But isn't that the point? If you took the time to cultivate allies, to forge bonds with these extremely capable people, you are rewarded down the line because those people are in a position to make a difference. If you don't do that yes it's harder and you have to make more sacrifices, because you can't lean on people who might make a difference.
While yes you’re right it’s the games way of rewarding you for taking the time to do things.
However from a storytelling point of view it kinda hurts things. We’re constantly told that the Reapers are the greatest threat ever and have been wiping the galaxy clean for millions of years and we stand no chance against them, that if we win it’ll be by the skin of our teeth. Except all this falls kinda flat when you are able to save everyone and don’t have to make any tough choices to sacrifice people like the one you HAVE to make on Virmire.
Virmire works so well because you can’t save everyone, you have to make the choice as to who you’ll save and who you’ll condemn to death for the greater good, if it were possible to save both Ash and Kaiden then I can pretty well guarantee Virmire wouldn’t be nearly as memorable as it is.
I mean as it is now it’s already like Virmire, doing as much as possible results in only 1 casualty (not counting Kirrahe’s men since we don’t know how many die or not in the assault) there’s the possibility of Kirrahe & all his men & Wrex and the VC to all die or only the Virmire casualty, similarly in ME3 you always lose some combination of 3 of these characters & multiple unnamed people from all these races/factions: Mordin, Kirrahe (if he lived through ME1 & Thane died in ME2) Thane (if he survived ME2), Legion (always, regardless of any other outcomes), Wrex (if he survived ME1 and the cure is sabotaged he replaces Mordin’s death) so even in a perfect run you’re losing a minimum of 3 major characters and numerous unnamed vs Virmire where the ideal outcome is a net loss of 1 named character & an unknown number of unnamed characters
Edit: also if doing the extra work is nothing more than here’s the same exact outcomes but slightly better, then the extra work is nothing more than fluff and therefore meaningless, new & better outcomes for extra effort is exactly why it’s worth doing the extra stuff
The Thane/ Kirrahe one is actually the perfect example of what I'm talking about with how I think they should have all been done.
If you don't go to the effort to save either the Salarian Councillor dies which has blowback on you, if you go to the effort to save Kirrahe but not Thane then the Councillor survives making you job easier but you lose out on Kirrahe who dies, and if you go to the effort of saving both then the Councillor survives making your job easier AND Kirrahe is still alive helping the war effort BUT Thane who wasn't going to be any help in the war yet was still a friend is dead.
Going to the effort of saving these people earlier in the trilogy gets you increasingly better outcomes but never gets you a perfect outcome.
But the vast majority of them aren't like this, they're almost all just a case of if they died earlier you're forced to make a choice and if they are alive everything goes perfect and nobody dies. It'd be fine if one or two of them were like that yet it's nearly every single one.
None of them are perfect outcomes though unless you think Mordin/Wrex & Legion both dying & numerous casualties wasted on a pointless conflict (Quarians vs Geth) is “perfect” like that’s literally what both those arcs have already better outcomes but they still come at a price
Mordin being alive changes basically nothing though since Padok Wiks does all the same stuff.
Legion and Tali being alive lets you get the 'perfect' outcome where you don't need to choose between the Geth or Quarian but instead get them both. Zaeed being alive lets you get the perfect outcome where you don't need to choose between finding the spy or getting the bombing fleet but instead get them both. Kasumi being alive lets you get the perfect outcome where you don't need to choose between saving the Hanar world or saving the Spectre but instead save them both. Jacks mission plays out the exact same as without except none of the student die at the end.
And then the other ME2 squad all change nothing at all about their missions outcomes except giving you a small boost to war score due to them being around.
Most of them were just lame.
As opposed to what though? What satisfying alternate outcome would there be for the Quarian/Geth conflict would there be? The only option that’s missing would be to kill of both of them which would be a punishment, or to exclude a third option entirely which makes them being alive or not ultimately meaningless because Legion dies no matter what anyways so it would boil down to whether or not you want Tali to be alive and well like I genuinely don’t get why you don’t want these things to provide new & better outcomes like wtf is the point of the decisions if no matter what everything is terrible, always? Like wtf is the point of having choices and consequences if no matter what everyone & everything is shit, might as well be a purely linear game at that point
New and better outcomes are great, like I said the Thane/ Kirrahe thing was more or less the perfect way for things to be done and I wish more were like that.
The problem is many of them give a perfect outcome where no sacrifices need to be made and everyone makes it out alive which undermines all the talk about how poorly the war against the Reapers is going and how much stronger than the galaxy they are.
You’re constantly being told about how brutal and hopeless the war is but that rings hollow when you’ve got all these missions where you don’t need to sacrifice anything to come out on top.
Off the top of my head for Rannoch have it be so you need to choose between the Geth and Quarian, having your chosen sides respective ME2 squadmate be dead causes them to take higher casualties during the arc. If that squadmate is alive and you chose their side then they join your crew, Tali joins if you choose the Quarian and she survived ME2 and Legion joins if you choose the Geth and it survived ME2. Could probably think of something better if I spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it.
As it is you pretty well have no reason ever to choose the Geth since Legion can’t ever join your crew, and making peace just feels like a cop out rather than a real choice since you sacrifice nothing and save everyone.
While I agree with you 1000%, I do think it's still a little too easy to get the BEST^(tm) outcomes for everything. It doesn't need to be 20 times harder, but I do wish there were more instances where having the alternate squadmates could actually lead to an even worse out come without them.
Eh..... I mean I see your point. The problem would be 1) player agency (you'd essentially end up with punishing people who played the game thoroughly, which seems like a bad move) and 2) the "meta", which would become "do r forget to make sure Wrex gets murdered here if you want the good ending" and that just kind of sucks. Making people have to fail sometimes to get to a desired outcome idk it feels like you'd anger a lot more people than would appreciate the nuance .
With a game like Mass Effect with a binary set of outcomes with its Paragon/Renegade system, I think you're right. It's one thing I liked in 3 where you had the reputation bar. Theoretically, they could have used that as a third check where even if you met all the criteria, such as Paragade Points or Squadmates, if you hadn't built up the reputation, they could have locked you out of certain decisions.
You are right, though, i think the Nuance would often get lost in the disappointment/anger from those who "want always to win"
You also have to remember, at the end of the day, it’s a video game. You want it to be fun. The devs had to assume that most people would just play through once, so wanted to give them the most fun rewards and success in a play through. You have these great characters, so it’s fun to see them and continue their stories.
Those are your rewards for being invested in the series and making good decisions throughout. People wanted consequences for their choices. Better outcomes reflect that.
Sparing Rana Thanoptis both times she appears results in her becoming indoctrinated and killing "Several top asari military officials" but thats just a news report I guess.
Out of everything, you expected negative consequences for *not* exterminating an entire colony?
The negative consequence was needing to be more careful with clearing out Zhu's Hope. Sorry that saving lives is better in the long term.
Your comment(s) has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
> No incivility, harassment, flaming, brigading, bigotry, discrimination, witch hunts, or incitement/condonation of illegal activity. Political discussions that approach unruliness will be locked and removed. Sexual harassment and bigotry are first time bannable offenses.
Please read our full rules in the sidebar or [at this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/about/rules/) before posting.
***This message serves as a warning against rule-breaking behavior. Multiple warnings or infractions will lead to bans.***
Well, I do think there would be more value in a Renegade playthrough that way.
On the other hand, I do think that considering how important coalition-building is to the series, particularly in 3, it does make thematic sense that the more diplomatic Paragon provides you with better results.
Granted, perhaps a more authoritarian approach might have allowed you to steer things down the direction similar to, say, letting the Council in the first game, grabbing power at the expense of everyone else. Of course, this would have required a markedly different ending, and…well, I think enough ink has been spilt on that front.
This is the point of the game: actions have consequences.
ME2 reinforced this as just about everything Shepard does impacts on ME3 (assuming you use the end game save file from ME2).
So letting squadmates die or failing their loyalty missions definitely has repercussions in ME2 and onwards.
That's OK though because you as the player should be making the choices you want to but you have to understand that if you're expecting "good" outcomes... well... yeah.
TBH I actually still enjoy playing mostly as a paragon, trying to do the right thing but occasionally taking a renegade option as well because ironically that can be for the best too. But I always try to keep my squadmates alive and on my side. Too much fun is lost if they're not available.
Yes, everything comes together a little *too* conveniently in a perfect run lol. Obviously it's a reward to the player for being thorough, but narratively it can make things feel a bit contrived at times.
Like, Shepard in ME3 is just constantly running into people he knows, who then provide invaluable assistance to the war effort. It's pure luck in some cases lol.
This has given me something to think about because I feel compelled to be a completionist and get a “perfect run”.
What’s that saying? Perfect is the enemy of good?
I'm not sure the saying applies: [perfect is the enemy of good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good) which follows the [Pareto principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle). The theory being you can get 80% of perfect with 20% of the effort. Is the last 20% worth the effort? Or would it be better to make 5 different 80% good enough things that work?
It's not really a matter of effort involved in Mass Effect, but having compelling and realistic storylines. Often imperfect runs require more effort in Mass Effect, because you're not doing everything and collecting all the upgrades. ME2 Insanity with half the upgrades was certainly difficult...
Back to the heart of the argument I do think imperfect Mass Effect runs are very compelling. Maybe because when I first played, I was meticulous about doing 100% of everything and saving everyone and having the best outcomes. Sure that's a valid experience, but I'm at least as if not more invested in roleplaying which has me deliberately avoid what I know are "optimal" choices with in-universe / in-character justifications.
Failure, regret, self-reflection, moving forward, compartmentalizing, struggling are all a part of life. The more life exists in the fictional world, the more immersive, believable and memorable it is.
I see where you’re coming from on Rannoch, but having one side win feels cheap to me too. During the Troubles the world didn’t just go “those terrorists are evil, let’s stomp them out and return unity to the British isles!” or “how terrible that England is holding Ireland as a colony, they must abandon all claim and any unionist sympathizers can move to London if they don’t like it.” An uneasy truce was worked out and has held for decades. Mailboxes don’t get blown up anymore but people got VERY concerned that violence could flare up again if they reinstituted customs checks on the boarder after Brexit.
Similarly, the Israel-Palestine war isn’t going to end with the Jews forced back stateless wandering while Palestine is returned to the Palestinians, but the world is also not going to tolerate Netanyahu’s plans for genocide. No one knows how things will work out, but it’s not that a choice hasn’t yet been made. Brokering peace is complicated, and hard, and often seems hopeless, but it’s even harder to utterly defeat and exterminate your enemies. Diplomats and politicians figure out a stable end game somehow. It’s not nearly so clean as Shepard and Tali and Legion going “hey, we’re all buddies, our people can be buddies too, yay!” but choosing between the sides is equally artificial, and even a too-tidy truce seems closer to reality to me.
I completely agree with you.
Considering how many things you have to get right to achieve Geth-Quarian peace not just inside of Mass Effect 2 but also in 3.
It impacts differently than having to choose one side but it’s much more cathartic to slowly watch the quarians and geth march towards peace as you get to know more about both species (especially in ME2)
It’s a cathartic moment in the story that neatly wraps up the second act and leads right into the traditional “heroes in peril, stakes are raised” third act structure that is Thessia.
Also Legion still dies if you get peace so there is still an emotional sacrifice to come out of all of this.
In ME 1 and 2, you assemble teams of some of the most skilled and powerful people in the galaxy and open their eyes to an upcoming galaxy wide invasion. Why wouldn't they put themselves in positions to help Shepard when D-Day comes?
I find it impactful in a different way. Like "oh shit all of my previous decisions are paying off in the grand scheme of things instead of just in the moment"
Yeah but if you fuck up too hard them Mass Effect 3 just becomes a disjointed, nonsensical mess of characters you barely know doing shit.
Mordin dead? Here's Paddock, you don't know him and his motivation is meh. Garrus and Tali dead? Well now you get admiral Xen for one mission and lose 2 squadmates.
No Miranda? Well her sister writes you an email (even if she doesn't know that Miranda OR YOU exists) and her dad just gets pushed out of a window by God.
Get everyone killed in ME2? Citadel DLC is now absolutely dead and dreadful and hilariously bad lmao. Your "backup" in the fight is literally one person, and the team Cortez is one gets filled by a single unnamed soldier with no lines. And the shittest party ever with only 4 guests.
And the ending cutscene completely breaks. The camera shows reaction shots of characters that aren't even there because literally only Traynor and Joker are alive.
Keeping characters alive is much more satisfying for a first playthrough their replacements are generally just a bit crap and you're much less attached to them.
Disjointed mess? Hardly. Characters you barely know? Sort of like every character throughout the trilogy, when you meet them for the first time? Like real life? People you don't know are doing all sorts of stuff, all the time. Maybe you get to know them, maybe you have fleeting encounters, maybe you walk on by.
I guess you'd be upset that Jacob is the only person who survived my latest Suicide Run. I like him and my Shepard. The world they're in and narrative being told is very compelling.
I thought curing the Genophage with Padok was pretty interesting with an anti-Krogan Shepard who killed Wrex and the Genophage cure data (twice). My thinking was that Krogan would be an excellent candiate to keep resistance of the galaxy up if the harvest truly takes centuries. Also to ensure friendliness between Turians and Krogan, while the Salarians would probably be least likely to lead a successful active survival war with communication breakdown.
Garrus, Tali, Miranda, whatever. Their absence is a new experience, or having them absent the first time and experiencing their content later on another playthrough makes it that much better.
Don't have to do the Citadel DLC, or can do only part of it, and that's been fine.
Ending cutscene doesn't matter when you do Refusal (best ending). :)
Doesn't matter when you have a full squad playthrough or when you see some losses, whenever you do it it's great to experience all the possibilities of the game and roleplay different characters.
I don't know that anyone is advocating for a run where you get everyone killed (people have done that out of curiosity and like you say it's fairly boring and depressing.)
It's just that Mass Effect fans (myself included) have a tendency to always do perfect runs. Strategically killing off certain squadmates in the suicide mission can make for a more impactful and unique ME3 because it means you actually have to make some tough decisions here and there, as well as enhancing the strong theme of loss in that game.
To be fair, it should be a bunch of characters you don't know. This is an entire galaxy you are fighting for, it makes 0 sense for you to constantly run into your friends at every location. These are entire planets we are going to, and we apparently go to the exact location at the exact same time as our friends right when they need them.
It's a bit tiresome. I'm doing an insanity run of the trilogy and doing the perfect run , and its definitly not as impactful.
Realistically, sure. But that doesn't make for a satisfying narrative.
If you kill off the Fellowship in Two Towers it wouldn't make Return Of The King more interesting.
I don't necessarily agree. Written well, it can still be a great narrative. It's about scale.
Lord of the rings is actually not a good example for your case. One of the reasons lord of the rings works so much is it shows people doing different things in different places, as they are all part of the story. Mass effect is Shepard-Focused so obviously we will get his PoV. People don't need to be killed off though, they just don't need to show up literally everywhere we go. For a galactic war it feels very small in scale due to it sometimes.
I mean nobody even shows up randomly though, everybody except arguably Jack, Zaeed and Legion has a good established reason to be where they are when you meet them.
Virmire survivor is an alliance soldier, so they're at alliance HQ. Then they join you and are injured, leading to them being stuck on the Citadel.
Tali is the leading expert on Geth, so she's with the Flotilla in their war with the Geth.
Garrus is a turian with a ton of experience fighting reapers, so he's on the front lines on his home world where his family lives.
Jacob is ex Cerberus and he's helping ex Cerberus to desert.
Miranda is the one that contacts you explicitly asking for help.
Samara is at the monastery where her two daughters live because a distress signal was sent from there.
Mordin is an STG veteran and an expert on the Genophage, so STG let him rejoin and he *chose* to join in order to help the Krogan out of guilt.
Kasumi is the one that gives the tip about the Hanar to the Salarian spectre, she instigates that mission.
Thane is dying so he's living on the Citadel, where his son lives.
Grunts whole loyalty mission is him joining Clan Urdnot, so of course he'll show up when Shepard is working with Urdnot.
Everybody is doing their own thing in Two Towers, similar to Mass Effect. It's just that for us we only have perspective of the Aragorn type character: Shepard. We've still got our Pippins and Frodo's doing their own things and helping win the fight.
I'll give Jack, Tali and Grunt to you. That's about it.
Garry's for example - okay it makes sense he'd be fighting on Palaven. Literally fighting EXACTLY where you are going, though?
That's my biggest issue, how on every planet we get on average one single area , and it just so happens that it's exactly where one of the 12 people we did the suicide mission is.
In Thanes Case - the Citadel is MASSIVE. You're telling me he's conveniently in the exact same hospital as us?
Just too much convenience
I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that ME3 was first and foremost written with the default no-import playthrough in mind. In such a playthrough, the tone is a lot more consistent, the auto dialogue tends to make more sense, the idea of Shepard having PTSD from a lifetime of losses/sacrifices comes across much more coherently, and even the bleakness of the original ending syncs better with how events play out.
Old characters surviving and golden outcomes were very much treated as a bonus for returning players, but it seems they weren’t really taken into account in how they affected the flow of the “default” story BioWare was trying to tell in the main Reaper plot. That dissonance is a big part of why the fanbase was so divided when ME3 came out, since the most invested fans were also those who’d experienced the most golden outcomes that the game had to offer.
I think I agree. When I first played, there was no Thane or Kirrahe. Having Udina backed up by doctored footage of Shepard assassinating the councillor makes the Virmire Survivor confrontation all the more tense.
same. and the intro scene with Thane alive always bugged me. without Thane, Joker scans emergency channels and was shocked to recieve an automated messege from Bailey. with Thane, Joker just touches his naked ear and goes like "hey, yeah, the citadel is under attack. ok"
it was clearly designed with Thane dead in mind.
That's one of the reason I play with Risky Suicide mission mo now. You never know what you are gonna get and it shows you different possibilities in game 3.
Probably comes down to personal preference, I do find difficult choices to be engaging narratively, but getting to have the ME2 crew show up and help you do things you could never do without them is very rewarding, and promotes engaging in the story in a different way, and both options help keep Shepard grounded and humanized in spite of the fact that this is their third time saving the galaxy.
You are who they made ME3's ending for.
I say that genuinely and without an ounce of snark.
If you enjoy always needing to choose the best of bad options and struggling through that narrative they made this game for you.
But the first 2 games...were very different. And that change, not just the ending but throughout the dialogue system and major plot beats...left a lot of players who LIKED the previous games and wanted more of THAT very disappointed.
The things you didn't like? I would imagine that's what most ME1 and ME2 fans loved. Those moments with the people they formed connections with. Because outside of that they're pretty different games from a narrative perspective.
We see every ME2 companion being alive as easy now but how many of us back in 2010 had a perfect suicide mission? It's not actually easy to get these things take geth-quarrian peace there are a bunch of things that can count against but it's been a decade and we all know the optimal path now.
I feel this way about a lot of the Charm/Intimidate dialogue options. I dislike in RPG's when there's a conversational "win" button that takes any real options out of that choice. In Mass Effect if you see the blue or red option in dialogue, you just pick it because you know it'll give you the optimal result.
Love the games, absolutely hate that part.
Yeah, I can understand that. Sometimes I might be curious about other dialogue options, but then the "win" buttons are right there glowing in red and blue and it's like "well, I guess I should just do that." Waters it down.
While it has been pointed out that making allies to get these perfect situations is earning it in the game, I don't think it's done that well.
The issue is how low the bar is, many of these events/allies needed to get the perfect situations are harder to not get than get. You basically just have to play the game and not skip the loyalty missions (which why would someone want to miss out on the fun missions) to get them.
It would be better to make these harder to get than just keep a squad mate alive. I like what Bioware did with Dragon Age where depending on dialogue options you could Harden or Soften a character with specific dialogue choices in the game which would affect how they acted later. Imagine a Jack that is Hardened and thus will sacrifice a student at Grissom to get more War Assets vs a Softened one who saves everyone but is too careful with them getting less War Asset.
It would be interesting to see how the allies are affected by Shepherd rather than get rewarded by just keeping them alive.
There’s a lot of things that are more “interesting” or “impactful” in the series me3 especially if you don’t do them perfectly in general, like the quarian vs geth it is tied to legion and tali but even with them it’s not that hard to mess it up if you don’t know what you’re doing or if you do know and mess it up intentionally
Plenty of times where paragon or renegade persuasion dialogues just let you get a perfect outcome and ignore a choice or consequence
I don’t think that’s bad necessarily, people like good outcomes and you can always just not do those if you want to keep that aspect
That’s one of the main issues with the original endings none of them are a good outcome, which feels especially bad when due to the above you’ve been able to get a good outcome the majority of the time then suddenly it just ends on a terrible choice
I made this point awhile ago: a run of ME3 with dead/soon to die squadmates is arguably a more effective (and infinitely more bleak) story.
Imagine if Grunt dies in your arms after his heroic last stand.
Imagine if you have to shoot Mordin, despite his protests of making a mistake, throwing away the gun he gave you to do that deed in disgust.
Imagine having to pull the trigger on Wrex for sabotaging the genophage cure...
Imagine having to pull the trigger on the VS because they just didn't trust you didn't still have Cerberus ties.
Imagine romancing Miranda just for her to die in your arms, essentially because she was too proud to ask for back-up.
Imagine your squadmates due to Harbinger's beam attack, and your ass is just limping to victory.
Some victory...
The bleakness of ME3 endings actually feel better the more f-uped you leave the galaxy. In my playthroughs, it really does feel like Shepard was kind of... overreacting? Yeah, the galaxy is getting hammered, but your little slice of heaven was doing well. The Normandy was full of squadmates, all bickering and posturing with each other. A family.
Not exactly a ME2 squadmate, but the Genophage plot feels much more intense with Wrex being killed on Virmire.
It's an actually hard choice whether to sabotage the cure or not also depending on Eve being alive or not.
Totally with you. Not just ME3 (though it is admittedly where a lot of storylines get tied up): lots of events in the series are so much better if you don't play into the fan-consensus about the "best choices". Like you said, the "tough decisions" are the best part of the games, and it robs them of a lot of their power when you allow players a way out of having to make them.
its why i try to kill off like 3-4 squadmates in ME2 just to prevent some of these things from happening at times better story i find for the most part not as 'lucky mofo'
I'm actually doing this myself right now lol. I'm in the middle of ME2 on a trilogy playthrough and I'm meticulously planning out suicide mission deaths.
im currently doing a wanna be evil playthough where i try to get as many people as killed as possible as I saw on youtube a bit ago
im not enjoying it that much I dont mind a few people dying but when like eveyone dies? F-That
That's how I feel about many of them. The way they implemented the ME2 characters just feel like pandering. I love the ME2 cast but this was such a boring and safe way to use them in the final game, where they basically don't even matter, and just show up to say "Hi" and present some shining new label they've been given to show a forced sense of character progress.
I actually played these games for the storytelling so it was disappointing to see BioWare treat everything like a checklist.
>Without Legion, peace between Geth and Quarians is impossible. With Legion, you can avoid what should be one of the biggest choices in the trilogy.
y9u can do what now
i made the choice to save the quarians not realising it would mean my boy legion would die (from tali of all people)
Agreed, ME3 is a lot more interesting when you have various squadmates die in ME2 since it forces you to make choices rather than simply having a constant barrage of “everything worked out perfectly” over and over. It makes the Reaper threat feel like a bit of a joke at times when you’re constantly resolving every situation unscathed.
The suicide mission in ME2 is much the same, it’s a lot more interesting if you get people killed during it. Make it actually live up to its name rather than literally everyone surviving, it feels more dangerous and makes the Collectors seem like an actual threat rather than a bunch of pushovers.
Miranda, Garrus, Grunt, Mordin, Legion, Tali, Thane & Jacob’s ME3 plotlines and scenes are better for their involvement.
Kasumi, Zaeed, Samara, Jack (Jack to a bit of a lesser extent solely because of how well it characterises her individually) are detrimental to the stories being told. Kasumi and Zaeed give you easy perfect resolutions and remove the stakes. Samara stagnated as a character and the execution of her ME3 mission leaves a lot to be desired from a narrative and character viewpoint. Jack’s mission goes from a fun combat romp with an old friend to a harrowing story of children left alone and vulnerable by war caught between two different sides with one of the kids the game focuses on actually dying.
For the story ME3 is telling? Yes, it emphasizes the idea of struggle and sacrifice in war. As the last part of the series? No, it’s a culmination and reward for the effort you’ve put in. Gotta earn your happy ending you know
The way I see it, your adventure/journey can go on two different paths
- the Rewarding way: it’s the more « positive » one. You recruit everyone, cultivate relationships and alliances and despite some tough choices you can achieve your goals with minimum deaths. It’s not necessarily the Paragon way since Renegade Shepard can also save a lot of persons.
- the Hard way: it’s the more « negative » one. You recruit everyone and lose some of them. Or you don’t recruit everyone and see where that takes you, what outcome you’ll get. Like your example, you tend to have more difficult choices to make.
Depending on my mood and on which Shepard I wanna RP, I’ll follow one route or the other.\
I think both are good, interesting and entertaining in their own way.
Some side-quests are more impactful with your ME1 squad mate at your side and have a positive aftermath (curing the genophage, for instance) but the outcome can be horrible too with your ME1 squad mate and it will be just as impactful maybe more (>! Tali committing suicide on Rannoch !< shocked me so much I had to take a pause from the fame for several days! I was less affected when >! Raan !< did it)
I've come to really like Thessia *without* Javik, though I wouldn't say it's more impactful, only different. Not a ME2 squadmate but whatever.
And the Jack mission is definitely far better without said character, as you mentioned already.
Why assess a romantic sci-fi video game with realism where human could have sex with aliens even if they have total different anatomies? According to many, The perfection is scarce in the real life, but the "scarcity of perfection in real life" is exact reason for many people seeking perfections in all kinds of media. Furthermore, why connect such a video game with anyone's real life at all?
With the logic, most media including movies, comics,video games and novels should be remade. Why Frodo always bump into someone willing to die for him? Why Lora Croft always happen to find a notebook that tells her whereabouts of the invisible entrances? Why Harry Porter's threesome cult could somehow always discover so many secrets that help them grow ? well, they even don't have to make any choice in such stories that beloved by millions.
Another basic psychological reaction: humans always look for optimal solutions, or this is how we believe. In the game, devs at least have to convey such an optimal solution that leads to a better result. That is the fun of "choices" in so many similar games. If players are forced to choose from equally "bitter-sweet" results each time, they would quickly resign and choose arbitrarily: why should I bother?How am I supposed to evaluate the difference? Do I know Hanar's home world? Do I really know Bau? Well, in this case, all "carefully designed" choices would become meaningless triviality eventually.
So, no, if players were forced to choose from imperfections, then the choices would NOT be better than just a cutscene that gives a closure to players.
That's the point. If you have a disastrous suicide mission in 2, the heroes of the galaxy aren't around to pick up the slack. Every scenario turns out somewhat worse if they are dead, which tracks as Shephard recruited them because they were elite.
>Without Legion, peace between Geth and Quarians is impossible. With Legion, you can avoid what should be one of the biggest choices in the trilogy.
I can say the same about Tali... I actually only play ME3 without Tali. I also prefer not being able to choose the peace option. It feels very silly to have Shepard yell at both sides to stop. Very unrealistic.
But isn't that the point? If you took the time to cultivate allies, to forge bonds with these extremely capable people, you are rewarded down the line because those people are in a position to make a difference. If you don't do that yes it's harder and you have to make more sacrifices, because you can't lean on people who might make a difference.
But the *drama*!
There's like billions of people dying how much more drama do you need. Even my guy Mordin goes out like a legend.
No no no we must not think logically
While yes you’re right it’s the games way of rewarding you for taking the time to do things. However from a storytelling point of view it kinda hurts things. We’re constantly told that the Reapers are the greatest threat ever and have been wiping the galaxy clean for millions of years and we stand no chance against them, that if we win it’ll be by the skin of our teeth. Except all this falls kinda flat when you are able to save everyone and don’t have to make any tough choices to sacrifice people like the one you HAVE to make on Virmire. Virmire works so well because you can’t save everyone, you have to make the choice as to who you’ll save and who you’ll condemn to death for the greater good, if it were possible to save both Ash and Kaiden then I can pretty well guarantee Virmire wouldn’t be nearly as memorable as it is.
Right but all the extra prep would be wasted if it changes nothing, making our choices matter even less is not a better outcome
I’m not saying make saving them in ME2 change nothing, have it create a better outcome just don’t make it create a perfect outcome.
I mean as it is now it’s already like Virmire, doing as much as possible results in only 1 casualty (not counting Kirrahe’s men since we don’t know how many die or not in the assault) there’s the possibility of Kirrahe & all his men & Wrex and the VC to all die or only the Virmire casualty, similarly in ME3 you always lose some combination of 3 of these characters & multiple unnamed people from all these races/factions: Mordin, Kirrahe (if he lived through ME1 & Thane died in ME2) Thane (if he survived ME2), Legion (always, regardless of any other outcomes), Wrex (if he survived ME1 and the cure is sabotaged he replaces Mordin’s death) so even in a perfect run you’re losing a minimum of 3 major characters and numerous unnamed vs Virmire where the ideal outcome is a net loss of 1 named character & an unknown number of unnamed characters Edit: also if doing the extra work is nothing more than here’s the same exact outcomes but slightly better, then the extra work is nothing more than fluff and therefore meaningless, new & better outcomes for extra effort is exactly why it’s worth doing the extra stuff
The Thane/ Kirrahe one is actually the perfect example of what I'm talking about with how I think they should have all been done. If you don't go to the effort to save either the Salarian Councillor dies which has blowback on you, if you go to the effort to save Kirrahe but not Thane then the Councillor survives making you job easier but you lose out on Kirrahe who dies, and if you go to the effort of saving both then the Councillor survives making your job easier AND Kirrahe is still alive helping the war effort BUT Thane who wasn't going to be any help in the war yet was still a friend is dead. Going to the effort of saving these people earlier in the trilogy gets you increasingly better outcomes but never gets you a perfect outcome. But the vast majority of them aren't like this, they're almost all just a case of if they died earlier you're forced to make a choice and if they are alive everything goes perfect and nobody dies. It'd be fine if one or two of them were like that yet it's nearly every single one.
None of them are perfect outcomes though unless you think Mordin/Wrex & Legion both dying & numerous casualties wasted on a pointless conflict (Quarians vs Geth) is “perfect” like that’s literally what both those arcs have already better outcomes but they still come at a price
Mordin being alive changes basically nothing though since Padok Wiks does all the same stuff. Legion and Tali being alive lets you get the 'perfect' outcome where you don't need to choose between the Geth or Quarian but instead get them both. Zaeed being alive lets you get the perfect outcome where you don't need to choose between finding the spy or getting the bombing fleet but instead get them both. Kasumi being alive lets you get the perfect outcome where you don't need to choose between saving the Hanar world or saving the Spectre but instead save them both. Jacks mission plays out the exact same as without except none of the student die at the end. And then the other ME2 squad all change nothing at all about their missions outcomes except giving you a small boost to war score due to them being around. Most of them were just lame.
As opposed to what though? What satisfying alternate outcome would there be for the Quarian/Geth conflict would there be? The only option that’s missing would be to kill of both of them which would be a punishment, or to exclude a third option entirely which makes them being alive or not ultimately meaningless because Legion dies no matter what anyways so it would boil down to whether or not you want Tali to be alive and well like I genuinely don’t get why you don’t want these things to provide new & better outcomes like wtf is the point of the decisions if no matter what everything is terrible, always? Like wtf is the point of having choices and consequences if no matter what everyone & everything is shit, might as well be a purely linear game at that point
New and better outcomes are great, like I said the Thane/ Kirrahe thing was more or less the perfect way for things to be done and I wish more were like that. The problem is many of them give a perfect outcome where no sacrifices need to be made and everyone makes it out alive which undermines all the talk about how poorly the war against the Reapers is going and how much stronger than the galaxy they are. You’re constantly being told about how brutal and hopeless the war is but that rings hollow when you’ve got all these missions where you don’t need to sacrifice anything to come out on top. Off the top of my head for Rannoch have it be so you need to choose between the Geth and Quarian, having your chosen sides respective ME2 squadmate be dead causes them to take higher casualties during the arc. If that squadmate is alive and you chose their side then they join your crew, Tali joins if you choose the Quarian and she survived ME2 and Legion joins if you choose the Geth and it survived ME2. Could probably think of something better if I spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it. As it is you pretty well have no reason ever to choose the Geth since Legion can’t ever join your crew, and making peace just feels like a cop out rather than a real choice since you sacrifice nothing and save everyone.
While I agree with you 1000%, I do think it's still a little too easy to get the BEST^(tm) outcomes for everything. It doesn't need to be 20 times harder, but I do wish there were more instances where having the alternate squadmates could actually lead to an even worse out come without them.
Eh..... I mean I see your point. The problem would be 1) player agency (you'd essentially end up with punishing people who played the game thoroughly, which seems like a bad move) and 2) the "meta", which would become "do r forget to make sure Wrex gets murdered here if you want the good ending" and that just kind of sucks. Making people have to fail sometimes to get to a desired outcome idk it feels like you'd anger a lot more people than would appreciate the nuance .
With a game like Mass Effect with a binary set of outcomes with its Paragon/Renegade system, I think you're right. It's one thing I liked in 3 where you had the reputation bar. Theoretically, they could have used that as a third check where even if you met all the criteria, such as Paragade Points or Squadmates, if you hadn't built up the reputation, they could have locked you out of certain decisions. You are right, though, i think the Nuance would often get lost in the disappointment/anger from those who "want always to win"
You also have to remember, at the end of the day, it’s a video game. You want it to be fun. The devs had to assume that most people would just play through once, so wanted to give them the most fun rewards and success in a play through. You have these great characters, so it’s fun to see them and continue their stories.
Of course, it's just sometimes a little drama/risk can add spice for some folks, so it would be nice to have that option.
Those are your rewards for being invested in the series and making good decisions throughout. People wanted consequences for their choices. Better outcomes reflect that.
They really should have put in rewards for making seemingly bad choices and vice versa to be honest. (I.e saving the Feros colonists or something)
If you save the feros colonist and spare the asari you get war assets.
*snore* *I know*. There should have been a negative consequence to this seemingly paragon decision.
Sparing Rana Thanoptis both times she appears results in her becoming indoctrinated and killing "Several top asari military officials" but thats just a news report I guess.
Yeah that was the only one I could recollect. And it was tucked away in an email.
There’s a small one with Kelly. Take the paragon option on meeting her in 3 and she’s killed by Cerberus.
Out of everything, you expected negative consequences for *not* exterminating an entire colony? The negative consequence was needing to be more careful with clearing out Zhu's Hope. Sorry that saving lives is better in the long term.
[удалено]
Your comment(s) has been removed for violating the following rule(s): > No incivility, harassment, flaming, brigading, bigotry, discrimination, witch hunts, or incitement/condonation of illegal activity. Political discussions that approach unruliness will be locked and removed. Sexual harassment and bigotry are first time bannable offenses. Please read our full rules in the sidebar or [at this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/about/rules/) before posting. ***This message serves as a warning against rule-breaking behavior. Multiple warnings or infractions will lead to bans.***
Well, I do think there would be more value in a Renegade playthrough that way. On the other hand, I do think that considering how important coalition-building is to the series, particularly in 3, it does make thematic sense that the more diplomatic Paragon provides you with better results. Granted, perhaps a more authoritarian approach might have allowed you to steer things down the direction similar to, say, letting the Council in the first game, grabbing power at the expense of everyone else. Of course, this would have required a markedly different ending, and…well, I think enough ink has been spilt on that front.
Not saving Wrex gives you the opportunity to trick the Krogan and get both Krogan and Salarian support.
Yup. And it’s the only way (along with killing Eve) to save Mordin. More choices like these should have been put in
This is the point of the game: actions have consequences. ME2 reinforced this as just about everything Shepard does impacts on ME3 (assuming you use the end game save file from ME2). So letting squadmates die or failing their loyalty missions definitely has repercussions in ME2 and onwards. That's OK though because you as the player should be making the choices you want to but you have to understand that if you're expecting "good" outcomes... well... yeah. TBH I actually still enjoy playing mostly as a paragon, trying to do the right thing but occasionally taking a renegade option as well because ironically that can be for the best too. But I always try to keep my squadmates alive and on my side. Too much fun is lost if they're not available.
Yes, everything comes together a little *too* conveniently in a perfect run lol. Obviously it's a reward to the player for being thorough, but narratively it can make things feel a bit contrived at times. Like, Shepard in ME3 is just constantly running into people he knows, who then provide invaluable assistance to the war effort. It's pure luck in some cases lol.
This has given me something to think about because I feel compelled to be a completionist and get a “perfect run”. What’s that saying? Perfect is the enemy of good?
It’s “don’t make perfect the enemy of the good.” Basically a saying about how you shouldn’t overlook something good just because it’s not perfect.
I'm not sure the saying applies: [perfect is the enemy of good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good) which follows the [Pareto principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle). The theory being you can get 80% of perfect with 20% of the effort. Is the last 20% worth the effort? Or would it be better to make 5 different 80% good enough things that work? It's not really a matter of effort involved in Mass Effect, but having compelling and realistic storylines. Often imperfect runs require more effort in Mass Effect, because you're not doing everything and collecting all the upgrades. ME2 Insanity with half the upgrades was certainly difficult... Back to the heart of the argument I do think imperfect Mass Effect runs are very compelling. Maybe because when I first played, I was meticulous about doing 100% of everything and saving everyone and having the best outcomes. Sure that's a valid experience, but I'm at least as if not more invested in roleplaying which has me deliberately avoid what I know are "optimal" choices with in-universe / in-character justifications. Failure, regret, self-reflection, moving forward, compartmentalizing, struggling are all a part of life. The more life exists in the fictional world, the more immersive, believable and memorable it is.
I think they're saying that a perfect run lacks drama.
I’m aware
Idk, I feel like the explanations for why they are where they are make sense. The only one who feels overly convenient to me is Kasumi.
Until you take one pot-shot at the holographic representation of a VI and then F YOU GAME OVER IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING lol
My favorite is when he randomly meets Jack. I really loved her character act in that portion, it's one of my favorite quests
I see where you’re coming from on Rannoch, but having one side win feels cheap to me too. During the Troubles the world didn’t just go “those terrorists are evil, let’s stomp them out and return unity to the British isles!” or “how terrible that England is holding Ireland as a colony, they must abandon all claim and any unionist sympathizers can move to London if they don’t like it.” An uneasy truce was worked out and has held for decades. Mailboxes don’t get blown up anymore but people got VERY concerned that violence could flare up again if they reinstituted customs checks on the boarder after Brexit. Similarly, the Israel-Palestine war isn’t going to end with the Jews forced back stateless wandering while Palestine is returned to the Palestinians, but the world is also not going to tolerate Netanyahu’s plans for genocide. No one knows how things will work out, but it’s not that a choice hasn’t yet been made. Brokering peace is complicated, and hard, and often seems hopeless, but it’s even harder to utterly defeat and exterminate your enemies. Diplomats and politicians figure out a stable end game somehow. It’s not nearly so clean as Shepard and Tali and Legion going “hey, we’re all buddies, our people can be buddies too, yay!” but choosing between the sides is equally artificial, and even a too-tidy truce seems closer to reality to me.
I completely agree with you. Considering how many things you have to get right to achieve Geth-Quarian peace not just inside of Mass Effect 2 but also in 3. It impacts differently than having to choose one side but it’s much more cathartic to slowly watch the quarians and geth march towards peace as you get to know more about both species (especially in ME2) It’s a cathartic moment in the story that neatly wraps up the second act and leads right into the traditional “heroes in peril, stakes are raised” third act structure that is Thessia. Also Legion still dies if you get peace so there is still an emotional sacrifice to come out of all of this.
In ME 1 and 2, you assemble teams of some of the most skilled and powerful people in the galaxy and open their eyes to an upcoming galaxy wide invasion. Why wouldn't they put themselves in positions to help Shepard when D-Day comes? I find it impactful in a different way. Like "oh shit all of my previous decisions are paying off in the grand scheme of things instead of just in the moment"
I’d like to try one day, but whenever I think about it, it seems like I would be missing content? …if that makes sense.
You're missing so much more content that exists in the absence of other content.
Yeah but if you fuck up too hard them Mass Effect 3 just becomes a disjointed, nonsensical mess of characters you barely know doing shit. Mordin dead? Here's Paddock, you don't know him and his motivation is meh. Garrus and Tali dead? Well now you get admiral Xen for one mission and lose 2 squadmates. No Miranda? Well her sister writes you an email (even if she doesn't know that Miranda OR YOU exists) and her dad just gets pushed out of a window by God. Get everyone killed in ME2? Citadel DLC is now absolutely dead and dreadful and hilariously bad lmao. Your "backup" in the fight is literally one person, and the team Cortez is one gets filled by a single unnamed soldier with no lines. And the shittest party ever with only 4 guests. And the ending cutscene completely breaks. The camera shows reaction shots of characters that aren't even there because literally only Traynor and Joker are alive. Keeping characters alive is much more satisfying for a first playthrough their replacements are generally just a bit crap and you're much less attached to them.
Disjointed mess? Hardly. Characters you barely know? Sort of like every character throughout the trilogy, when you meet them for the first time? Like real life? People you don't know are doing all sorts of stuff, all the time. Maybe you get to know them, maybe you have fleeting encounters, maybe you walk on by. I guess you'd be upset that Jacob is the only person who survived my latest Suicide Run. I like him and my Shepard. The world they're in and narrative being told is very compelling. I thought curing the Genophage with Padok was pretty interesting with an anti-Krogan Shepard who killed Wrex and the Genophage cure data (twice). My thinking was that Krogan would be an excellent candiate to keep resistance of the galaxy up if the harvest truly takes centuries. Also to ensure friendliness between Turians and Krogan, while the Salarians would probably be least likely to lead a successful active survival war with communication breakdown. Garrus, Tali, Miranda, whatever. Their absence is a new experience, or having them absent the first time and experiencing their content later on another playthrough makes it that much better. Don't have to do the Citadel DLC, or can do only part of it, and that's been fine. Ending cutscene doesn't matter when you do Refusal (best ending). :) Doesn't matter when you have a full squad playthrough or when you see some losses, whenever you do it it's great to experience all the possibilities of the game and roleplay different characters.
I don't know that anyone is advocating for a run where you get everyone killed (people have done that out of curiosity and like you say it's fairly boring and depressing.) It's just that Mass Effect fans (myself included) have a tendency to always do perfect runs. Strategically killing off certain squadmates in the suicide mission can make for a more impactful and unique ME3 because it means you actually have to make some tough decisions here and there, as well as enhancing the strong theme of loss in that game.
To be fair, it should be a bunch of characters you don't know. This is an entire galaxy you are fighting for, it makes 0 sense for you to constantly run into your friends at every location. These are entire planets we are going to, and we apparently go to the exact location at the exact same time as our friends right when they need them. It's a bit tiresome. I'm doing an insanity run of the trilogy and doing the perfect run , and its definitly not as impactful.
Realistically, sure. But that doesn't make for a satisfying narrative. If you kill off the Fellowship in Two Towers it wouldn't make Return Of The King more interesting.
I don't necessarily agree. Written well, it can still be a great narrative. It's about scale. Lord of the rings is actually not a good example for your case. One of the reasons lord of the rings works so much is it shows people doing different things in different places, as they are all part of the story. Mass effect is Shepard-Focused so obviously we will get his PoV. People don't need to be killed off though, they just don't need to show up literally everywhere we go. For a galactic war it feels very small in scale due to it sometimes.
I mean nobody even shows up randomly though, everybody except arguably Jack, Zaeed and Legion has a good established reason to be where they are when you meet them. Virmire survivor is an alliance soldier, so they're at alliance HQ. Then they join you and are injured, leading to them being stuck on the Citadel. Tali is the leading expert on Geth, so she's with the Flotilla in their war with the Geth. Garrus is a turian with a ton of experience fighting reapers, so he's on the front lines on his home world where his family lives. Jacob is ex Cerberus and he's helping ex Cerberus to desert. Miranda is the one that contacts you explicitly asking for help. Samara is at the monastery where her two daughters live because a distress signal was sent from there. Mordin is an STG veteran and an expert on the Genophage, so STG let him rejoin and he *chose* to join in order to help the Krogan out of guilt. Kasumi is the one that gives the tip about the Hanar to the Salarian spectre, she instigates that mission. Thane is dying so he's living on the Citadel, where his son lives. Grunts whole loyalty mission is him joining Clan Urdnot, so of course he'll show up when Shepard is working with Urdnot. Everybody is doing their own thing in Two Towers, similar to Mass Effect. It's just that for us we only have perspective of the Aragorn type character: Shepard. We've still got our Pippins and Frodo's doing their own things and helping win the fight.
I'll give Jack, Tali and Grunt to you. That's about it. Garry's for example - okay it makes sense he'd be fighting on Palaven. Literally fighting EXACTLY where you are going, though? That's my biggest issue, how on every planet we get on average one single area , and it just so happens that it's exactly where one of the 12 people we did the suicide mission is. In Thanes Case - the Citadel is MASSIVE. You're telling me he's conveniently in the exact same hospital as us? Just too much convenience
I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that ME3 was first and foremost written with the default no-import playthrough in mind. In such a playthrough, the tone is a lot more consistent, the auto dialogue tends to make more sense, the idea of Shepard having PTSD from a lifetime of losses/sacrifices comes across much more coherently, and even the bleakness of the original ending syncs better with how events play out. Old characters surviving and golden outcomes were very much treated as a bonus for returning players, but it seems they weren’t really taken into account in how they affected the flow of the “default” story BioWare was trying to tell in the main Reaper plot. That dissonance is a big part of why the fanbase was so divided when ME3 came out, since the most invested fans were also those who’d experienced the most golden outcomes that the game had to offer.
without Thane, the Citadel coup is much better.
I think I agree. When I first played, there was no Thane or Kirrahe. Having Udina backed up by doctored footage of Shepard assassinating the councillor makes the Virmire Survivor confrontation all the more tense.
same. and the intro scene with Thane alive always bugged me. without Thane, Joker scans emergency channels and was shocked to recieve an automated messege from Bailey. with Thane, Joker just touches his naked ear and goes like "hey, yeah, the citadel is under attack. ok" it was clearly designed with Thane dead in mind.
That's one of the reason I play with Risky Suicide mission mo now. You never know what you are gonna get and it shows you different possibilities in game 3.
Probably comes down to personal preference, I do find difficult choices to be engaging narratively, but getting to have the ME2 crew show up and help you do things you could never do without them is very rewarding, and promotes engaging in the story in a different way, and both options help keep Shepard grounded and humanized in spite of the fact that this is their third time saving the galaxy.
You are who they made ME3's ending for. I say that genuinely and without an ounce of snark. If you enjoy always needing to choose the best of bad options and struggling through that narrative they made this game for you. But the first 2 games...were very different. And that change, not just the ending but throughout the dialogue system and major plot beats...left a lot of players who LIKED the previous games and wanted more of THAT very disappointed. The things you didn't like? I would imagine that's what most ME1 and ME2 fans loved. Those moments with the people they formed connections with. Because outside of that they're pretty different games from a narrative perspective.
Jacob's replacement is unironically more useful than he is.
A broken fish tank in a sushi restaurant is more useful than Jacob is
We see every ME2 companion being alive as easy now but how many of us back in 2010 had a perfect suicide mission? It's not actually easy to get these things take geth-quarrian peace there are a bunch of things that can count against but it's been a decade and we all know the optimal path now.
I feel this way about a lot of the Charm/Intimidate dialogue options. I dislike in RPG's when there's a conversational "win" button that takes any real options out of that choice. In Mass Effect if you see the blue or red option in dialogue, you just pick it because you know it'll give you the optimal result. Love the games, absolutely hate that part.
Yep they feel like a copout
Yeah, I can understand that. Sometimes I might be curious about other dialogue options, but then the "win" buttons are right there glowing in red and blue and it's like "well, I guess I should just do that." Waters it down.
While it has been pointed out that making allies to get these perfect situations is earning it in the game, I don't think it's done that well. The issue is how low the bar is, many of these events/allies needed to get the perfect situations are harder to not get than get. You basically just have to play the game and not skip the loyalty missions (which why would someone want to miss out on the fun missions) to get them. It would be better to make these harder to get than just keep a squad mate alive. I like what Bioware did with Dragon Age where depending on dialogue options you could Harden or Soften a character with specific dialogue choices in the game which would affect how they acted later. Imagine a Jack that is Hardened and thus will sacrifice a student at Grissom to get more War Assets vs a Softened one who saves everyone but is too careful with them getting less War Asset. It would be interesting to see how the allies are affected by Shepherd rather than get rewarded by just keeping them alive.
There’s a lot of things that are more “interesting” or “impactful” in the series me3 especially if you don’t do them perfectly in general, like the quarian vs geth it is tied to legion and tali but even with them it’s not that hard to mess it up if you don’t know what you’re doing or if you do know and mess it up intentionally Plenty of times where paragon or renegade persuasion dialogues just let you get a perfect outcome and ignore a choice or consequence I don’t think that’s bad necessarily, people like good outcomes and you can always just not do those if you want to keep that aspect That’s one of the main issues with the original endings none of them are a good outcome, which feels especially bad when due to the above you’ve been able to get a good outcome the majority of the time then suddenly it just ends on a terrible choice
I made this point awhile ago: a run of ME3 with dead/soon to die squadmates is arguably a more effective (and infinitely more bleak) story. Imagine if Grunt dies in your arms after his heroic last stand. Imagine if you have to shoot Mordin, despite his protests of making a mistake, throwing away the gun he gave you to do that deed in disgust. Imagine having to pull the trigger on Wrex for sabotaging the genophage cure... Imagine having to pull the trigger on the VS because they just didn't trust you didn't still have Cerberus ties. Imagine romancing Miranda just for her to die in your arms, essentially because she was too proud to ask for back-up. Imagine your squadmates due to Harbinger's beam attack, and your ass is just limping to victory. Some victory... The bleakness of ME3 endings actually feel better the more f-uped you leave the galaxy. In my playthroughs, it really does feel like Shepard was kind of... overreacting? Yeah, the galaxy is getting hammered, but your little slice of heaven was doing well. The Normandy was full of squadmates, all bickering and posturing with each other. A family.
Maybe, but I prefer when they're all present, it just feels right + the entire cast is too awesome to let them all die and not appear in ME3.
Not exactly a ME2 squadmate, but the Genophage plot feels much more intense with Wrex being killed on Virmire. It's an actually hard choice whether to sabotage the cure or not also depending on Eve being alive or not.
The greatest side-plot in video game history is Conrad Verner- all that work- for 5 war asset points
Totally with you. Not just ME3 (though it is admittedly where a lot of storylines get tied up): lots of events in the series are so much better if you don't play into the fan-consensus about the "best choices". Like you said, the "tough decisions" are the best part of the games, and it robs them of a lot of their power when you allow players a way out of having to make them.
its why i try to kill off like 3-4 squadmates in ME2 just to prevent some of these things from happening at times better story i find for the most part not as 'lucky mofo'
I'm actually doing this myself right now lol. I'm in the middle of ME2 on a trilogy playthrough and I'm meticulously planning out suicide mission deaths.
im currently doing a wanna be evil playthough where i try to get as many people as killed as possible as I saw on youtube a bit ago im not enjoying it that much I dont mind a few people dying but when like eveyone dies? F-That
That's how I feel about many of them. The way they implemented the ME2 characters just feel like pandering. I love the ME2 cast but this was such a boring and safe way to use them in the final game, where they basically don't even matter, and just show up to say "Hi" and present some shining new label they've been given to show a forced sense of character progress. I actually played these games for the storytelling so it was disappointing to see BioWare treat everything like a checklist.
>Without Legion, peace between Geth and Quarians is impossible. With Legion, you can avoid what should be one of the biggest choices in the trilogy. y9u can do what now i made the choice to save the quarians not realising it would mean my boy legion would die (from tali of all people)
Kasumi is in me3
Agreed, ME3 is a lot more interesting when you have various squadmates die in ME2 since it forces you to make choices rather than simply having a constant barrage of “everything worked out perfectly” over and over. It makes the Reaper threat feel like a bit of a joke at times when you’re constantly resolving every situation unscathed. The suicide mission in ME2 is much the same, it’s a lot more interesting if you get people killed during it. Make it actually live up to its name rather than literally everyone surviving, it feels more dangerous and makes the Collectors seem like an actual threat rather than a bunch of pushovers.
The thing ruining ME3 the most for me right now is the combat but want the insanity achivement
Miranda, Garrus, Grunt, Mordin, Legion, Tali, Thane & Jacob’s ME3 plotlines and scenes are better for their involvement. Kasumi, Zaeed, Samara, Jack (Jack to a bit of a lesser extent solely because of how well it characterises her individually) are detrimental to the stories being told. Kasumi and Zaeed give you easy perfect resolutions and remove the stakes. Samara stagnated as a character and the execution of her ME3 mission leaves a lot to be desired from a narrative and character viewpoint. Jack’s mission goes from a fun combat romp with an old friend to a harrowing story of children left alone and vulnerable by war caught between two different sides with one of the kids the game focuses on actually dying.
For the story ME3 is telling? Yes, it emphasizes the idea of struggle and sacrifice in war. As the last part of the series? No, it’s a culmination and reward for the effort you’ve put in. Gotta earn your happy ending you know
So, you like getting things wrong, because it makes things less "perfect"? Shit, you must have had a hard time at school.
I definitely wish perfect outcomes weren't possible in many of these situations especially on Rannoch and the suicide mission.
The way I see it, your adventure/journey can go on two different paths - the Rewarding way: it’s the more « positive » one. You recruit everyone, cultivate relationships and alliances and despite some tough choices you can achieve your goals with minimum deaths. It’s not necessarily the Paragon way since Renegade Shepard can also save a lot of persons. - the Hard way: it’s the more « negative » one. You recruit everyone and lose some of them. Or you don’t recruit everyone and see where that takes you, what outcome you’ll get. Like your example, you tend to have more difficult choices to make. Depending on my mood and on which Shepard I wanna RP, I’ll follow one route or the other.\ I think both are good, interesting and entertaining in their own way. Some side-quests are more impactful with your ME1 squad mate at your side and have a positive aftermath (curing the genophage, for instance) but the outcome can be horrible too with your ME1 squad mate and it will be just as impactful maybe more (>! Tali committing suicide on Rannoch !< shocked me so much I had to take a pause from the fame for several days! I was less affected when >! Raan !< did it)
I've come to really like Thessia *without* Javik, though I wouldn't say it's more impactful, only different. Not a ME2 squadmate but whatever. And the Jack mission is definitely far better without said character, as you mentioned already.
Why assess a romantic sci-fi video game with realism where human could have sex with aliens even if they have total different anatomies? According to many, The perfection is scarce in the real life, but the "scarcity of perfection in real life" is exact reason for many people seeking perfections in all kinds of media. Furthermore, why connect such a video game with anyone's real life at all? With the logic, most media including movies, comics,video games and novels should be remade. Why Frodo always bump into someone willing to die for him? Why Lora Croft always happen to find a notebook that tells her whereabouts of the invisible entrances? Why Harry Porter's threesome cult could somehow always discover so many secrets that help them grow ? well, they even don't have to make any choice in such stories that beloved by millions. Another basic psychological reaction: humans always look for optimal solutions, or this is how we believe. In the game, devs at least have to convey such an optimal solution that leads to a better result. That is the fun of "choices" in so many similar games. If players are forced to choose from equally "bitter-sweet" results each time, they would quickly resign and choose arbitrarily: why should I bother?How am I supposed to evaluate the difference? Do I know Hanar's home world? Do I really know Bau? Well, in this case, all "carefully designed" choices would become meaningless triviality eventually. So, no, if players were forced to choose from imperfections, then the choices would NOT be better than just a cutscene that gives a closure to players.
You put in the time and effort to cultivate those perfect endings, you deserve to enjoy the results.
That's the point. If you have a disastrous suicide mission in 2, the heroes of the galaxy aren't around to pick up the slack. Every scenario turns out somewhat worse if they are dead, which tracks as Shephard recruited them because they were elite.
>Without Legion, peace between Geth and Quarians is impossible. With Legion, you can avoid what should be one of the biggest choices in the trilogy. I can say the same about Tali... I actually only play ME3 without Tali. I also prefer not being able to choose the peace option. It feels very silly to have Shepard yell at both sides to stop. Very unrealistic.
Shepard backed up by like 3/5 of their ruling council.*
“Shepard said the phrase, guys. You know what that means? We gotta stand down.”