of meeting the Survivor is enough to kill any desire to play ME2

"Ah, yes, Reapers"  Seriously, even I can think of a better reason to get the Council to blow off the Reaper threat (such as how long it would take the Reapers to get there without the Citadel Relay)

Final boss:  'Nuff said

I disagree. One of the key themes of ME2 is that the Alliance, who you viewed as perfect and always doing the right thing, get portrayed in a different light. Maybe Cerberus has a point, maybe the Alliance aren't quite as good as they appear at first. It all builds up to the very end, when you have to choose to who to side with.

I feel that if Cerberus had been totally evil, I would have hated my Shepherd for being forced to go with them.

[Dick Delaware]

iakus wrote...
I have no problem with Cerberus wanting to defeat the Reapers.  The Reapers are literally everyone's problem.  The problem I had was all the really terrible things Cerberus has done were whitewashed or explained away.  The rachni experiments?  Admiral Kahoku?  Akuze?   How many times was the excuse "Oh that wasnt really Cerberus, that group went rogue" used?  It's only at the very end when TIM's facade starts to crack.  I would have liked to see that attitude come out more often in the game.

There was also TIM sending you into a trap on the Collector ship, then charismatically talking his way out of it with Shepard. I came in wanting to kill the guy, yet he comes in and lays things out in a very reasonable manner, as cool as a cucumber.  I thought that was a very nice touch.

I kinda liked that the facade really starts to crack only at the end if you destroyed the base, where for the most part TIM has been very cordial and cooperative with you. He is very understanding if you keep Legion and give Veetor to the quarians, but you certainly see him pissed off once he finds out that the resource that he invested in (you) didn't pay off and give him what he wanted.

I like that he's so calm that he only loses it and reveals his true emotions only at the end when he sees Paragon Shepard doesn't want to play ball. He's willing to let those other things slide because they don't matter in the grand scheme of things and it's better if you cooperate, but when push comes to shove and it's time to decide what to do with the Collector Base, he shows his true colours.

That whitewashing was annoying, sure, but I think there's going to be much more to Cerberus than the little we already know in ME2. All of the whitewashing you hear about comes from either TIM or Miranda - I know this is conjecture, but they might be lying. Also, we still have yet to find out who TIM really is. I think there's still going to be a lot more that we'll learn about Cerberus in ME3.

iakus wrote...
Styx was someting I just made up; Since there were so many "rogue elements" in Cerberus I figured, maybe there's one out there (we'll call it Styx) that's not so extreme and is willing to work with aliens and had some sense of ethics

Ah, gotcha. Clever name.

iakus wrote...
The Revan retcon in KOTOR 2:  I kinda liked because I didn't see it as a retcon.  People like Kreia were speculating on what Revan's motives were, but there was no actual evidence one way or the other.  Since Revan had disappeared several years earlier, there was no real way to know the truth of things (of course the game also called into question pretty much everythings about Jedi/Sith teachings and the nature of the Force in general)

Kelly Chambers:  I just posted a rather crazy theory in the spoilers forums about why she and others were aboard the Normandy.  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2611207

A retcon is when you reframe past events to serve a current plot as needed, no? I think that's the correct definition. As long as there are no serious inconsistencies (there were some with Cerberus, though they weren't particularly sever, while in KotOR II there were none)  a retcon might be really good.

In KotOR I, Revan was a brilliant tactician and an evil Sith Lord who fell to the dark side because he didn't heed the Coucil's words and decided to brashly go after the Mandalorians and became corrupted. In the second game, going with the darker and more morally grey tone, Revan became a cunning leader who may not have truly fallen to the dark side at all, but instead realized the bold actions that needed to be taken in order to stop the True Sith. Also, the Council were recast as blind, arrogant and self-righteous.

All I'm saying is, while retcons usually suck, sometimes they can work really well.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 14 mai 2010 - 10:31 .

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

I disagree. One of the key themes of ME2 is that the Alliance, who you viewed as perfect and always doing the right thing, get portrayed in a different light. Maybe Cerberus has a point, maybe the Alliance aren't quite as good as they appear at first. It all builds up to the very end, when you have to choose to who to side with.

I feel that if Cerberus had been totally evil, I would have hated my Shepherd for being forced to go with them.

Do you mean the Alliance or the Citadel Council?  Because we don't see much of the Alliance in either game.  Weve been out of their jusrisdiction for the most part.  The Council, however, never looked very good.  True in the second game they slide from compacent to downright idiotic.

I don't see how having to work with a known evil organization would have been so terrible if, in this one matter, your goals are in alignment.  It might have added a layer of depth to the game.  "How much of your soul are you willing to trade away to save the galaxy?"  This nice-guy version of Cerberus made it really easy to stay paragon.  Almost too easy, really.  I would have wanted TIM to egg me on to "do whatever it takes"  I wanted TIM's disapproval.  Turns out it's way easier to annoy the Council.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

Do you mean the Alliance or the Citadel Council?  Because we don't see much of the Alliance in either game.  Weve been out of their jusrisdiction for the most part.  The Council, however, never looked very good.  True in the second game they slide from compacent to downright idiotic.

I don't see how having to work with a known evil organization would have been so terrible if, in this one matter, your goals are in alignment.  It might have added a layer of depth to the game.  "How much of your soul are you willing to trade away to save the galaxy?"  This nice-guy version of Cerberus made it really easy to stay paragon.  Almost too easy, really.  I would have wanted TIM to egg me on to "do whatever it takes"  I wanted TIM's disapproval.  Turns out it's way easier to annoy the Council.

No, the alliance. The council in ME1 was a pain in the ass, but it always seemed like the Alliance was there to back you up, being all round good guys. In ME2 the Alliance are portrayed as maybe not being quite as perfect as they appeared in ME1, like on Horizon, there is obviously no love lost there.

[Iakus]

Dick Delaware wrote...

There was also TIM sending you into a trap on the Collector ship, then charismatically talking his way out of it with Shepard. I came in wanting to kill the guy, yet he comes in and lays things out in a very reasonable manner, as cool as a cucumber.  I thought that was a very nice touch.

I kinda liked that the facade really starts to crack only at the end if you destroyed the base, where for the most part TIM has been very cordial and cooperative with you. He is very understanding if you keep Legion and give Veetor to the quarians, but you certainly see him pissed off once he finds out that the resource that he invested in (you) didn't pay off and give him what he wanted. I like that he's so calm that he only loses it and reveals his true emotions only at the end when he sees Paragon Shepard doesn't want to play ball.

That whitewashing was annoying, sure, but I think there's going to be much more to Cerberus than the little we already know in ME2. All of the whitewashing you hear about comes from either TIM or Miranda - I know this is conjecture, but they might be lying. Also, we still have yet to find out who TIM really is. I think there's still going to be a lot more that we'll learn about Cerberus in ME3.

I remember that trap.  In my first playthrough that was one of te few times I deliberately got myself some renegade points by threatening TIM in front of Jacob and Miranda afterwards.  He SO didn't talk his way out of it with me, and I liked that.  What I would have preferred was a more "I don't like you and you don't like me" relationship with TIM

Dick Delaware wrote...

A retcon is when you reframe past events to serve a current plot as needed, no? I think that's the correct definition. As long as there are no serious inconsistencies (there were some with Cerberus, though they weren't particularly sever, while in KotOR II there were none)  a retcon might be really good.

In KotOR I, Revan was a brilliant tactician and an evil Sith Lord who fell to the dark side because he didn't heed the Coucil's words and decided to brashly go after the Mandalorians and became corrupted. In the second game, going with the darker and more morally grey tone, Revan became a cunning leader who may not have truly fallen to the dark side at all, but instead realized the bold actions that needed to be taken in order to stop the True Sith. Also, the Council were recast as blind, arrogant and self-righteous.

All I'm saying is, while retcons usually suck, sometimes they can work really well.

Since this isn't a KOTOR board, I think I'll just say that KOTOR 2 took "from a certain point of view" to a whole new level and leave it at that

As for Cerberus, it might have been one thing if reports of their activities had turned out to be exagerations, or if TIM was a new leader trying to reign the organization in, or heck, there was even some genuine "greater good" that they felt justified in doing these things (aside from the nebulous "securing humanity's future").  That sort of retcon is logical and fits easily into the lore in general.  But simply looking the other way was taking the easy way out, imo.  I find myself really hoping ME 3 will somehow mesh "old Cerberus" and "new Cerberus"

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

No, the alliance. The council in ME1 was a pain in the ass, but it always seemed like the Alliance was there to back you up, being all round good guys. In ME2 the Alliance are portrayed as maybe not being quite as perfect as they appeared in ME1, like on Horizon, there is obviously no love lost there.

Hmm, in ME 1 I recall Anderson being there for you, but that's it.  Most of your contact with the Alliance was thorugh Admiral Hackett's requests that you solve some problem or other for them.  Thy only really "come through" for you at the end when Joker brings them in to fight Sovereign.

Keep in mind in ME 1 it was Ambasador Udina who locked you out of your ship, it was the Alliance who dragged Ash's family name through the mud, and gave us the Terra Firma party.  They were never flawless even in ME 1

In ME2 they are portrayed as going the way of the Council, true

[Dick Delaware]

iakus wrote...
I remember that trap.  In my first playthrough that was one of te few times I deliberately got myself some renegade points by threatening TIM in front of Jacob and Miranda afterwards.  He SO didn't talk his way out of it with me, and I liked that.  What I would have preferred was a more "I don't like you and you don't like me" relationship with TIM

Ah, I didn't play it that way. I'll try it out next time I'm there.  Sounds interesting.

I think you'll probably see more of that kind of relationship that you're talking about in ME3 if you've gone the Paragon route. Hell, you might even see it as a Renegade and warned him not to use the tech for anything other than fighting the Reapers.

iakus wrote...
Since this isn't a KOTOR board, I think I'll just say that KOTOR 2 took "from a certain point of view" to a whole new level and leave it at that

As for Cerberus, it might have been one thing if reports of their activities had turned out to be exagerations, or if TIM was a new leader trying to reign the organization in, or heck, there was even some genuine "greater good" that they felt justified in doing these things (aside from the nebulous "securing humanity's future").  That sort of retcon is logical and fits easily into the lore in general.  But simply looking the other way was taking the easy way out, imo.  I find myself really hoping ME 3 will somehow mesh "old Cerberus" and "new Cerberus"

Hehe, good point. Kreia isn't exactly the most reliable narrator. Still, you hear a lot of the same stuff about Revan from HK-47, GO-TO, Atton, and Mandalore, so it's not just her. Haha, I think we've gone off topic enough here, sorry about that.

[Dudeman315]

The trap only made me want to kill TIM that much more. Anyone that sends me knowingly into a trap gets a bullet to the skull no exceptions! As soon as EDI was "free" we'd have traced the quantum entangled particle to it's partner and killed him and anyone else who else at his location.

[Dick Delaware]

I was pissed off at first, but I didn't really want to kill him. Risking your life is part of the game, so it doesn't make sense to take it so personally when you're sent to do something that could result in you dying.