About a year later and I finally beat Mass Effect 2. Left no one behind, too, despite the fact that I had a few disloyal team members.
Really great game. Overall I think I preferred ME1, though; if they could somehow remake ME1 with the tighter combat mechanics of ME2, it would be the greatest game ever. As is, we've got two great games that excel in completely different areas. Here's to hoping ME3 takes the best from both to craft the ultimate Mass Effect.
Well, most of the problem with most enemies lies in stripping their defenses. After they are in the red, the innumerable ways you can dispose of them sort of devalues Cryo Ammo on Insane.
Not to mention that only three classes can use cryo ammo.
Believe me, I used to think exactly like you until I actually used it on my Infiltrator Insanity run. Squad Cryo makes the game too easy. It's one of those powers you turn on and forget about. Especially when you bring along squad mates with defense stripping powers. Cast those powers and you can pretty much consider those guys dead. Watch the following video if you don't believe me. BUT NOT IF YOU HAVEN'T BEATEN THE GAME. And you might wanna turn the music down if you don't like Coheed and Cambria.
The player isn't even that good, doesn't even specifically target the frozen enemies and they just freeze. They're as good as dead. Don't forget that frozen enemies also cannot deal damage to you. And frozen enemies take double damage from melee/gunfire.
You don't even need squadmates for Cryo Ammo to be deadly. Observe.
Tip: Using Cryo Ammo on Heavy Pistols or Snipers is insta-freeze. Doesn't matter if it's evolved to Heavy or Squad. During my playthrough I found this strategy damn near over-powered. This works for squadmates too.
And here. Cryo vs Incendiary vs a Krogan. Watch how Cryo stops the Krogan from even charging.
I'm a proud advocate of Squad Cryo Ammo but I know it's not for everyone. But I do urge everyone to try it on an Insanity build before shooting it down or playing theorycraft. I'd never use Heavy Cryo though. Absolutely not worth it.
The only MAIN quest I have left before I go on the suicide mission is Legion's loyalty. Everyone else is loyal, and I have my paragon all the way up.
Jack and Miranda got into a fight after I finished both of their loyalty missions, and I had enough paragon to diffuse it. So I'm good on that one, right?
As long as I have done every loyalty mission and have full paragon I shouldn't lose anyone?
And finally, I have a few sidequests left (shadowbroker, I think another hammerhead, etc.) It's possible to complete these AFTER I finish the main quest right?
The only MAIN quest I have left before I go on the suicide mission is Legion's loyalty. Everyone else is loyal, and I have my paragon all the way up.
Jack and Miranda got into a fight after I finished both of their loyalty missions, and I had enough paragon to diffuse it. So I'm good on that one, right?
As long as I have done every loyalty mission and have full paragon I shouldn't lose anyone?
Correct. Do Legion's loyalty quest and then head to the endgame. There are some choices you make during the end sequence that may result in losses, but you'll be going in with the best possible setup.
And finally, I have a few sidequests left (shadowbroker, I think another hammerhead, etc.) It's possible to complete these AFTER I finish the main quest right?
Correct. Do Legion's loyalty quest and then head to the endgame. There are some choices you make during the end sequence that may result in losses, but you'll be going in with the best possible setup.
It isn't correct really, after Jack's (I fucking hate that bitch) loyalty mission I had to take Miranda's side, so I lost her loyalty, I went to the final mission anyway and everyone survived.
I'd say having everyone loyal and a high Paragon/Renegade status can help A LOT, but is not a condition.
Oh, there are certainly other conditions that can help you get through, I was just saying that going in with everybody loyal and a high paragon is more or less the best possible setup. You dont need it, but its the most prepared the crew can be, and losses should come down to other factors.
If PC isn't an option you should definitely get 1 + 2 on 360...while 2 on ps3 seems fine, it's really a series that's clearly meant to be played as a series, and carrying your character over is a huge part of it. the comic is also a pretty barebones explanation of the first game leaving out most of the impact of actually playing it, which is probably a given.
If PC isn't an option you should definitely get 1 + 2 on 360...while 2 on ps3 seems fine, it's really a series that's clearly meant to be played as a series, and carrying your character over is a huge part of it. the comic is also a pretty barebones explanation of the first game leaving out most of the impact of actually playing it, which is probably a given.
So I'm a Mass Effect veteran, finished ME2 last year. I decided today to check the PS3 version. It's really a big mess, the graphics are terrible, but the worst part is THE STUPID INSANE INTRODUCTION YOU CANNOT SKIP!!!
Honestly, 20 fucking minutes before you can start playing properly?!? Who thought this is a good idea???
As I said PS3 is a mess, I was thinking of getting ME3 for PS3, but it seems Bioware is only good with PC, so I need to stay with that for DA2 and ME3.
In the Inquisition mini-comic he's referred to as 'Councilor Donnel Udina', and the book Retribution also refers to him as Councilor, noting Anderson as his advisor. Also, the end of Retribution has Anderson resigning from any involvement with the Council anyway.
So unless ME3 decides to ignore what's been said and done here, Udina is the Councilor as far as post-ME2 is concerned.
In the Inquisition mini-comic he's referred to as 'Councilor Donnel Udina', and the book Retribution also refers to him as Councilor, noting Anderson as his advisor. Also, the end of Retribution has Anderson resigning from any involvement with the Council anyway.
So unless ME3 decides to ignore what's been said and done here, Udina is the Councilor as far as post-ME2 is concerned.
In the Inquisition mini-comic he's referred to as 'Councilor Donnel Udina', and the book Retribution also refers to him as Councilor, noting Anderson as his advisor. Also, the end of Retribution has Anderson resigning from any involvement with the Council anyway.
So unless ME3 decides to ignore what's been said and done here, Udina is the Councilor as far as post-ME2 is concerned.
What the hell, is my game bugged? Talked to Jacob frequently and was sure I got locked into the romance relationship, but it didn't initiate when I went through Omega 4. All I got was Miranda saluting me before entering the Omega 4. Argh.
Just finished this game on PS3 and it was awesome. Last game to grab ahold of me like this was Alpha Protocol. I can see why ppl are saying the story doesn't move much but I'm sure that all the decisions we made in the game will hopefully have a huge effect on the3rd game
They should really change the charge ability. On Insanity it's just stupid having to charge and get shot. If you need to kill some people so that you can play around and charge the rest you are doing it wrong - my Infiltrator can simply take out everyone without getting hit.
Spent a good 12 hours straight on ME2 (PS3 version) yesterday.
It is getting better, but the bugs are pretty bad. At some weird point an NPC got teleported several feet from its original location while in an interactable, sitting stance.
They should really change the charge ability. On Insanity it's just stupid having to charge and get shot. If you need to kill some people so that you can play around and charge the rest you are doing it wrong - my Infiltrator can simply take out everyone without getting hit.
Wow.
Just completed it.
I have been waiting ages to play this game. I played about half of the first, was impressed but nothing big.
Popped this in last week, and have been playing pretty much non stop. Working on my insanity playthrough as we speak! I have never been so engaged by a game before!
Every mission was enjoyable. The only thing I didnt love was hacking/bypassing. Moreso tedious than anything else.
I have no idea how people cant love the crap out of this game. I've seen quite a few negative posts about ME2, on here and on gamefaqs. I just cant fathom it.
I plan to start my second playthrough for ps3 after the patch.
I lost one team member at the end and I want a perfect save for me3!
A couple of questions:
1
(minor spoilers)
In my first game I defended Jack in her fight with Miranda. Now Miranda doesn't like me and the blue dialogue option is not available even though I have high paragon. I read at gamefaqs that it doesn't matter how high it is but what is the percentage of paragon choices you made up to this point! So am I right to assume that I could not save my relationship with Miranda at this point?
2
Ending spoiler
Do you think that keeping the base or not is an important decision? I think I'll keep it-I like the Illusive Man!
3
Is there a good reason to choose a female partner in the comic? First time I chose neither.
Any other recommended comic choices?
I chose for my character to have had a relationship with Ash, but then been forced to let her die. I liked the idea of a bit of romantic tragedy in his background that made him more hesitant about entering into future relationships with this crew. No other reason than roleplay!
I chose for my character to have had a relationship with Ash, but then been forced to let her die. I liked the idea of a bit of romantic tragedy in his background that made him more hesitant about entering into future relationships with this crew. No other reason than roleplay!
I did the same thing for the same reason, albeit in my ME1 save. It also let's me freely enter a relationship with anyone in ME2 without feeling guilty about cheating.
I just completed this game (PC) and while I enjoyed myself, I can't understand why this is GAF's GOTY.
This game suffers from Bioware syndrome. Whether its KOTOR, Jade Empire, Dragon Age or Mass effect; Bioware likes to follow a tried and true formulae with respect to how you upgrade your character, how interact with your NPCs, dialouge trees, quests. Everything is approached the same way in every game they do and it feels a little uncanny.
Moral Choices are blatantly black and white, or inconsequential in this game. Games like Fallout LV and the Witcher and even Dragon Age do a better job of actually providing a grey spectrum. In Mass Effect2 I feel like every decision I make is only for the sake of max/min'ing my alignment for the sake of dialogue options.
This game is so damn easy. Easier than the first game, IMO. I rolled Infiltrator with Miranda and Grunt for company. I didn't see anything OPed about my particular class, its more just a matter of there always being easy cover, regenerating health.
The story telling in this game really isn't that good. The plot is as straightforward as it gets. BAsically all the characters who were setup to be a liabilty
(Illusive man, the AI, Grunt along with half of your party) turn out to be a big fat nothing
. Most interactions are just stand and talk, with obviously tacked-on paragon/renegade actions which did nothing for me. Fascial detial is good, but animation doesn't hold up. The music is hit-and-miss, and deffinately misses in some key parts at the end when your
party memebers are getting killed off.
The upgrade system has managed to be more simplistic yet more tedious at the same time. Mining is boring, and whoever told me you don't have to do a lot of it was lying to me. I dumped way too much time into this and reducing the mouse sensitivity for the mining just made it 10x more painfull
As a fully-realized explorable world, there's far-better developed games, The Witcher, Fallout and STALKER come to mind. Perhaps because ME2's world is so disjointed, there's no open world and it needs it. The Citadel is supposed to be this massive city, but I can only explore it via taxi, and it only amounts to a handfull of locations that aren't really that big or interesting in themselves. The whole game does the same thing, disjointed, small locations like you're visiting rooms instead of worlds.
I just completed this game (PC) and while I enjoyed myself, I can't understand why this is GAF's GOTY.
This game suffers from Bioware syndrome. Whether its KOTOR, Jade Empire, Dragon Age or Mass effect; Bioware likes to follow a tried and true formulae with respect to how you upgrade your character, how interact with your NPCs, dialouge trees, quests. Everything is approached the same way in every game they do and it feels a little uncanny.
Moral Choices are blatantly black and white, or inconsequential in this game. Games like Fallout LV and the Witcher and even Dragon Age do a better job of actually providing a grey spectrum. In Mass Effect2 I feel like every decision I make is only for the sake of max/min'ing my alignment for the sake of dialogue options.
This game is so damn easy. Easier than the first game, IMO. I rolled Infiltrator with Miranda and Grunt for company. I didn't see anything OPed about my particular class, its more just a matter of there always being easy cover, regenerating health.
The story telling in this game really isn't that good. The plot is as straightforward as it gets. BAsically all the characters who were setup to be a liabilty
(Illusive man, the AI, Grunt along with half of your party) turn out to be a big fat nothing
. Most interactions are just stand and talk, with obviously tacked-on paragon/renegade actions which did nothing for me. Fascial detial is good, but animation doesn't hold up. The music is hit-and-miss, and deffinately misses in some key parts at the end when your
party memebers are getting killed off.
The upgrade system has managed to be more simplistic yet more tedious at the same time. Mining is boring, and whoever told me you don't have to do a lot of it was lying to me. I dumped way too much time into this and reducing the mouse sensitivity for the mining just made it 10x more painfull
As a fully-realized explorable world, there's far-better developed games, The Witcher, Fallout and STALKER come to mind. Perhaps because ME2's world is so disjointed, there's no open world and it needs it. The Citadel is supposed to be this massive city, but I can only explore it via taxi, and it only amounts to a handfull of locations that aren't really that big or interesting in themselves. The whole game does the same thing, disjointed, small locations like you're visiting rooms instead of worlds.
This is how Bioware has been creating their world since KOTOR.Dragon age is even more so ridiculous as you have these massive cities which are ultimately reduced to small fragmented setpieces.
[*] Moral Choices are blatantly black and white, or inconsequential in this game. Games like Fallout LV and the Witcher and even Dragon Age do a better job of actually providing a grey spectrum. In Mass Effect2 I feel like every decision I make is only for the sake of max/min'ing my alignment for the sake of dialogue options.
.
I don't think the objective of every morality system needs to be to provide a spectrum of gray, or that the goals of a morality system should really even try to be consistent from one game to another.
In Fallout, it works, because the nature of the setting calls for some bleakness and having to make hard decisions that never feel totally right (ie: Why NV works really well, while FO3 feels simplistic and facile).
Whereas in Fable, the cartoony over-the-top fairy tale world works much better if the choices you're presented with are stark contrasts between angelic goodness and monstrous evil. That approach fails miserably in other games - say, Infamous, where 'evil' was usually just 'petty asshole who gains nothing for himself or others' put next to the obviously-correct answer.
In Mass Effect, I think the game is at its best when it's not trying to do shades of gray, and not even trying to do Black versus White, so much as White versus White-with-some-blood-stains. I think there's some places where the game pulls it off really well - the conclusion to Tali, Garrus, and Legion's loyalty missions (the latter two actually providing a bit of genuine moral dilemma) where both options are fully explainable as a 'white' hero, albeit a hardass versus a savior. It falls apart in the instances where they try to expand the spectrum of choice significantly outside of the "Good versus Also-Good" range into "Good versus Evil" - the loyalty missions for Jack and Samara, for example, end with an obviously-'correct' answer versus an outright evil option that sort of just makes Shepard come off like Beavis freaking out over a music video (ie: "
Do it, Jack, do it! You're a killer! Yes, that ruled.
"). They definitely dip into that sort of choice a little more often than they should, and it kind of sucks, because the game is far more interesting when they constrain Shepard to being One of the Good Guys and let you choose the nuances of her character. It may come off as insignificant if your main interest in choice is in producing distinct story branches, but if you look at it as an issue of deciding characterization rather than story structure, I think it generally works rather well, except for the moments when Bioware forgets that they're not making dichotomic Star Wars morality.
(Though honestly either way I can't see how Dragon Age ever does it any better. The only options you're presented with in DA tend to be 'Shining, Noble Hero' versus 'Petty, Evil Jackass', with a third option of 'Lazy, Incompetent Adventurer Completely Unwilling to go Five Minutes Out of His Way to Achieve a Clearly Superior Outcome Regardless of His Personal Stance on the Matter'.)
It may come off as insignificant if your main interest in choice is in producing distinct story branches, but if you look at it as an issue of deciding characterization rather than story structure, I think it generally works rather well, except for the moments when Bioware forgets that they're not making dichotomic Star Wars morality.
It kind of feels like during every renegade choice something like this was playing through some ones head at bioware. It really doesn't seem like a moral choice but more like "omg that is so badass and hardcore, did you see that, so awesome".
As a fully-realized explorable world, there's far-better developed games, The Witcher, Fallout and STALKER come to mind. Perhaps because ME2's world is so disjointed, there's no open world and it needs it. The Citadel is supposed to be this massive city, but I can only explore it via taxi, and it only amounts to a handfull of locations that aren't really that big or interesting in themselves. The whole game does the same thing, disjointed, small locations like you're visiting rooms instead of worlds.
I don't think the objective of every morality system needs to be to provide a spectrum of gray, or that the goals of a morality system should really even try to be consistent from one game to another.
In Fallout, it works, because the nature of the setting calls for some bleakness and having to make hard decisions that never feel totally right (ie: Why NV works really well, while FO3 feels simplistic and facile).
Whereas in Fable, the cartoony over-the-top fairy tale world works much better if the choices you're presented with are stark contrasts between angelic goodness and monstrous evil. That approach fails miserably in other games - say, Infamous, where 'evil' was usually just 'petty asshole who gains nothing for himself or others' put next to the obviously-correct answer.
In Mass Effect, I think the game is at its best when it's not trying to do shades of gray, and not even trying to do Black versus White, so much as White versus White-with-some-blood-stains. I think there's some places where the game pulls it off really well - the conclusion to Tali, Garrus, and Legion's loyalty missions (the latter two actually providing a bit of genuine moral dilemma) where both options are fully explainable as a 'white' hero, albeit a hardass versus a savior. It falls apart in the instances where they try to expand the spectrum of choice significantly outside of the "Good versus Also-Good" range into "Good versus Evil" - the loyalty missions for Jack and Samara, for example, end with an obviously-'correct' answer versus an outright evil option that sort of just makes Shepard come off like Beavis freaking out over a music video (ie: "
Do it, Jack, do it! You're a killer! Yes, that ruled.
"). They definitely dip into that sort of choice a little more often than they should, and it kind of sucks, because the game is far more interesting when they constrain Shepard to being One of the Good Guys and let you choose the nuances of her character. It may come off as insignificant if your main interest in choice is in producing distinct story branches, but if you look at it as an issue of deciding characterization rather than story structure, I think it generally works rather well, except for the moments when Bioware forgets that they're not making dichotomic Star Wars morality.
(Though honestly either way I can't see how Dragon Age ever does it any better. The only options you're presented with in DA tend to be 'Shining, Noble Hero' versus 'Petty, Evil Jackass', with a third option of 'Lazy, Incompetent Adventurer Completely Unwilling to go Five Minutes Out of His Way to Achieve a Clearly Superior Outcome Regardless of His Personal Stance on the Matter'.)
I did loyalty missions, but not the ones you mentioned. The innate problem with black and white moral systems is that they barely provide more choice than not having a moral system at all. Especially in a game that rewards you for max/min'ing your alignment. Its like you say to yourself 'I want to unlock all the evil alignment options' in which case you must be a complete dick through the game to make that happen, you don't really have the freedom to do something nice once in a while, and you're never challenged to wrestle with your own morality like a good WRPG can do.
My memory of Dragon Age is fading but I do remember a few good decision-making situations, like who is going to be king etc, granted its not a prime example of moral ambiguity. I was only saying that Bioware's previous efforts surpass ME2 in this regard.
I got the sense that the game is supposed to be, trying to be an open exploration game, but fails. Isn't it a self-described 'space Odyssey'? Doesn't that suggest grand-in-scale? There are a lot of planets to explore, there just isn't much there, and when there is something to see, its little more than a few rooms or corridors. You can tell they put effort into the lore, they provide details on each planet. Its just when it comes down to the 3d environments, they skimped.
If their intention was to give the player the means and the desire to explore, without providing anything substantial or rewarding to see, then mission accomplished I suppose. Forgive me if I don't congratulate them for setting their sights low. Its a missed opportunity, in any case.
I got the sense that the game is supposed to be, trying to be an open exploration game, but fails. Isn't it a self-described 'space Odyssey'? Doesn't that suggest grand-in-scale? There are a lot of planets to explore, there just isn't much there, and when there is something to see, its little more than a few rooms or corridors. You can tell they put effort into the lore, they provide details on each planet. Its just when it comes down to the 3d environments, they skimped.
Well, I completely disagree. "Odyssey" does not necessarily indicate literally large, open areas, nor do I believe that the game's lore requires such things to sell itself. Most of the game is quite compact, but I still found it alluring and interesting to visit so many locations, and each was dripping with atmosphere.
Even something as simple as Grunt's loyalty mission, which consists almost entirely of one very small arena, was a great example of the location thanks to the combination of visual effects and backgrounds, like the intese lightwaves spitting from the blistering sun above.
The game might have been small in its literal environment size, but the wide variety of locations and planets to different, and the overall high quality presentation, was more than enough for me to be convinced.
