Support NeoGAF

[Patryn]

Best reason to bring Tali on away missions to crack open those data pads and fallen satellites, etc.

Or you could just play the game the right way and choose to play Engineer.

I will also accept Sentinel as a class choice.

 

[eot]

If you mean that these were present somewhat then sure. But as highlights of ME3 these are completely wrong. I'd say: Soundtrack. That's all for the 3rd part.

I never liked the weapon customization in ME3 much either. Maybe there was more depth to it than I discovered, but I pretty much slapped the same thing onto every gun and it didn't make a huge difference anyway (usually weight reduction and damage boost I think). Insanity was so much easier than in ME2, if it hadn't been I guess I would've been forced to think about those choices more. I'm probably in the minority, but I replayed ME2 four or five times simply because I had so much fun with the combat and in ME3 I barely enjoyed it. It always confuses me when people say ME3 is by far the best in that regard.

 

[inky]

Or you could just play the game the right way and choose to play Engineer.

I will also accept Sentinel as a class choice.

Well, that was when I played Vanguard. As Infiltrator I didn't have any problems either, which btw, is the best class Force powers I leave to party members.

 

[Daemul]

Right. Forgot that electronics and decryption were used for lock picking, but only in ME1.

ME3 is still a vast improvement on complexity over ME2. Also, I still think the ME3 skill system is the best in the series.

I hated decryption and electronics, they forced you to either be a techie or have a techie on your team. No tears were shed when I heard that they were removed.

The ME3 skill system is by far the best in the series. It's the only one where I actually had to bring out the pen and paper and work out the most efficient build for my character, some crazy calculations took place. The skill systems in ME1 and ME2 were too simple, ME2 especially, like seriously, the skill tree in that game was barren.

 

[The Artisan]

I actually do still think that ME2 is the overall better game. Combat is much better, character dialogue and interactions are much better. The game just overall feels smoother. As a whole I think its the better experience.

The one thing that really hurt it though is I think they focused everything far too much around Shepard and the team in the game. When I first played through Mass Effect 1 I felt like a very small fish in a huge pond. The universe was mysterious and unknown. Danger or something totally new and alien could be around any corner. Even the plot itself was much larger than that of ME2 in terms of stuff happening without Shepard directly being present.

The biggest thing I hope they take from Mass Effect 1 is a sense of mystery and exploring the unknown. Really embrace that feeling.

Me2 was also the first exposure to ME I had at all. So going by the genesis comic, I figured Shepard was a war hero who saved the entire galaxy at that point. But after playing through a few times I realized there are very few actual story missions in the game. There was horizon, the empty collector ship, and the derelict reaper. Most of the game depended largely on you being close with your team. And that was great, but that was the bulk of the game itself.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I hated decryption and electronics, they forced you to either be a techie or have a techie on your team. No tears were shed when I heard that they were removed.

The ME3 skill system is by far the best in the series. It's the only one where I actually had to bring out the pen and paper and work out the most efficient build for my character, some crazy calculations took place. The skill systems in ME1 and ME2 were too simple, ME2 especially, like seriously, the skill tree in that game was barren.

I hated decryption and electronics for the simple fact that they frustrated the shit outta me due to me having slow reflexes caused by ADD.

I swear I would outlaw it such that designers aren't allowed to use mechanics that require fast reflexes.

 

[inky]

I hated decryption and electronics for the simple fact that they frustrated the shit outta me due to me having slow reflexes caused by ADD.

I swear I would outlaw it such that designers aren't allowed to use mechanics that require fast reflexes.

Oh right, I forgot console versions was basically simon says.

How did you manage to get through the shooting portions of the games?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Oh right, I forgot console versions was basically simon says.

How did you manage to get through the shooting portions of the games?

Wait, what was it like on PC?

 

[inky]

Wait, what was it like on PC?

Frogger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdLG1ILgkZ0

 

[The Artisan]

Wait, what was it like on PC?

I'd like to know this too. I never fully realized how much of a better experience it is to get to play ME on the PC. 60fps makes a big difference imo.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Frogger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdLG1ILgkZ0

Yeah, that's pretty different. Much better metaphor, tho.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

I'd like to know this too. I never fully realized how much of a better experience it is to get to play ME on the PC. 60fps makes a big difference imo.

To be perfectly honest, I would pay say... $20 for proper Xbox360 controller implementation on the trilogy (with full prompts and slight aim assist to make Insanity viable on a controller).

That would be just as good as the Remaster for me, I would happily buy all the DLC and then mod it as much as possible and viola!,

Remastered.

 

[EatChildren]

Every game post-ME1 was going to suffer from a lessened impact of mystery and wonder. Though the universe was established, from a player perspective ME1 was a completely fresh slate and the presentation/pacing seemed to recognise this. A lot of well documented and known things in the universe were presented to the player with awe and wonder; visiting the Citadel for the first time, learning about the genophage, the Geth, etc. You really cant replicate that exact feeling with sequels, because the universe is now familiar and not fresh.

That being said, I both enjoyed the new mysteries and wish more had been done. I thought ME2 did a pretty fantastic job actually; I loved exploring this new chunk of the galaxy, Omega, etc. I loved the concept of the Collectors and the twist surrounding them. ME3 was the one that fumbled badly with mysteries and wonder, but that's because it was focused on something entirely different.

For this reason, over time I've become more receptive of the notion that ME4 will probably take place in another galaxy. Ideally, and I still really feel this, I would have liked a chosen canon/universe state, ME4 set somewhat distant from the trilogy, in a post-war universe wherein the galaxy is trying to rebuild and comes in contact with two new species; one that advanced (like others) with Reaper tech but had never reach Citadel/discovered space and generally avoided the mess of the war, and another that had advanced to space faring without Reaper tech and instead as entirely fresh enigma. I've grown so attached to the universe that heavily abandoning it and dancing around player choice as so important that a canon cannot be accept does sting a bit, as sequel (even if not trilogy) appear to me is growing and explore new opportunities with what was built. And the template is there (if illogical); an overwhelming majority of the Milky Way remains unexplored, relays inactive, with high probability of space faring species and new wonders that haven't made contact.

That being said, if the essence of Mass Effect remains, a new galaxy does very much offer a clean slate to explore new mysteries. And even though a part of me will always be disappointed my aforementioned idea never came to be, perhaps an entirely new setting templated on the original's basics, can reignite some of those themes and feelings from the very first game.

I only really need the narrative to do a few things to make me happy;
- Prove commitment to the trilogy being over and this being a clean slate. That means fuck off all things Shepard, Reapers, etc except where necessary for lore. They're exhausted.
- And especially fuck off Cerberus. I want to never, ever hear of them ever again. If they have a presence in the plot it's already fucked.
- Even if the plan is to make multiple games, appreciate telling a single story arc in one.
- Appreciate scale and space. Make me feel lonely and tiny in a very big universe. Less space Jesus.

 

[SPCTRE]

I'd prefer contextual loot to just enemies dropping random stuff. I think it fits the kind of game more, but I disagree that loot in ME1 was terrible. Managing it, maybe. The loot and weapon mod/ammo customization was perfectly fine. It actually had a major effect on the weapon in terms of precision, damage and overheat reduction-- when overheating was actually a thing. Preparing beforehand with tungsten, polonium, radioactive, etc rounds and switching mods before certain fights was very fun for me.

I liked the ammo types as well, with the exception of anti-personnel rounds (?) not being available at later levels so you were fucked if you didn't keep some level VII (?) grade ammo.

 

[D-VoN]

I don't even want to be reminded about the abomination that was the loot and inventory system in ME1, it was complete shit.

I skipped ME1, never had an Xbox, and just started with ME2 and ME3. I tried going back to ME1 once they released it on PSN. I played it for about 5 minutes and realized that the combat and inventory systems were horrendous. I got my fix on the backstory from the PS2 edition of ME2, so playing ME1 didn't do much for me at that point.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I liked the ammo types as well, with the exception of anti-personnel rounds (?) not being available at later levels so you were fucked if you didn't keep some level VII (?) grade ammo.

That's what polonium (or whatever replaced Polonium) rounds are for, man.

 

[Bisnic]

Not really sure I want them to go to a new galaxy. They'll have to introduce a lot of new races sure, that's cool, but the already known races will probably be low in their presence outside of your squad, unless for some fucked up reason the Milky Way races all decided to invade/visit the same new galaxy...I want more Turians, Krogans, Asaris, Salarians, etc.

There is still a lot of Milky Way we haven't seen, millions of planets we haven't landed yet in the original trilogy... there is no reason to go to a new galaxy in my opinion, exploration will still feel fresh and i'd love to see more of Illium(see what it looks like on the streets below for example), Thessia, Palaven(that we haven't even seen yet), a Citadel version that isn't as restricted as the one in ME2 or ME3, etc.

 

[Patryn]

Every game post-ME1 was going to suffer from a lessened impact of mystery and wonder. Though the universe was established, from a player perspective ME1 was a completely fresh slate and the presentation/pacing seemed to recognise this. A lot of well documented and known things in the universe were presented to the player with awe and wonder; visiting the Citadel for the first time, learning about the genophage, the Geth, etc. You really cant replicate that exact feeling with sequels, because the universe is now familiar and not fresh.

That being said, I both enjoyed the new mysteries and wish more had been done. I thought ME2 did a pretty fantastic job actually; I loved exploring this new chunk of the galaxy, Omega, etc. I loved the concept of the Collectors and the twist surrounding them. ME3 was the one that fumbled badly with mysteries and wonder, but that's because it was focused on something entirely different.

For this reason, over time I've become more receptive of the notion that ME4 will probably take place in another galaxy. Ideally, and I still really feel this, I would have liked a chosen canon/universe state, ME4 set somewhat distant from the trilogy, in a post-war universe wherein the galaxy is trying to rebuild and comes in contact with two new species; one that advanced (like others) with Reaper tech but had never reach Citadel/discovered space and generally avoided the mess of the war, and another that had advanced to space faring without Reaper tech and instead as entirely fresh enigma. I've grown so attached to the universe that heavily abandoning it and dancing around player choice as so important that a canon cannot be accept does sting a bit, as sequel (even if not trilogy) appear to me is growing and explore new opportunities with what was built. And the template is there (if illogical); an overwhelming majority of the Milky Way remains unexplored, relays inactive, with high probability of space faring species and new wonders that haven't made contact.

That being said, if the essence of Mass Effect remains, a new galaxy does very much offer a clean slate to explore new mysteries. And even though a part of me will always be disappointed my aforementioned idea never came to be, perhaps an entirely new setting templated on the original's basics, can reignite some of those themes and feelings from the very first game.

I only really need the narrative to do a few things to make me happy;
- Prove commitment to the trilogy being over and this being a clean slate. That means fuck off all things Shepard, Reapers, etc except where necessary for lore. They're exhausted.
- And especially fuck off Cerberus. I want to never, ever hear of them ever again. If they have a presence in the plot it's already fucked.
- Even if the plan is to make multiple games, appreciate telling a single story arc in one.
- Appreciate scale and space. Make me feel lonely and tiny in a very big universe. Less space Jesus.

Personally, I think it's more important that the Reapers fuck off entirely. I can handle a brief mention of them and whatever, but if they try bringing them back as a threat or whatever, ME4 is already dead.

Bioware has already shown that they're willing to make Cerberus be whatever the fuck they need, as the Cerberus in ME1 doesn't match the Cerberus of ME2 doesn't match the Cerberus of ME3, so I honestly don't even know what that organization is. I mean, are they a covert organization that barely anybody has heard about which indiscriminately experiments on both humans and aliens, or are they a well-known but small organization that invested most of its resources into reviving one person and equipping a single ship, or are they some crazy private military with legions, fleets and nearly unlimited resources at their command?

I would really much rather they ditch the entire thing and start over, but I don't think it'd be a body-blow quite the same way bringing the Reapers into things would be.

 

[razzmahtazz]

For this reason, over time I've become more receptive of the notion that ME4 will probably take place in another galaxy. Ideally, and I still really feel this, I would have liked a chosen canon/universe state, ME4 set somewhat distant from the trilogy, in a post-war universe wherein the galaxy is trying to rebuild and comes in contact with two new species; one that advanced (like others) with Reaper tech but had never reach Citadel/discovered space and generally avoided the mess of the war, and another that had advanced to space faring without Reaper tech and instead as entirely fresh enigma. I've grown so attached to the universe that heavily abandoning it and dancing around player choice as so important that a canon cannot be accept does sting a bit, as sequel (even if not trilogy) appear to me is growing and explore new opportunities with what was built. And the template is there (if illogical); an overwhelming majority of the Milky Way remains unexplored, relays inactive, with high probability of space faring species and new wonders that haven't made contact.

Great ideas but I cant trust them to not fall into the easy plotlines that sees the reaper tech civilization trying to revive the Reapers, when deadlines are looming(ME3) and push comes to shove(EA)

 

[Ascenion]

Personally, I think it's more important that the Reapers fuck off entirely. I can handle a brief mention of them and whatever, but if they try bringing them back as a threat or whatever, ME4 is already dead.

Bioware has already shown that they're willing to make Cerberus be whatever the fuck they need, as the Cerberus in ME1 doesn't match the Cerberus of ME2 doesn't match the Cerberus of ME3, so I honestly don't even know what that organization is. I mean, are they a covert organization that barely anybody has heard about which indiscriminately experiments on both humans and aliens, or are they a well-known but small organization that invested most of its resources into reviving one person and equipping a single ship, or are they some crazy private military with legions, fleets and nearly unlimited resources at their command?

I would really much rather they ditch the entire thing and start over, but I don't think it'd be a body-blow quite the same way bringing the Reapers into things would be.

Disagree about Cerberus. I find them to be pretty consistent. You have to remember they work in cells and you only ever see one cell, tailor made for Shepard to have a positive opinion about them. TIM has no reason to mention or admit to the sketchy shit he has going on. ME3 terminals in the base only prove this point. They tricked you and your squad, but basically Cerberus can be all 3 of those things and more because that's how they work.

 

[Patryn]

Disagree about Cerberus. I find them to be pretty consistent. You have to remember they work in cells and you only ever see one cell, tailor made for Shepard to have a positive opinion about them. TIM has no reason to mention or admit to the sketchy shit he has going on. ME3 terminals in the base only prove this point. They tricked you and your squad, but basically Cerberus can be all 3 of those things and more because that's how they work.

I can somewhat reconcile the Cerberus in ME1 and ME3, it's the ME2 stuff, especially the stuff that you can learn from EDI after she gets her files unlocked, that is inconsistent. She talks about a much, much smaller organization than that portrayed in either ME1 or ME3, and she does talk about the other cells.

Well, except that barely anybody knew about Cerberus in ME1, and yet in ME2 everyone knows who they are.

Then again, I'm also one of the people who whole-heartedly believes that they broke the story irreparably for Sole Survivors who completed the Sole Survivor quest in ME1 when they had them join Cerberus in ME2. There is literally no justification that I can see having them work with that organization.

 

[Ascenion]

I can somewhat reconcile the Cerberus in ME1 and ME3, it's the ME2 stuff, especially the stuff that you can learn from EDI after she gets her files unlocked, that is inconsistent. She talks about a much, much smaller organization than that portrayed in either ME1 or ME3, and she does talk about the other cells.

Well, except that barely anybody knew about Cerberus in ME1, and yet in ME2 everyone knows who they are.

Then again, I'm also one of the people who whole-heartedly believes that they broke the story irreparably for Sole Survivors who completed the Sole Survivor quest in ME1 when they had them join Cerberus in ME2. There is literally no justification that I can see having them work with that organization.

Yeah ME2 is an outlier. I don't remember the EDI talks well though. ME2 is straight up like massive tone shift on Cerberus and I agree with the sole survivor thing though. Always struck me as odd. Still I can still see the same organization throughout it all and besides 4 billion credits on one guy and small organization doesn't add up. Cerberus is seemingly portrayed as massive yet small at the same time. Perhaps TIM limited her without her knowing?

 

[Patryn]

Yeah ME2 is an outlier. I don't remember the EDI talks well though. ME2 is straight up like massive tone shift on Cerberus and I agree with the sole survivor thing though. Always struck me as odd. Still I can still see the same organization throughout it all and besides 4 billion credits on one guy and small organization doesn't add up. Cerberus is seemingly portrayed as massive yet small at the same time. Perhaps TIM limited her without her knowing?

That's because honestly, it wasn't really super planned. I think Mac Walters has admitted the he simply took the name of Cerberus from ME1 and ran with it, and ignored almost literally everything else you learn about it in that game.

He just wanted this shadowy non-governmental organization and decided to create a tie after the fact.

 

[Ralemont]

That's because honestly, it wasn't really super planned. I think Mac Walters has admitted the he simply took the name of Cerberus from ME1 and ran with it, and ignored almost literally everything else you learn about it in that game.

He just wanted this shadowy non-governmental organization and decided to create a tie after the fact.

Yeah, and I'm gonna have to defend Mac on this point:

I think it was the right call.

The most interesting parts of Mass Effect aren't the Reapers but rather the effect that their threat has on the galaxy and the ways that it stretches the seams on the moral fabric of the Council governing body. Ashley isn't wrong when she tells the story about the dog and the bear in ME1 and how if needed the Council will screw over humans for its own benefit. Cerberus becomes the embodiment of the notion of self-preservation in the face of that constant suspicion, and by giving them questionable morals it positions them in opposition to both the Alliance (which is presented as too much of a face for my taste) and the Reapers. By doing so, it paves the way for the possibility of adopting Cerberus' ideals as a possible way to victory.

So, I think the real misstep here was turning Cerberus into an ME3 antagonist right off the bat. The reasons for this are clear, namely that it fulfills the narrative promise of Indoctrination which has always been a substantial threat with the Reapers, and as Indoctrination is presented as a cycle in a story about cycles it needed to be represented. But I think The Illusive Man could have served better as someone who was grudgingly allying with the galaxy through ME3, but presenting the option of Control seriously, and cooperatively.

This alliance also has the benefit of giving Miranda a real reason to stay on the Normandy as she could serve as a liason to TIM. And let's be honest, given Cerberus's importance to ME3, Miranda needed to be a part of the crew.

 

[Patryn]

Yeah, and I'm gonna have to defend Mac on this point:

I think it was the right call.

The most interesting parts of Mass Effect aren't the Reapers but rather the effect that their threat has on the galaxy and the ways that it stretches the seams on the moral fabric of the Council governing body. Ashley isn't wrong when she tells the story about the dog and the bear in ME1 and how if needed the Council will screw over humans for its own benefit. Cerberus becomes the embodiment of the notion of self-preservation in the face of that constant suspicion, and by giving them questionable morals it positions them in opposition to both the Alliance (which is presented as too much of a face for my taste) and the Reapers. By doing so, it paves the way for the possibility of adopting Cerberus' ideals as a possible way to victory.

So, I think the real misstep here was turning Cerberus into an ME3 antagonist right off the bat. The reasons for this are clear, namely that it fulfills the narrative promise of Indoctrination which has always been a substantial threat with the Reapers, and as Indoctrination is presented as a cycle in a story about cycles it needed to be represented. But I think The Illusive Man could have served better as someone who was grudgingly allying with the galaxy through ME3, but presenting the option of Control seriously, and cooperatively.

This alliance also has the benefit of giving Miranda a real reason to stay on the Normandy as she could serve as a liason to TIM. And let's be honest, given Cerberus's importance to ME3, Miranda needed to be a part of the crew.

I don't think having an outside force was necessarily wrong (I'm still not a huge fan, but I understand), but I do think it was a mistake to use Cerberus from ME1, simply because of how bad they poisoned the well when it came to Sole Survivors.

That little fact kind of got me off on the wrong foot right way with ME2, and I think it still somewhat shades my opinion.

You're also right that they shouldn't have made Cerberus and the IM so clearly in the wrong in ME3. It's another one of the reasons that the ending is so terrible, because the climax of the whole game is you rejecting the idea of control as an option, only to immediately afterwards be told that actually it's a perfectly valid option.

I'll also point out that they had nothing really planned for ME3 when they wrote ME2, so the whole Miranda importance thing is a justification after the fact.

 

[Ralemont]

I don't think having an outside force was necessarily wrong (I'm still not a huge fan, but I understand), but I do think it was a mistake to use Cerberus from ME1, simply because of how bad they poisoned the well when it came to Sole Survivors.

I suspect they used Cerberus because introducing a new organization would essentially amount to a retcon, since something as important as a shadow organization notorious for being pro-human would have been known to someone in ME1. Personally I started the series with ME2, so I've never really had the "my Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus" issue as Shepard was essentially a fresh character to me the player, even with a backstory.

I'll also point out that they had nothing really planned for ME3 when they wrote ME2, so the whole Miranda importance thing is a justification after the fact.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying that given how important Cerberus ends up to ME3's plot, I think having Miranda as a squadmate makes a lot of sense, and that restructing Cerberus's role as tentative ally only makes this even more justified. If I were to restructure ME3's squad, it'd look like this:

Liara (biotic)
Garrus (tech/soldier)
Tali (tech)
Miranda (biotic/tech)
Vega (soldier)
Javik (soldier/biotic)

The VS isn't really a necessary part of the Normandy in ME3 and pretty much seems to be an option due to nostalgia, and EDI was more interesting when she was just a ship AI without the body.

 

[Patryn]

I suspect they used Cerberus because introducing a new organization would essentially amount to a retcon, since something as important as a shadow organization notorious for being pro-human would have been known to someone in ME1. Personally I started the series with ME2, so I've never really had the "my Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus" issue as Shepard was essentially a fresh character to me the player, even with a backstory.



Oh, I know. I'm just saying that given how important Cerberus ends up to ME3's plot, I think having Miranda as a squadmate makes a lot of sense, and that restructing Cerberus's role as tentative ally only makes this even more justified. If I were to restructure ME3's squad, it'd look like this:

Liara (biotic)
Garrus (tech/soldier)
Tali (tech)
Miranda (biotic/tech)
Vega (soldier)
Javik (soldier/biotic)

The VS isn't really a necessary part of the Normandy in ME3 and pretty much seems to be an option due to nostalgia, and EDI was more interesting when she was just a ship AI without the body.

I suspect the VS is there because otherwise you could potentially have half your proposed squad dead, and Javik is "optional".

 

[Ralemont]

I suspect the VS is there because otherwise you could potentially have half your proposed squad dead, and Javik is "optional".

Javik wouldn't be optional in my restructure.

As for having half the proposed squad dead, I don't really think it's an issue. For non-imports you just make it so everyone is alive, and for those importing it's a consequence of their choices and should be treated accordingly.

 

[inky]

I only really need the narrative to do a few things to make me happy;
- Prove commitment to the trilogy being over and this being a clean slate. That means fuck off all things Shepard, Reapers, etc except where necessary for lore. They're exhausted.
- And especially fuck off Cerberus. I want to never, ever hear of them ever again. If they have a presence in the plot it's already fucked.
- Even if the plan is to make multiple games, appreciate telling a single story arc in one.
- Appreciate scale and space. Make me feel lonely and tiny in a very big universe. Less space Jesus.

Very good points as always.

Macroscale in a space adventure is essential in my opinion.

- No end of the world/universe scenarios either. There are so many more ways to generate stakes.

 

[Patryn]

Javik wouldn't be optional in my restructure.

As for having half the proposed squad dead, I don't really think it's an issue. For non-imports you just make it so everyone is alive, and for those importing it's a consequence of their choices and should be treated accordingly.

I'm a crueler god than you apparently. I would rather have it so imports have the majority of the ME2 squad down, so having people alive is a reward for those who played ME2 and got a perfect playthrough.

 

[Bisnic]

Can someone remind me of the whole "sole survivor and cerberus" thing from ME1 that people keep mentioning?

 

[Ralemont]

Can someone remind me of the whole "sole survivor and cerberus" thing from ME1 that people keep mentioning?

If Commander Shepard has the Sole Survivor background, the Commander was the only known Marine to make it out of Akuze alive. If Shepard meets Officer Eddie Lang on the Citadel with this background, Lang will comment on a monument at Akuze and an entire section dedicated to Commander Shepard, suggesting that the colony of Akuze survived the thresher maw massacre, or at least that a new one was established in its place.

Shepard can later discover that there was another survivor, Corporal Toombs, who claims the slaughter at Akuze was not an accident. According to Toombs, the renegade black ops group Cerberus deliberately set the thresher maws on the marines, to study the creatures and see how the unit reacted.

.

 

[Patryn]

Can someone remind me of the whole "sole survivor and cerberus" thing from ME1 that people keep mentioning?

In the Sole Survivor background, you're the, well, sole survivor of a squad that was torn to pieces by Thresher Maws while you watched and barely escaped with your life. There are dialogue choices that imply that you have a touch of PTSD due to all this.

In the quest associated with the background, you discover the Cerberus purposely led your squad to that location and set the Thresher Maws on the squad to study their abilities. In addition, they captured at least one squad member who was still alive beside you and tortured him for a period of time before he escaped. They did things like inject Thresher Maw venom directly into his veins to study the effects, for instance.

So, basically, if you have this background and you did the quest, you have a situation where you, without very much prodding, go to work for the organization that is directly responsible for the most traumatic moment of your life.

Basically, it's akin to a Chinese survivor back in World War 2 escaping from Unit 731 and then going back and teaming up with them.

 

[The Artisan]

To be perfectly honest, I would pay say... $20 for proper Xbox360 controller implementation on the trilogy (with full prompts and slight aim assist to make Insanity viable on a controller).

That would be just as good as the Remaster for me, I would happily buy all the DLC and then mod it as much as possible and viola!,

Remastered.

Not sure what you mean, are those things (full prompts/slight ain assis) that come with the PC version of ME when playing on insanity? because I didn't have much trouble playing through it with the dualshock 3 aside from the obvious fact that it was the hardest difficulty.

60fps is a must though.

Not really sure I want them to go to a new galaxy. They'll have to introduce a lot of new races sure, that's cool, but the already known races will probably be low in their presence outside of your squad, unless for some fucked up reason the Milky Way races all decided to invade/visit the same new galaxy...I want more Turians, Krogans, Asaris, Salarians, etc.

There is still a lot of Milky Way we haven't seen, millions of planets we haven't landed yet in the original trilogy... there is no reason to go to a new galaxy in my opinion, exploration will still feel fresh and i'd love to see more of Illium(see what it looks like on the streets below for example), Thessia, Palaven(that we haven't even seen yet), a Citadel version that isn't as restricted as the one in ME2 or ME3, etc.

agreed. part of what made ME a believably realistic fictional scifi is how they kept the setting contained to the milky way, emphasizing how vast a galaxy itself, a negligent tiny little fraction of the entire universe, can be.

going to another galaxy would be unnecessary ambition for bioware imo.

 

[inky]

and EDI was more interesting when she was just a ship AI without the body.

Ugh, don't remind me. That's the kind of pointless pandering I absolutely detest in Bioware games.

I almost want them to make a game without romances just to see if they can anymore. They back themselves and the narrative into so many corners with it that I think it acts in detriment to their games. Characters like Steve, that other side lady your could romance in ME3 (not Kelly), etc are some of the worse examples to me. Instead of adding depth to your journey and crew they become romance mini-games themselves.

 

[The Artisan]

ugh. my friend who's new most played game is evolve now finally let me borrow inquisition. but all this discussion of ME is making me wanna plug my goddamn Ps3 back in...

 

[JohnnyFootball]

To be perfectly honest, I would pay say... $20 for proper Xbox360 controller implementation on the trilogy (with full prompts and slight aim assist to make Insanity viable on a controller).

To be perfectly honest, I would find that move to be absolutely insulting and disrespectful to fans who want controller support. It is something that should be released for free and I am not one who feels that we are entitled to anything, but that would not be worth paying for.

Now if $20 got you controller support AND all previously released DLC then yeah.

 

[Ralemont]

Ugh, don't remind me. That's the kind of pointless pandering I absolutely detest in Bioware games.

I almost want them to make a game without romances just to see if they can anymore. They back themselves and the narrative into so many corners with it that I think it acts in detriment to their games. Characters like Steve, that other side lady your could romance in ME3 (not Kelly), etc are some of the worse examples to me. Instead of adding depth to your journey and crew they become romance mini-games themselves.

I don't agree with that at all. The romance content constitutes a very small portion of the conversation experience, and I don't see how Cortez or Traynor backed the narratives into a corner.

I'm not a romance crazy but the romances certainly do add depth to your character. They are a role-playing decision just like any other.

In any case, I'm sure BioWare would be fine writing a game without romance, and I know several writers (including David Gaider) have expressed open interest in doing so. But the fanbase would not be okay with that, and honestly when you look at the landscape of representation for female and LGBT romantic content out there, I don't entirely blame them. It's easy for me as a straight male gamer to say that it shouldn't be a big deal, but that's because 95% of games already pander to me.

In the end, they'll keep doing it because it's a very cost-efficient way to generate sales (very little work done compared to the following it earns them) and because the writers do seem to enjoy trying things other games won't.

 

[inky]

I don't agree with that at all. The romance content constitutes a very small portion of the conversation experience, and I don't see how Cortez or Traynor backed the narratives into a corner.

I'm not a romance crazy but the romances certainly do add depth to your character. They are a role-playing decision just like any other.

In any case, I'm sure BioWare would be fine writing a game without romance, and I know several writers (including David Gaider) have expressed open interest in doing so. But the fanbase would not be okay with that, and honestly when you look at the landscape of representation for female and LGBT romantic content out there, I don't entirely blame them. It's easy for me as a straight male gamer to say that it shouldn't be a big deal, but that's because 95% of games already pander to me.

In the end, they'll keep doing it because it's a very cost-efficient way to generate sales (very little work done compared to the following it earns them) and because the writers do seem to enjoy trying things other games won't.

Well, that's fine. We can agree to disagree, but I feel like I should explain myself a bit at least. I don't know if it is a very small portion of the conversation, but in my experience, it has a rather high focus on how you relate to certain characters, and it became most of them by the time the series was concluding. Decisions to make Tali and Garrus part of it was due to fan request when it was unnecessary story wise. Joker and EDI is not a romance you take part in, but it partly happened due to that request as well. That is what I mean by pointless pandering. It has nothing to do with LGBT representation, which I don't mind at all. I also think you maybe are making the mistake of thinking I believe ALL romance options and lines are this, when in fact I enjoy a lot of them. It's very few of them I dislike, and for very specific reasons.

I was reading THIS the other day, which Duckroll linked in another thread, and I'm inclined to agree with it. And even though it talks about DA:I who has a different character relationship structure, I feel it also applies to Mass Effect where you get a crew and act as commander of a crew.

The game has many narratives, some big, some small, but I do think that it backs some of them into corners when you introduce minor characters whose only role is to act as those romance options, hence the Steve, Traynor example. I explored Steve's relationship option. Most of the time he talked about his dead husband, and it very abruptly changed into relationship with you mode. That's what I mean by backing themselves into a corner. The jump from one to the other is very quick, and worse of all, you can't explore those conversations in any other way but that emotional, romantic relationship becoming the sole reward. When you make your only door : this guy is going to be the defacto gay romance option, you close many other doors that could be there.

Dragon Age 2 suffered massively from this. And in that particular game it also offended me that people thought they were being progressive with their LGBT representation and used that card when attacking me while I maintained they sucked. The characters weren't "gay or bi" and they didn't identify themselves as such. They responded to your conversation commands whichever way you swinged. It was YOU, the player, that assigned them their identity. I find that very weak. I'm glad other Bioware games seem to have ignored that template.

Relationships happen in very different ways in real life. Heck, in a setting like Mass Effect I would imagine casual sex could be a very common thing, but it's hardly explored. The fact that the physical portion of the relationship is treated as a reward for your conversation troubles, even though there is some nuance to how characters react to being approached (Morinth/Samara being some of my favs), bothers me a bit. It's probably a conscious decision, and I can understand that, but it takes me out and makes the romance seem juvenile when it could be so much more, especially when they do so much right when fleshing out the characters.

I understand it is a role-playing aspect like many others, I don't mean to make it sound as a bigger deal than it is because I obviously enjoyed some of the games regardless, and even thanks to the romance options they offer. I just think it's about time they start treating some of them a little bit more interestingly than clumsy dating mini-games if it is true they are really spearheading that wide gender and identity representation, but more importantly, to take into account context and things like power inequality (detailed in the link I shared) while writing them.

 

[Ralemont]

1. Well, that's fine. We can agree to disagree, but I feel like I should explain myself a bit at least. I don't know if it is a very small portion of the conversation, but in my experience, it has a rather high focus on how you relate to certain characters, and it became most of them by the time the series was concluding. Decisions to make Tali and Garrus part of it was due to fan request when it was unnecessary story wise. Joker and EDI is not a romance you take part in, but it partly happened due to that request as well. That is what I mean by pointless pandering. It has nothing to do with LGBT representation, which I don't mind at all. I also think you maybe are making the mistake of thinking I believe ALL romance options and lines are this, when in fact I enjoy a lot of them. It's very few of them I dislike, and for very specific reasons.

2. I was reading THIS the other day, which Duckroll linked in another thread, and I'm inclined to agree with it. And even though it talks about DA:I who has a different character relationship structure, I feel it also applies to Mass Effect where you get a crew and act as commander of a crew.

3. The game has many narratives, some big, some small, but I do think that it backs some of them into corners when you introduce minor characters whose only role is to act as those romance options, hence the Steve, Traynor example. I explored Steve's relationship option. Most of the time he talked about his dead husband, and it very abruptly changed into relationship with you mode. That's what I mean by backing themselves into a corner. The jump from one to the other is very quick, and worse of all, you can't explore those conversations in any other way but that emotional, romantic relationship becoming the sole reward. When you make your only door : this guy is going to be the defacto gay romance option, you close many other doors that could be there.

4. Dragon Age 2 suffered massively from this. And in that particular game it also offended me that people thought they were being progressive with their LGBT representation and used that card when attacking me while I maintained they sucked. The characters weren't "gay or bi" and they didn't identify themselves as such. They responded to your conversation commands whichever way you swinged. It was YOU, the player, that assigned them their identity. I find that very weak. I'm glad other Bioware games seem to have ignored that template.

5. Relationships happen in very different ways in real life. Heck, in a setting like Mass Effect I would imagine casual sex could be a very common thing, but it's hardly explored. The fact that the physical portion of the relationship is treated as a reward for your conversation troubles, even though there is some nuance to how characters react to being approached (Morinth/Samara being some of my favs), bothers me a bit. It's probably a conscious decision, and I can understand that, but it takes me out and makes the romance seem juvenile when it could be so much more, especially when they do so much right when fleshing out the characters.

6. I understand it is a role-playing aspect like many others, I don't mean to make it sound as a bigger deal than it is because I obviously enjoyed some of the games regardless, and even thanks to the romance options they offer. I just think it's about time they start treating some of them a little bit more interestingly than clumsy dating mini-games if it is true they are really spearheading that wide gender and identity representation, but more importantly, to take into account context and things like power inequality (detailed in the link I shared) while writing them.

I've numbered things to try and make these long posts easier.

1. I wasn't trying to suggest that you were asserting the LGBT content was pointless pandering. Sorry if I was unclear there. That discussion was purely about the prospect of making a game without any romances.

I'm not sure I agree that the romance portion comes to dominate how you interact with characters. It's true that romances get an extra scene or two per game, but all those other character dialogues still exist. Are there characters besides Cortez and Traynor (who I'll discuss below) that you feel don't have meaningful character development without romance? That's certainly not the case for Tali and Garrus.

2. That is frankly a bizarre article, not because what it says isn't true (though some things, like DA: I not presenting you with personal vs. professional obligations, certainly aren't true) but because in order to buy into the point of view it supposes, I'd have to ignore both developer intent in making the game and fan intent in buying it. At no point is a realistic simulation of management billed, nor should it be expected. Once we discard the realistic angle, we're left with his suggestion that some compelling risk/reward scenarios should be present dealing with your position vs. your personal wishes. That does happen to some degree in the game, so he's wrong to assert it doesn't, but I don't mind the wish to see it happen more consistently. (it's also a little weird to see him ask for a more realistic management simulation while at the same time lamenting the way the game supports rewarding your friends and abusing your power unpunished. As if that isn't exactly what happens in many work environments across America).

In any case, whenever the "sexual predation" angle turns up, I tend to roll my eyes. As if the majority of ME characters don't bring up the prospect of romantic interaction *first* (remember, ME has no flirt dialogue option explicitly). As if Dragon Age characters always approve of your flirts (they don't). There's also the fact that, hey, there's an impending world apocalypse, so maybe traditional checks and balances for bosses and work behavior is a dead prospect right off the bat.

3. I didn't have the same experience with Cortez. I didn't go into a romance with him and felt that his story worked just fine without that angle. Allan Schumaker (from the DA team) has actually made the same point about Steve's dialogues that you made about casual sex: it serves as a comment on the Mass Effect universe that Shepard hears Steve mention his husband and doesn't bat an eye. As if something like that is both normal and accepted in the ME universe. It's a way of saying something about the ME universe without just having an Investigate option to clumsily exposit it.

4. BioWare certainly agrees with you to some extent on DA2. Gaider has said that the only reason they did what they did with DA2 is limited resources: they wanted every orientation to have multiple options, and within the timeframe they were given playersexuality was the only way to do it. You've seen how with proper resources Inquisition discards this.

5. ...But the physical portion IS a reward for getting to know someone with romantic intent. And if not a "reward" since that sounds crude, then a natural progression. I don't actually find this to be a problem in Mass Effect, since with every relationship besides Cortez/Traynor the act of sex is introduced long before the "end" of the romance (because of the trilogy structure). In the Dragon Age games, the act of sex never occurs at the end of a romance arc as a reward: it often occurs at the beginning or middle.

6. I disagree that they are minigames. A central part of any game is the prospect of failure, which is so rarely an issue in the Mass Effect games. The worst angle that I think sticks is to call it a low-risk role-playing choice. Inquisition rectifies this by having various degrees of success written into the romance based on the people involved, which to me feels like a mature way to handle romantic arcs that can vary in participants based on player choice and who the player chooses.

 

[inky]

Not to derail the thread just going back and forth, I think I made my points and you made yours and I can live with that. I just wanted to clarify since you asked:

I'm not sure I agree that the romance portion comes to dominate how you interact with characters. Are there characters besides Cortez and Traynor (who I'll discuss below) that you feel don't have meaningful character development without romance? That's certainly not the case for Tali and Garrus.

I meant they made it so that main characters have the option, not that romance portion dominated the dialogue options. And in said side characters it seems to be the purpose, while their outside development becomes secondary. From what I played at least (I only played ME3 once, but tried to explore both to see where it was going).

I never said or meant to imply Tali and Garrus don't have meaningful character development outside of romance options, that's silly considering their main role. I was simply stating that they added the romance portion to them (with some strange biological implications) just to service fans. I don't find that sort of pandering meaningful in any way. What happens when you don't pursue either is actually more interesting, and back then I even talked about it as a positive in the ME threads. That I liked. Joker/EDI example being kind of the worst kind when their "relationship" worked so well in ME2. That's the kind of thing that makes me roll my eyes.

In terms of the "physical portion" as a reward I do feel it emphasizes showing you. Frankly I'm not too bothered by it considering popular media depictions and the space opera qualities of the game. But I just want to be clear, the "reward" should shown be intimacy, something that in my opinion is only accomplished with Liara through many more scenes. That's what make something feel natural, vs another gameplay mechanic. I agree with you here:

The worst angle that I think sticks is to call it a low-risk role-playing choice

In the end my point is about where I think it failed and could be made better, not that it is wrong or irredeemable.

 

[Ralemont]

Not to derail the thread just going back and forth, I think I made my points and you made yours and I can live with that.

Oh I don't think we're derailing as I think this discussion is relevant for our hopes for the next ME game, and thank you for articulating your points for me.

I never said or meant to imply Tali and Garrus don't have meaningful character development outside of romance options, that's silly considering their main role. I was simply stating that they added the romance portion to them (with some strange biological implications) just to service fans. I don't find that sort of pandering meaningful in any way. What happens when you don't pursue either is actually more interesting, and back then I even talked about it as a positive in the ME threads. That I liked. Joker/EDI example being kind of the worst kind when their "relationship" worked so well in ME2. That's the kind of thing that makes me roll my eyes.

I'm in agreement with you about Joker/EDI being bad, though I wonder about the pandering not being meaningful in the case of Tali/Garrus. I don't think it's just a case of serving fans, as clearly the writers felt they had a romantic story they could tell with those characters. The fan desire was probably the primary cause, but it's hard for me to experience the Tali romance and think that Patrick Weekes was forced to write it. Speaking of...

In terms of the "physical portion" as a reward I do feel it emphasizes showing you. Frankly I'm not too bothered by it considering popular media depictions and the space opera qualities of the game. But I just want to be clear, the "reward" should shown be intimacy, something that in my opinion is only accomplished with Liara through many more scenes.

I'd argue Tali's romance fulfills the intimacy requirement. They actually do a pretty great job at tying the romance into quarian culture by bringing in aspects like how big a deal it is to see a quarian without their suit and the dangers of physical contact (albeit downplayed ultimately). I mean how many people know what Tali actually looks like in the galaxy?

I do think in certain cases they don't do a good job of establishing intimacy and there is always room to improve in every aspect, of course. Anyway, time to drive home so thanks for the discussion.

 

[inky]

Oh right, I do remember that about Tali now. I agree. I think I just put it in the back of my mind due to that "helmet-less photo" thing controversy. Ugh. Again, lack of care and attention to detail =/

Thanks for the discussion as well. Appreciate it.

 

[The Artisan]

Speaking of tali, how did you guys take her face revelation?

Back when it first happened I found that a lot of people were unhappy and bioware addressed by saying tali deserved a realistic face because it's in line with those who romanced liara or Miranda

 

[Ralemont]

Speaking of tali, how did you guys take her face revelation?

Back when it first happened I found that a lot of people were unhappy and bioware addressed by saying tali deserved a realistic face because it's in line with those who romanced liara or Miranda

Well the two aspects of this were how human she was and the photo itself. The human part I was fine with as we have known since at least drew k's ascension book that quarians were the most physically proximate race to humans, even down to the hair. The photo itself was a bad decision. I can understand their stance that by confining it to a photo the player could choose to not see it, but I think its a pretty bad excuse that was moreoever executed poorly by being a bad PhotoShop of a stock photo.

It still makes me harrumph that chobot got an in-game face and tali didnt, especially since she takes her mask off on Rannoch.

 

[Ganzlinger]

Speaking of tali, how did you guys take her face revelation?

Back when it first happened I found that a lot of people were unhappy and bioware addressed by saying tali deserved a realistic face because it's in line with those who romanced liara or Miranda

I have no problem with the concept. She and the quarians are more attractive than I had anticipated. The problem was that picture looked like a cheap photoshopped image from a random model.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Like we needed any more reasons to hate Tali and/or the Quarians, the reveal of the Quarians being night elves with that photo sealed the deal. They're the second worst species after the Asari. In a series that gave us Krogans, Turians, Volus, Elcor, Hanar etc, they stand out as unjustifiably human-like. The only species that was designed to be a romantic interest from its inception that turned out ok IMO were the Drell, since they still look quite alien instead of somebody you'd see on an episode of TOS getting felt up by Kirk.

 

[wolfhowwl]

Speaking of tali, how did you guys take her face revelation?

Back when it first happened I found that a lot of people were unhappy and bioware addressed by saying tali deserved a realistic face because it's in line with those who romanced liara or Miranda

Unimpressed.

Lots of us laughed at the Tali-ban but that is still one of the lamest things I've seen. They already had existing concept art drawn up and their solution was a lazy photoshop of a Getty image.

Also if we have circled around back to talking about Tali's face we're in dire need of news.

 

[prag16]

The problem was that picture looked like a cheap photoshopped image from a random model.

It looked that way because that's exactly what it was. Somebody found the stock photo from which it was derived at some point not long after launch. Lame as fuck.

 

[The Artisan]

Unimpressed.

Lots of us laughed at the Tali-ban but that is still one of the lamest things I've seen. They already had existing concept art drawn up and their solution was a lazy photoshop of a Getty image.

Also if we have circled around back to talking about Tali's face we're in dire need of news.

That's my own fault. I asked because I wasn't around on the gaf back when Me3 launched. What's this tali-ban you mentioned?